[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

 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’).

 Er..Moderator, if you care to read more carefully what I read you will see that it is actually a development on what I had previously written, not a mere repetitiion of the latter.  This is what tends to spoil debate on this forum – the occasional over zealous and heavy handed interventions on your part. Can I suggest you try to be a bit more accommodating and flexible by way of moderating your own moderation, eh?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…democracy is … not about establishing Truth…

Once more, robbo can't be any clearer.He holds to an ideology that claims that 'Truth' is not established by democracy.It doesn't take much thinking about his ideological claim, that 'democracy is not about establishing the Truth' (which is also a claim that bourgeois ideology makes), to start to wonder, if not the democratic proletariat, then just who does 'establish the Truth'?From logic alone, we Democratic Communists must assume that robbo has in mind an 'elite' who are to 'establish the Truth'.Those who know the events of the 20th century, and are aware of regimes that claimed to be 'socialist', but also refused to allow workers to actively participate in the production of truth, also refused to allow workers to participate in politics, or in the distribution of social production… in fact, those regimes, which also claimed that 'Truth is not established by democracy', weren't 'socialist' at all.Only the class conscious proletariat, building towards a socialism in which they will themselves determine production, can be the source of any claims for 'truths'.Whilst workers look to any persons or organisations which clearly deny the active role of the revolutionary proletariat in all areas of social production, then those workers will be lied to and fooled. The result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'.This is the fruit of 'materialism'. Materialism claims that the 'material' ('matter' or 'physical') speaks alone to a 'special elite' (but doesn't speak to workers, who are too poorly educated, or even have no interest, to participate), and so, from the very outset, denies the possibility of democracy in the means of production. For materialists, 'matter' is the 'active side', and so workers cannot vote upon what 'matter' actually 'is'. The materialists argue that 'matter just is', and they claim that they (and they alone) 'know' matter, because they have a non-political method which allows elite minorities to access 'matter', outside of considerations of socio-historical consciousness, or the wishes or purposes of the proletariat.They claim physics is non-political. This is a bourgeois claim, and its emergence can be located in history.This claim leads to the ideological belief that 'Truth' is outside of any considerations of social consciousness, and so outside issues of democracy.Beware, any workers reading, an elite plans openly to deny democracy in the means of production: this elite actually says so, and you should take their open claims seriously.

 Youre just waffling LBird and not making much sense at all.  I note that ,having lied through your teeth in your earlier post about me (and presumably others here too) wanting to "deny democracy in the means of production", you are still persisting with  this line of argument although youve wisely chosen not to name names in this latest attempt of yours to throw mud around in the hope that it wil stick on someone I have made clear what my position is. I see absolutely no point in submitting scientifc theories to a democratic vote.  You have not  once explained why this is necessary and what is supposed to happen once a scientific truth has been democratically voted on.  Is dissenting opinion going to be suppressed after the vote? No? Well then what was the vote supposed to be abou?.  What was its  purpose?  Just to demonstrate that a majority thinks a particular scientific theory was "true"  – or alternatively not "true".  Big deal, then what?  .  In what way  is this democratic decision going to be meaningfully implemented or applied and to what end?.  You dont explain.  You never explain.  You cant explain and that is because, quite clearly, you dont really understand democracy., do you LBird ?  You  don't really understand what it is for. Weve been over this several times but still you dont get it  You can't seem to see that there is a world of difference between calling for "democratic control over the means of production" and calling for a "democratic vote to determine the truth of a scientifc theory,"  The former is  both practical .and necessary in a socialist society; the latter is just plain nuts and betrays a kind of religious cum dogmatic attitude towards "Scientific Truth" that you shoud want to formalise it in this way. And we wont even go into the logistics of organising tens of thousands of  worldwide plebsicites for every scientific theory going becuase I know you are too embarrassed to even attempt an answer – arnet you LBird? – so I will spare you any further embarrassment.Do I think there will be an elite community of astrophysicists in socialism who know a lot more about astrophysics than the average guy in th street.  Absolutely!  Dont you LBird? Answer this – how many years of study do you reckon it takes to become an accomplished astrophysist?  I dont know but lets hazard a guess and say 10 years.  So according to you in order to avoid there being an elite of astrophysicists everyone will need to commit at least ten years of their life to the  intensiive study of astrophysics,  That way we can all be accompished astrophysists, familiar with all the theories circulating in the field of astrophysics and hence able to vote knowledgeably on whether these theories are true or false. Yes?But  hold on a moment – what about the molecular biologists or the oncologists or the people into plate tectonics or the cognitive sceintists and so on and so on.  There are probably thousands upon thousands of different specialisms.  So what are you gonna suggest, LBird?  That we devote 10 years of our lives to each of these as  well? Well, Im sorry to disappoint you but unfortunately we  have only a limited lifespan and we can't do everything So LBird there are only two choices left 1) keep our already incredibly complex social division of labour intact and concede therefore that you are always goig to have experts – what you call the "elite" – in what ever field you care to mention2) abolish this social division so that we all become "jack of all trades" and masters of none and witness the rapid decline of science and technology, followed in short order by the collapse of society's infrastucture and productive capacity Is this an "ideological " statement on my part.  Sure it is! I dont know what you are – presumably some kindi of primitivist by the sound of it –  but I am democratic communist and I am concerned that a socialist or communist society should be able to materially support its population, not collapse into barbarism and a vicious struggle over a  rapidly diminishing pool of resources,  Encouraging expertise is part of what is needed to sustain a level of output that would enable such a society to floursih. That does not mean as you stupidly claim,  that the result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'. You forget  firstly that there will be no one elite but multiple "elites" in each of their specialised fields. The astrophysicist is not part of the elite of molecular biologists in the field of molecular biology.  Secondly there will be no impediment whatsoever placed on anyone to pursue whatever field interests him or her and to develop expertise in that field. Socialism will be a completely open society in that respect.  That does not mean there will be no examinations and qualifications en route to acquiring expertise. If you imagine just anyine is going to be able to perform the task of a brain surgeon without being qualified to do so then you are seriously deluded. And thirdly what leverage could scientific experts exert over the population at large in a society in which the principles of free access and volunteer labour apply?.  None at all.  And the oorrolary of that is prceisely "democratic control over the means of production". The democratic determination of Scientifc Truth , on the other hand. is an irrelevance and utter baloney

