robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This might be of interest to some and relevant to the theme of HG violence – an assessment of the conflicting worldviews of the optimist, Stephen Pinker and the pessimist , John Gray .https://www.academia.edu/11884097/Human_Nature_Reason_and_Progress_John_Gray_s_Straw_Dogs_and_Steven_Pinker_s_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature
gnome wrote:The capitalist class is comprised of those individuals who, because they possess the means of production and distribution, whether in the form of legal property rights of individuals backed by the state or collectively as a bureaucracy through the state, do not need to work and live on privileged income derived from surplus value produced by the working class. The capitalists personally need not – and mostly do not – get involved in the process of production. Social production is carried on by capitalist enterprises which are overwhelmingly comprised of members of the working class who have to sell their mental and physical energies to an employer in order to live..To back up this might I recommend"The Rise of the Working Poor and the Non-Working Rich"http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29395-the-rise-of-the-working-poor-and-the-non-working-rich
There could well be something in what you say about the link between education and violence as a generalisation One of the arguments I have sometimes encountered amongst socialists is that advanced capitalism needs an educated workforce and this in turn will tend to push a country towards a more bourgeois democratic form of governance. That, in turn, exerts a restraining influence on the extent of institutionalised warfare: you don't find many western style multiparty "democracies" going to war against each other. Institutionalised state violence tends to directed and channelled outwards towards parts of the world where "democracy" is fragile or non existent – as in the case of proxy wards So by extrapolation goes the argument the more bourgeois democracy takes root across the globe the less likely will wars be. Certainly there are weaknesses in this argument that one can point to but it cannot be entirely dismissed. For instance, I have often argued that one of the consequences of a growing worldwide socialist movement is that it will be much more difficult for capitalist states to wage war. The moral legitimacy of waging wars which capitalist states need to obtain will be progressively undermined by such a movement. You also quote Pinker as saying:More people read books, including fiction that led them to inhabit the mind of other people, and satire that led them to question their society’s norms. Vivid depiction of the suffering wrought by slavery, sadistic punishments, war and cruelty to children and animals preceded the reforms that outlawed or reduced those practices. It is certainly true that the movement against cruelty to animals had its origins in an urban based and relatively educated "middle class" (see, for example, Keith Thomas' wonderful book "Man and Nature: 1500 to 1900" in which he talks about this and the whole romantic backlash against the depredations of industrial capitalism). One of the arguments used by these early animal rights activists is that cruelty towards would set a bad example to human beings. Of course, in looking at the influence of education as a factor in levels of violence we should be wary of treating it as an independent variable. Some would argue that the drift towards de skilling and the polarisation of the workforce into a small technocratic elite, on the one hand, and a large and increasing part time poorly paid workforce of burgher flippers and the like is has having a depressing effect on educational levels in general. True, there is the Internet, mobile phones, Ipads and whatnot but it could also be argued that the net effect has been to foster a more disempowered atomised view of the world in which we have more and more "facts" at our finger tips but our ability or inclination to integrate these facts into a coherent worldview has been diminishing. So yeah, its a big subject you have touched on Meel with so many different ramifications to explore!
Hi MeelHere are one or two links that might be of interest on the higher productivity of smaller multicropping farms vis a vis large scale monocultural unitshttp://www.monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.phpand this article by Geoffrey Lean:"Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. One report – published last year by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) – found that 114 projects, covering nearly two million African farmers, more than doubled their yields by introducing organic or near-organic practices. Another study – led by the University of Essex – looked at similar projects in 57 developing countries, covering three per cent of the entire cultivated area in the Third World, and revealed an average increase of 79 per cent. And research at the University of Michigan concluded that organic farming could increase yields on developing countries' farms three-fold.("Organic is more than small potatoes", Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug 2009).
