[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

You'll do anything, and slander anyone, to avoid discussing democratic production, workers' power, and our production of our knowledge, won't you, robbo?Why not read the link I gave to the LibCom article, if you don't want to read what I write?

 LOL LBird.  You need to look in the mirror, I suggest. before shooting off accusations of this nature.  I am more than happy to discuss democratic production but every time I try to do so you curtail the dscussion by refusing point blank to answer any question that would compromise your Leninist view of "communism" such as whether there will be a role for local democracy in communism. Specifically on this point about Engels I produce a quote from Engels which directly contradicts your claim that he favoured elitism.  So what do you do in response? Retreat into obscurantism and wishy washy commentary unrelated to the point of contention.  And then you have the nerve to talk of others "avoiding discussion".  Ha!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

  Or are you adopting the elitist standpoint of declaring you know better what Engels thought than Engels.    

Of course we 'know better what Engels thought than Engels'!We've had over 150 years to discuss his ideas, and thousands of thinkers have gone through his works, and come to the conclusion that he didn't know what he was talking about.If this is news to you, robbo…

 So when  Engels wrote…When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois …you reckon he didnt know what he was talking about or that he was opposing an elitist and vangardist position. Little wonder that nobody takes you seriously on this forum, LBird

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

There is, of course, also this famous circular of 1879 to the German Party signed by both Marx AND Engels (which moreover was actually written by Engels himself) which gives the lie  to LBird's, as usual, groundless speculations.   Leninist vanguardism had its orgins in part in the emergent trend towards vanguardism and elitism within the broader Social Democratic movement as a whole , to which trend both Marx AND Engels defiantly expressed their uncompromising opposition.

mcolome1 wrote:

Both Marx and Engels opposed elitism and the concept of leadership 

One day, lads, you're going to have to read what I write, rather than arguing with a myth of your own making.

 And why should we attach any importance to what you write? After all it is not as if you are really interested in any kind of serious debate given your point blank refusal to answer questions put to you, time after time. So I take whatever you say with a pinch of salt frankly Sorry but I attach rather more importance to what Engels wrote than what you write and if Engels says quite candidly that  he is opposed to elitism and vanguardism – which is exactly what he did – then I have good grounds for thinking that was indeed his position.  Or are you adopting the elitist standpoint of declaring you know better what Engels thought than Engels.    

[robbo203]

There is, of course, also this famous circular of 1879 to the German Party signed by both Marx AND Engels (which moreover was actually written by Engels himself) which gives the lie  to LBird's, as usual, groundless speculations.   Leninist vanguardism had its orgins in part in the emergent trend towards vanguardism and elitism within the broader Social Democratic movement as a whole , to which trend both Marx AND Engels defiantly expressed their uncompromising opposition. This passage in particular is worth noting for its clear oppostion to political elitism:  As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one path open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and in particular the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is therefore impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement. When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. If the new Party organ adopts a line corresponding to the views of these gentlemen, and is bourgeois and not proletarian, then nothing remains for us, much though we should regret it, but publicly to declare our opposition to it and to dissolve the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad. But it is to be hoped that things will not come to that. .  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/letters/79_09_15.htm

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I agree with John Pozzi,  Malcome1 wants the forcible overthrow of the capitalist society as far as I have been able to understand his beligerence.  Actually, I'm unclear on you're stance ALB.  Mcolme1 by his efforts at representing all of WordSocialism and SPGB has convinced me that socialist are not reformers and that means overthrow is the only option as far as I understand Mcolme1. What is the practical observable and measurable real world difference I could use to test if something is reform or revolution?  What about the idea that a path to socialism requires the combination of both reform and revolution?   

