[robbo203]

Steve What you need understand is that socialism is the proposition that the productive resources of the world should be made the common property of everyone in the world.  Production today is a completely socialised process. There is literally nothing that is produced today that does not involve directly, but mainly indirectly, the entire world's workforce.  Socialism amounts to bringing the nature of property relationships into line with the character of modern production. Hence the very word "socialism" itself.  It denotes not just social or common ownership of the means of production; it is also a reference to the the character of the production process itself This is important because, historically speaking, the rationale for capitalism promoted by its early ideologues like Locke was based on what was called a "labour theory of property".  Namely if you expended your own labour on something that product by right becomes your property.  However, this is looking at the isolated – and essentially mythic – worker creating things on her own and asserting her right of ownership over those things by virtue of the labour she expended on it,  Even if this idea had any merit in the past, it is absolutely no longer relevant  today.  Everything you touch and see and use as a product of human labour today contains within itself the congealed labour of millions upon millions of workers – like the workers who  mined the ore that was transformed into finished products like the turbines that drive the power stations manned by other workers that provide you with the electricity that powers the computer your are typing on and so on and so forth. So socialism entails common ownership of the worlds productive resources but what does this in turn entail? Above all it entails the demise of any kind of exchange economy To develop this point- we would not, for instance, think it sensible to talk of you having to buy a loaf of bread from the bakery you own.  It is because you own it that you can dispense with the formality of buying that loaf baked within its four walls.  The same logic would apply if a group of people owned that bakery or, indeed, if the whole of society owned it.   Actually, ownership by the whole of society of, not just the bakery, but all the means of the means of producing and distributing wealth – what is called a system of “common ownership” or communism/socialism – would in fact logically spell the complete disappearance of the market, of all buying and selling transactions, altogether.  This what the famous Communist Manifesto of 1848 was getting at when it talked of the “communistic abolition of buying and selling”.  Common ownership is what would make this possible It is frankly depressing to hear you talk of  the need for a "unit of currency for collecting taxes that is hourly based"  or of "outlawing fractional reserve banking so we don't have contend with bankers competing for power with us".  You seem to be completely trapped within the loop of reformist thinking that pertains to  an exchange based economy and, hence, a system of private property in the means of production.  It is little wonder that you are not having much traction here You need to raise your sights higher and begin to see the wood for trees

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

I think it is interesting to compare what it used to be like to now. Unemployment in the UK started to rise in the mid 1970’s reaching about 5% which is roughly the level it is supposed to be now. But I think the general political attitude towards it was more sympathetic then and it was less a matter of scroungers than a failure of the system. 

 Well, by way of contrast, here in Sunny Spain unemployment officially hovers around 20%. Has been like that for quite a while. On the other hand, to look on the bright side, the black economy is booming.  Most folk around  here are into it.  Check this out http://fortune.com/2014/02/14/spains-underground-economy-is-booming/ Paradoxically it is the misfortunes afflicting the official economy that is boosting the fortunes of the unofficial economy. Reduced tax revenues ,and  its impact on the  infrastructure of surveillance to implement a system of bureaucratuc surveillance effectively as well as the sheer numbers of unemployed workers, relatively speaking, makes it easier to get way with being in the black market.  Spain doesn't have that totalitarian feel about that Big Brother Britain has with its countless surveillance cameras and its overbearing anti-social security measures which monitor everything you do and your state of health,  as a precondition for being granted so called social security.  Its laughable that these people talk of the state providing social security.  The whole system is designed to induce a sufficient sense of insecurity to force you back into wage slavery. I suppose the other difference with Spain is the degree of corruption.  When politicians often used to get backhanders from property developers and get away with it – some still do – is is hardly surprising that peoples attitude here is thoroughly cynical.  "If they can do that and get away with it then why cant we" is an understandable sentiment. Of course, what Spanish workers get away with is absolutely small change by comparison You get the feeling this sense of outrage over prominent corruption cases which partly led to the rise of Podemos is what provoked the authorities into tightening up its anti corruption dragnet .  Instead of relentlessly  chasing after the myriad of little fish for their ill gotten gains which the state probably does not consider to be a very cost effective strategy at this point in time, my guess is that it is concentrating on  hauling in a few big ones in the hope that it will stems the tide of the black economy through the power of example,.  And also of course to placate public opinion which, as ever, is a vote winner in the turbulent political times for Spain

