robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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
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 lolI 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
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
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
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
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
Capitalist Pig wrote:it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole bunch. I bet there would be many 'true' communist parties that would be in competition for power, debating endlessly on how communism should be implemented. You underestimate the power of propoganda, even if something is untrue, if repeated enough times it will become true in the eyes of the public.I advocate for the establishment of a state so that civil liberties will be protected under law and so the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people. But essencial liberties must be protected at all costs in order for the state not to go totalitarian, this will be the ever-lasting duty of the people and the media.There are other ways you can go about it but I think this is the most practical in order to prevent mob-ruleAgain, you are ignoring the question – what is the mechanism by which a "few bad apples" could ruin it for the whole bunch in socialism? How can they impose their will on a majority when 1) goods and services are freely available to all and, as a corrollary 2) all labour is performed on a purely unpaid unremunerated basis? You dont explain. But for your argument to hold any water at all you need to explain how this minority can persuade or force the majority to give up common ownership of the means of production in favour of minority ownership of those means. You need to explain how this supposed minority might be able to leverage things to their advantage. But you dont . All you are offering here is a knee jerk prejudice, not a thought-out argument As for your advocacy of a state in which "the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people" this totally contradicts your previous comment. In socialism, you posit a hypothetical minority – a few bad apples – that will somehow conspire to thwart the will of the majority (and suceed in doing so) by putting their own needs before those of the majority. Yet here you are advocating a state-run sciety in which this same powerful minority or elite will be interested in formulating a "planned economy according to the needs of the people" There is only one way in ehuch you can operate a class-based and, hence, statist society and that is in the interests of its ruling class, And equally there is only way in which the "needs of the people" can be served and that is by getting rid of classes and the state
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
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
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?
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’).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
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
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…
