robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:I was referring to the Muslim population in France. My suspicion is that they're now more likely to want to strongly disassociate themselves completely from the likes of ISIS post Paris, rather than court more yet Islamophobia which is not in their interest. The statement from the British Council of Muslims seems to bear this out . In this sense the ISIS strategy is counter productive in that it is likely to reduce the pool of potential supporters among Muslims in western countries with Muslims themselves taking the initiative in this regard in coming out against ISIS in blunt forthright terms.
More proof of thishttp://mashable.com/2014/09/22/notinmyname-muslims-anti-isis-social-media-campaign/?utm_campaign=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it#cFkPrPbliiq6
LBird wrote:.They know that, no matter how many innocents they murder, the response of The Real Terrorists in our world will be to murder even more of those from whom the 'guerillas' originate. Since that potentially supportive population will have already experienced much worse violence and many more deaths from murderous policies of The Real Terrorists, than happened in Paris, they will have little sympathy for those murdered in Paris.I was referring to the Muslim population in France. My suspicion is that they're now more likely to want to strongly disassociate themselves completely from the likes of ISIS post Paris, rather than court more yet Islamophobia which is not in their interest. The statement from the British Council of Muslims seems to bear this out . In this sense the ISIS strategy is counter productive in that it is likely to reduce the pool of potential supporters among Muslims in western countries with Muslims themselves taking the initiative in this regard in coming out against ISIS in blunt forthright terms. It is also counterproductive in that it is likely to prompt a stronger military response to add to the pounding that Russian warplanes are currently delivering. But yes for Muslims living in the places like Syria, I agree that the outrage that occurred in Paris is unlikely to weigh that heavily on their minds
LBird wrote:Capitalism is recruiting for a war. Calling only one side 'scum' is dangerous, and shows a bias to the ruling class.I'm quite happy to call the ruling class scum as well and have done so. And i have repeatedly pointed out on forums that I am involved in that this is a case of reaping what you sow, ISIS being the outcome of western military adventurism in the main. That doesn't make ISIS any the less scum though
alanjjohnstone wrote:Will most people differentiate between ISIS and muslims? There is a good chance of a backlash…and it has been happening for some years now as islamophobia has grown …Followers of Islam being tarred with the same brush. This alienates them and provides an increasing pool for ISIS to recruit from, not a shrinking one as Robbo believes…the rudimentary propaganda tools remain the same …my "people" right or wrong. Didn't we have experience of this in Ireland…when internment created converts to the "cause".I am not sure that that is true in this case, Alan. There are two conflicting tendencies at work here in response to Islamophobia. One is to alienate Muslims and provide , as you say, a larger pool of potential support for organisations like ISIS. But there is another tendency at work too which is a move to deflect Islamophobia by siding with the status quo in its attack on extremism. This is exemplified by the approach adopted by bodies like the Muslim Council of Britain http://www.mcb.org.uk/horrific-attacks-in-paris-muslim-council-of-britain-responds/ I would posit that the more dramatic the outrage the more likely is the second tendency to prevail. In France since the Charlie Hebdo incident, attacks on Muslims have increased significantly. I would imagine that most Muslims would be extremely wary and fearful of the consequences of this latest outrage in Paris for themselves, their job prospects, their children and so on. This is why I suggest a tipping point may have been reached and that we are likely now to see a decline in support for organisations like ISIS. In other words what ISIS has done has been self defeating
ALB wrote:Go here and scroll down and click to see inside and see what Niall Ferguson says on pages 17 and 18 of his 2008 best seller The Ascent of Money:http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0718194004#reader_0718194004I notice that Ferguson goes on to make some absolutely ludicrous claims about hunter gatherer societies!
ALB wrote:What's wrong with these nutters? Anyway, I'm not going to Paris for the climate change demonstrations there on 1 December. Not sure about going to the one in central London on 30 November either. And some people think fascism is still the main threat to rational civilisation.These scum seem to have lost the power of reasoning altogether. Even in terms of their own sick agenda, this is stupidity in a grand scale. What could they have possibly hoped to have achieved by it? It will lead to a redoubling of efforts to crush ISIS militarily if indeed this atrocity was carried out by ISIS returnees as seems likely. It will also, I think, likely push most Muslims in the direction of much more vigorously disowning what is being done in their name as a way of dealing with the fallout and backlash of a rising tide of anti Muslim sentiment which may well mean the potential support base for ISIS and co, steadily shrinking. These morons cant seem to see that what they have done makes their fascist dystopia an even more improbable and unfeasible option than it was to begin with. Thanks ISIS – with a single stroke youve made the task of revolutionary socialists that much more difficult in a world in which a cowed and insecure population will accede even more willingly to the authoritarian edicts of governments – those same governments whose military adventurism in the Middle East is what gave birth to this Frankenstein monster that is ISIS, in the first place
perspicacious wrote:Natural capital, human capital, and social capital, can't be subordinated to financial capital, a point that socialists misinterpret and carry too far with a bizarre belief that a cadre of elite central planners can somehow replace the countless decisions made by individuals in deciding how goods, services, and other value propositions are weighed, measured, and exchanged.Where do you get this bizzare idea that socialists hold this bizarre belief?
