[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What about a poll that identifies or lists particular historical figures plus a quote or summary from each of them relating to their particular take on "socialism"?e.g. Marx, Lenin, Tony Blair etc You could then ask people to tick the relevant  box as to which of these best describes "socialism".I think that this would at least highlight the point that what we call socialism – the Marxian defintion – differs from the others in a quite profound way and it might get people thinking…

We want socialism–the system, not socialism–the word. If we start introducing those two arseholes at the end of the list, then it becomes self-defeating. The last name has had more than his fair share of publicity, why should we give him more?

 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 description of socialism"

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What about a poll that identifies or lists particular historical figures plus a quote or summary from each of them relating to their particular take on "socialism"?e.g. Marx, Lenin, Tony Blair etc You could then ask people to tick the relevant  box as to which of these best describes "socialism".I think that this would at least highlight the point that what we call socialism – the Marxian defintion – differs from the others in a quite profound way and it might get people thinking…

We want socialism–the system, not socialism–the word. If we start introducing those two arseholes at the end of the list, then it becomes self-defeating. The last name has had more than his fair share of publicity, why should we give him more?

 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"

[robbo203]

What about a poll that identifies or lists particular historical figures plus a quote or summary from each of them relating to their particular take on "socialism"?e.g. Marx, Lenin, Tony Blair etc You could then ask people to tick the relevant  box as to which of these best describes "socialism".I think that this would at least highlight the point that what we call socialism – the Marxian defintion – differs from the others in a quite profound way and it might get people thinking…

[robbo203]

I think the guy is from  the Institute of Directors and a bit of plonker with some of his comments.  Danny did well to stop him in his tracks by calling his reference to Venezuela "cheap"

[robbo203]

Bob Andrews wrote:

The WORLD Socialist Movement. All seven of 'em. Which one is Vin?

 Bob Andrews, what exactly is your point? What are you even doing on this forum if not to constantly sneer? The photo is of a branch of the SPGB and some of its members. Duh

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

My major concern with this expression is that it undercuts our class analysis of state capitalist regimes like the ex-Soviet Union,  You could argue that if  "working people run society from top to bottom"  then the parasitic apparatchiks running soviet society at the top were "working people" which would be quite untrue.  People who work are not necessarily "working people".  Billl Gates "works" but it is not the fact that he works that matters but rather his relationship to the means of wealth production that qualifies hims as a capitalist

The simple, indisputable fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people in all manifestations of capitalism are members of the working class and so, without their collective and socially cohesive day-to-day activities, the system would cease to operate/function/work/run.

 That's true enough Dave but there is a difference between enabling the system to run and running the system.  My point is we shouldnt overlook that it is actual capitalists that run the system at the very top level of decisionmaking but saying "working people run society from top to bottom" rather conceals this crucial point I know what you are saying but is there a form of words that might better communicate what you are saying in the same pithy fashion? 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Nothing wrong with being exact in our language, but with words as always, people have their own understanding. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right. I think the meaning of "working people run society from top to bottom" is clear enough, just as "workers create all wealth" is a truism. 

Hmmm  Not too sure these things amount to saying the same thing. Alan.  "Running society" means more than just creating the wealth of society.  It also denotes social control and the process of overseeing the extraction of surplus value.  The top CEOs who carry out these functions  are defintely not working people. But their input is decisive in running a capitalist society.  They make the important economic decisions albeit to satisfy the interests of shareholders. My major concern with this expression is that it undercuts our class analysis of state capitalist regimes like the ex-Soviet Union,  You could argue that if  "working people run society from top to bottom"  then the parasitic apparatchiks running soviet society at the top were "working people" which would be quite untrue.  People who work are not necessarily "working people".  Billl Gates "works" but it is not the fact that he works that matters but rather his relationship to the means of wealth production that qualifies hims as a capitalist

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The Money Free Party seems to be particlarly strong in New Zealand for some reason though it appears to operate in 16 countries altogether http://moneyfreeparty.org.nz/index.php/meet-the-people Has the WSPNZ been in touch with them.  It is great to meet people on much the same wavelength

 Have a listen to this. about 1.13minutes in. Very interesting, Difficult to disagree with him. He even deals with your debate with LBird. He says that he is not interested in car mechanics so in a RBE he would have noting to do with it. He would participate and vote on issues of importance to him.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p050qjyq More importantly. Why should socialists oppose this party? Apart from the fact that it is written in stone!!Would a party member be charged with action detrimental if he/she voted for the money free party? 

