Conversation between Mod1 and LBird

[Anonymous]

You do not need a microscope to see that he is the real Leninist. On the thread  Lenin contrasted we proved that t

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Communism means from EACH (individual) according to the ability, to EACH (individual) acording to their needs.

So, who determines 'ability' and 'needs', YMS?Isolated individuals or social producers?How are these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion?

To me it seems self evident that if the boundary condition for all exchanges is that they must meet the following conditions:1) EACH individually acording to their personal mix of abilities and prefferences2) EACH according to their individual neads and wants and interests.3) EACH individual has free association and can make or refuse any exchange or offer regarding abilities and prefereences to any other indivdiual.Then EACH individual determines ability and needs.  That is they self select from all the millions and billions of exchange offers available to them what they want and need.  probably they ignore any exchange offers that aren't local first to them and focus on simple exchange offers of money for material possesisons.  If so that's capitalism.  If they self select to prefer and use only exchanges of non-capital value exclusively, then that's socialism.  Non capital value exchanges can be for efforts or hope or get well wishes or votes or any intangible not currently entagled in the capital based economy at present.  Since the capital based economies hold power in capital exchanges, the exchange of significant value flows in non-captial based goods is more easily controlled by communism as a counter weight or competitor economy running in paralel to capitalism.  Um, in plain english:Who determines ability and needs? you do every time you accept or refuse an exchange agreement. and every time you seek out or accept an exchange agreement.isolated individuals or social producers? NO, individuals plus social networks and multi-party exchange agreements. How are these Social products made?   they are produced out of necessity and time and need and effort by free people choosing freely to make them.  People actually just enjoy making stuff as long is it feels productive and purposefull and lets them achieve something of lasting value. Some people detest dirty toilet seats and make it their career to clean toilets because they get a lot of "thank you" votes and "environment and habitat friendly" upvotes for their actions cleaning toilets.  A lady in miami got over a millioin upvotes in only 2 years working as a maid to tourist in hawaii.  The tourist promotion collective gave her an upvote/per minute sponsorship and converted her upvotes into tax help hours and business help hours and some business converted half her upvotes minutes into a new house she lives in overlooking the ocean.  So there's a woman who chooses to be a maid at a tourist hotel for all the applause and tourism good will points.   Then EACH individual would determine their Individiual ability and Needs.  Is that not a requirement from the first part?  If they have freedom of association then then they must have at least the right to dissasociate from any exchange or exchange network according to their needs and abilities.  Then those exchanges offers and agreement slots for being a brick layer or being a pop star become rare commodities like rare pokemon that also have no capital value but high individual non-capital value to people.  So Exchange offers are hoarded and shared and the people as a group in a collecting and trading marketplace of some sort seek exchange offers to determine accessibility.  But they're available to all freely since there's no shortage of the material.  It's just the coupon or offer or store shelf is so rarely has one in stock, that getting a rare piece of furniture in a socialist society is like capturing a rare pokemon character in the popular reality game.  instead of spending all of your time making money to outspend the other person and get that rare item, you spend all of your time out thinking or out efforting or better associating than the other girl in order to satisfy your goal seeking and hunting instincts.  It's a less materially intensive form of competition which is probably good for society. So an information economy where information is domanant over material exchanges in economic flows would be a significant milestone in the feesibility of socialism and affect the endurance of socialist island experiments.  

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I believe in 'free access' Communism, with any uncertainties and difficulties in that concept being cleared up by democratic discussion by the future class conscious revolutionary proletariat.

 BREAKING NEWS: Just spotted this.  It turns out, after all,  that LBird is himself what he calls others – namely an  "individualist" (though technically this is the wrong word) – and it would appear he has just been leading the rest of us a merry dance all this time.  "Free access", if it means anything at all,  means that the individual herself gets to ultimately decide what she takes from the distribution stiore. It implies the absence of rationing and hence the direct social detemination of "needs".  That does not mean she will not be inflluenced by social opinion and the generalised expectation of what is appropriate to take – that is to say, by the prevailing social norms.  I wouldnt, however, say such norms have necessarily  to be fixed by something called "democratic discussion" which is overly legalistic way of looking at things.  Rather , social norms are in the main what I call emergent phenonenon.  They grow out of the experience of living in society and are part of the taken for granted view of the world we all develop to some extent as individuals Whatever the case,  this is a major reversal of opinion on the part of LBird since it flatly contradicts all his previously uttered nonsense about "democracy without limits"- i.e.ultra-centralised society-wide decisionmaking a la Lenin.  There is hope that we  might yet persuade LBird to become a communist.  But for that to happen he needs to  jettison his previously held totalitarian view of society which completely disregards the role of individuals within it and so presents us with an utterly one sided -and utterly simplistic  – view of the relationship between individuals and society which actually undermines the communist principles of free access and volunteer labour – that is "from each according to ability to each according to need" Finally, he continues to make the mistake  of assming there will be such a thing as a "proletariat" in communism.  Long ago I recall defending LBirds use of the term "workers" in the context of communist society because this does not necessarily have class implications.  "Proletariat", however, very defintely implies the exstence of classes and consequently is a totally unapproproate terms to use in connection with classsless communism

