[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Unless I have seriously misread him, he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not , it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material reality, before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind but an objective organisational reality…

I have the sinking feeling here, robbo, that your use of the philosophical categories 'materal' and 'objective' might be very different to those that I think that Marx used. Your usage suggests, to me, Engels' science, rather than Marx's. But we've had a number of recent discussions about these issues, and I'm sure that both me and everyone else has had enough of that debate, for now at least.Please take my absence of a longer reply, not as ignoring your reasonable post, but as current exhaustion about discussing this.If you feel compelled to resurrect this debate, could you read some of the other relevant threads first, to get some feel for my position, and then I will be pleased to answer any questions you have. Cheers, comrade.Apologies if I've misunderstood you.

 Hi LBird No,  Im certainly not using  Engelsian philosophical categories of "material" and "objective". I did glance though the mega debates on this forum on dialectics , science and whatnot  and found it all fascinating stuff –  if perhaps a bit too much to keep up with.  As a matter of fact, by and large I found myself very much in agreement with the position you yourself expressed throughout. Perhaps, the expression "material fact of life" might be misleading or potentially misleading. But the point I wanted to convey from my reading of Marx in the passage I quoted is that he seemed to have envisaged the development of the polytechnic worker (as an ideal type) as being a precondtion for establishing communism and by polytechnic he meant someone who was multi-skilled and all rounded in a quite literal sense – that is someone who is able to quite lierally undertake a great variety of different task.  This is what I was getting at My point was that the division of labour under capitalism in fact prevents this from happening and is leading in the quite opposite direction of deskilling alongside excessive specialisation. It is therefore  denying  to us the very precondition set out by Marx himself  for the establishment of communism.  My argument  (in oppostion to what Marx is apparently saying) is that the abolition of the division labour should not be seen as a precondition of communism but rather as a consequence of conmunism but even then only to a limited extent. (more anon)  I think Marx was mistaken in his views and was led to this erroneous concluson by the rather abstract  line of argument he was bent upon pursuing. Somewhere along that line he lost touch with reality. I  hesitate to call it "material reality" for fear of offending but Im sure you get my drift I dont think in any case we should be talking in such stark absolutist terms of "abolishing  the division of labour". As has been poiinted out by others here, as far as the social division of labour is concerned  it is quite absurd to suggest that we could all turn our hand to being a nuclear physicis on monday , a structural engineer on tuesday and a concert hall painist on wednesday.   Clearly, there are some kinds of work  that require a very considerable degree of specialisation and focus to achieve an acceptable level of competence. One could also make out a case for retaining to some extent  a technical division of labour as I know  only too well in my own line of work as  landscape gardener who has someone else working with him..  I get Miguel to make the cement while I do the arty farty stuff. Well,  he's a lot younger than me so Ive got a good enough excuse! As in all things,  its a case of exercising moderation . What is the problem is not the division of labour as such as its extreme application which, in capitalism,  is compounded by the fact that we are not at liberty to just move from one workplace to another but are bound by contract and fear of life on the dole.  In socialism, I suggest, even the most  highly qualified specialist would benefit from the leavening experience of dabbling in a variety of different jobs now and then. Variety is, after all, the spice of life, innit? Robin

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Surely the task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'. Indeed, the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.So, it's not so much 'the nature of work under capitalism', but the criticism of 'the nature of work under capitalism' that is able to be developed only due to the prior existence of that 'nature'. Communism requires an active and critical proletariat to develop within capitalist relations of production.The 'all-round development of individuals' is our own task, and the fulfilling of that task itself will prove us to be fitted to move to Communism………….Workers themselves have to see through the 'job consciousness'; surely it can't be long before students (many now from a proletarian background) start to see through the myth that the purpose of 'education' is to 'get a job', rather than its real purpose of 'teaching critical thought'. Indeed, there have been some straws in the wind recently, in 'economics' departments, at least. So, I don't think you're being 'pessimistic', just 'realistic' at the present. Time will tell, if workers will start to see through the 'work for shit wages, in a shit job, to consume shite' propaganda put forward by the ruling class.

Hi L BirdI agree with what you seem to be saying or recommending  – that it is the criticism of the nature of work under capitalism  that needs to be developed but I dont think that is what Marx is saying.in this particular quote of his. Unless I have seriously misread him,  he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not ,  it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material  reality,  before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind  but an objective organbisational reality which Marx seems to be saying has to be changed before we can change over to communism. If that is what Marx is saying then I would  respond that I do not think this is the case and I would concur with you in stressing the importance of consciousness and criticism in the development of a class conscious outlook. However , while it is true to say, as you do, that " the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.e,   I dont quite see how you can then say  the  task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'".  On the face of it , what you seem to be suggesting is that an active class conscious proletariat should itself proactively undertake the task of transforming workers into the all-rounded polytechnic ideal type sought after by Marx.. How would you propose to do that? The proletariat doesnt employ itself and cannot therefore dictate the terms under which it is employed or the form in which work is apportioned and allocated between the workers. It can only defensively nibble away at the corners of capitalism's diktats from above reinforced in – and by – an environment of rampant market competition. Even, then, if workers are able to gain some consessions from empoyers vis a vis the division of labour it is only  the technical division of labour we are talking about operating with a particular factory or office. It does nothing to advance all roundedness in term of the social division of labour for the reason that individuals workers are tied to particular jobs in capitalism and cannot freely move around from one workplace to another and engage in different kinds of production We live in a society in which work  and the  very nature of work is fundamentally subordinated and subservient  to the needs of capital and the capitalist class – which class, after all, owns and controls the means of production ands therefore has the capacity to imposes it own wishes on the producers. Technology is never neutral, it  organised and structured in accordance with those needs and this is reflected very much in the division of labour . So, for example,  a more complex elaborated  division of labour tends to  make for increased productivity per worker and  thus ultimately more profits. for the business concerned. Exactly what the capitalists want. and need To change that you would have to expropriate the expropriators to bring the productive resources and technological infrastructure of society  under common ownership. i.,e. establish communism. But Marx's  point seems to be that the establishment of communism presupposes the prior development of all-rounded multi-skilled polytechnic worker which,  I suggested,  is effectively blocked by present day capitalist control of the means of production .  You can see where the logic of this argument is going  – that Marx has kinda painted himself into a corner with this argument of his – that only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate the productive forces when, actually,  they first have to appropriate the productive forces in order to develop in the all rounded fashion they desire I might have misread you but you seem to be implying that Marx was right to stress the need for workers to develop in a polytechnic fashion but that it is up to a class conscious proltariat to promoite this developemtn since it will not be the "mechanical product of physical productive forcess". If so I think you are mistaken.  While the productive forces do indeed include human beings from the persectivwe oif capitalist political economy their humanity and their consciousness counts for nought.  They as as dispensable as the clapped out machinery that is written off. A bit of poetic licence perhaps but you get my drift. I take a different stance. The establishment of  communism does NOT depend on transcending the division of labour and the emrgence of Marx's  polytechnic worker – althrough it might well depend on a critique of the division of labour as part of a general critique of capitalism itself.  The establishment of communism wiould thus depend amongst other things on the desire to transforn the very nature of work itself and how it is organised  rather than the actual transformation of work which , while the means of production remain in the hands of a parasittic minority  will not become a reality and will only remain a quest

