[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

imposs1904 wrote:

I think it's fair game to have digs at the likes of Farage, Cameron . . . and the Galloways, Livingstones and Abbots of this world because it's so self-evident that it's their self-regard as much as their ideology which motors them, but having snide digs at Corbyn at this point just makes us come off as the sectarians that everyone thinks we already are.

But this is the very point which you've unwittingly put your finger on.  Because it's not self-evident to many workers that Corbyn and his politics are phoney is surely all the more reason why he needs to be exposed, not by using snide digs but by demonstrating the fallaciousness of his policies, with the use of memes, along with other methods, in as simple and unconfrontational ways as possible.  And if by opposing capitalist politicians of whatever ilk (and, frankly, when push come to shove there's little to choose between any of them) makes us appear sectarian then so be it.  It's the price we've had to pay ever since the party's inception.

 I think a distinction needs to be drawn  between the policies and the personalities. I agree with imposs1904's comments above and have tried to preface my own criticisms of Corbyn with observations to the effect that he comes across as sincere and personable – unlike the usual shower of career politicians.  Yes  yes yes I know personalities shouldnt be the issue  and yes, of course, we all know that Corbyn is going to come unstuck and "betray" his followers in the sense that he is bound to let them down badly. – that is if he ever gets into power.  But personalities do seem to attract and hold attention and why not? Even socialists are not above this and I'm a great fan of Ivan's column in the Socialist Standard which invariably makes for a riveting read. All the same, I think one should be more discriminating in how one goes about  attacking politicians – precisely (or even paradoxically)  in order to demonstrate that really, at bottom, the character of the politicians in question doesnt really matter.  That would also mitigate the risk  that Vin refers to of appearing  "sectarian".  Corbyn is one of the few policiticans who comes across as genuine.  I would have included Tony Benn in that list too,  as well as maybe the Beast of Bolsover.  The rest are a bunch of smarmy greaseballs with about as much integrity as a dodgy arms dealer.  As far as I am concerned, there should be an open season on having a pop at their overblown egos – but not, of course,  at the expense of a serious structural analysis of why they will always fail in terms of the political objectives they have (supposedly) set themselves

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I think we are all getting the wrong end of the stick here. I don't think this is what Gupta implies. Actually, it's not a bad article 

 Hmm, I disagree, Adam. I think it IS what Gupta implies –  that communism was tried and failed in the Soviet Union et al and that, remarkably,  interest in Marx continues DESPITE this failure. That seems to me to be a clear identification of the kind of society Marx was struggling to bring about with what happened in the SU.  Yes,  the definition she offers of a socialist/communist society is not a bad one – a society based on social  ownership of the means of production – but that does not necessarily rule out her imagining that precisely such a society was what was achieved in the Soviet Union in the first place. But for this I would be much less harsh in my criticism of Gupta.  The fact that she seems to have gone along with the the kind of liberal narrative concerning the collapse of communism without a word of dissent, rather spoit it all for me to be quite honest

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/relevance-of-marx/84255.html

Quote:

He offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism.  Yet his writings provide an  explanation of the inner working of capitalism for good and evil. From this vantage point, Marx’s writings can throw light on the problems of our age and the limitations of their possible solutions.

 

 No wonder Gupta thinks "Marx offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism" having just said "Marx’s writings still evoke interest across the world despite speculation that his readership would dwindle after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the eclipse of Communism in East Europe"   The implication of course being that "Marx's solution" has been tried and found wanting in these places.   I tire of pundits who come up with this old hackneyed bogus line of argument.  That suggests to me that Gupta's understanding of Marxism is of the glossy, coffee table magazine type.  Pretty superficial and cliched.

