[robbo203]

  

Sepehr wrote:

 It is not a surprise for me to see you talking about "Chinese imperialism", "Russian imperialism", and even "Indian imperialism"! As I mentioned earlier, the whole focus of some part of the "left" is to relegate Marxism to a mere wherewithal of bolstering powers of status-quo and crushing all struggles challenging those powers. In that sense, you walk along the same lines as do miscreants known as neoconservatives and neoliberal imperialists.

Come now, Sepehr, this is complete nonsense and in your rush to condemn those of us will not leap to the defence of your “national bourgeoisie” in the global South, you lump us together with people like the neocon and the neoliberal supporters of Western imperialism.  Are you serious? By what twisted logic do you arrive at the conclusion that we “walk along the same lines” as the latter?  We do not support any imperialism anywhere and are not selective in our disapproval of imperialism as you seem to be. Nor. unlike you, do we naively seek to detach the question of imperialism from capitalism.  The one thing goes with the other. There seems to be two basic issues at stake here 1) how you define imperialism and 2) whether the establishment of socialism necessitates beforehand the elimination of spatial inequalities throughout the world as you claim.  Let me deal with the latter point first. It strikes me that this whole argument of yours is pretty weak and unconvincing and really just boils down to the dogmatic assertion that it must be so because you say it is. You invoke Marx in support of your contention that the productive potential for socialism must be distributed evenly throughout the world before you can have socialism, although you don’t tell us where he suggested this.  Not that thatmatters too much. I certainly don’t need Marx’s blessing to hold the views I do and there are some things that Marx said that I profoundly disagree with, anyway.  As far as I understand it, Marx took a global approach to the matter and maintained that it was the world as a whole that had to have the productive potential for socialism before we could have socialism. Providing this precondition was met for the world as a whole then it does not matter from the point of view of establishing socialism that some parts are less developed then others. Socialism itself would enable the rapid diffusion of technologies and material assistance around the world to where it was most needed  The point is that the emergence of this global productive potential has been bound up with the development of a global division of labour that connects every part of the world with every other in what is now an incredibly complex pattern of criss- crossing material and immaterial flows – another reason why you can’t have “socialism in one country”.  Meaning the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level.  The fact that socialism will inherit a structure of production that exhibits a high degree of spatial interdependency is not a problem. You seem to think it is but you don’t explain why at all.  My guess is you are projecting onto a future socialist the developmental preoccupations of contemporary capitalism and its concern with things like securing export markets and such like. No doubt in socialism there will be a tendency towards  greater regional and especially local self-reliance and there are good reasons for this. However, the fact the structure of production under capitalism which we will immediately  inherit come socialism, is tending in the opposite direction does not at all rule out socialism, as you claim, and you have made no serious attempt whatsoever to substantiate this claim of yours.  And so we come to your utopian proposal of “delinking” or auto-centric development in a world of deepening capitalist globalisation. This is sometimes associated with ideas like the flaky Leninist theory of the Labour aristocracy with its half-baked claim that a section of the working class, if not the entire working class, in the West is actually bribed , by the capitalist class out of the “super profits” they make from their investments in the global South.  The idea is that as the countries in the global South secure their so called national liberation and embark on a programme of auto centric development, this will impact on the West itself. The drying of these super profits will diminish the ability of the western based capitalists to bribe their own labour aristocracies ad so result in rising discontent, leading to the radicalisation of workers in the West.  This is the “weakest link in the chain of imperialism” argument put forward by Lenin – that fanciful notion that a “revolution” in the global periphery will somehow spark a revolution in the capitalist core countries .  Its complete balderdash.  At so many different levels, this whole Leninist inspired worldview can be criticised and found wanting. I notice Sepehr, you studiously avoided answering my earlier post showing the utter absurdity of Lenin’s claim concerning the bribe doled out to so called labour aristocracy. No matter.  It seems to me that the subtext of this argument is in keeping with a general position held by many on the Left – that radicalisation is somehow contingent upon increased suffering – for example that inflicted by a severe economic crisis or, in this case, through the loss of the mythical bribe component of the workers income.  This is a crudely mechanistic way of looking at the subject. There is absolutely no guarantee that increased suffering and diminished economic prospects will somehow translate into a more radical outlook on life. There is plenty of evidence that it can lead to a quite opposite outcome- the adoption of more conservative and less militant approach – and of course we have the classic example of this in the rise of Nazi Germany in the wake of the Great Depression  Shifting our focus to the Global South, let us look at what has become of your proposal of delinking here.  There have been a few attempts at what is called “voluntary delinking” such as Cambodia under Pol Pot, Sekou Toure’s Guinea, Yemen, North Korea and Albania – none of which can exactly be called an economic success storey. There have also been cases of involuntary delinking also as in the example of sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq which resulted in untold misery for ordinary Iraqis.  No doubt some of those leftists who protested about this also subscribe to your theory of delinking as well.  In fact, most attempts at self-reliant development have been half hearted and at best partial  or simply led to a transfer of allegiance from the Western capitalism to the state capitalism of the pseudo socialist bloc with its own parallel pattern of dependencies e.g. the relationship between the Soviet Union and CubaYou assert:“In reality, these asymmetries can be mended by state intervention and collective policies protecting the underdeveloped country from overwhelming domination of foreign capital. However, whenever and wherever a country has moved to implement such measures, it has been sabotaged through direct or indirect intervention of imperialism.” That sounds like you are excusing their failure in advance by suggesting  that their efforts at self-reliance must have been sabotaged.  If what you say was remotely true why is it that today we find throughout the Global South, country after country desperately pimping out their workforces as exploitable material for international capitalists to exploit. Why are these countries constantly marketing themselves as ideal investment opportunities?  