[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

If you read what I've written, robbo, then we do actually produce our 'physical world'.Jordan supports this view of Marx's epistemology.If you're not interested in this, why keep posting?

 Like I said, LBird, your way of expressing yourself is misleading.  We don't actually "produce" the physical world because, taken literally, that would mean human beings predate the physical world in which they find themselves. Unless you've gone bonkers that is obviously not what you mean but you need to say what you mean more clearly without resorting to this poseur style of cod philosphy

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.We produce what we call 'physical'.The 'physical world' is a social product.

 This is why this whole argument is becoming bogged down in boring semantics.  We don't actually "produce" the physical world in the sense that rocks did not exist before human beings came along and then they somehow  brought rocks into existence or "produced" them with a wave of some magic wand. I don't think even LBird is daft enough to suggest that What I think  LBird is trying to say in his cumbersome obtuse academic language is that our knowledge or apperception of "rocks" is socially produced which I don't think anyone here is actually disagreeing with.  As YMS states this idea is "unobjectionable".  I agree. Isn't it high time this conversation moved on instead of forever going around in circles?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.You'll argue for 'elite production' (that 'truth' will not be a social product) and I'll argue for 'democratic production' (that 'truth' will be a social product)..

 For the umpteenth time that fact that something is a social product does not mean you have necessarily to vote on it.  Why can you not understand this simple point?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.How you identify "workers' democracy" with "Lenin's central planning" says more about your ideological biases, than about mine.

No I don't .  Where did you get that idea?  Any unbiased observer of what I wrote would see the point that I was making  which is that democracy has limits and has to be counterbalanced by other considerations which I outlined. If your idea of a " workers democracy is that the entire global workforce has to be involved in deciding upon the entire structure of production then what you are effectively advocating is what Lenin advocated – namely turning society into a "single office and a single factory".  This is the point I was making and I challenge you to refute it in the other thread if you think I am wrong 

LBird wrote:

I think, since you keep saying these things, that you're a follower of 'bourgeois individualism', and regard 'socialism' as the realisation of those ideas, rather than the Marxian concepts of "workers' democracy" and "social production".

If I am a follower of "bourgeois individualism" then so is Marx,  We BOTH argue that the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.  We BOTH believe,  unlike totalitarians like yourself, that individuals should be able to express their individuality and that this is a precondition of a free society.  We BOTH believe that there is no such thing as a society without individuals and that there is no such thing as individuals without society.  – that is  to say, they dialectically  interpenetrate as constructs.   You seem to think otherwise and this shows up  your anti-Marxist outlook.  You are the mirror image of Margaret Thatcher who argued that there is no such thing as a society only individuals. Only with you it is the exact opposite – there is no such thing as individuals only society.This is not what Marx and I believe. You are a totalitarian but you are coy about wanting to reveal your totalitarian ideology,  Is that not the case LBird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 I have constantly challenged your personal 'imaginings', robbo, and asked, many times, that you read what I actually write, rather than consult your own 'imaginings', but to no avail. But, it's good that you are starting to question your own 'imaginings', at least. 

 OK so lets be clear then – if I was just "imagiining" that you were saying the global population would democratically vote on the scientific "truth" of ten of thousands of thousands of scientific theories then it would seem to  follows that you do NOT support such an idea – meaning you do NOT advocate the global population democratically voting on these truthsCan you please confirm this in black and white for all to see so we can all move on and not accuse you of holding ideas you do not hold

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You're wrong again here, Fool, because you're following robbo's 'cockamammie idea' about 'social production', not mine (or Marx's). You'll have to take up your question with robbo, because it's not up to me to answer for robbo's 'ideas', 'cockamammie' or not.Now, if you want to discuss Jordan's opinions about Marx, I'll continue the dialogue. But if you want to discuss robbo's opinions, then please go to robbo's new thread. I won't reply here to any more 'foolish' queries.

Is LBird now finally admitting that the global population will not be voting on every scientific truth as I had previously imagined he had been saying? If so,  this is a bit of breakthrough. It would amount to agreeing that just because something is socially produced does not mean we have to have a democratic vote on it.  Teacups, industrial lasers,  and computer monitors are the products of socialised production but no one surely would be so daft as to suggest that the design of these things or their pattern of distribution should be decided upon by 7 billion people voting on such matters.  Or would they? Perhaps with that in mind LBird might follow through with this new sense of realism that he has apparently succumbed to and comment on my scathing criticism of society-wide central  planning in the other thread on "socialism and democracy".  Because unless I am mistaken society wide central planning  a la Lenin's idea of converting society into a single office and factory is another idea that LBird previously endorsed iwtth his conception of "workers democracy"

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

If youve heard the term used in the media: 'alt-right', then are we alt-left? Would that mean alternative to the left? An article here elaborateshttp://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/