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Yes that is a more plausible scenario, Robbo. A few remarksThe media can create the "prominent" profile of right-wingers and, i think, there are many for them to pick from.The LibDems are no longer seen as "liberal" small l after alliance with Conservatives for any groups like the SDP to defect to and so the right must fight within the Labour Party. Your crystal ball views Corbyn as being less principled and more opportunistic than many other commentators suggest but as Tsipras shows if you are genuine and sincere, you eventually cede power, not hold on to it, once the purpose of holding office is made superfluous. Could Corbyn pinch his nose and see his future Labour Party manifesto watered down so much that it becomes a homeopathic remedy… merely retaining the past memory of his "radicalism" 

 I think he will have to, Alan, if he gets power or, more to the point, if he is to get into power.  He will find some way of backpeddling and backtracking on his principles – they always do.  Its a pity because he comes across as not yer usual run-of-the-mill career politician – dull grey suits like the other 3 candidates for the Leadership and boring as fuck with their dreary cliches and  their well-honed  question-evading instincts that is the necessary accoutrement of any well trained politician

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But if still a member of the SPGB, how would you suggest we aim and concentrate our fire on Labour if you do have them correctly targeted, Robbo?

 Difficult to say.  I agree with one or two commentators here that it doesnt do to just focus on Corbyn.  Yes Corbyn is gonna fail even if he succeeds in becoming 1) Labour leader and then 2) Prime Minister in the event of a Labour victory.  You cant run the abbatoir in the interests of the cattle and we would be remiss in not pointing that out.  But we would be equally remiss in not also pointing that Corbyns Labour rivals are just as foredoomed to fail as are his capitalist political opponents outside of the Labour  PartyIts a question of striking the right balance and it rather depends on who you are actually talking to at the time, I guess… 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lets use our crystal balls for a moment…Corbyn wins…shock horror…he is then undermined by the Labour Party's party machine as leader and either is sacked by no confidence motions or  forced into a resignation …whatever …

 It is more likely, surely, that once ensconced in power, he will make a bid for for centre ground – that is seek to establish a left-centre government.  He will obliged to make sops to the conservatives (AKA New Labourites) within the Party to ensure a degree of party unity  (not to mention a wider political appeal) and the latter, mindful of the populist support for Corbyn and the fate that befell the breakaway SDP and its "gang of four" some years ago , will probably grudgingly, fall in line with the occasional sniping from the sidelines.  De facto Tories like that war criminal, Tony Blair , have little  credibility in the eyes of  the public and there is no significant or recognised figure – such things are important in a population swayed by the principle of leadership – around which a coherent opposition to Corbyn could materialise leading to a viable breakaway. The current leadership contest is perhaps proof of that: 3 duds versus someone who at least gives a plausible impression of being principled. In any event, the policies of Corbyn are sufficiently vague to allow for a considerable degree of political gymnastics in the form of seeking to accommodate his right wing critics.  And of course if and when a Corbyn-led Labour Party were to come to power it would be obliged to administer capitalism in the only way it can be administered – in the interests of capital and against the interests of wage labour. One way or another, Corbyn is foredoomed to "betray" his (at present) wildly enthusiastic supporters – not because of his lack of political commitment to what he believes in (his style of "conviction politics", after all, is precisely what people find attractive about him)  but rather in spite of it

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Actually, that Independent interview wasn't as bad as the advertisement for it suggested and the title was better:

Quote:

Paul Mason: The Channel 4 frebrand revolutionary reveals his formula for a 'gift' economy.

Here's an extract from Rentoul's article

Quote:

 what is interesting about Mason's book is his analysis of how information technology is going to lead to the abolition of the market – and what he calls the "supersession" of capitalism by a new form of economic organisation.

See here. So he wants to go beyond the market to a "gift economy" rather than back to barter.Whether it will come about in the way he seems to be suggesting is another matter. Be interesting to see too what he says about where the Bolshevik revolution went wrong. I'm going to buy the book today.

 So is Mason a proponent of some form of technological determinism  (I confess to not having read him)? I wouldnt go along with that (in response to Adam's opening post) but I could well imagine the growth of socialist conciousness interacting in a synergistic fashion with the developments in information technology to which Mason refers to expand the realm of non marketised activity.  But I cannot see such developments in themselves leading to the "supercession" of capitalism as such

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…I had always understood communism would break the link between your productive contribution to society and what you take from society…

You've 'always understood' this, robbo, because you're not a Communist, but an individualist.Your use of the term 'your' (referring to 'an individual') shows this.The Communist phrasing would be 'our'.'Our productive contribution' is by nature linked to 'our taking from society'.You discuss 'individuals', Communists discuss 'social production and consumption', and its democratic control by all.