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If you do, Robbo, PM me so i can send you copy of my letter which is a rip-off some of your own ECA articles so we don't duplicate our replies. Or anybody else, for that matter

 Hi Alan  Yes by all means send me a copy of your latter so I can have a crack at Mr Sharpe. Cheers-

[robbo203]

+5

Subhaditya wrote:

 And of course you believe monogamy will solve all problems, the data that is showing otherwise you will not even go through it..

 Subhaditya Nobody here is saying that monogamy will "solve all problems" or, indeed, advocating monogamy per se.  I don't know why you keep on making this claim.  Very likely socialism will give rise to a  wide range of relationships but the key thing here is that this will be a matter of choice and free association.  That in itself undermines the central premiss of your argument – that socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion. I understand the argument you are making but it is highly reductionist and over simplistic.  Group  cohesion depends on many factors quite apart from sex.  There are even groups that cohere on the basis of complete celebacy.  Human beings are more than the sum of their sexual dives – much more – and if your argument held any water and these sexual drives gave rise to serious tensions, then  society itself would naturally adjust with respect to the pattern of sexual relationships. We don't need to adopt an overprescriptive approach that upholds group sex as some kind of obligatory practice and turns into a dogma to be universally adhered to.. The point is we don't know for sure how the pattern of sexual relationships  will pan out in a socialist society.  It is conceivable that some people will prefer to be in a monogamous relationship and I for one fail to see how such a preference could serve to undermine group cohesion in a socialist society

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

@Robbo203,You wrote. . .

robbo203 wrote:

I can very easily imagine an organisation such as this continuing to operate and do useful work in socialist society catering for the sexual needs of men and woman who perhaps might find it difficult to do this on their own and  need someone to advocate on their behalf in a caring and respectful manner.  The big difference of course is that these sexual services like all human labour  will be provided on a completely free and voluntary basis which is the logical corollary of the free access to goods and services that will be hallmark of a socialist society 

I don't think we need an "organization" and I think any organizations in a post socialist revolution society need to be considered with skepticism. How do we ensure the organization isn't extracting surplus value from the workers? Maybe that's the nature of organizations? If the "organization" you descibe did exist after the socialist revolution, then how would socialist leaders ensure the suruplus value extracted from any free assoication and exchange wasn't used by the organization in ways not of benefit to the people?  Even if we had the power and authority to stop these organizations in a socialist world, We'd still need to monitor and endorse or veto almost every voluntary free exchange offer between people and that would take a lot of time for someone or some "organization".   

 SteveThere is nothing wrong with the notion of organisation per se.  The Socialist Party is an organisation for example.  So is a Mothers and Toddlers Club,  So is the local association of Lifeguard  volunteers. How do you propose to organise a post capitalist world without …organisations!? An  organisation according to Wikipedia  is simply " an entity comprising multiple people, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment".  A local community has to have some kind of organisation to effect decision- making on a democratic basis.  So does a factory or other workplace in a socialist society. Otherwise we end up with a "tyranny of structurelessness"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness Your focus is quite misplaced.   It is not organisation per se that is the problem but its purpose and its relationship with the world around it that matters.  A socialist society will not harbour organisations within it that are  intent upon the extraction of surplus value from workers because a clear majority of people who had consciously set up such a society will have done so with the clear aim of abolishing exploitation and the existence of social classes that this implies. The collective goals of such a society and its social environment will be quite different to contemporary capitalism.Its as simple as that

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 Robbo, ultimately value collapses into money  M — C — M′.  Sure estimation is integral to the phenomenon, as price, but it isn’t the essence of the process of valorisation.  The bourgeoisie are at liberty to do whatever they please with their slice of the social surplus.

