[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 But as a curiosity, what is the evidence that the production of monumenetal structures and temples and palaces were celebrations of the power and wealth of the ruling class?  Kids who know knowthing of communism or socialism playing on the beach will often spontaneously work together to produce a monumental sand castle larger than any single kid alone could produce and they celebrate it and show it off. The kids don't seem to need a compusive ruling class ordering them to produce monuments to serve their parents.  It raises the question of in a classless state where their was no capitalist ruling class, then what would the communist do with their surplus?  there's a limit to how many cars you can want and toasters you can fit in your house and how many houses you could use before maintaining them became too tedious.  How long before an ideal communist state starts building space ships to mars or do they never do that? How long before they produce a taj mahal? is their some theory on this question? 

Well,  i think its pretty obvious that these monumental structures  were a celebration of the power, prestige  and wealth of the ruling class.  Lewis Mumford whose great work "The City in History" (1961) – I had a copy once but lost it – goes into all this in great detail. Palaces for example were built for the benefit of the elite who resided in them.  The labour that went into erecting them – unlike kids building sandcastles – was coerced alienated labour.  The very design of these structures was calculated to impress and intimidate and to convey the message of impregnable power.  Kids build "castles" too but I would suggest this is a reflex of the kind of sociuety we live in which encourages us to look upon history as a sucession of kings or queens and other such "great people".  I bet the children of hunter gatherers playing in the mud by a river bank dont build "castles" out of the mud To me the concept of a "surplus" make no sense in a communist society.  Means of production are no more surplus to means of consumption  in a communist society than means of consumption are surplus to means of production. They just fulfil different functions.  The very notion of a surplus presupposes in my view a class society and the extraction of an economic surplus from one class by another and makes no sense outside of that context Nor is there any state in a communist society. The state is an institution that pertains to a class society.  Its is the institutional tool by which one class rules over another class or classes. There is no leverage in a communist society by which anyone could exert power over others given voluntary labour and free access to goods and services. that are the hallmarks of a communist society  And without power there is quite simply no possibility of extracting an economic surplus either….

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

No junk posts either

Hear! Hear!

[robbo203]

Steve Just to clarify.  I am not a technological determinist and don't advance technological determinism as an explanation for the way things turn out, society wise. The reference to Wittfogels concept of the "hydraulic society" was not an endorsement of technological determinism and I don't actually hold that the  nature of the state in the so called Asiatic Mode of production was that of a "non class state* (which to me is an absurdity).  The land might have been subject to communal ownership at the village level but land is not the only means of production – so is labour – and in the AMP labour took an alienated form expressed in the compulsory labour contributions of ordinary people to monumental structures like temples and palaces that celebrated the power and wealth of the ruling class. Technology is never neutral,  it is always socially mediated and structured.  We should be very wary of any approach that promotes technological fixes as the solution to social problems.  Invariably such an approach vests power in the hands of the fixers and disempowers the rest of us

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 I ask you again: What is your commission on this business deal. It would be like Microsoft running a campaign for socialism, of the enemies of the working running a campaign for the workers. Who are you tring to fool ?  Is your paycheck coming from Washington ?  Who is the community ? 

Again, Marcos, why are you saying these things about this contributor? What business deal?  What are you talking about? You are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist and it is beginning to irritateFrom where I am standing, the guy is simply putting forward a kind of organisational tool that would lead to flatter and less hierarchical organisations.  I don't say I necessarily agree with the principle of holacracy and  part of me is skeptical about the claim that these principles can also be applied to capitalist business enterprises as well. However I don't know enough about the subject to comment authoritatively on it. But I am curious.  All socialists  should be curious and open minded enough to investigate things  for themselves – not just holacracy but other things too.  We shouldn't be so damned dismissive about everything as if we know everything there is to know and everyone else is just an ignorant fool.  The world is a little more complex than that

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 This guy want to use this forum for his fucking capitalist business. This is not a forum for business survey, this is forum for socialism. The socialists  forums are always inflitrated by CIA agents

 I dont think this comment is accurate or called for.  Its a bit over the top Marcos EDIT Here is the explanation he offers for his survey which doesnt sound to me like a "fucking capitalist business" Lets act like communist! Even if the world isn't communist we can show by our actions how communist believe in acting. . . Here's my strategy.  I'm practicing surveys which are an important part of communism.  From now on, whenever I make a comment on this website or start a thread, I'm including a request for a response on the value of my comment or thread and I'm trying to make sure I don't exploit your time with worthless discussion too.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 The US and Great Britain have said that they are going  to impose nore sanctions on Russia due to the bombardment of Russian army on the civilian population of Syria. The newspapers in Spanish have more information about this incident than the newspaper in English.The only thing that I know is that while we are wasting time in this forum, the world is getting more dangerous, it is getting more dangerous than during the time of the cold war. Just one atomic bomb is enough to destroy the whole world, the planet, and all human beings.The US imposed an embargo on the Japanese capitalist class, and they responded by dropping bombs in Pearl Harbor, The US and Great Britain are  putting pressures on the capitalist class of Russia, and anyone of them can respond with an attack.We are not living under the times of WWII when the Western Empires had the monopoly  of the military weapons and the others countries had kitchen knifes and machetes.

