[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Quote:

In the division of labour of modern advanced societies, unproductive functions in this Marxian sense occupy a very large part of the labour force; the wealthier a society is, the more "unproductive" functions it can afford. In the USA for example, one can calculate from labour force data that facilitating exchange processes and processing financial claims alone is the main activity of more than 20 million workers. Legal staff, police, security personnel and military employees number almost 5 million workers.

no direct citation is given for this information, but several links to related studies and documents are listed at the bottom of the wikipedia entry.  Presumably the numbers came form a recent paper written in the USA, if that helps you find the original data and methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_and_unproductive_labourSeems like marx had some non-intuitive views on productive and non-productive labor which maybe you want to consider in framing your question? maybe you're question needs to be rephrased or expanded on or revised in order to get an answer that has value to you? here's some other key quotes that caught my attention in the wikiepdia entry. . . the definition of productive and unproductive labour is specific to each specific type of society (for example, feudal society, capitalist society, socialist society etc.) and depends on the given relations of production.there exists no neutral definition of productive and unproductive labour; what is productive from the point of view of one social class may not be productive from the point of view of another. 

 As mentionined in the OP , socially useless labour is not the same thing as unproductive labour though there is some overlap between them

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Socialists would not really be interested in this scheme of yours and you are wasting your time with this sales pitch of yours

So who made you the leader and spokesperson for all socialist?  I thought socialist didn't have leaders anyway, but you certainly seem to be acting like one.  I doubt you truly understand socialist as people who might have diverse opinions from yours.  here's a question for you  you mentioned. . ."this is not how humans normally interact outside of the market context."  Convincing you of that is the best trick John Gault ever pulled on you.  You'll find your answers where you least expect them because John Gault hid them in the last place you'd ever think to look for them and made sure with social norms that they would be the last idea you try only after everything else failed.  Well, everything else socialist have tried has failed.  So time to start trying the things John gault fooled you into thinking that only capitalist do. Stop believing capitalist who tell you "there's nothing here of value to you. look over their and try the direct approach again". 

 I don't claim  be a "leader" or "spokesperson" of other socialists, Steve – or a follower for that matter…  Simple commonsense, putting two and two together, tells me  that your schema  would be 1) an impractical bureaucratic nightmare 2) in no way conducive to the kind of thinking socialists would want to foster. By John Galt, (not Gault)  I assume you mean the fictional character in Ayn Rands trashy novel Atlas Shrugged. The gist of what you seem to be saying here is that I and other socialists should start doing what the capitalists are doing because ..er .. everything else we socialists have attempted to do has failed. And then you have the nerve to say you doubt that I truly understand socialists as people.  What arrogance! Its time to eat some humble pie and start to listen to what socialists are saying to you.  It may very well be the case that socialism may never happen and that a movement for socialism will never take off. That will not deter me as a socialist from continuing to be a socialist.  As individuals and also as a hitherto small and ineffectual movement, we do what we can to make the world a better place. Our efforts are not wasted even if the goal we strive after might prove elusive.  For instance, being a socialist is the most effetive thing you can do right now to put a spoke in the wheels of the juggernaut of  jingoism that  drives  this society toward military conflict. Socialists operate from a certain perspective on the world , a certain set of values.  Your schema does nothing to advance either. I keep on telling you that there is a world of difference between the kind of generalised reciprocity socialists advocate  and the market-like quid pro quo exchange system you advocate but you never listen.  The lesson never seems to sink in.  You don't seem to understand that the ideological viewpoint you are promoting is fundamentally a pro capitalist one, notwithstanding your obsessional fixation with the idea that exchanges should equivalent.  You think that that is promoting "fairness" and "equaity" but it is actually promoting capitalism.  This notion of explicitly measuring what each side to a quid pro quo  exchange contributes is precisely what lies at the heart of the notion of exchange value going right back to Aristotle who Marx quoted in Capital – the notion that exchange is necessarily an exchange of equivalents.  This is what market trade is ostensibly about. You are in effect telling us that we should adopt the position of a market trader in our dealings with one another and then you wonder why we universally spurn your advice! The ends don't justify the means Steve , but determine the means.  A stateless non market society we advocate requires the adoption of an approach that is wholly consonant with that goal.  Understand that and you will have at least learnt something from these "exchanges" we are enabling you to have on this forum

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

1) "Since capitalism is a worldwide class society and exchange economy, it is clear that the exploitation-less alternative to capitalism would have to be a classless world society without exchange." – well, sort of I agree.  This has exchange, but it's not exploitative. people still do favors for each other and put objects in the hands of others and that's what I mean by "exchange".