 I am not quite sure what this means or how it connects with my earlier comment.  Can you explain?  To me it doesn't make much sense to talk of valorisation without this entailing a subjective aspect.  If socially necessary labour time is basis of value then you have he problem of how to differentiate between different kinds of labour inputs and their differential contribution to the value of a commodity. To some extent this must surely be a matter of interpretation and subjective judgment.  There is no way of measuring objectively how much more productive a doctor is than, say, a nurse  – that is to say their respective contributions to the commoditiy in question assuming healthcare is a commodity in this instance

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 The theory of conceptual-commodity-value-management is founded on the ‘idea’ that the Marxian categories of value and surplus-value:are subjectiveare inherently arbitraryare independent of Marx’s labour power—i.e. now have nothing to do with how much labor-time is objectified in a commodityare ‘reified’ subjectively—i.e. established by decree—by network- and/or group-formationsare ‘stabilized’ and ‘standardized’—i.e. managed and controlled—by subjective manipulation and estimationall in accordance with money capital’s network and/or group common self-interests and self-image.

 The problem is that there is almost bound to be a subjective aspect to the labour theory of value and the Marxian categories of value and surplus value which is not the same thing as advancing a purely subjective theory of value as per marginalist economic theory which takes as its point of departure use value or utility.  The subjective – objective dichotomy is a false one. Socially necessary labour time is not something you can "objectively" measure with a stopwatch.  It is a theoretical construct.  For instance there is the problem of the heterogeneity of labour – different grades not to mention kinds of labour (unskilled , semi silked and skilled)  and their relaltive contribution to the product. How do you measure this relative contribution in each case. Marx got round the problem by simply ignoring it, saying that skilled labour was a multiple of unskilled labour- a reasonable supposition but it does not explain by how much precisely skilled labour is supposed  to be more productive than unskilled labour, or a doctor than a strucutural engineer.  We can only guess.  And is indeed subjective values that help to inform our guesstimates Ironically for all the nonsense that is written about the labour theory of value by its critics in mainstream economics, the capitalist class itself falls back on a kind of bastardised labour theory to justify its own existence.  A three hour lunch break by entrepreneurs gorging on lobster and quaffing Champagne and "discussing business" is reckoned to be well worth the "effort"  expended and justifies the grotesque differentials in the compensation package they receive vis-a-vis what shopfloor workers receive by way of a wage.  A difference in the order of magnitude of several hundred fold in dollars or pounds per unit of time. It is difficult to see how this not a subjective evaluation of the worth of their contribution by the capitalists which we, in the same vein, repudiate

[robbo203]

Subhaditya wrote:

At the height of the Victorian Age there were 80,000 prostitutes in the streets of London.The British army had an elaborate system to ensure their soldiers got sex from 'non local' prostitutes, probably for security reasons 'local' was avoided.Disabled people(men and women) make use of them as 'sex surrogates' and pay them for their services….. to say such a service is not required in a thoroughly monogamous society is a joke.If you fail to add this 'pleasant/unpleasant' task (which I understand will be voluntary like every other task) in a socialist society will mean socialism will fail in its promise to meet people's needs through peaceful cooperation.

SubhadityaWho is suggesting socialism will be a "thoroughly monogamous society" anyway?  I suspect it will be a highly variegated society in that respect. Actually, this is already  the case today: According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies from around the world noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry   (Wikiedia) In any case, extadyadic relationships – sex with more than just one partner – is not unheard amongst  monogamous couples, By monogamy is usually meant marriage with one partner only but the above article makes an interesting distinction between social monogamy and sexual monogamy. These categories allude to different, albeit overlapping, phenomena: The amount of extramarital sex by men is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 29 cultures, "occasional" in 6 cultures, and "uncommon" in 10 cultures. The amount of extramarital sex by women is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 23 cultures, "occasional" in 9 cultures, and "uncommon" in 15 cultures. These findings support the claim that the reported amount of extramarital sex differs across cultures and across genders You refer to disabled man and women making use of sex surrogates.  Although some disabled men and women do have long term intimate relationships,  I don't see a problem with the practice of sex surrogacy.  Just at random, a quick search on Google revealed a link to one such organisation – the TLC Trust – .  which has as its mission the goal of finding "responsible sexual services" for  disabled men and women  http://www.tlc-trust.org.uk/ I can very easily imagine an organisation such as this continuing to operate and do useful work in socialist society catering for the sexual needs of men and woman who perhaps might find it difficult to do this on their own and  need someone to advocate on their behalf in a caring and respectful manner.  The big difference of course is that these sexual services like all human labour  will be provided on a completely free and voluntary basis which is the logical corollary of the free access to goods and services that will be hallmark of a socialist society 

