[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

FFS I should have known better and that sooner or later or later we would stray on to  this same old monotonous dead-end obsession that LBird has which seems to be the final resting place of each and every discussion anyone ever has with him.

 Which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't transparently a strawman/aunt sally technique. We didn't know that expoitation is a social relationship ffs. 

 Exactly Vin.  And the fact that it is a social relationship does not mean it is not quantifiable.  These things are not mutually exclusive. LBird imagine for some strange reason that he is a Marxist but no Marxist would take up the peculiarly nonsensical position  LBIrd has taken which  would rule out the possibility of a Marxian economics altogether. Like I said, if exploitation cannot be quantified how could you begin to talk about a rate of exploitation as Marx did.  In fact,  by  LBird's reasoning there is no way of telling whether it is the capitalist exploiting the worker or the worker exploiting the capitalist and the whole notion of surplus value or even value must fall by the waysideI would like for him to have explained what exactly he think defines a capiutalust if not someone who has a considerable amount of capital – a quantifiable thing – but as usual he has fled the stage leaving a trail of  unanswered questions and the distinct whiff of red herrings in his wake

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession.

[my bold]No.It's not an 'amount' (a quantitative factor).It's a 'social relationship' (a qualitative factor).Once more, robbo, your philosophical basis is individualist liberalism, not democratic communism.You are interested in 'personal possession' that can be mathematised, counted, quantified, by a method open to individuals, especially an elite of individuals.

FFS I should have known better and that sooner or later or later we would stray on to  this same old monotonous dead-end obsession that LBird has which seems to be the final resting place of each and every discussion anyone ever has with him.Yes LBird we all know that "exploitation is a social relationship"  Stop trying to teach us how to such eggs! The relevant question is how do you differentiate between the two parties that make  up or constitute  this dyadic relationship?  What distinguishes a capitalist from a worker?If you were a Marxist then you would know the answer to that.  A capitalist is someone who possesses sufficient capital to enable him or her to live off the proceeds of his or her investments.  If you have another definition of a capitalist then lets hear itThere is no such thing as a free-floating social relationship that does not occur between empirical flesh and blood people.  Just as there is not such a thing as the individual outside society so there is no such thing as a society without individualsYou have never understood that and that is the same reason why you do  not  understand that exploitation is both qualitative and quantitative. You claim to be a Marxist but what was Marx thinking of writing about the "rate if exploitation" is he imagined it could not be quantified after a fashion?And the biggest joke of all is that you then proceed to solemnly inform us that the  bourgeoisie constitute 5% of the population. Pray do tell us –  how did you arrive at this …er…quantitative figure and on what basis did you differentiate between the bourgeoisie and the rest of us if not in some quantitative fashion?Over to you LBird

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

'Income', meaning 'earnings' or 'earned income', has nothing to do with 'class'. The belief that 'income' relates to 'class' is a liberal individualist belief, and comes from bourgeois sociology.'Class' is a 'social relationship' which is 'exploitative'. So, a boss who has a poorly-performing firm, and continues to pay their workers more than they receive themslef, is in a different class from the workers, and is still exploiting those workers, even though they have more income than the boss.This example may be an extreme one, which doesn't often occur, but is used to bring out the exploitative relationship at the heart of the Marxist definition of 'class'.It is not defined by 'income', but by 'exploitative relationship'.

Qualifying it as "unearned" income would certainly be strongly indicative of an exploitative relationship, though  Also the income stream generated by a capitalist's investment does not all go towards funding the personal consumption needs of that capitalist.  Much of it wlll be reinvested as capital.The proportions may vary according to circumstances   So the above boss may pay himself less than his workers but the other part of his income which you overlook will go towards keeping the business – HIS  business – afloat

.LBird wrote:

If I was pressed to put a % figure on classes, I would probably put it at 5% bourgeoisie, 15% petit-bourgeoisie, and 80% proletariat. Of course, these are estimates, and subject to changes in capitalism, and location in world production, but they help us to get away from the liberal nonsense that only 1% (or even less) are our enemies.That is, perhaps 1 in 5 people have a socio-economic interest in capitalism continuing, at present. That's why they are still very powerful and influential. Things will change, but it doesn't pay to underestimate the difficulties facing us at present.

