[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

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Communism means from EACH (individual) according to the ability, to EACH (individual) acording to their needs.

So, who determines 'ability' and 'needs', YMS?Isolated individuals or social producers?How are these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion?

 Who is involved in this ..er.. democratic discussion about one's "abilities" and "needs"LBird has scoffed at the suggestion that there are any "limits" to democracy. For example he seems to have rejected even the idea that there will be such a thing as local democracy in a communist society since he sees this as putting a limit on democracy – in this case limiting discussion of local issues to the local populationWhich means, to be quite literal about it, that what LBird is suggesting is that 7 billion plus individuals in global communism are going to be sitting around discussing  your, my or LBird’s particular "abilities" and "needs"SERIOUSLY???The more I read the endless tripe that seems to gush from LBird the more convinced I am that whatever communist consciousness he might have possessed has long ago gone through the meat grinder of Leninist ideology and has been reduced to mush It is basic to Marxian communism (to which LBird quite clearly is in many respects diametrically opposed) that the individual in a communist society should be free to chose how to express herself through work, her contribution to society.  Of course we are social individuals and dont make our choices in a vacuum and are influenced by others around us but nevertheless ultimately in communism it is we as individuals who must decide what work we want to do.  If we are not able as individuals to freely decide on this matter – that is if we are not able to contribute our labour on a genuinely voluntary basis – then our labour is not the result of free association .  It is coerced or estranged labour.  This is not communism.  It is just another form of slavery and I can see why that should appeal to the Leninist streak in LBird who would have us all become cogs in a vast impersonal machine So the freedom to choose is a cornerstone of Marxian communism.  It is implicit in that quote of Marx from the German Ideology: For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not wish to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.  Finally I cannot  let LBird get away with this crass comment: Howare these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion? Actually democratic discussion doesn’t produce anything – at least not in the economic sense of “goods”.  It is human labour aided as the case may be by machinery that does that . Democratic discussion may help to guide us in matters such as what  to produce in some cases but certainly not all or even a majority of cases in a communist society unless LBird rejects the communist principle of free access as well as that other communist principle of volunteer labour. Free access means you decide what you want.  If others decide for you this is no longe free access but some form of rationing. If that is what LBird wants he should come out and defend this position  Democratic discussion certain has a role to play in communist production but it is only a small part of the overall process of social production though you would never think that listening to LBirds nonsensical blather about "democracy without limits".  It conjures up a vision of a society in which there are endless rounds of mass meetings but nothing ever gets done. 

[robbo203]

There is a classic in the anthropological literature called "Political systems in Highland Burma" by Edmund Leach which touches on the subject of polyandry.  Its ages since I read the book but I think Leach offers what are basically environmental reasons as to why polyandry occurs among the Kachin people living in the mountains – something to do with migration of male labour to the valleys below where work is more plentiful  though I might be quite wrong about this. Polyandry seems to be concentrated in places like Burma  (Myanmar), Tibet and Malaysia

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Then we have no political disagreement, mod1.Clearly, given your formulation, 'the majority' can decide whether there will be 'limits', and if so, what those 'limits' will be.This is at odds with what you've argued previously, though.Unless you wish to modify what you've just said, and return to your previous stance, that 'limits' exist prior to their social production by the democratic producers?The ball's in your court, mod1.

 No, this is nonsense.  There is absolutely no question about the fact that there will be limits to democracy – unless LBird is seriously proposing here that all 7 billion people can vote on billions upon billions  – nay trillions – of decisions that need  to be taken throughout  the world every day  in which case let him come out and state this is a serious proposition on his part.  This is no more up for discussion than whether one can defy the laws of gravity when jumping off a tall building. What can be democratically decided beforehand by workers is where those limits will lie not whether there ought to be any limits at all, That latter is a peice of Leninist fantasy – totalistic society wide decisionmaking – invented by LBird himself  which is completely incapable of being realised.  And if it cannot be realised there is no point in even discussing it is there now?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Clearly Lbird has  stopped replying to Robbo because he has no reply. Nothing new there.  Restart the baseless insults later, eh?

