robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
On subject matter why dont you guys get together with Paddy who started up SP projects – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spprojects/?yguid=90109900 – but which has kind of died a death by the look of things. A great pity methinks.The first supplement for the SS was supposed to be a 2 page supplement for the SS on primitive communism. Maybe it could be transferred over to an AV format. Just thinking aloud Cheers Robin
On subject matter why dont you guys get together with Paddy who started up SP projects – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spprojects/?yguid=90109900 – but which has kind of died a death by the look of things. A great pity methinks.The first supplement for the SS was supposed to be a 2 page supplement for the SS on primitive communism. Maybe it could be transferred over to an AV format. Just thinking aloud Cheers Robin
gnome wrote:Doesn’t it really come down to the same thing in the end; faced with the circumstances in which Lenin and Bolsheviks found themselves in 1917 wasn’t it inevitable that the pragmatic circumstances would give rise to the ideological reasons?Well let me put it differently – did Lenin favour the model of the Party he proposed in WITBD over the model of the Party espoused by the Social Democratic movement in general as a matter of principle and irrespective of circumstances? I dont think he did or, if he did, not all of the time. Mind you, having said that the Social Democratic parties of Western Europe were not exactly models of democratic organisation. They were all leadership-based organisations that fully satisfied Lenin’s criterion that “no movement can be durable without a stable organisation of leaders to maintain continuity” (What is to be Done).As to the rest of your post – yes I would not disagree at all with the conclusions you reach. Leninism in all its varieties remains an obstacle to the achievement of socialism. My point was a far more narrow one and had to do with specific form or political vehicle which Lenin advocated as a means to acheving his and the Bolshevik’s political ends cheers Robin
ALB wrote:I started to read this but I’m afraid I didn’t get very far. As far as I can see the author is trying to rehabilitate Lenin by saying that he wasn’t really a Leninist but someone who favoured an open, democratic party (a leftwing Menshevik then?). I doubt it and it certainly upset other Leninists who insisted that he really did stand for a centralised, hierarchical vanguard party to lead the masses.While it certainly is the case that Lenin is rightly known for having stood for a “centralised hierarchical vanguard party to lead the masses” I wonder if the situation isn’t a bit more complicated than this? After all the Bolsheviks emerged out of the split within the Russian Social Democratic party and so presumably would have had some sympathy for the Social Democratic ideal of a mass open Democratic party along the lines of SD parties in the West – particularly of course the German SDP. This is the point that Lars Li makes in his Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context (2008) but the oppressive circumstances prevailing in Russia at the time “What is to be Done” was written induced Lenin to favour instead a quite different organisational model based on a small tightly knit body of professional revolutionaries and subject to a rigorously hierarchical command structure. It was thus for pragmatic rather than ideological reasons that Lenin favoured this model. What is to be Done (1902) does contain that notorious statement that has often been seized upon as evidence of Lenin’s intrinsic elitism: “We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without” Hal Draper, in his classic paper The Myth of Lenin’s “Concept of The Party” or What They Did to What Is To Be Done? (1990), asks rhetorically whether it was really the case that Lenin was saying that here that ” the workers cannot come to socialist ideas of themselves, that only bourgeois intellectuals are the carriers of socialist ideas” to which he gives the following answer:”Not exactly. The fact is that Lenin had just read this theory in the most prestigious theoretical organ of Marxism of the whole international socialist movement, the Neue Zeit. It had been put forward in an important article by the leading Marxist authority of the International, Karl Kautsky. And this was why and how it got into WITBD” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section1)There are also direct quotes from Lenin that cast doubt on whether he stood straightforwardly for a kind of centralised conspiratorial Blanquist type organisation as opposed to a broad mass democratic open party. For instance, in his letter in late 1916 to P.Keivsky he asserts that “socialism can be implemented only through the dictatorship of the proletariat, which combines violence against the bourgeoisie, i.e., the minority of the population, with full development of democracy, i.e., the genuinely equal and genuinely universal participation of the entire mass of the population in all state affairs and in all the complex problems of abolishing capitalism” (Proletarskaya Revolutsi Nos. 7 (90), 1929). Similar sentiments can be found in his more well known work The State and Revolution written in 1917. Finally of course it should be mentioned that at least in early days of the Bolshevik revolution, the reality did not really conform to model of a tightly knit centralised disciplined party. Even by early 1918 as Robert Service notes in his The Bolshevik Party in Revolution: A Study in Organsational Change, 1917-1923: “The image of a disciplined hierarchy of party committees was therefore but a thin, artificial veneer which was used by Bolshevik leaders to cover up the cracked