No he doesn't agree at all. Of course people will continue to do things for each other after capitalism has been ended but he wants to make things worse than they are under capitalism by applying the capitalist principle of equal exchange even to the favours people do for each other. 

Indeed, exactly so.  His problem is that he does not seem  to understand the difference between exchange in the looser or wider sense  – as when one exchanges pleasantries or ideas – and exchange in the narrow economic sense referring to quid pro quo market exchanges.  His obsession with quantification – "if you spend 20 minute reading what I have to say I will spend 20 minutes reading what you have to say" – suggests to me that Steve from San Francisco has quite a way to go before breaking with a capitalist  mindset. He still has not understood the point that socialism is about generalised reciprocity, not quid pro exchanges. Frankly speaking my eyes just glaze over at the mention of such wacky nonsense as his " universal exchange protocols" or whatever it is that Steve is tiresomely peddling.  It seems so utterly contrived and forced, This is not how humans normally interact outside of the market context and the thought of submitting our every action to some sort of convoluted system of balancing to ensure exchange equivalence strikes me as quite appalling and a recipe for a bureaucratic nightmareSo thanks but no thanks, Steve.  Socialists would not really be interested in this scheme of yours and you are wasting your time with this sales ptich of yours

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 Well, yes I agree.  I've proposed an answer for you and you have not yet perceived it. I'm starting a great movement that answers a lot of your needs. What if I start a socialist revolution and you refuse the invitation?  

 LOL Steve The very fact that you are obsessed with this silly – not to say tiresome – "universal exchange protocol" of yours and that you insist on exchanges taking a quid pro quo  form and that these should be quantified, suggests to me that you have still quite a long way to go before you break with a capitalist mindset.   Also, you should be aware that neither you nor even a group of like-minded individuals are hoing to be able to "start a socialist revolution", anyway.  It has to be the conscious act of a working class majority.  Are you flirting with Leninist ideas now?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

As I keep telling you, robbo, you're an 'individualist', and so you see 'society' as a collection of 'individuals' (Fred next door, Samantha down the road, one person and the next), and so, naturally for your ideology, you interpret 'production' to be something done by 'individuals'.But I'm a Communist and Marxist, and so I look to social groups when discussing 'production', and the interests and purposes of those social groups when they engage in their 'social theory and practice'.So, for 'individualists', 'production' is 'individual production', whereas for 'Communists', 'production' is 'social production'.These opposed ideological bases of ours lead us to differing conceptions of the nature of production, and how it is controlled. And this further leads to issues about whether 'power' is 'individual', 'elite' or 'social'.Socialists are concerned about social power and who wields it, and a subset of this is the social production of 'science'. Because 'science' is powerful, its control is of great concern to those who wish to build for a social revolution against the ruling class, who employ their 'science' to keep power out of the hands of the masses, and who build a socio-natural world of an elite making.Since you don't recognise these categories and political issues, because the world is made of 'individuals' for you, then these concerns are essentially meaningless to you (and, in fact, are seen as a 'danger' to the elite individuals who do science, in your ideological world).To you, 'democracy in truth production' is dangerous, whereas to democrats, it is essential.

