robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:jondwhite wrote:'Crystal clarity and mass awareness' is measured by membership numbers of the WSM / SPGB etc.
I like that it's at an actionable definition and presumably measurable and countable. is there a consensus on this definition? How do we prevent members of the WSM /SPGB, etc, from establishing themselves as the elites or in some way a class above the non-members?Do you know the current rate of growth or decline for membership numbers of WSM/ / SPGB etc? what is the consensus answer for the percent of the population needs to become members of the WSM / SPGB and achieve crystal clarity to qualify as mass awarenes for the socialist revolution? 100%, 50%, 5%, other? Does socialism, as defined by the consensus of WSM/SPGB etc members. only exist if it is dominant worldwide or can local dominance serve to declare a local region socialist? 100% of the planet or is it 100% of a nation, or is it 100% of a city or is it 100% of a village, or is it 100% of a single persons economic exchanges?
Socialism cannot be established by a minority. Period. That is the position of the WSM and it is one that has been reiterated countless times. Ipso facto that rules out any kind of elitist or vanguardist perspective. You have to have a majority because you cannot operate a socialist society without the populace understanding and accepting as it were, the "rules of the game" – the norms, values and behavioural expectations of a socialist society. You can argue how much of a majority you require but I think this is being a bit pedantic. If 51% of the population were "fully socialist" in outlook then it is more than likely that a further 30-40% of the population would be well on the way to becoming socialists themselves. They might quibble about one or two aspects of socialism but more than likely would go along with the majority without demur. This is often the case – even hostile opponents of socialism, display in their dealings with others around them a kind of "socialistic" – for want of a better word – pattern of behaviour or mentality. The point is that the growth of the socialist movement itself progressively modifies the wider social environment in which it exists. Socialist values and socialist ideas cannot but help seep into this wider enviroment and subtly transform the relation between the movement itself and those outside of it. My belief is that the latter will come to more and more resemble the former at least in certain respects. Two radically opposite worldviews cannot coexist and flourish in the same soil in which they are rooted. One must necessarily draw nourishment away from the other. Authoritarian fascism for example would be reduced to a tiny insignificant rump, in my view , by the time the socialist movement can be counted in the millions Finally, it is completely unrealistic to expect socialist ideas to flourish in one part of the world and remain insignificant elsewhere. There are 3 main reasons for saying this1) Global communications technology that allow for the near instantaneous dissemination of ideas everywhere and, as well as that, the stepped up movement of people around the world as carriers of ideas2) Increasing uniformity of conditions and experiences across the world as a result of globalisation and growing interdependencies, giving rise to increasing convergence in thinking3) The pro-active decisions of the globally-organised socialist movement in selectively directing propaganda resources to those parts of the world that are lagging in socialist consciousnesss in order to reduce, if not eliminate altogether, spatial inequaiities in the extent of this consciousness – which inequalities it will have a very strong interest in reducing for the sake of ensuring a smoother transition to socialism
alanjjohnstone wrote:If it proves to be sarin (which i doubt) the Russian account that it was a side-effect of a chemical weapon factory being blown up simply does not stand up to scrutiny But the identity of the chemical agent is still to be clarified. Both government and rebels have used chlorine..Just a quick technical question , Alan. Why if Sarin was involved would the Russian account be invalidated?