 Yes Indeed Vin,  He refuses to anwer the simple question of whether he supports the notion of localised forms of democracy and now we know why.  Its becuase he has something to hide.   He is a Leninist at heart who support the Leninist model of decisonmaking for society but is too embarrassed to come out and honestly admit to his Leninist inclinations,  His model of decision-making absolutely guarantees the most extreme form of elitism that is possible Remember this whenever Lbird accuses the SPGB of "Leninism" and "elitism"

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Ah, but I'm not allowed to respond to your insults, mcolome1, so it's not the same at all.Here we can see the political relationship between workers and the SPGB 'specialists' that will be produced in any future version of 'socialism' that the SPGB apparently intends to build.

But hold on here LBird – you subscribe to an ultra-centralised Leninist model of complete society-wide decision making on everything.  You clearly do not envisage any form of local democracy operating in your system because this would be a limitation on democracy in your view – it "limits" the electorate on certain local issues to local people.  Are you not doing exactly what you charge the SPGB with doing?  That is to say, you are an elitist who unilaterally prescribes a particular model of decisionmaking in which the workers have had no say in the making of.

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again

 CP.  Your criticism seems rather confused and contradictory.  You want us to supply you with some idea of what form of government we want and then you complain that we want to abolish government!  Which is it?You seem to be vacillating between different ideas of what a "government" actually means,  That is why I asked you to define what you actually mean by government – do you mean a state or merely an adminsitration?  We socialists certianly want to get rid of the state and so if you equate goverment wth the  state, then socialism will be a society without government.  However,  in anthroplogy, the term government has sometimes been used in the context of stateless or "acephalous" societies – see for example Lucy Mair's book on "primitive government" In any event, the state is an institution of class rule and in a classless society  a state clearly cannot exist,  That does not mean  in a stateless socialist society there will be just chaos or anarchy.  You make a huge assumption here which is simply not justified.  Indeed the anthropological study of stateless societies would refute your claim.  If anything, chaos and anarchy is strongly associated with the power struggles that are endemic to class societies Socialism will provide the material conditions in which a much more transperant and cohesive sense of morality will emerge in my view, based on the clear recognition of our mutual interdependence.  We do not need some external body in the guise of a state to maintain order and social harmony.  We are quite capable of doing it ourselves and far more effectively than any class based statist society

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Can you you answer this simple question without your usual equivocation?. 

 He can't,  Robbo. I have been asking for a couple of years. He will probably call you a "anti-democratic, Engelsian, Religious Materialist "I have been called worse but that's all he has: Some stupid phrases he repeats when he has no reply. I am sure we materialists all have better things to do than waste our time on an elitist, leninist idealist. 

Well its a simple enough question – does Lbird support local forms ot democracy that limit decisionmaking to the locals who are affected by these local issues.  Or is LBird a Leninist who advocates ultra centralism? Why is he so reluctant to answer I wonder?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, YMS, read this post, and stop making up stories about what I'm supposedly writing. As for robbo's "Outraged Individualist!" account of 'my ideas', I've given up trying to correct him. If you and the others want to attack robbo's account, be my guest. 

 LOL LBird you are a laugh-a-minute.  If you think my interpretation of your worldview is incorrect and that you do not after all endorse the  Leninist  position of ultra-centralised society-wide decisionmaking – turning the whole of society into a single office and a single factory in Lenin's words – then you have a simple course of action available to you. – DENY THAT YOU  ADVOCATE SUCH A THING! You say you have "given up" trying to correct me on this .  Really?  When have you ever tried to begin with, huh?  By my reckoning you have not tried even once to "correct " me on this but have shied away from any serious debate on this matter every time .  You never once said "I do not advocate society wide central planning". Not even once. I have given you opportunity after opportunity to say "I do not support such thing".  But not once have you taken such an opportunity So here is a very simple question for you LBird – I dunno why I even bother asking you given your track record of evasion  but what the hell.  My question is simply this: Do you believe that in communism there will be local forms of democracy as well as regional and global forms? In other words, will there be cases where democratic praxis limited to local communities? Can you you answer this simple question without your usual equivocation?.  Its a simple enough question, after all, and it will salvage your position at a stroke and send your critics into disarray if only you can answer it correctly.  We will no longer have grounds for calling you the orthodox Leninist you appear to be

[Author]

Posts