ALB wrote:perspicacious wrote:Capitalism is a natural by-product of human nature and has been around since the dawn of time.Nul point for that one. That's not a redefinition, just an old chestnut.Even supporters of capitalism recognise that it's not always existed and had a historical origin in what has been called 'the long 16th century'. For instance, from today's papers:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4611701.ece
Although some supporters of capitalism – like Eugen Bohm-Bawek , a leading figure in the Austrian School of economic thought – have argued that the "roundabout" method of production involving intermediate products – tools – entails "capital" and is thus presumably "capitalist" by nature. This was an audacious, but quite futile, attempt on Bohm-Bawerk's part to universalise the economic categories of capitalism and so render them system trans-historical and impervious to change – simply by dint of redefining what "capital" meant. However such a stratagem effectively denudes the term of any real significance. For example, one could equally argue on that basis that our tool making Palaeolithic ancestors were also "capitalists" by this token which is, of course, nonsense. This would completely overlook or disregard the enormous qualitative differences that obtain between different tool-making and tool-using societies.Marx's approach was much more rigorous – and more plausible. Capital, he argued, is not a thing but a social relationship. In Wage Labour and Capital (1847) he explained what he meant by this:A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/)The "certain conditions" under which means of production become "capital" are those of “generalised commodity production” It is when "All products of which it consists are commodities" that capital becomes capital. Chief among these commodities is, of course, labour power – the skills that the worker possesses – which is sold to the capitalist in return for a wage.Of course one problem for the supporters of capitalism who adopt this rather silly line of argument that "capitalism has existed since the dawn of time" and is evidenced by the existence of tools is that they cant very well turn to examples like (state capitalist) Russia and claim that "socialism has failed". This is because by their logic the Soviet Uniion must have been capitalist because capitalism is everywhere and has always existed whenever tools have existedKind of boxed themselves into a corner with this argument havent they?
JohnnyFBM wrote:Hi Rob, I think everything you have said about the need for such a site is spot on particularly in terms of the need to come up with some solid facts about capitalism that can be backed up with solid evidence. For example I have often heard is said that 80% of Labour goes into running capitalism rather then being socially useful but no one has ever managed to tell me where that comes from! I have a friend who is also a computer programmer (and agrees with socialism if not a member) he may be able to help you?Hi Johnny Yes, the subject of "structural waste" as I call it, is something that ought to figure prominently in socialist literature. I remember corresponding with Hardy many years ago and he was insistent that this was by far the most important productive advantage that socialism would have over capitalism. I agree. Yet we find very little written about it in the Socialist Standard. If I were on the editorial committee I would devote a special issue to the subject. At the very least the Party should consider bringing out a pamphlet on it There is, of course, a distinction to be made between "socially useless labour" and "unproductive labour". Some occupations fall under both categories but others might fall under one but not the other. Socially useless labour – structural waste – is only really discernable from a standpoint that is non-capitalist i.e. one that takes as its starting premiss the notion of use value. It is a uniquely socialist perspective on the world and it needs to be expressed Regarding the extent of structural waste, estimates vary. Buckminister Fuller memorably suggested a figure in the region of 95% of the workforce. I think that's somewhat over the top. 60-70 % would be more like it. Stefan in the WSPUS did some research on the subject some years ago and came up with a figure of, I think, 60%. It is impossible to reach a precise figure and we depend for data on bodies like the American Bureau of Labour statistics which tend not to organise their data in a way that is easily assimilable to socialist economic categories. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that much of this structural waste is hidden or indirect. For example banks which are obviously a clear case of socially useless activity operate out of buildings so the extent of structural waste extends also to the construction industry itself and so on and so forth. One other point that must be born in mind is that if we are talking about work in its technical sense as purposeful and useful activity then just over half of all the work we do falls outside of the money economy – it is unpaid work . I have data from sources like the UN Development Programme and iothers which shows this to be the case. I assume that most of this work will continue in a socialist society e.g.. household work, volunteer community work and so on. When we are talkuing aboiut strucutural waste we are talking about monetised sector which in terms of labour hours worked is slightly smaller the non monetised sector. Just to put matters in perspective…. The project that my brother Andy had started was intended to provide a database on this and other subjects relevant to the socialist case. It is a great pity that the Party does not seem interested enough to take on this project. Its not as if it hasn't got the resources and it takes only a few volunteers to get the ball rolling. Once you start publishing regular updates I am sure this will attract increased interest not only within the Party itself but far beyond
