[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

An update on this thread that some may find of interesthttp://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/stone-age-massacre-offers-earliest-evidence-human-warfare-kenya

Quote:

“The deaths at Nataruk are testimony to the antiquity of inter-group violence and war,” said Marta Mirazón Lahr, from the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at Cambridge, who led the study. “These human remains record the intentional killing of a small band of foragers with no deliberate burial, and provide unique evidence that warfare was part of the repertoire of inter-group relations among some prehistoric hunter-gatherers…The Nataruk massacre may have resulted from an attempt to seize resources – territory, women, children, food stored in pots – whose value was similar to those of later food-producing agricultural societies among whom violent attacks on settlements became part of life…Nataruk may simply be evidence of a standard antagonistic response to an encounter between two social groups at that time.”

 I dont quite undestand the logic behind this.  The  attempt to "seize resources – territory, women, children, food stored in pot"  surely presupposes a sedentary society which is not what hunter gatherers are. The standard response of HGs to external aggression is flight not warfare.

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

You wrote: "This sums up your misunderstanding neatly"Quite contrary, it shows your own misunderstanding. "If everything is held in common how can exchange take place?" Who said that everything would be held in common?! That is a common misunderstanding about Marx's idea of "abolition of private appropriation of means of production".Besides, I did not invent that statement myself. Go back and read the statement I had quoted from Marx.

 "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning" Critique of the Gotha Progamme K Marx

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Dont you mean surplus PRODUCT?  Im not sure this would even be meaningful in the context of a socialist society.  There will just be different products satisfying different ends and that there will be opportunity costs involvd in producing anything at all

No, surplus product is what peasants make over subsistance.  Surplus profit is where a capitalist firm produces at a rate below the average socially necessary labour time (though technical innovation, say) but can still sell 'above value' by selling at the prevailing market rate.

 OK Im with you now…

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Also, I note you are still conflating surplus value with surplus profit, as clearly explained, average socially necessary labour time is the definition of the total value of a commodity: surplus value is the difference between the value of labour power and the average socially necessary labour time that goes into a  commodity.  What you are arguing is closer to Proudhon than it is to Marx.

 Dont you mean surplus PRODUCT?  Im not sure this would even be meaningful in the context of a socialist society.  There will just be different products satisfying different ends and that there will be opportunity costs involvd in producing anything at all

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

 . It also shows how a socialist society could replace the chaotic capitalist markets with a conscious social plan, and that is never possible without value measurements and system. …….The concept of communes is at the core of communism. Notice that communes is in plural form, i.e. there are several communes interacting with each other in a given society and that interaction will definitely include commodity exchange too. However, this exchange will acquire new qualities and is different from that undertaken between capitalist firms. Therefore it is impermissible to suggest a communist society is no different than a Ford plant!

 This does not follow at all.  In fact you whole argument seems to be based on a contradiction.  First you assert socialism  or communism , according  to Marx,  will be a based on a "conscious social plan" i.e  society wide central planningThen you assert it will involve communes interacting with each other spontaneously i.e. that planning occurs at the level  of the communes and not society – and that these unplanned interactions will "defintely include commodity exhange too".  Thats nonsense.  When did Marx ever suggest commodity  exchange would continue in communism?.  As the Communist Manifesto itself noted, communism would entail the "communistic abolition of buying and selling" i.e. commodity productionI think where your reasonuing goes wrong is in assuming that anything short of full scale society-wide  central planning must entail market exchange.   I totally reject that argument.  Its the kind of argument put forward by the Ancaps to justify the need for a market.  In fact I would argue that the only realistic model of a totally non market socialist or communist economy would be one which would be very largely self regulatng  and decentralised. We see this in embryonic form today in the system of physical accounting   – stock control – that exists alongside the system of monetary accounting linking business enterprises along a supply chain. Socialism will dispense with monetary accounting  but will retain the physical accounting aspect of this relationship There would be no economic exchange in the quid pro quo sense since this necessarily implies private property and hence the absence of common ownership.  It would be very wrong to deduce from the mere existence of numerous planning bodies e.g. your aforementioned communes, the existence of private property as such which is what, I think , you are doing.

