[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

Interesting, but socialism obviously isn'y going to be an endless series of referenda about how many tins of baked beans we produce.

 Absolutely!  This particular section of the article caught my eye (and reminded me of our contributor, LBird) And that is the real reason why ‘real socialism’ has never been tried: even if it could be done logistically (which I doubt), it would be an absolute pain in the neck. Voter turnout would soon drop to rock-bottom levels. The economic planning process would become dominated by vocal single-issue groups, not ‘ordinary workers’. Eventually, all the heavy lifting would have to be delegated to expert committees The long shadow cast by the centrally planned model of socialism has done incomparable damage to the socialist  cause and – lets face it – this is what lies behind this grotesque caricature of the "economic planning process" in socialism – that all decisions affecting the production of goods will be made democratically by the population as a whole on a society-wide basis and hence in a centrally planned manner This has become a stick with which to beat the socialist cause – to demonstrate its alleged impracticality – and the Leninists and their ilk have conspired to give crediblity to this ridiculous accusation with their loose talk of a "planned economy".  As if the totality of production can ever be planned  in advance. I am more and more convinced that there is much mileage to be made for socialists to emphasise instead that real socialism must of necessity be a self regulating system of production in the same sense that a capitalist market economy is self regulating – except of course that a socialist system will be completely devoid of any kind of market transaction.  Sure, there will be a role for democratic decisionmaking within the vision of socialism and no doubt it will be much enlarged by comparison with today but we should not make the mistake of confusing the part with the whole 

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 I question your reference to the existence of a power vacuum.  In  socialist society, the material basis of any kind of political power structure will have dissolved. To put it concretely, what political leverage could  you or any group of individuals exercise over anyone  else when the means of living are free available to all without  any kind of quid pro quo exchange whatsoever and when work itself is perfomed on a purely voluntary and unpaid basis?

They will be available to all but also be up for grabs for any group that can gain influance with the people without an already established state. You can agrue if it can be possible for a group to gain influance but that is a possiblility in my opinion.

 You miss the point completely. To what end would any group "grab" what goods  it could for itself and therefore to the disadvantage of the general population? You are effectively saying that  such a group would consititute itself as a ruling class that can withhold the means of living – consumer goods – to people, having seized ownership of the means of producing such wealth.  How is this possible?  What is there in this arrangement that would benefit the general population or even a part of the the general population?.  Do you think some form of slavery or economic coercion is preferable to a society of free access to goods and services and volunteer labour  and that there will be people in a socialist society who might think this is the case and amongst whom this hypothetical group you speak of will gain influnce and make a bid to grab the goods that society produces? Frankly I dont see this as remotely possible. Free access trumps free markets every time.  Why would anyone rationally pay for something when they could get it for free? There is no way the market can compete against freedom – the freedom to determine your own needs and the freedom to contribute to society as you would wish without being subjected to the whiplash of wage slavery. If there is no possiblity of rationally persuading the population in socialism to support something  that runs directly counter to their own interests – and remember socialism can only be introduced if and when a majority understand and want it – then it follows that there is no possibility of some group, intent upon grabbing all goods for itself,  gaining any kind of influence within such a society.  This is what I mean by such a group not being able to exercise any kind of leverage.  The material basis of political power – minoroity ownership of the means of producing wealth – will have completely dissolved in a socialist society. Once the socialist genie is out of the bottle there is no going back

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 So without a state or any kind of entity to enforce the rule of law, what is stopping someone or a group from simply taking power in the vacuum. So without a state to enforce the law anything will go.What do you mean ideology is not applicable in a 'socialist society'? does this mean in your view diversity of thought should be banned for the greater good or something like that?

 I question your reference to the existence of a power vacuum.  In  socialist society, the material basis of any kind of political power structure will have dissolved. To put it concretely, what political leverage could  you or any group of individuals exercise over anyone  else when the means of living are free available to all without  any kind of quid pro quo exchange whatsoever and when work itself is perfomed on a purely voluntary and unpaid basis?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

For my ideology, robbo, 'democracy' is an inherent part of 'socialism'.For your ideology, 'democracy' is not an inherent part of 'socialism'.Thus, based upon your basic absence of 'democracy', you need a political justification as to 'why' have democracy.