 "Petit-bourgeoisie" is category that can and ought to be dropped in my opinion though some leftists love to use the term as a handy form of abuse. It is also ironically a divisive term that divides workers form each each other , makes the working class seem smaller than it is,and thereby serves the interests of capital.   If you want to be pedantic about it, most workers own a little bit of capital anyway – even if its just a savings account tucked away in a post office.  Many also contribute to one or other pension fund. The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession.  This is where quantitative differences become qualitative onesFrom that point of view there are only two classes in society – the capitalists and the workers – but there is a grey area where one class shades into the other.The figure of 5% for the bourgeosie is far too high in my opinion – certainly in global terms.  Though you dismiss income as an indicator of class – I tend to think of it as a proxy indicator – 5% would include a lot of people on a substantially lower income than the $32K threshold required to get you into the top 1% of income earners globally.  I dont think it is remotely plausible that a member of the bourgeosie or capitalist class would have an income of $32k per year let alone substantially less.Consequently a more realistic figure would be something like 99.9% workers (we will disregrard the position of peasants for the sake of the argument) and 0.1% capitalists.  There are sociological gradations within the working class of course but at end of the day the vast majority are working class because they possess little or no capital to live upon

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Yes, this is often the argument i have heard on Fox TV. That most Americans are part of the 1% so why should the poor be complaining… 

Maybe Fox TV sees eye to eye with Lenin on the question of the Labour aristocracy LOL

[robbo203]

Ah sorry the figure should be 32K US dollars not pounds.  So the threshold of entry to the top 1% in global terms is even lower than the one I citedI couldnt find the orginal FB article but found this instead which corrobrates what I said above"According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut.Using current exchange rates, that amounts to roughly:29,100 euros2.1 million Indian rupees, or200,900 Chinese yuanSo if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top one percent worldwide"Read more: Are You In The Top One Percent Of The World? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp#ixzz3salV7NLiFollow us: Investopedia on Facebook  As an afterthought I suppose it could be argued that wjat essentially characterises a member of the capitalist class is the possession of capital rather than a high income stream as such.  This is true but I would imagine there is a significant degree of correlation between these two things… 

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

It seems LBird rejects this material analysis but doesn't have an alternative – apart from we all have a vote to value items – so resorts to obfuscation and becomes frustratedThat is hardly simplifying things for fellow workers, is it?

LOL.That is to put it mildly! But I dont think LBird has the foggiest idea just how daft what he is arguing for actually is. He is a completely lost in his own little fantasy world, bless his little cotton socks.  Apart from anything else, the valuation of goods according to their socially necessary labour content is an abstraction  relevant only to a society in which goods take the form of commodities.  It wont be relevant in the slightest to a communist society in which commodity production has ceased to exist.  End of.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

The materialists, including you robbo, have already 'concluded' that there is 'nothing of substance' to 'ideas'.That's the whole point of Engels' 'materialism'.The bourgeoisie removed 'consciousness' from its considerations of 'nature/being', to reflect their removal of 'society' from 'property'.They supposedly 'discover' an 'external static reality', whereas Marx argued for the 'changing' of a 'malleable relationship between consciousness and being'.I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

 No, LBird, there  nothing of substance to YOUR ideas, not "ideas" as such you numbskull ! In particular your totalistic idea of the global workforce  democratically controlling every aspect of world production which is a breathtakingly stupid idea.  And if you cant see that by now then I have no hope for you. Strangely enough , though you would not have noticed it, so obsessed are you with presenting an utterly distorted picture of what other people are saying in order to give yourself a leg up, I have actually been no less critical of mechanical materialism and postivisim as you have been.  But you have conveniently forgotten all that havent you? Always always always  -you conveniently find  some way of evading having to the answer the simple straightforward questions I asked of you in my previous post.  Always!  You are intellectually dishonest  and devious  LBird.  I really cannot be bothered to take you seriously anymore

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"?

Y'know, sometimes I wonder at the childishness of all this.I say 'theory and practice' – the materialists say 'what about practice, LBird'.I say 'subject and object' – the materialists say 'what about object, LBird'.I say 'ideal and material' – the materialists say 'what about material, LBird'.I say 'mind and matter' – the materialists say 'what about matter, LBird'.I say 'consciousness and being' – the materialists say 'what about being, LBird'.I say 'quality and quantity' – the materialists say 'what about quantity, LBird'.I just know that if I said that 'I love cheese and onion crisps', the materialists would complain about my hatred of onion.I have to believe that you're all doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that 'materialists can't read'. It's so circular and depressing – we never take the discussion forward.