ALB wrote:You forget that cats weren't originally pets. They performed a useful role in homes and in farms of keeping mice and rats (which eat food supplies) down. I can't see why this couldn't be so in socialism, especially on your small-scale farms.If anyone is interested in the history of changing attitudes towards nature – both fauna and flora – I cannot recommend this book too highly:"Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800" by Keith Thomas published in 1983 Its is a classic in its field. You can read a snippet of the book here: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/eac/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Keith-Thomas.pdf You might want to look it up in researching for your article , Alan
The point though is that pets afford pet owners a very real sense of joy and pleasure and we shouldnt adopt a too hardnosed attitude on this. For some folk their pet (s) is the only real emotional bond they have with a sentient creature. There is a local guy around here who seems to have mental problems and is withdrawn more or less completely into his own world, speaking to himself and avoiding human contact as much as possible except to beg for a bit of cash. He is very attached to, and gentle with his two dog companions and I imagine that his world would collapse without them. Losing a pet is traumatic as I know but it is indication of what an important role pets play in our lives Yes cats kill birds often wantonly and there is in my local pueblo a campaign to get cats spayed becuase the problem is that they breed like …well…cats. Litters of 'em! And they raid the public bins where they scavenge for wasted food (talking about food). This is a problem of unwanted or dumped animals, however. People dont bother to spay their animals becuase it costs money so their animals produce litters which can't be sold but also can't be kept because of costs again – so they are dumped. And when they are dumped they will do what they can to survive – including killing birds. Its the same with dogs. Some dogs have gone feral and there are packs of them high up in the mountains around here where they hunt for rabbits and possibly even wildboar. There is a dog warden that comes round in the pueblo every now and then with a pole and a noose to round up all (apparent) strays to take to a compound eventually to be put down. Its quite distressing to watch. Its a difficult question to resolve – pets – but you cant really force people by edict not to keep them in a socialist society. I think its one of those questions that will resolve themselves rather like water finding its own level
alanjjohnstone wrote:Oh, and just to add irritation salt to the wound on lifestyles, i have decided to do a future SS article on the probable demise of the pet in socialism…Maybe for a working title call it "Animal lovers against nature" lovers".oooo youre on dodgy ground there, Alan. Me and my missus are inseparable from our pet dog and our pet chickens, each having been given suitably spanish names and with whom we gossip on a daily basis. They also recycle food waste and produce eggs. So, very ecological."Workers of the World Unite – you have only your pets to lose" Hmmm. Doesnt sound right to me….
alanjjohnstone wrote:Robbo, I'll concede to Tim and Vin that i do have a tendency to over-simplify future problems for socialism as black and white rather than the 50 shades of grey that a complex world economy throws up. But overall, i have to accept that we need changes and some may well not be palatable for everybody. If it retards recruitmant to the socialist mission as Gnome suggests, so be it – but the Party has never pussy-footed around its unpopular conclusions.The necessities of life will be distributed through free access. How future generations inside socialism determine what is basic needs and what are luxuries, i leave to them, although we can all speculate about it today. They will also evolve their own and widely diverse methods of "rationing" "scarce" goods and we can take educated guesses at these. But i still insist that we will make decisions on a social level that will mean a restriction on individual choices.Global warming doesn't magically disappear over-night because we end capitalism and socialism arrives. It has to be tackled by human action just as it was created by human action.Absolutely. But I think the point needs to be made that we can have our cake – or more cake – and eat it. We can raise production but also be more eco-friendly. In the sphere of agricultural production that means seriously modifying the way we go about producing food. Large scale, capital intensive, industrialised monoculture farming is NOT the way to go. It is less productive and more environmentally destructive. We need to think smart and to think small . We need to diversify and to be more labour intensive and one thing for sure is that in a socialist society there will be masses of people released from the enourmous amount of of socially useless work undertaken today that is only necessary to keep capitalism functioning. These people will want to find meaningful creative work. As Marx, I think, said work itself will become a prime need in socialism. Advances in robotics are creating the very real prospect of eliminating all back breaking unpleasant toil. But at the same, this should open up the possibility for human beings to become more creatively involved in other areas of production. Food production is a prime candidate for this. .Lets get more people directly involved in producing their own food. Here's my utopian dream: Lets transform our big cities (in which about a half of the world's population now live) . Lets bulldoze the ugly squalor that scars so much of our cities and turn these areas into city farms. Lets recycle our shit and use the stuff productively rather than dump it into the sea or wherever. Lets bring the countryside right into the heart of the city (the original idea behind the Garden Cities movement). Lets use more in the way of small scale appropriate technology like rotavators and drip irrigation to lighten our workload but also to reduce our ecological footprint. All the evidence suggests that this is the way to increase output and become more sustainable but it is the economics of capitalism that gets in the way and prevents it from happening. We dont even need to radically alter our diet – for example by becoming more vegetarian – for all this to happen. In fact there is a lot to be said for free range and better quality meat production, which, for example, exploits ecological niches such as mountainous terrains which are very difficult to convert into arable land. Where I live in Southern Spain I am surrounded by mountains. I had a little place up in the mountain which I have just recently had to sell unfortunately and my nearest neighbour, Pepe is the local cabra hombre or goat man. He has a herd of 1000 goats which produce milk and meat. He splits the herd into 3 lots and he and his two sons, on an almost daily basis, wander around the countryside grazing the grass – the goats I mean , not Pepe (although he has been behaving rather strangely of late). The environmental benefits of this are enormous. Not only does this stimulate biomass growth but it also reduce the risk of devastating wildfires in the late summer. So there is a role for animal husbandry in a socialist society too but as with arable farming it needs to be substantively modified . That means, amongst other things, no more of those horrible factory farns or using hormones for the sake of making a profit