[robbo203]

With regard to my earlier post (no 31) here is the crucial quote from "The German ideology" which bears out the point  I was making. The key sentence is in bold "We have already shown above that the abolition of a state of affairs in which relations become independent of individuals, in which individuality is subservient to chance and the personal relations of individuals are subordinated to general class relations, etc. — that the abolition of this state of affairs is determined in the final analysis by the abolition of division of labour. We have also shown that the abolition of division of labour is determined by the development of intercourse and productive forces to such a degree of universality that private property and division of labour become fetters on them. We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces, and because the contradiction between the classes has reached its extreme limit. Finally, we have shown that the abolition of private property and of the division of labour is itself the association of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse." If Marx was right in thinking this what are the implications of such an insight for the establishment of socialism?  Is the nature of work under capitalism  being transformed in such a way as to foster the "all round development of individuals" that would allow them to appropriate the productive forces? In attacking the division of labour Marx might not have had so much in mind the social division of labour – the range of occupations necessary to the production and reproduction of existing society – as  the technical division of labour and the stultifying fragmentation of the work process into endlessly repetitive simple movements that this entailed   – something which inspired Ruskin  (I think) to comment along the lines that it is not work that is being divided but men.  Are we moving away from a society based on a pronounced technical division of labour.? If so how does this square with the phenomenon of deskilling? What of the growth of sweatshop  labour in many  Third world countries subcontracted to work for big brand names and under conditions as deplorable as anything to be found in Victorian England?  What of the increase in low paid service sector workers in the West,  flipping burgers in fast food outlets  or working from those depressing  call centres that have sprung everywhere lately? There does seem to be a marked polarisiation of work today with the movement towards highly skilled  and highly paid work being counterposed by an opposite  movement towards low paid low skilled work.  It is jobs in the middle of this spectrum that have been clobbered most,  leading to angst-ridden expressions of concern on the part of some commentators about the "hollowing out" and decline of the  so called middle classes., that bastion of bourgeois respectabilityThe psychological effect of what is a kind of  de facto divide and rule strategy in terms of promoting job consciousness at the expense of class consciousness,  would seem on the face of it, to be somewhat discouraging from a revolutionary socialist perspective. Or am I being unduly pessimistic? 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Here is a post I found on the WSM forum. “At the core of the highest phase of communist society, as described in Marx’s early writings, is the abolition of labour. The more famous abolition of private property, the well-known abolition of the state, and the lesser-known abolition of the division of labour are all conditional upon the abolition of labour itself.” http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/can-we-completely-abolish-labor-right-now-final/ "According to my calculations, today anywhere from 92% to 98% of all labor performed in our economy is now superfluous and can be abolished" 

 Very interesting article, Vin, but I think the figure of 92-98% is a gross exaggeration.  Interestingly enough, it is similar to the figure of 95% cited by Marshall McLuhan many years ago.  A much more realistc estimate would be in the order of 50-60% Bear in mind that these figures relate to the official "white" economy with perhaps a passing nod at the unofficial "black" economy.  They do not refer to the very large grey economy which comprises all unpaid  work outside the market, of which the biggest component is the household sector followed by charitable work.  According to UN figures,  just over half of all work hours in both developed and developing countries pertain to the grey economy which is itself a kind of validation of the case for a non market world.  Come socialism,  we are certainly not going to be "liberated" from the need to carry on with such work – even given the accoutrements of a hi tech modern lifestyle available to us. Frankly speaking, the idea of being served breakfast in bed by a programmed robot is almost as appalling as going to bed with a robot.  Lets just hope "The Stepford Wives" will remain an entertaining work of fiction. Still,  the figure of 60% for the paid economy represents a very significant diminution of the social workload (or, alternatively, a massive boost in the productive potential of a socialist society in terms of the resources and labour power to be redirected towards socially useful production.  Of course , what goes with this also is a sharp contraction in the range of the social division of labour as we know it. Many of the jobs that are vitally necessary to a capitalist economy will, quite simply, no longer exist.   

