[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

If anyone can translate the political meaning of robbo's post, I'd be obliged to the translator.

 It means quite simply that you believe in the Leninist model of decision-making  though you pretend not to understand what I said

[robbo203]

  

LBird wrote:

robbo's chosen political method to denigrate 'democracy' is to equate it with 'centralisation'. Thus:

robbo203 wrote:

Clearly L Bird supports this totalitarian and ultra-centralised mode of decision-making.

[my bold]robbo pretends that 'democracy' leads to 'centralisation', by which he means 'totalitarian' (a concept employed by post-war Cold War warriors, but we'll let that pass). 

   This is so way off the mark it is almost laughable.  It demonstrates that LBird seems wilfully intent on not understanding the argument which has been presented to him.  I am not trying to denigrate democracy by “equating with it with centralisation”.  What a silly claim. Actually the word I used was “ultra-centralised”. Does LBird know what this means? It means EXTREME centralisation. What I am actually saying is that democracy will be killed off by extreme centralisation. Yet this is precisely what  LBird advocates – extreme centralisation of decision-making – and that is why I oppose what Lbird stands for.  Because it will lead to a fundamentally anti-democratic outcome.   LBird is not a democrat but a naive Leninist who cloaks his Leninism in a mantle of democratic rhetoric.  He merely pays lip service to democratic values.  However, even if his absurd idea of a totalitarian society-wide system of decision-making operating out of a single global centre were remotely feasible, it could only really operate on the basis of a tiny technocratic elite arrogating to itself the power to make all decisions on society’s behalf.  There are billions of decisions to be made and there is no possibility of such decisions being made on any other basis given LBird’s Leninist model of decision-making. 

LBird wrote:

Any Democratic Communist would of course reply that 'democracy' does imply 'centralisation'. There has to be a central location, at which is based a central organisation that obeys the orders of the voters. The losing voters then obey the orders of the 'central' majority.We can see this in practice in the parish, village, town, city, regional and national elections of even bourgeois democracy.The 'parish' democracy is centralised upon the 'parish hall', at which a central bureaucracy counts the votes and announces the results of the democratic vote, taken by all the parish residents. Of course, the central parish bureaucracy is also elected using democratic methods. And so on, for all levels, from parish to national. The new feature of democratic World Socialism will be a central 'World Hall'.

  This demonstrates once again how utterly confused LBird is on the matter.  Of course local democracy requires a local centre and regional democracy requires a regional centre and so forth.  Im not disputing that at all but this has got nothing to do with what I am taking about The point that I was trying to impress upon LBird is that since local democracy requires a local centre and since there are numerous local centres corresponding to numerous local communities what this means in effect is that you inevitably have a POLYCENTRIC system of democratic decisionmaking in socialism.  However this is not what LBird wants.  He has made it absolutely clear that he is calling instead for a UNICENTRIC models of decision-making – that is one in which in which ALL decisions relating to production and everything else throughout the entire world are ONLY to made from a single global centre – what he calls his central 'World Hall' – and that somehow ALL these decisions are to be made by the entire global population.  In other others, no other decisions can be permitted other than those that come out of his central World Hall.   If LBird protests that I am somehow misrepresenting him I would remind him of his own wprds. It was he who declared forthrightly that there are “no limits to democracy”.  Well in a polycentric model of decision-making there clearly are such limits.  If a local community makes a decision concerning a local matter than self-evidently this precludes another local community, or a regional community or the global community getting involved in making this local decision.  We respect the right of that community to make decisions that affect itself.  That is a limitation. LBird rejects any such limitations.  Consequently he is saying that the global community as a whole must decide on every conceivable decision impacting on everyone throughout the world. Of course that is not even worth thinking about  as serious proposal but the logic of what LBird is talking about is certainly worth thinking – and worrying –  about since it in effect argues for the concentration of all power in the hands of tiny elite and the complete destruction of any kind of democracy whatsoever

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 In fact, we could call your version of 'logic'… Leninist Logic.