 Its quite a thought provoking article though one wonders what Eliot Murphy has in mind when he wrote this:"In brief, the day that class politics is replaced with privilege-checking is the day left-wing politics lies in its grave. We urgently need an alt-left which reorganises progressive agendas around traditional socialist and anarchist principles and movements but rejects much of the millennial forms of identitarian politics and instead promotes more traditional forms of collective action and direct engagement with existing democratic institutions"

[robbo203]

There is quite a good put down quote when dealing with Trot admirers of the Castro regime, which I recently came across .  Here is what Fidel said when urging Mexican businesspeople to invest in Cuba, in 1988:“We are capitalists, but state capitalists. We are not private capitalists.”   (Daum, Walter , 1990,. The Life and Death of Stalinism; A Resurrection of Marxist Theory,  NY: Socialist Voice Publishing., p.232)

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You really need to read what I write, robbo, and move on from your imaginary struggle with an issue of your own making.As for reality, you clearly keep stating that you will not have the producers determining the truth or falsity of what they produce by democratic means.Thus, you are an elitist. Just like the bourgeoisie, whose ideology you espouse.Now, leave the thread to those who wish to discuss jdw's link.

 I have read what you've written, LBird, as have we all. I wonder, however, if you have read what you've written. Its laughable really. Here you are accusing me of engaging in an "imaginary struggle" with an issue of my own making when in the very next sentence you reiterate the very thing that i had been taking issue with all along – your crackpot idea about the need for a global vote on the " truth" of tens of thousands of scientific theories,   And no , rejecting such a stupid idea does not make me an elitist  or – heaven forfend! – a "bourgeois ideologist".  LOL I stand by what I said. I am a democrat who fully endorses the idea that the  means of production should be owned in common and democratically  controlled by the people in a socialist society.  If you cannot figure out the difference between this and what you are advocating then there is no hope for you.  I've given up trying to explain the difference to you and you are clearly not interested in learning anything from anyone else,  You prefer to monotonously go on and on and on and on and on with this single boring meme of yours like a dog with a bone and its enough to make any sane person want to slash their wrists after reading a few LBird postings. Incidentally its amusing that you should call yourself a democrat  and then in true authoritarian/ vanguardist  style  , instruct me to forthwith leave this thread.  Is your Leninist past coming back to haunt you, LBird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

 Don't tempt me into a response LBird or you will once again get slaughtered for the silly tosh you constantly peddle.  Once more for your benefit – I support the concept  of  democratic control of the means of production; I do not support the patently ridiculous idea of the world's population democratically  voting to determine whether some arcane scientific theory is true or not. Have you got that or do I still need to explain to you the difference between these two things…

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, although in many ways Zimbabwe and South Africa Struggles were classical nationalist ones, there was also a real democratic issue, and, of course, the Southern African workers played an immense part in their own liberation, but the military rule of the colonialists would have been much harder to break without the Cuban assistance.  I don't for a second think this exonerates Castro, or means he was worthy of support, but in strict historical assessment, it is something worth mentioning.

 There is a useful article here which touches on the role of the Cubans in the struggle against the Apartheid regime's strategy of destabilsing the frontline states http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/the-military-defeat-of-the-south-africans-in-angola/I speak from some experience here as my brother, Andy,  and I were young military conscripts in the South African army at the time – in the 1970s –  and were stationed in the dingy little town of Walvis Bay on the Namibian coast. We were due to be sent up to the Caprivi Strip where South Africa had set up a number of military bases to support its military campaign in Southern Angola against the MPLA and, later,  their Cuban allies.  South Africa eventually backed UNITA which also had American support. I remember vividly us rookies being processed in large military hangar and having to sign our last will and testament.  Wisely, Andy and I opted to join the regimental bugle band to be detained on regimental duties in Walvis bay while others were sent on up to the Caprivi. Years later after we had emigrated to the UK, I learnt from a lecturer at London university that the South African army had suffered a devastating defeat in Southern Angola and a large force – possibly a whole company of several platoons (I can't remember) – had been encircled by the MPLA and Cubans who had cut off all its supply lines.  South Africa was then forced to sue for peace and remove its military presence from Angola and you can imagine the demoralising effect, had they not done so, with scores of body bags being returned to the country. That was some time after Andy and I had done our military stint there and I cant recall if at the time South African troops had started to move into Angola yet though clearly they were intent upon invasion at this point .  All the same, I'm still quite thankful for my rudimentary drumming skills to this day!