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

A number of comrades have tried to convince me that the SPGB is not Leninist, and have been at pains to persuade me that the SPGB really is committed to "workers' democratic control of the means of production", and so the SPGB is 'socialist' in the sense that it claims to be.But, as I keep asking those well-meaning comrades, can't they read what is being written, by those opposed workers' democracy, on this site?Here, once more:

robbo203 wrote:

Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"…

I really don't understand how those comrades who are defending the SPGB can interpret this in any other way than a denial of workers' control, that is, a denial of democracy within the means of production.

  Either you a very serious problem with your eyesight, LBird, or your are being grossly dishonest.  Here is what I actually wroteCommunist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"  – that would be absolutely pointless anyway.-  but to decisions relating to the regulation and control of the means of production and it will operate at multiple levels – local regional and , much more rarely, the global levelNow explain to me in what way is this  a "denial of democracy within the means of production"?

LBird wrote:

Apparently, for those within the SPGB who agree with robbo, the social production of scientific knowledge and social truths will be in the hands of a self-selected elite. They keep saying this, so I take them at their word, and I'm not sure why other comrades are not taking them at their word.To me, this is not any form of 'socialism', but simply a retread of Leninism, where an elite with a 'special consciousness' (which by their definition is not available to all workers, otherwise they'd agree to workers' democratic control) tell the 'unconscious masses' what the 'Truth' is.

What bilge. I am quite happy to acknowlege that I will never be an accomplished nuclear physicist or a molecular biologist in socialism. I recognise, unlike LBird, that there will always be those far more accomplished in these fields than I could ever be and who will understand theories that I cannot even get my head around. Is that a problem? Not in the least.  Why shoud it be? If it is a problem then how does LBird propose that we get round this problem in socialism?  How does he propose to do away with the incredibily complex social division of labour upon which our advanced technology is based?  Spell it out in detail LBird.  Childishly claiming it is "Leninism" is no answerHow are we all gonna  become accomplished nuclear physicists and molecular biologists ( not to mention the numerous other fields of sceitific expertise)  in socialism ?  Becuase if we dont then its gonna be pretty difficult to meaningfully vote on some abstruse theory we know nothing about, dont you think? Thats is to say nothing  of the logistiscs of organising this global vote or even the very purpose for holding it anyway. On this last point I still have no idea why you think a vote is necessary.  Say for the sake of argument you manage to organise this vote  and the Truth of a  some scientific theory is democratically established.  OK now what? What are we supposed to do with this democratic decision?   Will  people be sanctioned for questoning the Truth or what?.  You dont explain . You never expain.  Thats becuase you dont understand what democracy is for . It is not about establishing Truth but about the resolution of conflicting interests .That is why it makes no difference to me whatsoever that some know a lot more than I will ever know, They cannot use that knowledge against me in the area of practical decisionmaking which is where the real significance of  democracy actually  lies 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, Vin, would 'all' democratically control maths, physics, etc.?It's a simple question – will 'all' control the production of 'truth'?

 No , because1) there is absolutely no need for thisand 2) it is logistically impossible for 7 billion people to vote on tens of thousands of scientific theories and only a complete fantasist  would think otherwise.Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"  – that would be absolutely pointless anyway.-  but to decisions relating to the regulation and control of the means of production and it will operate at multiple levels – local regional and , much more rarely, the global levelQED

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Well the ruling class don't regard welfare of the working class as crucial, are all the ruling class immoral? Why are working class largely not socialist, are they immoral too? What workers need is economic identification and economic solidarity with their class not pious sacrificing your own interests, individual workers should strive for the best deal under capitalism AND to propagate socialism in their own self interest! Mixing in morality leads to "hard work" under capitalism prevailing as the highest or only moral dimension.

