[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

@Robbo Post #346    Your "Stateless Society" is a pipe-dream, (Robbo203), you need infrastructure to manage water treatment plants and/or nuclear power plants etc. I have suggested a federation of municipalities, cooperatives and autonomous-collectives, with the abolishment of the federal and provincial/state level government. This would maximize open-participatory-democracy and put emphasis on municipalities to manage such things as plants and infrastructure.         

 Er   no , you are misunderstanding what is meant by a "stateless society".  It does not mean the absence of administrative structures as such  – though I understand there is a certain ambiguity about the use of terms such as " government" particularly with you yanks on the other side of the Pond.  (sorry about my flippancy) I am broadly sympathetic to the Marxist tradition and, in that tradition, the  notion of the state has a very specific  meaning:  It is an instrument  of class rule.  Consequently wherever there exists a state there exists a class based society and conversely wherever there exists a stateless society there does not exist any classes.  But there is still adminstration and various structures of decisionmaking obviously.  As Engels once put it the "government of persons is replaced by the administration of things" So saying that a stateless society is a "pipe dream "is tantamount to saying that classless society is a pipedream, in my book. The existence of an adminstration no more signifies the exstence of  a state than the existence of machinery signifies the existence of capital.  If I might quote Marx from  his early work, Wage Labour and Capital (1847):    A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar.  The same could be said of the word  "administration" and its relation to the word "state". Actually the SPGB has written quite a bit on the nature of adminstration in a socialist/communist society.  You might find some of the stuff it has written of particular interest coming as you do from an anarchist perspective.  Can I recommend in particular this pamphlet http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative#ch3

[robbo203]

So it looks like Marx was a bit of an "individualust" at heart, after all.  Lol to LBird http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/6515/1/PhD.Kandiyali.pdf

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

@Robbo, Post # 285 Your making sense to me! Your position and questions are clear and speaking my language, even if there are some disagreements between our positions. 

Michel re your post 336 Yes, sure, I am aware of the various tendencies you enumerate that seem to darken the future and beckon a Big Brother society – the growth of surveillance, terrorism and the state’s increasingly invasive attempts to counter it, neoliberal austerity and the decline of the workers’ movement facilitating an increase in authoritarian management in the workplace, the ability of capitalism to coopt opposition and commercialise what was once free and so on and so forth.  All this is true enough but what you over look is that while there are tendencies in one direction there are counter tendencies in the other.  I touched on some of these – like the growth of social networking and the explosion of protests movements around the world.  Ultimately you can’t keep putting the lid on something that is boiling over and the smart thing to do is to open the valves that permit the steam to be let off.  It’s a learning process in which reversals are entirely possible but in the long run this is what capitalist states are coming to do.  Capitalism in so many ways is creating its own grave digger.    Tony Blair’s mantra “education, education, education” points to one of these ways.  To boost productivity and ascend the industrial league table you need a relatively educated workforce and such a thing is not really compatible with a totalitarian fascist regime.  Another way is the increasing entrapment of states by their own rhetorical commitment to bourgeois democracy.  It acts as a constraint on an impulse to totalitarian fascism if only because once the genie is out of bottle it is difficult to put it back in again. Sure, there are still a few autocratic despotic regimes around but their numbers are shrinking and the circle of nominally pluralistic bourgeois democratic states is expanding. A few decades ago a map of South America or Africa would be largely comprised of military dictatorships or one party states but today the situation is quite different.  International respectability and with it the prospect of more trade requires at least a minimal commitment to some basic freedoms. Yes, this is a sweeping generalisation that can be challenged but the exceptions to the rule like Saudi Arabia tend to be exceptions only by virtue of their great wealth or strategic importance The trouble with your analysis is that you tend too much to anthropomorphise capitalism.  We all do it to some extent but it is important to constantly check ourselves.  You say: I don't quite see, your idea, that capitalism is like some innocuous lumbering beast, lurching on and on, through history, like some Frankenstein, that is incapable of truly intelligent, devious, calculated, fascist, maneoeuvres. In fact, capitalism shows beneath its veneer of Trump-idiocy, that it is an insidious, calculating, ruthless machine/logic, with a Janus-Face, which, in the end, will not tolerate any deviant political economic framework other than its own. But capitalism is NOT really a lumbering beast and I didn’t really suggest that.  Capitalism is just basically a set of rules about how we go about producing and distributing wealth.  Trump is not capitalism/  He is merely a (particularly incompetent) politician trying to administer one little corner of global capitalism called the US. The politicians don’t control capitalism because it’s not actually a lumbering beast that you can harness and ride on like one of those fire breathing dragons in the Game of Thrones.  Trump may display all those qualities you attribute to capitalism but he  is not capitalism. And finally on that mish mash of incoherent and regressive ideas you call “post modernism”.    The irony of your assertion that “The post-modernists have it right, we must not resurrect the meta-narratives of the Enlightenment, as they invariably turn into nightmares” is that this itself turns on a sweeping and highly questionable metanarrative about metanarratives. You fondly imagine that the way forward is retreat into the microcosmic world of our particular or immediate environments as a way of subverting from within the metanarrative that is global capitalism.  You say the “goal is revolution towards a multi-varied, multi-dimensional society, with many cultural and socio-economic differences, living in relative equality, not any Mont-Pelrin like totalitarian hegemony of the left. Yikes! this is totalitarian socialism all-over again in disguise.” Now I have a lot of sympathy with the kind of localised particular focus you seem to advocate but to imagine for one moment that you can abandon the idea of collective action on a large scale united by a common vision of an alternative to capitalism is sheer folly on a monumental scale.  You will picked off one by one in your little microcosms of cultural uniqueness and coopted into the system you purport to oppose.  Post modernism is little more than a marketing strategy to sell a sense of cultural identity to wistful and bewildered consumers hankering after authenticity in a world rendered homogenous, boring and bland by the global  forces of capitalist commerce and its ever cost-conscious calculus And as for that “totalitarian socialism” you refer to – that is precisely not what we are talking about here.  You are talking about nationalised state-run capitalism. We are talking about a stateless non market global alternative to global capitalism.  That is a metanarrative well worth embracing because if you don’t you will be lumbered indefinitely with that other great and insidiously pernicious metanarrative that is global capitalism