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

It is possible that Hardy was correct then but not now. There will be no need for any cut in living standards. Workers suffering extreme poverty only need to be free from capitalism to rapidly increase their living standards.But even if we in the 'west' did have to lower our living standards briefly, how does that invalidate the Party's (and indeed that of Marx and Engels) claim that the case for socialism is based on the material interests of the working class? People all over the world and in poverty have material interests in common with mine.My interests are inextricably tied to all workers. If we wait for 'Morality' to bring about socialism, we will wait a very long time

Hi VinIm not too sure that Hardy's view would be incorrect now.  Could you substantiate this claim? I think in the early days of socialism there will indeed be a need to redirect resources to areas of the world where current living conditions of most people is pretty appaling and that this will necessitate some self restraint and reduced consumption levels on the part of workers living in areas that are much more favourably endowed.  I honestly cant see any way round this but nor do I see it as presenting a problem.  I believe people would be willing to assist  in this way as part of the caring ethos of socialism and, as I said before, there is a lot more to life than one's standard of livingAlso I am not suggesting the argument that socialism is based on material interests is invalid.  Of course material interests are involved  But the case for socialism is also based on morality – necessarily.  Indeed , I would argue that  the very concept of class consciousness is itself an implicitly moral concept. That is to say, you consider the wellbeing of others (fellow workers in this instance) as having value in itself.  That is a moral position, by definition.  If on the other you take what is called an "instrumentalist" view of others, seeing them as merely a means to your own end then I would suggest this would  seriously subvert the very reason for wanting to work for socialism.  It would be more profitable for you to redirect your efforts into becoming a rich capitalist (which would certainly be in your in your material interests as an individual!)So no, socialism is about both "morality" in this broad sense and "material interests" and I think these thing would nicely complement each other in the way a socialist world would tackle the enormous structural problem of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism.  Over time this will diminish but it aint gonna happen overnight

[robbo203]

Just a few random points on this threadIn response to Alan’s point Ike says:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

“Are you saying that British workers should not be allowed to defend their living standards?” Are you saying the English are not entitled to defend their standards from in-coming Welsh and Scots? That those in the Home Counties should not defend themselves from those Northerners new-comers. Should east-enders in London should now stop those from south London from re-locating.If we're talking about what happens in reality, then we're talking about 'British workers'.  You hypothesise a labour conflict between various sub-nationalities, but that is not a current issue, and I also made it clear why the issue of imported labour might be raised by trade unions when we discussed the Lithuanian workers, your example.  It's not a dislike of other nationalities, or any sort of racial bigotry, it is rather a reflection of the right of workers to defend their livelihood, living standards, families and way of life.  It seems to me that you sneer at all this from a metropolitan standpoint, and that would explain the irrelevancy of your Party, notwithstanding that you are theoretically correct about capitalism. 