 Non sequiturs JBond… Even if the ruling class does not regard the welfare of workers as crucial,  that does not mean we workers should take our cue from them.  Revolutionary socialists are meant to break with the idea sof the ruling class, not reinforce them. Also you still dont get the point.  Forging soldiarity with our fellow workers is necessarily and implictly, in part,  a moral endeavour.  You talk about the "pious "sacrificing of one's interest but imagine if workers literally took what you said at face value.  The idea of collectively uniting to mount a strike for example would simply be rendered impossible because, after all,  a strike involves a temporary sacrifice in the form of a loss of earnings , The whole appeal to strike action is based on the premiss that all the workers involved would hopefully benefit in the long run.  Logically,  you are saying that the interests of other workers matters as well as your own and this is precisely what I am saying a moral outlook consists in. A purely instumentalist approach to other workers which is what you seem to be advicating may be amoral but its is incapable on its own of rousing anyone to effectively participate in any kind of collective action in my view let alone forge any kind of sense of collective solidarity.  How could it when you are effectively saying to fellow workers I am only using you to further my own ends.? That sounds just like the capitalists you rightly criticise.  And the capitalists can also use that very same argument to dissuade the individuals workers  from participating in a strike.  Loyal workers wil be rewarded, they could say, by keeping their jobs or even securing promotion after the strike. You will not be able to mount any counter argument to what these capitalists are saying becuase basically you will be thinking along the same instrumentalist lines as them

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

No it is not a moral case (or both) and capitalism is not evil. It is just there are more working class than ruling class and a higher standard of living can be achieved.

 I disagree. It is both a moral case and a matter of self interests.  These two things complement each other and are both vital to the case for socialism.  If moral identification with fellow workers was irrelevant – that is, if you did not think the interests of other workers had value in itself and that you had no intrinsic reason to be concerned with their welfrare and wellbeiing (which is what morality is about)  – then how could you possibly develop a sense of class solidarity with them?  You express class solidarity with them because you empathise with their condition even to the extent of expressing the desire to altruistically sacrifice your own interests for the furtherance of your class interest (as Marx himself had specifically noted).  This is the "proletarian morality" Engels was on about – not the timeless morality of the Christians – and he was right to emphasise it.If you dispense with the moral dimension all that awaits is you is abyss of  the Smithian free market dogma of purely self interested motivation.  As I said, you might just as well strive to become a capitalst in that case rather than propagate socialism.  It utterly destroys and subverts any conception of a genuine collective class solidarity with its totally instrumentalist view of other workers as merely a means to serve your own private ends

[robbo203]

Evil as a metaphysical construction or force at large in the world out there doesnt exist.  Thats true enough. To say capitalism is evil is an anthropomorphism and capitalism is not a person or even a thing. Nevertheless, saying "capitalism is evil "  properly understood – is a metaphor or shorthand way of saying that the effects of capitalism are morally repulsive.  And since we wouldnt be socialists if we did not think that these effects of capitalism are indeed morally repulsive – not simply that capitalism is not in our "self interest" – then seen in this light, I think it OK to talk about capitalism being evil so long as we are not being literal about it. If you are going to argue that socialism is purely a matter of our own "self interests".then this leads to directly into the kind of thinking that lay behind Adam Smith's model of the invisible hand of the market.  You might as well give up propagatng socialism and focus on becoming a rich capitalist.  Socialists care about the wellbeing of our fellow  workers and it is for this reason that the very concept of class solidarity is by definition at least in part a moral construction.  The case for socialism is thus both a moral one and a  matter of interests.  You cannot separate one from the other without turning the whole case into an incoherent  shambles

[robbo203]

  

Sepehr wrote:

 It is not a surprise for me to see you talking about "Chinese imperialism", "Russian imperialism", and even "Indian imperialism"! As I mentioned earlier, the whole focus of some part of the "left" is to relegate Marxism to a mere wherewithal of bolstering powers of status-quo and crushing all struggles challenging those powers. In that sense, you walk along the same lines as do miscreants known as neoconservatives and neoliberal imperialists.

