[robbo203]

Once again –  why don't all sides in this debate CALM DOWN, take in a deep breath and patiently  let the procedure for Vin to be reinstated kick in without all this totally unnecessary turmoil?   Linda you really really do not help matters by making those provocative and unfair comments you have made. You should chill out.  So should you, Matt,  It ain't gonna help saying the things you say…. I know this will probably sound presumptuous coming from a non-member – and if so I apologise to any members if they are offended –  but why doesn't EVERYONE involved in this endless squabbling  take a break from it.  Lets take some of the heat out of the situation which causes people to say things they later regret. The Mods have a hard and thankless and vital job to do but I do believe they need to sit down and look at the rules of this forum again. I believe these need to be somewhat modified and made more flexible in a way that will prevent a recurrence of this sort of event. As they stand the rules tend to increase the likelihood of a run-in with the Mods .  Its no reflection on the Mods themselves who are diligently applying the rules.  The problem lies with the rules which need to be looked at again. We need to adapt the rules to the people not the people to the rules  And we can all help as participants on this forum by offering suggestions as to how this can be done.But we can also all help by taking to heart the lessons to be learnt from this whole sorry saga and by all being, myself included as I am far from blameless, more disciplined and circumspect about how we interact with each other.   Robust and even heated debate is fine – after all its makes for a stimulating forum – but sometimes there is a line which is better not crossed

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, the simple answer to your predicament is to realise that we don't share the same political ideology.I'm a Democratic Communist, influenced by Marx's ideas about 'social production', and the democratic control of that production.You believe something else.I can't explain my views from your perspective, only from my own.If you don't accept my Marxist viewpoint, that's fine by me. If you don't think all social production should be democratically controlled, that's fine by me.I'm more interested in discussing these democratic ideas about social production with socialists who are influenced by Marx.Quite frankly, your ideological focus on 'Opportunity Costs', 'specialists' and 'individuals' is irrelevant to me, and my views about social revolution, workers' democracy and socialism. My views, similarly, will be irrelevant to you.Why not take up your discussion with someone who shares your ideology?

So, once again, yet another famous LBird cop-out… You know, the idea that you can just dismiss the question of opportunity costs as ideological and something to be ignored is really quite silly.  Opportunity costs are unavoidable in life and in any conceivable kind of society.  I agree there is an ideological aspect to them inasmuch as they involve choices but that is a different matter.  The point is that you cannot avoid having to make such choices however ideological these choices are. There is nothing "Marxist" in dismissing the concept of opportunity costs.  In fact if Marx were a member of this forum I could well imagine him now  in front of his  laptop furiously  firing off a post in that characterisically brusque manner of his, branding LBird as an idealist nincompoop who has no grasp of basic economics Opportunity costs are everywhere.  If you LBird decide to respond to this post,  the opportunity cost of you doing so is to forego that game of snooker you promised you would play with your mates down at the pub.  If a socialist society decided to build a bridge out of 20k tonnes of some metal alloy then the opportunity costs of that is to do without all those tractors you could have manufactured out of all this metal alloy.  If Jill decide to take a 5 year degree course to become a competent neurosurgeon then the opportunity cost of that is to abandon the idea of becoming a competent and trained up geophysicist  able to decide whether some obscure theory in geophysics is true or not And finally – on what grounds do you imagine I do not support the idea that "production should be democratically controlled"???  I do and I have said so.  Howeever that idea is TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY different to the idea we are talking about here which is the idea of "democratically determining whether scientific theories are true". I feel I need to capitalise these words and repeat them  to bring this to your attention. Why is it that whenever we have this discussion you always scurry back to the comfrot zone of appealing to the idea that production should be democratically controlled when this is NOT – repeat NOT – what I am calling into question?? You are trying to couple this idea with your own idiosyncratic idea which is nowhere to be found in Marx that scientific theories should be democratically voted upon, Ive seen through your tactic LBird and it wont wash….

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 I'm only going to answer you once more, robbo, because I've answered this continuously for years now, and you keep asking the same question, having ignored my answers.

 Well, no, actually you haven't answered this "continuously for years now".  This is the very first time you've made a (slight) attempt to put flesh on the bare bones of  your argument.  As such, it represents a tiny chink of light in the dogmatic wall of vague waffle you have normally thrown up every time you have been pressed on this matter…. 

LBird wrote:

Marx argues that there must be a 'unified' society, which democratically controls its production – this is 'communism' (or, 'socialism').From the replies of SPGB members, there seems to be an untheorised attachment in the party to a 'specialist/generalist' dichotomy in society, which will carry on in communism.This concept ("specialist/generalist" separation) is opposed to Marx's concept of 'unified society'. The 'specialist' will determine the 'specialist' production.

