[LBird]

Vin wrote:

You have no faith in workers being able to work it out for themselves.

That's right, Vin.I didn't 'work it out for' myself and you didn't 'work it out for' yourself.We both heard and read arguments made by other workers.You, like robbo and YMS, seem to believe that my arguing for social production of social knowledge is 'elitist'.And that the democratic control of that social knowledge production is out of the reach of workers.

Vin wrote:

Socialism has not happened because of 'The failure of the revolutionaries' ? If only those with knowledge could explain to the workers! This is an elitist position. By your own definition.

You haven't a clue, Vin.If your inane thoughts are the best that the SPGB can produce, we workers are better off remaining with Corbyn, no matter his political shortcomings.At least he doesn't claim that 'ideas' are 'material', or that 'thoughts' are 'concrete', or any of the other Engelsist nonsense that has passed for 'philosophy' amongst socialists for the last 130 years.This 'materialism' is a dead end for workers, Vin, and you're welcome to it. Until you back out of the cul-de-sac, with help from workers like me, you'll remain in a small sect.This bollocks has to be challenged, before we can take on Corbyn and Labour.

[LBird]

You're one of the main culprits, Vin.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I was thinking. If Corbyn is successful in winning the Labour leadership, all that will be achieved is a further distraction  from revolutionary thinking, as our class will once again be led down a blind alley of mainstream reformist promises, as Labour attempt to retake the "left" by jumping on the anti austerity band wagon.  I'm probably stating the obvious?

Another way of looking at it, SP, is that there is no 'revolutionary thinking' within our class, and there never has been, which is why Labour periodically gets elected to run capitalism.Labour don't 'lead' anywhere, not even 'down blind alleys of reformist promises'.I put it down to a complete failure of revolutionaries to actually explain anything to their fellow workers, and to even have any faith in the abilities of those non-Communist workers to develop themselves.There are even supporters of the so-called Socialist Party here who won't have workers' democratic control of production. Why any worker should think that some elite form of 'socialism' should be any better than capitalism, these non-democrats never explain.Elitism in socialists points to Labour. From this perspective, Corbyn is the good guy.

[LBird]

On pages 110-111, Mason has started to discuss 'value' and the balance of the relationship between ideal and material (information/data and physical; intangible and tangible; real and "nothing real").Up until now, he has clearly been employing the familiar, but outdated, Engelsist, not Marxist, concepts of 'materialism' and the 'concrete'. I take it this dates back to his erroneous acceptance when younger, that Engels' ideas are also Marx's ideas, and so Mason accepts the myth of the mystical unity of the single thinker 'Marx-Engels'.I'm not sure where he's going with all this yet, but if I can make sense of it from a Marxist idealist-materialist perspective, I'll say some more later.For now, I'd give the advice to anyone reading the book to clarify both one's own ideology (if one is an Engelsian 'materialist', at least be open to oneself) and also Mason's own ideology.So far, he's called Marxism "Conventional Marxism" (p. 30), "Orthodox Marxism" (p. 34) and plain old "Marxism" (p. 33), but it's not clear at all what he means by these terms, or if he himself is employing a "Marxist" perspective (read "Engelsist").

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Herman Gorter wrote:

…their thoughts are nonetheless born from the process of production; their thoughts are only distinguished by the different property relations in which the two “sisters” find themselves. 

[my bold]Yeah, 'thoughts' of all humans are 'born from the process of production'.That applies not only to women, but also to physicists (of both sexes), too.'Production' produces 'thought', 'material' does not produce.Engels' 'matter-in-motion' does not produce consciousness; consciousness is produced active humans, by social production, as Marx argued.Theory and practice (criticism and creation) by societies produces consciousness, of both our material and ideal world.Change the producing society, change the knowledge produced of nature.Change the producing class, change the knowledge produced of nature.Proletarian science – you know it makes sense.

[LBird]

Thanks alan. From the fifth paragraph of Gorter's text:

Herman Gorter wrote:

But the worker who wants to become a free being, who wants to place the State under the power of his class and seize the means of production from the possessing classes, this worker must understand that the bourgeoisie, with its way of depicting things, turns them on their head and that it is not mind which determines existence [nor, it is implied, 'existence alone which determines mind], but social existence which determines mind.