Meel wrote:"Full automation" sounds ok for some things such as medicines, vehicles, some buildings and some staple foods – but I would prefer home cooked meals, and hand crafted articles in the home, such as clothing, utensils, furniture, etc. Technology is great, but not for everything.A society where we sit around just adjusting robots now and again sounds horrendous.I volunteer in my local park and get involved in ditch and pond clearance, mending fences, and dragging logs through muddy streams on a cold and rainy winter's day. I love it. Aren't we forgetting the pleasure of physical work, when it is voluntary?MeelAbsolutely Meel! I couldn't agree more! And what better refutes the argument that socialism could not work because "people are inherently lazy" than the practical example of volunteer work we see around us today and in such abundance… In a socialist society I would hope some aspects of work would become more labour intensive even if the more boring or dangerous work might become more automated. I think growing food is a case in point where there is a very strong argument for shifting towards a more labour intensive organic approach. Contrary to what some might think,small scale, multi crop organic farms are much more productive per hectare than large scale monoculture farms. They are also a lot more environmentally sustainable. In terms of output per farm worker they may not be as productive as large scale monocultural farms but this is slightly misleading since you have to also factor in the indirect labour involved in the manufacture of inputs for the latter. In any case since in a socialist society most of the work we do in capitalism will no longer need to be done, that means there will be an abundance of labour available for socially useful work of all kinds. Given this, it makes sense to adjust the nature of technology – the degree of "capital intensity" you use – to fit the facts of labour supply as you find them . Its called "optimising your use of factor inputs" One more reason why socialism will be a much more efficient way of organising production!
steve colborn wrote:robbo, its probably the "all things to all men" approach! They are after all a bunch of using, two faced Aholes!!!Well, the thought crossed my mind, Steve, that maybe LU had both a maximum and a minimum programme along the lines of the old Social Democratic parties of the last century in which case I would be interested to read the former. But I dont think they have even that. (although I could be wrong)In fact, how many Left parties, one wonders, do explicitly publish a maximum programme which clearly outlines the communist objective. That would be something at least – even if such parties maybe irredeemably compromised by pursuing a minimum programme as well. I dont think many if any such parties exist. For most if not all of them, socialism/communism boils down to some form of state administered capitalism under pseudo "public ownership"
Out of curiosity I looked up LU's recently agreed 2015 Manifesto and straightaway was quite surprised to come across the following under the section entitled "The Economy": "We need an economy run democratically, not controlled by the few in the interests of 1% of the population. This means the principle of common ownership of all natural resources and means of producing wealth, and an end to the dominance of private financial interests such as the City of London over the economy. We stand for ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"(http://leftunity.org/manifesto-2015-the-economy/ This in a Manifesto that blatantly calls for full employment, taking over the banks, taxing corporations and a whole host of other capitalism-tinkering reforms. I cannot believe that the authors of the Manifesto would be so unfamiliar with the argument that the very concept of "common ownership" logically precludes economic exchange (and hence any kind of exchange-related phenomena such as wages, taxes or indeed banks) or that the expression "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" specifically rules out wage labour or even labour vouchers and refers instead to a system of voluntaristic labour and free access to goods and services (Marx's higher phase of communism) Why is LU cleaving to – or hijacking – a form of wording that clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with what their Manifesto is actually proposing? Whats going on here?
Vin wrote:and how will a minority get control of the state when there is a majority of class conscious workers with delegates in control ? This is the claptrap and confusion I am refering to. It has nothing to do with Leninism, it is an irrational fear of the state. The anarchist position is dangerous and we would do well to oppose it as we always have.I'm not advancing an anarchist position, Vin. Like I said, i have no problem with the democratic capture of state power but I see this democratic act as tantamount to signifying the complete disappearance of the state. This is why a minority will not be able to re-capture the state from the socialist majority – there will be no state to recapture! In the event of such a minority trying to forcibly reinstate capitalist ownership of the the means of production it wont be a "state" that will forcibly rebuff such action. It will be a the citizens of a classless stateless communist society that will be doing that! Your mistake, Vin, is to equate the use of force (should be necessary) with the actions of a state. It is not. There are stateless egalitarian societies where force is quite clearly in evidence such as the Nuer, the subject of Evan Pritchard's ethnography (http://classes.yale.edu/03-04/anth500b/projects/project_sites/00_Busbee/500b_evans-pritchard.html) I don't see why in principle a future socialist society might not be able to resort to force, if called upon to do so, without resorting to a state