 Maybe this is a prima facie case where some kind of loose, infornal electoral pact or understanding might be called for.  No doubt there are differences between the MFP and the SPGB but they hardly match up to the crucial commonalities.  If I were  resident in the UK I would obviously vote SPGB if there was a candidate in my constituency but, failing that, would definitely vote for the MFP.  They are streets ahead in their thinking compared with any so called Left or Labour Party

[robbo203]

The Money Free Party seems to be particlarly strong in New Zealand for some reason though it appears to operate in 16 countries altogether http://moneyfreeparty.org.nz/index.php/meet-the-people Has the WSPNZ been in touch with them.  It is great to meet people on much the same wavelength

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.

More red herrings from LBird, Nobody is is denying  socialist prduction will involve democratic decision-making.  In fact that is written into the very declaration of principles of the SPGB which talks of The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the  debate is really about the scope of democratic decisionmaking but you have chosen to ignore this. You have made it quite plain that you reject the Marxist view of socialism as a society in which individuals freely take from the common store  and freely freely contribute to the production of wealth on a voluntary basis.  You want a society in which individuals will have no choice whatsoever about what they consume or what work they contribute. According to you there should be only one entity that will make the entire  gamut of decisions in society   – namely, global society society itself , meaning 7,4 billion of us collectively voting on billions of decisions.  Understood literally, that is what you are arguing for.  Its is obviously absurd and equally obviously,  is a direct invation to a tiny  elite to take over the apparatus of decsionmaking since that is the only "practical" you can administer a system of society wide planning  when you prevent  individuals or local communities making decsions as well. i.e. when you prevent a polycentric model of decisionmaking from coming into existenceSince individuals will not be able to exercise any kind of choice in your society, what this means is that you advocate a society in which what you as an individual can consume will be strictly rationed according to what the powers-that-be determine you should be entitled  to, Work for you,  Lbird,  need to take the compulsory or forced labour form++ that is typical of all class societies, Like the good Leninist that you are , you subscribe to the precept that "he who does not work shall not eat".  In your Leninist dystopia, individuals will have no say in the matter of work.  They must conform to what society requires of them which in de facto terms means what your vanguard elite tells them to do. Frankly, you are as bad as Maggie Thatcher who famously contended that there is "no such thing as society only individuals" except for you there is no such things as individuals only society.  Unlike you, however,  Marxists have a quite different take on the relationship between the individual and society  essentially seeing it as a two-way, not one-way,, relationship.  Which is precisely why Marx insisted,as I pointed out earlier that in a socialist  society the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".   What do you imagine he  meant by that ?  What do you think the "free development of each" actually  entails eh? Really and truly you should be criticising Marx for being an "individualist" (a sociological term you still dont understand and which you repeatedly confuse wth the term" individuality") along with the rest of us on this forum – you being the only one who stands out like a sore thumb for the holding the bizarre ideas that you promote on this forum.   Come to think of it, that is richly ironic for someone who is forever going on about  the "democratic production of truth". If a vote was taken on this forum on the validity of your ideas I bet you wouldnt accept –  not for one moment! -what the majority voted  for – would you now, Lbird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Well, we differ about just what that famous statement of communism 'means', robbo.Anyway, I'm pretty clear about your personal views, but how far do they reflect the 'official' view of the SPGB?I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.Is your interpretation of 'socialism' widely held within the SPGB, even if it's not an officially declared position?