 But you have still not explained why the global population should vote upon thousands upon thousands of scientific theories.  WHY LBird? What is the point of  the vote on this matter? Workers democratic control of production I can perfectly understand but "workers democratic control of scientific truth" is  just plain  bonkers. And I wont even go down the road of asking you how you propose to logistically organise this global vote  not just once but thousands of times becuase I know you won't answer my question.  It will be too embarrassing even to try. Also, let me just point out while you are labeling me an "individualist" that your own  position has got nothing to do with Marxism or Marx.  Nowehere did Marx ever suggest that scientifc truth should be subject to a democratic vote  Marx like me would agree that science is indeed a social product but just because it is a social product doesnt mean you have to vote on it!.  The laptop you are wtiting on is a social product,  Do you think the global population should have a democratic vote on whether you deserve to have this laptop?  No the theory you advance is not Marxist  but Birdist.  You are a Birdist not really a Marxist… As for my being an individualust, this is wrong LBird.  I dont see society as just a "collection  of individuals",  Truth be told I subscribe to "emergence theory" which, as you will know, means that while society" supervenes" on individuals in the sense that you cant have society without individuals, you cannot nevertheless reduce society to individuals.  Individuals constitute society and are constituted by society,  Its a two way thing. What about you LBird?  Do you think it is a two way thing? Or do you think that only society exists but not the individuals comprising it and that you and I conversing like this dont actually exist but are just a figment of society's imagination?  Whats your view LBird.  Do you exist?   Cos, if you dont, I might be wasting my time trying to converse with you…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 OK so can you now explain why do you want the global population to vote on the" truth"  of scientific theories.  What is the point of the exercise? 

I keep telling you this, robbo, but you keep ignoring what I write.The 'point of the exercise' is that only the producers can tell the 'truth' ofwhat they produce. And the only way within a society, like socialism, that produces democratically, is to vote.

 But thats NOT explaining why they need to VOTE to determine the truth is it now?Lets for the sake of the argument go along with your statement that "only the producers call tell the truth" – what does that mean?  According to you everybody is a producer in socialism: there is  no non productive class.  So everybody "tells the truth of what they produce", You dont need to consult society as a whole by means of a vote. All you need to do  is consult your fellow producer next door. "Oi Fred, could you tell me what is the truth about String Theory, Does it hold water or is it a load of bollocks?" Fred being a producer will then give you a spot on answerBut what happens if Samantha down the road, who is also a producer, disagrees with Fred?  They cant both be telling the truth can they? See, this is what is so wacky abouy your whole argument.  You say only the producers can tell the truth. So why are they voting then?To vote implies the possibility of diasgreeement which you rule out by saying only the workers can tell the truth of what they produce.  But clearly this is nonsense since what is true for Fred is not true for Samantha 

LBird wrote:

I also explained why you don't agree with Marx's views (which I do agree with) about 'social production' and the 'self-determination' of the producers, is that you are not a 'democratic socialist' concerned with 'social production', but you are an 'individualist' concerned with 'material' biological sensation.

Marx said a lot of things but one thing he definitely did not say is that workers would vote on scientific theories as to whether they are true or not.  That is LBird's absolutely  unique contribution to the intellectual history of the Western World as we know it. No one but literally no one has ever come out with this idea, You are a very special kind of intellectual LBird,  A true one off! Saying that ideas or theories are socially produced  – which incidentally I fully I agree is the case  – does NOT mean therefore that they must be subject to a democratic vote.  Thats not what democracy is for.  This is your problem .  You dont understand what democracy is for.

LBird wrote:

You believe that 'Truth' simply 'exists' somewhere 'out there', and this can be passively 'discovered' by 'disinterested' bourgeois scientists, who have a 'politically-neutral method', which is only available to an 'expert elite with a special consciousness', but not available to the masses.

 What nonsense is this??? I have ALWAYS argued that there is no such thing as some diembodied objective truth that exists somewhere out there and is  discoverable by some politically neutral method.  I have ALWAYS argued that there is no such thing as a value free science. My position is that the truth is a relative thing and will differ from one person to the next.  You are the one who wants to objectify truth and set it in concerete on the basis of a show of hands.  You are the one who has a bourgeois hankering after the objectifcation of scientific truth.  You cant pin that one on me, mate I see absolutely no necessity at all for voting on the truth of scientific theories. Indeed, in  a sense this is anti-scientific this view of yours. The only possible reason I can think of as to WHY you want a vote on scientitific theory is that you want to crush any possiblity of heretical views arising in opposition to orthodox views.  You want complete social conformoity and compliance with the status quo.  Your model of a socialist society is a herd of sheep grazing contentedly on a hillside somewhere.  You cant bear the thought that people might be different and have differnet notions of the "truth".  Your instincts are totalitarian, If that is not the case then why vote on a scientific theory at all? I just dont get it.  No scientist worth her salt is going to be kow towed into submission to orthodoxy just becuase it has the support of the majority for the present. That is not how science develops.But that is apparently how you want science to develop

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

Well, since I regard 'production' and 'truth' (we socially create both, by theory and practice) as 'social products', and I'm not 'confused' by my open ideological stance in science, you'll have to tell me where you disagree with Marx, and why you regard 'truth' as an elite product.I suspect that your faith in 'materialism' is going to come into play in your explanation.You should speak to YMS first, though, and get your 'individualist biological sense' explanations in sync. Of course, you'll both deny that you're (like we all are) 'ideologists', and simply defer (perhaps unconsciously) to bourgeois ideologists.

