[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Here is Derek Wall speaking only 3 years ago:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2P7zXktn3gSometimes we're our worst enemy.

 Is Derek Wall aware of the discussion going on in this forum?  It might be an idea to point him in this direction and perhaps also invite him to contribute to it..

[robbo203]

This shouldn't be such a difficult thing to resolve.  I just don't get why the point is being so belaboured and fretted over.  Why not just simply acknowledge those things about Corbyn that are at least positive and seem to be part of the reason for his mass appeal – his breaking of the political mould, his willingness to speak his mind rather than whatever opportunist sound byte will get him into power, his seemingly quite genuine concern for those who have had a raw deal out of capitalism.   And so on and so forth.  These are good qualities and should be automatically (compulsorily?) invoked or referenced alongside whatever criticism socialists may make of him.  The point in doing so is precisely to illustrate that he is going to fail and to inevitably disappoint his followers despite these qualities and not because of the absence of them as some people might be inclined to think we are saying.  They might think we are attacking Corbyn because his personal qualities are lacking which seems to be the line peddled by the Right wing gutterpress and we do ourselves no favours by appearing to align ourselves with these people. A carrot and stick policy is ALWAYS better and more effective than a purely negative policy of wielding the big stick.  Unfortunately some comrades in the SPGB –  I don't tar the whole organisation – have the habit of being unremittingly negative and hostile  towards anyone who has not "seen the light" when they should be encouraging people to abandon their illusions, not bashing them over the head with that big stick for holding such illusions.  It stems from this black-or-white view of the world which lies at the heart of the SPGB's malaise and goes a long way towards explaining why the Party is not making the sort of progress one might have expected at a time when capitalist politics is at an all time low in terms of its credibility So I can sort of understand Derek Wall frustrated and despairing  reaction even if it is rather over the top and frankly he should no better than to have come out with this silly comment of his on Twitter

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I think our different assessments of what is the more important in the economic system today stems from the fact that you are judging it by the amount of labour involved while I'm judging it by the amount of capital involved. It is true that about 80% of production goes towards government and people's consumption and therefore only about 20% to re-investment (capital accumulation).The point I was making was that what drives the capitalist economy is capital accumulation, overwhelmingly of buildings and machinery. Ok, it might be an oversimplification to identify this entirely with manufacturing but there is virtually no non-market accumulation of buildings and machinery.  The non-market sector just does not have anything like the same economic weight as manufacturing and construction.Basically, the current economic importance of the non-market sector is being exaggerated as well as the illusion that it could spread beyond services, repairs and, yes, food grown on alotments.