Also, why do these countries feel the need to organise themselves into much larger trading blocs if autocentric development was the way to go.  Your whole theory lacks credibility in my view.  You make a contrived distinction between the “national bourgeoisie” in the Global South which is supposedly anti-imperialist and the “comprador bourgeoisie” which is not and which is complicit in the murky dealings of western imperialists.  In practice, the distinction doesn’t really exist and your national bourgeoisie will sooner or later collapse into a comprador bourgeois. The supposed independence of   your national bourgeoisie is a political posture. Look behind the bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism of all these so called national liberation movements and you will soon enough discover a deep yearning on the part of your beloved national bourgeoisie to join the international community of capitalists on a more equal footing – as indeed some have already done by snapping up investment opportunities in the West or depositing their ill-gotten gains in a Swiss bank.  Gaddafi of Libya is a case in point but there are countless others.  The difference between the national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie is only a matter of time/ So no, I am not convinced at all that delinking and the implementation of autarkic policies under capitalism is the way to go.  It is at variance with the whole expansionist dynamic of capitalism and sooner or later, the isolated capitalist state will find the need to reintegrate with the global economy.  Even state capitalist dictatorships like North Korea have their own free trade zones and without the support of its much larger capitalist patron, China, the North Korean economy would be an utter shambles.  China props up the regime because it knows full well that that the collapse of the North Korean economy would have adverse consequences.  So we come to the second question of how you define imperialism. For you it seems, imperialism is some kind of morality play in which there are the bad guys – the western capitalist powers – and the good guys, which is essentially the rest of the world who are the victims of this imperialism, not its  perpetrators.  The essentialist line of thinking in your argument which upholds imperialism as some kind of unique quality present only in the Western powers is a peculiarly unmarxist position to take inasmuch as it effectively severs the link between capitalism  and imperialism in the modern world.  Instead of a serious Marxist analysis of global capitalism we have, as I say, a kind of morality play of Good versus Evil.  The asymmetric pattern of development manifest in the world economy is all down to the wicked western capitalist thwarting more spatially even development which is just as well because as you say, the establishment of socialism depends on just such development.  Well I reject this approach of yours.  Imperialism is a tendency inherent in the expansionist dynamic of capitalism itself and since capitalism exists everywhere so does this imperialist tendency. Every country – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist .  All you are doing is looking at the most conspicuously successful imperialist countries, drawing an arbitrary line between them and the rest of the world and declaring that this is what constitutes imperialism.   It’s pretty ironic then that you think that my talking about Chinese imperialism means that I overlook the imperialism of countries like the US when in fact my entire argument hinges on the universalism of imperialism in global capitalism. The fact that most countries figure rather low down in the imperialist hierarchy does not negate the existence of such a hierarchy It comes down to how you define imperialism and I have made it clear that I define imperialism in its widest sense as the desire or intent of the nation state in the context of modern day capitalism to promote and secure what it sees as its interests and influences beyond its own territorial borders – that is to transcend its borders.  Note that the peculiarity of modern imperialism is that it is the nation state qua state rather than say a corporation or an NGO that is the vehicle or agent of this imperialism. It is from the standpoint of what is seen to be best for this nation state itself in its dealings with other states that imperialism derives its meaning.   You don’t seem to understand this and this is why you come out with curious comments such as that I am confusing imperialism with trade. As if you can somehow separate “trade” from issues such as the struggle over trades routes , access to markets , the need for resources. And so on.  You sound almost like a liberal in your characterisation of trade as some kind of benign forces at work in the world that heals rifts and promotes peaceYou refer to China “Just because China is exporting cheap products to other countries, does not mean that China has got its imperialistic vicious tentacles all over the world! Show me one occasion in which China has colluded in a coup, or imposed unilateral sanctions, or blocked the flow of finance into another country…”  LOL Sepehr.  In case you weren’t aware of this China’s involvement with the rest of the word is more than simply a trading relationship. It is investing heavily in means of production outside of its national boundaries.  In Africa, Chinese capitalists have been buying up mines and factories, and building large scale infrastructural projects.  In the UK the Chinese capitalists now have a foothold in power generation.  In the US they have been purchasing residential properties and treasury bonds like there was no tomorrow. The list is endless. You know it begins to sound like they are not that different after all from those greedy western capitalists sniffing out opportunities for the realisation of super profits in the global south  You suggest as an indicator of imperialism military adventurism in, and occupation of, other countries. Even to use your own rather narrow definition of imperialism that would mean that even  small countries like Jordan or Qatar must be considered imperialist by nature since they are both part of the coalition forces of 59 member states involved in Syrian conflict.  In fact, can you think of any state anywhere that does not have some military connection beyond its borders? Maybe Costa Rica which abolished its own army but then falling very firmly with  the US sphere  of influence, it does have a US military presence in the country so probably feels it can get away without having an army for that reason  As for China and Tibet I notice that you are quite happy to engage in usual capitalist game of nationalist legitimation “Tibethas been an inseparable part of China for thousands of years. Why would someone pretend as if Tibet is "occupied" by China and encourage people of Tibet to secede from China, which would definitely create a second Afghanistan-style failed state in that region?Well dont take that up with me Sepehr.  Take it up with those who consider themselves to be Tibetans and definitely under occupation by a foreign power.  You possess with them a common belief that they possess a country only in your case that country is China, not an independent Tibet, which you believe, as nationalists tend to do, has a legitimate claim to an arbitrary piece of land called “Tibet”. All I can say is that this is a world away from the  outlook expressed by the Communist Manifesto that the working class has no country and that we communists cannot take from them that which they do not have in the first place