 Reform refers to the various attempts to ameliorate the social problems that arise within – and, we would argue, arise from – the existing organisation of society based on the private (including state) ownership of the means of wealth production.  Revolution on the other hand, signifies the overthrow of the existing organisation of society and its replacement by another form of social organisation based on common ownership How you achieve a revolution – by violent or peaceful means, for example – is a question quite separate from what is meant by a revolution.  I dont recall MColme1 ever having advocated the violent overthrow of capitalism and that is certainly not the position of the SPGB

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I agree with your view.Sorry, I think me just posting here will bring around the Mcolme1 troll to tell us this is not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism and we need to read some dusty socialist treatise and realy really suffer in order to be socialist instead of wasting our time on this.  let me know if you'd like to talk privately to avoid raising Mcolme1's wrath.  I'd be happy to talk details with you and extend your idea or modify it to make it better, but I think that might not be something MCome1 would let go without disrupting. 

 Please note that I am not saying the rational approach to politics has to be abandoned – only supplemented, as it were..  There has to be crystal clarity on and mass awareness of,  the nature of socialism as a non-market non-exchange and non-statist system of production before you can even hope to realise socialism.I disagree strongly with your view that MColme1  is a troll.  That is a ridiculous claim, frankly

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2476-i-know-paid-protesters-are-real-because-im-one-them.htmlThis seems to me to be a corruption of protest which still has a perception of spontaneity.

That is actually quite an interesting and insightful article.  Not that I am suggesting the socialist movement should stoop to employing such opportunistic cynical methods mentioned in the article like using paid actors etc but there are important lessons to be learnt, nevertheless Perhaps the most important of these is the role of the irrational in the art of political persuasion. Historically socialists have attached huge, if not overwhelming, importance to the role of reasoned argument to attract support.  “Scientific socialism” speaks for itself.  The implication being that we should adopt the mindset of a scientist in scrutinizing the evidence.  Similarly the “socialist case” conjures up the image of some legal- eagle forensically sifting through the arguments and directing the laser beam of ruthless logic to separate the wheat from the chaffAll this is well and good but as the saying goes right is not necessarily might. The case for socialism for may be totally convincing at a rational level but why then does it not convince many to become socialists? Part of the reason may be because it understates the significance of the irrational factor in politics.  For sure, it recognises irrationality in others – like the rabid nationalist and the empty slogans of nationalism – but it does not , or at least seems loathe, to extend this insight to recognising the irrationality in all of us, socialist and non-socialist alike.  It may that this one sided and heavy emphasis on rational persuasion alone could be crippling the socialist cause and that paradoxically for that very reason this might not be a very rational approach to take.  It might be more rational to more embrace more obviously irrational – or emotive if you prefer – techniques of persuasion. This criticism on my part, I recognise, might be a little unfair insofar as it comes across as a caricature of what my fellow socialists do.  Of course we are all emotional as well as rational animals – how could we not be?  Our outrage at the kind of grotesque and horrible things that happen in this world is what fuels our socialist commitment.  But the point I am getting at is this – is there some way of more effectively harnessing the irrational or emotional aspects of our own natures and apply or direct it, so as to appeal to that same aspect in others who are not socialists.I don’t have any easy or flip answers to this question.  But the article provides a few straws that might very well turn out to be quite be clutchable.  Like the witty reference to “seizing the memes of production” With regard to the role of memes in the social media, it suggests that “while memes are bad at communicating ideas, they're pretty much the best at generating enthusiasm. They're funny, easily shareable, and they target the apathetic people who might otherwise not vote”.  Maybe we should be getting more into the business of manufacturing memes to include in our toolbox of techniques?Another point the article makes which I think is very important indeed is the numerical factor. It is suggested that Trump used paid activists to bulk up his audiences in the early stages of his Presidential campaign to make the crowds attending his meetings look more impressive.  Significantly, it is pointed that this was no longer considered necessary later on.  The pro Trump movement has by then acquired an unstoppable momentum.I have always felt that something similar would happen in the case of the socialist movement (excepting the reference of paid activists, of course).  It needs to break through a certain critical threshold in terms of numbers for it to begin to take off in a serous way.  This is the way all significant political movements have developed – through exponential rather than arithmetical growth.  I call this the conformist factor.  Being social animals, we tend to conform to the social environment we find ourselves in and in an environment populated by significant numbers of socialists, people are more likely to become socialists themselves. This has multiple implications for the way in which socialists organise even today when our numbers are comparatively tiny and I suggest it would be worth spending some time mulling over what these could be and then putting them into practice.