I note LBird that you dont respond to the specific points I made and indeed the specific Marx quotes I provided, which demonstrate conclusively just how removed your outlook is from a Marxian one.  Thats OK if you want to hold the views you do but dont pretend that your position is a Marxian one.  It most certainly not. There is no question about what "from each according to ability to each according to need" means.  It means individuals freely and voluntarily contribute their labour to the common good in ways that they see fit in the light of their own abilities and awareness of what they are capable of doing.  It also means individuals freely and directly taking goods from the communist distribution centres according to their own self defined needs.  I dont know how you interpret that statement – perhaps you can tell us – but that is how we Marxists have always interpreted it. You have made it clear that in your view the individual in your kind of society will not be able to make any kind of meaningful choices at all.  It is a "society" alone that will make all production and consumption choices so that in effect you are advocating a system of rationing coupled with a system of forced or compulsory labour.  That is, workers will be compelled to do certain types of jobs and for a certain number of specified hours per week.  They will have no choice in the matter.  If the central Plan is to be fulfilled and workers are to receive the particular ration of goods that have been allocated to them, they will each have to be compelled to work in this manner. Just as free access goes with volunteer labour so rationing goes with forced labour I explained to you earlier why your kind of society must inevitably lead to a top down authoritarian or vanguardist system of decision-making.  This is precisely because you have eliminated the possibility of any choices being made except those made by society as a whole.  Since it is totally impossible for society as a whole to make the millions upon millions of decisions that it will need to make to function at all, these decisions will perforce be made by a tiny elite in the name of society.  There is no other option unless you allow individuals themselves to make decisions for themselves (which you have ruled out) so that you would have a feedback system in place rather than a top down command economy where decisions flow downwards in a one-way direction I will end with this observation.  Marx as mentioned took the view that in a communist society, the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"   In other words, the individual should be empowered to choose and this would benefit society as a whole Now you have counterposed this to what you call Marx’s ”social productionism” without any understanding of what that entails at all.  Certainly, modern day production is indeed a highly socialised process which brings into sharp relief just how interdependent we all are upon each other.  I would argue and I think this is the point that Marx himself was making, that we can only really fully appreciate this sense of interdependence when we ourselves are free human beings, free to choose what to consume and what labour to perform. A free access communist economy provides the optimum conditions under which we can realise our true social nature and shatpen this sense of mutual interdependence.  There is no one else to turn to provide for our needs, or to blame – no governments, no bosses, no charities – only ourselves The kind of society you advocate for is not conducive to promoting a sense of interdependence and the kind of cooperative ethos that arises from that but, rather, what is called a “dependency culture”. This is because in your kind of society you are deprived of the ability to make any choices and, thus, to learn from the consequences of making those choices.  You are reduced to status of being a cog in a vast impersonal machine.  You are essentially dependent on the decisions others – the elite – make for you.  You don’t feel any sense of responsibility towards your fellows because as an individual you are powerless.  As you said yourself, the individual in your society will not be able to make any choices Far from encouraging a democratic outlook, what you are proposing will do the very opposite – on the one hand by concentrating power in the hands of a tiny elite of decision-makers and, on the other, by disempowering the great majority and fostering in them a sense of isolation and helplessness In the end, a society of free individuals is an absolute precondition for a properly functioning democracy.  Here I am not referring to the fake freedom of bourgeois “individualism”, a term which really boils down to the freedom of one class to exploit another. Incidentally, “individuality” which is what I am really talking about does not mean the same thing as “individualism” at all but you seem to constantly confuse or conflate these different terms.  I am referring to the real freedom that is entailed by a society of free access and volunteer labour.  Far from detracting from democracy as you suggest, it ensures and strengthens it    

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The saddest part of this, robbo, is that you're making quite clearly my (and Marx's) argument here, very well, but without realising it.You're contrasting your 'individualist consumptionism' with Marx's 'social productionism'.The former doesn't need 'democracy', whereas the latter does need 'democracy'.For the former, Engel's 'materialism' ('matter' being touched by 'passive biological individuals') is quite sufficient.But for the latter, some ideology of 'human creation' is required, where the 'subject' is a 'social' category, a subject that creatively produces its world.For the former, individuals contemplate their choices from the existing store; for the latter, society creates both its choices and its store.

