[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 I don't support majority rule no. I explained my views in my earier posts so i really don't want to go into another detailed post. What i think basically is that if we let things to be decided on a majority vote, those who aren't in the majority will be marginalized. I think its sort of a herd mentality

 CP, what you are effectively saying is that you think it is better that a minority should marginalise the majority than that a majority should marginalise a minority.  Individuals in the minority carry more weight in your book than individuals in the majority and should therefore be able to overrule the latter.  This is exactly the circumstances under which that phenomenon you fear most – mob rule or the knerk yerk, irrational, over reaction of the disenfeanchised – will occur.  It is the blind lashing out against the systemic contempt of the minority establishment shown towards the majority Treating everyone as equal, as carrying equal weight means treating everyone with respect.  This is why in a true democracy, while the will of the majority will and should prevail, there exists the optimal conditions in which every attempt will be made to accomodate  the wishes of the minority – that is to say, to compromise with the minority rather than marginalise them. Conversely it provides the optimal conditions for the minority to treat with respect the wishes of the majority, As long as you have class ownership of the means of production iyou have a fundamentally adversarial  social mechanism in place by which the majority will be permanently marginalised with all that that entails

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

ALB, note carefully that I did not claim that reforms “were inevitably detrimental to working class interests”.Instead I issued the challenge: “how on earth can anyone tell what reforms are beneficial to the working class in a system based on robbing it?”

By reducing the rate at which it is robbed, pehaps?  Isnt that of some benefit?  

twc wrote:

Again, on the point about “stopping a war”.  Wars are stopped every second week in the Middle East.  People have won Nobel Peace prizes for stopping wars that continue to rage.I repeat, with variation, “how on earth do you stop wars when the system continually breeds warfare in the first place?”There are no permanent solutions for these conundrums.

Well, if war is prosecuted under capitalism because the population in general, being nationalistically minded, acquiesce and even enthusiastically support such a thing, then I put it to you that to the extent that a socialist movement grows, to that extent will it become more and more difficult for capitalist states to wage such wars in the so called national interests. They will increasingly lack the mandate to do such a thing..  There may even come a time in the twilight years of capitalism when wars will cease to exist. The machinery of capitalist propaganda will by then have become so effectively spiked that it can barely function at all This is an important point to emphasis – the qualitative and indeed cumulative impact of the growth of a robust socialist movement on the very dynamics of capitalism itself. We dont emphasise this point enough. The growth of the socialist  movement will in itself signiificantly alter and radicalise  the entire social environment in which it occurs.  That in turn will have a powerful selective influence on the nature of the oppositional forces  that  the movement will then face. For instamce, I cannot imagine the continuation of any kind of significant ultra authoritarian or fascist movement surviving under these circumstances.  Two such totally opposed worldviews cannot both flourish in the same soil We sort of recognise this argument when we say, come the time a socialist movement can be counted in the millions, the parties of capitalism will most likely be more generous in the refrorms they offer.  Indeed we shall probably see a signficant shift in the patten of state speinding away from such things as defence (or for that matter, splashing out 200 million quid plus on refurbishing the royal housejold such as has just been sanctioned) to spending on things like healthcare.  The social priorites will change as the social envirornment changes.  Thats Historical Materialism 101 and it has important implications for the role of socialist delegates in parliament at this stage But we dont emphasis this argument enough, frankly.   It is one of the most powerful arguments that you can possibly make against taking up a reformist position – that ironically the quickest route to achieving what the reformists want inside capitalism is to repudiate reformism itself!

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 

robbo wrote:

The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s. 

 Precisely.  Like health, it’s threateningly expensive to support.  It threatens return on investment.

 Yes but the point is that it is not the provision of education per se that is threateningly expensive but the extent of that provision and only temporarily so .  Hence the slight drop in real terms  since approx 2010 .   But this will surely change as economic conditions pick up. Capitalism needs a relatively educated workforce , more so now than ever before in this "Information Age". "Education education education" has become the mantra of capitalist states the world over. They understand its critical importance to the self expansion and accummulation of capital

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

robbo wrote:

I think (twc) has an overly mechanistic ring about it.