[robbo203]

 This claim that "Marx was responsible for genocide" is quite often made on various forums I am on by  sundry rabid right wing trolls prone to citing figures from the so called "Black Book of Communism", a completely discredited piece of fiction disowned I believe by even one or two of its original contributors.  Even going along with the lie that the various brutal state capitalist regimes that carried out this genocide had something to do with communism, these figures are nowhere near accurate. Some examples of “victims of genocide” – deaths resulting from famine or neglect – could equally be attributed to American Capitalism or British capitalism as well as Soviet capitalism. Unfortunately, AVPS does not do a very effective demolition job on the stupidity of Hannan’s whole line of argument and rather blots his/her copy book by citing the Russian revolution as an example of a “socialist revolution” to refute Hannan’s claim that Marx was wrong in his prediction that a socialist revolution will happen

[robbo203]

  Speaking on Brexit vote, Rotten said (see Alan's link) "the working class have spoke and I’m one of them and I’m with them.”   Well I wouldn’t exactly call him working class though no doubt he began life in the working class.  According to this site his net worth is $15 million, paltry for a celebrity of his fame but it just enables him to clamber onto the lowest rungs of the capitalist class, I guess (http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/singer/john-lydon-net-worth/) But his comments on the relationship between working class and the Brexit vote are interesting and significant.  Of course, Rotten is not using the term working class on the Marxian sense but in the mainstream sociological sense referring to income and occupational categories.  This is the big problem with identity politics (and Rotten's apparent identification of working class with low income, blue collar workers is an expression of identity politics) is that it covers over and conceals the really basic class fault lines in capitalist society which hinge on one's relationship to the means of wealth production. It’s not that categorising people according to income or occupation is wrong – it is perfectly legitimate to categorise people in this way. The real issue is what is the purpose for using one particular criterion for categorising people into classes as opposed to another I would say the purpose behind the mainstream system of classification is quite complex and is primarily bound up with capitalism system of status differentiation though there are subsidiary aspects to this – such as that it enables businesses to hone their marketing  strategy by pitching their sales drives to particular segments of the population.  But status differentiation is an absolutely essential ideological prop to class rule and I think as socialists we don’t pay enough attention to the sociology of class struggle and how ideology is used as a weapon in that struggle.  The claim that we live in a meritocracy and that the wealthy are somehow deserving of their wealth is clear example of the way in which status differentiation is used to reinforce the status quo. What we are seeing in the case of Rotten’s use of the term working class where “working class” had come to be seen as a badge of honour is analogous to the way the racist word “nigger” has had its meaning inverted by some sections of the black community.  Gangsta Rappers in the music industry, for example, quite often make use of the N word – or “nigga” –in a way which arms them against the conventional stigma associated with that word by turning its meaning into something quite positive. In other words it disarms the racist of the power to belittle blacks by calling them niggers So it is with the word “working class” in the sense of blue collar low income workers.  It is in one sense a positive response against the conventional system of status differentiation that ties high status with large wealth but in another way it is deeply reactionary on the sense that it misidentifies the source of wealth inequality in capitalist society by shifting the focus away from the all-important criterion of how one relates to the means of wealth production and focusses instead on aspects such as occupation  I think to quite a large extent the rise of populism we have witnessed in the past few years – Brexit, Trump, the spread of xenophobic anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe – can be understood in these terms of a reinvigorated “working class” reacting to the contempt shown towards it by the political establishment.  It is a case of jostling for higher status within a conventional system of status differentiation that does not significantly threaten that system of status differentiation let alone capitalism itself