 Well you started it all off by your assertion that it is "not a matter of counting heads" when you could have very easily said it is "not ONLY a matter of counting heads" Clearly you do now acknowlege that counting heads does matter.  Good.  So  now can we move on to the main points which are 1.  How will 7 billion workers be expected to vote on the question of value in the workers democracy?  What are the mechanisms and procedures involved in a global vote of this kind? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?and2, Why do you consider that the law of value will continue to apply in a communist society thus requiring the workers to vote upon its application when such a law is only applicable to a commodity producing society?Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..

Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird.  So help me our here.  You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy.  Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?

No, it's not 'a matter of counting heads' (a physical count of material beings), but 'a matter of counting minds/opinions' (which includes, obviously, consciousness). So, it's as much qualitative as quantitative. 'Counting heads' is merely quantitative. You might argue 'it's only a matter of words', but I think your choice of words is very revealing.

 You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"? How would you know what was the majority position and what was the minority position without "counting"?  The idea is absurd. That aside you have still not answered my main point LBird.  Why in a communist society would workers want to vote on the question of value at all?  Value as I tried to explain, pertains only to a system of commodity production.  Communists advocate a society without commodity prduction yet here you are arguing that value is something that will be a question to be voted upon in a communist society. You clearly do not understand Marxism if you think that law of value will apply to such a society.

LBird wrote:

To control the means of production, we have to control all of our social activities. There can't be an elite who claim to know, outside of our democratic control. That leads to 'private property' in both ideal and material.

 There are two different responses to this claim of yours LBird Firstly, your postion is far too black of white. We either have to control all our social acitivites or an elite will control them, according to you.  I take a quite different position to your control freakery .  That there will be a huge chunk of our social acitivites that will not need to be subject to any control at all but will be spontaneously orderedSecondly who is the "we" in "we have to control all our social activities".  Are the citizens of Greenwich in communist New York going to have the right to determine where the citizens of Barnet in communist London want to locate their spanking new community centre in a future communist society? If so can you explain how this is going to be done in practice.  If not , then this would mean that some of us would control some social activities relevant to us while others would control other activities relevant to them so that there would be a spatial division in  decisionmaking.This, too, undercuts your simplistic black-or-white representation of democratic control in a communist society

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy?  What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?

You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?

 Not at all   LBird.  Im just curious as to how you figure 7 billion workers are gonna vote on the question of value.  What does that mean in plain english? What is the motion(s) that they are supposed to be voting on? What are the procedures involved in collecting and processing the votes of 7 billion workers? And what is gonna happen when the result of the global vote is  eventually revealed – that is to say, what is the real world effect that this vote is goonna have? Why are you so reticent about providing a straight answer to all these fairly simple straightforward questions?Oh and while you are at it, could you please explain what is the point in voting on the question of value anyway.  You claim to be a Marxist.  Well I thought that that Marx was fairly clear on the matter – that socially necessary labour time was something that was only discoverable through the market in a post hoc sense. Do you envisage retaining the market in your workers democracy LBird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..

 Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird.  So help me our here.  You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy.  Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Do we really have to have a discussion about the benefits of 'democracy' for the proletariat?I won't derail this thread, but simply say that I was answering alan's appeal for an understandable explanation.One's view of 'value' will be determined by one's view of "workers' democracy".

 Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy?  What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote? I fondly imagined that the "law of value" would disappear under communism anyway

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

.  Robbo, why bother responding in anyway to religious fundamentalism, whether it is IS terror or assassination of abortion clinic doctors?  I agree that we don't end social ills by arguments which i think is what you mean. Only by the creation of a just equitable economic system removes the core root causes of religion. Like the State religion withers on the vine when socialism is established , but we cannot have socialism without the acceptance and cooperation of the majority of people which means we have to devise an approach that is inclusive of those with religious beliefs.

