[robbo203]

It is interesting  that MSN should carry a report citing Boris Johnson's condemnation of Corbyn's comment that the war on terror is simply not working, as being “absolutely monstrous”: "Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, intensified the attack, saying Corbyn’s comments were “absolutely monstrous”. Speaking alongside the US secretary of state Rex Tillerson, he said it was “absolutely extraordinary and inexplicable in this week of all weeks that there should be any attempt to justify or to legitimate the actions of terrorists in this way”.  http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-corbyn-the-war-on-terror-is-simply-not-working/ar-BBByd9m?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp It is amazing how an idiot like Johnson can so distort the meaning of what Corbyn was saying as to interpet it as an   attempt to justify or to legitimate the actions of terrorists .  Perhaps, Johnson  needs to learn the difference between a word like  "justification" – and "explanation".  Corbyn was trying to explain the background  to an event like the Manchester – not "justify" it – and on this occasion he was absolutely correct.  The invasion of Iraq has had blowback consequences in terms of rising levels of terrorism across the world – just as he predicted.  You cannot carpet bomb a country, kill tens of thousands of innocents in the process and expect their relatives, friends and acquaintances to stoically accept this outcome as an understandable case of collateral damage. Meanwhile,  Johnson himself , while seeing fit to lecture others on making "absolutely monstrous" comments, sees nothing incongruous  about defending arms sales to the monstrous Saudi regime that has killed many times more innocents than that sick and psychologically disturbed young man whose appaling act in Manchester resulted in the deaths of 22 othershttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/05/mps-to-urge-ban-on-uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia Now that is what I call being really "absolutely monstrous"!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So what you are saying is. is that there is a small group of people (possibly only 1) who understnad Marx, and the rest of the population of the earth do not understand Marx. Sounds like you've identified an elite group with specialist knowledge, there, matey.

I've clearly answered this point many times, and I can't believe that you and the others are so forgetful, so I have to assume that this is a political tactic to discredit those who are critical of the SPGB's elitist support of unelected 'Specialists'.So, to add to robbo's version of 'What LBird says', we now have Tim's version of 'What LBird says'.If anyone is genuinely interested in critically assessing my views, and want to ask further questions about them, I can only ask that they first read what I write, and not what SPGB members and supporters make up, to hide their own inability to understand and debate.As I've said, this is a political tactic to discredit criticism, not simply personal disagreement or dislike.

 LOL  LBird.  You have nerve to call your  critics forgetful.  Have you forgotten the number of times I and others have asked you straightforward questions which you have totally  bottled out of answering – questions about the mechanics or logistics of global decision making, for example,  Or questions about what is precisely the point of a global vote on the "truth" of some acane scientific theoryOf course you havent answered these questions and you never will and the reason why you never will is that you you dont like the idea of being caught with trousers down.Lets face it, matey- you're a Leninist through and through, pretending to be a democratic socialist/communist.  You might not see it like this but  that is where the logic of argument takes you

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 FWIW, I'm beginning to see why so many of the SPGB and its supporters (including robbo and YMS) sing from the same hymn-sheet as mod1. They all share a common ideology, which is totally unrelated to Marx's views, and totally unsuitable for a democratic socialism.

But that's what we advocate – a democratic socialist society!  Unlike the Leninist LBird  with his hairbrained scheme of de facto  society-wide central planning overseen inevitably by a technocratic elite

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Is focusing on inequality a diversion?https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/24/are-we-about-to-witness-the-most-unequal-societies-in-history-yuval-noah-harari

Quote:

Inequality goes back to the Stone Age. Thirty thousand years ago, bands of hunter-gatherers in Russia buried some members in sumptuous graves replete with thousands of ivory beads, bracelets, jewels and art objects, while other members had to settle for a bare hole in the ground.

 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientistshttps://libcom.org/history/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-peter-gray And to Bob Andrews – no, focussing on inequality is NOT a distraction unless you are thinking of this narrowly in terms of wealth redistribution. Socialists prefer to focus on the inequality of power or of the kind of social relationships  that exist in society and underlie its pattern of wealth distribution

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

"Have you read Benedict Anderson's book on Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism?"I've never heard of him (though I'm not that knowledgeable about the subject)"While the seed of extreme nationalism may exist in capitalism only because nationalism is part of the logic of capitalism in my view, I dont think it necessarily follows that nationalism in its extreme form must always occur."Does this, combined with the idea that states could include all sellers in economic transactions, mean that Capitalism could potentially be a system where no military conflicts between states occur?