alanjjohnstone wrote:What our political rivals are saying about farming and foodhttp://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/25218/05-04-2017/what-would-a-socialist-food-industry-look-likeThese Trots haven't got a clue. They are immersed in capitalist thinking right up to their eyeballs. Look at this from the article you link to "So it wouldn't be difficult to open up the supply chains of a combined, publicly owned supermarket distribution network to corner shops, etc. This, combined with a nationalised financial sector that could supply cheap loans, would massively relieve some of the pressures on small business owners in the sector and would encourage fuller integration with the socialist plan." "Socialist planning" indeed!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Coincidentally, i just came across this report, todayhttp://news.asiaone.com/news/world/protect-small-farms-meet-growing-global-food-needs-study-saysQuote:More than half of the world's food is produced by small and medium farmers, particularly in Africa and Asia, said researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia. While large-scale plantation agriculture is expanding, small farms with less than 20 hectares of land should be protected because they produce more diverse and nutritious food, the study said. "It is vital that we protect and support small farms and more diverse agriculture so as to ensure sustainable and nutritional food production," Mario Herrero, the study's lead author, said in a statement. "Large farms, in contrast are less diverse." Big farms larger than 50 hectares dominate food production in the western hemisphere, Australia and New Zealand, producing more than three quarters of the cereals, livestock and fruit in those regions, the study said. In South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, small farms produce about 75 per cent of the food, the study said."It is not any sandal-wearing lentil-eating Neil from the Young Ones saying this but hard-nosed researchers. And i can search out many other sources asserting similar if you so wish.
I endorse what you say above completely, Alan There is a tendency to see a trade-off between more environmentally appropriate or sustainable forms of farming and increased output. In other words, if you go for a more eco-friendly approach that means you are going to have accept a decline in agricultural production. This argument is often coupled with another – that in a world in which population growth is still growing rapidly (even if the rate of growth is slowing down), we cannot afford to be picky. Eco-friendly organic products tend to be purchased more by the better off in Western countries and this helps to reinforce the impression that these are more costly so that switching over to to a more eco-friendly forms of farming will reduce supply, increase food prices and thus disproportionately hit the poor. This is all part of the hard sell that agribusiness uses to support its preferred model of farming – large scale, highly industrialised or mechanised and chemicalised and reliant on inputs like terminator seed technology and artificial fertilisers. But is based on a myth. Small scale farms using more eco-friendly approaches – and the one thing tends to be associated with the other – are significantly more productive than large scale mechanised farms in terms of output per hectare. According to Geoffrey Lean:Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. One report – published last year by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) – found that 114 projects, covering nearly two million African farmers, more than doubled their yields by introducing organic or near-organic practices. Another study – led by the University of Essex – looked at similar projects in 57 developing countries, covering three per cent of the entire cultivated area in the Third World, and revealed an average increase of 79 per cent. And research at the University of Michigan concluded that organic farming could increase yields on developing countries' farms three-fold.("Organic is more than small potatoes", Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug 2009). The problem is the economics of capitalism that work against making the shift to a more rational system of agriculture. Here are a few links that hint at the potential for both raising output AND improving sustainability in a future socialist society by moving away from industrial model of farming: http://permaculturenews.org/2014/09/26/un-small-farmers-agroecology-can-feed-world/ https://monthlyreview.org/2015/03/01/a-rational-agriculture-is-incompatible-with-capitalism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty/ http://foodtank.com/news/2015/04/organic-trumps-conventional-across-the-board http://www.academia.edu/2581032/Indigenous_agricultural_revolution_ecology_and_food_production_in_West_Africa
LBird wrote:Prakash RP wrote:It seems clear as day that if you're to make a choice between pragmatism ( or something like the principle that end justifies means ) and your communist principles, you're all for abandoning your communist principles altogether, RIGHT ? And you're dead certain that this act of saying goodbye to your communist principles will promote the cause of communism, OK ? May I want to know what led you to your confidence that you're wholly RIGHT on this point ?Whilst I do not agree with the content of your 'communist principles', on this point you're entirely correct.'Communist principles' have to be outlined prior to 'communism'.The SPGB seems to hold to an ideology of 'Religious Materialism', that holds that 'pragmatism', or, 'practice and theory', is the correct method for building socialism. Marx opposed this with his notion of 'theory and practice', during which socialism is build according to socialist principles.So, as you say, the SPGB does not need to declare any 'principles', because it argues that 'principles' emerge from 'practice'.It's clear that 'principles' (ie. 'theory') also include ethics, morals, beliefs, etc., and these are realised in 'practice', in the process of building socialism.So, their 'confidence' is based upon an ideology that is not compatible with 'socialism', because the 'principles' upon which it will be based will be hidden, and known only to an elite minority of 'specialists' who claim to have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to all (otherwise, these 'theories/principles' would be open to democratic accountability).Their 'pragmatism' will lead in the same direction as do all pragmatist theories: 'individual' (ie. elite) rule. It's the ideological basis of Leninism.BTW, Prakash RP, this argument is so devastating to the SPGB, that if I repeat it I get banned. So I will not repeat it again on this thread. I just wanted to let you know that some can see the sense in your argument (if not in the content of your particular version).