L Bird you should really  be ashamed of yourself,  Either you are a congenital liar or you are a sandwich short of a picnic. When I have ever said or suggested democracy is "not an inherent part of socialism"?    The issue  is purely to do with the scope and extent of democratic decisionmaking in a socialist society.   Its got nothing to do with the fact that there will be democratic decisionmaking in a socialist society which, as a socialist and a democrat, I fully accept. As a democrat and a socialist, however,  I see absolutely point or purpose in a socialist society voting on the defintion of a gene, for chrissakes.  The idea is just totally preposterous.  There are quite a few decisions in a socialist society that will require democratic decsonmaking but this is most definitely not one of them.  I have asked you to explain why you think a global vote on the definition of a gene is even neccessary and how you imagine in your wildest dreams such a global vote of 7.5 billion could conceivably even be organised. Your complete silence on the matter speaks volumes.  Until you answer questions that are directly asked of you in good faith, you will continue to be regarded as having more or less zero crediblity and as a troll whose only purpose on this forum seems to be to disrupt and derail any kind of serious discission  here

Quote:

3rd and final warning:1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, you don't agree on the democratic production of 'genes' then, robbo. Fair enough.Who, in your version of 'socialism', will produce 'genes'?

 Could you first answer my questions LBird 1) Why do you need a democratic vote on what a gene is?and2) How do you organise this democractic vote among 7.5 billion people? Thank you

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us …

A good definition of socialism, robbo.'Each and every one of us will specialise in something that particularly interests us' – that 'something' being, of course, democratic social production.Of course, my ideological assumptions are democratic and communist, so I assume 'each and every one of us' is a collective, which aims to revolutionise social production, so that all of the collective benefit equitably, and 'equitable' is democratically decided.For you, though, being an individualist, 'each and every one of us' is assumed to mean as individuals.That's why you won't have the democratic control of social production, because you're really interested in your own individual production, and your own personal benefits, rather than what you are going to have to do to produce for others.That's the crunch in this issue – does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'democratic' (and so 'individuals' can be voted into doing something that they wouldn't if left to their own personal choice), or does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'bourgeois individual democracy' (which looks to 'individual sovereignty' in political decisions).That's what's at root in the debates about 'materialism' – individualists are elitists, and so must have something that is beyond democratic accountability, and for that they argue for 'matter'. They want something that they can 'touch', as an individual, and any argument that undermines their individual sovereignty over 'reality' is a political danger to them.So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls.That is, we can decide whether 'genes' are produced by us, or whether we wish to have a different scientific explanation for our social activities, beyond the 'biological' and 'individual'.That is, we can change 'genes', rather than contemplate them. 'Genes' are a social product, produced by a specific society, at a specific time, for specific interests and purposes. 'Genes' are not simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested scientists', and once 'discovered', are 'True' forever, as 'Facts' we must simply accept.End of a rather different political story, robbo…

  Another long winded attempt to repeat the same drivel and ignore  the same points made against you LBird.  Nice one.  But why am I not surprised ?  You are a past master in the art of deception and distortion. How  you can possibly deduce from that I said  that I am " really interested" only in what benefiits me and  not how I can benefit others,  I cannot imagine,  But then when it comes to a fertile imagination I defer to you every time L BirdNot content with fantasy you resorrt to fibbing as in this little gem ,  "So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls,  Actually LBird I specifically set up a thread precisely to "talk" about the subject of democratic production in socialism which you conspicuously shied away from ,  See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-and-democracyMRI scanners, tins of baked bins,  and size 43 brown boots with reinforced toecaps are all "social products",  Could you explain to me in simple terms how you propose to involve 7.5 billion people in a "democratic process" of  deciding on the design and output of these things?  I'm all ears, LBird.  Or could it be that actually it is YOU who refuses to entertain any talk about the democratic production of these social products?The same argument applies to the question of genes.  Genes, you say, are a social product, and in a democratic society, any 'definitions' would have to be decided collectively by all, for the purposes of all, in the interests of all.,  So you propose that 7.5 billion people should "vote on the definition of a gene" –  yes? There are really only two questions I would ask, then,  since youve expressed such a keen interest in talking about this subject:1) Why does it matter so much to you that the definition of gene should be "collectively voted upon"?   If me and my buddy thought  a gene was one thing and you thought it was something else would the fact that you had been outvoted 2 to 1 cause you to change your mind about what a gene was?  Why? 2) How are you going to organise a vote among 7.5 billion people and who is going to organise it?.  Would the vote on the defintion of a gene come before or after the vote on the tins of baked beans once weve had the Revolution? What, in your esteemed opinion, do you consider to be the more pressing subject for the world populace to get to grips with just so I can know for sure where my priorities  should lie?Im sure you are dying to tell us  and I for one would deeply appreciate a direct answer to both of these simple questions     

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

Yes, I know your 'position', robbo, and my 'obsseesion' is to find out why you, like all materialists, refuse to say who would produce these 'scientific values' which you already agree are within 'science'.In a democratic society, like socialism, surely all 'values' are 'social values', and thus should be amenable to democratic production?Or, if, like all materialists, you disagree with the democratic production of 'values', why not state openly which elite will produce these 'scientific values'?Not a 'derail' – in fact, in the context of Dawkins uncomfortable wriggling (over time, and about politics) about 'genes', surely a key question?Are 'scientific values' socio-political products, or are they 'material', simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'?And if they are 'material', why can't everybody know them? Why is 'matter' restricted to a 'knowing elite'?