[robbo203]

Thanks Dave ,  Thats a very useful start indeed.  If you have any other links you can post here that would be great, I guess the really tricky bit is to estimate the amount of  labour that is indirectly socially useless.  Banks for example are housed in buildings but we normally think of the construction industry as being socially useful,  In this instance part of the industry is devoted to provisioning a socially useless activity – banking.  The same argument applies to utilities and infrastructure Talking of the construction industry we should not overlook the truly monumental waste involved in empty homes.  In Europe there are 11 million empty homes (and 4 million homeless people). In America the figure is 18 million, In China it is a staggering 60 million.  And even this is only the tip of the iceberg.  It does not taking into account the numerous half completed projects (which are quite a common sight here in Spain) , not to mention all those empty offices shops, warehouses and factories  I think the figure of just over half the workforce being involved in socially useless labour is about right

[robbo203]

According to Marx, "if production were proportionate, there would be no over-production" (Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 2)  Would that not make him primarily a disproportionality theorist?

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Quote:

In the division of labour of modern advanced societies, unproductive functions in this Marxian sense occupy a very large part of the labour force; the wealthier a society is, the more "unproductive" functions it can afford. In the USA for example, one can calculate from labour force data that facilitating exchange processes and processing financial claims alone is the main activity of more than 20 million workers. Legal staff, police, security personnel and military employees number almost 5 million workers.

no direct citation is given for this information, but several links to related studies and documents are listed at the bottom of the wikipedia entry.  Presumably the numbers came form a recent paper written in the USA, if that helps you find the original data and methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_and_unproductive_labourSeems like marx had some non-intuitive views on productive and non-productive labor which maybe you want to consider in framing your question? maybe you're question needs to be rephrased or expanded on or revised in order to get an answer that has value to you? here's some other key quotes that caught my attention in the wikiepdia entry. . . the definition of productive and unproductive labour is specific to each specific type of society (for example, feudal society, capitalist society, socialist society etc.) and depends on the given relations of production.there exists no neutral definition of productive and unproductive labour; what is productive from the point of view of one social class may not be productive from the point of view of another. 

 As mentionined in the OP , socially useless labour is not the same thing as unproductive labour though there is some overlap between them

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Socialists would not really be interested in this scheme of yours and you are wasting your time with this sales pitch of yours

So who made you the leader and spokesperson for all socialist?  I thought socialist didn't have leaders anyway, but you certainly seem to be acting like one.  I doubt you truly understand socialist as people who might have diverse opinions from yours.  here's a question for you  you mentioned. . ."this is not how humans normally interact outside of the market context."  Convincing you of that is the best trick John Gault ever pulled on you.  You'll find your answers where you least expect them because John Gault hid them in the last place you'd ever think to look for them and made sure with social norms that they would be the last idea you try only after everything else failed.  Well, everything else socialist have tried has failed.  So time to start trying the things John gault fooled you into thinking that only capitalist do. Stop believing capitalist who tell you "there's nothing here of value to you. look over their and try the direct approach again". 

 I don't claim  be a "leader" or "spokesperson" of other socialists, Steve – or a follower for that matter…  Simple commonsense, putting two and two together, tells me  that your schema  would be 1) an impractical bureaucratic nightmare 2) in no way conducive to the kind of thinking socialists would want to foster. By John Galt, (not Gault)  I assume you mean the fictional character in Ayn Rands trashy novel Atlas Shrugged. The gist of what you seem to be saying here is that I and other socialists should start doing what the capitalists are doing because ..er .. everything else we socialists have attempted to do has failed. And then you have the nerve to say you doubt that I truly understand socialists as people.  What arrogance! Its time to eat some humble pie and start to listen to what socialists are saying to you.  It may very well be the case that socialism may never happen and that a movement for socialism will never take off. That will not deter me as a socialist from continuing to be a socialist.  As individuals and also as a hitherto small and ineffectual movement, we do what we can to make the world a better place. Our efforts are not wasted even if the goal we strive after might prove elusive.  For instance, being a socialist is the most effetive thing you can do right now to put a spoke in the wheels of the juggernaut of  jingoism that  drives  this society toward military conflict. Socialists operate from a certain perspective on the world , a certain set of values.  Your schema does nothing to advance either. I keep on telling you that there is a world of difference between the kind of generalised reciprocity socialists advocate  and the market-like quid pro quo exchange system you advocate but you never listen.  The lesson never seems to sink in.  You don't seem to understand that the ideological viewpoint you are promoting is fundamentally a pro capitalist one, notwithstanding your obsessional fixation with the idea that exchanges should equivalent.  You think that that is promoting "fairness" and "equaity" but it is actually promoting capitalism.  This notion of explicitly measuring what each side to a quid pro quo  exchange contributes is precisely what lies at the heart of the notion of exchange value going right back to Aristotle who Marx quoted in Capital – the notion that exchange is necessarily an exchange of equivalents.  This is what market trade is ostensibly about. You are in effect telling us that we should adopt the position of a market trader in our dealings with one another and then you wonder why we universally spurn your advice! The ends don't justify the means Steve , but determine the means.  A stateless non market society we advocate requires the adoption of an approach that is wholly consonant with that goal.  Understand that and you will have at least learnt something from these "exchanges" we are enabling you to have on this forum

[Author]

Posts