robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marcos wrote:I read the argumentation of Andrew Killman, but in reality, it is not his idea, he is developing a conception expressed by Raya Dunayevskaya several years ago in her book Marxism and Freedom, and her idea of the negation of the negation, and labour power in a communist society, she was always constantly talking about the same idea. The point that he is making is the same one expressed by Robbo. He is not talking about individual private property per se. That idea has also been developed by Peter Hudis and Kevin Anderson. It is on this book:http://newsandletters.org/shop/books/the-power-of-negativity/
Marcos, from your knowlege of the Marxist Humanist project would you say that by the term "individual property" is meant specifically labour power rather than the products of labour power? So when Kliman writes about individual property being returned to the great mass of people, he is not actually advocating individualised ownership of the means of production – actually he explictly seems to support common ownership of those means – but rather the re-appropriation of labour power by the labourer as an inalienable aspect of his or her person and no longer for sale on the market. This is precisely the point that I was driving at in the thread I started up on "Marx and the Individual". There is unquestionably a strong streak of individualistic thinking in Marx which is grounded in the premiss of his whole argument about alienation. That is something which our resident critic LBird does not seem to understand with his knee jerk jibes about the Robbo's and others "individualism" Thats simply not the case. My ideas and I think those of Marx's too are grounded instead in an "Emergence paradigm" , not an atomistic reductionist individualist paradigm such as Mrs Thatcher expressed – "Theres no such thing as society , only individuals". I agree that individuals are real entities on which society is based – how it not be? – but consider that society has an "emergent" quality about it that cannot be reduced to – or simply explained by – the individuals who comprise society. In other words society has causal power . It influences us. The relationship between individuals and society is thus two way not one way as a true "individualists" would maintain but Lbird does not seem to understand this point
I looked up the Marxist-Humanist site and the transcript of the debate was there – or, at least, of Andrew Kliman's opening contribution: Here is the relevant passage: "So forcible expropriation, violence, and repressive state action are what created a new starting point, in which the great majority of the population has to choose between starvation and working under the domination of one or another capitalist. And so, given this new starting point that that they did not voluntarily choose, working people began to “voluntarily” work under the domination of capitalists. And these “voluntary” labor-market transactions “only cement[ ] this situation,” reinforce and perpetuate this new and much-less-free starting point. A genuinely free society requires that we undo—reverse–this expropriation. We need to return to individual property, in the sense that the direct producers—the folks who do the work–have ownership and control over the means of production–land, tools, raw materials, and so forth-that they need to make a living. If you are for reversing the forcible expropriation and re-establishing individual property in this sense, you and Marx are on the same side. This is exactly what he envisioned in the culminating chapter of his book, Capital: “The expropriators are expropriated. “… capitalist private property … is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.” Now, it’s conceivable that when individual property is returned to the great mass of people, some of them may want to work under the domination of others, in return for a wage. I find that bizarre, but I admit that it is conceivable—just barely. So what I recommend is–if you’re an absolutist about freedom of exchange: support the expropriation of the expropriators. Then, after that’s been accomplished, advocate that people who possess individual property should be allowed to work under the domination of others–if they so choose. … But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to choose that. " https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Stockholm-freedom-debate-opening-remarks-9.14.16.pdf Its all a bit messy and unclear what Kliman is actually saying here but he seems to be saying that "individual property" is distinguishable from "private property" and, following Marx, is based on the "possession in common of the land and of the means of production". If that is the case then possibly what he is talking about is not property in the sense of something that you own and can dispose of – something that is alienable which is the essence of private property – but rather property in the sense of something that you as an individual possess nd use – namely, your labour power – which in communism would no longer be alienable but subject to your own volition. Meaning that you as an individual would freely contribute as you would wish in cooperation with others on an entirely voluntary basis. So really what Kliman seems to be alluding to here is the theory of "possessive individualism" and the "labour theory of property" – that you should own what you create through you own labour. Except that Kliman is not talking about the products of your labour since he seems to go along with the idea of common ownership of the means of production but rather with labour itself. In other words, he is taking the advocates of possesive individualism at face value and subverting their theory by exploiting the very premiss on which it is based – namely, that your labour power should be your own individual property to use as you choose There is a section in Paresh Chattopadhyay's book (p.22- 29) where he discusses Marx's idea of alienated or alienable labour as the basis of capitalist private property. For Marx private property has a double expresssion – as