 Sympo .  Here's a taster for you – from chapter 4 of Anderson's books in pdf formathttps://www2.bc.edu/marian-simion/th406/readings/0420anderson.pdf Regarding your other point, well clearly there are parts of the world where war has not occured for quite a while – like the European Union  referred to earlier (discounting internal armed so called national liberation struggle carried out by organsations like the IRA, ETA etc   Moreover, there are today some twenty or so countries in the world  that do not possess any armed forces at all – though usually this is becuase they fall under the protection of another state or are too small, impoverished or remote to pose a threat to , or be threatend by , other countries.  Costa Rica, for instance, abolished its army in 1949 although, as a client state within the US sphere of influence, it has recently welcomed a huge US military presence within the country, supposedly as a deterrrent to drug trafficking in the region.    In addition, there are about a dozen or so countries that are resolutely  and constitutionally neutral.  Switzerland is a good example of the latter.  It has never engaged in a foreign war since 1515, and  has remained neutral since 1815.  The Swiss constitution forbids the state from ever initiating a war or even taking sides in a war  – although Switzerland itself is heavily armed  (ostensibly for purely defensive purposes) and practices military conscription (http://www.swissworld.org/).    Neverthless, none of this prevents even the most neutral state from vigorously promoting a nationalist ideology and its own sense of national identity.  The desire to subordinate the citizenry to the central state is as apparent in such cases as it is in more militarily aggressive regimes.   The homogenising thrust of the modern state in promoting its own national culture has, however, sometimes brought it up against stubbornly  entrenched cultural differences on the ground .   Historically speaking, this has not infrequently made it difficult to extend effective  political control over the entire population falling within the territorial unit over which it has nominal jurisdiction.  Hence the oppressive role that aspiring nationalisms have sometimes played vis-a-vis local cultures – although, even here, we need to be wary of making unwarranted generalisations.    As the above website of the Swiss Federal Department of Foregin Affairs puts it; "The status of neutrality has not only protected Switzerland from war, but has helped prevent the country from being torn apart when its different language communities might have been tempted to side with different belligerents in cases of conflict."   Perhaps there is, as this would suggest , a kind of subtle background interplay  between  the foreign  policy of a country and its internal domestic situation  However countries lie Switzerland are the exceptions that prove the rule,  I dont think they are generalisable for the world as a whole where you have a different kind of dynamic coming into play such as superpower rivalry often fought out through proxy wars and the like. .Ultimately wars, though rationalised on nationalist and even religious grounds, are fundamentally fuelled by economic conflicts over resources trades routes, markets and these conflicts are built into a system of market competition, even if they do not always express themsleves in war.  The very fact the the world spends nearly 1.7 trillion US dollars on weapons  (2016) and that this figure has continued to rise fairly relentlessly, demonstrates to me not just the potentiality for war, but its actuality in global capitalism 

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

"In answer to you first point yes I suppose  the scenario you suggest is possible but that still does not negate the basic argument that there is a zero sum situation – a conflict of interest – involved"I assume you think the scenario looks pretty unlikely?"they are predicated on a myth called the "national interest"  which assumes a commonality of interests between workers and capitalists within a given nation state." So the seed of extreme nationalism will always exist in capitalist society.

 Yes I think the scenario you depict is unlikely for the reasons given but I dont rule it out completely Also yes I think the seed of extreme nationalism is embedded in capitalism.  In fact the nation state (and nationalism itself) emerged with the rise of capitalism as the unit of spatial and political organisation under capitalism par excellance. Have you read Benedict Anderson's book on Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism? It is an interesting work which I would highly recommend  though Anderson did not consider himself to be a Marxist and took issue with some aspects of the Marxian view of nationalism While the seed of extreme nationalism may exist in capitalism only because nationalism is part of the logic of capitalism in my view, I dont think it necessarily follows that nationalism in its extreme form must always occur.  Capitalist development as ever is a contractory process and the relationship between nationalism and globalisation is a complex one as current events are showing.  Extreme nationalism I would say is the expression of certain historically contingent factors, acting in conjunction with capitalism' inherent tendency to generate nationalist ideology 

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I think your reply was good but I would like to play devil's advocate here and question a few things."For instance, a seller and a buyer might strike a deal but this might very well have the effect of damaging the interests of another potential seller, for example who had been deliberately excluded from the proceedings and might feel aggrieved as a result."Can't the second seller get in on the action (i.e. why can't the buyer buy half of X from seller 1 and half from seller 2)?"On the contrary the drive to war normally engages irrational factors such as nationalistic sentiments to an extraordinary degree"Are capitalist states inherently irrational? Is there no way for them to permanently stay away from extreme nationalism?