 I think the very idea that the totality of decisions to be made in a socialist society should be made by the entire global population –  a logistical impossiblity which will inevitaby end up  in the de facto dictatorship by a tiny elite – is the very manifestation of a "leninist logic".  It expresses the centralistic totalitarian tendencies of the Leninist. Lenin after all spoke of the "The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory" (State and Revolution).  Clearly L Bird supports this totalitarian and ultra-centralised mode of decision-making.  I would say that constitutes very strong prima facie grounds for saying that the only Leninist here is LBird!

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 All 'logic' is a social and ideological product, which we can change. Just like maths and physics.

Agreed, but that also includes changing the concept of democracy to suit the situation.  You have logically concluded that the voluntary associated producers will adopt a form of democracy with no limits.  In short all decisions – important and unimportant – will be voted on by the community.  That's a logical fallacy.

  Of course there are "limits to democracy" and anyone who thinks otherwise really hasn’t thought about it at all! It is quite consistent to say that socialism will witness a significant expansion in democratic decision-making but that this expansion will stop at the point in which these necessary limitations come into play.  If there really were “no limits” that means, quite literally, that any and every decision ever made will be subject to a democratic vote and since socialist society is a global society that means the entire global population will participate in all conceivable decisions to be made within this society,  That self-evidently is preposterous. What that means is that the individual in socialist society will have no choice as to what work to perform according to her ability – that will be decided by global society.  She will have no choice as to what to what to take according to her need from the distribution centres since that too will be decided by global society.  So already we see in this ridiculous concept of a "democracy without limits" a complete repudiation of the communist principle “from each according to ability to each according to need”. None of us in the imaginary society of “democracy without limits” would have any say over what we do as individuals, where we live or how we might live. It will all be decided for us…..by global society! And it doesn’t stop there. There can be no localised or even regionalised forms of democracy within a hypothetical society of “democracy without limits".  To even talk about local democracy is necessarily to place limits on democracy by restricting a class of decisions – essentially those of a local nature – to a subset of society – the local population – thereby excluding the non-local population. Moreover, I haven’t even begun to talk about the mechanics or logistics of such a proposal – how do you organise a global vote on even a single decision let alone billions of them? In fact, by its very nature this proposal2 amounts to the advocacy of a totally centralised totalitarian society which, by default if not by design, will concentrate all power in the hands of a tiny elite and signify paradoxically the total destruction of democracy Incidentally. Alan, yes it is hilarious that Capitalist Pig should sing the praises of LBird. Little does he realise that what LBird is calling for will signify the complete abolition of all those cherished "legal safeguards" he had been going on about to prevent a dictatorship of the majority from happening

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

You can demonize capitalism all you want but in the end the only alernative you have is anarchism. It takes a great amount of work and detication to run a successful business its not really as easy and stupid as you envision it to be. I think donald trump is doing well considering the federal reserve is literally trying to crash the economy. I just want to see valid criticism not just personal attacks

  No CP you are missing the point.  I am not particularly interested in the fact that Trump is a blatant fraud and a conman,  which must by now be pretty obvious to anyone who hasnt got their head stuck in the sand. As I said he could be as white as the driven snow with an intellect to match and he STILL would not be able to operate capitalism in the interests of the majority.  You can only operate capitalism in the interest of the owners of capital – like Trump and his fellow crony capitalists. You seem to think Trump is "doing well" and by implication that it rather matters who is at the helm of American capitalism.  I would take quite the  opposite view.  You could install a trained BarbaryMacaque in the Oval Office  (with elementary tweeting skills) and it would make little difference to the lives of ordinary workers,  Politicians to a man or woman are tools of the system whatever their political stripe So while it might appear to you that I am making "personal attacks" against Trump this is only to try to wake you up out of your self induced slumber to enable you to see that even on your terms Trump is not the person you seem to think he is.  But the bottom line as far as I am concerned is that even he was all the things you claim he is  he is still going to prove a deep disappointment  – not so much because of but, rather, in spite of himself