 Lets try and deconstruct what you are saying here because you don't seem very clear at all. Are you saying there will not be, on the one hand, people who specialise in certain kinds of work in socialism – e.g.. neurosurgeons and, on the other,  "generalists" or jack- -of-all-trades? Well , now  I agree that literally speaking there cannot be jack-of-all-trades in the sense of being specialists or competent  in everything.  This is the very point I have been making against you! You cannot literally become a competent nuclear physicist and at the same time become a competent molecular biologiist.  Its virtually impossible given the years and years of study and practice to become accomplished in either field,  You have to chose one or the other. But then you go on to suggest something quite daft – that a specialist will not determine the specialist production of ideas  in the field in which he or she specialises.  This you seem to suggest will be determined by everyone.  Here is where your arguments comes across as quite ludicrous and in fact not a little insane.  How can I determine the specialist production of knowledge concerning nuclear physics if I know nothing about nuclear physics?  Explain.  To gain a detailed understanding of nuclear physics I have to devote years and years of my life to studying the subject.  The opportunity costs of doing that is that I cannot then also become a specialist in molecular biology.  Its one or the other.  And if I cannot become a specialist in the field  i dont wish to focus on how on earth  can I contribute to the specialist production of theories in that field? Your argument makes no sense at all 

LBird wrote:

For those opposed to Marx and democratic production, like you robbo (who argues for 'individualism'), this is not a problem. Your political concerns are to defend 'specialists' from any democratic controls on their 'individual' theory and practice. This is not my concern, because I agree with Marx, and wish to see democratic control of production.

 No.  This is where you go totally astray because you don't understand the argument being put to you.  I am not saying that the specialists  will not be subject to "democratic control".  Of course they will as will everybody else in society to a degree.  The real question is – in what respect will this democratic control be exercised.  Over the theoretical context of some abstruse theory which 99% of the populace have never heard of and show little interest in?  Of course not.  It is plain silly to argue   that  we – all 7 billion of us on planet Earth – should be allowed to determine whether this theory is true or not.  To determine whether it is true or not we have to know about the subject and even you can surely accept that it is logistically impossible for ALL of us to gain sufficient knowledge in EVERY single field of science to  be able to comment competently on the truth value of particular scientific theories.  That apart, what would even be the point of "democratically determining" whether a scientific theory is true or not?  So lets us say that global society at enormous cost to itself has organised a global vote on a particular theory concerning  ecological interactions between rhizomous plant species and ant colonies.  60% of the electorate vote in support of the theory.  OK – now what?  What is supposed to happen as a result of this vote> You never explain.  If you cant explain then what you are arguing is utterly pointless and a complete waste of society's resources. Your problem LBird is that you don't understand what democracy  is for though you claim to be a "democratic communist".  I also  agree with democratic control of production but this is NOT what you are talking about in this case.  You are talking about democratic control over the truth value of scientific theories.  That is something TOTALLY different 

LBird wrote:

So, according to Marx, within communism the 'educators' would be the 'generalists' (ie. the masses), who would 'educate' any 'specialists' that the masses wish to produce. Clearly, the masses would determine why, how, for what interests and purposes, any 'specialised' production was produced. 'Specialists' will do as they are told, by 'generalists' (to use the terminology current within the SPGB), because that is the democratic method. There are no 'specialists' who have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the 'generalists' (the masses).The ideas/theories/philosophies/ideologies/methods/etc. employed by the selected 'specialists' will be openly explained, in plain language, to the democratic selectors, so that the 'generalist/masses' can determine whether the social production that their 'specialists' propose to produce is in the interests and for the purposes of the whole of society..

Again we see here this total confusion and utter theoretical mess that lies at the base of your argument.  First you say the generalists would educate the specialists as to what the masses "wish to produce" thus flatly contradicting your earlier claim that there will be no specialist /generalist dichotomy.  Secondly you don't seem to understand that telling the specialists what the masses wish to produce is  TOTALLY DIFFERENT thing to telling them that their specialized theories are right or wrong.  To be able to do so you have to understand the theory itself – to become in effect a specialist yourself. This is simply not logistically possible for everyone for every field of scientific endeavour 

LBird wrote:

This clearly means all members of society will have the same possibilities in education open to them, and they will control the education process itself, by democratic means. A socialist seduction will require that all those educated can explain clearly to everyone else what they propose to produce. There will be no 'priests' employing 'Latin' to 'read their own hidden bible', who then pretend to 'translate' their own elite understanding of their bible into words the illiterate peasants can comprehend.Priests/Latin/Bible = Physicists/Maths/Reality (or any other 'specialism/language/object')As Marx argued, we create our own reality, by democratic theory and practice, and only we can create a socio-natural world that is built to our purposes and in our interests. Any social theory is capable of being explained to the social producers.

