What is economic growth?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

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.

 Nope LBird  you can't wriggle out of this ….In response to my pointIf 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 communismYou saidNo, I don't agree. Meaning you dont accept there should be any structural limits on democratic control = meaning for example that you cannot entertain the idea of any kind of decentralised decision making which is precisely an example of such a limit You continue not to understand the point i am making.  I am not – repeat not – equating democratic conrol with central control in the sense of control exercised by a centralised  elite.   The vital  point which you have completely missed,  quite likely wifully,  is that there is ONLY ONE SINGLE  PLANNING BODY in this scenario , irrespective of how it is "controlled".  In theory that body could be democratically cntroled by the entire world populatuon or it could be undemocratcaly controlled by a small subset – the centralised  techical elite,  In practice, since democratic control by the entire global population over the total pattetn of production is an impossibility, what you advocating BY VIRTUE OF YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE SINGLE PLANNING BODY IN COMMUNIST SOCIETY (no structural limits , remember)  is that all decisions should be made this tiny undemocraric elite You may not like this idea but that is the logic of what you are arguing for.  You are a Stalinist in denial about the stalinist logic of your own viewpoinrt

[LBird]

robbo, you're moving outside the bounds of rational debate, and entering the territory of meaningless denunciation.It's impossible, by any rational political measures, to argue that a 'democrat' is a 'Stalinist'.But it's not impossible to argue that a 'materialist' is a 'Leninist'.I think that you're assuming that because I do the latter (argue that 'materialism' is politically synonymous with 'Leninism'), and you regard this as mere name-calling, that you can then justifiably call me names.Perhaps the only way out of this debate, is for you to refer to some thinkers who'd agree with you, and we can all read them, and then judge the validity of your claim that 'democracy equates to Stalinism'.Of course, for my part, I can provide many thinkers who argue that 'materialism equates to Leninism'.

[Bijou Drains]

Polly Parrot wroteIf you post the quote with Marx's statement of 'universal', I'll post the correction of Marx, who often uses sloppy terms which contradict his whole thesis, about socio-historic production (ie., not 'universals', 'absolutes', etc., which are 'divine'). Marx was human, y'know![/quote]Good job our feathered friend is around to keep us right! Ladies and gentlemen the ego has landed.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, you're moving outside the bounds of rational debate, and entering the territory of meaningless denunciation.It's impossible, by any rational political measures, to argue that a 'democrat' is a 'Stalinist'. 

 Sigh.  You never listen to what other people re saying do you LBird? I said the logic of your argument is Stalinist even if you yourself claim to be a democrat. This is because you are committed to the idea that there can be only one single  planning body in communist society irrespective of how its is meant to be controlled – democratically or otherwise. In practice, there is only one way in which you can run a centrally planned economy in this sense and that is undemocratically with decisions being imposed downwards on the populaton I know you dont like the idea but that is in effect what you are advocating.  Get used to it or radically change your ideas!

[moderator1]

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?

1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

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.

1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Our feathered friend doesn't half lead us on wild goose chases. First, it was about whether the Sun moves round the Earth. Then, it was about whether external reality exists. Now, it's about whether 2 + 2 = 4. All of which are to be settled by a referendum. It's just not possible to have a meaningful discussion with him.

You haven't bothered to respond to some points that I made earlier, but you will always jump to support elitist 'materialists', and fight any mention of 'democratic production'.And you wouldn't know what a 'meaningful discussion' is, ALB.2+2=11You can't explain that, can you?And if you did, you'd destroy the philosophical basis of your post.'Materialists', eh? Not the brightest, but certainly dangerous to those workers wanting to know about 'democratic production', ie. socialism.ALB thinks that he is part of an elite. And as such, he must argue against (or simply denigrate, when losing the argument) democratic production.

2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

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.

3rd and final warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[LBird]

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Of course, for my part, I can provide many thinkers who argue that 'materialism equates to Leninism'.

Go on then.  I'll find you some non-Leninist materialists and refute that utterly, how's about that?Now, to returnj to the theme of the thread, it has been pointed out in the past that teh Sovs used Net Material Product:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_material_producthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Product_SystemAs the WP article notes, the definition of unproductive labour was closer to Smith than to Marx, but we come back to unproductive for whom?  The p[oint of the definition of productive labour was that it didn't generate profits, and all these national; accounts are accounts of howwell the system is performing for capital: otehr indicies are needed, like infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. to show us real performance (much as the Two dollaars a day is largely mythical as well).Whilst these things are useful for the big picture, we need to drill down to the individual experience of the economy.

[ALB]

This article from the Socialist Standard discusses the difference between national accounting in the West and in the one-time state capitalist countries of Russia and Eastern Europe:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1207-march-2005/cooking-books-1-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics

Quote:

The artifice that the government statisticians found to get out of this has been to treat government spending as productive, as resulting in a “product” (education, health care, administration, law and order, “defence”, though not “social security”). As a result, national output is inflated by as much as 20 percent. The former state capitalist countries of Russia and Eastern Europe did not count such government spending as productive, i.e. did not double count it as part of output, and when they adopted the same national  accounting system as in the rest of the capitalist world their GDPs jumped by 18-24 percent depending on the country.

[Author]

Posts