We are certainly living in dangerous times.  Even a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan alone could absolutely decimate global agriculture for a period of up to 10 years, according to one calculation I came across ,  because of the severe climatic consequences.  Gawd forbid that there should be an exchange between the main nuclear powers.  We will all be well and truly stuffed. It alarms me greatly this absolutely irresponsible warmongering and macho militaristic posturing.  Of course it is easy to say there is nothing to gain from a nuclear war, since we will all have lost, and therefore it will not happen.  But that assumes a rational approach to the whole question and that we wont be sucked into some vortex of insane irrationality and jingoistic hysteria.   I am not 100% confident that this wont happen. 

[robbo203]

Hi Steve Thanks for your very detailed and informative response, Its given me much food for thought. I guess my concern would focus on the interface within the the Code for America project between government, business and "civic minded technologists".  This what I was getting at in my comment about the project being possibly  subject to serious "internal tensions and competing objectives".  Certainly in a socialist cum communist society , community projects would also be subject to tensions but these would be of a qualititatively different order to what obtains today in the sense that everyone will be singing from the same hymn sheet. There will be no scope for smuggling  in objectives alien to the nature of such a society. The Code for America project though it might institutionalise regulations that entrench its voluntaristic code and ethos strikes me as possibly being vulnerable to motives that have little to do with what it is ostensibly about.  I don't know enough about the project to comment with any authority on this, though… I endorse the principle of voluntarism as a kind of training ground for a future communist praxis and a potential seedbed of communistic values but we have to be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff.  The example of internships which you mention  is a case in point,  This is just voluntary slavery harnessed to the interests of profit. I was interested in your comment that most internships don't actually get to get that lucrative job that is dangled in front of them like a carrot to incentivise them through the period of unpaid drudgery .  Do you have any links  that might shed more light on this whole murky area of internships and provide some sort of statistical breakdown? There is a huge and diverse range of organisations within the volunteer sector.  One of my favourite examples is the the Freecycle Network  which is growing rapidly and  is made up of 5,293 groups  with a current membership  of 9,088,707  .  See here https://www.freecycle.org/.  Its the kind of organisation that individual socialists , if not socialist political parties , could very well get involved with  and I suspect the possibility of finding like minded people in them would be significantly greater than any random sample of the population

[robbo203]

Steve This Code for America project which I have never heard of before sounds interesting but doesn't quite seem to fit the image you project. For instance upon googling I discover that the Code for America Summit is a "roll-up-your-sleeves conference that brings together government innovators, civic-minded technologists, and entrepreneurs" (https://www.codeforamerica.org/summit)  At least two elements of this constellation would give me cause for concern and i suspect would render the project subject to serious internal tensions and competing objectivesDo you have any links that would show otherwise and allay my suspicions?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Yes the development of scientific theories tends to be a  minority concern …In any event , that has got nothing to do with changing society which very clear must be the concern of the majority not a small minority

[my bold]These are contradictory political positions, robbo.To 'change society' (which must mean our socio-natural being, what Marx calls our 'organic nature') requires social theory and practice, which, for building a democratic society like socialism, can only be the 'theory' of the majority and the 'practice' of the majority.'Scientific theories' have everything to do with 'changing society'.Your continued failure to address this contradiction in your politics will lead you to take an essentially Leninist position – that an 'expert elite' can come up with the scientific social theories required to build our world.

 There is no contradiction at all LBird and, anyway, this is not the thread to discuss your pet theory which has been blown out of the water so many times that I have lost count.   If you wnat  discuss how it is possible that even one individual0, let alone all 7 billion of us, can become experts not only in the field of say molecular biology but every other field of scientific endeavour as well then you are welcome to start up another thread.  Oh wait- you've already done that still you've flatly refused to explain how this was possible or to answer any of the other questions asked of you.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

  What Robbo203 is saying has been evidenced in Bolivia, they have hundred of communes, and they are reformist measures labeled as socialist,  run as capitalists enterprises. 