[robbo203]

I dont know if this helps but Ive written something on this subject   which appears on my blog page on Revleft herehttp://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1510It basically concerns Marx's idealised conception of the all-rounded polytechnic worker  who embodies within herself a " totality of capacities"  and was seen by him as an essential precondition for the collective appropriation of the means of production – communism..  I think the idea is nonsense, put in this starkly dogmatic  form, but that is not to say that relatively speaking, a greater degree of all roundedness skills-wise might not help to foster a greater sense of common identity between workers and of the feasiibility of taking over the means of production iin general and running them in the interests of everyone EDIT: Just tried the link and it doesnt seem to work. So if interested go to my homepage and click on blog at the top  http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13232

[robbo203]

Hi Admice. I assume the post is referring to me but , if not, thanks anyway . Living in Granada that is roughly the view I get to see everyday!   The cloud formation in this part of the world is actually quite unique and the effects are often stunning.  The Alpujarras just south of the Sierra Nevada which is basically a long valley running between the Sierra and the (somewhat lower)  Contraviesa mountain range (where I used to live)  has a particular kind of topography  – so Im told  but Im no expert – which  generates thermals that shape or sculpture the clouds in this way.  Apparently the Alpujarras is one of only 7 or 8 places in the world where this happensAnyway,  check out this link which has a few pictures of local clouds (amongst other things) …Cheers Robin https://www.google.es/search?q=clouds+over+contraviesa+spain&client=firefox-a&hs=RxQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fjyWUsO7IILG7Abts4HoAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=704

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

jpodcaster wrote:

Also let's not forget that, whatever your views on the "wishy-washy reformism" of LU, the organisation contains a significant minority of men and women with a commitment to a socialism virtually indistinguishable from that envisaged by the SPGB, including ex-members and sympathisers.

Does that mean that Robin Cox's World in Common group has decided to "enter" the new party?

 AdamJust to be clear – the World in Common Group is no more "Robin Cox's group" than the SPGB is " Adam Buick's group".  And, no, WIC has not decided to "enter the new party" since that would be completely at variance with its stated purpose.  WiC embraces a diversity of currents or tendencies within the non-market anti-statist  political sector  – including, of course, SPGB-style impossibilism – and is not to be linked with any one particular tendency or current, Party or group.  It therefore has nothing to say as an organisation on the matter under discussion though individual members are free to reach their own conclusions.  Wic is not, and never has been, a political party. Speaking  personally, I do not know enough about this proposed new political party to comment authoritatively on it..  I live in Spain so forgive me if political developments happening in that far flung rain-sodden little island somewhere off the North West coast of  Europe appear a little remote.  I do occasionally pop in and have a nosey around on the SPGB forum  (which, I have to say, does the SPGB much credit) which is how I came across your comment above.  I  have a lot of other things on my plate at the moment and wouldn't normally be drawn into a discussion these days but could not let your comment pass unanswered. Speaking personally, from the little I know of LUP, and here I obviously stand to be corrected, I am slightly  puzzled by Stuart's preference for some other platform than  the  "socialist platfom".   I would have thought that thatwould have been the more obvious one for a socialist to support – although am I correct in saying it has attracted the usual suspects in the form of disaffected trots, cpgbers. and the like and that this perhaps might be the reason why Stuart is disinclined to support this platform?  Perhaps he can enlighten me on this? I would also add that while reference has been made to the Second International, it is not enough simply to possess  a "correct" understanding of  what  socialism is about.  The Second International amply displayed such an understanding in elaborating its revolutionary maximum programme yet, at the same time, pursued a minimum programme of reforms.  Inevitably the latter crowded out the former and, like the Cheshire Cats proverbial grin, any vision or hope of a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism faded with the rising political fortunes of these fake "socialist"  Social Democratic cum Labour type parties. In truth, that is what would concern me most about LUP.   What guarantee is there that it would not go down the same road and arrive at the same dead end, assuming it were to take off as a political party? On the other hand, there is the perennial question of "what to do in the meantime" which, I quess,  is something that the LUP is trying after a fashion to address and which, unfortunately, the SPGB has yet to adequately address.  Putting the case for socialism is all very well – and, of course, absolutely indispensable – but is it compelling enough on its own to make a difference? Inadvertently it comes across as an invitation to abandon what matters in the here and now for the sake of a long term goal – however much you insist that socialism is your immediate goal.  Realistically, and this is the point, most workers dont consider it is anywhere near immediately attainable even if this boils down to a self fulfilling prophecy as far as they are concerned. So what are they to do  in the meantime?  More to the point what are we to say in the meantime if reformism is not the answer?  That, I guess,  is the real dilemma we constantly face as revolutionary socialists

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum ,

You are begging the question here and have failed to see the difference between banning someone for the views they expressed and banning them for their behaviour (they way they put across their views).The two individuals were not personally abusive; their personal behaviour was different: abusing their right under the rules to post 3 messages a day every day for months on end. The result was that discussion about other aspects was swamped and people left the forum. They were in effect behaving like those who sent spam sex messages to your old open forum (which led you to take the drastic step of closing the whole thing down). In any event, nobody is banned from arguing for circular cities or anarcho-capitalism either on this or the WSM_Forum

 I believe you are mistaken. It was very clear why they were banned and this was explained in a post by the new moderator on August 17thThe point of view of David and Bob has been adequately discussed in thisforum for a long period. This is the forum of the World Socialist Movementand its companion parties, and our main purpose is to discuss aboutsocialism and communism, and to discuss the case of the socialist party,but it was not created in order to attack the party, and to discouragepeoples who wants to become members of the party,This is not a forum for Anarcho-capitalism, Cooperativism, oranti-communism, or in order to make propaganda to those political trends,who ever wants to know about both subject matter, our website has plentyof information, or they can go the archives of the forum.Note the reference to the forum not being created "in order to attack the Party." I read that as saying no criticism of the  party is to be allowedI dont think your argument stands up to scrutiny – that these members were banned because they abused the rule of post only 3 messages per day.  Ive done that myself on occasions as have others but if that really was a problem in the case of these two individuals  then  answer is simple – you put them under moderation.  You dont ban them. Besides,  I think I can distinctly recall Bob at least saying on one or two occasions that he could not answer another post becuase he had reached his 3 post limit 

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.

