[robbo203]

Mike Foster wrote:

Comrades in Cardiff pointed me towards http://www.quora.com, which I hadn't heard of before and is well worth a look. Users post questions (on any topic), and the replies then get voted up or down by anyone reading them. It's easy to search for topics, and there are plenty of threads on revolutionary politics.

I would endorse that Mike.  I  have been on quora for a while but have not been that active lately (I tend to be active in spurts). Yet even so I have just checked my stats for the last 30 days – over 3 thousand views and 38 upvotes – wthout having written anything recently. People contiue to respond to posts I wrote a while back because of the way the system works.   Since joining I have had 70,400 views and 715 upvotes and thats just me.  Other comrades – there are 3 that I can think of – more active than me have undoubtedly accumulated much more impressive stats. Quora is  massive and even if only 10-20 members started contributing on a regular basis providing links to this site I am certain you will discover quite a significant increase in activity here

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

 Richard,  I recommend  you read Charlie Post on this subject of superprofits and the supposedly "bribed" labour aristocracy in the so called First WorldAs far as capitalists based in the First World are concerned, the proportion of total capital invested abroad – and even more so, in the Third World – is actually remarkably small by comparison with what is invested at "home".  According to Post:Imperialist investment, particularly in the global South, represents a tiny portion of global capitalist investment. Foreign direct investment makes up only 5% of total world investment – that is to say, 95% of total capitalist investment takes place within the boundaries of each industrialized country.  Of that five percent of total global investment that is foreign direct investment, nearly three-quarters flow from one industrialized country – one part of the global North – to another. Thus only 1.25% of total world investment flows from the global North to the global South. It is not surprising that the global South accounts for only 20% of global manufacturing output, mostly in labor-intensive industries such as clothing, shoes, auto parts and simple electronics. ("The Labor Aristocracy Myth" , International Viewpoint Online magazine : IV381 – September 2006  These figures are a little dated and describe the situation  prior to 2000; they dont fully take into account the rapid growth, since then, of transnational corporate investment in China, in particular.  However, even if we update the figures, the overall picture still remains essentially the same: only a tiny fraction of global investment flows takes – or ever took –  the form of Direct Foreign Investment (FDI) by the global North in the global South

   I have been doing a bit of reading around since writing the above and have since  come across Steve Palmers rebuttal of Charlie Post's piece on "The Myth of the Labour Aristocracy".  It appears that the figures Post cited on the extent of foreigin direct investment (FDI) may be quite wrong and by quite a large marginhttp://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/britain/labourtrade-unions/1041-labour-aristocracy-mythmakers-and-their-mistakes-frfi-195-feb-mar-2007 Post's point was that since only a tiny fraction of total FDI goes to the Global South,  the superprpfits made there by the "imperialist countries" must be correspondingly tiny – and hence even more so the "bribe" that the  Labour Aristocracy supposedly  receives out of these superprofits (according to Lenin).  In fact even if one could meaningfully talk about this as being a bribe, it would be negligible and thus sociologically irrelevant.However the figures cited by Palmer changes the argument somewhat…. Also, it worth pointing out  that different witers differ as to the mechanism by which this supposed bribe is supposed to be effected.  Some argue  that it is effected through the state taxing the capitalists making those superpofits (some of which will  no doubt, have been secreted away into offshore accounts to avoid being taxed)  which then goes to fund the social wage – welfare reforms.  This  particular argument has important implications for the socialist argument that such reforms tend to have a downward pressure on wages by way of compensation for the capitalists having to pay for such reforms.  Meaning we are talking about a zero sum game in the long run.  But at any rate, since the reforms are said to benefit workers generally, it is the working class as a whole in the imperialist countries that are said to constitute the labour aristocracy vis-a-vis to the workers of the oppressed countries who are said to be generally  paid below the value of their labour power.  Hence the superprofits made there. In other words, imperialism has had the effect of mitigating or even cancalling out, on balance, the exploitation of workers in the so called rich World who have become  co-partners of the capitalists in exploiting the  poor world – the  so called "embourgeoisement" thesis. Presumably then, since we workers in the rich world are no longer exploited we have no reason to get rid of capitalism other than out of charitable concern for workers in the impoverished backwaters of global capitalism.   Or so it would seem… I think, bottom line, that the argument is bolllocks but at the same time it is important not to caricature it or combat it with incorrect data as Post appears to have done.  There is more to it than meets the eyes and its quite a slippery argument to pin down