 Yawn.  Ive  responded to these misrepresentations of yours on other threads so if you genuinely want to find out what my answers are to your ulteriorly motivated questions, I suggest you go back  to those earlier threads, LBird .  Dont derail this one.I repeat – just becuase knowledge is socially produced and conditioned,  does not mean each and every one of us must become omniscient and fully knowledgeable in each and every subject under the sun.  That is obvious except to someone so muddled and deluded as your good self, .  There is no "scientific elite" in that sense in my book  – only a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us as well as all of us being, to some extent generalists in other things. End of story…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism

Why should he have to do that, though, robbo?Surely 'his science' speaks for itself?If 'Scientific Truth' vindicates Thatcherism, who are we, mere workers, to argue with 'What Science Says'?Surely Dawkins should have simply insisted that 'The Evidence Speaks For Itself'?Why did Dawkins allow political considerations into his beautiful science?Or, were they always there from the start? If so, why would he hide it? Who would benefit from ordinary workers finding out that 'science is ideological'?

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I didn't notice it at the time but in an epilogue to the 40th anniversary edition of his notorious book The Selfish Gene that came out last year and republished in the March/April 2017 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer Dawkins admits that his definition is not, or no longer, the definition of "gene" used by genetists ("embryologists" he calls them) who are studying how they affect an organism's characteristics. He also concedes that "genes" (in his sense) are often closely associated with other "genes" and that it is only together that they have an effect. The book's title has been changed to The Extended Selfish Gene (reflecting a previous backtracking on what he wrote in 1976).

Quote:

They are also cooperative with other genes with which they share, not just the present particular body, but bodies in general, generated by the species' gene pool.

and so

Quote:

The Cooperative Gene would have been an equally appropriate title for this book…

Pity it wasn't. But it was and reflected the popular misconception that at the time was being promoted more than usual that humans were "naturally" selfish because this was genetically determined. Why did Dawkins agree to his book being called The Selfish Gene? No doubt because its publishers thought it would sell more with that title as opposed to The Cooperative Gene.  So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".

  Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/co-operation-makes-sense

[robbo203]

There is quite an interesting book written by my old Anthropology professor, Bruce Kapferer – a sort of maverick Aussie academic  now based in Bergen  – about the culture of  nationalism.  It is called "Legends of People, Myths of State:Violence, Intolerance, and Political Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia" and was published in 1988 though I see a new revised edition appeared in 2011. Here's a link to the book or part of the book itself:  https://books.google.es/books?id=eww8QyTSxQ8C&pg=PA1&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false What Kapferer tries to do is explain the power that nationalism holds over people, and its ability to capture their imagination and help forge their sense of identity.  He uses a comparative approach – comparing Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism with Australian egalitarian nationalism in terms of their different underlying "ontologies" or perception of reality. Australian nationalist ideology is rooted in individualism and since, according to individualist mythology, the individual stands above society and,in a sense, predates society – think of the whole idea of the "social contract" a la Hobbes and co out of which society was supposedly born – this is why the individual is conceived of as being  essentially a product of nature.  Little wonder that in the West where an individualist outlook is deeply rooted , you tend to find a heavy emphasis on "human nature" type of arguments against socialism.  It stems from the logic of individualist thinking itself Kapferer, if I remember correctly, also conjectures that racism itself is an outgrowth of individualist thinking.  This sort of makes sense.  If human beings are the "product  of nature" so to speak then, ideally speaking, each of us must be identical in our basic nature and attributes.  Socio cultural differentiation threatens the natural order and the autonomy of the individual in it. Socio-cultural differences are proof of the power of society  to mould individuals and thus to dominate them..  Hence racism.  At least thats how I remember the argument Kapferer was making…. Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism  he argues is completely different insofar as it based on a holistic , not individualistic, worldview.  In such a worldview, the individual is a product of society not nature.  It is the whole that determines the parts – not the parts, the whole. Social differentiation for example, as in the case of the caste system, is vital to maintaining the integrity and coherence of the whole, without which the individual loses his or her sense of identity and undergoes a process of fragmentation or dissolution This, according to Kapferer, is part of the reason for the sheer ferocity with which the Sri Lankan stage waged its war against the separatist Tamil Tigers.  At the symbolic level ,  it represented the fragmentation, or tearing apart,  of the nation state and hence also the  fragmentation of the individual within the body politic of Sri Linkan society. Their whole sense of personal identity is bound up with the maintenance of Sri Lankan society itself I think these kind of "culturist" arguments are quite interesting from the standpoint of building upon, or adding to,  a Marxist materialist explanation for the rise of nationalism and its enduring strength in today's world.  But I don't they can ever be  a replacement of the latter