Come now, Sepehr, this is complete nonsense and in your rush to condemn those of us will not leap to the defence of your “national bourgeoisie” in the global South, you lump us together with people like the neocon and the neoliberal supporters of Western imperialism.  Are you serious? By what twisted logic do you arrive at the conclusion that we “walk along the same lines” as the latter?  We do not support any imperialism anywhere and are not selective in our disapproval of imperialism as you seem to be. Nor. unlike you, do we naively seek to detach the question of imperialism from capitalism.  The one thing goes with the other. There seems to be two basic issues at stake here 1) how you define imperialism and 2) whether the establishment of socialism necessitates beforehand the elimination of spatial inequalities throughout the world as you claim.  Let me deal with the latter point first. It strikes me that this whole argument of yours is pretty weak and unconvincing and really just boils down to the dogmatic assertion that it must be so because you say it is. You invoke Marx in support of your contention that the productive potential for socialism must be distributed evenly throughout the world before you can have socialism, although you don’t tell us where he suggested this.  Not that thatmatters too much. I certainly don’t need Marx’s blessing to hold the views I do and there are some things that Marx said that I profoundly disagree with, anyway.  As far as I understand it, Marx took a global approach to the matter and maintained that it was the world as a whole that had to have the productive potential for socialism before we could have socialism. Providing this precondition was met for the world as a whole then it does not matter from the point of view of establishing socialism that some parts are less developed then others. Socialism itself would enable the rapid diffusion of technologies and material assistance around the world to where it was most needed  The point is that the emergence of this global productive potential has been bound up with the development of a global division of labour that connects every part of the world with every other in what is now an incredibly complex pattern of criss- crossing material and immaterial flows – another reason why you can’t have “socialism in one country”.  Meaning the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level.  The fact that socialism will inherit a structure of production that exhibits a high degree of spatial interdependency is not a problem. You seem to think it is but you don’t explain why at all.  My guess is you are projecting onto a future socialist the developmental preoccupations of contemporary capitalism and its concern with things like securing export markets and such like. No doubt in socialism there will be a tendency towards  greater regional and especially local self-reliance and there are good reasons for this. However, the fact the structure of production under capitalism which we will immediately  inherit come socialism, is tending in the opposite direction does not at all rule out socialism, as you claim, and you have made no serious attempt whatsoever to substantiate this claim of yours.  And so we come to your utopian proposal of “delinking” or auto-centric development in a world of deepening capitalist globalisation. This is sometimes associated with ideas like the flaky Leninist theory of the Labour aristocracy with its half-baked claim that a section of the working class, if not the entire working class, in the West is actually bribed , by the capitalist class out of the “super profits” they make from their investments in the global South.  The idea is that as the countries in the global South secure their so called national liberation and embark on a programme of auto centric development, this will impact on the West itself. The drying of these super profits will diminish the ability of the western based capitalists to bribe their own labour aristocracies ad so result in rising discontent, leading to the radicalisation of workers in the West.  This is the “weakest link in the chain of imperialism” argument put forward by Lenin – that fanciful notion that a “revolution” in the global periphery will somehow spark a revolution in the capitalist core countries .  Its complete balderdash.  At so many different levels, this whole Leninist inspired worldview can be criticised and found wanting. I notice Sepehr, you studiously avoided answering my earlier post showing the utter absurdity of Lenin’s claim concerning the bribe doled out to so called labour aristocracy. No matter.  It seems to me that the subtext of this argument is in keeping with a general position held by many on the Left – that radicalisation is somehow contingent upon increased suffering – for example that inflicted by a severe economic crisis or, in this case, through the loss of the mythical bribe component of the workers income.  This is a crudely mechanistic way of looking at the subject. There is absolutely no guarantee that increased suffering and diminished economic prospects will somehow translate into a more radical outlook on life. There is plenty of evidence that it can lead to a quite opposite outcome- the adoption of more conservative and less militant approach – and of course we have the classic example of this in the rise of Nazi Germany in the wake of the Great Depression  Shifting our focus to the Global South, let us look at what has become of your proposal of delinking here.  There have been a few attempts at what is called “voluntary delinking” such as Cambodia under Pol Pot, Sekou Toure’s Guinea, Yemen, North Korea and Albania – none of which can exactly be called an economic success storey. There have also been cases of involuntary delinking also as in the example of sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq which resulted in untold misery for ordinary Iraqis.  No doubt some of those leftists who protested about this also subscribe to your theory of delinking as well.  In fact, most attempts at self-reliant development have been half hearted and at best partial  or simply led to a transfer of allegiance from the Western capitalism to the state capitalism of the pseudo socialist bloc with its own parallel pattern of dependencies e.g. the relationship between the Soviet Union and CubaYou assert:“In reality, these asymmetries can be mended by state intervention and collective policies protecting the underdeveloped country from overwhelming domination of foreign capital. However, whenever and wherever a country has moved to implement such measures, it has been sabotaged through direct or indirect intervention of imperialism.” That sounds like you are excusing their failure in advance by suggesting  that their efforts at self-reliance must have been sabotaged.  If what you say was remotely true why is it that today we find throughout the Global South, country after country desperately pimping out their workforces as exploitable material for international capitalists to exploit. Why are these countries constantly marketing themselves as ideal investment opportunities?  Also, why do these countries feel the need to organise themselves into much larger trading blocs if autocentric development was the way to go.  Your whole theory lacks credibility in my view.  