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

So, who determines 'ability' and 'needs', YMS?Isolated individuals or social producers?How are these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion?

Concrete individual human beings entering into a conscious association.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Hmm.  well I guess I thought my focus included and required democratic discussion instead of lacking it.  Maybe we have a different idea of "democratic discussion".   If you use this google document and simply write in to the document "I plan on planting potatoes next fall, Anyone want to vote yes or no on my plan", then you've met the requirements for free access and for anyone to vote on it.  So to me as soon as even one person opens that google document and adds a comment saying "I agree you should plant potatoes next fall", then it's become a democratic decision.  exactly what form of democracy, is undefined and probably up to the person planting the potatoes how to count the votes.  Maybe the potatoe farmer weights some people who farm nearby as more influential in the decision than someone in another nation on the other side of the world?  maybe the potatoe farmer just wants a minimum of 15 votes and majority of them for any single crop.  It's really up to the potatoe farmer what form of government and decision making to use for her or himself.  Probably the potatoe farmer gives him or herself a veto option so if most of the people suggest she plant mushrooms in the desert she doesn't have to.  Instead of writing "I agree you should plant potatoes next fall", you or I couild write, "I think you should plant corn next fall" and then we have a democratic discussion in addition to the vote for a democratic decision making.   There would be uncertainties and difficulties with such as system, such as how do you find out about the url for google doc to vote, which is analogous to the uncertainty of the old school "where do I vote for what should be in the general store" type question.   

Yes, I agree with you that 'we have a different idea of "democratic discussion"', Steve.In terms simple enough for our joint 5 year old, you use 'I' where I would use 'We'.'Democratic discussion' is not individuals voting without first discussing, but voting after collective discussion.Your example seems to imply an individual making an individual decision, without any collective input. For you, the 'collective' is a simple aggregation of individual votes from minds already made up, whereas for me the 'collective' is a discussion, where any individual might change their mind.As I've said before, these differing views of ours are rooted in our ideological views.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Communism means from EACH (individual) according to the ability, to EACH (individual) acording to their needs.

So, who determines 'ability' and 'needs', YMS?Isolated individuals or social producers?How are these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion?

To me it seems self evident that if the boundary condition for all exchanges is that they must meet the following conditions:1) EACH individually acording to their personal mix of abilities and prefferences2) EACH according to their individual neads and wants and interests.3) EACH individual has free association and can make or refuse any exchange or offer regarding abilities and prefereences to any other indivdiual.Then EACH individual determines ability and needs.  

Again, we disagree on this, Steve.I'm a Democratic Communist, whose concern, like Marx's, is with social production.So, my answers to 'who' is 'social producers', and 'how' is 'democratic discussion'.Your answers are 'individuals' and 'individual choice'.Hope this clarifies our ideological differences. I'm not an 'individualist', and I've already commented upon your ideological notion of 'exchange', about which my position is like the SPGB's.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.I'm a Democratic Communist, whose concern, like Marx's, is with social production.So, my answers to 'who' is 'social producers', and 'how' is 'democratic discussion'.Your answers are 'individuals' and 'individual choice'.Hope this clarifies our ideological differences. I'm not an 'individualist', and I've already commented upon your ideological notion of 'exchange', about which my position is like the SPGB's.