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them

Unfortunately we disagree on the very definition of Imperialism. You are using your own terminology, inconsistent with the definition widely used by others. Marx himself seldom used this term, wherefore at his time it was commonly referred to as "colonialism". Only in the 20th century colonialism turned into a new countenance, to wit, imperialism. Therefore, with this definition in mind, your use of the term, as in "imperialism of China and India", is not only inaccurate, but also a spurious argument used to distract attentions from heinous crimes committed by the real imperialistic powers.How many countries, "pray tell", are invaded, occupied or bombed by China or India?!

 Yes I am using the term imperialism in the wider sense to denote other forms of influence besides military. People sometimes talk of cultural imperialism, for example and this would be an instance of that.  You mention colonialism.  Dependency theorists talked about "neo colonialism" after the Second World War when various European powers grnated political independence to their erstwhile colonies.  The point they were trying to make which is the one I am trying to make is that the economic influence of the core  countries over the periphery did not disappear with the granting of political independenceIf you are limiting the term imperialism to just militarily attacking or occupying another country then I  guess quite a few countries would qualify as imperialist – such as the numerous states contributing to the coalition forces in the current Syrian conflict.  China woud qualify as imperialist becuase of its occupation of Tibet etc etc

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo

 Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually beginning to show his fox’s ears. (Karl Marx, The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847)

I am not quite sure what your point is and wish you would not speak in riddles.  Are you defending Chinese state capitalism?

Sepehr wrote:

 How about we just go out there and tell people: "let's all be nice with each other!"… That is how you see the socialst project!And I am not telling anyone to "defer socialism"… If you think building socialism is so unchallenging, "pray proceed"!

 You are asking us to first remove the obstacle of "imperialism" before we can have socialism even though imperialism is part and parcel of the nature of capitalism  and ineradicable with capitalism. So draw your own conclusions. And no the socialist project is not about telling people to be nice to each other.  Thats a silly comment, I am simply making the point that workers everywhere in whatever part of the word they are from are fully capable of understanding what the socialist project is about. 

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries

According to Marx, you do require something like that. Although not exactly as you described it, but more or less so. History has proven Marx to be correct on this. You may dislike it, but that will change nothing.