 Your outlook on society is as daft as Mrs Thatcher's with the difference that, with you,  there is a no such thing as individuals, only society – a mystical, reified and quasi Durkheimian view of society if there ever was one – whereas, with Mrs T,  there is no such thing as society, only individuals.  My position is that the two things hang together inextricably and if you think that makes me an "individualist" then frankly you wouldnt recognise one if you tripped  over such a thing in the street, outside.  You have never understood what this term means though you babble on about it incessantly enough. Of course the idea of "rewards" – and I remind you that it was you that who introduced this term, not me, with respect to a communist society – relates to, or is focussed upon,  individuals insofar as it implies discriminating between them according to their contribution.  Otherwise the very term "reward" would be completely meaningless in this context.  So that makes you the individualist and me the communist because i dont talk of rewards at all or see the necessity for any form of remuneration .  This is a bourgeois concept of individual incentives for effort  which "bourgeois individualists" like your good self seem to consider as being vitally important  to society i.e. the idea that workers should be remunerated or rewarded for their effort  which cannot mean anything other than treating them as individuals who differ according to the effort they expend and who should therefore be subject to differential rewards 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Abilities, needs and rewards will be decided democratically.That is Communism, and it is not individualism, as you and robbo seem to think.

 How does the whole of society "decide democratically" what the "abilities , needs and rewards" are in respect of Citizen Joe Bloggs  (And what "reward" anyway since I had always understood communism would break the link between your productive contribution to society and what you take from society which is to say your contribution would be freely given without remuneration)If advocating from each according to ability to each according to needs makes one an individualist (whatever that means in your book) then that makes Marx a very prominent individualist of sorts

[robbo203]

 

stuartw2112 wrote:

OK, thanks Robin, nothing to add for now. I may be confused, but the ideas I'm trying to get over aren't so much so. Anyone interested in what I'm trying but failing to get over might like to try:From Marx to Mises by David Ramsay Steele The Economics of Feasible Socialism by Alec NoveSmall Is Beautiful by EF Schumacher

 Steele has this rigid conception of socialism as being an economy of society wide  and totally centralised planning and  the so called economic calculation argument which he peddles in a sense relies on such a conception in order to makes its central claim stick – that you cannot operate an advanced large scale economy in the absence of market prices.  But the argument is fundamentally flawed.  It rules out a priori the possibility of a feedback mechanism, which mechanism overcomes the very objections raised  by the ECA to the possibility of running society along socialist lines.  That is because a totally centrally planned economy cannot by its very nature have such a thing as a feedback mechanism – because the totality of production is necessarily planned in advance – and therefore cannot be self correcting.  However, if you drop the dogma that socialism is a centrally planned economy and take instead the view that in socialism the overall pattern of production would be spontaneously arrived at,  you are into a whole different ball game altogether which, quite simply , makes the whole economic calculation argument utterly irrelevant.  YMS is quite right to point out that it is not the exchange of commodities we need but the exchange of information and that independence of the level of the productive unit within a cybernetic feedback structure should give us the scope to be able to manage  Not quite sure why you include Schumacher in your reading list, Stuart. Would it be to counter the view that you imagine is held and endorsed by socialists that on the contrary only "big is beautiful" in line with their (supposed) belief in central planning?  Actually though you don't appear to realise this you are pushing against an open door in that respect in as much as many of us do uphold a vision of socialism in which a great deal of the decisions taken would taken at localised (and small scale) level in socialism.  This includes the authors of the "Socialism as a Practical Alternative" pamphlet whose approach you earlier appeared to scoff at.