[robbo203]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@robbo203The Socialist Preamble says that all capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.You did not deny it.But you made a claim, post #338, which must intrigue the reader. You say that the present one and only way to organize total labour is dead as a dodo? And yet something is organizing total labour. What has replaced the dodo? When was this miracle?

 No Alan  I said the argument  that we need to encourage the further "concentration and centralisation of capital" on the grounds that this  will "hasten the development of the productive forces" is dead as a dodo.  The reason is that we dont need to develop these productive forces further to have socialism.  Period.  The productive forces are already amply developed to have have socialism now if we wanted it. 

[robbo203]

Alan Kerr wrote:

robbo203To you robbo capitalist production in general, big or small, is the real hindrance to production.  Compared to what? What is your alternative? Would you rather make the scale of production units arbitrary? Would you just trust to pure guesswork? Then how do we know if your Socialist alternative is not the real hindrance compared to the market? How do we know if your alternative is not the real hindrance compared to capitalist production?Any society that just tried to leave production organization to luck would surely starve.Do you claim as if the scale of units of production is just arbitrary? Look around and the market is a graveyard for failed firms. We need to talk about the trend. The trend is not all one way. But the general trend shall we say since introduction of the first machines is to big production. There is a trend. Would you say that this is just arbitrary trend? Then the labour theory is wrong. Then MBellemare is right to claim that the labour theory is wrong. But then MBellemare has not yet explained how come the present population has survived. He has failed so far to explain what is shifting total labour around in a way which keeps us alive.Or do you claim scale of units of production rather depends on efficiency? Then there is nothing arbitrary to it. Then the labour theory still holds good in practice.