I dont agree .  Marx' observations on the Russian Mir suggest otherwise. In any event even if you were right in thinking this I would then maintain that Marx was mistaken in this instance

Sepher wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.

This, again, is another impregnable conundrum to me. How could a bourgeoisie-comprador be anti-imperialist?! You are confounding that concept with national-bourgeoisie, which by nature ought to be anti-imperialist. As I said, it is possible that a national bourgeoisie may fester into a bourgeoisie-compradore. But that is in case the national bourgeois development turns into a failure. Malaysia and Indonesia are good examples of this failure. But this failure has not happened (YET) with countries such as China and India. Whether these countries will end up having the same fate or not is unknown to us. However, especially in the case of China, that is already a quite remote possibility.

  How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them 

Sepher wrote:

Please remember, China used to be a rural country with hundreds of millions of illitrate people. Half of its population were wonted to opium. Diseases such as syphilis were extremely common. In short, it used to be what Africa still is today. Why China, and to a much less degree India, managed to develop into functioning and developing societies whilst Africa turned into a conglomerate of failed states with starving populations? The answer lies in "delinking" from imperialism. It happened in China, and to a lesser extent India, but it never happened in Africa. 

 This has nothing to do with the question of how we are to get a to a socialist society.  In theory, there may be some validity in the argument put forward  by the proponents of "dependency theory" against the modernisation thesis that dominated development discourse in the early post wars but by and large I think dependency theory is inadequate.  It failed to explained, for instance, the emergence of NICs – newly industrialising countries – oriented towards export led growth (which is in fact what boosted Chinese state capitalism as well)

Sepehr wrote:

Now which one is closer to socialism? Africa or China? If you really think socialism is a possibility today for African countries, then you must be totally ignoring the consequences of recent massive refugee crisis, from Africa to Europe.

 Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo 

Sepehr wrote:

This absurd statement is the result of your vague, irrational and fictitious definition of socialism. Are you envisaging global socialism as a world where Africa continues to export minerals, Middle East continues to export crude oil, Malaysia continues to export palm oil, etc; and all of them import everything else from industrial countries? Or is it going to be based on self-sufficient communes? You need to seriously revise your vision of socialism.

 There is nothing fictitious or irrational about the definition of socialism as a non market non statist global society.  It is what Marxists have traditionally meant by socialism.  Im sure that, come socialism, spatial inequalities will tend to be rapidly overcome through the the global diffusion of advanced technologies when we no longer have the barriers of the market. A consequece of this will be increased divrsification at the local level which will be good. But you are confusing two quite separate things.  It is not the business of socialists to promote capitalist development and ally ourselves with capitalist states and their "national bourgeosie".  If there was a case for that in the mid 19th century, we have long gone past that stage.  The world as a whole already possesses the technological potential to make socialism feasible.  Deferring socialism in order to develop the Global South in the interests of their national bourgeosie strikes me as bein positively reactionary . Not to say unnecessary insofar and to the extent that such development is happening anyway as yourself point out in the case of China and India

Sepehr wrote:

What is rubbish is the idea of "global village". What village? While you fathom about how to build socialism, on the other side of the world many people are struggling to find some food to survive until tomorrow.

The global village is a metaphor to illustrate the fact that we now possess the means to communicate information instantly from any part of the world to any other part of the world.   The fact that many people still struggle to find food does not preclude the possibility that they might become aware of the fact that whilst they struggle, food is systemtically being destroyed in some parts of the world and farmers are being paid to withdraw land from production to keep up prices. Its a little arrogant to assume that workers or peasants in the Third Word are incapable of drawing socialist consclusions from this.  Is this what you are suggesting?

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

In order to conquer capitalism, you need, first and foremost, developed societies. Asymmetric development on the global stage, i.e. developed societies on the one side and under-developed societies on the other, will result in crushing any attempt of transcendence into socialism in the developed side; and there would be no possibility for development on the under-developed side in the first place. Imperialism, by definition, is a continuous and effective force which actively prevents all attempts of development on the under-developed side of the world, hence eliminating the possibility of socialism throughout the entire world.