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I see RT with their hashtag "MosulSOS" are making a big issue of the difference in the way the Western media treated the "liberation" of Aleppo by Russian and Syrian forces and the manner in which they treat the current liberation of Mosul by US, Iraqi and other forces.  In the case of the former the loss of civilian lives was regarded as a human tragedy bordering on, if not actually tantamount to, a war crime.  In the case of the latter and even in spite of the fact that numbers of civilians killed is significantly higher, this is regarded by that same media as simply a case of unfortunate collateral damage when the figures are even mentioned at all Irritating though I find RT to be as a right wing mouthpiece for all sorts of reactionary causes of the Trump and Brexit variety ,  I think it has a point in this case

 RT is like a clock pendulum because they have a different apporach in their Spanish version, and the commentaries are different too. I can see more reactionaries on the English version than in the Spanish version

 Thats interesting. Although living in Spain and having access to RT in Spanish,  Ive tended to look mainly at the English version, English being my mother tongue.  When I have looked at the Spanish version I was under the impression it was mainly a dubbed version of RT in English e.g. the Keiser Report and so on.  But I guess there must be original Spanish programmes on RT in Spanish.  In  the English version, Peter Lavelle, the presenter on Crosstalk, openly professed to being a conservative and on the main news you often see interviews being given with representatives of the far right like EDL or UKIP as well as free market types like Mises.Org.  You can see the strategy at work here which fits the agenda of the Russian capitalist state nicely,  Ride the wave of right wing populism in the West and give encouragement to it to weaken the power of the traditional western political establishment with its traditional Russo-phobia.  Le Pen for example has argued for lifting sanctions against Russia and its curious that we are seeing more support for Russia coming from the Right rather than the Left or soft left.  RT's political bias is not always obvious because sometimes you get a few lefty type programmes thrown into the mix to confuse the viewer but fundamentally I would say RT is a right wing channel

[robbo203]

I see RT with their hashtag "MosulSOS" are making a big issue of the difference in the way the Western media treated the "liberation" of Aleppo by Russian and Syrian forces and the manner in which they treat the current liberation of Mosul by US, Iraqi and other forces.  In the case of the former the loss of civilian lives was regarded as a human tragedy bordering on, if not actually tantamount to, a war crime.  In the case of the latter and even in spite of the fact that numbers of civilians killed is significantly higher, this is regarded by that same media as simply a case of unfortunate collateral damage when the figures are even mentioned at all Irritating though I find RT to be as a right wing mouthpiece for all sorts of reactionary causes of the Trump and Brexit variety ,  I think it has a point in this case

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A serious question. This exchange has been going on for years among LBird, YMS and Robbo, with the occasional contribution from others. Has anyone learned anything positive from the outcome of this debate?LBird concedes the exchanges has led to the expansion of his reading but has Robbo or YMS themselves ever increased LBird's knowledge or understanding, directly?Conversely, has YMS or Robbo gained deeper insight from anything LBird has said in reply to them? 

  The answer to your last question, Alan, is – unfortunately – not much, to be brutally frank.  The main stumbling block I feel is LBird’s stubborn and incredibly irritating refusal – for reasons I do not know of – to simply answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. What has he got to lose by doing so? Nothing! In fact we all stand to benefit from a genuine debate.   For instance, I have asked him repeatedly to explain whether or not he thinks local democracy will play a role in his vision of a communist society since this very clearly represents a “limitation” which contradicts his thesis that there will be no limits to democracy in communism such as the one that restricts the resolution of essentially local issues to local populations. But has LBird even attempted to answer this question.  Not on your nelly! The same goes for individual decisions. The very nature of a communist society OF NECESSITY requires that there should be considerable scope for individual decision-making alongside collective decision-making.  This is clearly implicit in the whole idea of a communist based being based on free access to goods and service and voluntary labour.  Without this dimension of personal autonomy and the capacity to choose it would simply not be communism.  It would be just another form of slave society.  That is why Marx was so insistent on the free development of individuals being the condition for the free development of society as a whole. Marx himself in that respect is a prime example of what LBird (wrongly) calls an “individualist” My feeling is that LBird would benefit greatly from reading more widely.  He seems to be narrowly obsessed with epistemology as a subject to the detriment of other subjects.  His knowledge of sociology for instance and of the complexity, and two-way nature, of the relationship between individuals and society seems painfully crude and simplistic 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…individuals finally…

You're going to have to unpack this for yourself, robbo.I've tried, and tried, and tried, to help…My tip is to sort out in your own mind the difference between the concept 'individuals' and 'individuals finally'.