Prakash, my advice is to ignore what LBird has to say; he has clearly lost the plot completely. Whatever else its critics may say about the SPGB one thing is absolutely certain – it has always insisted that a majority of workers must first understand and want socialism before it can happen. This completely contradicts LBirds silly comment that "SPGB does not need to declare any 'principles', because it argues that 'principles' emerge from 'practice'" Actually the principles are declared up front and appear on all the party's literature There is even a pamphlet called "Socialist Principles Explained" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialist-principles-explained
mcolome1 wrote:What lifestyle ? Manhood, religious fanatism, women as instrument of domination, and subordination ? Monogamy, Celibate ? Monastic life ? Man as head of the family ? I am ready to be ordained as a communist monk We all know that backward mentality carry all that, and when women leave those backward sitautions to others more advanced situation they do not follow the same path. To choose between smoking, or not smoking, or drinking or not drinking, monogamy or polygamy, that's fine. but in a socialist society also we will need medical education, because tobbaco is the cause of many cardiovascular diseases, and alcohol is the same, t and it produces liver diseases, tea and coffee are stimulants and they produce ulcers.He is not so interested on socialism when he says that our socialism does not work, and he has been sending personal messages to members of the forum, and then, the response are used to combat us.I was thinking more directly in terms of things such as consumerist values which seemed to be what a lot of the discussion was about. But yes cultural attitudes such as sexism also have a bearing insofar as they seve to impede the spread of socialist ideas. I think Marx said somewhere about the position of woman in society being a prime indicator of the progress of society or words to that effect.
mcolome1 wrote:. This whole thread is totally reactionary, anti-socialist, and recalcitrant. Sometimes this forum becomes the yunkyard of backward conceptionsI think that's a bit harsh, Marcos. There are useful points that have emerged out of this discussion particularly on the question of lifestyles choices and how socialists relate to these. Its not cut and dried and I think it is does deserve further discussion, I would not want to be over-prescriptive and I think that is the basic problem with Prakesh's approach. On the other hand, we cannot just brush the whole matter under the carpet. Lifestyle choices do have real world consequences for the kinds of values and ideas we seek to promote
jondwhite wrote:The 'ends justify the means' was something associated with Trotskyism not socialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htmI thought Prakash is actually opposing the argument that the end justifies the means…
Tim Kilgallon wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:In an ecological-minded libertarian socialist society, methods of production that harm the environment would be done away with and new methods would be substituted. Production under socialism will take into consideration environmental effects, availability and renew-ability of resources and develop the least harmful methods of production. That means changes..Got to be honest Alan, I think your talking bollocks. On the one hand you are saying that we need to reduce the amount of labout, yet on another you are saying that locally produced food is the way to produce plenty.If locally produced food was less labour intensive, then surely the capitalist system would be teeming with examples of this, not the McDonladisation you complain about. for instance Craft or micro brewery ale is far more labour intensive that mass produced keg fizz, But never mind "sometimes we will have to accept second best" to quote a phrase. The sane goes, in the short term anyway, for mass produced food.