 Alan. As I indicated in my earlier post, in a capitalist economy there are both economies and diseconomies of scale in terms of output per worker depending on the branch of industry we are talking about ( some industries are prone to natural monopolies, for example) and also technological development (solar power, for example, makes possible decentralised and even off grid energy production as I know living in Spain!) However you are missing my main point.  No, I dont think the scale of production is arbitrary  – i.e. big or small units – and there are technical reasons that would determine  the size of the particular unit or corporate  entity concerned,  Thats another argument, however,  My argument is that capitalism has long outlived its usefulness  in developing the forces of production  to the point at which we can have socialism.  Consequently the whole argument about the "concentration and centralisation of capital" which is supposed to aid the development of the productive forces,according to Marxist theory  is now completely obsolete and dead as a dodo Capitalism  is now the real hindrance to production – NOT the lack of a sufficiently developed resource base.  We have long had the material or technogical infrastructure to support a socialist society.  The potential is there to meet the reasonable needs of every person on this planet  but capitalism is preventing us from realising this potential.  Capitalism is not directly concerned with meeting the needs of people  but with with realisation of profit.  For instance, most of the labour in the formal sector of a modern capitalist ecnomy is socially useless in that it produces nothing of real worth e.g. banks etc and only exists to keep capitalism ticking over on its own terms. All that wasted labour could be used to augment social production in socialism in environmentally sustainable ways Capitalism is grotesquely inefficient by that standard, since you ask;  its consignment to the dustbin of history is long overdue

[robbo203]

Alan Kerr wrote:

 The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is not as yet a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production. 

 Alan, it is capitalist production, in general, big or small, that is the real "hindrance to productiion.  There are, in any case, even by capitalism's standards. diseconomies of  scale in certain lines of production beyond a certain threshold size  – meaning the bigger the production  unit, the less efficient  it is in producing stuff This  whole idea of the "concentration and centralisation of capital" which traditional 19th century Marxism relied upon as a way of boosting and developing the forces of production to bring closer the prospect of socialism is now completely obsolete .  For at least a century we have had at our disposal the technological potential to sustain a genuine socialist society worldwide. The left wing fetish about nationalising the "commanding heights of industry" which then they go on to wrongly  designate as some kind of transitional socialist stage between capitalism snd  communism is just so much reactionarry diversionary twaddle.  The forces of production dont need to be further developed under the auspices of the big capitalist corporations – and ultmately the biggest of them all, being the state.  This is only postponing the realisation of a socialist society on the false pretext that the forces of production need to be further developed as well as serving to deflect the core criticism that socialists make of capitalism –  that it is capitalism itself, not the relative size of the production units in capitalism, that is the real  problem

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

[Presume your theory is 'Stalinist Stages Theory', then?I'm for class struggle, here and now, not 'later'. I find that 'later' never actually comes, for those theorists who tell workers that their 'x-for-the-workers' 'comes later'. I suspect that 'later theorists' aren't actually interested in workers' self-development.At least you've got to the view that 'automation' is actually a class issue, which, again, I suspect many reading have never even thought about. I'm talking about the 'materialists', who probably think that 'automation-in-itself' is going to bring socialism, and that they 'know' this because 'automatons' talk to them, alone. I have my doubts. I've actually read both Marx and Engels.Anyway, take a well-earned 'Well Done!', Alan. At least we're now actually talking about 'Marx and Automation', not the 'Machine Socialism' of the 'materialists'.

 More bollocks from LBird .  I dont know of anyone here who thinks that 'automation-in-itself' is going to bring socialism.  If our resident Leninist troll knew anything about socialism at all, or the SPGB,  he would understand that socialism can only come if and when a working class majority want and understand it.  As per usual he just invents things as he goes along to fill his daily quota of sneers and then scurries back to his comfort zone by simply  ignoring all questions fired at him. There is a good article on automation here which puts the matter in perspective  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1965/no-725-january-1965/automation-perspective  

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 According to you, anyone who argues these democratic socialist principles, is saying that everyone in socialism will carry out brain surgery on each other! What political ideology has such contempt for 'the masses', and their 'endless stupidity'?You're a Tory, through and through, robbo, and all your bleating is the resistance of 'common sense' to 'revolutionary activity'. And you're, ironically enough, the one who's 'ignorant' of the basics of democratic socialism.