You make a contrived distinction between the “national bourgeoisie” in the Global South which is supposedly anti-imperialist and the “comprador bourgeoisie” which is not and which is complicit in the murky dealings of western imperialists.  In practice, the distinction doesn’t really exist and your national bourgeoisie will sooner or later collapse into a comprador bourgeois. The supposed independence of   your national bourgeoisie is a political posture. Look behind the bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism of all these so called national liberation movements and you will soon enough discover a deep yearning on the part of your beloved national bourgeoisie to join the international community of capitalists on a more equal footing – as indeed some have already done by snapping up investment opportunities in the West or depositing their ill-gotten gains in a Swiss bank.  Gaddafi of Libya is a case in point but there are countless others.  The difference between the national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie is only a matter of time/ So no, I am not convinced at all that delinking and the implementation of autarkic policies under capitalism is the way to go.  It is at variance with the whole expansionist dynamic of capitalism and sooner or later, the isolated capitalist state will find the need to reintegrate with the global economy.  Even state capitalist dictatorships like North Korea have their own free trade zones and without the support of its much larger capitalist patron, China, the North Korean economy would be an utter shambles.  China props up the regime because it knows full well that that the collapse of the North Korean economy would have adverse consequences.  So we come to the second question of how you define imperialism. For you it seems, imperialism is some kind of morality play in which there are the bad guys – the western capitalist powers – and the good guys, which is essentially the rest of the world who are the victims of this imperialism, not its  perpetrators.  The essentialist line of thinking in your argument which upholds imperialism as some kind of unique quality present only in the Western powers is a peculiarly unmarxist position to take inasmuch as it effectively severs the link between capitalism  and imperialism in the modern world.  Instead of a serious Marxist analysis of global capitalism we have, as I say, a kind of morality play of Good versus Evil.  The asymmetric pattern of development manifest in the world economy is all down to the wicked western capitalist thwarting more spatially even development which is just as well because as you say, the establishment of socialism depends on just such development.  Well I reject this approach of yours.  Imperialism is a tendency inherent in the expansionist dynamic of capitalism itself and since capitalism exists everywhere so does this imperialist tendency. Every country – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist .  All you are doing is looking at the most conspicuously successful imperialist countries, drawing an arbitrary line between them and the rest of the world and declaring that this is what constitutes imperialism.   It’s pretty ironic then that you think that my talking about Chinese imperialism means that I overlook the imperialism of countries like the US when in fact my entire argument hinges on the universalism of imperialism in global capitalism. The fact that most countries figure rather low down in the imperialist hierarchy does not negate the existence of such a hierarchy It comes down to how you define imperialism and I have made it clear that I define imperialism in its widest sense as the desire or intent of the nation state in the context of modern day capitalism to promote and secure what it sees as its interests and influences beyond its own territorial borders – that is to transcend its borders.  Note that the peculiarity of modern imperialism is that it is the nation state qua state rather than say a corporation or an NGO that is the vehicle or agent of this imperialism. It is from the standpoint of what is seen to be best for this nation state itself in its dealings with other states that imperialism derives its meaning.   You don’t seem to understand this and this is why you come out with curious comments such as that I am confusing imperialism with trade. As if you can somehow separate “trade” from issues such as the struggle over trades routes , access to markets , the need for resources. And so on.  You sound almost like a liberal in your characterisation of trade as some kind of benign forces at work in the world that heals rifts and promotes peaceYou refer to China “Just because China is exporting cheap products to other countries, does not mean that China has got its imperialistic vicious tentacles all over the world! Show me one occasion in which China has colluded in a coup, or imposed unilateral sanctions, or blocked the flow of finance into another country…”  LOL Sepehr.  In case you weren’t aware of this China’s involvement with the rest of the word is more than simply a trading relationship. It is investing heavily in means of production outside of its national boundaries.  In Africa, Chinese capitalists have been buying up mines and factories, and building large scale infrastructural projects.  In the UK the Chinese capitalists now have a foothold in power generation.  In the US they have been purchasing residential properties and treasury bonds like there was no tomorrow. The list is endless. You know it begins to sound like they are not that different after all from those greedy western capitalists sniffing out opportunities for the realisation of super profits in the global south  You suggest as an indicator of imperialism military adventurism in, and occupation of, other countries. Even to use your own rather narrow definition of imperialism that would mean that even  small countries like Jordan or Qatar must be considered imperialist by nature since they are both part of the coalition forces of 59 member states involved in Syrian conflict.  In fact, can you think of any state anywhere that does not have some military connection beyond its borders? Maybe Costa Rica which abolished its own army but then falling very firmly with  the US sphere  of influence, it does have a US military presence in the country so probably feels it can get away without having an army for that reason  As for China and Tibet I notice that you are quite happy to engage in usual capitalist game of nationalist legitimation “Tibethas been an inseparable part of China for thousands of years. Why would someone pretend as if Tibet is "occupied" by China and encourage people of Tibet to secede from China, which would definitely create a second Afghanistan-style failed state in that region?Well dont take that up with me Sepehr.  Take it up with those who consider themselves to be Tibetans and definitely under occupation by a foreign power.  You possess with them a common belief that they possess a country only in your case that country is China, not an independent Tibet, which you believe, as nationalists tend to do, has a legitimate claim to an arbitrary piece of land called “Tibet”. All I can say is that this is a world away from the  outlook expressed by the Communist Manifesto that the working class has no country and that we communists cannot take from them that which they do not have in the first place

