robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well. I mean how can you exercise democracy without such quantitative "counting"?
Y'know, sometimes I wonder at the childishness of all this.I say 'theory and practice' – the materialists say 'what about practice, LBird'.I say 'subject and object' – the materialists say 'what about object, LBird'.I say 'ideal and material' – the materialists say 'what about material, LBird'.I say 'mind and matter' – the materialists say 'what about matter, LBird'.I say 'consciousness and being' – the materialists say 'what about being, LBird'.I say 'quality and quantity' – the materialists say 'what about quantity, LBird'.I just know that if I said that 'I love cheese and onion crisps', the materialists would complain about my hatred of onion.I have to believe that you're all doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that 'materialists can't read'. It's so circular and depressing – we never take the discussion forward.
Well you started it all off by your assertion that it is "not a matter of counting heads" when you could have very easily said it is "not ONLY a matter of counting heads" Clearly you do now acknowlege that counting heads does matter. Good. So now can we move on to the main points which are 1. How will 7 billion workers be expected to vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms and procedures involved in a global vote of this kind? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?and2, Why do you consider that the law of value will continue to apply in a communist society thus requiring the workers to vote upon its application when such a law is only applicable to a commodity producing society?Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird. So help me our here. You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy. Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?
No, it's not 'a matter of counting heads' (a physical count of material beings), but 'a matter of counting minds/opinions' (which includes, obviously, consciousness). So, it's as much qualitative as quantitative. 'Counting heads' is merely quantitative. You might argue 'it's only a matter of words', but I think your choice of words is very revealing.
You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well. I mean how can you exercise democracy without such quantitative "counting"? How would you know what was the majority position and what was the minority position without "counting"? The idea is absurd. That aside you have still not answered my main point LBird. Why in a communist society would workers want to vote on the question of value at all? Value as I tried to explain, pertains only to a system of commodity production. Communists advocate a society without commodity prduction yet here you are arguing that value is something that will be a question to be voted upon in a communist society. You clearly do not understand Marxism if you think that law of value will apply to such a society.
LBird wrote:To control the means of production, we have to control all of our social activities. There can't be an elite who claim to know, outside of our democratic control. That leads to 'private property' in both ideal and material.There are two different responses to this claim of yours LBird Firstly, your postion is far too black of white. We either have to control all our social acitivites or an elite will control them, according to you. I take a quite different position to your control freakery . That there will be a huge chunk of our social acitivites that will not need to be subject to any control at all but will be spontaneously orderedSecondly who is the "we" in "we have to control all our social activities". Are the citizens of Greenwich in communist New York going to have the right to determine where the citizens of Barnet in communist London want to locate their spanking new community centre in a future communist society? If so can you explain how this is going to be done in practice. If not , then this would mean that some of us would control some social activities relevant to us while others would control other activities relevant to them so that there would be a spatial division in decisionmaking.This, too, undercuts your simplistic black-or-white representation of democratic control in a communist society
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?
Not at all LBird. Im just curious as to how you figure 7 billion workers are gonna vote on the question of value. What does that mean in plain english? What is the motion(s) that they are supposed to be voting on? What are the procedures involved in collecting and processing the votes of 7 billion workers? And what is gonna happen when the result of the global vote is eventually revealed – that is to say, what is the real world effect that this vote is goonna have? Why are you so reticent about providing a straight answer to all these fairly simple straightforward questions?Oh and while you are at it, could you please explain what is the point in voting on the question of value anyway. You claim to be a Marxist. Well I thought that that Marx was fairly clear on the matter – that socially necessary labour time was something that was only discoverable through the market in a post hoc sense. Do you envisage retaining the market in your workers democracy LBird?
LBird wrote:The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird. So help me our here. You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy. Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?