You are scraping the barrel in your desparation to sound remotely plausible, arent  you LBIrd?.  So now I am Tory – Ho Ho Ho – cos I say there are limits  to how much knowlege any one of us can acquire no matter how intelligent we may be. The opportunity costs of specialising in one branch of knowlege is  to remain relatively ignorant in others.  Thats a plain fact which you stubbornly and pigheadedly refuse to accept  because that alone blows apart your whole crackpot idea of having  a global vote on the "truth" of every scientific theory that comes into circulation.  How can we vote on something that doesnt really mean much to us and in all probablity we have not the slightest interest in? Actually, the stupidity is entirely  yours for grotesquely musunderstanding the point.  In saying that we cannot all carry out brain surgery on each other I am not at all displaying " contempt for 'the masses', and their 'endless stupidity'", you poor deluded fool!   I include myself  among "the masses" you refer to  who wouldnt know how to even begin to perform a surgical  operation,  And there is no shame in that at all.   Besides, a neoursurgeon probably wouldnt to know  where to begin with pruning an olive tree or strim a bank of bramble which is my specialisation.  Again there is no shame in that either…. And  once again you evade my point and misrepresent my postiion .  I have no objection whatsoever  to scientific papers and findings being made as widely available as possible and widely discussed as possible.  In fact I would encourage it.  Unlike you , a de facto Leninist in denial ,  I am an  ANTI elitist.  What i am attacking instead  is your utterly stupid idea of holding a global vote to determine the "truth" of  sciientific theories.  Its neither necessary nor remotely practical. You know as well as I do LBird that there are tens of thousands of scientific theories being churned out every year,  You know – or should know  – that the people who would actually bother to vote  on any one of these countless theories – never mind the nightmare logistics of organising such a global vote – would be absolutely minsuscule.  How then can you call that the "social production of truth" when only a miniscule fraction of society is ever likely particicpate in such a vote?  What you are actually calling for is the "minority production of the truth" and that would be quite in keeping with your own Leninist outlook Besides ,  I  still have no inkling of what you think would be the point of such a vote anyway.  Are the minority of those who vote supposed to relinquish their own rival theories and fall in line with new prevailing orthodxy now elevated to the status of a dogma by being rubber stamped by means of a vote?  You dont explain.  You never explain and  it would seem you have no intention of ever explaining. Sorry, but your  arguments are so naff its difficult to understand how even you can take yourself seriously.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

FFS  this is what is so infuriating  about LBird. . He never makes any attempt to defend his argument,  He just repeats it over and over and over again – like a JW arguing against evolutionIf you are trained as a molecular biologist are you bound to know more than about more molecular biology than some one who is not trained?  Of course you are!! LBird I cant believe even you are that dense as to deny  this.  Of course, the  rest of can come to know as much about molecular biology if we too were inclined to train up to become molecular biologists as well.  But thats not going to happen in the real world is it? 

Here we have again robbo's individualist, elitist ideology, which completely ignores socio-historical production, and the future of a socialist society, which must be built, by us, employing Marx's method of social theory and practice, using democratic methods from the outset.All this political thinking means nothing to robbo – he's an individualist (he doesn't aim for the democratic control of social production, but for the realisation of the bourgeois ideal of 'free individuals') and an elitist (he assumes that academics 'know better' what 'our world' should look like, than we should). All this elitist individualism (ie. ruling class ideas) comes from robbo's belief in 'matter', which an 'individual' (like him) can 'touch' (by his 'biological' senses).I've said this, time and again, as a political explanation, and to defend the argument of democratic socialists. But, apparently, given his 'senses', robbo can't read. Ironic, eh?But, for Democratic Communists, like me, and for Marx, the defining assumption is 'democratic social production'. The earth is a common treasury, for all, and the social production by all for all, based upon our common resources, can only be realised by democratic means.robbo completely ignores the political and philosophical basis of his ruling class ideology, and so doesn't start from 'democracy' in academia.During the building towards socialism, the ideological dominance of bourgeois academics and bourgeois elitist science, must be replaced by a form of education and science more suitable to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary proletariat. So, we'll see the emergence of challenges to the assumptions of bourgeois education (which robbo ignorantly shares), so that our assumption will be that there will not be an 'academic elite' who isolatedly conduct 'science' for their own ideological purposes. Professors-for-us will be elected, and we will determine what ideological concepts the 'professors' employ in our research, in the buildings and facilities we provide, for our scientific needs, interests and purposes. If the elected can't explain in a language suitable to us, they'll be removed. There won't be any 'priests' using 'Latin' to explain 'The Bible'. Or 'physicists' using 'maths' to explain 'matter'. These are revolutionary assumptions, democratic assumptions, suitable for a revolution.robbos' assumptions, that 'scientists know better' than we do, and that this is a state of nature that can't be changed, says everything about his political ideology, which has nothing whatsoever to say to workers who wish to build towards a democratic socialism.robbo knows nothing, and always resorts to insults, of the sort typical of those who think that most workers are thick as pigshit, and can't argue with professors, like Hawking, who even the SPGB has recently corrected.I've said all this to robbo, but he never discusses 'science' as a social and historical activity, or the social production of 'matter', which we can, as Marx argued, change. robbo wants elite contemplation of 'Truth'.'Materialists' follow robbo, and follow Engels, who didn't have a clue what Marx was talking about, and thought that Marx had reverted to the 'Mind-Matter' problem. Marx unified 'Mind-Matter' as 'conscious activity', where both are required. Any discussion of 'matter' outside of its socio-historical production is a reversion to 'materialism', whereas Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', and he says so, and he criticises 'materialists' as elitists.So, Marx was right about you, robbo. 'The real world'? Conservatives unite, eh, robbo?