surface of the real picture underneath. Cells and suburb committees saw no reason to kow-tow to town committees; nor did town committees feel under compulsion to show any greater respect to their provincial and regional committees than before.” (p. 74). Of course a lot of this might have been due to the huge influx of new members unaccustomed to the ways of the old Bolsheviks I don’t wish to appear in any way to be apologising for Lenin and Leninist politics. I think there was a strong streak of authoritarianism and elitism in him and in the whole Leninist model of political organisation and this came to the surface in the “organisational metamorphosis” that Service refers to that in due course overtook the Bolsheviks. And that was not just the result of external circumstances like the Civil war: it was latent in Bolshevism itself. Still, I think this representation of the Leninist outlook needs to be counterbalanced with other representations which at least suggest a superficial dalliance with the idea of an open democratic mass party along the lines of the Western SD parties Robin
Hi Ladybug I think the problems that you refer to in relation to the fourth aspect of a hypothetical socialist production system that i touched on in my article – namely a hierarchy of production goals – are not nearly as grave as they perhaps might appear. They are complications, yes, but they do not add up to an insurmountable obstacle that would bring the system crashing to its knees. To understand why you need to step back a little to see the bigger picture. As I said to Darren in my post above, you need to have such a hierarchy in order to prioritise the allocation of inputs in cases where you run into supply bottlenecks. It makes a lot of sense in such cases to allocate such inputs to high priority end uses first and foremost and then to other end uses lower down your ranking system. As I said this is a matter best left to the intuitive judgment of individuals on the ground; there is no need for society to formulate some kind of elaborate and explicit hierarchy of end uses and it would it would be absurd even to attempt that. My working assumption is that people in a socialist society would broadly share the same kind of values and this would be reflected in the decisions they make. It is only in the case of particular community-based projects that I envisage a kind of conscious socially-based commandeering of inputs for a given purpose but even then low priority end uses deprived of inputs in this fashion can still turn to technological substitution as another option The problems that you are alluding boil down to one of how you proportion a scarce input between various end uses. I wont go into this in great detail here as I will give a fuller response to this matter in the ECA working group forum on which I see you have begun posting.Suffice to say this relates to what the neoclassical economist, Marshall, referred to as the “equimarginal principle” – .how to allocate between different lines of production to ensure that the marginal unit in each case ends up with the same “utility”. I don’t know if you are familiar with the writings of J A Hobson. In Neoclassical Economics in Britain (1925) he presented a rather effective demolition job of this Marshallian concept which I think has implications for our discussion here. I quote the relevant section:http://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1925/09/neoclass.htmA person adjusting the use of his resources to the demands of a new situation makes a number of delicate adjustments at the margins. But the determinate judgments, of which these delicate adjustments are expressions, are made, not at the margins, but at the center. They are the quantitative implications of the new organic plan he has applied. If we regard him as a creative artist working out a new ideal with the materials at his disposal, we shall get nearer to the true psychological interpretation. A painter in mixing colors to get some particular effect must exercise care to obtain the exactly right proportions. This care will be greatest when in mixing he comes near the limit, and is in danger of putting too much or too little of the several colors into his mixture. A marginal economist, observing him, might pronounce the judgment that he kept adding increments of the different colors until he stopped, and that therefore an exactly equal art value must be attached to the last increment of each color. For if the last brushful of Turkey-red had been found to have less value than the last brushful of green, another would be added, so as to even out the values of the different colors at the margin.Now this, of course, simply means that in every sort of composite plan, economy or harmony, involving the use of different materials, some exact amount of each material is required. In forming such a plan no special thought is directed to the marginal unit of each factor. But in carrying out a change of an existing plan, the process of shifting pieces from the old plan to the new involves a series of operations at the margins. The size of these operations is, however, determined and laid down in the conception of the scheme as a unity. The painter, not knowing exactly how much of each color is required to produce his effect, may try a little too much of this or too little of that, rub out, and begin again until he has it just right.But the idea of imputing any special value to the marginal units, or of regarding the artist as comparing the colors at each margin by some common standard of art value, is alien from the psychology of art. As soon as it is clearly comprehended that the business man, the consumer, and every man pursuing a line of policy or conduct, is acting as an artist, the invalidity of Marginalism will be equally apparent in their cases.