LBird wrote:Do we really have to have a discussion about the benefits of 'democracy' for the proletariat?I won't derail this thread, but simply say that I was answering alan's appeal for an understandable explanation.One's view of 'value' will be determined by one's view of "workers' democracy".Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote? I fondly imagined that the "law of value" would disappear under communism anyway
alanjjohnstone wrote:. Robbo, why bother responding in anyway to religious fundamentalism, whether it is IS terror or assassination of abortion clinic doctors? I agree that we don't end social ills by arguments which i think is what you mean. Only by the creation of a just equitable economic system removes the core root causes of religion. Like the State religion withers on the vine when socialism is established , but we cannot have socialism without the acceptance and cooperation of the majority of people which means we have to devise an approach that is inclusive of those with religious beliefs.You misunderstand me, Alan. Im all for attacking the objectionable social policies of various religions. What I question is the point in attacking the metaphysical assumptions underlying religious beliefs. As I read you, you seemed to me saying that we have to point out to religious folk that they are mistaken. which I took to mean that they are mistaken in holding those metaphysical assumptions and that the task of a socialist party is thus inter alia to convert such people to an atheist position. This, in my view, is utterly futile pointless and irrelevant. If we are going depend on the working class rejecting religion thats never gonna happen. On the contrary, as the link I provided shows, religion is gaining ground both absolutely and relatively on a world scale notwithstanding the process of secularisationAs an addendum to this I would point out that the overwhelming majority of atheists are firmly pro-capitalist and, in my experience, atheists tend to be disproportionately more militantly pro capitalist than non atheists. If you don't believe me pop along to the Socialism versus Capitalism FB page (which has incredible amount of traffic and it growing by leaps and bounds). I have been active putting across socialist ideas on this site for a few weeks now and have had the usual run-ins with a large number of people on such issues as the refugee crisis and terrorism, Interestingly, those who take a hard line nationalistic even racist position on these matters, Ive noticed, tend also in the main to be declared atheists. I find this quite disturbing actually and it does kinda demonstrate how a blanket critique of religion can quite easeliy be co-opted by some unsavory anti-socialist cause. Repeatedly you find the same old argument cropping up. The Quran says this therefore this is how Muslims behave. Since what the Quran says is objectionable therefore we must oppose Muslims and prevent them coming into the country to undermine "our way of life". Always the assumption is that you can read off how a Muslim is likely to behave by perusing the Quran – as if Muslims don't cherry pick the bits they like and conveniently forget those they don't just like Christians do with the bible. As Ive pointed out repeatedly to these Islamophobes if what they said was true how would you account for conflict between Muslims themselves. How could they come to be at each others throat if they were all singing from the same hymn sheet Now I quite agree that correlation does signify causation and I would be the last to suggest that applicants to the SPGB who profess to hold atheistic should therefore be excluded from membership . But exactly the same argument should apply in the case of religious applicants. Each applicant should be considered solely on the basis of her understanding of what socialism is about and her affirmation that this is an objective that she wants to see realised regardless of whether she holds religious beliefs or not, But this is not the case at the present time is it
alanjjohnstone wrote:You will say you have the better way than than the enn xclusivity of the SPGB. But you yourself if i interpret your past posts have a fairly narrow definition of socialists with religious ideas, ie you also cannot accommodate any who adhere to various church canon or whatever, there has to a "revolution" within many religions…some say the process is now going on in christianity but can we say that with the election of Modi and murders of beef-eaters in India, just to use another example that is not muslim fundamentalism, is this "revolutionary" transformation of religion really happening?Pragmatically speaking I have argued a case for a compromise postilion which allows in only those individuals who do not actually belong to an organised religion. So people holding personal religious views would be admitted. However ideally speaking I would prefer even this restriction to be dropped. If someone is a member of the Muslim faith and happens also to be a socialist, I think sooner or later the problem of trying to square her socialist convictions with some of the objectionable social policies of that faith will cause her to drift away from it. Either that or should there be sufficient numbers of Muslim socialists to make a difference this might actually transform the character of that religion in quite a dramatic way. I personally don't think thats likely in the case of Islam but it might be in the case of some other religions. Religion has a remarkable capacity to adapt to changing social circumstances and it will be interesting to see what form religion will take in a socialist society. That is assuming we will ever get such a society which we wont if we insist that everyone needs to be an atheist before we can have socialism
alanjjohnstone wrote:. With a billion and a half who profess adherence to Islam, sooner or later we must try to convince them that they are as mistaken as Christians, Hindus and Buddhists.Why bother Alan? Religions have always been adaptable. Far better to focus simply on the objectionable social policies that various religions endorse rather than metaphysics of religion as such. Then everything else will fall into line. Socialist believers within these religions themselves will be a factor in bringing about this adaptation If you going to try to get Islamists, Christians Hindus Buddhists et al to believe that they are mistaken in a blanket sort of way then you have set yourself the task of Sisyphus. Its just not going to happen and the sooner comrades wake up to this fact the better, The secularisation thesis is just not working out and was never likely to“Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population”http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050