[robbo203]

 Hi Stuart, There are a lot of points you raise, some highly contentious, which I will try to answer.  In general, I would say  that it is neither my position, nor that of the SPGB, that socialism offers some kind of magic wand solution to the economic  problems that the world faces, only that it is much better and, likely, much more effective way of going about solving those problems to the extent that this is possible. And no that doesn't necessarily mean "all those people who can't currently afford an iPhone can have one, and all those people going to be bed hungry tonight can have steak and chips tomorrow". Caricature is just a convenient  way of trying to short circuit an inconvenient argument.   Like your silly claim that I have "already worked out that such preposterous, ridiculous problems just won't arise because, well, because they're silly, dammit, and I won't have any silliness spoiling my lovely dreams of the future.  Less of these colourful rhetorical flourishes and more in the way of meaty argument, wouldn't go amiss, Stuart! But first a point of clarification. I don't know who these " millions and millions of people" are "all of whom have some understanding of and desire for socialism".  I only wish it were true but I doubt the veracity of this claim.  Its a question of terminology, I guess.  In the context of this forum, however, we are talking about "socialism" as a strictly non-market non-statist form of society in which the means of production are owned in common.  You are perfectly at liberty to define socialism – or indeed capitalism  – in some other way but then we would be talking at cross purposes.  Ultimately its not the label that counts but the contents  in the bottle I stand by my assertion that socialism as defined above and irrespective of the label you wish to attach to it, is indeed the  "only conceivable" way out of capitalism in all its guises.  What other option is on the cards? You don't spell out anything at all that we could sink our teeth into but instead cover your tracks with the vaguest of generalities  What are these other ideas that you say  are absolutely "conceivable" and "doable".  Put them on the table and lets discuss them.. Lets see whether they amount to something different to capitalism I suppose it is possible  that society could regress into some form of barbarism  brought upon by ecological collapse or global warfare.  That would clearly not be  socialism but nor would it be recognisably capitalism any longer.   However I am assuming "by way out of capitalism" is meant  an alternative that has been intentionally proposed and not one simply imposed by adverse circumstances.  You have ruled out non market socialism as "impossible" so we are left with only some form of market system . That being the case, I would say that this inexorably works to sustain and keep intact the very existence of capitalism in one form or another. I still think that you do not understand at all the argument about a spontaneous economic order in which the overall pattern or production is arrived at, not through conscious centralised direction, but through the spontaneous interaction of the different parts of the economy in the form of a feedback mechanism.  You get it the wrong way round when you assert the market creates this spontaneous order.  In fact the anachocaps with whom you fallen into some kind of strange sympathy would, oddly enough, see things differently.  They would argue that it is the complexity problem that gives rise to the need for a spontaneous order which in turn gives rise to the need for market prices to coordinate and give direction to productive activity. They are wrong as are you.  A spontaneous order does not necessitate the market (actually the opposite is true).   It is the socio economic relations of private property in the context of a spontaneously ordered system of production that gives rise to the market.   Your confusion on this question is neatly summed up by your attempt to characterise my position  as based on a "non-market market".  You cannot seem to detach the concept of spontaneity from that of the market and this explains why like the anarcho caps you are driven to declare dogmatically that any alternative to the market must ipso facto involve society wide central planning. But the argument is completely invalid.  You cant see this because like your new found friends on the Libertarian Right you cannot see that a mechanism already exists that permits the coordination of economic activity on a global scale  that is 1) fully consistent with a spontaneous order and 2)  does not invoke the bogeyman of central planning at all – namely, a globalised and self regulating system of stock control. Its not enough Stuart to acknowledge, as you do. that "all societies organise some things communistically (internal organisation of capitalist firms say)" The interrelations between productive entities can likewise be organised on this basis except that they would no longer be constituted as capitalist firms.  That involves changing the purpose of economic activity  from production for the market to production directly and solely for use. The technical infrastructure to permit this to happen and to spontaneously  coordinate production on a worldwide basis is already in place.  This will be at the very heart of a communist system of coordination and, ironically enough, were such a mechanism not to exist, capitalism itself could not exist, could not function for even a single day.  It would collapse in total chaos.  Try to imagine capitalism operating without a self regulating system of stock control using calculation in kind.  The very idea is absurd

[robbo203]

Hi Stuart 

stuartw2112 wrote:

Yes indeed, this is exactly the "error" I've fallen into, though obviously I don't share your judgement of the arguments! I accept the argument that, with the best will in the world, any attempt to seize state power and implement full communism will see the economy lunge disastrously down a Bolshevik type road. You obviously cannot object to the possibility of this in principle, for it's precisely analagous what you say happens to well-meaning types who take over capitalist governments. 