 I don't doubt that "what drives the capitalist economy is capital accumulation",  I just wonder whether this is so overwhelmingly concentrated in the manufacturing sector as you suggest and which after all,  at least in the UK accounts for only 12% of the total national output. Does "capital accumulation" not also occur in the much larger services sector?   While I'm sure you are right to say  that 80% of production goes towards government and people's consumption and therefore only about 20% to re-investment (capital accumulation), the more pertinent question is where does that  "re-investment" occur?. In what parts of the economy do we find "capital accumulation" as opposed to other parts where this does not happen?  This is why I asked  is what you saying here a reference to the Marxian distinction between "productive" and "unproductive work" – work that generates surplus value (out of which capital is accumulated) and work that is paid out of surplus value?  If so , it is surely the case that while a large chunk of the services sector is unproductive other parts of the services sectors are strictly speaking productive  I  would appreciate it if you could clarify the above point, Adam, as I think it is quite an important one.  Also, if possible, provide some statistical evidence for what you say.  One further point I would make in this connection is that since all businesses in capitalism (with the exception of state bureaucracy perhaps which is not really a "business"), whether productive or not, are bound by economic competition to seek a monetary profit in order to be financially viable and are driven by these self same forces of economic competition to enlarge the profits they realise in order to maximise what can be reinvested in these businesses, there is a sense then in which all businesses are subject to quest to "accumulate capital".  That is to say, subjection to the law of capital accumulation, strictly speaking,  stands independently of the question of from whence this capital originates i.e..  in the productive sector alone Turning to your other point that our differing assessments of what is "more important in the economic system today stems from the fact that you are judging it by the amount of labour involved while I'm judging it by the amount of capital involved" – yes, I think  that is a fair comment.  You are looking at this matter from the standpoint of what makes capitalism tick whereas I am looking at from the standpoint of what could aid the changeover towards a post capitalist world.  Naturally the question of labour and how it is applied today figures prominently in my view precisely because I hold that the working class will be the agents of that changeover or revolution.  Obviously I am not suggesting that that is not also your view but we are coming at this from different angles…For you:"the current economic importance of the non-market sector is being exaggerated as well as the illusion that it could spread beyond services, repairs and, yes, food grown on alotments This however is missing the point in several senses.  Firstly while it may well be the case that we cannot expect the non-market sector to spread much beyond services etc thus does not preclude the the non market sector "spreading".  This is because the services sector is itself spreading and relentlessly growing  at the expense of manufacturing to the extent that today only 8.2% of the UK workforce is in manufacturing.  Overwhelmingly workers are based in the services sector precisely where you seem to  agree the non market sector is capable of expansion. (Your reference to food grown on alotments incidentally seems to apply to the First World but overlooks that in the Third World a significant proportion of the food grown does not enter the market at all.  it is self provisioning) Secondly I don't take the view that capitalism of itself will generate technological developments that will permit the expansion of the non market sector, thus heralding a post capitalist world  This is the technological determinist position seemingly adopted by people like Mason and Rifkind which I oppose. For me the importance of non market sector is not so much economic – though I think, with respect, you underestimate that importance as does conventional economic thinking on the matter which tends to undervalue or disregard things that do not have a price tag.   For me the importance is chiefly sociological.  The non market sector provides a fertile and indispensable seedbed of ideas that could help to bring about a genuinely post capitalist world.  You cannot underestimate the importance of actual lived experience in this regard.  Those spaces in our lives that transcend the commodity relationship (as Marx himself recognised when he talked about the worker only becoming himself or herself outside of employment) are powerful sources of inspiration which, combined with an understanding of the workings of capitalism, is what will bring about a post capitalist socialist world. What is interesting about Mason's take on the subject as I see it ( though i cant pretend to be very acquainted with his ideas) is the importance he attaches to the role of information technology with respect to the non market sector.  This is nothing new though,.  The Internet has long been cited as an example of a fully functioning gift economy. But because it engages consciousness in quite a direct way this could facilitate the change in outlook and values that a post capitalist world would depend on. Or at least I hope so….

[robbo203]

lanz the joiner wrote:

Likewise, the SPGB rejects some aspects of Conservative thinking, but agrees with others. And here I'm referring to their shared belief in the necessity and importance of "austerity" policies in a capitalist economy, as the best/only way to deal with an economic slump.

 That makes it sound slightly like the SPGB advocates austerity policies which of  course is outrageously not the case . It would be more accurate to say the SPGB opposes capitalism which, at times of economic slump, necessitates such policies.  This statement is nevertheless totally compatible with the view that austerity should be resisted as far as possible

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

So it seems we have been at  Mason's "choke point" for some time but capitalism is still around.

The trouble is your "non-market sector" only concerns personal services and repairs to manufactured goods. But this sector is not the one that drives the capitalist economy. It's the production of manufactured goods (from raw material to finished product). Hardly any of this is in the non-market sector.

 It depends how you look at it, though. Is the production of manufactured goods really what "drives the capitalist economy".  The manufacturing sector is actually a rather small part of the capitalist economy and getting steadily smaller (at least in the more developed capitalist economies). For example, this is what  Wikipedia says about the manufacturing sector in the UKDuring the second half of the 20th century, there was a steady decline in the importance of manufacturing and the economy of the United Kingdom shifted toward services, although manufacturing remained important for overseas trade and accounted for 83% of exports in 2003. In June 2010, manufacturing in the United Kingdom accounted for 8.2% of the workforce and 12% of the country's national output.I guess the argument could be made that Manufacturing constitutes the productive sector of the economy in the sense that it generates surplus value whereas the non productive sector lives parasitically off this surplus value e.g the bureaucratic apparatus of the state.  That would  certainly raise the profile and functional significnace of manufacturing to the capitalist economy although it has to be noted that some service industries also fall within the productive sector. I don't quite agree with your comment that "non-market sector" only "concerns personal services and repairs to manufactured goods".  That is largely (but not entirely) true of the developed economies but it would certainly not be true of the so called Third World where self provisioning subsistence agriculture remains important .   Having said that, the point of my previous post was to question the validity of Mason's claim that the choke point for the transition to post capitalism comes when the market sector and non-market sector become round about the same size.".   Like I said, that choke point has been around for quite a while and we still have capitalism.  I might be wrong here but Mason seems to have a rather limit view of what actually constitites the "non market sector"  and for him it seems to centre mainly on activities heavily influenced by, or implicated in, information technology.  Would this be a correct reading of him?