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 What i have learned is to always treat people with civility. On this forum, i sometimes think lack courtesy to those who hold different opinions to ourselves. We (perhaps rightly) hold one another to high standards but should we expect others to match our understanding. Should we not be prepared to lower the bar on occasions?I find we are very prone at high-lighting differences rather than pointing them out and trying to reach some sort of agreement and then discuss where we diverge.

 Yes that seems a good rule of thumb to apply, Alan.  Start with the commonalities you share with your opponents and only then move on the differences.  It makes them more receptive to what you have to say if they dont feel they are at risk of having to lose face completely.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

And, of course, as is to be expected there will be those on the Left who will rally to this reactionary cause like flies settling around an open wound

Too true, though I'd have said like around a pile of shit. Here's an example from one of the 57 varities of Trotskyism (I'm not sure which):https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/puigdemont-fears-the-consistent-struggle-for-catalonia-s-independence/I see they want the Basque Country, Galicia and Valencia to break away too. Talk about dividing the working class. Misidentity politics gone mad. Whatever happened to "Workers of the World, Unite"?.

 Yes indeed Adam – such is the reactionary role of so much of the Left today amongst whom Lenin's bourgeiois ideas about the rights of nations to "self determination" holds sway  rather then Red Rosa Luxumburg's principled opposition to all nationalism One small point though –  a major grievance of the Catalan nationalist is the disproportionate tax burden paid (ultimately by the Catalan capitalists) to the central state.  I believe the situation in the Basque region is different where there is much greater degree of tax autonomy.  Does anyone have  any information on this? It could be quite an important factor in explaining the different trajectories of the nationalist movements in these diferent regions

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A rather unsympathetic article to Catalonian and Scottish separatism that might resonate with world socialists (although one failing is to equate all Scots with wealth of the nation)https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/11/catalonia-the-revolt-of-the-rich/

Quote:

the left does not dare to openly say that the nationalism of minorities in no less damaging for the working class cause than any other nationalism.

 The article makes some good points as well as some questionable ones as you say, Alan. As the article suggests, Catalonia is essentally a comparatively wealthy region of Spain, disgruntled at having to pay relatively high taxes to the central state (cue for the socialist argument that taxes are not a working class issue!).  Rajoy and co. mishandled the whole business from the start with his dogmatic attachment to to the argument that the constitution forbids an independence referendum.  A more intelligent capitalist politican would have recognised the reality on the ground, amended the constitution (which is just a scrap of paper after all) and allowed a legally binding referendum to take place.  In all probability the petty bourgois nationalists of Catalonia would have been defeated and that would have been the end of the matter.  Instead what we have now is a festering sore that will not go away and will in time build up around itself a whole mythological accretion of progressivism and radicalism.  And, of course, as is to be expected there will be those on the Left who will rally to this reactionary cause like flies settling around an open wound

[robbo203]

There  is also Oscar Wilde's famous quip : "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."?