No. A scientific determinist ring, like all science—the science of necessary process, or else no science at all.In place of deterministic science you skirt perilously close to the fantasy fiction:Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy?The Party case has always been that capitalism requires democracy to legitimate itself.So far, democracy has not lived up to its originally perceived threat to the capitalist system, and has so far failed to put a dent in capitalism itself, which continues to rule triumphant over whichever democratic team has the dubious privilege of “running” it.On the contrary, capitalism has knocked “capitalist sense” into its left opponents, democratic or anti-democratic as the case may be.Once Socialism is on the move, a parliamentary electoral system—no matter how gerrymandered or jury rigged—is powerless to stop it.You seem hung up on the meerest details of hypotheticals.

 I dont recall having said anything of the sort, TWC… When did I suggest: Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy? My point was totally different. I was making a distinction between political reforms and economic reforms. I was saying that it was quite right that the party should say workers should struggle for political reforms that would enable a socialist party to operate in a relatively democratic environment . You cannot effectively operate a socialist party in a dictatorship. I further argued that this struggle for basic democratic rights   is in no sense reformist .  In fact ironically I am rather supportive of your line of argument which suggests that reformism is essentially focussed on the economic dimension/realm of capitalism. I certainly do not envisage socialists representaives being somehow "magically elected" to parliament under dictatorial conditions.  How on earth did you manage to draw this conclusion? 

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

I repeat, how on earth can anyone tell what will “benefit the working class” in a society based on robbing it? 

 TWC would you not say that reducing the rate of exploitation is of some benefit to the workers even if its predicated on the fact that workers  are exploited in a society that , in the final analysis, cannot be run in the interests? Also, I wouldnt say its strictly true that "It is precisely education and health provisions that currently threaten capital’s ability to expand itself".  According to this site:Education spending now represents around an eighth of overall spending. The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s. Figures 1a and 1b show the alternating periods of flat and rising real education spending over the second half of the twentieth century, as well as education spending rising as a share of national income over time. https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education Yes there has been a slight dip in spendng in real terms from roughly 2010 onwards as you can see from the accompanying graph but, to be pedantic, it is not the provision of education that currently threatens capital’s ability to expand itself but rather the extent of that provision,  Capitalism would barely function if at all if it made little or no provision – particularly now in the "information age" The same sort of conclusions generally apply also to healthcare provision.  See here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/healthcare_spending  Of course , there is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and the financing of these elements of the social wage out of general taxation  (the burden of which falls squarely on the capitalists alone),  will express itself as a compensatory downward pressure on real wage levels  (disguised as tax deductions on the workers pay slips).  But again, this is affected by the ability of workers to organise and resist such pressure ,  It is not automatic in the way water finds its own level

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Capitalism can’t be reformed to benefit workers without threatening its very own conditions of existence—capital acting as capital, i.e. private capitalist-class return on investment dominating all social practice,  i.e. dominating the working class.By what criterion can anyone judge that a “reform” will bring “benefit”, to the working class, when the entire social system reproduces itself by exploiting the working-class?Capital necessarily reproduces itself to the detriment, not to the benefit of the working class!The process of capitalist reproduction ensures that its conditions of continued repetitive existence are necessarily self-correcting, self adjusting, self adapting.In short, if you temporarily weaken capital, it systemically reacts and survives, because society must function and, under capital’s domination, society must function on its terms of existence, or not at all.And because capital adapts to its very own nature, any temporary “benefit” to its class enemy necessarily succumbs to capital’s own necessity.The class struggle, fought out under capitalist conditions, of capital simply acting out its very own inflating self—expanding itself through employing the working class—cannot permanently be won against it on a field it already controls.If working-class benefits, that threaten capital’s ability to expand itself, could be won under capitalist dominant conditions, why Socialism?