This raises another relevant question. Your semi-closed forum can take a vote of all the members since you exist essentially only on the internet. Nothing wrong with that  or that way of consulting forum members, It is democratic.Our forums are different. They are set up, run and paid for by parties which exist outside of cyberspace, so we have to use a different form of democratic control. A majority of members of the WSM_Forum are not socialists let alone members, so why should they have a right to say how the forum is run? If we go down that road, then the forum would be open to take over by opponents or people with a different agenda from us.

 This is not the point at all.  The WSM forum belongs to the WSM and it is quite right that the WSM should control if and not people on the forum itself. I'm not questioning that at all. and I think you misunderstood me when I said a poll was conducted  by World in Common on whether to expel someone for supporting the Americans in the Iraq War becuase it contravened the terms of joining the forum.  The poll was conducted within WIC itself not among members on the worldincommon forum most of whom are not members of WICOne other thing – setting up a yahoogroup costs nothing so there is nothing to be paid for. Unless the situation has changed recently. Has it?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

You raise an interesting point, Robbo, about what to do with about people like Bob Howes (who favours small-scale co-operatives and circular cities) and Dave McDonagh (who is an anarcho-capitalist) who use a forum set up by somebody else to propagate their own views so frequently and over so long a period of time (years) as to virtually take it over and turn it into a forum discussing their ideas not those of those who set up (run and pay for) the forum.Party opinion was divided on this and still is, but in the end the decision was taken by the moderator to ban them. Previously, a decision had been made to set up this forum here, as one with separate threads, which would mean that those who wanted to discuss with the likes of them could do so on a separate thread of its own. As far as I know, Bob Howes is a registered member of this forum but has not contributed much since nobody replied to him.This of course is only a problem for open forums (ie forums open to anybody) like this one and the still extant WSM Forum. It's not a problem that we have on our own member-only forums. Nor is it a problem for your own forum which (I maybe wrong on this) is not open to everyone but only to people who broadly agree with a non-market anti-state position. In other words, McDonagh would not be admitted in the first place. I'm not quite sure why Bob Howes isn't (or perhaps he is, if not why not?). I believe also that, at one time, you did run an open forum like this one but changed its nature to a semi-closed one precisely to avoid problems like those posed by Howes and McDonagh. Incidentally, have you ever had to ask someone to leave your forum because it became evident after they joined that they were not part of the broad non-market, anti-state sector? Or is there perhaps a test to join?The point I'm making (and it's not intended as a polemical debating point) is this: is there any difference in principle between not allowing McDonagh to join in the first place and allowing him to join and then excluding him for trying to take it over and turn it into a forum discussing anarcho-capitalism, not socialism?  Either way, McDonagh does not get to express his views on the forum (though on our forum someone else can and I think still does, but can't on yours). Can in fairness those who have chosen the first option accuse those who have chosen the second of "censorship"?Let's see if we can have an intelligent, reasonable and polite discussion on this question/problem.

 My response to this is simple and straightfoirward.  I accept fully the case for having restricted forums where this is warranted.   So for example there is nothing wrong with having SPINTCOM restricted to members of the SPGB only.  Afterall it is about the internal business of the SPGB and, quite rightly, it is for the SPGB membership to have a say in this, not outsiders In World in Common there have been 3 forums – the COMMONER forum for members of WIC only (equivalent to SPINTCOM), WORLDINCOMMON forum restricted to people in the non market anti-statist sector and WICOPENDEBATE a public forum.  This last forum was NOT changed to a semi closed   forum but was simply closed down because it had been more or less dead as a forum for quite a while and was also becoming vulnernable to SPAM   (sex sites)  which is a sure sign of terminal decline if Im not mistaken.  It was agreed by the group to close down the forum as it served no real purpose anymore which is a pity in some ways  since in the early days it was quite a lively place with all sorts of ideas being tossed around.  As far the WORLDINCOMMON forum is concerned there was one individual who was expelled from the forum for expressing views contrary to the nonmarket anti-statist sector  – I think it was for supporting the American regime in the Iraq war.  The explusion was carried out democratically and by poll of WIC members if I recall correctly So I have no objection in principle to restricting the membership of a forum, according to certain criteria – PROVIDING these are made explicit and justified at the outset and constitute as it were the basis of  kind of contractural understanding involved in joining a forum in the first place. I dont even mind the idea of  altering the criteria later on so as change a forum into a semi closed one PROVIDING this is done democratically in advance and made clear to the members of the forum in advance What I strongly object to is the arbitrary use of power to expel 2 individuals from a supposedly completely open public forum in the case of the WSM forum and the binning of posts by a member of this forum . In the former case , the justification advanced by the new moderator  (unilaterally it would seem)  for expelling the two individuals concerned was that the forum was not the place to discuss the ideas these two individuals advanced since they were not relevant to the case for socialism.  That is bullshit.  They were completely relevant to the "case for socialism" even if in the case of McDonagh this meant trying to demonstrate that socialism was an impossiblity .  How on earth could this NOT be relevant?  (I believe a similar argument was advanced for binning Bob Howe's post on this forum) The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum ,  That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Editorial – the Case Against CensorshipOur answer to all censors is to reaffirm that workers are quite capable of judging for themselves, quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and working out which ideas accord with their interests – and which do not. The best condition for the emergence of socialist understanding remains free and frank discussion. May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.