Young Master Smeet wrote:No, we make the chioces we are determined to make, the meatbots make choices according to our programming, and that involves altering our programming.The notion of free will is incompatible with thermodynamics, since it implies causeless events, but that doesn't mean there is no will nor volition, only to recognise that volition is a part of the world and we are mere epiphenomena of a nuclear reaction in a star.Put another way, I am an illusion, but my illusiary nature is a product of my determinations and the vector by which they manifest. 'Thinking for myself' is thus the truest way of enslaving myself to the world about me. What is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational: the only true freedom would be in random meaningless action.Well no YMS I can't really go along with this. You talk of "causeless events" as if to rule such a thing out of the question. Everything that exists must have a cause. But must it? The principle of indeterminism is somethimng that is pretty much well established in physics and when we are talking about physics these days we are talking about some pretty weird stuff, stuff that seems far removed from the mechanical determinism of traditional Newtoniam physics . Like the theory of "entanglement", for example, which I still cant quite get my head around It strikes me as a little odd that a hardline materialst like your good self would rule out indeterminism. Afterall if everything must have a cause then what "caused" matter. God? .As I see it, determinism and indeterminism coexist as a kind of yin/yang of the cosmos Mechanical determinism is valid up to a point in the same sense that Newtonian physics is valid up to a point – that is up to the point at which Einsteinian physics kicks in I have a problem with this mechanistic cause-and-effect approach to understanding reality for precisely that reason, To refer to Hume again – to posit something as the cause of an effect is to assert that the former is prior to the latter. But the logic of that is "physical reductionism" which rules out downward causation (since how can there be downward causation if all causation is one way in the strict temporal sequence that Hume suggested). Yet , higher levels of reality though dependent or supervening on lower levels, can nevertheless influence the latter . Mind-brain interactions being a cause in point (e.g. the placebo effect). We can also apply this to the relation between individuals and society. Durkheim made the comment that "social facts" are "sui generis" and cannot be reduced to the mere biological or psychological facts pertaining to individuals – even though society cannot exist without individuals as its constituent members. However mechanical determinism would forbid us to even talk about of "society" as a causal influence. Is that compatible with a socialist perspective? This is why I am wary of the kind of one way causation implicit in the model of mechanical determinism – "one way" for the reason Hume gave that causes necessarily precede effects in a strict temporal sense, All this ties up with the question of free will and by extension moral choices. As John Horgan has noted to argue that all our choices have prior causes and are therefore determined and not free, but "caused", is to entirely miss the point, The point is what "causes" them? To reduce an explanation as to why Joe Bloggs has chosen not to kill a stranger for his money, to the gyrations of subatomic particles, or perhaps not even that, (which is what physical reductionism boils down to really) just seems to me utterly absurd. Meaning threre are definite limits to mechanical determinsm itself. It is useful for explaining bits of reality but not reality in its entirety
gnome wrote:robbo203 wrote:To argue as I have heard some members do, that socialism is a matter of "self interest" is actually to endorse Adam Smith's atomistic view of the world in which the individual is driven by nothing other than his or her self interest.Not wishing to sidetrack or derail this thread but isn't it curious, given what you call his "atomistic view of the world", that Smith, in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments", should begin with the following assertion:
Yes this is true. There is a certain incongruity in Smith's works- that is between his earlier and his later works. Theory of Moral Sentiments was written prior to the Wealth of Nations and if I remember correctly I think the catalyst for this change in outlook was Smith's reading of Bernard de Mandeville's "Fable of the Bees" which shocked public opinion with the suggestion that private vices could generate public virtues. Smith was initially appalled at the thought but seemed to have found it irresistible in the end Louis Dumont in his book from Mandeville to Marx which is about the history of individualist thought deals with this subject in some depth. Dumont, interestingly, also contends that there is strong streak of individualistic thought in Marx. I am reminded of this whenever a party member asserts that the case for socialism is not about morality at all but rather what is in our "self interest". He or she is unwittingly projecting the atomistic thinking that underlies Smith's metaphor of the market's invisible hand
I think there is a distinction to be made between teleological determinism (fatalism) and mechanical determinism. Marx explicitly rejected the former in the German Ideology when he dismissed as a "speculative distortion" the idea that "later history is the goal of earlier history". However, teleological or goal directed behaviour, while it might not operate at a social level, does certainly operate at the individual level in the sense that the individual selects a goal and strives to realise it. We are in that sense goal directed Mechanical determinism is, in a way, the opposite of teleological determinism for here the past determines the future rather than the future, the past. Science in its classical form is predicated on mechanical determinism. It deals with cause and effect. As David Hume put it "the cause must be prior to the effect" meaning the past determines the future Now clearly cause and effect relationships exist in abundance all around us and are discoverable