ALB wrote:

In any event we don't have to wait for the labour content and marginal cost of production of manufactured goods to reach zero before socialism, even as a world of abundance, to become possible. A non-market "post capitalist" world is possible now if the means of production were commonly owned so that they could be geared to producing goods for free use and consumption. We don't need to way for further "spontaneous" technological developments to make this even more feasible. The technological basis for socialism already exists and has done for years.

 Yes I agree with all this and this is why I am critical of the apparent technological determinism of people like Mason and Rifkin. They seem to posit the view that the shift towards a "post capitalist world" is dependent on technological developments that "augur a zero marginal cost society".  The underlying argument behind all this is unconvincing and misleading.  The impression is inadvertently conveyed that thanks to technological developments, production costs have fallen to virtually nothing so that the whole rationale for a market economy has ceased  or will soon cease, to exist. Of course, this is not case and it is to overlook the vital distinction between total costs and marginal costs.  Even if marginal costs – the cost of each additional unit produced did fall to zero as claimed the costs of production would not at all  be eliminated. The point is that capitalism continues not because we lack a sufficiently developed  technology to underpin a socialist society but rather because the social relations of production that define capitalism go largely unchallenged and taken for granted. And the point about the "non market sector", I would suggest,  particularly that part of it opened up by development of information technology is precisely that it makes it easier to envision and to a degree, even "experience", an alternative to capitalism.  The internet for example has often been presented as a kind of "gift economy" in practice.  Without practical examples such as these to draw inspiration from how else can we hope to break the stranglehold of capitalist hegemony on our collective  imagination?

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

This is why it is so important for socialists to explain why a vote for Corbyn is actually a vote for the Tories – in the long run. 

 Yes this is true but I think its is also true that we should be a bit more discriminating  in our criticism of Corbvn.  Impressions count  and there are discernable differences between Corbyn's approach to politics and the values he evidently espouses and that of, say, Cameron.  Unquestionably  from a socialist perspective Corbyns approach, what he thinks matters in life, is nearer to ours  than Cameron's even though at the end of the day, Corbyn is no more than  a capitalist politician. I think Vin has a point but I think it is also possible to integrate this point with a robust criticism of Corbyn himself. He cannot be left off the hook  and we would be remiss in not attacking the policies he advocates – but tactfully, I would suggest, and taking due account fo the fact that at least his heart seems to be in the right place

[robbo203]

imposs1904 wrote:

Link: He has a book to sell.