 I absolutely agree.  Yet on this forum what do we find but the thread  of one individual – Bob Howes – summarily dispatched to the bin.  Why? Because it was deemed by someone that such ideas are not appropriate for discussion on a socialist forum. Now I have had many arguments with Bob on his pet theory that workers setting up capitalist businesses on their own is the way to go and that this will give them the sense of empowerment  that will enable them to make a revolution and also provide the necessary funds for socialist propaganda.  Mistaken though this argument may be in broad outline, I defy anyone to show how it is not appropriate for discussion in a socialist forum Over on the WSM forum, this same individual – Bob Howes-  and another – the anarcho-capitalist atheist, David McDonagh (see where atheistic ideas can lead to) –  were actually booted off the  forum altogether.   I think that was an absolutely outrageous thing to do.  I agree that particularly in McDonagh's case he has the irritating habit of uttering the same old insufferably repetitive mantras which add nothing of substance to the debate but more effective moderation could easily have dealt with this.  However, stylistic considerations aside,  the ideas that McDonough was advancing were absolutely relevant  to a socialist forum.  He wasn't  talking about knitting patterns for a sewing circle.  He was putting forward an argument – the so called economic calculation  argument – which purports to show that socialism would be impossible. How anyone can say that is not relevant beats me. Instead of tackling these arguments head on what did we have but a shrill chorus of complaints from certain members about the antics of  McDonough and one or two others – like his sidekick , Tet  – calling for their expulsion . Apart from anything else this is so so shortsighted.  Some members don't seem to understand that McDonagh was doing us a favour.  The ECA is an excellent heuristic tool  for developing our ideas about a socialist society.  So rather than deal with this argument head on  these same members simply ran away from it ,  reinforcing the impression that they simply had no answer to it , some leaving the forum altogther, and so allowing it to appear to have been "taken over" by  a triumphal McDonough and his cronies. It was a classic  example of a self fulfilling prophecy,  For me personally the annoying thing is that just at the point where I had forced McDonough to look for  empirical proof to back up his outlandish claims about the distribution of wealth and he had agreed to do some research and come back with the evidence – thus breaking the habit of a lifetime – he and Bob Howes were summarily banned!  For me this was the nadir of Party democracy.  This is the kind of stuff your would expect to see in some outfit like REVLEFT which some time ago initiated a mass clear-out of many active users on that forum to whom Admin had taken  a dislike for one reason or another.  This is not the kind of thing you would expect to see in a socialist forum and particularly not one run by a socialist party which claims to be the most democratic and open organisation of all Now we see talk on this forum the idea being raised  of the possibility of "permanently" excluding certain users and of the need for "responsibility".  Responsibility towards whom or what for chrissakes?  What sort of language is this?  It is the language of the thought police, of a kow towing  rank-and-file membership overseen by its handpicked minders , and of Orwellian double speak. – even if it is hedged about with qualifying "ifs" and "maybes"  No –  if this is supposed to be a public forum open to all and sundry then  the ideas of all and sundry  should be allowed an airing –  however uncomfortable they might be to socialists –  providing they are not about  knitting patterns or taking a personal swipe at some other forum user.  The editorial from the Socialist Standard which Socialist Punk has pasted declares "We have always practised what we preach"  Really?  Always?

[robbo203]

I said a  few days ago that I was  leaving this forum and explained my reasons for doing so (post 235).  I would have left it at that but for the fact that I ve been alerted to  the existence of some pretty distasteful tittle tattle going on behind my back about me and my contributions to this forum on another list which is open to SPGB members only.  Since I'm not a member and therefore have means of redress to counter this underhand and sly attempt to blacken my name, allow me to refute those charges here since they relate to my contributions specifically to this threadI refer to several posts on SPINTCOM and one in particularhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/13687 Apparently I am guilty of "shit stirring" according to ALB and then having "lit the fuse" decided to "run away". Well if ALB wants his nemesis to return in the shape of ex comrade Cox, I will happily oblige him if it  is a scrap he wants.  I don't "run away" from arguments, ALB, and you of all people should know that since you've often enough  felt the pain of my rottweiler teeth clamped around your lily-white ankles.  I decided to leave the forum because I despair of the SPGB ever changing , ever realising that there is something fundamentally wrong with its whole approach. Its like banging your head against a brick wall, eventually you tire of it And is there not something a little ironic about the accusation of shit stirring anyway?.  When people accuse others of engaging in this sort of activity what they usually mean is that they don't like to deal with robust criticism because they find it upsetting. Who exactly is running away from the argument in that case, huh? I am accused of painting a "relentlessly bleak and black picture of the party"  Well thats not quite true either,  is it? The "bleak" bit maybe but not the "black" bit.  Even the execrable Mr "Copy and Paste"  Gnome  who saw fit to warn against posting comments regarding the personal integrity, intentions, character, reputation etc of another forum member and has taken every opportunity to do  just that in my case, has conceded that I have been one of the fiercest defenders of the SPGB on forums like REVLEFT.   Thats hardly a case of relentlessly  painting a black picture of of the Party is it now?  As for the bleak bit  well yes that is true. The outlook of the SPGB is grim. Its numbers are falling steadily and there seems to be no let up  in the decline.  When I joined the Party back in the 80s the SPGB was twice the size it is now   And its not just the numbers on the book.  What proportion of the membership is active in any sense.  After 108 years what exactly has the Party achieved with only 332 members at last count.  Anyone  who thinks this does not call for a fundamental rethink has seriously got to have their  head read. For telling the plain truth of the matter, ALB gets in a tizzy and declares that I am engaging in positively  the most  "venomous and vicious attack by one individual or organisation on another individual or organisation " he has ever encountered. Come off it ALB – you have obviously lived an extremely sheltered existence if you think my post was that. You need to get out into the big bad world a bit more and engage in some real rough and tumble like I have THEN you will know what venomous and vicious is all about, you old drama queen, you No, this is clearly a case of wanting to shoot the messenger who brings bad tidings. Far from saying the SPGB "deserves to die", I have said on many occasions it would be an absolute tragedy if it did die.  Yet still,  after all this time,  you and others who have been slating ex comrade Cox for all its worth, have no idea where I am coming from. ar all.  So we have puerile comments that I am waging some sort of "vendetta" against the SPGB.  For fucks sake – how stupid can you get Get this straight and get this once and for all. I'm not waging any sort of vendetta against the SPGB . It would be a strange sort of vendetta that I would be waging if it involved taking the side of of the SPGB against others on a numerous issues and on many occasions.  I actually would like nothing more than for the SPGB to prosper and grow  but this is not happening. Of course I have own views as to why this is so  and what needs to be done to address this situation .  Yes, scrapping the absolutely crazy policy of  not allowing religious minded socialists into the SPGB is part of the answer; there are many  other things wrong with the party besides this. Of course I believe these  ideas Ive been putting forward will help the reverse the plight of the party.  Whats wrong with that?  Don't you  similarly believe your  ideas will do the same?  So don't be such a hypocrite  ALB I wont go on except  to say that I detect within the party certain disturbing trends of late which signify to  me a closing of minds and a hardening of attitudes.  No doubt when things get worse you cling all the more firmly to the old certainties . I come back to the point I've made again and again. The party is in denial about the irrational side of its being. Thus it bars religious socialists from the organisation on the grounds that religion is irrational even though the the party itself is no less irrational .  If the most erudite thing you can say on the matter is that the Party should on no account admit "religious nutters" well then that really sums it all up.  It explains precisely why the party is in the state it is in and why this is  not getting better,  but decidedly worse. Rather pathetic when you think about it

