[robbo203]

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

[robbo203]

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.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

. This whole thread is totally reactionary,  anti-socialist,  and recalcitrant. Sometimes this forum becomes the yunkyard of backward conceptions

 I 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

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

The 'ends justify the means' was something associated with Trotskyism not socialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

 I thought Prakash is actually opposing the argument that the end justifies the means…

[robbo203]

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

[robbo203]

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…

[robbo203]

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 

[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

[Author]

Posts