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them

Unfortunately we disagree on the very definition of Imperialism. You are using your own terminology, inconsistent with the definition widely used by others. Marx himself seldom used this term, wherefore at his time it was commonly referred to as "colonialism". Only in the 20th century colonialism turned into a new countenance, to wit, imperialism. Therefore, with this definition in mind, your use of the term, as in "imperialism of China and India", is not only inaccurate, but also a spurious argument used to distract attentions from heinous crimes committed by the real imperialistic powers.How many countries, "pray tell", are invaded, occupied or bombed by China or India?!

 Yes I am using the term imperialism in the wider sense to denote other forms of influence besides military. People sometimes talk of cultural imperialism, for example and this would be an instance of that.  You mention colonialism.  Dependency theorists talked about "neo colonialism" after the Second World War when various European powers grnated political independence to their erstwhile colonies.  The point they were trying to make which is the one I am trying to make is that the economic influence of the core  countries over the periphery did not disappear with the granting of political independenceIf you are limiting the term imperialism to just militarily attacking or occupying another country then I  guess quite a few countries would qualify as imperialist – such as the numerous states contributing to the coalition forces in the current Syrian conflict.  China woud qualify as imperialist becuase of its occupation of Tibet etc etc

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo

 Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually beginning to show his fox’s ears. (Karl Marx, The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847)

I am not quite sure what your point is and wish you would not speak in riddles.  Are you defending Chinese state capitalism?

Sepehr wrote:

 How about we just go out there and tell people: "let's all be nice with each other!"… That is how you see the socialst project!And I am not telling anyone to "defer socialism"… If you think building socialism is so unchallenging, "pray proceed"!

 You are asking us to first remove the obstacle of "imperialism" before we can have socialism even though imperialism is part and parcel of the nature of capitalism  and ineradicable with capitalism. So draw your own conclusions. And no the socialist project is not about telling people to be nice to each other.  Thats a silly comment, I am simply making the point that workers everywhere in whatever part of the word they are from are fully capable of understanding what the socialist project is about. 

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries

According to Marx, you do require something like that. Although not exactly as you described it, but more or less so. History has proven Marx to be correct on this. You may dislike it, but that will change nothing.

I dont agree .  Marx' observations on the Russian Mir suggest otherwise. In any event even if you were right in thinking this I would then maintain that Marx was mistaken in this instance

Sepher wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.

This, again, is another impregnable conundrum to me. How could a bourgeoisie-comprador be anti-imperialist?! You are confounding that concept with national-bourgeoisie, which by nature ought to be anti-imperialist. As I said, it is possible that a national bourgeoisie may fester into a bourgeoisie-compradore. But that is in case the national bourgeois development turns into a failure. Malaysia and Indonesia are good examples of this failure. But this failure has not happened (YET) with countries such as China and India. Whether these countries will end up having the same fate or not is unknown to us. However, especially in the case of China, that is already a quite remote possibility.

  How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them 

Sepher wrote:

Please remember, China used to be a rural country with hundreds of millions of illitrate people. Half of its population were wonted to opium. Diseases such as syphilis were extremely common. In short, it used to be what Africa still is today. Why China, and to a much less degree India, managed to develop into functioning and developing societies whilst Africa turned into a conglomerate of failed states with starving populations? The answer lies in "delinking" from imperialism. It happened in China, and to a lesser extent India, but it never happened in Africa. 

 This has nothing to do with the question of how we are to get a to a socialist society.  In theory, there may be some validity in the argument put forward  by the proponents of "dependency theory" against the modernisation thesis that dominated development discourse in the early post wars but by and large I think dependency theory is inadequate.  It failed to explained, for instance, the emergence of NICs – newly industrialising countries – oriented towards export led growth (which is in fact what boosted Chinese state capitalism as well)

Sepehr wrote:

Now which one is closer to socialism? Africa or China? If you really think socialism is a possibility today for African countries, then you must be totally ignoring the consequences of recent massive refugee crisis, from Africa to Europe.

 Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo 

Sepehr wrote:

This absurd statement is the result of your vague, irrational and fictitious definition of socialism. Are you envisaging global socialism as a world where Africa continues to export minerals, Middle East continues to export crude oil, Malaysia continues to export palm oil, etc; and all of them import everything else from industrial countries? Or is it going to be based on self-sufficient communes? You need to seriously revise your vision of socialism.