 I don't accept this argument at all and I find it quite difficult to imagine how you yourself, given your acquaintance with the  SPGB, could come up with such a preposterous idea.  I mean this is almost a kind of stereotypical "Colonel Blimp" knee jerk response to the proposal of a genuine class conscious – with the emphasis on conscious – socialist revolution:  "Damn Bolshies! They'll bring ruin to the economy!" Does it not occur to you that we are not talking at all about  a state capitalist minority revolution in a relatively backward peasant based  economy?

stuartw2112 wrote:

There are dangers lurking in the whole Marxian project: The first is that modern industrial society can be or should be subject to conscious control and planning, and that this will give better results than the spontaneous order created by the market. For me, this danger is not in the least averted by someone assuring us that the planning will be democratic, or that the centralising impetus will be checked by all kinds of decentralising good intentions. The centralising logic is inherent in the whole argument and intent. 

I think with respect you are treating this as a dogma in the same way as the anarchocaps cling to the conviction that socialism must necessarily be a centrally planned economy, they simply cannto handle the idea that things might be different.  There is no "must" about it.  Where did you get the idea  that the "centralising logic is inherent in the whole argument and intent"  Who said so and why should we take them at their word. Did you not read at all my argument about the need for a feedback mechanism?  I reject your claim about the spontaneous order "created" by the market. I don't think even the anarcho caps make such a claim.  They would argue to the contrary that it is the spontaneous order that creates or necessitates the market .  They are dead wrong – as are you. The market is only a particular instantiation of a spontaneous order.  There are other ways in which spontaneous order can manifest itself outside of the market. As I explained, a self regulating system of stock control using calculation in kind is one such example.  In fact capitalism can only exist and function thanks to these kinds of mechanisms that precisely a communist society would make use of

stuartw2112 wrote:

The second is that Marxists are thoroughly opposed to creating blueprints for the future. But nevertheless, they are intent on taking state power in order to usher in the future society. This means that, when Marxists take power, they have absolutely no idea what they are supposed to do with it. But they have power, they have an idea that they are in the right and God (sorry, History) is on their side, that they must keep their enemies in check and start planning the economy so it works for the benefit of everyone. A chilling prospect. In other words, I now accept totally that Stalinism is a warning to all socialists, even those who strenuously reject Stalinism and are jolly nice chaps.

 This is a ridiculous argument Stuart.  You seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that it is absolutely indispensable to an authentic  socialist revolution that it presupposes people in their millions have a pretty good idea of what they want to do having captured state power.  You aare ddressing this whole argument as if we were Leninists wanting to lead the workers to socialism without the workers having to want and understand socialism in the first place 

stuartw2112 wrote:

These are not original arguments, obviously, but they strike me as convincing. Convincing as they are, they are not to me depressing. It doesn't stop me being a libertarian socialist. On the contrary, it frees one from unrealistic hopes and expectations and makes one sensitive to the dangers in authoritarianism of all kinds (including the authoritarianism of those who are damn sure they've got it all sussed out).

 Capitalism in all its guises – including the Stalinist model you invoke as some kind of warning to socialists which we should take heed of – is authoritarian by nature.  But you offer no way out of capitalism and indeed dismiss the only conceivable way way out as "impossible".  Draw your own conclusions, Stuart

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

 I'm sceptical that modern industrial society can be organised on communist lines, or that it would be desirable if it could be. 