 Of course any social or scientific theory is "capable" of being explained to the producers.  I have never doubted that for one moment.  Any of us can become competent nuclear physicists if we put our mind to it .  But you totally miss the point don't you?  For this specialist  to explain the theory is a function of time.  You have to build up a background understanding in the field in which the thoery is rooted in order to competently assess the merits of the theory in question. In some cases this might take years and years of study. We do not have have the TIME to do that and become competent in every other scientific theory in circulation.  Every single one of us – even the most brilliant scientist alive – is extremely limited in the amount of information he or she can assimilate .The stock of scientific knowledge is far greater that any of us can possibly  comprehend or familiarise ourselves with,  To become particularly competent in one field we are of necessity forced to remain relatively incompetent or ignorant in others fields This is what you don't seem to understand LBird and this is why your idea is doomed to utter irrelevance.  You haven't really got to grips with the argument at all because you don't have an inkling of the notion of OPPORTUNITY COSTS which, if you applied it to your own argument , you would soon see makes a complete nonsense of everything you are saying

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If one follows Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (see the Theses on Feuerbach, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, and Capital), one will support the class-based science of the proletariat – a science based upon 'social production' by all humans who employ a democratic method, which insists upon the democratic creation of our nature. Loosely known as 'theory and practice' – the democratic producers expose their 'theory', and the masses are aware of their theory and discuss it, and know that their social theory and practice produces their world. The masses are conscious, and they democratically determine their own production.

 So there is no social division of labour in socialism, no specialization in socialism.  Is that what you are saying LBird?.  That everyone can – and indeed must – become an accomplished nuclear physicist and a molecular biologist  in order to contribute democratically to the production of scientific knowledge in these fields.  I would love to hear your answer to this question if you have one!

[robbo203]

The discussion on the other thread on the suspension of L and V Maratty has been locked for some reason but I felt I needed to say something about it  on this thread because it is connected I think this whole saga is so sad and so unnecessary,  Tempers are flaring on all sides and, Linda, I think your post no 48 on the other thread was bang out of order and some of the comments you made were, frankly, quite absurd,  even if I can understand the frustration behind it.  I don't myself agree with the idea of a  permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated. Though I am not a party member can I suggest that all sides in this dispute take a deep breath and start again to reach a cordial agreement on the way forward. And Alan should you be reading this I would urge you  to return to the forum, Your ever interesting posts would be sorely missed if you did notC'mon comrades.  Kiss and make up.  This is just ridiculous falling out like this

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Did i ever mention that i have to return to the UK to work and acquire additional Nat. Ins. stamps because the Tories changed the qualifying years for full pension rights? So capitalism has got one extra member of the workforce in due course. 

Thats interesting.  Can you elaborate on this Alan?

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 Please don't tell me "socialist don't need information or information negotiation and exchange systems" because that would just break my heart to read and show such sad desperate arrogance and ignorance at the same time.   Maybe you should read the post card exchange examples and give me a nod of approval and encouragement before you start asking for more impossible things.  I've done like 5 impossible things on this design project for you guys already, and yes it's advanced my goals too which is great, but since it's going to help you guys so much a little postive encouragement would be awesome right now.  thanks and I appeciate if you take the time to read and consider https://goo.gl/8hfH91

 Steve.  Why don't you ever grasp the fairly simple point that when socialists talk about exchange we are using the term in its economic sense to signify quid pro quo market exchanges. Obviously socialism will be a non exchange economy in that sense. Quid pro quo market exchanges imply private ownership of the means of producing wealth and this is incompatible with common ownership.  End of story. We don't need long winded exegeses on  "information exchange protocols" or other such pretentious  twaddle.  Nor do we need some complicated schema for exchanging "postcards" or whatever,  Why can't you just converse like everyone else does without all this posturing.  "ill spend 20 minutes reading your stufff if you spend 20 minutes reading my stuff"  FFS You sure know how to get people's back up which is ironic considering you consider yourself to be a "UserExperienceResearchSpecialist"

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 Is Marx apposed ot quid pro quo between two freely assoicating persons?  Seems to me he was all about seeking a fair exchange of service and labor between two people who voluntarily choose to associate for their mutual benefit.