[my italic insert and bold]So, three positions:1. Mind determines existence (idealism);2. Existence determines mind (materialism). Social existence determines mind (idealism-materialism).Marx (and Gorter, so it seems – I haven't read all the text) argue for 'social existence', that is, human production as the determining factor.Marx unified 'object-subject', 'existence-mind', 'being-consciousness', 'ideal-material' in a philosophy of 'theory and practice', from which socio-historical 'truths' are created by humans.This is the basis of a proletarian science.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

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

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

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lbird, from each according to abilities, to each according to needs does break the link between work and reward.  Someone who is unable to work still has their needs fulfilled, someone who is a poor worker may well receive more and better than a hard worker.

YMS, you're an individualist, whereas I'm a Democratic Communist.Thus, I don't look at 'individuals' (whether 'poor' or 'hard').Marx tells us that it is an eternal natural link for humans, between 'work' and 'reward'.That 'link' is a socially productive link, and that 'link' must be controlled by democratic means.Abilities, needs and rewards will be decided democratically.That is Communism, and it is not individualism, as you and robbo seem to think.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The next step is to generalise it even further, and break the link between work and reward altogether.

That is not Communism."From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" links social labour with social rewards, and 'abilities, needs, labour and rewards' can only be determined democratically.Not individually, as I think that you and robbo have argued.stuart should ponder the differing positions that we're taking.I'm taking a Democratic Communist position, but I'm not sure how you or robbo will characterise your position(s). From what I've read from youse, I think stuart's criticisms are well-founded.'Individual decisions' requires an 'impersonal' mechanism to co-ordinate, and that can only be a 'market mechanism'. If stuart is in favour of both 'individualism' and 'markets' (as I think he is – he can clarify this later), I think he is at least being consistent, even if I disagree with him.I have problems with you and robbo, because I find you both to be inconsistent, claiming to be both 'individualists' and 'socialists'.[edit] that is, the 'generalisation' you speak of, has to be collective and democratic.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Stuart,we already have 'within firm communism' so most of the supply chain is communised, the only matter is to open that out to a within society communism.  We don't charge co-workers for our time, and we don't engage in market activity when we co-operate within firm, we carry out instructions and tasks as concretely defined, and get our paycheck at the end of the month. 

[my bold]Perhaps that is stuart's point, YMS.'Paycheck AT THE END of the month'.Not during or before, at the whim of the worker, prior to having produced anything, but after the worker has produced.'Free access communism' suggests 'access to the paycheck' (to continue the analogy, not to suggest 'money') at the discretion of something other than the firm.I'm a Democratic Communist, so I'd suggest the 'discretion' is social, not individual, and so is democratic, not whim, but I know that my views do not find favour with the non-democrats, like you, here.So, you have to answer stuart's reasonable objection with a 'non-democratic' answer.

[LBird]

Perhaps a look at 'housing' as an issue regarding 'abundance'.If we look  at housing using the concept 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', then we can see that 'housing' is supposedly, unsuffixed, 'abundant'. Many bourgeois own more than one house, many own several, and some in business own thousands. There are also hundreds of thousands of empty houses in the UK, so clearly there is 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' (which they call simple 'abundance', a concept which hides class content).But when looked at using the concept 'abundance-for-proletariat', we can see a shortage of housing for workers, especially young, low-paid, unemployed, or poorly-educated workers. Many workers, even if they find relatively 'good' jobs, will never be able to find decent 'housing'. Perhaps as a society, we'll go back to 'rented slums' as the basis of 'housing' for workers.So, to sum up, if we use the unsuffixed, bourgeois concept of 'abundance', we can see that there is an abundance of 'housing' – there are empty houses everywhere, as empirical confirmation of this apparent 'fact'.But, if we employ the class conscious concepts of 'abundance-for-bourgeois' and 'abundance-for-proletariat', we can start to see the contradictory 'truths' for each class.To discuss 'abundance' is a concession to the ruling class, and employing this concept means that we'll lose the argument, because 'empirical reality' supports the notion of 'housing abundance'. From there, it's a short step to blame lazy, stupid, drunken workers for not working hard enough to buy those 'empty houses' which are clearly in 'abundance'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

The idea that human wants are infinite and insatiable…

[my bold]Now, stuart, you've moved from the concept of 'abundance-for-individual' to the conservative concept that I outlined earlier, which stresses an undifferentiated 'humanity' (the 'organic' analogy), and which is 'abundance-for-all'.If you wish to use this conservative concept, that's fine, but you should really say that you're employing this, especially to yourself, so that you can understand why a socialist that employs the different concepts of 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' and 'abundance-for-proletariat' will disagree with you.

stuartw2112 wrote:

We are hungry ghosts with infinite bellies.