 Hi Sympo In answer to you first point yes I suppose  the scenario you suggest is possible but that still does not negate the basic argument that there is a zero sum situation – a conflict of interest – involved inasmuch as seller 2 now provides half of what the buyer wants to the chagrin of seller 1 who had expected to provide eveything.  Seller 1 would much prefer seller 2 was out of the picture altogther along with seller 3, 4….n.  Also, of course, according to pure market theory, the buyer wants the lowest price possible.  It is unlikely that seller 1 and seller 2 sell their wares at exactly the same price.  Furthermore, bulk buying possibly attracts discounts so splitting the purchase between two sellers might not be particularly advantageous to the buyer. Regarding your second point – that's a very interesting question you raise.  I believe capitalist states necesarily engage nationalism as a kind of secular religion and to that extent are intrinsically irrational.  That is to say, they are predicated on a myth called the "national interest"  which assumes a commonality of interests between workers and capitalists within a given nation state.  Since there cannot be such a thing, a fictional account of the way the world functions has to be presented.  The citizens of another nation are depicted as being uniformly hostile to your interests just as your interests are depicted as being uniformly congruent with those of your employer in some sort of quasi transcendental sense.  You are in the same boat as him/her confronting other national "boats" in a contnual war of maritime attrition.  Its all a load of tosh really but huge amounts of resources are plowed into maintaining this dangerous fiction Whether "extreme nationalism" can be averted is an interesting question.  We have the contemporary case before us of the Europoean Unin being subject to a wave of nationalist sentiment.   The irony is that EU was/is esentially a statist construction.  Yet the advocates of free trade who argue that more trade and less state intervention will mitigate the prospect of war cannot seem to see that insofar as the EU was formed in part to avert the prospect of war in Europe in the future, this has involved a greater role for the state,  not a diminished one,  in the guise of inter-state treaities and so forth.  That in itself is quite a paradox!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We haven't advanced far in this debate, have we, after what now has been years of exchanges and screeds of words….I think i mentioned that quantum physics is all gobbly-gook to me because their truth does not correspond to my own reality. I recuse myself from such conversations. You ask who controls truth…i do as an individual. I choose what i consider true. My neighbour possesses his personal world-view of his reality. That is our battlefield in politics.

[my bold]The reason that we haven't advanced far, alan, is that you don't realise that 'knowledge production' is part of the class war. You subscribe to the bourgeois ideology that 'knowledge' is an 'individual' product (or, at best, a product of 'elite individuals').That is, you're ignorant of the politics of the social production of knowledge, and that ignorance is reinforced by the social ideology that you've had given to you ('ruling class ideas'), one that stresses 'individuals' in both the production of commodities and of social ideas.. 

[/quote]Perhaps :LBird can explain what happens after 7 billion  people have cast their votes on the pressing matter of whether quarks consist of 3 or  5 preons – there are apparently  rival theories in this subject area which are hotly contested among physicists?If the proponents of the 3 preon theory of quarks fail to convince the majority of the soundness of their theory who vote in favour of the 5 preon theory,  does that mean the former will no longer be permiited to advance their theory? If not, what was the point of the vote exactly? Please explain See, we can all agree that "knowledge is social" which is a fairly bland and uncontroversial statement to make but just becuase something is a social product does not automatically mean it needs  be voted upon, does it?  LBird's toothbrush is a social product.  Is he seriously telling us that he will insist on voting on the of production technique employed at every stage in the production of toothbrushes?  There are literally billions upon billions of things around us that are "socially produced",  How does LBird propose that all 7 billion people have a say in the prduction of each of these billions upon billions of things? Over to you LBird

[robbo203]

I am currently reading Paul's Mason's book, "Post Capitalism: A Guide to our Future".  In it, he makes a number of startling claims such as that "banks have always lent out more cash than there was in the safe"  (p.11)  and since 1971 no longer have to contend with legal limits in the form of a fractional reserve.  What are the facts and figures to substantiate or repudiate this claim? I find it quite difficult to peice together all the different elements in Mason' sweeping survey of post war economic developments (particularly since the advent of neo-liberalism)  such as the role of fiat money, financalisation and  QE – though Im still on  chapter 1.  Has anyone read the book and come to any conclusions particularly regarding his comments on banking