DJP wrote:I’m not sure if it is really possible to rank needs in such a way as you are describing, since ‘use’ is something entirely subjective and it is impossible for individuals (and a society at large) to come up with a priotised list of wants, since these are constantly changing. I think you’ve bought this idea across due to the influence of marginalist economics. (I’ll probably have to say more to explain this better)Hi Darren Just noticed your comment above. I don’t want to put words in your mouth but are you suggesting that a socialist society would be unable to determine whether a luxury yacht, say, was more important than an ambulance? Agreed, these determinations are subjective but then that is the whole point, isn’t it – its a question of values and values cannot really be measured. We can say that one thing is more “valuable” than another but we cannot definitively say by how much. Even von Mises conceded that some things cannot be subject to calculation Talking of which, I think the Austrian School of economists certainly had a valid point in their debates with the more conventional neoclassical economists on the question of measuring utility. They opposed the tendency to mathematise economics and held that utility is essentially ordinal rather than cardinal. Paradoxically perhaps it is the Austrians who are most closely identified with the so called economic calculation argument. Between their preference for ordinal ranking in respect of utlity and their insistence on market prices as a means of precise economic calculation, there is a huge credibility gap which they were never able to span In my view some kind of hierarchy of production goals is indispensable to socialism. We may argue about the way in which this might be implemented (and Ladybug has made a number of penetrating observations in that regard) but what we cannot reasonably argue against the need for such a hierarchy in the first place. How for example are you going to decide if two particular end uses, X and Y, both require 10 units each of input M (of which there is only 15 units in total) whether X is going to get 10 and Y, 5, or whether it should be the other way round? Or do you split them evenly between X and Y (which you may not be able to do if units of M are non-divisible) so that each gets 7 1/2? But why would that be rational as opposed to some other allocation pattern? This is what I was getting at in an earlier post about so called “marginal rates of substitution”. Its not that I’ve gone all soft in the head and started to embrace marginalist bourgeois economic mumbo jumbo but these are the sort of difficult questions which we socialists really need to start getting our heads around and coming up with some serious answers in my opinion. Thinking seriously about how a socialist system of production would operate is not utopian speculation; it is actually vital to the whole business of presenting a credible and convincing alternative to capitalismRobin
Hi Ladybug As others have noted, your post above is an excellent contribution . It is a model of the kind of constructive criticism that is needed to clarify and develop our ideas. I will be as brief as I can in response Your raise two main points. The first concerns the form of rationing that may be needed in a post capitalist society. I would certainly entertain the idea that some of rationing may be required to operate alongside free access within a dual distribution model, so to speak. According to the structural logic of the production system I outlined in the article to which you refer, those goods likely to be subject to rationing would tend be low priority goods at the “luxury end” of the spectrum of goods while those goods likely to be made available on a free distribution basis would tend, by contrast, to be essential goods satisfying “basic human needs”. This follows from the way in which the hierarchy of production goals I referred to would tend to skew the allocation of resources in favour of the latter at the expense of the former where we have to deal with bottlenecks in the supply of such resources. As to the form of rationing I have to say that I am not particularly enamoured of the labour vouchers proposal or even a system of credits based on environmental impacts which I think would be administratively unwieldy and would be beset by all sorts of other difficulties – theoretical and practical. I favour instead what I call a compensation model of rationing based on the quality of housing stock.There are two main reasons for preferring this system 1) Our living accommodation constitutes a hugely important component of our quality of life. Realistically, though, the legacy of material inequalities in housing we will inherit from capitalism will persist for many years after we have got rid capitalism. Such inequalities are likely to generate unacceptable social tensions and this will need to be acknowledged and addressed. People having to put up with low quality housing will need in some sense to be “compensated” for this and this accords with a sense of natural justice and basic fairness. 