I understand what you are saying here and have a lot of sympathy for the argument but, even so, I think it has an overly mechanistic ring about it. Its implications can be interpreted as endorsing a somewhat fatalistic view of the world. That, in turn, could react upon or sap, the intensity of class struggle to resist the downward pressure exerted by capital on working conditions and wage levels. After all, it is historically the case, surely, that workers have been able to secure improved conditions and wages and that there was nothing automatic about this.  The capitalists did not grant these improvements out of the generosity of their hearts.  They had to be struggled for There's that great quote from Marx in Value Price and Profit: "Profits [or wages] is only settled by the continuous struggle between capital and labor, the capitalist constantly tending to reduce wages to their physical minimum, and to extend the working day to its physical maximum, while the working man constantly presses in the opposite direction. The matter resolves itself into a question of the respective powers of the combatants."  So the question of struggle cannot be excised as a factor in determining the social outcome – even if the system is rigged in favour of capital as you rightly point out.  This is true even at a time of recession when relative wages and conditions are being pushed downwards by the inexorable force of capital readjusting to adverse circumstances.  If workers did not offer some resistance their plight would be even worse. There's one more observation I would make. We are talking about reforms that would vaguely bring benefits to workers.  But specifically in the context of the socialist case against reformism (which I fully support) what does this actually mean? I put it to you that there are some "reforms" that dont actually fall under the general rubric of "reformist" in that sense, at all.  For instance, how would a reform in the field of civil liberties, such as the extension of franchise, be subject to the inevitable readjustments capital makes in the face of workers’ demands that you speak of?  I think when we are talking about reformism we are referring to a specific class of reforms that are economic in character.  That is to say, their FOCUS is the economic sphere and their FIELD of operation is political – the state via state legislation.  Trade Union struggle is NOT reformist because even if its focus is also the economic sphere, its field is not political (but economic) In short, what makes a reform “reformist” in these terms is the specific configuration of its focus and its field being the economic sphere and the political sphere, respectively.  Any reform offering a different kind of configuration does not strictly come under the rubric of reformism. I think this is implied in the argument you present which focuses on the essentially economic character of the process by which capital readjusts to ensures its own reproduction to the detriment of workers interests.  But you dont tend to find something similar going when the focus is the political sphere.  For instance, what sort of compensatory adjustment has capitalism made in response to the demand that the franchise be extended that is analogous to what goes on in the economic sphere?  All the evidence suggests that there is a long term secular trend towards the bourgeois democratisation of political life.  Places like China and North Korea are holding out but in time they too will succumb to this political process.  Several decades ago almost all of South America and Africa was subject to political cum military dictatorships but the situation is quite different today This is important because the SPGB has always rightly said workers need to struggle for basic democratic rights in the first instance.  I fully endorse this position and would argue that in no way is it reformist.  It lacks the specific configuration of FIELD and FOCUS that would make it reformist and therefore subject to a kind of capitalist clawback or readjustment process you speak of So to conclude – when the first socialist political delegates are elected to political office, it is important that it be clearly understood by everyone that they are elected for one purpose only: the establishment of a socialist society.  That will happen once the requisite electoral majority is achieved and indeed saying this is in itself the guarantee against reformism since it flatly rules out the possibility of these delegates forming a “socialist government” to administer capitalism (since automatically once such a majority is achieved, socialism follows).  In other words, it intrinsically rules out a reformist ticket. However it doesn’t rule the possibility of socialist delegates in parliament considering the reforms advocated by others on the basis of their merits as far as promoting the interests of the working class is concerned.  In no way can this be construed as encouraging the idea that capitalism can be operated in the interests of the working class.  All it will be doing is tipping the balance of forces a little more in favour of the workers in a larger struggle that the workers cannot win while they remain committed, by default or design, to the continuation of capitalism itself

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

 But why should we help workers who resolutely choose to continue to vote for the continuation of the conditions they later fight against? Of course, most workers haven't come across the socialist case, but those who do and reject it should have to learn to stew in their own juice.

 Taking that attitude though is not going to encourage them to see the error of their ways.  I fully agree with ALB on this.  Socialists should contest elections solely on a socialist ticket but, in office and whilst still a minority, should consider voting in favour of certain  reforms on the basis of their merits in benefitting the workers, however temprarily.  Needless to say this does not mean advocating such reforms as per the old Second International's  minimum programme. History has decisively demonstrated that you cannot ultimately put forward both a mimum (reformist)  and maximum (revolutionary) programme and by the very nature of things the former will prevail at the expense of the latter

[robbo203]

John Pozzi wrote:

And of course, where there are no commodities like natural light, energy, air, water, land, food, shelter, climate, law, biodiversity, exchange, and consciousness, there is no life. You are living in the world of Smith and Marx where the commodities (products) of labor were thought to be the base of the economy. The were wrong. The Physiocrats knew that it's the products of nature are the base of our economy. – Play with it.  Consciousness is in your biology.