 I see the Leninist windbag and ex SWPer,  LBird, is at at again – completely misrepresenting what his opponents have to say as per usual. Im bored with having to endlessly  debunk the BS he constantly churns out and if  he thinks I am an "individualist" he would also have to criticise Marx as an individualist too.  Marx after all said things like “the free development of each is the condition of the free development of all" Thats sheer individualism by LBird's warped thinking so why does not LBird condemn Marx as a "bourgeois individualist" ? As for the "social production of truth" , yes "truth" , or what people believe to be the truth, is socially produced but that does not mean you have to vote on it for chrissakes!. LBird fails to understand what the issue is about.   My toothbrush is also "socially produced if you think of all the components that go to make a toohbrush.  Could I be bothered to vote on all the multiple processes involved in putting togther a toothbrush?  Hell no! Its idiocies like this and idiots  who propound them that reduce socialism to a laughing stock in the eyes of workers I dont want "elite contemplation of the Truth" because 1)  i dont want scientifc theories rigidified into eternal dogmas sanctified and rubber stamped by a vote which is what Lbirds wants and 2) becuase as far I am concerned if somebody wants to have a say about a  particular scientific theory then let them; there should be no barriers whatsoever on debate.  So actually my position is an ANTI-elitist one  What I am saying is quite different though LBird lacks the wit to grasp this – that in practice the sheer logistics of getting to grips  with any particular field  of scientifc endeavour means that the very most anyone can hope to achieve is to become thoroughly competent in one or two fields perhaps and therefore to remain relatively ignorant in thousands of other fields.  Its inevitable and its not a problem for a socialist society anyway. Does LBird deny this?  Can he seriously tell us that each and every one of us can become a trained and accomplished Molecular biologist and a trained and accomplished practitioner of every other of field of scientific  endeavour as well?  Over to you LBird.   Answer the question and stop ducking it.  Would you have just anyone come into the hospital and perfom a surgical operation on your brain in  communist society? Why are you so terrifed of anwering a straightforward question?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

You keep insisting that only a materialist minority can determine 'truth'

Can you site one instance where anyone other than yourself has said that?  For instance, I would sugest that Robbo has never said that, …

Read robbo's post following yours, YMS. And then tell me what he says. He doesn't mention workers' democracy, only elites, who are 'bound to know' better than the rest of us.