 I reject completely what seems to lie behind your argument here and which, it seems to me, lends credence to the absurd Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country"You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries and even if you did, how could the "struggle against imperialism" bring that about it?  The newly "liberated" peripheral countries would soon enough fit in with the existing spatial economy of global capitalism with the comprador bourgeoisie of these countries seeking further integration within global capitalism and pimping out their countries as profitable sources of revenue for international investors to take advantage of.  Its happening all the time as we speak.  You just have to turn on the telly to see adverts extolling the investment opportunities in places like Malaysia or Nigeria and even Macedonia.Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.  I reject that completely. In  any case, it doesnt need the political assistance of socialists to promote this development.  To an extent it is happening already. Look at state capitalist China or other members of the  BRICS communityYou forget that capitalism is a global economy and the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level – not at the sub global level as the advocates of socialism in one country contend.  This is because of the integrated nature of the capitalist eocnomy and the complexity of the interdependencies that link every part of the world with every other.  Socialism is necessarily a global alternative to global capitalism.We aready have the global technolgical potential to establish socialism.  What we lack is the global working class consciousness to make that a reality.  Its is absolute rubbish to suggest that in today's interconnected global village this consciousness cannot transcend national boundaries or that we ought not to make the effort to do this on some spurious mechanistic pretext that unless a McDonalds fast food outlet is installed on very street corner of every town in the continent in Africa, we can't have world socialism.  .This is to sell your soul to those self same comprador bourgeosie of the Global South who must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of ripping  off their local populatons, having thrown off the shackles of what you call "imperialism ", only to reinforce that very thing, by opening up their markets to the Multinationals and co.

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

However, whatever their views on nationalism, it has to be said that it is a repugnant ideology as vile as racism.

That argument suits perfectly to your pro-imperialist stance, noticing that agnosticism is practically no different than pro-imperialism; the former, perhaps, being even more perilous than the latter.In other words, whatever your views on imperialism, it has to be said that it is as repugnant and vile as racism.

 Sepehr, this is a silly argument. How on earth do you  infer from the claim that it is capitalism not imperialism that we should focus our efforts  upon removing, that  this is somehow a "pro-imperialist stance"? No one here is supporting imperialism in any way shape or form.  What we are saying is that you cannot separate imperialism from capitalism and that the roots of  the former are to be found in the latter. Every single nation state on this planet – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist because every single one of them is locked into a system of global capitalism and is driven by a dynamic that is indisputably capitalist.

[robbo203]

robinhood wrote:

Hi, i am new to this forum but at the age of 60 have spent my life oscillating over socialism, marxism and there pros and cons. Needless to say any same man would probably come to the conclusion that no political ideology is going to fit an individual absolutely so best fit is the best that one should initially find acceptable. Generally reading the 'about us' part of the website I was encouraged as very largely I agree. Points needing clarification (not that i disagree) are the remarks that China, Cuba and Soviet republic were not socialist but a capitalist state. can any one expand on this.   

 Robinhood, You might find this book of some use which you can download and read. Its a bit dated but still highly relevant https://libcom.org/library/state-capitalism-wages-system-under-new-management-adam-buick-john-crump

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 If "First World" workers have been "bribed", that is because they have forced the bosses to bribe them.

Oh really?! Then how come only after US industries began to outsource their production to other countries (Mexico, Chine, etc.), American workers' wages stopped rising? How can you "force you boss" to bribe you, if there are no industries and no bosses? As I expected, your views are too Euro-centric and entirely baseless when it comes to the "Third World" countries. In this you share the ultra-right-wing creed of "You are responsible!… it's your choice!… You are lazy!…"

 This doesnt follow at all. Actually, if anything, it proves the opposite. The whole point of Lenin's daft theory is that the Labour Aristocracy in the developed capitalist economies – sometime he implied the entire working class in the developed capitalist economies – benefit from the payment of a "bribe" out of the proceeds of the "super-exploitation" of the Third World by the capitalists of the developed capitalist economies exporting their capital to the Third Wolrd.  Yet here you are saying, as proof for the existence if the imaginary bribe,  that when US industries outsourced their prduction elsewhere, American workers wages stopped rising!  On the face of it, you would expect these wages to go up  insofar as US industries profited from the superexploitation of these  other countries in the Third World where they outsourced their production to and that these industries would then pass on part of the benefit to the workers  in the mother country in the form of  a bribe .Its all a load of codswallop.  Lenin's used his Labour Aristocracy thesis to try to explain the social basis of reformism or opportunism.  The Labour Aristocracy – the labour lieutenants of capital – would form the leadership of  reformist political  parties that that would limit the aspirations of workers to getting a better deal under capitalism and so steer workers away from agitating for social revolution. In return the Labour Aristocracy would be rewarded with a "bribe"Ths begs  a nnumber of questions.  Firstly how does one identity this bribe and distinguish it from the wages and salaries the labour aristocrats receive.? The fact is, if such a bribe existed , it would be part of the wage packet. That being so you would expect the capitalists to be more amenable to demands for higher wages by these same workers they were allegdly bribing.  Why did they resist them as fiercely as they did if they were going to benefit from the loyalty of the labour aristocrats to the capitalist order? It makes no sense.  Also contrary, to Lenin's sociological explanation for the Labour Aristocracy, this section of the working class was characterised by a higher degree of militancy than average. Its ironic that many of the core membership of the Bolshevik Party were themselves members of the Labour AristocracySecondly, it is often easily overlooked that the interests of individual capitalist enterprises do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the capitalist class. as a whole  In theory , if such a bribe existed, one could see how it might be in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole to bribe the Labour aristocrats – so as to secure their political allegiance to capitalism.  In practice however, it not the capitalist class as a whole that pays the wages of these workers but their direct employers.  These capitalist businesses are in competition with each other and one of the ways in which they effectively compete is to cut costs including labour costs.  – not add to them unneceesarily in the form of a bribeAnother reason why the notion of a bribe being paid out  for some nebulous political objective is without any kind of basis in reality

