[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

If youve heard the term used in the media: 'alt-right', then are we alt-left? Would that mean alternative to the left? An article here elaborateshttp://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/

 Its quite a thought provoking article though one wonders what Eliot Murphy has in mind when he wrote this:"In brief, the day that class politics is replaced with privilege-checking is the day left-wing politics lies in its grave. We urgently need an alt-left which reorganises progressive agendas around traditional socialist and anarchist principles and movements but rejects much of the millennial forms of identitarian politics and instead promotes more traditional forms of collective action and direct engagement with existing democratic institutions"

[robbo203]

There is quite a good put down quote when dealing with Trot admirers of the Castro regime, which I recently came across .  Here is what Fidel said when urging Mexican businesspeople to invest in Cuba, in 1988:“We are capitalists, but state capitalists. We are not private capitalists.”   (Daum, Walter , 1990,. The Life and Death of Stalinism; A Resurrection of Marxist Theory,  NY: Socialist Voice Publishing., p.232)

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You really need to read what I write, robbo, and move on from your imaginary struggle with an issue of your own making.As for reality, you clearly keep stating that you will not have the producers determining the truth or falsity of what they produce by democratic means.Thus, you are an elitist. Just like the bourgeoisie, whose ideology you espouse.Now, leave the thread to those who wish to discuss jdw's link.

 I have read what you've written, LBird, as have we all. I wonder, however, if you have read what you've written. Its laughable really. Here you are accusing me of engaging in an "imaginary struggle" with an issue of my own making when in the very next sentence you reiterate the very thing that i had been taking issue with all along – your crackpot idea about the need for a global vote on the " truth" of tens of thousands of scientific theories,   And no , rejecting such a stupid idea does not make me an elitist  or – heaven forfend! – a "bourgeois ideologist".  LOL I stand by what I said. I am a democrat who fully endorses the idea that the  means of production should be owned in common and democratically  controlled by the people in a socialist society.  If you cannot figure out the difference between this and what you are advocating then there is no hope for you.  I've given up trying to explain the difference to you and you are clearly not interested in learning anything from anyone else,  You prefer to monotonously go on and on and on and on and on with this single boring meme of yours like a dog with a bone and its enough to make any sane person want to slash their wrists after reading a few LBird postings. Incidentally its amusing that you should call yourself a democrat  and then in true authoritarian/ vanguardist  style  , instruct me to forthwith leave this thread.  Is your Leninist past coming back to haunt you, LBird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

 Don't tempt me into a response LBird or you will once again get slaughtered for the silly tosh you constantly peddle.  Once more for your benefit – I support the concept  of  democratic control of the means of production; I do not support the patently ridiculous idea of the world's population democratically  voting to determine whether some arcane scientific theory is true or not. Have you got that or do I still need to explain to you the difference between these two things…

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, although in many ways Zimbabwe and South Africa Struggles were classical nationalist ones, there was also a real democratic issue, and, of course, the Southern African workers played an immense part in their own liberation, but the military rule of the colonialists would have been much harder to break without the Cuban assistance.  I don't for a second think this exonerates Castro, or means he was worthy of support, but in strict historical assessment, it is something worth mentioning.

 There is a useful article here which touches on the role of the Cubans in the struggle against the Apartheid regime's strategy of destabilsing the frontline states http://monthlyreview.org/2013/04/01/the-military-defeat-of-the-south-africans-in-angola/I speak from some experience here as my brother, Andy,  and I were young military conscripts in the South African army at the time – in the 1970s –  and were stationed in the dingy little town of Walvis Bay on the Namibian coast. We were due to be sent up to the Caprivi Strip where South Africa had set up a number of military bases to support its military campaign in Southern Angola against the MPLA and, later,  their Cuban allies.  South Africa eventually backed UNITA which also had American support. I remember vividly us rookies being processed in large military hangar and having to sign our last will and testament.  Wisely, Andy and I opted to join the regimental bugle band to be detained on regimental duties in Walvis bay while others were sent on up to the Caprivi. Years later after we had emigrated to the UK, I learnt from a lecturer at London university that the South African army had suffered a devastating defeat in Southern Angola and a large force – possibly a whole company of several platoons (I can't remember) – had been encircled by the MPLA and Cubans who had cut off all its supply lines.  South Africa was then forced to sue for peace and remove its military presence from Angola and you can imagine the demoralising effect, had they not done so, with scores of body bags being returned to the country. That was some time after Andy and I had done our military stint there and I cant recall if at the time South African troops had started to move into Angola yet though clearly they were intent upon invasion at this point .  All the same, I'm still quite thankful for my rudimentary drumming skills to this day!

[robbo203]

Thanks Dave ,  Thats a very useful start indeed.  If you have any other links you can post here that would be great, I guess the really tricky bit is to estimate the amount of  labour that is indirectly socially useless.  Banks for example are housed in buildings but we normally think of the construction industry as being socially useful,  In this instance part of the industry is devoted to provisioning a socially useless activity – banking.  The same argument applies to utilities and infrastructure Talking of the construction industry we should not overlook the truly monumental waste involved in empty homes.  In Europe there are 11 million empty homes (and 4 million homeless people). In America the figure is 18 million, In China it is a staggering 60 million.  And even this is only the tip of the iceberg.  It does not taking into account the numerous half completed projects (which are quite a common sight here in Spain) , not to mention all those empty offices shops, warehouses and factories  I think the figure of just over half the workforce being involved in socially useless labour is about right

[robbo203]

According to Marx, "if production were proportionate, there would be no over-production" (Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 2)  Would that not make him primarily a disproportionality theorist?

[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"

[Author]

Posts