John you are jumbling up a number of different things under the general rubric, "commodity".   Natural light is not a commodity – it is not bought and sold.  Food for the most part today is a commodity although there is a still a vibrant peasant subsistence sector in  many parts of the world where food is produced directly for consumption not for sale. Contrary to what you say Marx was fully aware of the significance of the "products of nature" as appropriated and transformed by human labour.  He regarded human beings as part of nature different from other parts simply by virtue of being "self aware" and capable of reflection and abstract thought (though I think that is too cut and dried given the advances in our understanding of animal behaviour)

[robbo203]

John Pozzi wrote:

The Global Resource Bank is a direct democratic economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and medium of exchange are owned and regulated by a global community that utilizes GRB ecos as their medium of exchange,  i.e., GRB socialism.What do "we" seek to use in your SOCIALISM as your medium of exchange?

John,  I was going go make more or less the same point as Tim. Exchange necessarily implies the exchange of property titles and consequently by definition precludes the notion of common property.  It is meaningless and not sensible to talk of property titles being exchanged amongst those who own in common the property in question which in socialism involves the entire apparatus of production  itself.  If there is no exchange there can be no mderium of exchange – money Any kind of quid pro quo exchange involves both the acquistion of new titles and the forfeiture of old titles to the things being exchanged on the part of both parties to an exchange and therefore is based on some form of private property

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I don't support mob rule, it may sound nice but I guarantee it will go to shit very fast. The state needs to exist for the stability an advanced civilization needs. If you give all the power to the people soon enough you won't have a civilization anymore. It will be replaced with chaos, disorder, lawlessness, a burnt shell of what society once was basically.

 Just as a matter of interest, does this mean then that you oppose the concept of democracy altogether? I actually take the direct opposite view – advanced civilisation actually needs democracy and can only truly flourish when you have democracy..  Even within capitalism in which we have a fairly rudimentary form of democracy called "bourgeois representative democracy" there is a discernable correlation between economic progress and the extent to which bourgeois democratic rights are permitted.  Authoritarian regimes tend on the whole to be less economically developed – though there are exceptions I also completely reject your equating of democracy with  the term "mob rule".  Mob rule is only the flipside of the same coin on which rule by the state exists,  Mob rule arises precisely in response to the inadequacies and repressiveness of state rule,  It is not an alternative to state rule but the progeny of state rule. Mob rule, with all that it implies – the irrational, emotive, knee jerk of the masses to an intolerable situation – is not what democracy is about – at least not in the sense that we envisage democracy in a socialist society.  Because such a society will be a classless society it will ipso facto be a stateless society and by calling for the retention of the state you are effectively calling for the retention of class society. You are effectively calling for the retention of the very conditions under which mob rule asserts itself

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 my computer just shut off b4 i could save my f'ing comment i got to start all over…What i meant by a planned economy is an economy based on producing products for use.Under your envisionment of communism there will be no mechanism for a minority to leverage power but what I was trying to say is that communism can not be implemented perfectly as you envision. Democracy is a double edged sword, it lets the majority exurt its will through a popular vote but at the same time represses the will of minorities, which could lead to human rights violations. There needs to be a balance between the power of the state and the people, with one extreme you have totalitarianism and the other you have mob rule.never heard of a natural economy but my guess is that it never even existed lol