[robbo203]

Trump – a walking contradiction https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/ranked-donald-trumps-foreign-policy-contradictions/513635/

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 you have not acknowledged one of my points instead you cite lefty articles that some how 'prove' that I am wrong about trump's motives therefore no debate required. I am calling you dishonest in your analysis which is shown by your unwillingness to adress simple and obvious facts. Don't call yourself unbiased and objective when you know you aren't. But it isn't the same as outright lying

 Everyone without exception is biased – including you CP.  I am just amazed that anyone with any scrap of intelligence can fall for the transparent BS that gushes forth on an almost daily basis from the mouth of that arrogant self-aggrandizing narcissist, Donald Trump.  It’s so friggin obvious that the man is a fraud through and through but you seem to have allowed yourself to fall under the spell.  Hopefully in your case, it only a matter of time before the penny begins to drop By the way, it really does not matter that much if Trump did not possess these rather unattractive personal qualities. Even is he was as white as the driven snow and overflowing with Christian charity as the expression goes, he would still be doomed to failure and forced to break his promises.  You cannot run capitalism in the interests of the majority.  You can only run capitalism in the interests of the owners of capital.  That is the nature of the beast. This is what is unique about the socialist position and this site in particular.  You won’t find socialists taking sides in the game of capitalist politics.  We don’t hold that the enemy of an enemy is a friend.  We are just as merciless and principled in our attacks on the so called Democrats as on the Republicans Despite what you claim Trump is a corporate capitalist and exponent of what you call “crony capitalism” and who has a clear record of treating his own workforce with utter contempt.  He is not interested in the wellbeing of “American Workers” as he so loudly proclaims. How can you possibly be so gullible as to fall for this utter crap?  This is a mere marketing ploy to garner and consolidate electoral support.  “America First” is a completely hollow slogan that in reality is intended to put the interests of Trump First. On the question of personal Trumps wealth, Alan is essentially correct.  Trumps claim that “I took $1 million and I turned into $10 billion.” is a lie.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/?utm_term=.bc887635499f. The fake figures aside, this is just regurgitating the trashy myth of the so called “self-made” man which is itself based on a lie.  In fact, Trump’s wealth was not made by himself but by his workforce.   But Trump has lied about all sorts of other things too.  Look at the area of foreign policy.  We were lead to believe that under Trump the USA would become more isolationist, would withdraw from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.  It now seems that the opposite is the case.  And you are intent on defending this guy, even to the extent of accusing others on this forum of engaging in untruths and distortions. The irony could not be richer CP!

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

everything the donald has done is crippling the globalists' agenda of one world government which is open borders, corporate colonialism and crony capitalism. Why do you hate prosperity?