 FFS  this is what is so infuriating  about LBird. . He never makes any attempt to defend his argument,  He just repeats it over and over and over again – like a JW arguing against evolution If you are trained as a molecular biologist are you bound to know more than about more molecular biology than some one who is not trained?  Of course you are!! LBird I cant believe even you are that dense as to deny  this.  Of course, the  rest of can come to know as much about molecular biology if we too were inclined to train up to become molecular biologists as well.  But thats not going to happen in the real world is it?  Apart from form anything else there are tens of thousands of other jobs that need to be done for society to continue and for which people likewise need to be trained.  So it is only right and proper, and eminently sensible, that people shuld be able to pursue whatever job or jobs that interest them most.  It is literally impossible to become a specialist in everything  – unless LBird  believes humans beings are capable of attaining  divine like omiscience  (which wouldnt suprise me in the least given his oher crackpot ideas he has been peddling here)  or  he believes that specialism and a social division of labour can be eliminated with all the obvious consequences that flow from this,  Presumably LBird thinks just anyone can be snatched randomly off the street to perform a surgical operation on his brain.  I would love for him to put this into practice.  Actually come to think of it , who knows – it might actually result in an improvement in his thinking prowess Does the facr that a molecular biologist trained in her specialised field is bound to know more than a person who is not trained mean that she has any more power over anyone else in a socialist sciety,  Once again, and emphatically – NO! It is in the arena of practical decisionmaking that a "real workers democracy" will exist, NOT in the arena of abstract scientific debate for which there is simply no need for democratic desisonmaking.  It would be quite stupid and pointless trying to democratically determine the "truth" of a scientific theory and also, incidentally, totally against the spirit of scientific enquiry which is supposed to be constantly self critical and opposed to the establishment of rigid dogmatic "truths"    Deal with the argument I presented for saying this, LBird ,  Dont just boringly repeat over and over again your same old dogmatic postulate which forms the beginning middle and end of every argument you ever attempt here

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

MBellemare wrote:

As for May 68, any idea of a Leninist, vangard party, armed-revolution and/or a storming of the winter-palace, is super-problematic to me, as they tend to lead down dark, bloody, rabbit holes. 

I think you will find that that is precisely what  the SPGB has been saying for 100 years now,  Vanguardism can only have one outcome – to reproduce a class based society as the vanguard steps into the shoes vacated by the old ruling class

But you support 'Material Vanguardism', robbo.You keep insisting that only a materialist minority can determine 'truth', and you openly say that you won't allow workers to democratically decide whether to employ the ideological concept of 'matter' (which you pretend contains 'truth'), or whether to replace 'matter' with (as the bourgeoisie suggest) 'mass' or 'energy', or with (as Marx suggested) 'inorganic nature' (which is his rendering of Ancient Greek concepts like 'hupokeimenon' or 'prote hule').Whilst the SPGB doesn't challenge Engels' 'materialism', it will remain, in effect as a "Leninist, vanguard party", which MB succinctly analyses in political terms. 'Matter' is a 'dark, bloody, rabbit hole'. 'Matter' can't be voted upon (it supposedly 'just exists', whereas 'hupokeimenon' is simply a passive ingredient into social labour), whereas the product of our work upon 'inorganic nature' can be voted upon.The only answer is Marx's: workers' democracy, and social theory and practice, in our production of our world, 'organic nature'.

  Christ, not this boring crap yet again from the ever predictable, LBird No, LBird, by "vangardism" I mean the capture of political power by a minority in advance of the majority becoming socialist .  I am not referring to the fact that  a trained Molecular Biologist is bound to know a lot more about molecular biology than the rest of us who are not trained and are probably for the most not likely to be particularly interested in the subject. In socialism a Molecular Biologist will have no more power than anyone else because the social relationships of socialism – free access to goods and services and volunteer labour – dissolve the very structure of  political power itself.  Its only Leninists like yourself with your bizarre obsessive utopian vision of society wide planning and the impostion of a  single mega plan on the whole of humanity, who will massively reinforced elite power by default  and completely destroy all trace of democracy in the process. 7 billion people can't possibly all become trained Molecular Biologists – let alone trained in al those other occupations that exist out there. So there are very obvious  structural limits to what we can contribute to the "truth" of some theory in the field of molecular biology.  – though why you want for us  to vote on such a "truth" escapes me.  Your exhibit the exactly same mentality that Medieval authorities of the Roman Catholic Church  displayed towards those who would question their dogma that the sun revolved aorund the earth and not the other way round.  Except you want to enshrine scientific truth as a dogma by giving it the rubber stamp of a democratic vote by 7 billion people rather than the word of God .  But that has got sod all to do with what democracy is supposed to be about Unless you propose that all specialisiation and any kind of social division of labour should be eradicated in socialism, and provide us with some compelling reason why this would be both remotely feasible and beneficial,  then your drivel will continue to be regarded with the contempt and ridicule it richly deserves

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

  The argument was or inferred by neo Leninists that they could have had communism in Russia in 1914 or whatever because it was a large economy or the 5th largest etc. And was thus not a backward country. That was not Lenin’s position incidentally around the time and somewhere he said Russia as regards economic backwardness was like that of China.  