 There is nothing fictitious or irrational about the definition of socialism as a non market non statist global society.  It is what Marxists have traditionally meant by socialism.  Im sure that, come socialism, spatial inequalities will tend to be rapidly overcome through the the global diffusion of advanced technologies when we no longer have the barriers of the market. A consequece of this will be increased divrsification at the local level which will be good. But you are confusing two quite separate things.  It is not the business of socialists to promote capitalist development and ally ourselves with capitalist states and their "national bourgeosie".  If there was a case for that in the mid 19th century, we have long gone past that stage.  The world as a whole already possesses the technological potential to make socialism feasible.  Deferring socialism in order to develop the Global South in the interests of their national bourgeosie strikes me as bein positively reactionary . Not to say unnecessary insofar and to the extent that such development is happening anyway as yourself point out in the case of China and India

Sepehr wrote:

What is rubbish is the idea of "global village". What village? While you fathom about how to build socialism, on the other side of the world many people are struggling to find some food to survive until tomorrow.

The global village is a metaphor to illustrate the fact that we now possess the means to communicate information instantly from any part of the world to any other part of the world.   The fact that many people still struggle to find food does not preclude the possibility that they might become aware of the fact that whilst they struggle, food is systemtically being destroyed in some parts of the world and farmers are being paid to withdraw land from production to keep up prices. Its a little arrogant to assume that workers or peasants in the Third Word are incapable of drawing socialist consclusions from this.  Is this what you are suggesting?

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

In order to conquer capitalism, you need, first and foremost, developed societies. Asymmetric development on the global stage, i.e. developed societies on the one side and under-developed societies on the other, will result in crushing any attempt of transcendence into socialism in the developed side; and there would be no possibility for development on the under-developed side in the first place. Imperialism, by definition, is a continuous and effective force which actively prevents all attempts of development on the under-developed side of the world, hence eliminating the possibility of socialism throughout the entire world.

 I reject completely what seems to lie behind your argument here and which, it seems to me, lends credence to the absurd Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country"You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries and even if you did, how could the "struggle against imperialism" bring that about it?  The newly "liberated" peripheral countries would soon enough fit in with the existing spatial economy of global capitalism with the comprador bourgeoisie of these countries seeking further integration within global capitalism and pimping out their countries as profitable sources of revenue for international investors to take advantage of.  Its happening all the time as we speak.  You just have to turn on the telly to see adverts extolling the investment opportunities in places like Malaysia or Nigeria and even Macedonia.Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.  I reject that completely. In  any case, it doesnt need the political assistance of socialists to promote this development.  To an extent it is happening already. Look at state capitalist China or other members of the  BRICS communityYou forget that capitalism is a global economy and the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level – not at the sub global level as the advocates of socialism in one country contend.  This is because of the integrated nature of the capitalist eocnomy and the complexity of the interdependencies that link every part of the world with every other.  Socialism is necessarily a global alternative to global capitalism.We aready have the global technolgical potential to establish socialism.  What we lack is the global working class consciousness to make that a reality.  Its is absolute rubbish to suggest that in today's interconnected global village this consciousness cannot transcend national boundaries or that we ought not to make the effort to do this on some spurious mechanistic pretext that unless a McDonalds fast food outlet is installed on very street corner of every town in the continent in Africa, we can't have world socialism.  .This is to sell your soul to those self same comprador bourgeosie of the Global South who must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of ripping  off their local populatons, having thrown off the shackles of what you call "imperialism ", only to reinforce that very thing, by opening up their markets to the Multinationals and co.

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

However, whatever their views on nationalism, it has to be said that it is a repugnant ideology as vile as racism.

That argument suits perfectly to your pro-imperialist stance, noticing that agnosticism is practically no different than pro-imperialism; the former, perhaps, being even more perilous than the latter.In other words, whatever your views on imperialism, it has to be said that it is as repugnant and vile as racism.

 Sepehr, this is a silly argument. How on earth do you  infer from the claim that it is capitalism not imperialism that we should focus our efforts  upon removing, that  this is somehow a "pro-imperialist stance"? No one here is supporting imperialism in any way shape or form.  What we are saying is that you cannot separate imperialism from capitalism and that the roots of  the former are to be found in the latter. Every single nation state on this planet – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist because every single one of them is locked into a system of global capitalism and is driven by a dynamic that is indisputably capitalist.

[robbo203]

robinhood wrote:

Hi, i am new to this forum but at the age of 60 have spent my life oscillating over socialism, marxism and there pros and cons. Needless to say any same man would probably come to the conclusion that no political ideology is going to fit an individual absolutely so best fit is the best that one should initially find acceptable. Generally reading the 'about us' part of the website I was encouraged as very largely I agree. Points needing clarification (not that i disagree) are the remarks that China, Cuba and Soviet republic were not socialist but a capitalist state. can any one expand on this.   

 Robinhood, You might find this book of some use which you can download and read. Its a bit dated but still highly relevant https://libcom.org/library/state-capitalism-wages-system-under-new-management-adam-buick-john-crump

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 If "First World" workers have been "bribed", that is because they have forced the bosses to bribe them.