2) We will need, in any case, to assess the housing stock in our communities with a view to eventually upgrading and improving this stock in many cases. This assessment process can be easily tied in with a system of rationing which assigns different levels of priority access to individuals according to the assessed quality of the houses they occupy in terms of a number of criteria e.g. size and overall condition, facilities, proximity to amenities etc. A prototype for this is to be found in the way housing stock is assessed today by placing individual houses in one of a number of bands according to the market value of the property in question for the purposes of raising local taxes. Naturally the question of marketable value of properties will not arise in a socialist society but the basic approach could still be used Obviously what I have presented here is just the bare bones of the idea; the meaty details need a lot more thought. Nevertheless I do think it is an eminently do-able and more administratively straightforward system than , say, Marx’s cumbersome labour voucher scheme. The second point you raise concerns the practicality of some kind of hierarchy of production goals. You make a number of very telling observations which point to the need for further research and investigation in this area. I do not wish in any sense to brush under the carpet the criticisms that you make which are perfectly reasonable and valid but my first inclination is to urge you to look at what was being proposed in that article in a more holistic all-rounded fashion. The four basic components of the production system proposed are1) calculation in kind2) a self regulating system of stock control3) the law of the minimum4) a hierarchy of production goals Your criticisms mainly concern 4). The point I’m making here and this is a point that has been lost sight of in many criticisms of that article, is that these different components of the system are organically interconnected and do not function in isolation from each other. Its is through their mutual interaction that a framework of structural constraints comes into being which will guide production decisions in ways that ensure a rational outcome, in my view. So its important not to lose sight of the wood for the treesLet us remind ourselves what purpose a hierarchy of production goals is intended to serve. It is as I said above, to differentiate between end uses by organising them into some kind of ordinal ranking arrangement in the event that a particular input common to all these end uses happens to be in short supply. In that event it is perfectly rational to allocate such an input to high priority ends uses as opposed to low priority end uses Your criticisms basically focus on the nitty gritty details of this allocation process which, as I say, is quite a reasonable thing to do. However, there are several points that need to be born in mind1) In this model of a socialist production system the basic orientation of every enterprise would be to produce slightly more than what is demanded – or, in other words, to maintain a buffer stock as part and parcel of a self regulating system of stock control. Marx, I believe, said something along the same lines about buffer stocks though I cannot locate the relevant quote. The point of so doing would be to accommodate the vicissitudes of fluctuating demand including of course the possibility of unforeseen emergencies . This is relevant to the question of a hierarchy of production goals insofar as the latter comes into play only in the event of supply bottlenecks – where an input is in short supply – and provides decision makers on the ground, as it were, with a rough rule of thumb as to how to allocate the input or resource in question 2) The fact that a resource bottleneck might occur does not in any case necessarily prevent a low priority good from being produced in the quantities demanded insofar as technological substitution is a possibility.- that is, using some alternative and more abundant input instead . This is the point that I am trying to make – that this model of a socialist production system is eminently flexible 3) The idea of a hierarchy of production goals is not a detailed blueprint that assigns every conceivable kind of good produced to a specific place within a strict ordinal ranking. That would be a preposterous idea yet some of the people who cricised my article implied that that was precisely what I was saying. Nothing could be further than the truth. In point of fact what I was simply trying to impress on people was the common sense of some kind of hierarchy of production goals and of the notion of having to chose between end uses when the occasion demanded this. I would even go so far as to say that we might not even need to consciously attend to this and that it would be implicit in a system of socialist values that we would prirotise housing over, say, luxury yachts. Whats there to argue about here? It is only perhaps in the case of specific projects democratically decided upon by the community – eg the construction of a new community school or doctors surgery – that we might be talking of the conscious commandeering of resources for a particular end use at the expense of other end uses. For the most part I suspect all the detailed decisionmaking about how much of a particular scarce resource should be