  Interesting interview.  Mason is quite a slick performer with a nice turn of phrase.   One comment that stuck out is thisAt some point, says Paul, the Wikipedias of this world will be as big as the Facebooks. "I think the choke point for the transition to postcapitalism comes when the market sector and non-market sector become round about the same size."  My understanding is that the non market sector of which the household economy is largest ingredient is and has been for some time about the same size as the market sector – actually, a shade bigger if anything – at least according to some estimates For instance there is  Charles Handy book The Future of Work . (Handy C, The Future of Work, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1984)  Citing earlier research by Richard Rose, he noted that  within the United Kingdom as a whole the proportion of labour hours devoted to unpaid work of all kinds (or what he dubbed the "grey economy") – namely, 51% –  exceeded the total labour hours worked in paid employment in both the official white economy (46%) and the unofficial or illegal black economy (3%) combined. (p.48)  In America, Scott Burns, referred to the vast scale of the "domestic self provisioning" sector in these terms:How large would this invisible economy be if it could be measured in dollars? Very large.  According to one study (Sirageldin, 1969), the total value of all the goods and services produced by the household economy in 1965 was about $300 billion.  That was about equal to the gross national product of the Soviet Union at that time.  If all the work done within the household by men and women were monetised, the total  would be equal to the entire amount  paid out in wages and salaries  by every corporation in the United States…Very very little of this appears in conventional accountings for the the gross national product…The hours of work done outside the money economy rival those done inside (Burns S,  The Household Economy: Its Shape, Origins and Future,  Beacon Press,  Boston, 1975,  p.6-8)Though these figures are somewhat dated they do not seem to have changed  much over time.  According to more recent figures released by United Nations Development Programme, for the industrialised countries as a whole the consensus seems to be that as much time is spent on unpaid work as on paid work . (The North-South Institute Newsletter Vol.3, No.2 , 1999).  More recently still,  a report on" State of the World Population (2002) by UNFPA notes that "Of men's total work time in industrial countries, roughly two thirds is spent in activities that are counted towards measures of GNP and one third in unpaid activities; for women, the shares are reversed" (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2002/english/ch4/page3.htm).  This works out to be much the same as 50:50 split suggested earlier. So it seems we have been at  Mason's "choke point" for some time but capitalism is still around.  I think the problem with these kinds of analyses is that they start off from a  position of technological determinism. Its the same with Jeremy Rifkin. Technological change – and Mason is primarily talking about information technology in the first instance –  does not ensure social change , at least not in the direction we might hope for.  It can certainly hint at change but it is for us, conscious human beings, to extrapolate from the potential that technology presents, the real possibility of a post capitalist world. The fact that a very large non market sector exists is of huge (if underrated) importance to the socialist movement – both as a seedbed of new ideas and as an exemplar of patterns of behaviour that break with the capitalist norm.  But there is no reason to think that in and of itself the expansion of this sector, if it comes about in the way Mason and others imagine –  through technological developments – will sideline capitalism and eventually render it obsolete.  For that to happen requires the infusion of revolutionary political ideas rather  than the enhanced functionality of the latest smartphone on the market 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What we should be doing is trying to understand why there was such an unexpected ground-swell of support for Corbyn. An earlier post on the thread linking to a vox pop interview video seems to show that people are seeing through the charade of professional politicians…and it has been highlighted here by some posters…sincerity, honesty, principles are drawing sympathy to Corbyn added to a very idealistic interpretation of his policies. So it is clear to me that we too have political integrity and this must emphasisd when we make a critique of Corbyn's economic solutions.

 Well said Alan.  That is certainly the positive aspect of the Corbyn phenomenon and it is worth keying into it – the fact that here we have a politician who appears at least to be relatively sincere and principled even if his principles will lead to a dead end. It is important to acknowlege this  and to differentiate this kind of approach to politics from the typical behaviour of politicians.  Why? Because it ties in with a wider argument – namely that sincere or not, genuine or not, principled or not , the politicians are still going to fail us  and that it is we ourselves who are going to have to take matters in hand.  In the meanwhile here's an opportunity to point out to all those cynics out there who glibly dismiss socialism as some idealistic utopia however commendable the principles behind it.  The lesson should be relentlessly drummed in – that, actually, it pays to be principled and the Corbyn phenomenon appears to lend support to this thesis.It is the unprincipled opportunists who are not only  failing to adminster the system in the way they claimed they could but who are also now failing to get the support that would authorise them to do just that. The slick propaganda and the grandiose promises are becoming increasingly threadbare and unconvincing and the cracks are spreading through the facade.  People more and more crave some kind of authenticity in a world of contrived and manipulated images.  Corbyn for the moment seems to answer that need but he of course will likewise fail them – even if not because of any lack of sincerity on his part..The only real and sustainable authenticity lies within them – us –  within the collective solidarity of the workers to do something about changing this shitty world we live in.

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

imposs1904 wrote:

I think it's fair game to have digs at the likes of Farage, Cameron . . . and the Galloways, Livingstones and Abbots of this world because it's so self-evident that it's their self-regard as much as their ideology which motors them, but having snide digs at Corbyn at this point just makes us come off as the sectarians that everyone thinks we already are.

But this is the very point which you've unwittingly put your finger on.  Because it's not self-evident to many workers that Corbyn and his politics are phoney is surely all the more reason why he needs to be exposed, not by using snide digs but by demonstrating the fallaciousness of his policies, with the use of memes, along with other methods, in as simple and unconfrontational ways as possible.  And if by opposing capitalist politicians of whatever ilk (and, frankly, when push come to shove there's little to choose between any of them) makes us appear sectarian then so be it.  It's the price we've had to pay ever since the party's inception.

