What is economic growth?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Well, as I said about two years ago, Tweety Pie tweets utter nonsense. His last post is a repeat of the nonsense. He has said it a thousand times.  It is entirely incomprehensible. I am sure there are forum rules about repetitive postingsIf there is anything amusing in  all this, it is that he uses 'materialist' as an insult. Guffaw.

Well, it would be 'entirely incomprehensible' to you, Vin. You don't like thinking, do you?Anyway, as you are a 'materialist', I only expect incomprehension and abuse from you.You never disappoint, do you?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid, Vin, that any thread he joins turns to bird shit, This one is now polluted.

You really don't like being challenged, do you, ALB?You can't reason and argue, so you abuse.You'd be dangerous, if you were in any position of political power.And you pass yourself off as an intellectual of the SPGB?Dear me! Talk about scraping the barrel! The SPGB must be very desperate.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

This response proves, once again, that 'materialists' simply cannot conduct a reasoned debate, but must always fall into abuse, because they always get politically cornered, when 'democratic production' is mentioned.Further, the 'materialists' never read what I write, and make up their own version of 'what I say', and then pass that around amongst themselves, and convince themselves that that lie is 'what I wrote'.robbo is arguing against a bogeyman of his own making.If he isn't aware of his own individualist (and elitist) politics, surely someone else here is?And will join in to defend Marx's vision of a self-emancipatory, conscious, democratic, socialism.

 OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual – do you believe in the self emancipatory  (your words) communist principle that individual themselves should freely determine what their contribution to society should be and do you  believe in that other self emancipatory  communist principle that individuals themselves should have free access to goods and services on the basis of self determined need? Oh and in answer to your previous comment –  yes of course I believe a communist society will be a democratic one but I also believe that there are certain limits to democratic decisionmaking and that if you exceed those limits you erode the very basis of communist life itself,  There needs to be a balance struck between democracy and the kind of self emancipatory autonomy and freedom that a genuine communist society offers.  Communism without freedom is not communism at all.  It becomes the self inflicted dictatorship of the barracks.  That is why I uphold the abovementioned communist principles.  Do you? Fimally if you refuse to be drawn on the question of central plannng could you perhaps at least  explain how you envisage planning to occur in a communist society.  For example will there be a degree of decentralisation in your version of communusm – that is to say many planning bodoes as opposed to just one?  Im all ears LBird

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual…Im all ears LBird

I've never argued for 'central planning', so your 'ears' must be making it all up for you.No doubt, you'll claim that your 'materialist ears' talk to your 'idealist mind', and you always passively follow 'the material', so anything I write will be ignored, 'as per usual'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid, Vin, that any thread he joins turns to bird shit, This one is now polluted.

You really don't like being challenged, do you, ALB?You can't reason and argue, so you abuse.You'd be dangerous, if you were in any position of political power.And you pass yourself off as an intellectual of the SPGB?Dear me! Talk about scraping the barrel! The SPGB must be very desperate.

 But its true what ALB says though isnt it LBird? You derail each and every discussion you get embroiled in with this single minded narrow obsessive mantra of yours and people do get understandably sick and tired of it.   Cant you see that? You are your own worst enemy in that respect and it doesnt help that you persistently refuse to answer questions put to you  – like the one I just put to you whether or not you support the concept of society-wide central planning.  It is an easy thing to just say no if you dont support it – so why dont you? This is why there is never any progress with you. You are constantly arguing in bad faith , not engaging in a genuine democratic debate

[LBird]

Furthermore, robbo, as it must be clear to anyone who reads your posts, your overridding, central, fundamental, concern is 'the individual'.You place this as your highest political starting and end point.On the contrary, mine (like Marx's was) is 'democratic social production'.Once you admit your political ideology (as I do mine), our discussions will proceed far more smoothly.As an example, whereas you talk about 'individuals', I talk about 'social individuals'.To you, this usage of 'social' is a useless appendage, whereas to me it's a defining feature of 'individuals'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual…Im all ears LBird

I've never argued for 'central planning', so your 'ears' must be making it all up for you.No doubt, you'll claim that your 'materialist ears' talk to your 'idealist mind', and you always passively follow 'the material', so anything I write will be ignored, 'as per usual'.

 OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism. Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid, Vin, that any thread he joins turns to bird shit, This one is now polluted.

You really don't like being challenged, do you, ALB?You can't reason and argue, so you abuse.You'd be dangerous, if you were in any position of political power.And you pass yourself off as an intellectual of the SPGB?Dear me! Talk about scraping the barrel! The SPGB must be very desperate.