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Ed wrote:

If they are idealists then they may stay faithful to their ideals.

How utterly futile and void of any meaning to the debate. I could just as easily state, if they are psychopaths they will relish the bloodshed, and on and on, back and forth, blah, blah, blah.I wasn't going to bother with this any further, but the reason I jumped into the discussion was to try and bring peoples attention to what it looks like to non socialists.The party looks like a ridiculous historical caricature, stuck in the past, using outdated language and references. From a non socialist perspective the party looks dogmatic, tired and lost in the 21st century.When I left the party some ten years ago, the internet was taking off. You would expect, due to the nature of the internet, (its global communication possibilities, millions of surfers seeking answers to all sorts of issues, random encounter possibilities, imaginative uses etc) that the party would have grown somewhat. I wouldn't expect it to be big by any means but I would expect it to have more members now than when I left ten years ago?Instead it has 332 members. Less if I am not mistaken?Why?The party is on its knees, at this rate the end won't be far off.It saddens me. 

 It saddens me too, SocialistPunk.Reading the contributions of  some members on the list , i fear your words might well prove prophetic.  The words, "ostrich",  "head"  and "sand" spontaneously  spring to mind.After this brief dalliance with this forum, I  am now more and more coming to the pessimistic conclusion that the  SPGB will never ever change.   It will stick stubbornly, rigidly, tenaciously and, above all, utterly irrationally  to its ultra-conservatism and its laughable pretence to be  …what is it ?…a "scientific socialist" organisation,  as its heads slowly but inexorably towards the exit door of history.  A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB.  Oh Boy!  Never the SPGB!  There is just no point in thinking things could be done differently because "by definition" the SPGB is always right. There are none so blind who do not want to seeSo the SPGB will, I'm afraid, go the way its kindred spirits in the Ashbourne Court Group –  only it will take a little while longer and, in the meantime, there is the tempting distraction of all that lovely legacy lolly to fritter away on utterly pointless gestures getting exactly nowhere.  They will never ever want to look at themselves straight in the mirror and ask – "how hell did we get it so badly  wrong?. If our approach is so correct why are we hemorrhaging members like water through sieve.  Why is the working class showing not the slightest hint  of  ever being interested?".  A turnout of 5  members and 2 visitors on a wet Wednesday night in Manchester or Glasgow to listen to a talk about the labour theory of value does not constitute evidence of such an interest. What an incredible waste that after 108 years it should come to this. I too cannot see it lasting much longer. In ten years time the SPGB's numbers will probably be halved again. The pity of it all is that there are some good people in the SPGB . I just hope their emotional ties with the organisation won't drag them down into the pit of political disillusionment as they see the organisation fall apart and disappear – not so much with a bang as a whimper, only to be reincarnated as an obscure footnote in some forthcoming academic book on 20th century politics For my part, I've had enough of this and the snotty carping comments from  the SPGB's very own Praetorian Guard mustering under it tatty banner and trying to keep its flickering flame still burning even if it means having to improvise with a cigarette lighter.  Sod 'em. I say. They will be relieved that i shall be leaving the forum but then that relief will most assuredly be mutual.  Sheesh! What the hell was I ever thinking of, fondly  imagining the SPGB  could change. "Free at last! Free at last!",  as Mr King once eloquently put it

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

if you even bothered to read what I wrote.

I just have again and this is what you wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

These are hugely important theoretical questions which, as far as I know, the SPGB has not yet come up with an answer to.  It needs to do that  if it is to make its whole electoralist strategy more credible in the eyes of skeptics.

To describe the issue as "hugely important" and making our "whole electoralist (!) strategy" less "credible" is a gross exaggeration. It's an interesting subject for speculation, I agree, but having a definite policy on this, at this stage, is not that crucial.