 OK so can you now explain why do you want the global population to vote on the" truth"  of scientific theories.  What is the point of the exercise?  What is supposed to happen after, lets say, 51% of the global population vote in favour of string theory?  Enlighten us ,,,er ,,"bourgeois ideologists"…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, why won't you allow a vote on 'truth'?

It's not up to me, or any socialist to say how socialism will be democratically be run, I just don't see what the earthly use is, and I note that democracy is about more than voting.

This is probably the most thoughtful post that you've made, YMS.The fact that you 'don't see what earthly use' there will be for democratic truth production, is something that can be overcome with socialist education, where our class will come to realise that we alone have to educate ourselves, using the democratic means that we will require for our socialist society.

 So what is the point of voting on the "truth" of scientifc theories LBird? Could you explim what you hope to acomplish by such a vote?And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

I think the purpose of the "off-topic" rule is not to make the forum into an equivalent of the word association game "just a minute", but to enable a means of preventing individuals and groups from turning every post into one about their pet topic, gripe or obsession. It's one thing for conversation to naturally progress, it's another to continually force the same topic upon people.

 Hmm I'm not sure how true this is DJP….. For starters, the off topic rule doesn't prevent  the obsessional person from obsessing "on topic" or initiating theads about their "pet topic, gripe or obsession"  Secondly to indulge your own obsession in "off topic" mode,  you need some kind of linking argument that connects the original post with what what you eventually want to  talk about or obsess over in order for you to come across as more persuasive.  Otherwise people are just gonna ignore you. Now this is no bad thing as this stretches peoples imagination and forces them to think outside of their own little box And thirdly there is the point that people tend to vote with their feet.  An obsessional poster who bangs on about the same old thing repeatedly will become boring and  not elicit much in the way of response..  Others will just start new threads to get from a discussion that appears to be stuck in a rut.  I think the approach that I am advocating – to drop the off-topic rule altogether  – will actually encourage contributors to diversify and be creative if they want to capture the attention of others

[robbo203]

I think the point is Mod1 we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what the purpose of a thread is or should be. .. I see the title of a thread as indicating only the starting point of a conversation that can lead to all sorts of unexpected twists and turnings and new terrains of thinking.  To me, the concept of "derailing a thread" is meaningless – or should be –  because  it implies the direction of the debate should mechanically go along fixed tramlines regardless whereas,  in real life, conversations don't  develop like that.  We are grasshoppers by nature! One thought can lead to another and then another until eventually we are talking about something that is wholly unrelated to the original thought.  That is what I am saying the forum should be more like You however see the title of a thread more as a kind of straitjacket that serves to restrict the discussion in the thread along certain lines through the duration or the life of the thread  –  though admittedly you want to loosen this straitjacket  a little. I don't think this is helpful to you guys as hardworking Mods or beneficial to the  forum in general.  I would seriously urge you to rethink your approach and think of the title of the thread as a merely a kind of opening gambit to star a conversation  My guess is that a lot of conversations would continue to focus on the original focus of the opening post but not all thread would or should.  There is certain logic in the way a thread progresses, moving away from the contents of the original post.  Its not just random.  And I think if you start imposing cut off points where posts come to be considered to be "off topic" you lose a lot of the richness of the argument that comes with just letting things flow naturally and take their course

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

And still, not one member or sympathiser of the SPGB argues for workers' democracy in truth production.