Here's something that might be of interesthttp://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cancer-modern-capitalism-1323585268
robbo203 wrote:I was referring to the Muslim population in France. My suspicion is that they're now more likely to want to strongly disassociate themselves completely from the likes of ISIS post Paris, rather than court more yet Islamophobia which is not in their interest. The statement from the British Council of Muslims seems to bear this out . In this sense the ISIS strategy is counter productive in that it is likely to reduce the pool of potential supporters among Muslims in western countries with Muslims themselves taking the initiative in this regard in coming out against ISIS in blunt forthright terms.More proof of thishttp://mashable.com/2014/09/22/notinmyname-muslims-anti-isis-social-media-campaign/?utm_campaign=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it#cFkPrPbliiq6
LBird wrote:.They know that, no matter how many innocents they murder, the response of The Real Terrorists in our world will be to murder even more of those from whom the 'guerillas' originate. Since that potentially supportive population will have already experienced much worse violence and many more deaths from murderous policies of The Real Terrorists, than happened in Paris, they will have little sympathy for those murdered in Paris.I was referring to the Muslim population in France. My suspicion is that they're now more likely to want to strongly disassociate themselves completely from the likes of ISIS post Paris, rather than court more yet Islamophobia which is not in their interest. The statement from the British Council of Muslims seems to bear this out . In this sense the ISIS strategy is counter productive in that it is likely to reduce the pool of potential supporters among Muslims in western countries with Muslims themselves taking the initiative in this regard in coming out against ISIS in blunt forthright terms. It is also counterproductive in that it is likely to prompt a stronger military response to add to the pounding that Russian warplanes are currently delivering. But yes for Muslims living in the places like Syria, I agree that the outrage that occurred in Paris is unlikely to weigh that heavily on their minds
LBird wrote:Capitalism is recruiting for a war. Calling only one side 'scum' is dangerous, and shows a bias to the ruling class.I'm quite happy to call the ruling class scum as well and have done so. And i have repeatedly pointed out on forums that I am involved in that this is a case of reaping what you sow, ISIS being the outcome of western military adventurism in the main. That doesn't make ISIS any the less scum though
alanjjohnstone wrote:Will most people differentiate between ISIS and muslims? There is a good chance of a backlash…and it has been happening for some years now as islamophobia has grown …Followers of Islam being tarred with the same brush. This alienates them and provides an increasing pool for ISIS to recruit from, not a shrinking one as Robbo believes…the rudimentary propaganda tools remain the same …my "people" right or wrong. Didn't we have experience of this in Ireland…when internment created converts to the "cause".I am not sure that that is true in this case, Alan. There are two conflicting tendencies at work here in response to Islamophobia. One is to alienate Muslims and provide , as you say, a larger pool of potential support for organisations like ISIS. But there is another tendency at work too which is a move to deflect Islamophobia by siding with the status quo in its attack on extremism. This is exemplified by the approach adopted by bodies like the Muslim Council of Britain http://www.mcb.org.uk/horrific-attacks-in-paris-muslim-council-of-britain-responds/ I would posit that the more dramatic the outrage the more likely is the second tendency to prevail. In France since the Charlie Hebdo incident, attacks on Muslims have increased significantly. I would imagine that most Muslims would be extremely wary and fearful of the consequences of this latest outrage in Paris for themselves, their job prospects, their children and so on. This is why I suggest a tipping point may have been reached and that we are likely now to see a decline in support for organisations like ISIS. In other words what ISIS has done has been self defeating
ALB wrote:Go here and scroll down and click to see inside and see what Niall Ferguson says on pages 17 and 18 of his 2008 best seller The Ascent of Money:http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0718194004#reader_0718194004I notice that Ferguson goes on to make some absolutely ludicrous claims about hunter gatherer societies!
ALB wrote:What's wrong with these nutters? Anyway, I'm not going to Paris for the climate change demonstrations there on 1 December. Not sure about going to the one in central London on 30 November either. And some people think fascism is still the main threat to rational civilisation.These scum seem to have lost the power of reasoning altogether. Even in terms of their own sick agenda, this is stupidity in a grand scale. What could they have possibly hoped to have achieved by it? It will lead to a redoubling of efforts to crush ISIS militarily if indeed this atrocity was carried out by ISIS returnees as seems likely. It will also, I think, likely push most Muslims in the direction of much more vigorously disowning what is being done in their name as a way of dealing with the fallout and backlash of a rising tide of anti Muslim sentiment which may well mean the potential support base for ISIS and co, steadily shrinking. These morons cant seem to see that what they have done makes their fascist dystopia an even more improbable and unfeasible option than it was to begin with. Thanks ISIS – with a single stroke youve made the task of revolutionary socialists that much more difficult in a world in which a cowed and insecure population will accede even more willingly to the authoritarian edicts of governments – those same governments whose military adventurism in the Middle East is what gave birth to this Frankenstein monster that is ISIS, in the first place
perspicacious wrote:Natural capital, human capital, and social capital, can't be subordinated to financial capital, a point that socialists misinterpret and carry too far with a bizarre belief that a cadre of elite central planners can somehow replace the countless decisions made by individuals in deciding how goods, services, and other value propositions are weighed, measured, and exchanged.Where do you get this bizzare idea that socialists hold this bizarre belief?