devoted to this particular end use as opposed to that can left to individuals on the ground to decide upon, using their own intuition and common sense. I suggest, further, that a system of convergent values is likely to produce a pattern of outcomes in respect of these micro level decisions that is broadly consistent and regular. Of course there will be times when X will allocate a particular resource amongst various end uses that does not fully accord with how Y might view things that but then we would expect that. No system of production is ever going to be perfect and in any case such decisions will be subject to the scrutiny and influence of others so there will be a tendency towards “self correction” : If a particular end use that people particularly desire is being starved of inputs then the resultant clamour for changes in the way these inputs are allocated will mount and exert social pressure on the enterprise in question (which enterprise certainly would have nothing to gain by resisting social pressure in a socialist society). That is quite apart from the fact that we could 1) increase the supply of the input in question 2) opt for technological substitution But it is really what happens at the macro-level and in the long run that ultimately counts in the end – doesnt it? – and I would contend that an integrated system of production such as is being proposed here provides for a comprehensive structure of constraints that will guide production in a way that is sufficiently pervasive and potent as to ensure an outcome that broadly conforms to what people desire and expect.. If people are broadly happy with the system they are not going to jeapordise becuase of a few niggling imperfections But like I said, I’m not trying to brush your criticisms under a carpet of bland generalisations or smooth talk my way out of a tricky theoretical situation. I don’t have all the answers to you probing questions though, in my defence, I don’t possess a crystal ball either to enable me to adequately answer them. All I can do is constantly try to find ways in which to refine and strengthen the model that has been presented. So if you – or anyone else – have any observations on how this might be done this would be very welcome indeed! Cheers Robin
Hi Adam,Well, I’ve got the 10th edition of the same book by Samuelson and while he refers to the “dreamworld of perfect competition” (meaning he doesn’t think it at all realistic) he does go on to say that in such a dreamworld “the economist says there would really be no profits at all!”. Also: “perfectly free entry of numerous competitors; would in a static world of perfect knowledge , bring price down to cost and squeeze out all profits above and beyond competitive wages , interest and rent” (p621-2). I think this does actually accord with what Steele is saying. He (Steele) is not denying that perfect competition is impossible as far as I can ascertain; He is merely asserting that profits arise from, and are made possible by, the very imperfections that necessarily beset the market economy as it actually works in practice – .imperfections that allow some to outguess the market and others who are not similarly gifted with “entrepreneurial canniness” to fall by the wayside. Profit is a zero sum game in other wordsIt should also be mentioned that the Misesian perspective that Steele presumably still adheres to is highly critical of Walrasian general equilibrium theory with its completely static view of the economy.If you check out economic textbooks, a distinction is sometimes made between an accountant’s notion of profit and an economist’s notion of the same. The former boils down to the difference between a firms revenue and its costs. This is not that far removed from our understanding of the term although we would conceptualise profit as a component of surplus value alongside rent and interest. Steele, and by extension bourgeois economists. would call what we call profit,” interest”My take on all this – though I am not entirely sure of this at all – is that this is an ideologically motivated construct. which entered economic discouse around the time oif the “marginalist revolution”of the late 19th century; to justify the return on capital in terms that denote something positive and beneficial to society as a whole – such as innovativeness and being able to anticipate shifts in market demand, the better to be able to “serve the needs of consumers ” etc etc” This is what this peculiar interpretation of profit is all about isn’t it? It presumes an imperfect market that rewards those who succeed in this market with “profit” . It is a way of highlighting those qualities that supposedly enable you to succeed and for which you “justifiably” reap the rewards of such successin the form of “profit” over and above “interest!Thats a curious thing too. “Interest” is the return on lending money – or liquid capital – and usually by financial institutions such as banks. By relabelling profit as interest this makes no distinction between external sources of funding (i.e.loans from a bank); and the reproduction of capital out of surplus value. Again, one has to ask – is this ideologically motivated to divert attention away from this latter source of capital?