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

So, not only has socialist society no need of the concept of "value" which is a market concept but it won't need a general labour-time unit of account either. It will just need to calculate what particular types of labour power are available or needed (measured by skill and time) just as it will to calculate the particular types of materials (measured in physical quantities)..

 Yes I agree 100% .  I just dont see the point in labour time accounting in a socialist society (not to be confused with labour vouchers but I dont see much point in them either).  Quite apart from the bureauccacy involved in monitoring labour time there is the intrinsic problem of how you weight differnet kinds of labour.  For example skiiled versus unskilled Concerning , "socially necessary labour time" (SNLT).I dont see how this could be applicable  in a socialist society  In Marxian theory, this forms the very substance of value and in the long run determines the ratios in which commodities exchange. However,  SNLT  is not something that you can measure with a stopwatch.   It boils down to kind of "social average" for the amount of labour required to produce a given commodity under the prevailing industry-wide  technical conditions (although, confusingly, it has also been interpreted by some  as  referring  to "best practice" techniques within a given industry) .  This is why inefficient producers using outmoded technology cannot be said to produce more "value" than efficient producers simply because they use more actual labour to produce a commodity by comparison with the latter.  The additional labour they contribute over and above SNLT does not count towards value –  or, to put it differently, the goods that they produce cannot be deemed more valuable  and thus able to command a higher price, because more actual (past) labour went into making them.  On the contrary,  their relatively lower level of productivity  is one reason why these producers might find themselves squeezed out of the market by their competitors who are able to undercut them  pricewiseFurthermore, what is  deemed "socially necessary labour" depends finally upon the commodity produced actually being sold on the market.  No value is produced to the extent that there is an overproduction of commodities in relation to what the market can absorb and, of course, this makes the question of measuring "value" all the more problematic  because we cannot exactly know in advance whether a commodity that has been produced will be sold.  It is only in the process of exchange that value manifests itself so to speak.  It is then that the value of goods, the SNLT embodied in them, will express itself indirectly, and in the long run, through the prices such goods command – which prices will tend to vary in proportion to the quantitity of  SNLT embodied in them. In other words,  the expression of value  is mediated through money units – prices.  As Marx put it: "Social labour-time exists in these commodities in a latent state, so to speak, and becomes evident only in the course of their exchange…. Universal social labour is consequently not a ready-made prerequisite but an emerging result’ (Marx, K, 1981, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London, p.45). Another reason why SNLT would have no purpose in  a non market socialist society

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

An update on this thread that some may find of interesthttp://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/stone-age-massacre-offers-earliest-evidence-human-warfare-kenya

Quote:

“The deaths at Nataruk are testimony to the antiquity of inter-group violence and war,” said Marta Mirazón Lahr, from the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at Cambridge, who led the study. “These human remains record the intentional killing of a small band of foragers with no deliberate burial, and provide unique evidence that warfare was part of the repertoire of inter-group relations among some prehistoric hunter-gatherers…The Nataruk massacre may have resulted from an attempt to seize resources – territory, women, children, food stored in pots – whose value was similar to those of later food-producing agricultural societies among whom violent attacks on settlements became part of life…Nataruk may simply be evidence of a standard antagonistic response to an encounter between two social groups at that time.”

 I dont quite undestand the logic behind this.  The  attempt to "seize resources – territory, women, children, food stored in pot"  surely presupposes a sedentary society which is not what hunter gatherers are. The standard response of HGs to external aggression is flight not warfare.