 So LBird you earlier claimed  to support the communist principle of free access which however you look at it involves individuals finally choosing what they themselves take from the distribution centres  (see post no 93 on this thread). How do you propose to reconclile what you are now saying with this relapse of yours into unadulterated Leninism, with what you earlier said about free access communism? Edit: Just to make it clear you earlier defined democratic discussion thus  'Democratic discussion' is not individuals voting without first discussing, but voting after collective discussion.  You are thus proposing that what people should be allowed to take would be subject to a collective vote (by whom? The world poulatiom? A particular region? Your local community? You dont say).  Whatever the case the question of what you can take from the store as an individual is no longer up to you.  You are subject to rationing by some social entity,  This is not communist  free access however much you might try to wriggle out of this one

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…individuals finally…

You're going to have to unpack this for yourself, robbo.I've tried, and tried, and tried, to help…My tip is to sort out in your own mind the difference between the concept 'individuals' and 'individuals finally'.

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird,could you define social production?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…individuals finally…

You're going to have to unpack this for yourself, robbo.I've tried, and tried, and tried, to help…My tip is to sort out in your own mind the difference between the concept 'individuals' and 'individuals finally'.

 LOL "tried to help" with a nice little touch of patronising condescension., You really mean – dont you? – "tried to be as opaque as you can possibly be to avoid having to answer all those unconfortable questions that demolish your flimsy argument"…. "Individuals finally" means that the individuals finally get to choose what they take from the distribution store not the "community" still less the global population,  If means if I want a bag of apples I take a bag of apples from the store.  I dont have a bag of oranges thrust upon me because some vaguely defined "community" has decided for me that that is  what I should have. Its a pretty simple concept LBird and dont try to pretend it is something that it is not

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…individuals finally…

You're going to have to unpack this for yourself, robbo.I've tried, and tried, and tried, to help…My tip is to sort out in your own mind the difference between the concept 'individuals' and 'individuals finally'.

 "Individuals finally" means that the individuals finally get to choose…

Brilliant analysis, robbo! Well, I can see that you've spent hours considering the difference between the two concepts, and if you've now satisfied yourself about the difference between, my work is done!It appears 'patronising condescension' does work with you! I'll have to try that method more often with you, you little genius.

[Young Master Smeet]

Clearly this debate is not social labour, I have to do it myself:

Engels wrote:

Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution.[…]The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.

That, is what social production "freely associated men,  and [it] is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan."

[alanjjohnstone]

A serious question. This exchange has been going on for years among LBird, YMS and Robbo, with the occasional contribution from others. Has anyone learned anything positive from the outcome of this debate?LBird concedes the exchanges has led to the expansion of his reading but has Robbo or YMS themselves ever increased LBird's knowledge or understanding, directly?Conversely, has YMS or Robbo gained deeper insight from anything LBird has said in reply to them?If the answer is no to either of these questions, it has been a disappointing outcome of all those years.But perhaps one of those on the fringes of the discussions might have learned something. But I fear i haven't really. I got left behind in year zero and never ever caught up.That depresses me for i do consider myself receptive to education. Not sure anyone on this thread should claim to be a teacher but i perhaps should think about what Dietzgen said " If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." Which may well mean no longer paying any attention to this ongoing polemic because somebody has failed to communicate effectively…and i keep pointing this out to all and sundry. 

[Young Master Smeet]

I feel my reading of Marx and Engels has benefitted, with some interesting passages thrown in here and there.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A serious question. This exchange has been going on for years among LBird, YMS and Robbo, with the occasional contribution from others. Has anyone learned anything positive from the outcome of this debate?LBird concedes the exchanges has led to the expansion of his reading but has Robbo or YMS themselves ever increased LBird's knowledge or understanding, directly?Conversely, has YMS or Robbo gained deeper insight from anything LBird has said in reply to them?If the answer is no to either of these questions, it has been a disappointing outcome of all those years.But perhaps one of those on the fringes of the discussions might have learned something. But I fear i haven't really. I got left behind in year zero and never ever caught up.That depresses me for i do consider myself receptive to education. Not sure anyone on this thread should claim to be a teacher but i perhaps should think about what Dietzgen said " If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." Which may well mean no longer paying any attention to this ongoing polemic because somebody has failed to communicate effectively…and i keep pointing this out to all and sundry. 

The problem falls on the moderator. This thread is just like a cock, or rooster fight, and it is about the same thing all the time, it is a constant repetiton of the same shit. The moderators have the solution in their hands.There are so many issues taking place around the world and we are not paying attenton, all the effots is going into one single topic which will not benefi the working class. Any person living in poverty, hunger, and without a job does not care if Engels or Marx were right or wrongI am glad that I am on one of the moderators of this forum, because  I  would have stopped this a long time ago.We also have other trolls and spammers who wan to bring capitalists and business management ideas to this forum, they should be blocked too. 

[Author]

Posts