  Sure, I understand the point you are making,  The neo Leninists you refer to would be dead wrong to infer that  socialism was possible in Russia back them  because in terms of aggregate output the Russia economy was the fifth largest in the world at that time (even assuming you can have "socialism in one country" which you can't).  This would be to overlook that what counts as far as the "objective preconditions" for socialism are concerned is  not aggregate output but the per capita output – or per capita productivity,  The evidence I have come across suggests this was on the low side both for industry and agriculture  (Tsarist Russia had to resort to large scale wheat imports at times) and certainly, not enough to sustain a socialist society.  Neverthlesss, that doesnt invalidate the point that Russia at the time was the 5th largest eonomy if only becuase of its huge population, relatively speaking

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

 As for May 68, any idea of a Leninist, vangard party, armed-revolution and/or a storming of the winter-palace, is super-problematic to me, as they tend to lead down dark, bloody, rabbit holes. 

 I think you will find that that is precisely what  the SPGB has been saying for 100 years now,  Vanguardism can only have one outcome – to reproduce a class based society as the vanguard steps into the shoes vacated by the old ruling class

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

 That we looked at or I presented on libcom a few years ago. It was due to the nonsense about Russia being the 5thlargest economy in the world in 1905 or whatever. Which wasn’t Lenin’s position as he took the position that Russia was one of the most backward. 

 Dave I  am curious as to why you say it is "nonsense"  that Russia was the fifth largest economy in  the tsarist times – a claim I have come across myself as well.  In per capita terms, yes, Russia was backward but in aggregate terms, given the sheer size of the population,  the claim seems reasonable.  In fact, Russia had some of the largest and technologically advanced factories in the world  at the time  – like the giant Putilov works.  After the disaster of the Crimean war, there was quite a serious push to industrialise the economy

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

  Then by means of an abstract argument based on labour-time it argued that workers in the "global north"  (the terminology morphed as well at this point.)  directly consumed the labour of workers in the "global south".  

Just one small point,  Rchard, that might be worth emphasising in your debate with this guy… There is no question that in the productive sector of the global north, workers are clearly exploited. I earlier gave an example .  While average hourly cost of employing factory workers in America was $23.32, these same workers produced on average an hourly output of $73.45    So they produce far more than they get back in return and the economic surplus is then distributed in all sorts of ways. One of these ways is ultimately  to finance the unproductive sector of the economy.  Does that mean that workers in the unproductive sector are "exploiting" workers in the productive sector?  Of course not.  The idea is absurd.  In Marx's time there were apparently about one million domestic female servants  in England.    By the logic of these Maoist Third Worldist types, the scullery maid in a stately home was exploiting her sister who worked as a factory hand in a textile mill! Of course the make up of the unproductive sector is very different today than it was in Marx's time.  Rather than being focussed on the personal consumption needs of the capitalists,  it has developed much more directly out of the commercial and other needs of the productive sector  itself.  The salaries of bank workers, for example, are ultimately financed out of surplus value but that hardly puts these workers in an exploitatitve relationship  vis=a-vis workers in the productive sector.  Capitalism needs banks as much as it needs the productive sector to generate the surplus value (from which the banks take a cut in the form of interest payments) for capital accummulation and so needs to employ workers to work  in both the unproductive and productive sectors of the economy.  Exploitation occurs at the level of the working class as a whole whatever sector they work in.  That is why you cannot really separate productive and unproductive workers along the lines that one is exploited and the other not –  for much the same reason that you cannot have  a properly functioning productive sector in a  modern capitalist without a whole host of unproductive activities coexisting alongside it.  These latter provide for  the necessary conditions under which the realisation of surplus value can occur

[Author]

Posts