 CP Dont by conned by the rhetoric! Trump is a globalist  (which does not necessarily mean wanting "one world government " incidentally) and a corporatist. He  himself has personal financial interests in more than 2 dozen countries.  He has packed his cabinet with representatives of BIG BUSINESS or "crony capitalism" as you call it to an almost inprecedented extent  (I cant think of anyone who would more closely fit the bill of a crony capitalist than Trump given his policy of protectionism towards American Big Business). And  despite the suggestion that America under Trump  would be isolationist and shun military adventurism  in other parts of the world, if anything US military might is being flexed even more under more under Trump  (he promised to increase military spending did he not?) Here's just a sample of things that have happened under his adminsitration which I have copied and pasted from a site called http://www.legitgov.org/ from which I receive regular bulletins.  These refute the claims that Trump is some sort of anti -globalist  opposed to meddling in other countries Trump gave CIA power to authorize drone strikes – report | 14 March 2017 | President Donald Trump has reportedly given the Central Intelligence Agency the power to conduct drone strikes against suspected terrorists…Unnamed US officials claim that President Trump expanded the power to conduct drone strikes from the Pentagon exclusively to the CIA, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday. The move has not been confirmed by the Trump administration. Under the new authority, the CIA would not require permission from the Pentagon or even the White House before launching a drone strike for a targeted killing mission.   Pentagon wants to declare more parts of world as temporary battlefields | 13 March 2017 | Donald Trump's administration is considering a military proposal that would designate various undeclared battlefields worldwide to be "temporary areas of active hostility", the Guardian has learned. If approved, the Pentagon-proposed measure would give military commanders the same latitude to launch strikes, raids and campaigns against enemy forces for up to six months that they possess in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.   SEAL Team 6 joins South Korea war drill for the first time | 13 March 2017 | US special forces — including SEAL Team 6 — will take part in a large war drill in South Korea as part of a plan to "decapitate" the leadership in Pyongyang, according to a report. The SEAL team will join the annual Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises between the two allies for the first time, along with the Army's Rangers, Delta Force and Green Berets, Yonhap News Agency of South Korea reported. South Korean defense officials have confirmed that the drill will practice taking out the North Korean leadership, the Daily Star reported.   U.S. force in Syria to help anti-ISIS fighters with firepower | 10 March 2017 | A Kurdish-led force fighting the Islamic State group with the support of U.S. troops will close in on the extremists' de facto capital Raqqa within a few weeks, but the battle for the city will be difficult, a U.S. military official said Thursday. [Yes, it's 'difficult' as the US is simultaneously arming and funding ISIS] Air Force Col. John Dorrian said the U.S. force consisting of a couple of hundred Marines that arrived in the region south of the Syrian-Turkish border on Wednesday will not have any front-line roles, but will provide artillery fire to support the advance of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.   Marines have arrived in Syria to fire artillery in the fight for Raqqa | 8 March 2017 | Marines from an amphibious task force have left their ships in the Middle East and deployed to Syria, establishing an outpost from which they can fire artillery guns in support of the fight to take back the city of Raqqa from the Islamic State, defense officials said. The deployment marks a new escalation in the U.S. war in Syria, and puts more conventional U.S. troops in the battle. Several hundred Special Operations troops have advised local forces there for months, but the Pentagon has mostly shied away from using conventional forces in Syria

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 I think their needs to be a balance between automation and human labour

  I totally agree but for that we need a society in which human beings can consciosuly determine what this balance should be according to  their own needs. It is just not possible to do this in a market based system in which blind market forces, over which we have no control, determine the outcome

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 so what about all the low skilled labourors? will they just go on to program computers instead? the decision to automate everything will leave a great many people idle not to mention the risks full automation brings.

 The point I am making is that in socialism we have a choice about what work we wish to automate and the degree to which we want to automate. In capitalism we dont.  Market competition settles the matter for us. Capitalist businesses are obliged by market competition to each increase their own market share  (which necessarily means at the expense of their comercial rivals).  To that end, they try to undercut their rivals pricewise by reducing unit costs through increased labour productivity or mechanisation,  So some technological innovation might be introduced by a particular business which temporarily gives it an edge in the commercial rat race and obliges other businesses to follow suit.  Since only living labour produces surplus value (profit) – not machines – the gradual displacement of workers by machines results in what Marx called the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.  However, he also suggested that there are counteracting tendencies at work.  An example of such a counteracting tendency is that as techological unemployment grows, it tends to push down wage levels.  What that means is that it then becomes more commercially attractive for employers to take  on more workers and this has the effect of slowing down the pace of technological innovation or mechanisation It is the combined of overall effect of all these differnent tendencies, some working in a direction opposite to that of others, that determines the  level of automation in general.  The specific nature of the work itself is also a factor.  The services or tertiary sector of the economy has traditionally been more labour intensive for all sorts of reasons and this is why you have seen have seen the spectacular  growth of the services sector in employment terms compared with manufacturing and the extractive or primary sector.  However that is changing with the spread of computerisation and this is effecting the capacity of the service sector to soak up displaced labour from the manufacturing and extractive industries. Personally  I think the development of technology is making the need for socialism more and more transperent.  It is ironic that you are worrying about the drying up of work in a socialist society. This totally undermines the argument usually made against socialism that people are inherently laxy and wont work unless they are economically forced to  via the wages system  – a bogus argument anyway since even under capitalism most work – about 55% according to UN figures – is actually carried on outside the money economy