Vin wrote:You should not be surprised by my confirmation of clause 6 of our principles Anarchists don't believe in using the state, the World Socialist Movement believes the opposite. Our conference resolution proposing the immediate abolition of the state was anarchist nonsense. There will be a dictatorship of the working class, the dictatorship of the 99%.But cant you see that this implies the continuation of the class relationships of capitalism if you advocate the dictatorship of the working class? The existence of a working class implies the existence of a capitalist class and insofar as you allow the latter to continue to exist what actually has changed in substantive terms? Nothing! The socialist revolution will STILL not yet have happened – by definition. All that will have happened is that you are allowing capitalism to continue and therefore conspiring in the continuing exploitation of workers by the capitalists. THIS is why any talk of the DOTP is so dangerous from a revolutionary socialist point of view since it lends itself to a Leninist position where a minority come to claim to represent the majority in the transitional period but in practice come to oppose the interests of the majority just as the Bolsheviks did. It is just not realistic to suppose that a militant socialist movement having become a majority and having captured state power by democratic means will allow capitalism and the state to continue one second longer. On what grounds must workers wait and refrain from abolishing their exploited status for the duration? I cant think of a single plausible reason why they should. Saying the capitalists (or rather ex capitalists) might use force against them is not a reason at all because such an attempt can clearly be opposed by the non statist use of force if necessary
Vin wrote:This is our position:That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.It would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. The State will be an 'agent of emancipation' in direct opposition to the anarchist utopian position.The capitalist class may or may not voluntarily give its privileged position but it won't be a state that it will have to deal with but rather the militant organisation of a classless stateless communist society. It is the latter that will resist any attempt to forcibly reintroduce capitalism. In one sense this argument is a semantic one but it is important to be consistent here in your usage of terms. A state is an instrument of class oppression in Marxian terms. Consequently the very existence of a state implies the existence of classes and therefore the absence of classless communism/socialism. If there is no classless communism after the socialist majority has captured power then I put it to you that no socialist revolution has yet taken place and that whoever controls the state in these circumstances will end up being not that much different from, say, the early Labour government and we all know how that panned out in the end! After all capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital and against the workers. So who is going to take the blame for continuing to administer a system that operates against the interests of workers in the face of a majority of those workers who want to end that system forthwith only to be told that they must wait a while longer? It makes no sense
alanjjohnstone wrote:Taking control and using the state to establish socialism is after all just going to be a brief period at the beginning of the revolutionary process. Isn't that our message which we emphasise…and once that is accomplished the state is transformed in such a fashion that it can no longer be described a state.To be pedantic, Alan, I can't see how this can be case… I think the confusion arises from how one defines the state itself which is something separate from the machinery of the state i.e the bureaucratic apparatus. I can certainly foresee the latter continuing to exist and to be adapted after the capture of state power but not the state qua state. To say the state continues to exist albeit for an allegedly "brief period" is tantamount to saying that class ownership of the means of production continues to exist when the whole point of taking over the state is to abolish class ownership! In other words it is a symbolic act marking the switchover point to a classless (and therefore stateless) society Which is why logically speaking and in terms of Marxian discourse itself, taking over the state must mean exactly the same thing as the dissolution of the state
Vin wrote:I cringe when I hear members say " We stand for a stateless, moneyless, wageless ……."What about the first step before we can have such a society? Taking control of the state and using its power democratically to dispossess the parasites and reorganise society. Its as if we are afraid to say it.I'm surprised to hear you say that Vin. I would have thought saying one stands for a stateless, moneyless, wageless society is precisely what distinguishes socialists from the reformists.Taking control of the state and using it against the capitalists begins to sound like that claptrap advanced by the Leninists of all hues – the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat", an oxymoron if there ever was oneI've got nothing against the idea of taking control of the state but the very act of doing so entails ipso facto the complete dissolution of the state. Anything short of this leads us into the quagmire of Leninist politics and inevitably the retention of capitalism in its statist form
gnome wrote:robbo203 wrote:Ozymandias wrote:Recently some poor guy in Telford succeeded in throwing himself to his death because of the encouraging shouts of "Jump", "Get on with it" and "How far can you bounce?" from a crowd of "Workers" below him. Some of these fuckin cretins were filming this horror on their smartphones then uploading it onto "social media" for a laugh. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Well the smartphone phenomenon is making our glorious "working class" anything but smart. Let's face it they were a shower of stupid bastards before all of this…now made even more stupid with the emergence of this technology. They are more addicted, more myopic, more desensitised and more detached as a consequence. This is what you are dealing with now. The masters are turning them all into DRONES! You only have to look at the kids. World Socialism? That'll be right…FORGET IT!Just as a matter of curiosity do you have a link to this incident at Telford? I would love to run it past my local FB group and see what sort of reaction it elicits
That confirms my suspicion. For every scumbag-cum-stupid bastard, there are many many more who are not. There is hope for socialism yet. Ozy!