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

"The Money Free Party is a political party registered in Great Britain.The Money Free Party is a growing, global political party representing a shift in global values, away from a society based on increasing consumerism, infinite economic growth and aggressive global competition, towards a society based on sustainability, equity and global cooperation. What we do wish is for all of you to realise is how easily a non-monetary world can be achieved, once we have the political will to achieve it. We also want you to be aware how empowering, creative and socially cohesive a money free world would be. So let’s forget all about our socially conditioned, pre-conceived ideas, and put our feet up and watch some movies.We are at the beginning of a new form of politics.Politics made with a single purpose.To facilitate a transition to a global, resource based economy"http://moneyfreeparty.org.uk/viewpage.php?page_id=7My emphasis Clearly the MFP is not nationalist but seeks global change.  I think it may be a case of people being allowed to join the MFP – and indeed stand for them – without showing a full understanding of their case. Which is a vindication of our Form A procedure. All new applicants must show an understanding of our case.It may also be a case of individual control of party manifestos.  Another vindication of one of our practices: Manifestoes must be agree upon by the membership.  "I need your vote to make this change. We in Bristol can show the UK there is an alternative system to today's governance. Thank you and I would appreciate your vote on June 8, 2017.Jodian Rodgers"

 That's a fair enough point,  Vin.  MFP clearly do envisage a resource based economy to be a global one..  However it is is possible neverthless to construe the particular manifesto that Adam posted as implying that you could have common ownership in Britain first and then later on, in the fullness of time, the world as a whole….There are problems with that particular formulation which perhaps need to be addressed

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Here's their candidate in Bristol's manifesto.  They are advocating a "moneyfree economy in one country":

Quote:

UK General Election June 8th 2017 Jodian Rodgers – Standing for a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMYIn June we will be voting in a general election. Are you concerned with the structure of our system of governance? Do you feel that there is no real choice? Or do you abstain from voting? If you answer yes to any of these questions and would like your vote to finally mean real change, please read on.Money Free Party would like to introduce you to a new social structure, a Resource Based Economy. It is a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt and human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable. Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalogue of problems inherent in today's world.Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and CAN make available food, clothing, housing, medical care and a relevant educational system. We CAN develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as solar, wind and tidal. It is now possible to have everyone in the UK enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilisation CAN provide. This CAN be accomplished through the intelligent anc humane application of science and technology.In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved, all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all UK's inhabitants.I need your vote to make this change. We in Bristol can show the UK there is an alternative system to today's governance. Thank you and I would appreciate your vote on June 8, 2017.Jodian Rodgers Money Free Party

 Yes it does rather sound like MFP are promoting the idea of  "moneyfree economy in one country": which is a pity because there  is some good stuff in this manifesto which we can go along with wholeheartedly. I  wonder, though, if this is a thought-out position and not just a by-product of the fact that the Party is contest the General Election in the UK.  There is a tendency amongst political parties – though not the SPGB obviously – to think in solely domestic terms, meaning what their policies are supposed to be tailored to the UK population alone.  However,  I wonder if you put the argument to them that capitalism is a global system and can only really be got rid of globally whether they might not readily agree?  I suspect they would.  I suspect, that declaring all resouces to be the common heritage of all UK's  inhabitants is just an unfortunate turn of phrase and they really mean the world's resources should be the common property of the world's population

[robbo203]