[robbo203]

John Pozzi wrote:

:The state doesn't exist in the direct democratic GRB society, and in socialistic fiat money terms, value, profit, buy, surplus, wage, labor, purchase, wealth, sale, etc. have no meaning. The GRB shareholder medium of exchange, eco measures the shareholder value of natural wealth – not the state's "product" of labor (i.e. pollution, armament, war, etc.). In the GRB there is no labor, but the labor of love for our source of life, i.e., Earth.SOCIALISM needs a new system

You are still not getting it John There is no "medium of exchange" in socialism becuase there is no exchange,  Period. Exchange implies private property and therefore the absence of common property Also, you keep on going on about there being "no labour" in your scheme.  Are you envisaging full automation?  If so how do you propose to achieve that?

[robbo203]

John Pozzi wrote:

."Hi Tim,That's BS, What it says is:"Everyone owns 1 share in the GRB, the shareholders’ value the earth’s wealth of natural resources at 6 quadrillion (q) GRBe. The GRB converts US$ assets to GRBe. The GRBe reserve supplies shareholder accounts with e50 per day for 20 years. …  Two percent of GRBe income maintains the GRBnet and e50 per day supports GRB shareholders for life." i.e., nobody works. 

 Even assuming full automation ("nobody works") why then continue with money and buying and selling?  How do you reconcile the existence of such phenomena with common ownership which you claim your system is based on. Economic exchange logically precludes common ownership. I think your whole agument is very muddled frankly speaking . It doesnt even begin to explain why the" earth’s wealth of natural resources"  should be valued  at 6 quadrillion (q) GRBe  and not, say, 6o quadrillion (q) GRBe.  You just seem to be plucking figures out of the air.  There is no hard economic theory behind your proposal

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Just to pick up on this thread, this article and the research it links to may be of interest. .."…this study reveals that violence is explained by resource scarcity and not political organization…."

Quote:

The findings overturn one theory of violence in prehistoric societies, which said that while societies were small-scale and politically simple, their existence would have been much more peaceful than modern societies."This study provides no support for the position that violence originated with the development of more complex hunter-gatherer adaptations in the fairly recent past," the study authors write in the paper. "Instead, findings show that individuals are prone to violence in times and places of resource scarcity."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/prehistoric-californian-hunter-gatherer-societies-were-plagued-lethal-violence-1607718?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous&yptr=yahoo