 Perhaps,  Stuart, you ought to consider  the possibility that what is meant  by society being "organised on communist lines" is something much more flexible, elaborate and altogether richer in organisational terms than you might have allowed for. I have a sneaking suspicion that what lies behind your whole argument  is the idea a communist society  would be one that would be highly centralised,  where all decisions, certainly those of any import, would be effected by some kind of single  global planning centre.  This is certainly the conception of communism/socialism that is advanced by the anarcho-capitalists and you have admitted to having been influenced by their argument.  Their argument boils down to saying that modern industrial societies are just far too complex to be organised in this centralised "communistic" fashion whereby society as a whole speaks with one mind and one voice in respect of the the literally billions of economic  decisions that have to be made on a daily basis.  Calculation in kind , they say,  is feasible only within small scale units – like the family household –  but for anything larger than that  you need the objective metric of market prices to guide the allocation of resources.  The greater the scope you allow for the interplay of market forces, the great the probability of arriving at an optimal allocation outcome. Even the (state capitalist) Soviet Union which of course  never dispensed with the market relation, was obliged to bend to this truth as its economic base became progressively  more diversified and developed. Hence Perestroika and ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. However this whole argument or train of thought is a bogus one, from beginning to end.  I have been battling for years against what I see as a gross misconception of what a communist or socialist society is about which I think, with all respect, surfaces in your own arguments.  I would maintain that socialism would necessarily be to a very large extent a decentralised system of production in the literal sense and  that the coordination of productive activities would be effected very largely though a feedback mechanism – a self regulating system of stock control. In my exchanges with various Leftists on others forums I have been accused of advancing a sort of marketised version of communism.  This is totally to misunderstand the point.  There is absolutely nothing in the way of quid pro quo market exchanges within this schema. A spontaneously ordered economy –  that is to say, one in which the overall pattern of production is not centrally planned but arrived at spontaneously – does not depend on the market at all.  On the contrary, the market depends utterly on precisely that feedback mechanism I have pointed to above – a self regulating system of stock control.  Try to imagine how, say, a modern supermarket in a capitalist economy could operate without this and without physical calculation in kind (literally counting how many tins of baked beans you've got left on the shelf and how many more you need to order).  It can't.  Capitalism would not last a single day if it could not fall back on these kinds procedures which do not require a market at all in order to be implemented Any modern large scale society must necessarily be a spontaneously ordered one in this technical sense – that is to say, it cannot be operated from some mythical single centre but instead must involve the application of some kind of feedback mechanism.  Market capitalism is but one example of a spontaneously ordered economy .  The fatal error of the anarcho capitalists is to assume that market prices are the precondition and capture the very essence, of  such an economy.  That might well be the same error you have fallen into Stuart judging by your comments although I  am not entirely sure of this at this point in time.

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Yes, I'm using "abundance" in two different, contradictory ways. If you think that in itself destroys the argument, then just pick another word that you like. 

 I'm not quite sure what you mean Stuart. Its not for me to salvage the argument you present but for you to chose the appropriate word yourself that has that effect.  As your argument stands it does indeed come across as contradictory and therefore unconvincing. You seems to have bought into the anarcho capitalist case presented by the likes of Ramsay Steele. Fair enough. Thats your prerogative.  But  I would say that that case turns on a similar confusion of terms.  The concept of "opportunity costs", for instance, conveys this idea of built in scarcity which buttresses your claim that abundance is impossible.  So the opportunity cost of my decision to respond to your post is that I forfeit the possibility of doing something else in this time.  Maybe jogging down to the village to buy a newspaper or perhaps cleaning out the chicken run which is beginning to get a bit smelly.  There is an air of tautological certainty about this argument about opportunity costs which the anarcho caps constantly wield,  which I maintain is based on a psychologically unrealistic perspective. I'm not going to fret about that newspaper I don't have in my hands at this precise moment and if I did I would be frankly unable to concentrate on the task at hand.  That is why I maintain the anarcho capitalist case is 'psychologically empty' . It is based on pure abstraction which has no purchase in the real world we inhabit What I am trying to suggest to you, Stuart, is that if you are going to use a term like abundance then use it consistently so we know what we are talking about. I maintain the abundance is a relation between supply and demand broadly speaking both of which are limited and historically variable depending on the social context 

stuartw2112 wrote:

The idea that human wants are infinite and insatiable cannot be "bourgeois" since identification of the problem is at least 2,500 years old, if not more. We are hungry ghosts with infinite bellies. Capitalism's craziness is in the belief that these can be satisfied and then we'll be happy. In this sense, (free access) socialism is capitalism's deluded child.