 I understand what you are saying but be aware that the concept of a "planned economy" has other connotations and is usually associated with  a command economy model of state capitalisn such as existed in the Soviet Union which we socialists do not support in any way.  A "natural economy" is essentially a non-exchange or non-monetised  economy and in that sense has certainly existed.  Peasant subsistence production is an example of this. As I and others here have tried to explain the concept of democracy in socialism/communusm that  we put forward is something much more nuanced than you are attempting to portray.  For a start, we do not envisage the continuation of the state in communism,  The state is a particular kind of institution that can only exist in a class based society.  In communism there are no classes – because the means of production are held in common – and therefore there can be no state. There will be democracy in communism, however,  as a  natural extension of common ownership but democracy will be a multi-faceted and multi-level phenomenon, operating at different scales of social organisation – local regional and even global.  A further point is that the scope of democratic decisionmaking, though it will be significantly wider than is the case today , will have limits and will need to have limits.  It has to be counter balanced by considerations that bear upon the freedom of the individual or indeed  the minorities you speak of (meaning democracy will tend to take a consensual. form based on compromise rather than an adversarial form)  In fact, I have always argued that the great bulk of decisions in a communist society – if we are to be quite literal about this – will not be democratically-based but individually-based,  For instance it would be up to you as an individual to decide what you wish to consume or what work you wish to contribute.  This is implicit in the communist slogan "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs." Where democracy comes intio the picture is when you have decisions that need to be made that have unavoidable collective or joint impacts.  It is quite right that the people who are going to be significantly affected by a decision  should have a say in it.   The only alternative to that is to have decisions imposed on you from above and I am sure you wouldnt agree with that! So certainly democracy has a very important role to play in a future socialist or communist society but it is not quite the role you seem to imagine

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 You assume that people are capable of running a planned economy on their own, people are only motivated through materialism, and civil liberties will always be upheld by a complete democracy. Your idealogy only thrives in a perfect world with perfect conditions and perfect people who all share the same collectivist ideas. Reality and ideology are like completly different things, you claim your model is applicable in reality and when problems come up you shield yourself from them saying that it is impossible for it to fail. With the populace being the ones that write and enforce the laws, people will simply pick and choose which laws they want to follow which means no law or order. Your idea is good in concept, but bad in practice.what i mean by a planned economy is a economy based on directly meeting needs and wants instead of through exchange as in a capitalist one.

 I am not assuming any of the things  you say, CP and I certainly have not suggested that socialism would be a perfect, problem-free society.  Rather my argument hinges on the point – which you have still not addressed –  that there wil be no mechanism inside a socialist society by which a minority could leverage political power over others in a way that might threaten thier "civil liberties". Again I ask you – show me how this could be done when goods and services are available on a completely free access basis .   You talk about "materialism" but this is a very materialist observation I am making! Thank you for explaning what you mean by a "planned economy",  I think the descrition is misleading however for the reasons I stated – that every kind of economy involves planning and that, if you mean by a planned economy specifically a system of centralised society-wide planinng then this will definitely not be what socialism is about.  I think the term that you are searching for is not a planned economy but a "natural economy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_economy

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

To be fair, Robbo, CP is correct in the sense that we do seek an industrial production system that is planned, where their exists coordinated networks with rational decisions made in cooperation. Rather than opposing a planned economy, as yu have pointed out in contributions it is the centralised system of command economy, of government ministries laying down quotas and priorities for semi-independent enterprises who are still in competition for resources and labour. I am sure you can explain it more clearly to CP, Robbo. What socialists  oppose is the anarchy of production and the waste of socially unnecessary competition. We do seek a democratic planned world economy and once again we can thank capitalism for putting into place many of the foundations and structures of a supply and distribution chain that we will inherit and, adapt, and apply via various existing and future bodies. This isn't new. Syndicalists and Industrial Unionists have formulated plans of how they will do it, some of which are now obsolete.