Hi Darren Well, Im not talking about super-profits but profits but you might be on to something here…. I first came across this wacky idea in D R Steele’s From Marx to Mises and wondered then – WTF is the guy on about? How the hell can a business survive in a competitive market environment without profit. Unprofitable businesses go down the pan, don’t they? Well apparently not according to Steele. What is usually called profit he calls “interest”. Profit is something you get over and above interest and you get it by outguessing the market and thereby benefiting society by an “unusually percipient of lucky allocation of resources” (p420). In a perfectly competitive market – which as you suggest is wholly unrealistic – the opportunity for doing that disappears and hence also profit. So profit according to this logic only arises in an imperfect or distorted market and the alleged benefits to society that such a profit entails which makes it sound like Steele should be advocating imperfect and distorted markets it profit is so advantageous and beneficial to society… Where did this particular usage originate from? And what lies behind it I wonder? I know it crops up in Mises but I think it also appears in Walrus’ writings. Does anyone have any ideas? Cheers R
There is quite a bit of this around – so called market anarchism, Some of these free market anti capitalists get quite offended if you accidently call them anarchocapitalists. Ive been having a crack at them over on libcom recently. One guy pointed me in the direction of a mutualist blog and the mutualist journal. I have come across Kevin Carsons stuff at mutualist.org before. A curious mix of ideas. For instance Carsons sees merit in both the LTV and the subjective theory of value as well. and seeks to combine them. He’s quite hot on Marxian primitive accumulation theory too and at times sounds like a Marxist in his condemnation of capitalism. I wonder if the SPGB has done any stuff on modern day Mutualism a la Carsons and the Left Libertariuan crowd – as opposed to Proudhon
Darren
Well, no not quite – SPOPEN is for party members only. WORLDINCOMMON, on the other hand, is for anyone who perceives themselves to be part of the non-market anti-statist sector including, of course, WSM folk. I suppose the equivalent of SPOPEN would be the COMMONER forum which is the internal forum of the World in Common Group and only members of the group are on this particular forum. Incidentally, WSM members are of course welcome to join the group which is in no sense a political party in competition with the WSM. Some people in WiC are active in other organisations and so it should be. WiC is just an unbrella organisation for the broad non market anti statist sector
What I was suggesting as one option – no 1 above – was to change the terms of reference of the WSM forum so that it would be similar to the terms of refrence of the WORLDINCOMMON forum. In other words, non WSMers could continue on it but not people outside the non market anti statist sector. Thats one option . The other is to keep the WSM forum as a completely open forum. If thats what you want to do then i have suggested some ways in which to deal with the problem of the anarcho capitalists on the forum
Ray
As I understand it, the WSM does not belong to just the SPGB but all the companion parties. I would imagine it is a good idea to have some overarching fourm of some sort for the entire WSM. The format may be a bit old fashioned, as you suggest but then I remember some months ago urging that WSM forum should change over to the format used by REVLEFT which I think is vastly superior in so many ways – not least because the sheer number of facilities available on it . For example you would have your own personal page which allows all sorts of interactions to happen on a one to one basis. Also special interest groups can be set as well which could be quite useful e.g. people interested in , say, Marxian economics or environmental issues could set up subgroups catering for these interests. Have a look at REVLEFT and see what you think..(Of course, its no longer possible to join REVLEFT but thats another matter)
RobinThis is frustrating. I read again on SPOPEN today talk of banning people like McDonagh from the WSM forum. I dont think that is going to serve any useful purpose at all. Simon’s argument on SPOPEN is unconvincing. If you are going to have an open forum then you cannot complain if hostile posts appear. The real question is how you deal with them and whether there is a case for an open forum at all. I still think there is. Wicopendebate failed as an open forum because it is was unable to deal with disruptive posters effectively. So it succumbed to incremental decline. The WSM forum, being much bigger , has a much better chance of suceeding and indeed of turning what seems to be an inconvenience and a disadvantage into a distinct advantage
Here’s my advice to you guys which you can take or leave as you wish
1) Turn this forum – the SPGB forum – into something akin to the Worldincommon forum limited to members and sympathisers only. State this explicitly in your terms of reference like worldincommon has done
2) Maintain the WSM as an open forum. Allow nutjobs like McDonagh to post but only answer their posts obliquely in the way Ive described earlier so that in no way does it seem that the various outlandish claims they make have been allowed to go uncontested. The point would be to demonstrate convincingly that the socialist case trumps over the freemarketeers every time. The onus is not on them to present a more reasonable line of argument but on us to demonstrate how wholly unreasonable their argument actually is. That will earn the WSM kudos no end – rather than just running away form what is after all a batty argument
The WSM forum is not “drifting”. People need to get this idea out of their heads. It is taking on a distinct direction and purpose and the level of posting is actually quite good. Its the input of members themselves that can help ensure that the benefits accrue to the socialism movement itself. The opportunity is there – make use of it! It just strikes me as being silly and negative complaining about what is happening on the WSM when you are not exploiting the opportubnity to take on your political opponents (this from a party that says it will even debate against the fascist BNP). Try to imagine what the WSM would look like without any opposition. It would be dead as a dodo.