 I find this riposte weak and unconvincing. It doesn’t really address the argument Alan raises at all which is why, if you are going to stop outsiders from entry ,do you stop at the boundaries of the nation state. What is it about boundaries of the nation state that makes it significant as a socio spatial entity? Why not oppose workers from the north of England or Scotland from relocating to southern England or vice versa. Or people from Devon relocating to Cornwall  (I lived in Cornwall for a while and knew a bunch of Cornish nationalists  whilst there).  Or West Londoners from taking jobs from East Londoners. Ike does not really answer this point  at all.Presumably the “theoretical correctness” of the Socialist Party includes its analysis of the nation state as a capitalist construct.  Yet here Ike is seeking to validate and reinforce the nation state as the organising principle of social life and by extension the capitalist ideology that underpins the nation state and its stratagem of divide and rule.  By identifying with the nation state in this way this can only have consequence of cutting across and undermining our class identification with fellow workers right across the world.  However you look at it, that is necessarily to work directly against the struggle to realise a world socialist society. Another point.  Ike says he is a socialist in sympathy with the goal of world socialism.  Let’s look at this.He talks in highly melodramatic terms of the negative impact of immigration on workers living standards. Actually the statistics refute his claims and I see Alan has beaten me to it in listing some sources which show Ike’s claims to be based on a gross exaggeration.  The impact is negligible and moreover he fails to take into account emigrationBut let’s look at this question from the perspective of world socialism. Imagine for a moment that we have just brought into being a global socialist society.  This society will have inherited to a great extent the spatial inequalities of capitalism. How would such a society deal with thus?I recall an article by the late comrade Hardy that was printed in the Socialist Standard many years ago  (I think it was a part of a series on the subject of Marx’s conception of socialism). Now I seem to remember Hardy suggesting somewhat controversially that , come the revolution, a substantial chunk of the working class in the West may well have to endure a short term fall in living standards to enable the rest of the world to catch up.  That idea stuck with me and I think there is something in it.  It’s part of the reason why I don’t agree with Vin wen he says the case for socialism is not based on morality but on material interests  I think it is necessarily both and the above illustrates neatly illustrates this very point.There is, in any case, lot there more to life than one’s “standard of living” – quality of life, for instance – and I for one would happily reduce my standard of living if it ensured a better quality of life.  This obsessive preoccupation with living standards is bound up to a large extent in my view with ethos if crass consumerism which I earnestly hope will disappear come socialism The point of my mentioning Hardy’s argument is that it hones in on what Ike is saying in a very direct way.  Ike is suggesting that workers should organise to protect their living standards by opposing immigration.  Quite apart from deflecting attention from what is the overwhelming and primary threat to their living standards  which is the constant downward pressure exerted by capital (which is amplified at times of capitalist crises), has Ike considered the implications of what he is saying here from the standpoint of a world socialist society? I think the persistence of such a nationalist perspective on the interest of workers which he seems to be calling for, would not only obstruct the realisation of a world socialist society but, were such a society to be realised, would fatally undermine it. It would set the stage for intolerable competitive tensions over the spatial distribution of resources. You cannot separate the end and the means to achieve that end.  The ethos of a socialist society has to be prefigured in the movement to bring about that society. Ike’s approach to this subject will not bring about socialism; it will entrench capitalism 

[robbo203]

I like it Vin.  There are a few small errors but it is on the right lines.  Incidentally have a look at the youtube jondwhite posted under general discussion on "political language".  An interesting  analysis of Trumps style of verbal delivery which is very effective even if he  is talking utter crapI think Tim makes a valid point about including  a bit with Neill from the point of view of enhancing credibility.Some official facts and figurse would not go amiss either e.g. the number of empty homes compared with the number of homeless people. I have some data on that…

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Come on cdes! Some input so I can move on with it. 

What about something from capitalism & Other Kids Stuff?  Or that rather good video by Spencer CathcartThe Lie We Live

[robbo203]

Mike Foster wrote:

2016's Summer School will be held over the long weekend 22nd – 24th July, at Fircroft College in Birmingham. The theme of the event's talks and workshops is… up to you! There are four potential subjects – Democracy, Money, Borders, and Left and Right – which anyone can vote for by posting a ballot paper at head office. There's a small display there about the event, and a ballot box. So, if you're going to ADM, please take the time to have a look and give your opinion. The theme with the most votes after 4th November will be the one chosen for Summer School. This isn't an official party vote, by the way.

 Of the four potential subjects, "money" sounds the most interesting.  It might also be the most potentially fruitful if you can engage organisations like TZM and the Money Free Party

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

It reminds me of this story from 2012 about the test revealing Michelle Obama's speech which was the highest grade level in history and was contrasted with Ann Romney's which was at the lowest grade level in historyhttp://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2012/09/05/michelle-obamas-dnc-speech-wri/Does simpler language resonate more?

 It seems to resonate more with the  more dogmatically minded who are comfortable with vague and vacuous  generalisations as in the case of Anne Romney.  Not that that necessarily means we should forsake simpler language for more complex sentence constructions.  Quite often the latter can camouflage muddleheadedness behind a screen of apparent profundity

[robbo203]

Yes it is interesting. Perhaps those organising "speakers classes" (do these exist?) in the SPGB ought to take note. Not too sure that the conclusions apply so readily to the written format though…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I think that you severely underestimate the support for my criticism, alan, based on two factors:1. the continued statements of all the members/supporters of the SPGB who post here (including you, even though you still seem to be unaware of it, even given your openly stated lack of knowledge), and all those who read and fail to post against, that they will not have workers' democracy in the means of production; and