 Yes but I am not talking about capitalist enterprises, whether these take the form of worker co-ops (I think thats what you mean rather than communes which are residientially based entities) or conventional corporations,  I am talking about that whole vast range of activities that essentally fall OUTSIDE of the money economy altogether (even if they often have links with it) and would include such things as  self provisioning peasant production, the household sector, mutual aid / community projects , volunteering and so on.  This has been dubbed the Grey Economy in contradistinction to the official White economy which your Bolivian worker co-ops would presumably fall under and the unofficial or illegal Black economy Estimates I've come across from UN sources and elsewhere suggest that in terms of labour hours expanded the Grey Economy is larger in size than the the White and Black economies combined  for the world as a whole. That has got to be quite significant from a socialist standpoint surely?

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

 Reminder: 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’).

 Sorry Mod1 My duplicate posting in response to Matt was a technical cockup.  Im not quite sure how it happened and I dont know how to delete my post once it is written. Thanks for deleting it anyway….

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 thanks that was well written.  you mentioned that SPGB does campaign for certain kind of laws to be implemented.  Is it convenient for you to just link to a list of those and that would satisfy my goals for your contribution on this topic? 

 Steve  What i mean is that the SPGB supports the struggles of workers to secure basic democratic rights such as freedom of expression and assembly and the right to vote.  This is another example of what I call a " non reformist" reform  – reformism in my book being measures undertaken  by the state specifically directed at economic functioning of capitalism and not its political superstructure as such

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

Quote:

The other drawback  in the SPGB-s approach is it curiously agnostic attitude towards institutions and practices that fall outside the money economy.  So for instance the idea of setting up a commune is routinely pooh-poohed on the grounds that this has all been tried before and has singularly failed  which is really not the point at all or is  missing the point altogether.

We don't 'just' diss those Robin. We do acknowledge they may seem to have immediate benefits for some workers at the time.The problem is their inevitable failure, like all reformist failures are laid at our door and labeled as 'socialist' failures.

 Matt What I have been trying to say is that these  kinds of activities such as the setting up of communes or other forms of activities that function outside the money sector are of a qualitatively different order to "reformism",  The problem is that the SPGB has never really developed a concise clear cut  definition of reformism and that possibly shows in your comment above where you seem to categorize the failure of communes under the heading of "reformist failure" unless i have misread you. But its got nothing to do with reformism as I understand it and I'm not quite sure how you judge something like a commune or intentional community to be a "failure" anyway. There are a vey large and growing number of them all over the world if you do some research into the topic.  Sure they haven't delivered socialism but that was never really the intent anyway.  In any case , sadly, the political movement for socialism represented by bodies organisations like the SPGB can hardly be rated a roaring success from that point of view either I come back to the expression coined by David Graeber about the "communism of everyday life".  I think he on to something here –  that so much of what we do in our daily lives is unwittingly an affirmation and acting out  of communistic values and practices. This is what seperates it from refromism.  It doesn't obviously automatically lead to communism – there is still an absolutely indspensable role for abstract propagandaism  in that respect as I said which is excatly what the SPGB does  – but can be looked upon as a kind of seedbed of communist ideas. Like any seedbed it needs fertilising and watering if the seeds are going to germinate and flower in to full blown communst consciosness. You may not "diss" these kinds of activities Matt but you do clearly distance and cut yourself off from the potential assistance they could render the socialist  movement through your determination to remain completely agnostic with regard to them.  That is precisely the problem.  You need to this embrace  this "communism of everyday life" in much more postitve way and I think   you will find it will start to reap benefits  when it comes to propagating the case for socialism itself.  At the very least the political movement for socialism will begin feel itself less cut off isolated and miniscule by adopting a more accomdating and inclusive approach

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It is crude mechanistic cum deterministic nonsense to suggest that "material conditions" per se  or on their own will somehow deliver a flourishing movement for socialism.  This ignores the key role of creativity in the historical process

And yet this 'nonsense' is precisely what you argue about the production of knowledge, robbo.Or, your notion of 'the key role of creativity' is necessarily a 'role' conducted by an elite.That is, your (I accept unconscious) political basis is Leninist.

 Thats absolute rubbish.  The one thing  does not follow from the other at all.  You are pretty much confused on this as on other things.  By "material conditions" I'm alluding to such pet notions entertained by some that for instance it needs an acute economic crisis to force people into accepting socialism.  Its nonsense because a sharp downturn in the economy could jst as easily fuel the rise of fascists ideas for example.  In other words it ideological outcome is not pre-givenHow can I possibly be unconsciously " Leninist" when I categorically accept that in order to have socialism you have to a conscious socialist majority first; it cannot be imposed from above by a vanguard.  It seems you don't understand what Leninism is about at all.  Yes the development of scientific theories tends to be a  minority concern and this is inevitable given a social division of labour or do you seriously imagine we all have the time or training to engaging in abstruse and complex debates on the cutting edge of molecular biology or astrophysics or whatever.In any event , that has got nothing to do with changing society which very clear must be the concern of the majority not a small minority