 I would seriously question some of the journalistic spin put  by the author of the IBT article, Martha Henriques, on the research findings she refers to.  In particular this: There was never a peaceful past where everyone got along in prehistoric North American societies – small scale societies in what is now central California where quick to become violent when food and other resources were scarce,an archaeological study finds, Prehstoric Californians who lived 1530 to 230 years ago used a range of weapons on each other There are several problems with this statement:  1) it is generalising from the Californian data to "North American societies" as a whole which is inadmissable in terms of the basic hypothesis itself inasmuch as the  particular make up of California's maritime resources e,g, shellfish were prone to rapid overexploitation and the region had a relatively high population density anyway by comparison with the interior2) the data refers to the period 1530 to 230 years ago but there is evidence of human populations going back 15,000 years ago and more.  About 8000 years ago there was apparently a movement from the interior to the coast augmenting the population in the region.  Though I cannot access the original PNAS research article it does not seem to support the conclusion that violence was endemic in California prior to 1530 years ago.  Beside Henriques contradicts herself when she says"There was never a peaceful past where everyone got along in prehistoric North American societies"   and then that  "small scale societies in what is now central California where quick to become violent "  since that presupposes a time when they were not violent  I dont question the main argument being offered that it is resource scarcity that leads to violence but the classic response of small scale HG "immediate return" bands to move on when food resources like game declined and became scare in a particular locality,  Mobility circumvents the need for violence and this same mobility shows itself within the structure of the band itself which is highly fluid and liable to fissioning,  This is why intra-group conflict tended to be minimised. If you dont like somebody in your group , you split off with your close kin from the group and move elsewhere.  You vote with your feet. This can happen anyway as part of a survival strategy in the face of resource constraints and declining carrying capacity The evidence seems to be suggest that this key strategy – mobility – in the hunter gatherer's surivival tool box was being increasingly undermined in the face of rsing population in Californa at this time.  As far as it goes that supports the hypothesis but you cannot reasonably extrapolate from this evidence and apply it to hunter gatherer band societies in general.  There are numerous counter examples to refute any such suggestion

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

sorry it condradicts your narritive but humans have been fighting eachother forever. don't really know what to say. 

  Well maybe have a look at this thread CP and read the article by Brian Ferguson in particular  who is the world's premier expert on ancient warfare.  It might help you to change your mind.  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/hunter-gatherer-violence Warfare was more or less non existent more than 10,000 years ago Also have a look at this article which refutes your claim https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Mark my words, CP, you are going to be mightility disappointed in Trump just as much as in any other previous incumbent at the White House.  It might take a few months or it might take a few years but soon or later it will happen as Trump eases himself into the all too familiar role that all Presidents have carried out as representatives of the interests of American capitalism and their capitalist class

I don't think so. It is his strong leader, right or wrong.His country right or wrong.He has been lurking in a fascist dung heap awaiting 'the call' of the Merkels and Orbáns.In the US the current round of legislation — introduced by Republican lawmakers in 19 states — attempts to criminalize and penalize protesting in various ways.https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/creeping-totalitarianism.html

 Well lets see Matt, Even fascists have been known to change their mind and abandon their previously held convictions. My reading of the situation and dabbling in forums populated by right wing nationalists is that there s a strong sense of triumphalism in the air and an enormous expectation that things are going to change in a fundamental way.  The left and the Liberals have been routed ("libtards" is favourite expresssion of these right wing folk).  The Left and Liberal's' PC arguments have been exposed as folly.  And now, finally, ordnary folk are wresting their fate and reclaiming their future from the" establishment " that has treated them with cynical contempt decade after decade  as just election fodder. Some of what these people say strikes a chord.  It is too simplistic to dismiss all supporters of Brexit , for example, as xenopobes and racists.  Nevertheless with chauvinistc nationalism on the rise everywhere there is a coresrponding rise in expectations that things are going to be substantially different. Of course,  there is no way things are going to pan out in the way these people hope and imagine.  You cant run capitalism in the interests of the workers just as you cant run the abbatoir in the interests of the cattle, All of these developments – Trump , Le Pen, Brexit and whatnot –  are going to prove deeply disappointing in objective terms at the end of the day.  You can only bury your head in the sand for so long before  noticing something has gone seriously wrong In short what we are seeing is  an unstable power keg of frustrated hopes being built up  that could explode in the not too distant  future,  The right is on the rise today but its victory is going be a pyrrhic one,  When  the dream turns sour and the vision collapses as it surely will what is going to be the fall out from that?. Hopefully not a return to delusional policies of left wing capitalism a la Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, Hopefully as socialists we can galvanise our fellow workers to look beyond the see-saw politics of capitalism itself.  Meaing we should be honing our arguments in a way that fully anticipates that coming fall out and unravelling of the Right itself,  hard though it may be for us  to see this now in era of Trump, Le Pen and Brexit

[Author]

Posts