 Here we go again. More misinformation from LBird.  "Workers democracy in the means of production" is one thing; workers democratically voting to determine the "truth" of scientific theories is a totally different thing.No one on this forum that I am aware of has posted anything remotely suggesting that there will not be democratic control over the means of production in a socialist society.  What has been attacked is LBird's absolutely balmy idea about the global population voting on thousand upon thousands of scientific (and other ) theories.  There is absolutely no point in that and it is totally impractical anywaySo not only has our resident elitist snob, LBird, deigned not to answer our humdrum practical questions concerning the feasability of what he proposes –  he prefers not to dirty his hands with such lowly matters to and to keep to the rarifed air of philosophical abstractions –  but now he resorts to lying through his teeth to shore up what credibility  he has left which is rapidly draining away through through the many, and by now pretty much gaping,  holes in his argument.Its quite pathetic really…

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Robbo, you know full well that we shouldn't make words mean something that it doesn'tLeninism – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeninismI'm not googling all the definitions of what Leninism means but there are agreed features to it…and as i and LBIrd agress (and you too), Leninism has its birth in the 2nd International and Kautskyism. Taling one aspect of Leninism and making it an ism on it own to win a political argument doesn't strike me as quite accurateI'm sure there is a practical way for 7 billion to vote but just periodically…the Chinese and the Indian populations are both well over a billion each and they can organise it every few years…And Tim has referred to X-Factor but there could be a global mechanism to register views and opinions…We chose songs via Eurovision contest that i believe is now based upon viewers registering their choice, it could be adjusted and YMS has studied various methods of this….LBird has made it clear several times that he supports workers councils, that is usually a decentralised delegatory structure of manufacture, not a command economy

Sorry but I disagree with you Alan.  What LBird is proposing inexorably leads to an outcome that is clearly Leninist in character. It is presupposing, as the norm ,society-wide (meaning global) mechanisms of decision-making which by default if not by design – because if the sheer impracticality of what is being proposed – must inevitaby result in the concentration of power in the hands of a vanguard. (Recall Lenin's words about turning the world into "one big factory" and add to that Lenin's preferred mode of adminstering this factory in the form of one man management"). You see, in LBird's worldview its not just a question of establishing what is the Truth of a scientific theory. It is arming that truth with the moral authority of a supposedly democratic vote,  We are back to the days when questioning the ptolemaic orthodoxy of a geocentric universe could  get you burnt on the stake. After all what is the point of going through the whole charade of democratic vote on scientific Truth if not to enforce it?And I am not convinced by your suggestion that he supports workers councils which usually indicates a delegatry structure of manufacture. Workers councils or soviets can quite easily in principle fit in with the model of a command economy as components in a rigidly hierarchical structure of decision making – democratic centralism . Same differenceI think you are being too soft on LBird frankly and letting him off the hook.Its the kind of ideas that he is spouting that makes a laughing stock of socialism and encourages workers to dismss as some kind of utopian and totally impractical dream. I dont doubt that there can be a global mechanism for determing the global view on some matter of global significance. But the whole point is that such a vote would be an extreme rarity not a routine procedure a la LBird..  You mention China and India with populations of over a billion each. Even in these instances the organisational effort to undertake even a single vote or referendum is immense. Multiply that by several times and you get an idea of the costs involved in such a global vote – that is assuming it is a meaningful  vote and not just some pious resolution.The opportunity costs of our actions is not something we can just brush aside even in a socialist society

[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Robbo 203 wrote "That means quite literally 7 billion individuals voting upon thousands upon thousands of scientific theories to decide whether or not they are "true" ."You forgot to mention that Mathematics would also be involved in this process, so there would be thousands of Mathematical theorems to vote on as well. I'm not sure if it would only be the theories developed in the Capitalist era that would need to be democratically decided upon or whether the theories from Classical societies would be up for grabs as well?It also begs the question, at what stage of the development of theory is it put to the vote, as no theory is ever complete.I suppose we could organise a kind of TV show format around the vote. We could call it the X x Y = 1 Factor. I can't see it being huge Saturday night viewing though. No doubt there is some twat at Channel 5 reading this thinking, "oh now, that could work"

LOL Tim.  And why stop there. What about the Arts and the Humanities? Or even something as mundane as cultural expression. We could have a global vote on the aesthetics of everyday clothing for example. Perhaps we should all be decked out in our little Chairman Mao suits.  I mean we wouldnt want to be seen as different, would we? That 's "bourgeois individualism" and next LBird will be telling us that weve become "running dogs of capitalism" or some such

[Author]

Posts