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

.  The idea I'm proposing is that laws can set the stage for communism or set the stage to prevent communism.  I'm not claiming what we have with some few laws we can suggest here is everything and the only thing needed for communism or socialism.  I'm just asking what laws in the currently dominant capitalist economy would help or would speed up the process.  It seems like you're saying laws are irrelevant and that's nonsense since in theory it's possible to make a law that ends this Website and that would certainly be relevant.  Anyway, this is more of a brainstorming device than map for a final solution like you seem to be focused on.  So you see the only way to a socialist society is violent revolution? I think that's been tried and failed too, but please correct me with a link to when it's worked if you have one,  In fact everything that's been tried has failed from what some of the commenters here tell me.  Maybe that means it's impossible or maybe you need to check your assumptions?  I choose to believe you need to check your assumptions.Or, If your really convinced a violent revolution to overthrow the state is required, then maybe you could suggest a law that gives every citizen the right to own a gun, a tank and some C4 explosives. plus a law that says every citizen can enter any public or government building at any time without being searched.  Or maybe a law that makes every persons net worth public information so you'd know who to shoot at when your revolution starts.  I think those would be laws very hard to get passed, but at least it's a start to get your ideas going.  

 Steve I think you are kinda missing the point here  and by the way, just for your information, the SPGB does not advocate "violent revolution to overthrow the state" and thats not what Marcos was suggesting.  Personally, I think that it would be suicidal to take on the armed might of the state – and utterly counterproductive. The means determine the end rather than justify them.  War brutalises and requires an authoritarian chain of command.  Its outcome will be a brutalised authoritarian society far removed from socialism This thread is about the potential for laws to facilitate or hinder the implementation of socialism.  The "anti legalistic" stance that has been expressed does not at all derive from any conviction that we must use violence to bring about socialism but rather is linked to the SPGB.s opposition to "reformism" which is not the same as opposing or indeed supporting individual reforms.  You need to understand this distinction in order to fully appreciate where SPGBers are coming from.  Certainly in theory there are laws we can think of, or dream up, that could facilitate the implementation of socialism and benefit workers but from the SPGB's standpoint the opportunity costs of pursuing or pressing for such legislation would be the watering down and eventual abandonment of the goal of socialism itslef. There are certainly historical precedents to support this position.  The parties of the Second International in the late 19th early 20th centuries – the largest of which was German SDP – pursued both a maximum programme (socialism as we understand it) and a minimum programme of reforms.  Predictably the former disappeared like the Cheshire cats grin as these parties succumbed to the opportunism of attracting workers on the basis of reforms and in due course all of these parties became straightforwardly pro -capitalist organisations and nothing more. There is also the sociological argument that can be traced back to people like Emile Durkheim that laws tend to reflect the social outlook rather shape that outlook and that consequently are only as effiicacious as the social environment itself permits.  Hence the primary emphasis on trying change the social environment through the dissemination of socialist ideas which is the hallmark of the SPGBs approach. I have a lot of sympathy for this approach although I do think it has its weaknesses.  One is that it is based on an insufficiently nuanced formulation of "reformism".  The whole argument against reformism is that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of workers – which is quite true – but here capitalism is conceived of as an economic construction.  In this sense these reforms are directed at (futilely) modifying  the economic base.  However there are other reforms that are directed at modifying  aspects of the superstructure (in terms of Marx's "base superstructure" model).   For instance, reforms than enhance political democracy like the extension of the franchise.  These reformsdo  not strictly come under the category of reformism in my book and to be fair the SPGB does talk about struggling to secure basic democratic rights in those parts of the world where these do not exist. That is to say, it presses or campaigns for certain kinds of laws to be implemented The other drawback  in the SPGB-s approach is it curiously agnostic attitude towards institutions and practices that fall outside the money economy.  So for instance the idea of setting up a commune is routinely pooh-poohed on the grounds that this has all been tried before and has singularly failed  which is really not the point at all or is  missing the point altogether.  True the "unconscious communism" that we all practice in our daily lives is no guarantee that it will deliver a communist society.  But the whole point is that it needs to be joined or coupled with the "conscious communism" of abstract propagandism that the SPGB practises in order to enable the former to assist the latter.  Its is like an engine that has been wilfully switched off waiting idly and in vain for the day it can help power the spread of socialist ideas. Some of us it would seem  are determined to do everything by hand rather than make use of the machinery that could enhance our productivity. if you follow my drift. But as I say the core of the SPGBs approach is, for all that, quite correct.  You cannot have socialism without socialists and you cant get socialists without actively disseminating the idea of socialism itself.  It is crude mechanistic cum deterministic nonsense to suggest that "material conditions" per se  or on their own will somehow deliver a flourishing movement for socialism.  This ignores the key role of creativity in the historical pricess

[Author]

Posts