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

You wrote: "This sums up your misunderstanding neatly"Quite contrary, it shows your own misunderstanding. "If everything is held in common how can exchange take place?" Who said that everything would be held in common?! That is a common misunderstanding about Marx's idea of "abolition of private appropriation of means of production".Besides, I did not invent that statement myself. Go back and read the statement I had quoted from Marx.

 "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning" Critique of the Gotha Progamme K Marx

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Dont you mean surplus PRODUCT?  Im not sure this would even be meaningful in the context of a socialist society.  There will just be different products satisfying different ends and that there will be opportunity costs involvd in producing anything at all

No, surplus product is what peasants make over subsistance.  Surplus profit is where a capitalist firm produces at a rate below the average socially necessary labour time (though technical innovation, say) but can still sell 'above value' by selling at the prevailing market rate.

 OK Im with you now…

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Also, I note you are still conflating surplus value with surplus profit, as clearly explained, average socially necessary labour time is the definition of the total value of a commodity: surplus value is the difference between the value of labour power and the average socially necessary labour time that goes into a  commodity.  What you are arguing is closer to Proudhon than it is to Marx.

 Dont you mean surplus PRODUCT?  Im not sure this would even be meaningful in the context of a socialist society.  There will just be different products satisfying different ends and that there will be opportunity costs involvd in producing anything at all

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

 . It also shows how a socialist society could replace the chaotic capitalist markets with a conscious social plan, and that is never possible without value measurements and system. …….The concept of communes is at the core of communism. Notice that communes is in plural form, i.e. there are several communes interacting with each other in a given society and that interaction will definitely include commodity exchange too. However, this exchange will acquire new qualities and is different from that undertaken between capitalist firms. Therefore it is impermissible to suggest a communist society is no different than a Ford plant!

 This does not follow at all.  In fact you whole argument seems to be based on a contradiction.  First you assert socialism  or communism , according  to Marx,  will be a based on a "conscious social plan" i.e  society wide central planningThen you assert it will involve communes interacting with each other spontaneously i.e. that planning occurs at the level  of the communes and not society – and that these unplanned interactions will "defintely include commodity exhange too".  Thats nonsense.  When did Marx ever suggest commodity  exchange would continue in communism?.  As the Communist Manifesto itself noted, communism would entail the "communistic abolition of buying and selling" i.e. commodity productionI think where your reasonuing goes wrong is in assuming that anything short of full scale society-wide  central planning must entail market exchange.   I totally reject that argument.  Its the kind of argument put forward by the Ancaps to justify the need for a market.  In fact I would argue that the only realistic model of a totally non market socialist or communist economy would be one which would be very largely self regulatng  and decentralised. We see this in embryonic form today in the system of physical accounting   – stock control – that exists alongside the system of monetary accounting linking business enterprises along a supply chain. Socialism will dispense with monetary accounting  but will retain the physical accounting aspect of this relationship There would be no economic exchange in the quid pro quo sense since this necessarily implies private property and hence the absence of common ownership.  It would be very wrong to deduce from the mere existence of numerous planning bodies e.g. your aforementioned communes, the existence of private property as such which is what, I think , you are doing.

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

It is possible that Hardy was correct then but not now. There will be no need for any cut in living standards. Workers suffering extreme poverty only need to be free from capitalism to rapidly increase their living standards.But even if we in the 'west' did have to lower our living standards briefly, how does that invalidate the Party's (and indeed that of Marx and Engels) claim that the case for socialism is based on the material interests of the working class? People all over the world and in poverty have material interests in common with mine.My interests are inextricably tied to all workers. If we wait for 'Morality' to bring about socialism, we will wait a very long time

Hi VinIm not too sure that Hardy's view would be incorrect now.  Could you substantiate this claim? I think in the early days of socialism there will indeed be a need to redirect resources to areas of the world where current living conditions of most people is pretty appaling and that this will necessitate some self restraint and reduced consumption levels on the part of workers living in areas that are much more favourably endowed.  I honestly cant see any way round this but nor do I see it as presenting a problem.  I believe people would be willing to assist  in this way as part of the caring ethos of socialism and, as I said before, there is a lot more to life than one's standard of livingAlso I am not suggesting the argument that socialism is based on material interests is invalid.  Of course material interests are involved  But the case for socialism is also based on morality – necessarily.  Indeed , I would argue that  the very concept of class consciousness is itself an implicitly moral concept. That is to say, you consider the wellbeing of others (fellow workers in this instance) as having value in itself.  That is a moral position, by definition.  If on the other you take what is called an "instrumentalist" view of others, seeing them as merely a means to your own end then I would suggest this would  seriously subvert the very reason for wanting to work for socialism.  It would be more profitable for you to redirect your efforts into becoming a rich capitalist (which would certainly be in your in your material interests as an individual!)So no, socialism is about both "morality" in this broad sense and "material interests" and I think these thing would nicely complement each other in the way a socialist world would tackle the enormous structural problem of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism.  Over time this will diminish but it aint gonna happen overnight