But WHY WHY WHY do you want such a thing as "workers democracy in TRUTH production".???  You never ever explain.  Workers democracy in the production of goods and services I can perfectly understand and support –  but TRUTH?  To me the idea is bonkers.  Plain bonkers.  And the thing is you make no effort at all to explain the reasoning behind this I have never heard such nonsense and don't kid yourself that its got anything to do with Marx or Marxism.  There is not a single source you can cite which would support this claim of yours.  I think the only person I have ever come across to put forward this balmy idea that the general populace of a future socialist society should vote in the truth of scientific theories is your good self,  This idea of yours is unIque to you and you alone.  Prove me wrong if you can Anyway, what are you hoping to achieve by workers democratically voting on whether a particular scientific theory is true or not?  Please explain. So they take a vote and by a narrow margin agree that some particular  theory is true.  OK so now what?  What is supposed to happen?  Are we not allowed to question this scientific theory anymore – or what?  What was the purpose of taking the vote in the first place? You seem to have a kind of religious-dogmatic view of what science is about

LBird wrote:

To elitists, democracy is always 'impracticable'.

 Attacking your idea has got nothing to to do with supporting elitism.   It is not democracy that is impracticable but your particular take on what democracy entails.  Of course it is impracticable to suppose that tens of thousands of scientific theories can be voted upon a global population of 7 billion people. Have you even the slightest inkling of the logistics of such an undertaking How can you seriously think that is "practicable!?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Bollocks.

LOL! And this is the philosophical-intellectual part of the SPGB!You can't argue with me, ALB, because I can produce the textual evidence for my arguments, and point to the political experience of all workers when confronted with 'materialist' parties, like the SPGB.It's the usual Leninist special pleading for cadre/specialist consciousness, which the class/generalists can't presume to vote against.It'd be more suitable if you tried to learn from educated workers, but 'materialists' resent the very suggestion, that the class 'knows better' than the Party.That's why only the class can determine their socio-historically produced truths, by democratic methods.

I think ALB is quite right.  It is "bollocks" to say the SPGB and the SWP.are essentially the same and that they both "claim to have a special, elite access to 'Truth'." The latter nonsense stems from LBird's nonsensical, non-Marxist and totally idiosyncratic idea – I have never heard it being expressed by anyone else – that the truth of all scientific theories  should be voted upon  by the entire global population.  Nowhere does such a silly impractical idea appear in any of Marx's writing and if LBird can show otherwise let him produce the evidence. Saying that there is bound to be a social division of labour and specialization  does NOT translate into "elitism". LBird doesn't seem to understand what elitism means.  But as far as the SPGB is concerned I have never once heard the suggestion being made that only a small section of the working class are capable of understanding socialism.  On the contrary the opposite is true.  It is constantly pointed out that any and every worker is fully capable of understanding socialism and indeed that the great majority need to if socialism is to be established So LBird is indeed talking bollocks,  That apart , there are very substantial theoretical differences between the SWP and the SPGB  on a whole host  of  things and if LBird knew much about either organisation, he wouldn't have come out with such a crass claim

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

If a conversation drifts that's one thing, but if someone starts totally off-topic posts, and essentially derail the discusion, that does get in the way of free debate, it's very easy for two people havng a ding-dong to kill a conversation.  Rule 11 is the best rule there, and shouldn't need conflict, just an occasional nag from the mods.

You can have a ding dong and kill a conversation while remaining completely on topic. If people are unhappy with the way the thread is going then its simple – you just start up a new thread. Rule 11 is unnecessary and piles more work on to the workload of our hard pressed Mods as well as needlessly bringing them into conflict with users

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

FWIW see number 11 here:https://faq.worldsocialism.org/index.php?sid=4841&lang=en&action=artikel&cat=5&id=11&artlang=en

 Thats interesting DJP.  I think guideline No.11 needs to be scrapped for starters, thereby reducing the scope for conflict between Mods and users.  It really doesn't matter if the discussion drifts off topic and I cant imagine why people make such a fuss about it.  This is an unnecessary rule

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

We can see how Marx actually thought a party should be organised.  He did seek to centralise to some extent, but it's clear that that was in part a process of democratising and mofving away from the conspiratorial version of the rules:

[my bold]It's probably clearer to say that Marx thought the class should be organised in a democratic way.

YMS wrote:

But, it's clear that the congress of the league that retained supreme authority.

This is not 'clear' at all.Marx argued that the proletariat as a class was the 'supreme authority'.As is usual with materialists (like you), the emphasis is always upon 'party', and not 'class'. That's why you're following Lenin, and not Marx.

 Marx did say apparently that ‘the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct political party’. (D. McLellan, The Thought of Karl Marx, London 1971, p. 177.)

[Author]

Posts