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from …

 Prakash, I am not quite sure what you are saying here.  The idea that money cannot measure the worth – or use value – of a commodity was well understood by Marx  who pointed out that while"nothing can have value, without being an object of utility” it is neverthless the case that "use-value as such lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy” and that, logically speaking, labour had to be the primary measure of value under capitalism.  After all, it is labour that is the one thing common to all commodities whereas the use values of commodities are not only are qualitatively different and incommesurable but differ from person to person and from time to time.    Its just another way of saying what you are saying above, I think  (Marx K, 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)

[robbo203]

Well Ive just been listening to the announcements from the parliament in Barcelona this evening and it is clear that Puigdemont has suspended the "declaration" or should that be the "proclamation* (there is a subtle technical difference between these two terms) of independence, calling for dialogue with Madrid instead. Frankly I cant see it happening now, This is as far as the independistas will go and it is call brinkmanship (probably with the aim of getting a better deal for Catalonia as an autonomous region within Spain particularly in terms of the tax burden.). Despite the referendum probably a majority oppose independence in Catalonia and there is little or no support for it from the EU. The interests of the workers would not be served either by Catalan or Spanish or any form of nationalism. Independence or no independence it would just be capitalist business as usual

[robbo203]

It seems Russel Brand has fallen on hard times.  I wonder how this will impact on his political outlook? Though his earlier plitical pronouncements were a mixed bag – sometimes promising, sometime questionable – I sincerely hope his present predicament doesnt turn hm into a bitter cycnic.  That would be sad indeedhttp://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/russell-brand-living-hand-to-mouth-after-giving-his-money-away-to-friends-and-charities/ar-AAtb6nz?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

[robbo203]

I think the point needs to be made that while there are two separate issues of democratc rights (which socialists support) and Catalan nationalism (which socialists oppose along with Spanish, or any other, nationalism) , the situation on the ground is a lot more complex and confusing. Some of the anger that is boiling up agaist the government comes from people who are not really in support of independence but who are nevertheless incensed at the actions of the government in trying to prevent a democratic vote on the matter. The government's line is essentially that the referendum is unconsititutional and illegal (because the Spanish people as a whole need to vote on the matter not just the Catalans) which strikes me as a particularly weak argument.  Laws that are made can be unmade or amended; they are not set in concrete. This rigid attitude of theirs means there is no way to exorcise the devil of Catalonian nationalism. They have boxed theselves into a corner. Ironically had they cleared the way for a proper, Catalonia only, legal referendum on the question of Catalonian independence, there seems little doubt that they would have won and probably by a handsome margin.  The large number of Catalonian workers who did not vote or effectvely boycotted the referendum, did so becuase they could see no point in voting if the government refuses to recognise the result.  This section of the population would undoubtedly come out against independence if a legal and binding referendum was held. As it is, the cause of Catalan independence has been boosted because it makes the Catalan nationalists to be the upholders of democracy and their opponents, the promoters of repression. Some waverers on the issue of independence will no doubt now decide to throw in  their lot with the nationalists having seen the ugly face of the Spanish state in action And it could get uglier.  There are rumours on the social media of a troop train being sent from Madrid to restore law and order,  I dont know if this is fake news or not but it will add to the rising tensions.  Catalan nationalism doesnt really have a tradition of using military cum terroristic measures to advance its cause (unlike say, the Basque separatists  and ETA which has now been officially disarmed) , the only exception to this  being the tiny Terra Lliure group which operated between 1978 and 1995 and only managed to assessinate 1 individual.  But who is to say, some more viable military wing of Catalan nationalism might not emerge out of the frustration, even possibly a false flag operation ,  giving the government all the excuse it needs to clamp down on the pesky nationalists?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Surely the important point is being missed. One of major arguments of some leftist against the SPGB position is that the State will not allow us to use the ballot box for revolution.

 Not quite sure how that argument would apply in this case, Vin , because firstly we are talking about a hypoethical situation in which the entire socio -political environment will have been significantly modifed and democratised  as a result of the growth of the socialist movement beforehand.  Secondly. we are only talking here of a small section of the Spainish working class based in Catalonia facing the might of the Spanish state.  It would be quite a differnet ball game if the Spanish state sought to take on the Spanish working class as a whole (which unfortunately at the moment is divided by nationalistic ideas)

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

The government is acting very shady if you ask me. Couldn't they just say "we won't allow Catalonia to become independent" and still let people vote? What are they worried about? That the pro-independent side will get the most votes?