 But its true what ALB says though isnt it LBird? You derail each and every discussion you get embroiled in with this single minded narrow obsessive mantra of yours and people do get understandably sick and tired of it.   Cant you see that? You are your own worst enemy in that respect and it doesnt help that you persistently refuse to answer questions put to you  – like the one I just put to you whether or not you support the concept of society-wide central planning.  It is an easy thing to just say no if you dont support it – so why dont you? This is why there is never any progress with you. You are constantly arguing in bad faith , not engaging in a genuine democratic debate

The 'derailers' are (mainly) you, YMS and ALB. You're all 'materialists', and are compelled to abuse any worker who challenges your elitism.Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them), so they replace my 'answers' with statements that I haven't made. You, personally, are a key proponent of this method.It's not 'bad faith' that's the problem – but the SPGB's refusal to have a proper political discussion, because they're losing it. Thus, the constant abuse that I receive.Perhaps you all live in a dreamworld, where the advances of the 20th century have gone unnoticed, but I can't be blamed for that.Though you all try…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them),

 So answer the question: If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.  Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

No, I don't agree.You're equating 'central' (and you mean 'Stalinist', elite, undemocratic, etc.) with 'democratic'. This is a political move on your part, not mere 'misunderstanding'.This then allows you to contrast 'central' (ie. 'democratic') with 'individualist'.As I've said before, your real concern is 'individuals', and not 'social production'.My key political concern is 'democratic social production'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them),

 So answer the question: If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.  Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

I just have, you cloth-eared fool.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

This response proves, once again, that 'materialists' simply cannot conduct a reasoned debate, but must always fall into abuse, because they always get politically cornered, when 'democratic production' is mentioned.Further, the 'materialists' never read what I write, and make up their own version of 'what I say', and then pass that around amongst themselves, and convince themselves that that lie is 'what I wrote'.robbo is arguing against a bogeyman of his own making.If he isn't aware of his own individualist (and elitist) politics, surely someone else here is?And will join in to defend Marx's vision of a self-emancipatory, conscious, democratic, socialism.

This response proves once again that L Bird refuses to answer a straight question!

[LBird]

Do yourself a favour, Tim, and stop embarrassing yourself – read the posts on the thread.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

No, I don't agree.You're equating 'central' (and you mean 'Stalinist', elite, undemocratic, etc.) with 'democratic'. This is a political move on your part, not mere 'misunderstanding'.This then allows you to contrast 'central' (ie. 'democratic') with 'individualist'.As I've said before, your real concern is 'individuals', and not 'social production'.My key political concern is 'democratic social production'.

  Well, this shows pretty much conclusively  that you have no idea what you are talking about – what the issue is that is at stake If you dont accept that are certain structural limits on the scope of decisonmaking in a communist society then it follows logically that you believe that every decision that need to be made with respect to planning production in a communist society  needs to be democratically done by the entire global population,  That is literally what you  mean by suggesting that that there are no structural limits on democratic decisionmaking  – what else could it mean? Also, its got nothing to do whether this central planning model you support  is Stalinist or Democratic.  In theory, you could put forward a democratc model of society wide central planning.  In theory, you could say that 7 billion should be allowed to participate in each and every one of  the  millions of decisions affecting the allocation of resources that happen every single day and to not allow this to happen is to place structural limits on democratic decisonmaking, The point is that there is just ONE single decsionmaking body – the global population of 7 billion in this case  – and THIS is what defines this model as a model of classic central planning.  Its got NOTHING to do with the fact that the decisions  are made democraticalLy or by a stalinist elite.  Its got EVERYTHING to dow ith the fact that there are no other planning bodies in existence except this one.  That is why it is called society wide central planning In practice though there is absolutely no way in which 7 billion people are going to be able to participate in voting on millions of planning decisions that need to be made every single day.  Even you are not that stupid as to suggest such a thing,  So ipso facto these decisions are going to have to be imposed on th great majority by  technocratic elite wthout debate or discussion .  That elite will decide what will be produced and hence will determine how it gets to be produced.  To meet the targets set by the elite the great majority will be obliged to conform to a work schedule likewise set by that elite,  Their work contribution will not be freeely chosen by themselves and their consumption needs will be strictly rationed in conformity with the Plan This is conclusive prooof  that by default, whether you know it or not, LBird, your endorsement of central planning makes your position an essentially Stalinist one nothwithstanding your blather about democracy.  But then I suspected that a long time ago…

[LBird]

Well, robbo, if your considered reply to my argument for 'democratic control' is that I really mean 'central control', that just shows that you're determined to replace my answer with one that you want to read.The only way to equate the two, is to assume that any 'control' that is not 'individual control' is by definition 'central control'.I suspect that it's your ideology that allows you to do this – that is, the equating of 'democratic' and 'central' is a political and ideological position, that you have adopted.All I can say again, to any workers who are asking about my political arguments, is that they're based upon a political and ideological assumption of 'democratic control'. As were Marx's.

[Author]

Posts