[robbo203]

Just a few random points on this threadIn response to Alan’s point Ike says:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

“Are you saying that British workers should not be allowed to defend their living standards?” Are you saying the English are not entitled to defend their standards from in-coming Welsh and Scots? That those in the Home Counties should not defend themselves from those Northerners new-comers. Should east-enders in London should now stop those from south London from re-locating.If we're talking about what happens in reality, then we're talking about 'British workers'.  You hypothesise a labour conflict between various sub-nationalities, but that is not a current issue, and I also made it clear why the issue of imported labour might be raised by trade unions when we discussed the Lithuanian workers, your example.  It's not a dislike of other nationalities, or any sort of racial bigotry, it is rather a reflection of the right of workers to defend their livelihood, living standards, families and way of life.  It seems to me that you sneer at all this from a metropolitan standpoint, and that would explain the irrelevancy of your Party, notwithstanding that you are theoretically correct about capitalism. 

 I find this riposte weak and unconvincing. It doesn’t really address the argument Alan raises at all which is why, if you are going to stop outsiders from entry ,do you stop at the boundaries of the nation state. What is it about boundaries of the nation state that makes it significant as a socio spatial entity? Why not oppose workers from the north of England or Scotland from relocating to southern England or vice versa. Or people from Devon relocating to Cornwall  (I lived in Cornwall for a while and knew a bunch of Cornish nationalists  whilst there).  Or West Londoners from taking jobs from East Londoners. Ike does not really answer this point  at all.Presumably the “theoretical correctness” of the Socialist Party includes its analysis of the nation state as a capitalist construct.  Yet here Ike is seeking to validate and reinforce the nation state as the organising principle of social life and by extension the capitalist ideology that underpins the nation state and its stratagem of divide and rule.  By identifying with the nation state in this way this can only have consequence of cutting across and undermining our class identification with fellow workers right across the world.  However you look at it, that is necessarily to work directly against the struggle to realise a world socialist society. Another point.  Ike says he is a socialist in sympathy with the goal of world socialism.  Let’s look at this.He talks in highly melodramatic terms of the negative impact of immigration on workers living standards. Actually the statistics refute his claims and I see Alan has beaten me to it in listing some sources which show Ike’s claims to be based on a gross exaggeration.  The impact is negligible and moreover he fails to take into account emigrationBut let’s look at this question from the perspective of world socialism. Imagine for a moment that we have just brought into being a global socialist society.  This society will have inherited to a great extent the spatial inequalities of capitalism. How would such a society deal with thus?I recall an article by the late comrade Hardy that was printed in the Socialist Standard many years ago  (I think it was a part of a series on the subject of Marx’s conception of socialism). Now I seem to remember Hardy suggesting somewhat controversially that , come the revolution, a substantial chunk of the working class in the West may well have to endure a short term fall in living standards to enable the rest of the world to catch up.  That idea stuck with me and I think there is something in it.  It’s part of the reason why I don’t agree with Vin wen he says the case for socialism is not based on morality but on material interests  I think it is necessarily both and the above illustrates neatly illustrates this very point.There is, in any case, lot there more to life than one’s “standard of living” – quality of life, for instance – and I for one would happily reduce my standard of living if it ensured a better quality of life.  This obsessive preoccupation with living standards is bound up to a large extent in my view with ethos if crass consumerism which I earnestly hope will disappear come socialism The point of my mentioning Hardy’s argument is that it hones in on what Ike is saying in a very direct way.  Ike is suggesting that workers should organise to protect their living standards by opposing immigration.  Quite apart from deflecting attention from what is the overwhelming and primary threat to their living standards  which is the constant downward pressure exerted by capital (which is amplified at times of capitalist crises), has Ike considered the implications of what he is saying here from the standpoint of a world socialist society? I think the persistence of such a nationalist perspective on the interest of workers which he seems to be calling for, would not only obstruct the realisation of a world socialist society but, were such a society to be realised, would fatally undermine it. It would set the stage for intolerable competitive tensions over the spatial distribution of resources. You cannot separate the end and the means to achieve that end.  The ethos of a socialist society has to be prefigured in the movement to bring about that society. Ike’s approach to this subject will not bring about socialism; it will entrench capitalism 

[Author]

Posts