 My sentiments exactly, Sympo. This is a gross miscalculation on Rajoy's part and it doesnt look good. The Catalan nationalists are threatening to bring their case to the EU and the UN.   If I were the capitalist prime minster of Spain I would have  let them have their vote – like Cameron and the Scottish referendum .  Although the last time a vote was held in 2014 and the independence movement got a majority of the vote, the turnout out was small and probably most Catalans would have noted no in a real referendum but that referendum was deemed to be not binding .  That is the line Rajoy should have taken from the point of view of his own interests but this time round he did not   This time round the  government has come down strongly against the referendum  on the grounds that it is illegal and unconstitutional and so they are actively seeking to disrupt it which is stupid really.  It is only serving to drive more people into the pro independence camp on the pretext that a country – Spain – that is so brazenly undermining democracy in this way is probably not worth remaining in. In other words it has become more than just an issue of nationalism; the question of democracy is involved too. There is also of course the thorny issue of taxation with the independence movement arguing that Catalonia pays a disportionately large share of tax revenues into the central state's coffers and this particular claim will only be given heightened prominence as a result of the government's action

[robbo203]

Dave T wrote:

An interesting report which highlights some voices of sanity against nationalism which is the poison of the working class.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/30/red-belt-catalonia-labour-movement-referendum  

 Living in Spain – Andalucia – Ive been following developments in Catalonia and my partner, Ana, has many contacts in the region who have been sending her video updates of what is going on.  The power of the social media in practice!  It seems that the actions of the Guardia Civil today of raiding polling stations and confiscating ballot boxes was fully anticpated by the Catalan authorities who devised all manner of ruses to get around the restrictions.  At the time of writng today – about midday – some 1000 or the 2300 polling stations have been sealed off by the Guardia Civil – but voters are still able to vote at other stations not closed down since their voter registration details can be checked against a universal register cleverly made accessible over the internet in advance Dave T is right to condemn the poison of nationalism – although we should not forget the spanish nationalism of those who want Catalonia to remain in Spain.  However the issue is a bit more complicated than just one of nationalism For many voters it seems the issue has become one of democracy and freedom of expression. Rajoy I believe has blundered badly in declaring the whole exercise illegal and has incurred the wrath of even those who would have voted against independence.  It is a miscalculation that could cost him and his government dearly come the next election

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

I agree the quote is fine. The problem I have  is claiming that Corbyn is the same as Thatcher when he clearly is not. Thatcher openly opposed Trade Unions and set about murdering its members by starvation and violence. Corbyn openly supports trade unions and seeks to use the law to encourage trade union activity and growth.  

 Thats true enough Vin – you cant really compare Corbyn to Thatcher  as far as their personal beliefs are concerned – but, on the other hand, it does occur to me that this might be to overtheorise the issue.  The image of  Jeremy Thatcher  works at the level of a meme.  Like the worm eating away at the apple's core it is has the effect of jolting the viewer/reader into rethinking what might be the overall impact of a Corbyn government.  Whatever Corbyn might think, you can't operate this rotten system of capitalism in the interests of the "many not the few" and Corbyn like Thatcher, even if reluctantly (unlike Thatcher) will be obliged to operate the system in the interests of the few against the many If that simple message gets through, the image might have some value after all and help to counter the rather disturbing cultish  following Corbyn seems to be collecting around his person (probably through no fault of his own) which is defintely not a healthy development and is decidedly anti-socialist

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I think the Sun needs to be  corrected.

Yes I'm sure they don't want to tarnish their reputation for accurate reporting.

 LOL DJP but, yes, I suppose you could approach  them (with tonque firmly in cheek)  out of concern that their reputation might be tarnished.  Flattery will get you everywhere

[Author]

Posts