 Well, given your anthropological background, Stuart, you will no doubt be aware of Marshall Sahlin's book on the hunter gatherers – the original affluent society – and Sahlins suggestion, which I think you echoed in your earlier post, that there are two ways to affluence – the conventional capitalist approach which is to produce more and the Zen approach which  is to want less.  Hunter gatherers would simply not recognise the  description of  themselves as hungry ghosts with infinite bellies. The idea  that human wants are insatiable may very well have predated capitalism .  It would fit in with the zero sum game of empire building in ancient civilisations in which rulers sought to enlarge their domains at the expense of rivals.  Wherever there is competition of this nature – over material stuff – the logic of such competition pushes one to want to acquire more and more.  Material acquisition converts into social prestige which is unbounded. Nevertheless I would suggest that with the advent of capitalism what was essentially a restricted ruling class outlook became universalised and the concept of infinite wants became formally enshrined in bourgeois economics and through the praxis of capitalism itself with its appeal to mass consumerism.  No other social system in history has this built in predisposition to urge the consumer  to consume more. So I reject utterly your claim that free access socialism is the deluded child of capitalism.  On the contrary, free access socialism is the one and only thing that can ultimately destroy the unlimited pursuit of material wants.  Free access to goods and services means amongst other things that you can no longer secure the esteem and respectful awe of others based on what you possess or consumer and the only way in which can acquire such esteem is through what you contribute to society and not what you take out of it.Also, of course ,there is simply no point in taking more than you need when what you need is sufficiently available.  I live outside a spa town in Southern Spain in which potable water flows freely  in abundance through the many fuentes scattered around the town.  I'm not aware of any frenzied rush of afflicted consumers to the nearest fuente to fill up every conceivable container  they can lay their handsNo, it is capitalism that encourages a scarcity mentality and it is capitalism which also incidentally directly creates scarcity through its systematic and structural diversion of a vast and growing proportion of its manpower and resources away from, and at the expense of, socially useful ends into such socially wasteful activities as banking , insurance, and armaments production.  Such things serve a very clear purpose in capitalism but will have no place in free access socialism whatsoever.

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Free-access socialism is, as I think everyone agrees, only possible on the basis of material abundance. But abundance is unfeasible. In relation to human desires and to the competing uses to which resources and time and energy may be put, resources are always scarce. You need then a method of deciding how to put scarce resources to use. The market provides such a method. Others may be possible, but are unproven (or proven to be disastrous).  Even if it were possible, the attempt to satisfy infinite human desires on the basis of the provision of abundance would surely lead to ecocide – as our current system of state capitalism is doing.  But there is another way to abundance – the practice of satisfying our needs in a minimal way while realising that the way to human happiness is not actually the pursuit of material goods or the satisfaction of all our desires and sensual pleasures, but the pursuit instead of a good life where we take care of one another. The sort of thing Marxists everywhere dismiss as sandal-wearing lentil-munching hippy nonsense because for some reason they want to seem as cynical and materialistic and hardheaded as the capitalists and military.

  Strikes me that the position you are outlining above is curiously contradictory or at any rate, paradoxical   If "abundance is unfeasible" as you claim then how can there be "another way to abundance" as you equally assert? .  Seems you are shifting from one definition of "abundance" to another to suit your argument.  In the first instance it is in relation to the bourgeois dogma of"infinite human desires"; in the second it is in relation to the practice of satisfying our needs in a minimal way while realising that the way to human happiness is not actually the pursuit of material goods or the satisfaction of all our desires and sensual pleasures, but the pursuit instead of a good life where we take care of one another You say  that " Marxists everywhere" dismiss the latter as sandal-wearing lentil-munching hippy nonsense because for some reason they want to seem as cynical and materialistic and hardheaded as the capitalists etc. Really? I can recall Hardy writing in the Socialist Standard years ago arguing that, if anything, in the early days of socialism workers, at least in some parts of the developed world, may have to accept a cut  in living standards  so the rest of the world can catch up.  What we may have to forfeit in quantitative terms we gain in qualitative terms – one reason why I maintain the case for socialism cannot simply be an economic one but inescapably is also a moral one.  Happiness is not something you can buy over the counter and, if that was the case, the mega-rich would be wallowing in blissful contentment.  The evidence suggests otherwise Anyone who considers socialism to be a simply a question of "self interest", thereby applies to socialism a capitalist logic that negates the very possiblity of socialism ever coming about.   For the logic of self interest within a competitive capitalist environment is that there is no limit to what we materially desire since the interests of others are of no account.  Certainly no Marxist I know of would ever go along with the bourgeois myth of "infinite human desires". Where do you get this idea from? The biggest irony of all , Stuart, is that here you are defending the market  and the so called "economic calculation argument" that justifies the existence of the market as the most .. ahem …rational way of allocating scarce resoruces –  actually, if anything, capitalism has become the most horrendously inefficient and irrational mode of resource allocation that has ever existed –  when it is very market system itself you apparently support that enshrines and institutionalises this pernicious dogma that "human wants are insatiable". The unending quest for profit which is built into a competitive system of  capital accummulation has as its corrollary, the need for unending economic growth and hence the limitless expansion of market demand itself,.  That is the logic of capitalism even if what capitalism needs, capitalism may not always get because of its own internal contradictions. Nevertheless, that logic that drives the system also  conditions the consumer – even the mega-rich – to be eternally dissatisfied with his or her material lot and to always want more and more to fill the void in their lives that the system conditions them to feel.  You want things to be otherwise but you dont seemingly want to challenge the system that prevents things being otherwise….