 You misunderstand me, Alan.  Im all for attacking the objectionable social policies of various religions.  What I question is the point in attacking the metaphysical assumptions underlying religious beliefs.  As I read you, you seemed to me saying that we have to point out to  religious folk that they are mistaken. which I took to mean that they are mistaken in holding those metaphysical assumptions and that the task of a socialist party is thus inter alia  to convert such people to an atheist position.  This, in my view, is utterly futile pointless and irrelevant.  If we are going depend on the working class rejecting religion thats never gonna happen.  On the contrary, as the link I provided shows, religion is gaining ground both absolutely and relatively on a world scale notwithstanding the process of secularisationAs an addendum to this I would point out that  the overwhelming majority of atheists are firmly pro-capitalist and, in my experience, atheists tend to be disproportionately more militantly pro capitalist  than non atheists.  If you don't believe me pop along to the Socialism versus Capitalism FB  page (which has incredible amount of traffic and it growing by leaps and bounds). I have been active putting across socialist ideas on this site for a few weeks now and have had the usual run-ins with a large number of people on such issues as the refugee crisis and terrorism,  Interestingly,  those who take a hard line nationalistic even racist position on these matters, Ive noticed,  tend also in the main to be declared atheists.  I  find this quite disturbing actually and it does kinda demonstrate how a blanket critique of religion can quite easeliy  be co-opted by some unsavory anti-socialist cause.  Repeatedly you find the same old argument cropping up.  The Quran says this therefore this is how Muslims behave.  Since what the Quran says is objectionable therefore we must oppose Muslims and prevent them coming into the country to undermine "our way of life".  Always the assumption is that you can read off how a Muslim is likely to behave by perusing the Quran – as if Muslims don't cherry pick the bits they like and conveniently forget those they don't just like Christians do with the bible.  As Ive pointed out repeatedly to these Islamophobes if what they said was true how would you account for conflict between Muslims themselves.  How could they come to be at each others throat if they were all singing from the same hymn sheet Now I quite agree that correlation does signify causation and I would be the last to suggest that applicants to the SPGB who profess to hold atheistic should therefore be excluded from membership . But exactly the same argument should apply in the case of religious applicants.  Each applicant should be considered solely on the basis of  her understanding of what socialism  is about and her affirmation that this is an objective that she wants to see realised regardless of whether she holds religious beliefs or not,  But this is not the case at the present time is it 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You will say you have the better way than than the enn xclusivity of the SPGB. But you yourself if i interpret your past posts have a fairly narrow definition of socialists with religious ideas, ie you also cannot accommodate any who adhere to various church canon or whatever, there has to a "revolution" within many religions…some say the process is now going on in christianity but can we say that with the election of Modi and murders of beef-eaters in India, just to use another example that is not muslim fundamentalism, is this "revolutionary" transformation of religion really happening?   

 Pragmatically speaking I have argued a case for a compromise postilion which allows in only those individuals who do not actually belong to an organised religion.  So people holding personal religious views would be admitted.  However  ideally speaking  I would prefer even this restriction to be dropped.  If someone is a member of the Muslim faith and happens also to be a socialist,  I think sooner or later the problem of trying to square her socialist convictions with some of the objectionable social policies of that faith will cause her to drift away from it.  Either that or should there be sufficient numbers  of Muslim socialists to make a difference this  might actually transform the character of that religion in quite a dramatic way.  I personally don't think thats likely in the case of Islam  but it might be in the case of some other religions.  Religion has a remarkable capacity to adapt to changing social circumstances and it will be interesting to see what form religion will take in a socialist society.  That is assuming we will ever get such a society which we wont if we insist that everyone needs to be an atheist before we can have socialism

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

. With a billion and a half who profess adherence to Islam, sooner or later we must try to convince them that they are as mistaken as Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. 

 Why bother Alan?  Religions have always been adaptable.  Far better to focus simply on the objectionable social policies that various religions endorse rather than metaphysics of religion  as such.  Then everything else will fall into line. Socialist believers within these religions themselves will be a factor in bringing about this adaptation If you going to try to get  Islamists, Christians Hindus Buddhists et al to believe that they are  mistaken in a blanket sort of way then you have set yourself  the task of Sisyphus.  Its just not going to happen and the sooner comrades wake up to this fact the better,  The secularisation thesis is just not working out and was never likely to“Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population”http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050

[robbo203]

Here's something that might be of interesthttp://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cancer-modern-capitalism-1323585268

[Author]

Posts