No, you are confusing quite different things here. We can speculate  about some things such as the extent of spatial imbalances in the growth towards socialism.  I have already suggested that there would be a number of factors that would tend  to work towards it being reasonably  balanced  –  telecommunications , convergent economic developments and, of course, the pro-active interventions of the worldwide socialist movement itself to help promote such balanced growth,   However, with the best will in the world, it is pretty inconceivable that every socialist party in the world would grow exactly in lock step with every other to be in a position  be able to capture political power simultaneously; there are inevitably going to be lags, perhaps quite significant lags.  There are, in other words, other factors that work against balanced growth such as global inequalities and cultural legacies.  It would be naive to just  assume that the growing socialist movement would be like some great tidal wave that removes all obstacles in its pathFrom here on – once you accept there is going to be some degree  of spatial imbalance  – the discussion shifts from the realm of speculation to a question of having to make a definite choice and formulating a definite policy .  Assuming some socialist party somewhere in the world is the first to democratically capture political power  it has basically only two options and about this there can be no "speculation":  it is a matter of simple logical deduction1) Does it establish socialism straightaway in the area in which has just captured political power?   This would mean this initial socialist region (ISR) having to come to some kinds of arrangement with the surrounding  residual capitalist states.2) Does it wait until other socialist parties elsewhere have also captured so that together they can all simultaneously introduce socialism?  This would mean this first victorious socialist party having to assume the role of a government of some sort to administer capitalism in the meanwhileI repeat again – there can be no "speculation" about this,  There is no third option,  Assuming you have captured political  (there is one other possibility which is NOT to capture power even though you are a majority though I don't think this is plausible for reasons already explained) you  HAVE to choose one or other of these two options. There are no ifs and no buts here. Refusing to come to some kind of decision  in principle as to which one of these is the best option to choose  does indeed make your electoralist strategy less credible for the very obvious reason that workers are naturally going to ask what is the Socialist Party going to do when it democratically captures power .  What could you and the SPGB say in response?  Absolutely nothing it seems. How is this going to enhance your credibility?Talking of which – what counts as a majority as far as the SPGB is concerned?  Here too all is vagueness with the SPGB  and vagueness is the enemy of credibility. I've come across statements to the effect that what is needed is a "significant majority" but what exactly does that mean?  Perhaps this is implying the possibility that socialists will not capture power even though they are a majority and that they need to be more than must a simple majority of 51%.  But have you even begun to figure out the consequences that would result from allowing a  capitalist government to keep hold of reins of power even though you are a majority?   Nope.  I don't think so.  On this as on so many other things the SPGB remains silent   where even a smidgeon of healthy speculation would help raise your credibility a little

ALB wrote:

You've just gone over the top again in your reply to Steve:

robbo203 wrote:

If you cannot do that then there is no hope for socialism

I don't agree that it "over the top" at all.  I was making a general point  about the importance of going beyond a pat formulaic responses – not just specifically to this question but about the nature of socialist society in general.   You need  for instance to be able to demonstrate how socialism could specifically utilise existing resources to produce for the needs of the population in practical terms –  not just utter ex cathedra type claims  about the merits of socialism,  People will  quite rightly just dismiss you as daydreamers otherwise.  To be fair, the SPGB has made some effort in this direction but still you get this silly argument being rolled out that it is "not for us now to speculate" which is to totally miss the point.  You need to put meat on the bare bones of your model of socialism and if you cannot excite peoples imagination and get them to think of socialism as a realistic  and solid empirically-grounded proposition  rather than just an collection of cosy sentiments that brushes aside any probing question on the grounds that you cant write "recipes for  cookshops of the future" – Marx's famous gaffe – then there is indeed no hope for socialism.  So I fully stand by my statement

ALB wrote:

In any event, as the extract from the Questions of the Day pamphlet shows, we have faced and discussed the issue and come up with something, ie (1) that it's not very likely to happen, (2) that if it was going to, the decision would be up to the World Socialist International to decide. What's wrong with that?

The Questions of the Day pamphlet did not answer the question at all, It was a complete and utter fudge. All it could come up with was this lame piece of  waffle:"the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time"This is just so wishy washy.  Its a cop out and people are just not going to buy it. It did not even outline the options (see above ) that would need to be looked at before such such a decision could be made

ALB wrote:

No need to go into details about ISRs and RCSs or whatever which anyway begs the question by assuming that it is likely that the socialist movement would win political control in just one minority part of the world while the rest will be unaffected. More useful to begin by discussing whether or not this is a realistic assumption. So why do you think that the socialist movement will be more advanced in one part of the world than the rest, and where and why?

Why?  For the reasons stated above. Personally,  I'm not too concerned with which part of the world would be more advanced – this is indeed the subject of speculation  – but rather with the fact that are almost certainly going  to be some  spatial imbalances and if the SPGB or any other socialist party is to appear more credible it has to work out well in well in advance what it would do under these circumstances  if it captured political power when the rest of the world was somewhat lagging.  You cannot just irresponsibly palm this question off to some time in the indefinite future when hopefully the global  movement is much larger. It needs a long term vision now of what it would do under these circumstances.  

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

  I could just as easily retort the Party's insistence that political power needs to be democratically captured is an equally "hypothetical" matter which we should not really make a fuss about now but wait till the socialist consists of tens of millions of people rather than a few thousand  to decide.  But does the party think that the need to democratically captured political is something best left to when socialism is more or less on cards?  No it does not .  To the contrary  I believe that one of the questions on the current membership application  form is "Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power for the achievement of socialism?