through the application of scientific methodology in the identification of such causal connections. The question is how valid is it to transfer such an approach to the question of the transformation of society itself? To what extent is this possible? This touches on why I have serious reservations about the term "scientific socialism" which implies a mechanical determinist ourlook and by extension rules out the question of human choice and volition. This was no better summed up than by Kautsky's absurd and sweeping statement that the materialist conception of history has "completely deposed the moral ideal as the directing factor of social revolution". Now morality necessarily implies the ability to choose and, in rejecting a role for morality in the "social revolution" Kautsky was in effect arguing for a completely mechanical determinist approach to society which the very term "scientific socialism" seems to denote. It is to be noted that the SPGB.s view on morality is not dissimilar to that of Kautsky's. As I understand it, the Party's current position is that the case for socialism does not involve a moral aspect at all but is purely and simply a matter iof working class interests. Personally I think this argument is fatally flawed by an internal contradiction for how can you identify with the welfare and wellbeing of other members of the working class without this involving a moral aspect. To argue as I have heard some members do, that socialism is a matter of "self interest" is actually to endorse Adam Smith's atomistic view of the world in which the individual is driven by nothing other than his or her self interest.. It is actually an anti socialist position. Point is that all these different ideas hang together. The veneration of "scientific socialism" goes with a mechanical determinist outlook which goes with a rejection of choice and human creativity which goes with a rejection of any role for morality in the movement towards socialism. Within this resolutely black-or-white view of the world there is no prospect of envisaging mechanical determinism coexisting in a fruitful partnership with the human faculty of choosing and creating some new that breaks with the past rather than being determined by the past. A revolution. I think this is part of the problem with the Party . The dead hand of Kautsky still guides its thinking in many ways
I don't want to get sidetracked into some kind extended philosophical debate on positivism etc as that is not what this thread is about. As Andy's brother, I know what he had in mind by this project as we discussed it on occasions. He wanted to build up a kind of database of information and links that would be useful to socialists. I am talking about subjects like, for example, the extent of capitalism's structural waste – the kinds of occupations related to the maintenance needs of capitalism (e.g. the finance sector) as opposed to the satisfaction of human needs. In other words what are the approximate figures for workers employed in these socially useless occupations and how much do they use in the way of resources etc. There is precious little research done in this particular subject area which I consider to be quite an important aspect of the case for socialism. There are many other aspects of the socialist case that could likewise benefit from a more wide-ranging and systematic approach to research along the lines that Andy proposed. I would urge people here to have a look at his website and look under the heading "database", in particular Here is the linkhttp://andycox1953.webs.com/ Since Andy's death last year I have been sort of caretaking for his site. There has not been much traffic but someone has recently enquired about the possibility of developing the project further. Perhaps the SPGB might like to officially take it on (as I have suggested it should) or if not, I suppose it could be continued and expanded upon on an informal collaborative basis. If anyone is interested in doing that please feel free to get in touch with me.
Its a sad state of affairs when it comes down to two non members generating a lot of publicity for the SPGB on a public forum with no members getting involved at all apart from the occasional intervention of one or two members. I refer to the Socialism v capitalism website which I mentioned before, at https://www.facebook.com/groups/1434654420087854/?fref=ts. Completely absent is the reinforcement effect of many members contributing to the arguments and raising the profile of the Party.I'm with Alan and Private Fraser on this one. What is it with the SPGB? Its like a black hole into which good ideas and practical suggestions are sucked never to see the light of day again. The title of a leaflet it has recently produced "Too little, to late" (or something like that) could apply to itself. Mention something like setting up an internet based research project which could involve many currently isolated and dispersed members and one is greeted with nothing more than a stony silence and complete apathyDoes the SPGB have a death wish I wonder? Sometimes it seems well on the way to fulfilling that wish….
DJP wrote:robbo203 wrote:I put forward the idea of a socialist research centre or website which could engage the collective efforts of many dispersed members but no one seems to have taken up the idea.How is that any different to what is in the education section of this website? And if you're so enthused by the idea why not rejoin and make it a reality? After all, it seems that "World in Common" is now defunct?
No, I had something quite different and more ambitious in mind – a kind of data or fact collecting and categorising service. Have a look at Andy's website which I provided a link to and you will get an idea of what I am talking about. This is precisely the kind of collaborative effort that could involve many dispersed members around the countryI cannot rejoin, unfortunately, while the existing policy on the question of religion – not that I am religious myself – remains in force for the simple reason that I cannot accept the assertion that religious beliefs are necessarily incompatible with socialism