Tim, I have to confess I broadly share Alan's approach to agricultural production in socialism. I think , or at least hope, there will be a far greater emphasis on both the localisation and – what goes with that – diversification of farming in socialism. Have you come across a book by John Bennett written in 1976 called "The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation". It is a classic on its field of study. Bennett shows in this book how the penetration of market relations and the globalisation of trade has undermined ecologically adaptive methods of farming and resource usage. Global interdependence has replaced local dependence and local sensitivity to local environmental constraints with a regime where Ricardos "law of comparative advantage" holds sway where a region specialises in what it is compartively most profitable to do. The result in agricultural terms is a growing tendency towards monocultures and large scale mechanised farming. This has not only been disastrous ecologically – think of the way in which blights can rapidly spread through a region dominated by a single crop – but also in terms of production. There is a lot of nonsense talked about modern large scale mechanised farming being more "productive". This is the sales talk of Agribusiness. There are different ways of measuring productivity and when agribusiness talks about increased productivity it is referring to output per farm labourer. No doubt, a farm worker driving a huge combine harvester does produce a greater output per worker than a small farmer using more labour intensive technologies although even this is to overlook all the labour it takes to manufacture and service the combine harverster itself. However there is another way of measuring producitivity and that is output per hectare and in this respect, as study after study has shown, small scale diversified farms based on polycultures are far more productive than large scale mechanised monoculture farming. This is not always obvious if you are looking at a single crop or agricultural product becuase that tends to overlook the fact that whereas monocultural farming, by definition. produces only that single crop within a given area, polycultural farming produces other crops besides within the same area. Given that in socialism most of the work performed under capitalism will no longer be necessary (since it produces nothing of value but only serves to keep the money system ticking over), there will be an enormous reservoir of labour swilling around which will enable us to radically modify the whole patten of farming – to make it more diversified and localised (thereby reducing transportation costs as well). I envisage, even in the big cities , city farms taking off in a big way, helping to break down the distinction betweeen the town and the countryside. More labour intensive farming does not have to mean back breaking toil. There is a whole literature on the theme of what is called "appropriate technology" which can can turn farming into an intensely enjoyable and creative activity, raise output all round and, most importantly, reduce the disastrous environmental (and economic) consequences of modern capital intensive mechanised monoculture farming
Vin wrote:Workers want MORE not LESS.Yes but Vin where do you draw the line? This is the tricky bit. We dont want to be inadvertently seen to be slavishly promoting capitalist consumerist values which, in fact, only help to nourish the kind of pernicious myths we routinely have to counter as socialists – like the myth of the so called "greedy person" forever subject to insatiable demands – myths which work against the socialist cause. I guess like most people here I would like to see a society in which everyone is at least materially comfortable and able to enjoy a "reasonable" standard of living, however you define that. But we need to be careful about how we go about putting across this idea. You know, for me personally, and I am sure for many others here, the real problem with capitalism is not so much that it fails to generate a sufficent quantity of stuff – it doesnt take a lot for me to be satisfied with what Ive got in these terms and frankly accumulating yet more stuff doesnt appeal at a time when I am trying to declutter my life and rid myself of some of the useless objects Ive somehow managed to accumulate over the years. No, the real problem with capitalism for me, is not so much one of QUANTITY but , rather, QUALITY or the QUALITY OF LIFE. – the constant stress, the constant insecurity, the constant dehumanisation, the constant alienation and so on Personally speaking, I would far sooner opt for an improvement in my quality of life than an increase in my standard of living if I had to choose.Of course, I am well aware that my personal circumstances and those of others on this list are quite different to the circumstances faced by hundreds of millions of people who live in a state of absolute poverty. There can be no question that, come socialism, these people will require a very substantial increase in their living standards to bring them up to a reasonable level. In that connection, I can recall the late Comrade Hardy once arguing that in order for that to happen people in what is called the "afflluent West" might have to accept a cut in their living standards in the short term at least. I am not sure that is necessarily true for the average worker in the West but it is a point worth bearing in mind…
I dont agree with Prakash's over censorious approach on matters of lifestyle choices but I do we think we need to be very wary of throwing the baby out with the water. There is a lot to be said for adopting a more prudent and long term approach to the consequences of decisions we make today whilst we still live in a capitalist society. "Consumerism" is a case in point. While its difficult to define precisely what this means and I agree perfectly that many workers do not have much leeway in exercising choice with respect to what they consume, we cannot surely as socialists be indifferent to the question. The bloated and conspicuous consumption of the super rich is not only an incredible waste and diversion of resources from the standpoint of meeting human needs. It is also offensive and disgusting – lets be quite frank here. We cannot be mealy mouthed about attacking it. It is a question of values and if we are going to create a sustainable humane future for everyone we have to be consistent in how we apply our values, The standard riposte of the capitalist ideologues is that socialism is based on the "politics of envy", Nothing could be further from the truth. To be envious of the wealth of the capitalists is to buy into the the kind of values that associate high status with great wealth, values which fly in the face of everything socialists stand for So the question of lifestyle is important becuase it is bound up with the kind of values we are trying to promote which run directly counter to the values they are trying to promote. The problem as ever is where exactly do we draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behaviour