 I think a distinction needs to be drawn  between the policies and the personalities. I agree with imposs1904's comments above and have tried to preface my own criticisms of Corbyn with observations to the effect that he comes across as sincere and personable – unlike the usual shower of career politicians.  Yes  yes yes I know personalities shouldnt be the issue  and yes, of course, we all know that Corbyn is going to come unstuck and "betray" his followers in the sense that he is bound to let them down badly. – that is if he ever gets into power.  But personalities do seem to attract and hold attention and why not? Even socialists are not above this and I'm a great fan of Ivan's column in the Socialist Standard which invariably makes for a riveting read. All the same, I think one should be more discriminating in how one goes about  attacking politicians – precisely (or even paradoxically)  in order to demonstrate that really, at bottom, the character of the politicians in question doesnt really matter.  That would also mitigate the risk  that Vin refers to of appearing  "sectarian".  Corbyn is one of the few policiticans who comes across as genuine.  I would have included Tony Benn in that list too,  as well as maybe the Beast of Bolsover.  The rest are a bunch of smarmy greaseballs with about as much integrity as a dodgy arms dealer.  As far as I am concerned, there should be an open season on having a pop at their overblown egos – but not, of course,  at the expense of a serious structural analysis of why they will always fail in terms of the political objectives they have (supposedly) set themselves

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I think we are all getting the wrong end of the stick here. I don't think this is what Gupta implies. Actually, it's not a bad article 

 Hmm, I disagree, Adam. I think it IS what Gupta implies –  that communism was tried and failed in the Soviet Union et al and that, remarkably,  interest in Marx continues DESPITE this failure. That seems to me to be a clear identification of the kind of society Marx was struggling to bring about with what happened in the SU.  Yes,  the definition she offers of a socialist/communist society is not a bad one – a society based on social  ownership of the means of production – but that does not necessarily rule out her imagining that precisely such a society was what was achieved in the Soviet Union in the first place. But for this I would be much less harsh in my criticism of Gupta.  The fact that she seems to have gone along with the the kind of liberal narrative concerning the collapse of communism without a word of dissent, rather spoit it all for me to be quite honest

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/relevance-of-marx/84255.html

Quote:

He offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism.  Yet his writings provide an  explanation of the inner working of capitalism for good and evil. From this vantage point, Marx’s writings can throw light on the problems of our age and the limitations of their possible solutions.

 

 No wonder Gupta thinks "Marx offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism" having just said "Marx’s writings still evoke interest across the world despite speculation that his readership would dwindle after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the eclipse of Communism in East Europe"   The implication of course being that "Marx's solution" has been tried and found wanting in these places.   I tire of pundits who come up with this old hackneyed bogus line of argument.  That suggests to me that Gupta's understanding of Marxism is of the glossy, coffee table magazine type.  Pretty superficial and cliched.

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Yes that is a more plausible scenario, Robbo. A few remarksThe media can create the "prominent" profile of right-wingers and, i think, there are many for them to pick from.The LibDems are no longer seen as "liberal" small l after alliance with Conservatives for any groups like the SDP to defect to and so the right must fight within the Labour Party. Your crystal ball views Corbyn as being less principled and more opportunistic than many other commentators suggest but as Tsipras shows if you are genuine and sincere, you eventually cede power, not hold on to it, once the purpose of holding office is made superfluous. Could Corbyn pinch his nose and see his future Labour Party manifesto watered down so much that it becomes a homeopathic remedy… merely retaining the past memory of his "radicalism" 

 I think he will have to, Alan, if he gets power or, more to the point, if he is to get into power.  He will find some way of backpeddling and backtracking on his principles – they always do.  Its a pity because he comes across as not yer usual run-of-the-mill career politician – dull grey suits like the other 3 candidates for the Leadership and boring as fuck with their dreary cliches and  their well-honed  question-evading instincts that is the necessary accoutrement of any well trained politician

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But if still a member of the SPGB, how would you suggest we aim and concentrate our fire on Labour if you do have them correctly targeted, Robbo?