It is controversy – thinking outside of the box – and opposition that sparks interest – not dull conformiity. Look, it even works over on SPOPEN! . And talking of which I would be grateful if someone (Adam perhaps ? ) could post this on SPOPEN to stir things up over there even more
Cheers
RobinI see that Adam has copied part of my post above (No.17) on SPOPEN . Not being able to respond on SPOPEN might I respond here?
The point that I was trying to make is a simple one: If you allow people like Tet and McDonagh to dominate the WSM forum by simply not responding to them then the forum is going to become an increasingly unattactive place for visitors and members to be. Its a vicious circle. The more you ignore them and pretend they dont exist the WORSE the problem will get. THAT is the lesson of Wicopendebate.
Wicopendebate was a relatively small forum . At its height it had about 60+ members. So it was much easier for such a forum to become completely dominated by disruptive elements. The WSM forum is many times the size of Wicopendebate. There are more than enough members to easily deal with the anarcho-capitalist brigade through the sheer weight of numbers.
You have 2 options as I said. Either you turn the WSM forum into something like the Worldincommon forum – which is restricted to people who belong to the non-market anti-statist sector OR you maintain the WSM forum as a completely open public forum – like Wicopendebate was.
If you opt for the latter course of action then please accept this as a word of friendly advice. Ignoring people whose views you strongly object to is not going to work as a strategy. All that will mean is that they will think they have won the argument and this – I can guararantee from bitter experience – will only inspire them to ram home their message with even greater determination. This is basically why Paul’s suggestion above is misconceinved.
Now there is a halfway house solution which is to deal with the posts of anarcho-capitalist in an oblique or indirect fashion which I touched on earlier. I have started using this approach and I think you will begin to see that it will work in the end. .
With that in mind I urge people here to become active in the WSM forum and, if they have left, to rejoin it and try out what I have suggestedjondwhite wrote:According to the facebook group you need to try and reset your password. There was an opportunity during a break in the downtime but I don’t think it worked for anyone then.
My problem seems to have been the ” string verification” code thingy where you type in letters or numbers to verify that you are human and not an automated spamming machine. This facility could not be opened up so I could not complete the task of resetting my password.
What you are saying gives added weight to my suspicion that Revleft has effectively engaged in a mass lockout of numerous individuals out of favour with the Board Administration. What it wants basically it seems to me is a compliant user base not into shit stirring and the like. Ive always felt that the bans and restriction the mods imposed on various people were often way over the top and unnecessary.
If my my suspicions are right then this can mean one thing for Revleft as the world’s leading left wing forum (reputedly) – its going to go downhill all the way . Not just in numbers but in terms of the quality of debate. Ive joined RedMarx as have many of the other “undesirables” – ex Revlefters – and already Ive noticed a big difference in the qualityI have been active in Revleft on and off since 2006. Last year I started up a subgroup called For Genuine Free Access Communism which grew to over 75 members before some idiot on the Admin team accidently deleted it. I restarted the group recently and at last count it had 21 members
With Revleft being down very recently, I was unable to access my account. When the site was back in business I tried to log on but found to my dismay that I could not. I tried to get a new password but had no luck with that at all. I could not even use the contact facility for some weird reason to find out what was going on
If there is anyone here who is on Revleft who could possibly contact the admin team and find out what is going on I would be most grateful. I have a suspicion that this could be a lock-out but it might just be a technical hitch. of some sort. My username is robbo203
cheers
Robin