 It seems to me to be quite clear from this statement of yours, LBird, that you reject the Marxian concept of communism or at any rate what is called the “higher phase of communism” as outlined by him in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.  This concept is summed up by the expression “from each according to ability to each according to need”.  What that means is that individuals freely take from the common store according to their self-defined needs and freely cooperate with their fellows in the production of wealth on a purely voluntary and unremunerated basis. These two things hang together, you cannot have one without the other What you advocate, instead, has got nothing to do with communism or Marx’s “social productionism”.  What you advocate can best be described as  a kind of idealised hypothetical totalitarian society in which it is not individuals who make choices with respect to what goods they consume or what labour they contribute but “society” (“ society creates both its choices and its store”). Individuals should not have a choice in these matters at all, according to you.  In other words, you advocate a society in which wealth is essentially rationed and labour is fundamentally coerced in accordance with some predetermined social plan in order to ensure the realisation of this plan Since you cannot allow for any kind of feedback mechanism that seeks to accommodate and adjust to individual decisions and individual choices what this means, in effect, is that you advocate a society of society-wide central planning,  You have now finally admitted what I suspected was the case all along.  Though you have yet to acknowledge this, you have finally revealed to us the true nature of the ideology you subscribe to – namely, unreconstructed Leninism It was Lenin who declared “The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labor and pay”  (State and Revolution).  There is no other way in which such a society could function except on the basis of a completely  top-down authoritarian command structure and I defy you to show otherwise.  Logistically speaking, the sheer volume of decision-making needed to administer any kind of large scale society which you want to concentrate entirely within a single society side planning entity makes it absolutely impossible for even a significant number of individuals to participate in the planning process.  Of necessity and by default, these decisions would have to be undertaken by a tiny vanguard elite yielding absolute power in the face of which the great majority, by your own admission, will not be able to exercise any kind of choices whatsoever and consequently will be powerless to reject these decisions handed down to them by the vanguard , dressed up as “choices” made by society in general.   Marx's position is totally the opposite to the one you put forward, incidentally.  Marx advocated a society of “freely associated” workers which only makes sense in the context of a society in which individuals are actually empowered to make choices.  In your misleading use of the term, Marx would qualify as an "ultra-individualist".  He  maintained that in communism, the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"  Note the words "condition for".  What this signifies is that individual freedom is precondition for social freedom. In the German ideology, he famously spoke of communist society as one in which an individual might  “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, do critical criticism in the evening, just as he has in mind”.  “Just as he has in mind” means the individual has an absolute  choice in the matter of what work he or she performs but, according to you, that individual should have no choice and should diligently carry out a work quota as determined by something called “society” (meaning your Leninist Vanguard). I'm sorry to say this LBird but you are no Marxist, you have little understanding of Marxist theory and you have no inkling of what is meant by Marx’s “social productionism” at all.  It is not at all what you seem to have in mind

[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 So what's the alternative?We propose an alternative based on ownership of capital and market forces that currently exists in the UK, Europe and worldwide. This alternative is a society of common ownership that we call socialism. 

 It is a good manifesto but there seems to be a mistake here…

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

 I genuinely would love to read LBird's replies to these questions. Does he understand this post? Sure a 'democratic communist' like LBird should have no problem dealing with these question. Thread-hop as much as you wish, they aren't going away, Lbird

 I doubt if he will Vin.  You see, to talk about individuals being able to freely take from the distribution stores according to their self determined needs and to freely and voluntarily contribute to the production of wealth according their abilities is  unspeakably INDIVIDUALIST, for heaven's sake. I mean, you can't really go about mouthing slogans like "from each according to ability to each according to need".  Where will it all end? Next, people will be calling this Marx's "higher stage of communism"!No, people need to be democratically instructed by the ..er .."democratic global community" concerning what work we shall each contribute  and what goods and services we shall each be allowed to consume.  All 7 billion plus of us,  Now thats "democratic communism", innit?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 

Quote:

you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him.

Rule 6 is quite sufficient and very clear for his branch to proceed to expel him, Robbo. We need not engage in any complicated debate or discussion about the nature of reformism or reforms.

Quote:

6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.

He stood on behalf of the Seaham Community Party, which is registered as a political party by the electoral commission.What is more that he felt the need to do so without resigning and underhandedly maintaining it a secret from the Party. I ask myself, would we have ever heard of his candidature if he had failed to be elected? In fact, would we have ever known if Vin did not have the decency to relay the information to us al?. But i do have to now ask Vin and Linda, directly, when were they aware of this development. The question is unavoidable, i'm afraid, considering their close family ties with ex-comrade Colborn.   BTW, i do find it difficult not to say ex-comrade, as his actions count louder than any words he may have in mitigation. 

 OK I accept your reasoning here Alan.  The rules are clear- that you cannot belong to another political party – and although I drew comparsions with Residents Associations being forced by legislation enacted in 2000 to become political parties in order  to represent local interests locally, I think Adam's point about the Seaham Community Party contesting elections at county level clinches the argument. I am also sympathetic to Vin's point of view that one should not be overly harsh in judgng Steve Colborn.  People dont necessarily cease to be socialists once they leave the Party.  It would nice to hear him tell his side of the story though I doubt he would be inclined to do so on this forum

[Author]

Posts