Ozymandias wrote:Recently some poor guy in Telford succeeded in throwing himself to his death because of the encouraging shouts of "Jump", "Get on with it" and "How far can you bounce?" from a crowd of "Workers" below him. Some of these fuckin cretins were filming this horror on their smartphones then uploading it onto "social media" for a laugh. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Well the smartphone phenomenon is making our glorious "working class" anything but smart. Let's face it they were a shower of stupid bastards before all of this…now made even more stupid with the emergence of this technology. They are more addicted, more myopic, more desensitised and more detached as a consequence. This is what you are dealing with now. The masters are turning them all into DRONES! You only have to look at the kids. World Socialism? That'll be right…FORGET IT!Ozy, its an appalling incident , I agree but I seriously wonder how typical it is. Here in Spain for example there have been cases of ordinary folk, harassed and driven to despair by the efforts of banks to repossess their flats, plunging to their deaths on the street below. Far from provoking the kind of reaction you describe at Telford. it has induced a sense of horror and widespread outrage. There have been two ore three case of this in my local city of Granada I remember when I worked as an admin penpusher for a view years back in the 1990s at a London university. college, there was an incident involving a student who jumped from the eleventh floor of Engineering Faculty block. As I recall, what happened is that he had just been diagnosed with an incurable cancer. The shock – even trauma – that this incident caused among my colleagues was pretty much palpable. I can assure you. Most people I believe are fundamentally decent and caring when it comes down to it, and this shows particularly when disasters or catastrophes of some sort happen Of course there are always the exceptions that prove the rule but don't be so disheartened Ozy! There are a lot of good folk out there who don't buy into the dog eat dog worldview Just as a matter of curiosity do you have a link to this incident at Telford? I would love to run it past my local FB group and see what sort of reaction it elicits CheersR
LBird wrote:I know I'm wasting my time, and yours, Vin's, YMS's, and anybody else's who isn't interested the the philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge.LBird, somebody once said something along the lines that philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways and that the point is to change it. I don't have any great problem with your view on the "philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge". In fact, if you recall, months and months ago I expressed support for the position you were advancing which was a fundamental assault on the notion of objectivity in science – positivism – and the idea that science is somehow value free. You may or may believe that you are unique in holding these views on this forum but you are not and there are others here apart from me who likewise hold them. Where you fall down badly, and with all due respect, is not the philosophical basis of your thinking but in your working out of the practical implications of what you are saying – like your ludicrous idea of everyone voting on scientific theories. You never explained how or why. Did you seriously think for one moment what all that would entail in practical terms? I don't think so and your reluctance to engage with the arguments at a practical level was all too telling. It suggests you subconsciously knew you were on dodgy grounds I think you would be far better advised to shift your focus of attention away from abstract philosophy for a while to something a little more practically oriented and down to earth, to be brutally frank. You've been reading too many philosophy books lately. Time to take a break!
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own.You still won't tell us how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.You're positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass', and suggesting that the 'elite' have a 'method' which is a better way of determining the truth of a 'view', than is a democratic method.This is simply bourgeois ideology, not an incontrovertible truth.It is a product of 'materialism', and is suited to Leninist political organisation.Put simply, robbo, you have a fear of democracy, and a faith in scientists. It is not a revolutionary view.