Oh really?! Then how come only after US industries began to outsource their production to other countries (Mexico, Chine, etc.), American workers' wages stopped rising? How can you "force you boss" to bribe you, if there are no industries and no bosses? As I expected, your views are too Euro-centric and entirely baseless when it comes to the "Third World" countries. In this you share the ultra-right-wing creed of "You are responsible!… it's your choice!… You are lazy!…"

 This doesnt follow at all. Actually, if anything, it proves the opposite. The whole point of Lenin's daft theory is that the Labour Aristocracy in the developed capitalist economies – sometime he implied the entire working class in the developed capitalist economies – benefit from the payment of a "bribe" out of the proceeds of the "super-exploitation" of the Third World by the capitalists of the developed capitalist economies exporting their capital to the Third Wolrd.  Yet here you are saying, as proof for the existence if the imaginary bribe,  that when US industries outsourced their prduction elsewhere, American workers wages stopped rising!  On the face of it, you would expect these wages to go up  insofar as US industries profited from the superexploitation of these  other countries in the Third World where they outsourced their production to and that these industries would then pass on part of the benefit to the workers  in the mother country in the form of  a bribe .Its all a load of codswallop.  Lenin's used his Labour Aristocracy thesis to try to explain the social basis of reformism or opportunism.  The Labour Aristocracy – the labour lieutenants of capital – would form the leadership of  reformist political  parties that that would limit the aspirations of workers to getting a better deal under capitalism and so steer workers away from agitating for social revolution. In return the Labour Aristocracy would be rewarded with a "bribe"Ths begs  a nnumber of questions.  Firstly how does one identity this bribe and distinguish it from the wages and salaries the labour aristocrats receive.? The fact is, if such a bribe existed , it would be part of the wage packet. That being so you would expect the capitalists to be more amenable to demands for higher wages by these same workers they were allegdly bribing.  Why did they resist them as fiercely as they did if they were going to benefit from the loyalty of the labour aristocrats to the capitalist order? It makes no sense.  Also contrary, to Lenin's sociological explanation for the Labour Aristocracy, this section of the working class was characterised by a higher degree of militancy than average. Its ironic that many of the core membership of the Bolshevik Party were themselves members of the Labour AristocracySecondly, it is often easily overlooked that the interests of individual capitalist enterprises do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the capitalist class. as a whole  In theory , if such a bribe existed, one could see how it might be in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole to bribe the Labour aristocrats – so as to secure their political allegiance to capitalism.  In practice however, it not the capitalist class as a whole that pays the wages of these workers but their direct employers.  These capitalist businesses are in competition with each other and one of the ways in which they effectively compete is to cut costs including labour costs.  – not add to them unneceesarily in the form of a bribeAnother reason why the notion of a bribe being paid out  for some nebulous political objective is without any kind of basis in reality

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

So, not only has socialist society no need of the concept of "value" which is a market concept but it won't need a general labour-time unit of account either. It will just need to calculate what particular types of labour power are available or needed (measured by skill and time) just as it will to calculate the particular types of materials (measured in physical quantities)..

 Yes I agree 100% .  I just dont see the point in labour time accounting in a socialist society (not to be confused with labour vouchers but I dont see much point in them either).  Quite apart from the bureauccacy involved in monitoring labour time there is the intrinsic problem of how you weight differnet kinds of labour.  For example skiiled versus unskilled Concerning , "socially necessary labour time" (SNLT).I dont see how this could be applicable  in a socialist society  In Marxian theory, this forms the very substance of value and in the long run determines the ratios in which commodities exchange. However,  SNLT  is not something that you can measure with a stopwatch.   It boils down to kind of "social average" for the amount of labour required to produce a given commodity under the prevailing industry-wide  technical conditions (although, confusingly, it has also been interpreted by some  as  referring  to "best practice" techniques within a given industry) .  This is why inefficient producers using outmoded technology cannot be said to produce more "value" than efficient producers simply because they use more actual labour to produce a commodity by comparison with the latter.  The additional labour they contribute over and above SNLT does not count towards value –  or, to put it differently, the goods that they produce cannot be deemed more valuable  and thus able to command a higher price, because more actual (past) labour went into making them.  On the contrary,  their relatively lower level of productivity  is one reason why these producers might find themselves squeezed out of the market by their competitors who are able to undercut them  pricewiseFurthermore, what is  deemed "socially necessary labour" depends finally upon the commodity produced actually being sold on the market.  No value is produced to the extent that there is an overproduction of commodities in relation to what the market can absorb and, of course, this makes the question of measuring "value" all the more problematic  because we cannot exactly know in advance whether a commodity that has been produced will be sold.  It is only in the process of exchange that value manifests itself so to speak.  It is then that the value of goods, the SNLT embodied in them, will express itself indirectly, and in the long run, through the prices such goods command – which prices will tend to vary in proportion to the quantitity of  SNLT embodied in them. In other words,  the expression of value  is mediated through money units – prices.  As Marx put it: "Social labour-time exists in these commodities in a latent state, so to speak, and becomes evident only in the course of their exchange…. Universal social labour is consequently not a ready-made prerequisite but an emerging result’ (Marx, K, 1981, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London, p.45). Another reason why SNLT would have no purpose in  a non market socialist society

[Author]

Posts