Good debating point, I concede. But surely that socialism can only come about democratically is a basic socialist principle and that if there's not a majority in favour of socialism then socialism cannot be established. That's the key point.  Yes, it is theoretically possible that once a majority wants socialism they could decide democratically not to try to take political power out of the hands of the ruling class and set about trying to establish socialism while leaving them in control it. However, this would be such a stupid decision that I can't see it being decided: any dogmatic anarchists proposing it would simply be ignored.

Though I think it is unlikely that the state will simply die out as the socialist movement grows, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that statist institutions will tend to weaken considerably  – possibly even to the point of irrelevance – as the socialist movement   reaches the stage  where globally it can count on literally billions of members and supporters.  Who is to say you could not  have a kind of dual power set  up somewhat analogous to the situation with the Bolshevik Revolution in which you had soviets alongside the constituent assembly.  I'm not advocating the soviet model but all IM saying is that you cannot just dismiss the idea.The point I an making is that it is inconsistent on the part of the SPGB to insist that the political power needs to be captured democratically by parliamentary means  and to elevate this principle to a criterion for membership of the party  and yet to dismiss all that follows from this as mere "speculation". There is nothing speculative about the fact that once a Socialist Party has captured power somewhere  and ahead of socialist parties elsewhere,  it will definitely have to  face the two basic options which i gave set out above.  The implications that stem from either of these are hugely important  – despite what you say – and IM just astounded that you cant seem to  figure this out for yourself.  For example,  the option of not introducing socialism immediately  means in effect installing some sort of dictatorship of the proletariat  to administer capitalism which,  in turn, mean seriously  reassessing the parties entire relationship with the Leninist Left.  It means that the Party in some respects  though not all obviously,  would be adopting a position not far removed from that of a  Leninist type organisation.

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, this principle (and question) does not say that parliament must be used, but only that political power must be won, democratically. This leaves open the possibility that political power could be won by some other means, as long as they were democratic. This is in fact a hypothetical situation that we have faced, eg in the event of the ruling class suspending political democracy. Once again, what to do has to be left to those around at the time to decide in the light of the precise circumstances. It is not something we can lay down now, though we can speculate about what they might or could decide to do. But would it help our case or add to our credibility if we decided now that the answer must be, say, a general strike?.

Well what other means are "other mean"s are you talking about by which political power could be democratically  won?  Spell it out.  Don't just leave it up in the air.  Vagueness, I repeat,  is the enemy of credibility.  Be more willing to risk speculating which is far better than saying nothing at all.  You come up with the same old lame excuse  "what to do has to be left to those around at the time to decide in the light of the precise circumstances" but you don't explain what the choices might be out of which a decision might emerge. This is sloppy and unconvincing and conveys the impression that you haven't really thought much about the mechanics of achieving a socialist society.  Do you accept my point above about there any two options which  the first triumphant socialist political party will have to consider if other parts of the world are still some way off from achieving socialist majorities. In which case which option would you chose and why?

ALB wrote:

But, surely, you don't want to include in the membership questionnaire, a question like this: Why do socialists maintain that an initial socialist region must be established if the socialist movement is in a position to win political control in just one country?" Do you?

No, quite the opposite. I think the membership questionnaire needs to be whittled down not expanded upon and some of the questions in my view as you know – like the question on of religious beliefs – is quite redundant from a socialist point of view   I accept that fundamentally socialism has to be introduced democratically but I would leave out any reference on questionnaire form on how this is to be achieved or even whether it would involve the need to capture political power since its a moot point whether the state will  even exist as a relevant institution on the eve of the socialist revolution.However I draw a sharp distinction between what to put in a membership questionnaire and what the socialist movement needs to decide on  a matter of such fundamental importance as this. It needs to come to some kind of collective view – even if only provisional – about what it would do under these circumstances if only to show that it has at least acknowledged there is a  problem and is thinking about it.  Saying nothing does nothing to enhance its credibility but on the contrary diminishes it…

[robbo203]

zundap wrote:

The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.Let me ask you this Robin, you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?

 The problem, Danny, lies not with the concept of morality but your understanding of it –  and that of a number of other comrades here. In rejecting the concept they don't understand what they are rejecting. They are rejecting a caricature. It's very simple really.  Morality is about one's motives.  Whether a moral decision makes you happy or unhappy does not in any way alter its nature as a moral decision.  Such a decision is motivated by a concern for the wellbeing of other individuals – whether they be  your family, your class, humanity as a whole – and by the belief that these others have value in themselves and are not simply a means to your own selfish ends. Morality by its very nature is "other oriented" What you are doing and others here are engaging in is what the moral philosopher James Rachels calls the egoistic strategy of "redefining motives".  Everything is made to appear as if it is motivated by self interest. Someone who dives into the sea to save a drowning child is only motivated by the praise that others will heap on him. This is manifestly false. Do you you care for your family? Of course you do.  Why do you care for them? Because they are the means and instruments to enable your happiness to be realised? .  Stop for a moment and try and figure out how deeply insulting such a view is for the people concerned.  If you were truly "amoral", which I know you are not, you would be saying that members of your family only matter insofar as they advance your own happiness Is this what you believe? Surely not

[robbo203]

zundap wrote:

 The advent of socialism presupposes the discovery and acknowledgement of a common identity by an overwhelming majority of us humans, so to suggest that we who claim socialism to be purely in our self interest should therefore try to become capitalists is absurd, because we couldn’t exploit, oppress or coerce those that we identify with, the working class, to do so would make us miserable, so not in our self interest. 

 And there M’Lud I rest my case….The witness has just admitted that in  “identifying” with others and being concerned with the wellbeing of these others in the working class who he would feel bad about exploiting (it “would make us miserable”)  he is adopting a moral position and that such a moral position is fully compatible with, and runs alongside, his self interest.   Just like I’ve said all along as a matter of fact

[Author]

Posts