Seems to me that you don't understand what socialism about.  Learn the difference between generalised reciprocity – which is what socialism is about – and the  quid pro quo  market type exchange system you're constantly going on about.  Here's a link that will help you to understand the difference http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htm

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 Sorry, mcolme1, but you're comments have not been helpfull to me in the past so I've stopped reading them and don't owe you any time or favors.  I believe socialist believe each person should be allowed to choose their associations freely and chooose what they do and who they exchange favors with.  So I'm choosing to exclude you from my circle of people who I will spend time on consideration of ideas they want me to think about.    Tell you what.  If you want to take a guess at how much time it would take me to read the articles and offer to read stuff I want you to read in return for an equal amount of time, then maybe there's still a reason to associate.  until you're willilng to make a fair exchange of time like I believe socialist should, then you're really just wasting my time with charity solicitations to "read this" for you're benefit.Talk is cheep.  Listening is expensive. You've produced no value to me or anyone else with this comment. That's true even in socialism. 

 That a bit negative and unnecessary on your part, Steve. There's no harm in looking up the links Marcos freely  offered you.  I find  this kind of contrived quid pro quo approach you are adopting – I will read what you suggest only if you read what I suggest –  irritating and distracting. It mirrors the kind of mindset of market capitalism.  You need to get over this kind of fetsishistic habit of yours

[robbo203]

Osama Jafar wrote:

what should be fought to end misery isnt profit or class its fear & stupidity; what i propose is simple encouragment to step outside the system. The future isnt the working class the future is the nonworking class & all these analysis are wrong.

Osama,  I get  the sense of what you are saying here.  You are suggesting that workers opt out of the system rather than fight it head on.  Well,  yes and no is my response. I agree in principle  with the idea that we should strive as far as possible to transcend the system of wage slavery – the cash nexus – that capitalism imposes upon us. It is not enough to just abstractly talk about an alternative to capitalism, We need some kind of "material correlate" to match our fine words about another kind of society. We need to acquire the  confidence that can only come through praxis that we are capable of moving beyond capitalism.  That is why attempts to transcend the money economy in the here and now are important to the socialist cause.  Without them, we are left only with abstract propaganda and abstract propaganda on its own has unfortunately proved to be a conspicuous failure. However however however…. Practical attempts to transcend the limits of capitalism in the here and now have also not succeeded  – even if in numerical terms they absolutely dwarf the impact of the political movement to overthrow capitalism.  To take just one example –  the Freecycle Network. It is massive by comparison with the political movement for socialism.  It is  "made up of 5,293 groups with 9,096,310 members around the world, and next door to you. It's a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (and getting) stuff for free in their own towns and neighborhoods. It's all about reuse and keeping good stuff out of landfills. "https://www.freecycle.org/It is great to see something like this and as a socialist it fills me with hope.  Anything that encourages the idea that we can do without money fills me with hope.    However the Freecycle network on its own is not going to do anything about challenging the capitalist basis of modern society.  Clearly.  Its is not going to eliminate the monumental structural waste that capitalism generates  The same can be said of LETS and Time banks  and intentional communities. etc etc   They are all positive developments in terms of predisposing people to be more receptive to socialist ideas but are not in themselves enough to bring about the real change we all need. The answer surely is not to see  things in simplistic black or white terms,  Abstract propaganda such as SPGB is carrying out is absolutely indispensable but self evidently it too is not enough on its own to bring about the change needed.  What we need is a fusion of approaches so that we can benefit from the synergies that develop out of that, Socialists need to come off the fence as far as moments like the Freecycle Movement is concerned and enthusiastically endorse them, and even get actively involved in them, while at the same time pointing out their limitations.  The positive feedback and contacts established in engaging with such movements will I believe help to boost the fortunes of the socialist movement itself and vice versa.  These kinds of movements are our natural constituency and we should wake up to this fact

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 That term can not he applied to the US workers when it is a highly developed capitalist country, and all the peasants are wage slaves and capitalism has been applied to agriculture. Populism does not come from being Popular, as  Anarchism does not mean chaos 