 Well the problem is, Alan, that the term "planned economy" has precisely this connotation – of a "centralised system of command economy". That is why I do not use such a term to describe socialism.  In fact, I see it as being completely incompatible with socialism.  It is trying to plan the economy as a whole – that is to say in terms of a single giant plan. It can't be done and even if it could be done, it would be fundamentally at odds with the whole ethos of a socialist society. The issue is not coordination per se but the mode of coordination.  A self regulating economy is a coordinated economy just as much as a hypothetical centrally planned economy.  A self regulating economy is polycentric with numerous nodes or centres making their own plans in response to other plans in a mutally adjusting fashion.  There are multiple plans in other words but the interactions between the plans are not planned in advance .  If they were there would not be multiple plans.  There would only be one single plan. If we reject the idea of a single giant apriori plan for the total pattern of production then it logically follows  that we accept the need for a multiplicity of plans that interact spontaneously in a mutually adjusting fashion.  In other words  we accept that the total patten of output is unplanned – even if everything that is produced has been  planned for in a sense.  It just that the plan involved is one of many plans Because the total or overall pattern of production is not planned it must ipso facto be spontaneously or anarchically arrived at.  This is why I have grave misgvings about the expression "anarchy of production" to which you say socialists  are opposed. it is potentially highly misleading.  Seen in the light of what I said above,  any system of modern production cannot but be "anarchic" – including socialism.  "Anarchy of production" in that sense will and must be every bit as much an aspect of socialism as it is of capitalism. When we talk about the anarchy of capitalist production it is important that we should NOT appear to be attacking this self regulating aspect of capitalism which will also be an aspect of socialism,  Rather it is the economic laws of capitalism that we are alluding to here  that emerge and operate in defiance of human intentionality.  No one, for example, intentionally planned a recession, for example.  It periodically happens as a result of the inner dynamics of capitalism and its law of value Its got nothing to do with the fact that capitalist production is self regulating and not coordinated through a single planning authority. – or that captalism is not a planned economy in that sense

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 What you advocate sounds nice but it isn't based in reality. You don't explain how people will manage the land and what would be done to prevent the liberties of people from being trampled on, you just repeat how a planned economy will be all great and wonderful so there will be absolutly no problems. You probably have an anarchist view which I disagree with as you know but just stating the concept of a planned economy won't win you an agrument.

 Socialism isnt  yet a reality, I perfectly agree, but you are not surely suggesting here – are you? – that what you call "reality" is something that is eternally fixed or preordained?   Go back a few centuries and some people will be raising the very same objection about capitalism as you do about socialism – that is "not based on reality". I am not suggesting everything will be hunky dory in socialism, that it will be some kind of perfect utopia. Of course there will be problems to overcome. There always will be . The case for socialism is simply that it affords us a much better framework within which to solve these problems. The case for socialism is a pragmatic one I am not at all supppsing that individuals will be transfomed into angels without character defects. When you ask "what would be done to prevent the liberties of people from being trampled on " you seem to implying ths.  You seem to be implying the need for a strong state to exist to prevent our defective human nature from expressing itself,  We are basically all rotten apples – to use your metaphor  – in the end. This is  looking at the question the wrong way round.  You are starting from the individual.  You see the individual as someone with an inherent tendency to dominate others and trample over their liberties.  I am starting from society and the way it is organised.  My argument is that there is no social mechanism inside a socialist society that would allow some individuals to exert social power over others.  If there is then show me what it is.  That is my challenge to you.  Show me how, given a society of free access to goods and services, any one individual or group can bully, blackmail and generally coerce others into doing something against their will.  Common ownership of the means of production dissolves the very basis of political power itself – the state Finally,  I havent mentioned a "planned economy" at all so I am curious as to what you mean by this. All economies without exception involve planning,  Capitaliism is full of plans.  Usually by a planned economy is meant the idea of a single society-wiide plan to cover the entire economy. But I dont advocate such a thing it all.  In fact I am a fierce opponent of the idea and have argued against it repeatedly.. Socialism will necessarily involve a considerable degree of decentralisation.  It will necessarily be to a considerable extent a self regulating or self ordering system of production.   I think you are confusing the outlook of socialists with that of Leninists and their talk of a planned economy.  And by the way – how many anarchists do you know of who endorse such  a thing? I think you will find most if not all anarchists woud oppose it too

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Why Whiteboard Videos work in education https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgB3jyxQXiM&t=42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&t=105s I was thinking we could create a character like Frank Owen in the Raggered Trousered Philanthropist  Or even do the book in a series?Or alternatively create another socialist character?Would appreciate any input.

 Very interesting videos indeed.   I think the case for making use of this sort of technique is very strong

[Author]

Posts