individual private poprerty and as class based private propeorty. The tendency in capitalism is for the latter to crowd out the former just as the former tranformed the individual property of the labourer – his or her labour power which in one sense is physically inseparable from the labourer – into alienable or private property. A commodity in other words. In effect, it is in the context of the specificity of the form of property within class property that capitalist private property takes on a second meaning in Marx. Here the starting point is private property considered simply as the "opposite [Gegensatz] of social, collective property," and private property in this sense refers to the property of "private individuals" [Privatleute] in the conditions of production which, again, can have two different "characters," according as these "private individuals" are "laborers or non-laborers" (1962a: 1X9). Corresponding to these two characters, Marx speaks of "two laws" of (private) property. "The first [law] is the identity of labor and property," that is, "private property based on one’s own labor" (1953: 373; 1962a: 802). The second law is the law of "bourgeois" (private) property into which the first law is "transformed" [umschlagt] "by its own inner, unfailing dialectic" (1953: 373; 1962a: 609). According to this second law, the "product of one’s own labor appears as alien property [and] contrariwise, alien labor appears as the property of the capitalist", that is, labor appears as "negated property." Capitalist private property "necessitates [bedingt] the annihilation of private property based on one's own labor". Thus the "separation of property from labor becomes the necessary consequence of a law that apparently started out from their identity" (1953: 373; 1962a: 802,610). https://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience In summary then I think Kliman is making a distinction between individual private property and individual property insofar as he seems to be agreeing with Marx in saying that communism – the negation of the negation – does not re-establish private property for the producer but gives him individual property – meaning property that is no longer alienable and therefore no longer takes the form of private property. Meaning specifically labour power
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.LOL the irony of ironies – LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided" without so much as a single working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird? Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary. Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical? Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?
That's right, robbo – I've already decide that 'democratic socialism' can only mean 'democratic socialism', and not alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism'. I'm a worker that's had experience of a form of 'democracy' a bit like alan's (ie. 'democratic centralism').I'm quite willing to put this to a vote of workers – do they want 'democratic socialism' (within which they decide) or do they want 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism' (within which it's been pre-decided by an elite, that somethings cannot be decided by the workers themselves).I already know that this issue is of no interest to you – at least alan wants some sort of 'democratic socialism', whereas you just want 'robbo individualism'.So, we can expect, during the struggle to build socialism by workers, for those workers to be confronted by this question. Perhaps they'll vote for the SPGB's and alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism', perhaps for 'democratic socialism'… perhaps even for 'robbo individualism'.I'm prepared for their decision. Unlike you or alan, apparently.
You will once again note how LBird slyly avoids the two questions asked of him. He he claims to be prepared for the workers decision on the make up of democracy while his opponents are being "elitist" for prejudging the decision. Its a typical devious LBird ploy. His opponents can just as easily counter by saying that they too are prepared for whatever the decision the workers give but the probability is the workers will opt for the much mre realistic concept of demcracy put forward by his oppoents than for LBird.s bartty idea As for "Robbos individualism" why has LBird declined to comment on thread that I recently started that demonstrates pretty conclusivly that Marx himslef who LBird constantly invokes, has a strobg streak of individualistic ideas runnng through his writings – at least by Lbirds interpretation of "individualism".
LBird wrote:MBellemare wrote:Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large???Given that you've not followed a very long political, ideological and philosophical discussion here, over years, you don't know the context of this debate.But, having said that, perhaps you can answer a question that the SPGB seems incapable of doing.If you are a 'democratic socialist' (and I'm assuming that you are, for now, but you can correct me later), who or what would determine 'truth' within a democratic socialist society?To make you aware of the central issue (and so more careful of your answer), this is a question about political power and who wields it.I'm simply asking, if not society employing democratic methods, which elite is going to make decisions about 'truth'?
You see, Michel, how Lbird studiously avoids answring the questions 1) what is the point of democraticaly deciding the truth of scientific theories?2) how is it remotely practical to implement tens of thousands of global plebiscites on the truth of all these scientific theories? Instead, LBird resorts to the cunning ruse of suggesting that if you dont submit the truth of scientific theories to a worldwide democratic vote this somehow vests the scientists iwith more "political power" than the layperson. He makes no attempt to justify this astonishing claim which is unsurpirsing since as a Leninist he does not really understand that nature of a socialist cum communist society Sad to say, it is an all too familiar pattern….