 Difficult to say.  I agree with one or two commentators here that it doesnt do to just focus on Corbyn.  Yes Corbyn is gonna fail even if he succeeds in becoming 1) Labour leader and then 2) Prime Minister in the event of a Labour victory.  You cant run the abbatoir in the interests of the cattle and we would be remiss in not pointing that out.  But we would be equally remiss in not also pointing that Corbyns Labour rivals are just as foredoomed to fail as are his capitalist political opponents outside of the Labour  PartyIts a question of striking the right balance and it rather depends on who you are actually talking to at the time, I guess… 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lets use our crystal balls for a moment…Corbyn wins…shock horror…he is then undermined by the Labour Party's party machine as leader and either is sacked by no confidence motions or  forced into a resignation …whatever …

 It is more likely, surely, that once ensconced in power, he will make a bid for for centre ground – that is seek to establish a left-centre government.  He will obliged to make sops to the conservatives (AKA New Labourites) within the Party to ensure a degree of party unity  (not to mention a wider political appeal) and the latter, mindful of the populist support for Corbyn and the fate that befell the breakaway SDP and its "gang of four" some years ago , will probably grudgingly, fall in line with the occasional sniping from the sidelines.  De facto Tories like that war criminal, Tony Blair , have little  credibility in the eyes of  the public and there is no significant or recognised figure – such things are important in a population swayed by the principle of leadership – around which a coherent opposition to Corbyn could materialise leading to a viable breakaway. The current leadership contest is perhaps proof of that: 3 duds versus someone who at least gives a plausible impression of being principled. In any event, the policies of Corbyn are sufficiently vague to allow for a considerable degree of political gymnastics in the form of seeking to accommodate his right wing critics.  And of course if and when a Corbyn-led Labour Party were to come to power it would be obliged to administer capitalism in the only way it can be administered – in the interests of capital and against the interests of wage labour. One way or another, Corbyn is foredoomed to "betray" his (at present) wildly enthusiastic supporters – not because of his lack of political commitment to what he believes in (his style of "conviction politics", after all, is precisely what people find attractive about him)  but rather in spite of it

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Actually, that Independent interview wasn't as bad as the advertisement for it suggested and the title was better:

Quote:

Paul Mason: The Channel 4 frebrand revolutionary reveals his formula for a 'gift' economy.

Here's an extract from Rentoul's article

Quote:

 what is interesting about Mason's book is his analysis of how information technology is going to lead to the abolition of the market – and what he calls the "supersession" of capitalism by a new form of economic organisation.

See here. So he wants to go beyond the market to a "gift economy" rather than back to barter.Whether it will come about in the way he seems to be suggesting is another matter. Be interesting to see too what he says about where the Bolshevik revolution went wrong. I'm going to buy the book today.

 So is Mason a proponent of some form of technological determinism  (I confess to not having read him)? I wouldnt go along with that (in response to Adam's opening post) but I could well imagine the growth of socialist conciousness interacting in a synergistic fashion with the developments in information technology to which Mason refers to expand the realm of non marketised activity.  But I cannot see such developments in themselves leading to the "supercession" of capitalism as such

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…I had always understood communism would break the link between your productive contribution to society and what you take from society…

You've 'always understood' this, robbo, because you're not a Communist, but an individualist.Your use of the term 'your' (referring to 'an individual') shows this.The Communist phrasing would be 'our'.'Our productive contribution' is by nature linked to 'our taking from society'.You discuss 'individuals', Communists discuss 'social production and consumption', and its democratic control by all.

 Your outlook on society is as daft as Mrs Thatcher's with the difference that, with you,  there is a no such thing as individuals, only society – a mystical, reified and quasi Durkheimian view of society if there ever was one – whereas, with Mrs T,  there is no such thing as society, only individuals.  My position is that the two things hang together inextricably and if you think that makes me an "individualist" then frankly you wouldnt recognise one if you tripped  over such a thing in the street, outside.  You have never understood what this term means though you babble on about it incessantly enough. Of course the idea of "rewards" – and I remind you that it was you that who introduced this term, not me, with respect to a communist society – relates to, or is focussed upon,  individuals insofar as it implies discriminating between them according to their contribution.  Otherwise the very term "reward" would be completely meaningless in this context.  So that makes you the individualist and me the communist because i dont talk of rewards at all or see the necessity for any form of remuneration .  This is a bourgeois concept of individual incentives for effort  which "bourgeois individualists" like your good self seem to consider as being vitally important  to society i.e. the idea that workers should be remunerated or rewarded for their effort  which cannot mean anything other than treating them as individuals who differ according to the effort they expend and who should therefore be subject to differential rewards 

[Author]

Posts