[robbo203]

Some comrades here, I think, need to gem up on How to Win Friends and Influence People.  I mean, really – this guy is just promoting what he sees as an "informational tool" but he has been jumped on and savaged for the privilege.  He has been accused amongst other crimes of being a rightwinger, a CIA spy and taking commission for selling the idea .  What next – ethnic cleansing? C'mon – chill out guys.  This is way over the top.  With holier-than-thou attitudes like this it is little wonder the WSM is struggling. It may very well be the case that holacracy is of no practical use as far as promoting socialism is concerned but do you really need to go about pointing this out in a manner that is so downright rude and unpleasant? If it happens to be the case that Steve is not a socialist or knows little about socialism – so what? Is this not a public forum?  Are non socialists not allowed to participate and to learn from the discussions they help to generate?Ironically, Marcos goes on about how the WSM yahoo group is more or less dead.  But it was he, as moderator of this group who was at least in part,  responsible for this decline.  He took it upon himself to evict one or two free marketeers at the time because he felt that they were diverting attention away from a discussion on  socialism,  A silly claim anyway because opposition to socialism or socialist ideas is actually an invitation to socialists to explain why our ideas are valid. As a result the forum went from being a lively arena of public debate to being as dull as dishwater. I bitterly opposed this decision as completely misguided and shortsighted – even undemocratic and against the sprit of democratic debate – and I was right to do so.  The fruits of the pudding are in the eating.  If you want to turn socialist forums into nothing more than an echo chamber for socialists only all you will hear is the few and steadily diminishing number of socialists voices getting fainter by the year. This is not a sign of confidence or belief in ourselves as socialists. It is a sign of weakness that we should see the need to take refuge in the narcissistic  comfort zone of our own dogmatic shells  Socialists can do better than that – a lot better

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 But as a curiosity, what is the evidence that the production of monumenetal structures and temples and palaces were celebrations of the power and wealth of the ruling class?  Kids who know knowthing of communism or socialism playing on the beach will often spontaneously work together to produce a monumental sand castle larger than any single kid alone could produce and they celebrate it and show it off. The kids don't seem to need a compusive ruling class ordering them to produce monuments to serve their parents.  It raises the question of in a classless state where their was no capitalist ruling class, then what would the communist do with their surplus?  there's a limit to how many cars you can want and toasters you can fit in your house and how many houses you could use before maintaining them became too tedious.  How long before an ideal communist state starts building space ships to mars or do they never do that? How long before they produce a taj mahal? is their some theory on this question? 

Well,  i think its pretty obvious that these monumental structures  were a celebration of the power, prestige  and wealth of the ruling class.  Lewis Mumford whose great work "The City in History" (1961) – I had a copy once but lost it – goes into all this in great detail. Palaces for example were built for the benefit of the elite who resided in them.  The labour that went into erecting them – unlike kids building sandcastles – was coerced alienated labour.  The very design of these structures was calculated to impress and intimidate and to convey the message of impregnable power.  Kids build "castles" too but I would suggest this is a reflex of the kind of sociuety we live in which encourages us to look upon history as a sucession of kings or queens and other such "great people".  I bet the children of hunter gatherers playing in the mud by a river bank dont build "castles" out of the mud To me the concept of a "surplus" make no sense in a communist society.  Means of production are no more surplus to means of consumption  in a communist society than means of consumption are surplus to means of production. They just fulfil different functions.  The very notion of a surplus presupposes in my view a class society and the extraction of an economic surplus from one class by another and makes no sense outside of that context Nor is there any state in a communist society. The state is an institution that pertains to a class society.  Its is the institutional tool by which one class rules over another class or classes. There is no leverage in a communist society by which anyone could exert power over others given voluntary labour and free access to goods and services. that are the hallmarks of a communist society  And without power there is quite simply no possibility of extracting an economic surplus either….