Come off your cloud, LBird. For just once try engaging with the arguments that are presented than continuously try to misrepresent them to save face. I have no fear of democracy at all. I advocate it and I am a democrat. But unlike you I recognise there are limits to democratic decision making and these are defined by where the whole purpose of democratic decision making is no longer served and where other considerations come into play. Do you recognise such limits? Or are you seriously suggesting that every single human act or thought must be subjected to democratic sanction ? That we must fall in line with the perceived will or outlook of the (global) majority? Your actions and thoughts on this forum belie such a suggestion. You persist in putting forward certain arguments which no one else here apparently supports. I will defend your right to do so though I think the arguments themselves are absolutely ludicrous You say I "still" won't tell you "how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.". Unlike you, I don't run away from a question when asked one – though you haven't actually specifically put this question in the form that you have above so the the insertion of the word "still" in the above is mischievous and misleading The answer to your question is straightforward: the "view" that a scientist develops is something that is obtained after years and years of sustained study and research. I don't claim that the level of understanding that a scientist reaches in his or her particular line of research – let us say astrophysics – is not something that cannot also be got a majority but only if the majority also engages in years and years of sustained study and research. You cant expect it to magically appear overnight can you? Or perhaps you do in your case. Simply reflecting on this shows just how stupid your whole argument is. If a majority were to devote themselves to years and years of study and research in the field of astrophysics to equip themselves with a level of understanding equivalent to that of a qualified astrophysicists then what about the hundreds of other fields of scientific endeavour? What about, say, molecular biology.? Do you expect the majority to similarly devote years and years of study and research to molecular biology as well? Has it not occurred to you that doing one thing may prevent you from another, that to become specialised in one field has opportunity costs which prevent you from becoming an expert in another if only becuase we just dont have time enough to do both things?You have an almost childlike view of the way world ticks, LBird, which I find quite astonishing in someone who otherwise comes across as quite erudite. You just don't things through, do you? Like your crackpot idea that 7 billion people must vote in multiple thousands of plebiscites every year to validate the "truth" of each new scientific theory as it comes on stream. Quite apart from the total impracticality of such a suggestion , you totally neglect to explain why a vote is needed in the case of determining the truth of a scientific theory .You run away from this question every time it is put to you. Thats because you don't understand what democracy is for as i said at the outset. Its about practical decisions that affect us, not abstract "truth" And so we come to your claim that I am positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass' . No I'm not at all. What I have been trying to tell you that the "elite" you read into my proposition is a MIRAGE a complete figment of your imagination. There is no elite. All there is is a complex social division of labour. I've explained this all to you but you wont listen. The trained astrophysicist certainly differs from the mass in the level of understanding he or she has as far as the field of astrophysics is concerned. But as far as the field of molecular biology is concerned that trained astrophysicist is equally part of the mass. In other words, you could say that EVERYONE in society is both part of an "elite" – with respect to their own area of expertise- and part of the mass with respect to other areas of expertise. In other words there is no sociologically identifiable trans-social entity called an "elite" in my view of communism – nor for that matter, a "mass". It is simply a case of individuals necessarily being different from each other It is precisely the "vulgar communism" of people like you that Marx attacked – the preposterous suggestion that people are all equal and identical in their abilities. Thats is not the kind of equality we communists strive to achieve. What we seek is social equality with respect to peoples' standing in relation to each other. There is no power that a trained astrophysicists could possibly wield over the "mass" in a communist society notwithstanding that he or she clearly differs from the mass in respect of the level of understanding attained in the subject of astrophysics. The social basis of elite power in the proper sense disappears completely in a communist society where goods and services are freely accessible to the general public and where all labour is voluntarily performed. There is no leverage any one or any group can exercise over anyone else under these circumstances. You have claimed a high level of understanding by a few experts in a particular field of scientific endeavour somehow invests them with a power over society which is at odds with the democratic nature of communism. Well go on prove it!. Show us how this "power" could materialise in a communist society
james19 wrote:Found this…… any system that is not based on individuals having the freedom to work for their own benefit or to pursue their own dreams is never going to work and will always end with mass poverty. just look at what is happening in venezuela at the minute.capitalism has given us so much and it still has lots to give. sometimes the government has to step in (mainly when it comes to environment) but in general capitalism has shown itself to be the best system to create wealth and to feed starving humans.http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aimTwo things to say about that, James… Firstly it should be pointed out that these figures have been severely criticised as being highly misleading. There are several reasons for saying this, some of which are mentioned in this articlehttp://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/16/should-we-celebrate-a-decline-in-global-poverty/ Secondly, even if it is true that, in absolute terms, progress has been made and I think it is indisputable that such progress has been made – particularly in places like China and India – you don't judge an economic system on that basis but rather on the extent to which it has been able to realise the technological-cum-productive potential that society has created to meet human needs On that basis I would contend that capitalism is not a progressive system at all but in fact is falling further and further behind in the realisation of that potential and that the biggest single factor for this is is the relative and absolute growth capitalism's structural waste – those economic activities that do nothing to enhance human welfare and wellbeing but merely exists to keep the system ticking over on its own terms