 LOL "tried to help" with a nice little touch of patronising condescension., You really mean – dont you? – "tried to be as opaque as you can possibly be to avoid having to answer all those unconfortable questions that demolish your flimsy argument"…. "Individuals finally" means that the individuals finally get to choose what they take from the distribution store not the "community" still less the global population,  If means if I want a bag of apples I take a bag of apples from the store.  I dont have a bag of oranges thrust upon me because some vaguely defined "community" has decided for me that that is  what I should have. Its a pretty simple concept LBird and dont try to pretend it is something that it is not

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.I'm a Democratic Communist, whose concern, like Marx's, is with social production.So, my answers to 'who' is 'social producers', and 'how' is 'democratic discussion'.Your answers are 'individuals' and 'individual choice'.Hope this clarifies our ideological differences. I'm not an 'individualist', and I've already commented upon your ideological notion of 'exchange', about which my position is like the SPGB's.

 So LBird you earlier claimed  to support the communist principle of free access which however you look at it involves individuals finally choosing what they themselves take from the distribution centres  (see post no 93 on this thread). How do you propose to reconclile what you are now saying with this relapse of yours into unadulterated Leninism, with what you earlier said about free access communism? Edit: Just to make it clear you earlier defined democratic discussion thus  'Democratic discussion' is not individuals voting without first discussing, but voting after collective discussion.  You are thus proposing that what people should be allowed to take would be subject to a collective vote (by whom? The world poulatiom? A particular region? Your local community? You dont say).  Whatever the case the question of what you can take from the store as an individual is no longer up to you.  You are subject to rationing by some social entity,  This is not communist  free access however much you might try to wriggle out of this one

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I believe in 'free access' Communism, with any uncertainties and difficulties in that concept being cleared up by democratic discussion by the future class conscious revolutionary proletariat.

 BREAKING NEWS: Just spotted this.  It turns out, after all,  that LBird is himself what he calls others – namely an  "individualist" (though technically this is the wrong word) – and it would appear he has just been leading the rest of us a merry dance all this time.  "Free access", if it means anything at all,  means that the individual herself gets to ultimately decide what she takes from the distribution stiore. It implies the absence of rationing and hence the direct social detemination of "needs".  That does not mean she will not be inflluenced by social opinion and the generalised expectation of what is appropriate to take – that is to say, by the prevailing social norms.  I wouldnt, however, say such norms have necessarily  to be fixed by something called "democratic discussion" which is overly legalistic way of looking at things.  Rather , social norms are in the main what I call emergent phenonenon.  They grow out of the experience of living in society and are part of the taken for granted view of the world we all develop to some extent as individuals Whatever the case,  this is a major reversal of opinion on the part of LBird since it flatly contradicts all his previously uttered nonsense about "democracy without limits"- i.e.ultra-centralised society-wide decisionmaking a la Lenin.  There is hope that we  might yet persuade LBird to become a communist.  But for that to happen he needs to  jettison his previously held totalitarian view of society which completely disregards the role of individuals within it and so presents us with an utterly one sided -and utterly simplistic  – view of the relationship between individuals and society which actually undermines the communist principles of free access and volunteer labour – that is "from each according to ability to each according to need" Finally, he continues to make the mistake  of assming there will be such a thing as a "proletariat" in communism.  Long ago I recall defending LBirds use of the term "workers" in the context of communist society because this does not necessarily have class implications.  "Proletariat", however, very defintely implies the exstence of classes and consequently is a totally unapproproate terms to use in connection with classsless communism

[Author]

Posts