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

No junk posts either

Hear! Hear!

[robbo203]

Steve Just to clarify.  I am not a technological determinist and don't advance technological determinism as an explanation for the way things turn out, society wise. The reference to Wittfogels concept of the "hydraulic society" was not an endorsement of technological determinism and I don't actually hold that the  nature of the state in the so called Asiatic Mode of production was that of a "non class state* (which to me is an absurdity).  The land might have been subject to communal ownership at the village level but land is not the only means of production – so is labour – and in the AMP labour took an alienated form expressed in the compulsory labour contributions of ordinary people to monumental structures like temples and palaces that celebrated the power and wealth of the ruling class. Technology is never neutral,  it is always socially mediated and structured.  We should be very wary of any approach that promotes technological fixes as the solution to social problems.  Invariably such an approach vests power in the hands of the fixers and disempowers the rest of us

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 I ask you again: What is your commission on this business deal. It would be like Microsoft running a campaign for socialism, of the enemies of the working running a campaign for the workers. Who are you tring to fool ?  Is your paycheck coming from Washington ?  Who is the community ? 

Again, Marcos, why are you saying these things about this contributor? What business deal?  What are you talking about? You are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist and it is beginning to irritateFrom where I am standing, the guy is simply putting forward a kind of organisational tool that would lead to flatter and less hierarchical organisations.  I don't say I necessarily agree with the principle of holacracy and  part of me is skeptical about the claim that these principles can also be applied to capitalist business enterprises as well. However I don't know enough about the subject to comment authoritatively on it. But I am curious.  All socialists  should be curious and open minded enough to investigate things  for themselves – not just holacracy but other things too.  We shouldn't be so damned dismissive about everything as if we know everything there is to know and everyone else is just an ignorant fool.  The world is a little more complex than that

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 This guy want to use this forum for his fucking capitalist business. This is not a forum for business survey, this is forum for socialism. The socialists  forums are always inflitrated by CIA agents

 I dont think this comment is accurate or called for.  Its a bit over the top Marcos EDIT Here is the explanation he offers for his survey which doesnt sound to me like a "fucking capitalist business" Lets act like communist! Even if the world isn't communist we can show by our actions how communist believe in acting. . . Here's my strategy.  I'm practicing surveys which are an important part of communism.  From now on, whenever I make a comment on this website or start a thread, I'm including a request for a response on the value of my comment or thread and I'm trying to make sure I don't exploit your time with worthless discussion too.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 The US and Great Britain have said that they are going  to impose nore sanctions on Russia due to the bombardment of Russian army on the civilian population of Syria. The newspapers in Spanish have more information about this incident than the newspaper in English.The only thing that I know is that while we are wasting time in this forum, the world is getting more dangerous, it is getting more dangerous than during the time of the cold war. Just one atomic bomb is enough to destroy the whole world, the planet, and all human beings.The US imposed an embargo on the Japanese capitalist class, and they responded by dropping bombs in Pearl Harbor, The US and Great Britain are  putting pressures on the capitalist class of Russia, and anyone of them can respond with an attack.We are not living under the times of WWII when the Western Empires had the monopoly  of the military weapons and the others countries had kitchen knifes and machetes.

We are certainly living in dangerous times.  Even a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan alone could absolutely decimate global agriculture for a period of up to 10 years, according to one calculation I came across ,  because of the severe climatic consequences.  Gawd forbid that there should be an exchange between the main nuclear powers.  We will all be well and truly stuffed. It alarms me greatly this absolutely irresponsible warmongering and macho militaristic posturing.  Of course it is easy to say there is nothing to gain from a nuclear war, since we will all have lost, and therefore it will not happen.  But that assumes a rational approach to the whole question and that we wont be sucked into some vortex of insane irrationality and jingoistic hysteria.   I am not 100% confident that this wont happen. 

[Author]

Posts