 Well, yes,  I agree populism does not mean "popular" but I think you are still missing the point about what the essence of populism is and therefore not recognising it where it manifests itself as, for example,  in Trumps campaign which was run on a clearly populist ticket.. I repeat: populism is based on the perception that the political establishment  has betrayed the people and that what is required is a more direct and forceful representation of the people's wishes.  Often populism goes hand in hand with  belief in a charismatic "strong man" political figure to do the job At the heart of the idea of populism is a patron-client relationship,  In return for the support of the voters , the Leader cum Saviour will affect radical change to the the existing political order to bring it into line with the wishes of the people,  Its for this reason amongst others that socialists oppose populism.  The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. With respect, Marcos , I think your conception of populism is too narrowly defined. America has had a history of populist movements..  Agrarian populism was quite widespread in the 19th century but it does not have to take only an agrarian form.  The Trump  phenomenon is an expression of populism.  A lot of Trump's support came from the industrial rustbelt.   And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of those gullible voters that voted for Trump in the expectation that he will radically overhaul the status quo will sooner or later realise they have been conned and will come to see him as part of the "establishment." Perhaps then another populist movement will arise, maybe with a more left wing agenda – some reincarnation of Bernie Sanders  perhaps?

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 We have different perception about the working class movement, and I have mine and you have yours.   Before you tried to correct me in regard to Sterve, the so called researcher, and then,  you and others members of this forum were seeing the same things that I was seeing.

 Marcos,  I am simply saying that you cannot infer from the OP the kind of ideas you tribute to him/her. It may well be that he/she holds those ideas – I  dont know anymore than you do –  but you cant just assume this is the case

mcolome1 wrote:

I do not calli it populism, for me, populism does not exist, it was a Russian phenomenon that proclaimed that the leading class were the peasants, and that type of trend wrongly  existed within many organizations in Latin America too,   it was written in the works of Georgi Plekhanov, an ex-populist, and most populists became terrorists. The Bolsheviks opposed populism

 Well, this is how Wikipedia defines populism:Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people I  would say in the light of this defintion that populist sentiments are definitely on the rise.  Trump's whole campiagn hinged on the delusion that he was some kind of saviour of the people who  had beeen maltreated  and betrayed by the political establishment represented by the likes of Clinton.  And the people bought this crap  imagining that a billionaire buffoon was one of them intent upon overthrowing this political establishment. What is that if not populism?

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

You are trying to tell us that the  system of profits have been eliminated in England and the USA ?  Are you  trying to tell us that one individual  is able to stop or detain the continuation of the state and the interests of the ruling elite ?  Are you trying to tell us that one billionaire  leader is detached from his own econimical interests ?  Are you trying to tell us that one individual would be able to stop market which is the real causes of war ?  Didn't Obama continue the same policy of JFK, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Sr and JR ?  Are you trying to tell us that the state is separated entity from the economical base of our society ?   I think that everything that I have learned in Political sciences, history, anthropology and economics is completely wrong. We should start all over again, or probably you are too naive

I don't think thats what User555net  is saying.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that he or she is saying is that this is what many people are thinking and feeling today. They feel betrayed by the political establishment.  Of course, we all know that they should never have put their trust in the politicians in the first place,  Just as we all know that Trump is going to betray them just as surely as his predecessors. Nevertheless, I think as description of the popular mood of the times its fairly accurate.  Populism is on the rise in many parts of the world.  Developments like Brexit and the election of Trump are part of a wider pattern,  This signifies something more than the usual change of government and its replacement by a more or less identical successor government.  I would use the analogy of the Kondratiev long wave cycle which can be superimposed on the normal ten year capitalist trade cycle.  Of course fundamentally its still capitalism but there has been a shift in the relationship between the political and economic realms, a change in the institutional  architecture of capitalism itself – possibly away from neoliberalism towards a more mercantilist world if Trump's words are to  be taken at face value

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

How long will it be before Trump back-tracks on all his policies and threats? 

Hasn't he already done so? Wasn't he threatening  beforehand  to bring criminal charges against Clinton  if he was elected.  His acceptance speech seems to suggest he has changed his mind on that score and now wants  to …er…"heal the divisions" that afflict Murrica. Pity. I was quite looking forward to Clinton being prosecuted.  I hope Corbyn sticks to his promise about putting Blair in the dock as a war criminal

[robbo203]

Well Alan I picked the winner on both occasions so perhaps I should really pursue a career in gambling I guess – although is it absolutely certain yet that Trump has won?As with Brexit what we are seeing here is the pus coming out after the boil has been lanced.  This is the legacy of years and years of institutionalized contempt and cynicism that the poltical establishment  has displayed towards the electorate.  There is a sort of change going on in the world which is a little deeper than the usual case of Tweedledum taking turns with Tweedledee in holding the reins of power.  A sort of threshold has been crossed.Where this take us I don't know.  But the way in which we socialists put across our ideas needs to accommodate this shift in the mood of the working class.  In a perverse kind of way the idea of President Trump is not the altogether depressing thought it would otherwise be

[Author]

Posts