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?

 You already know what my take is but are feigning ignorence.  I obviously, as a revolutionary socialist, support "workers democracy" but I argue that there are clear structural limits to the process of democratic decision making in society.  You don't think so but that's because you are an impractical idealist who hasn't thought through this matter at all

LBird wrote:

Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.

I thought it would have been obvious even to you that I don't share your ideology!  I  am not a Leninist who holds a totally centralised vision of a post capitalist world in which all decision making flows through a single global centre.  That vision,  which you clearly hold, would iroincally completely destroy workers democracy and ensure the relentless rise of an all powerful elite though you don't seem to understand this argument at all 

LBird wrote:

You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).

 You are just being stupid now. Of course I have read Marx and have quoted him. Of course, I favour workers power but my differences with you is over how that power expresses itself. Of course I am not an "individualist"  (you have never understood this term) but that does not mean I don't think individuals don't exist.  I agree with Marx when he says the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all.” 

LBird wrote:

You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'

 Absolute rubbish.  I was arguing against the fact-value distinction long before you turned up on this forum trying to teach everyone's grandma how to suck eggs.  You seem to see yourself as some kind of guru on a mission to educate the great unwashed. You're an elitist through and through.  When have I  ever said "scientific knowledge must be true".  On the contrary, part of my objection to your ridiculous idea of democratically voting on scientific theories is precisely that what is true for one person may not be true for another so what is the point of voting on such a thing at all.  What are you going to do with this Truth as democratically established by a global vote?.  If anything, you are the one who is entertaining an absolutist idea of truth.  Its was democratically vote upon by an absolute majority therefore it must be absolutely true…

LBird wrote:

I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.

 Sigh . what can you say in the face of such rambling tosh?

LBird wrote:

Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.

 I repeat – I was arguing against the fact value distinction and for the ideological nature of human knowledge long  for you turned up like some Johnny come lately smart arse who thinks they and they alone are in possession of the "Truth"

LBird wrote:

You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.

Then you obviously haven't read a thing I've written

I have no objections to anyone whatsoever wanting to run physics although of course there wont be a working class in communism – just people who you prefer to call workers.  Nevertheless, in order to "run physics", whatever that means, you have to know something about physics ,right?  This is where you begin to loss the plot and go off the rails completely. If it is not possible for anyone to know everything about everything then in some areas of knowledge you have to defer to those who know something about the subject that you don't. Do you know anything about brain surgery LBird.? I freely admit I know nothing of it. and there is no shame in admitting it.  I wouldnt trust someone like me to operate on my brain when I'm laid out on the operating table. You have seems to have this utterly childish infantile idea that to say something like that is ..er.."elitist". What bollocks! Its  nothing of the sort. Its just being realistic.  There is such a thing as the social division of labour, you know.  It takes year and years of study and practice to become a competent brain surgeon and if we all attempted to become competent brain surgeons where would society be?  Where would our molecular biologists our mechanical engineers , our agronomists etc etc come from if all our time was taken up studying to become brain surgeons?Its high time you grew up, LBird, and snapped out this nonsensical dreamworld you seem to inhibit. I get tired of having to point out the plain obvious to you…

[Author]

Posts