 Hi Sympo Yes its fairly familiar argument you are referring  to.  It is grounded in the dogma that free trade is a necessarily a "positive sum game" – meaning both parties to a market transaction must necessarily benefit from it – assuming it is freely carried out without coercion – otherwise the transaction simply wouldn’t happen in the first place.  The seller wouldn’t sell if the price was too low in her view and the buyer wouldn’t buy if the price was too high in his view. Ergo, insofar as they agree on a price they must both be more or less happy with it (meaning it satisfies both their interests). Marx himself noted this argument in Capital vol 1 (I think) and more or less took the view that it was a truism.  Free market types then take this basic argument and extend it into a general statement along the lines that if we had a genuine free market economy this would eliminate the kind of conflicting interests that lead to war.  What would be promoted instead is the mutual interest implicit in free trade, thereby crowding out the prospect of war I think the argument is bogus for several reasons 1)       the fact the both parties to a market transaction benefit from it does not mean , of course , they don’t still have conflicting interests.  This conflict takes the form of haggling. But even when a price is finally agreed it is still the case the buyers’ interests would have been better served had the agreed price been lower and, conversely, the sellers’ interests would have better served had the agreed price been higher.  There remains in other words the seed corn of potential conflict at all times.  To put it simply, if a buyer was in a situation to seize by force something that the seller was selling it is not out of the question that the cost of doing so might be less than the cost of buying it.  That would make war or military conquest an attractive option in some cases e.g. colonialism 2)       As is typical of free market types, they cannot see the wood for the trees.   This is the basic problem with their whole approach which is based on “methodological individualism” .  That means focussing single-mindedly on the single market transaction in question in splendid isolation from everything else that is going on around it.  For instance, a seller and a buyer might strike a deal but this might very well have the effect of damaging the interests of another potential seller, for example who had been deliberately excluded from the proceedings and might feel aggrieved as a result. Here too we see the seed corn of potential conflict that could lead to war 3)       Free marketeers look upon trade as a matter of purely rational self-interest.  The basic argument they put is that it not in the rational self-interest of anyone to engage in war since the costs involved are likely to exceed the benefits gained.  This is naïve because it overlooks that war is not simply a matter of rational self-interest.  On the contrary the drive to war normally engages irrational factors such as nationalistic sentiments to an extraordinary degree and the problem is that once you get locked into the logic of nationalism,  it is all too easy to be pushed over the edge into a war situation by the sheer momentum and fanaticism of nationalist irrationalism itself But our free marketeers don’t seem to understand that you cannot really have a market without a state.   These two institutions are like Siamese twins.  One could not survive without the other – at least not in the modern world of capitalism.  So while it is primarily states that wage wars rather than private business corporations, they both need to each other albeit for different reasons. And that’s the problem. Since you cannot have such a thing as a stand-alone free market economy without a state, it follows you cannot disentangle or detach yourself from what goes with the modern state itself – namely nationalism and by extension the possibility of war that is built into a nationalist worldview

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, and there is a question how much of their feathered nest they could carry away with them if they lost their jobs,a nd there were privately wealthy people too. The point is that some CEOs and bureaucrats are capitalists, but not all, and not by simple means of being a CEO/bureaucrat.

 Agreed.  There is a grey area here as in most things where "working class" shades into "capitalist class".  Some CEOs definitely have a foot on the lower rungs of the capitalist class but, as you say, not all. The CEOs of many small businesses would hardly qualify as capitalists but its a different matter with large corporations. As I mentioned earlier, the average compensation figure of $19.8 million pa for a CEO for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones index  is serious money and I dont think there is any doubt that such an individual would qualify as a capitalist. Regarding the soviet capitalist class – the elite nomenklatura – although  they owned the means of production in de facto terms collectively rather than as individuals, via their control of the state machine , as individuals they could, and did, amass considerable wealth by various means – multiple incomes, payments in kind,  backhanders from black economy, etc .  A sizeable proportion of Eastern Europes' modern day oligarchs were previously highly placed officials in the pseudo communist parties.  In Russia I think the figure is about 40-50%.   These Red capitalists simply used their power and connections to morph onto more conventional capitalists

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

CEOs have PAs, workers are there at the top.  Below them are senior executives, not all of whom are on bonus and share scemes (depending on the size of the firm).  Senior civil servants are employees…

 The Soviet capitalist class were also technically "employees" of the  state. Some CEOs have compensation packages well in excess of 20m dollars pa   I wouldnt call them working class by any stretch of the imagination

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Sure I understand what you are saying but the probem is people in the main tend to identify socialism "with the two arseholes at the end"; realtively  few  are aware of the Marxian/SPGB defintjion of socialis. The whole pointt of the exercise is to highlight the huge gulf between these different versions of (pseudo)"socialism" and the real thing by encouraging people to see it for themselves with a question like "which do you think is the more accurate descriotion of socialism"

That still doesn't resolve anything. They may well agree that our defintion of socialism is the more accurate, but that doesn't mean they approve of it.

 Thats true but the point of the exercise is surely to bring to their attention that another – actually the orginal classical – defintion exist in the first place that is totally at variance with what they might understand by "socialism".  You cant get them to approve what we mean by socialism unless they know about it in the first place.  Most workers dont unfortunately

[Author]

Posts