[robbo203]

The nation state did not materalise out of thin air.  Still less did it always exist as some kind of  looming background presence or potentiality way back in the mists of time as nationalist mythology would have it.  Rather, it  was an almost deliberately crafted invention – see Benedict Anderson's book, "Imagined Communities", on this  –  the outcome of a complex process of structural and spatial reorganisation coinciding the emergence of capitalism.  In Europe in 1500. for instance,  there were approximately 500 more or less autonomous  political units – an intricate patchwork ranging Italian city states (though by then many of these had already fallen victim to conquest) to numerous principalities (often  themselves the product of dynastic splits) and a scattering of consolidated  kingdoms.   Some of these were nominally part of one or two much larger sprawling entities such as the Holy Roman Empire which was as Voltaire once remarked  was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire"  (Essai sur l'histoire générale et sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations,1756).   By 1900, however,  the political landscape looked very different indeed,  The number of self governing units involved had been drastically whittled down to a mere twenty-odd  nation-states having jurisdiction over the entire European landmass (Ch 1, "Reflections on the History of European State-making", Charles Tilley  The Formation of National States in Western Europe ,   Princeton University Press,  1975 , p. 24). In between these two points in time, an array of forces contrived to bring about this transformation, prominent among these being the emergence of absolutist monarchies in several parts of Europe in this period, most notably the bourbon  "Sun" King of France, Louis XIV  .  I am skeptical about the concept of "neo-medievalism", though.  Capitalist ideology and nationalism go hand in glove. While the one prevails, the other will continue – notwithstanding globalisation   

[robbo203]

Bob Andrews wrote:

I'm with you Johnners. And well done Gnome. A delicious smorgasbord of everything that is wrong with the Socialist Party of Clapham and why, unless they apply for a drinks licence for number 52, they are doomed. Look at the history. The political emigrees of 1848 and 1871, after all the political hoo-ha died down, found themselves in drinking dens, boozing, playing cards, smoking, getting themselves recruited as police spies and having sterile political arguments until the emergence of socialist politics in the 1880's came along to spoil it all. We've had almost 130 years ( if you include Morris' Socialist League) of socialist propaganda that has produced nothing, since it is based on a number of false premises. What we need now are licenced premises ( with a nice big telly to watch the footy). As far as socialism is concerned it's: Time Gentlemen Please!

 I had somehow imagined you were a member or sympathiser of the Socialist Studies group , Bob Andrews, but it seems now that you are either a non-socialist, or even anti-socialist, cynic.  Thats OK but why dont you just come out and say it so we all know where you stand?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Is there any corresponding full moon economic theory?

 I think you would have to be a "lunar-tic" to propose such a thing

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

 One way to test the theory would be to see if there is significant temporal correlation between sun spot events and economic events like crises.  Did Jevons ever do this or was it just speculation on his part that such a correlation  actually existed?

 Ah just spotted in your post , Adam, that Jevons did present such evidence but was the correlation "statistically significant"?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

The other objection to the theory is that it tries to explain the regularly recurring economic downturns that are a feature of capitalism by some event outside the system rather than by something inherent in the system itself.

 To be fair, though, you could argue that the sunspot theory could serve as a "triggering" event that impacted upon capitalism/s tendency towards disproportionate growth which underlies the capitalist trade cycle.   So while on its own it cannot account for the trade cycle, it could be incorporated as part of a larger explanation.  So, for example, if good weather caused by changes in solar radiation resulted in a bumper harvest causing prices to drop,  this could have knock on consequences that exacerbate disproportionalities in the economy and so lead to crises. This is only in theory, mind you.  I suppose it would depend on how serious an impact changes in agricultural prices had on the economy.  Capitalism is capable of absorbing minor oscillations in prices without this resulting in crises – though, in the long run, the cumulative effect of these inter sectoral changes will assert itself in the form of the trade cycle. Specifically , in relation to sunspot theory, the impact would be mediated by others factors such as how much of an effect changes  solar radiation actually had on agricultural output itself – the argument that a change in quantity leads to a change a quality which implies there is some kind of threshold the former needs to reach before effecting qualitative change,  This in turn might depend on the kind of agricultural technology employed and whether it could use more of some kinds of inputs (e,g, articfical nitrogen fertilisers) to compensate for the decline of others.  It would also depend, I guess, on how important the agricultural sector is in the economy, generally. In a part of the world where agriculture comprises the majorty of paid empkyment, changes in incoming solar radiation could, in theory, I imagine have significant knock on economic repsercusions One way to test the theory would be to see if there is significant temporal correlation between sun spot events and economic events like crises.  Did Jevons ever do this or was it just speculation on his part that such a correlation  actually existed?

[Author]

Posts