Once again, stuart, this is merely bourgeois propaganda. I don't actually know anybody with a 'infinite belly', although I do know some people who argue the very same as you, but they're not class conscious workers.Rather than 'infinite', most workers I know want a good, enjoyable, well-paid job, to be able to look forward to a decent pension and retirement at a reasonable age (55? 60? 65?), a proper holiday in the sun each year, a house big and well-appointed enough for their families – these are hardly 'infinite' desires, and we are well capable of 'satisfying' these needs even today, never mind under some putative socialism.Of course, someone could argue that once workers have these needs fulfilled, they'll then want 'as much gold as they can eat' (Pythonism), but if we start from class analysis, rather than either 'isolated individuals' or 'we're all in this together' (the latter which your quote above suggests), then we're back to determining which concept of 'abundance-for' we wish to employ, to understand these issues.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I don't have a key concept and I've made my arguments already. Have nothing to add for now. All the best

Fine by me, stuart.I'm just pointing out that your post, supposedly criticising socialist views of 'giving undeserved stuff away for free':

stuartw2112 wrote:

So, one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that the arguments are wrong or shoddy, or do not chime with people's sense of right and wrong. "Give everyone stuff for free," sounds not only like a dream, but morally wrong and environmentally and economically dangerous. "Everyone should work and receive rewards according to their desert," sounds realistic, desirable and morally upright.

… is nothing to do with democratic socialism.If you think that your post captures 'socialist' views, then you're wrong.It's better if you argue with what I am saying (that 'abundance' must be related to a 'social consciousness'), rather than give a false account of 'what socialists argue for', and then simply dismiss that.I'm inclined to say that 'one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that' they, like you, don't seem to know what those 'arguments' actually are.You seem to have picked up your views of 'what socialism is' from the bourgeoisie, so it's not surprising that you 'reject' those arguments – so do we!So, we're on the same side, to some extent, at least!

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

So, one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that the arguments are wrong or shoddy, or do not chime with people's sense of right and wrong. "Give everyone stuff for free," sounds not only like a dream, but morally wrong and environmentally and economically dangerous. "Everyone should work and receive rewards according to their desert," sounds realistic, desirable and morally upright.Of course, maybe socialists are right and conservatives wrong. But you have to make the argument, and make it more and more convincing. You can't just say, why are these irrational fools disagreeing with me? 

[my bold]But you're using the arguments of the bourgeoisie, stuart.In this society, the concept "Give the rich stuff for free" is the reality.And the concept ""Every worker should work and receive rewards according to their desert" is the reality.Your use of 'everyone' (instead of 'the rich') in the first case, and 'Everyone' (instead of 'worker') in the second case, just hides this reality.We agree that 'deserts' should follow from 'work'.That's our slogan, 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.There is no asocial, ahistorical 'everyone' getting 'stuff for free' or 'undeserved reward'.It's just that our social judgement of what is 'ability' and 'needs' (and what is 'free' and 'deserved') will be decided democratically, and not determined by 'money' and an 'individual's' ability to store it and thus determine their own solitary 'needs'.I think that this is 'making a convincing argument', and that any Democratic Communist would agree with me.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: I'm happy to answer your questions, but could you first please tell me your sex, age, class, occupation, and so on, so I can know where you're coming from ideologically?

I thought that I'd explained, stuart.We only have to know 'individual traits' if we're using 'abundance-for-individuals' as our basic concept.Perhaps you are (and you should be open about this, if you are), but I'm not.I'm employing 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' and 'abundance-for-proletariat'.Are you using 'abundance-for stuart' as your key concept?

[Author]

Posts