LBird wrote:Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.LOL the irony of ironies – LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided" without so much as a single working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird? Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary. Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical? Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?
MBellemare wrote:Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large???I regret to say that, yes, he is serious about such an idea but I can assure you no socialist here or anywhere would endorse such a crackpot proposal. He has never once explained how such a proposal would work in practice or what would be the point of the exercise but he conrinues to plug this harebrained scheme on this forum to the bemusement of all Ive been accused of being an "elitist" and an " individualist" for assuming that scientists "know better". But thats so silly when you think about it. A trained nuclear physicist is always going to know better than a layperson about nuclear physics unless LBird proposes 1) that we no longer have any trained nuclear physicists or 2) that everyone becomes a trained nuclear physicist in which case what about all those thousands of other occupations where differences in ability and competence will arise? Are we all meant to become trained up in those too? LBird's big problem is that he doesnt understand democracy or what its for. Socialist democracy which I fullly support wll apply to the realm of practical decision making, not the determination of sciientific truth. There is simply no point in voting to determine the truth of a scientific theory and scientists will have no more power in a socialist society than anyone else because the social relationship characteristic of a socialist society – free access to goods and serices plus volunteer labour – dissolve the very basis of political power as such. As for me and others being an " individualist" – a jibe that LBird routinely makes – I would counter that his view of a future socialist society is more akin to a beehive colony than a human society of free individuals. Iroically democracy would be meaningless if it extingushed the capacity of individuals to express themselves by chosing by means of a vote. . Embarrasingly for him and for all his extravagant claims to be a Marxist I note he has nothing to say on the question of Marx's own thinking which contains a strong streak of individualism, as LBird would see it. See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-individual
MBellemare wrote:@ Robbo 2.03 I am gonna take a look at that pamphlet. (Much appreciated)I see what you mean about the "stateless society". I thought you were using it in Bakunin's sense, as some sort of total structural-liquidation, which was not the case. Now, about Class, Robbo, I am inclined to state that we are already in a "classless society", class has been fragmented to such a radical extent, do to the artificial fabrication of price, value and wage, that, now, we have more or less fragmented into affinity groups. Microscopic networks aligned along various affinities. Such as Punks, Goths, SPGB forum, anarcho-autonomous-collectives etc.etc.etc. People, more or less relate to each other, within post-industrial, post-modern society, no longer, predominantly along class-lines, but in a multiplicity of variable groups, relations and manners.Namely, I go to political meetings, take part in academic discussions/groups, go to hockey games, critique litterature after supper, rear cattle in the morning, Read Marx after midnight. And/or Take part in a Union strike in the afternoon, Wear clothes made in Mexico on the streets of Montreal etc. (I see no class. I see affinities.)Once again , we seem to be talking from quite differnent perspectives as in the case of the term "state". Look, the word "class" can be used in serveral different ways. Mainstream statisticians use the term to denote various occupational/income groupings in society. Even factors like education and upbringing can be used as a class determinant. There is no right or wrong way to use the term "class". You can classify people in whichever way you want. What matters is the purpose behind your classification system If you are involved in marketing some product then you might want to tailor your advertising to appeal o a certain target sector of the population – perhaps the "upper middle class" or those aspiring to enter that class. Needless to say the purpose behind the Marxian classification system is completely different We Marxists are concerned with the radical transformation of society from capitalism to socialism and the question of class is key to this process. It is what unlocks an understanding of what is entailed in this process. Class is what defines one's relationship to the means of production. Far from contemporary capitalism fragmenting into a "classless society ", a mantra of one ex British Prime Minisiter, John Major, the opposite is true. Capitalism is more and more rigidifying into a two-class society – the top 1 per cent versus the rest. In other words a tiny minority who effectively monopolise the means of wealth production and the huge majority who own little or no capital to live upon without having to submit to the rigours of wage slavery – selling their skills for a wage to the owning class Certainly , this is a sweeping generalisation and as with all generalisations there are exceptions to the rule. There is, for example, a grey area between these two class categories – worker and capitalist – where one class shades into the other and I would say a good example of this is the CEOs of smaller sized corporations (the CEOs of big corporations with an average annual compensation package of about 20 million dollar per year are unquestionably capitalist in my book and derive much of their income from stock options) However, in broad outline, at least from a Marxian perspective, we are very clearly living in a class based sciety and there is no evidence whatsoever of any tendency for capitalism to fragment into a "clasless society"
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
