[robbo203]

"Does complexity rule out meaningful democracy?When socialists speak of democracy we mean something very different from the concept the mainstream media provides. Instead of giving you permission to vote for some toff or careerist to serve and define your political interests (improbably) for five years we insist that any meaning democracy must entail the involvement of the community at every level in political/economic decision making" The concept of the "Community" is a bit like a Russian Matryoshka doll.  There are communities within communities. Hundreds of thousands of them at every level.  The lower the level, the more communities there are.  Will the global community be involved in decisions taken at the level of  the village? Obviously not.  The most appropriate community for that is the village community.  Meaning everyone else outside of that community will perforce tend to be excludedTo arrive at a more realistic or practical model of socialist democratic practice, then, we need to unpack or disaggregate this whole concept of "community".  There is no one single "community" in the abstract Most of the objections are ideological and do not deserve any serious consideration but there is one that has to be discussed: Does our technological culture depend almost entirely on the expertise of a minority of specialists whose knowledge cannot be easily understood by the ‘layman’ and is therefore inaccessible to democratic debate and decision? Are these ‘technocrats’ the only ones with the talent and ability to make decisions concerning, for instance, scientific research and technological application?…The decision of the allocation of resources within socialism would have three stages: Dissemination of information, debate and vote. This last sentence is an important qualification.  It further refines our notion of democratic practice in a socialist society.  Democratic decision making relates to the allocation of resources which affect us all.  Its not really about science or the development of scientific knowledge.  Actually that is a silly idea to suggest that scientific theories should be subject to a democratic because: 1) What would be the point?  If theory A is preferred by democratic vote over theory B to account for some phenomenon should we henceforth abandon any attempt to develop a rival to A on grounds that to do so would be undemocratic?.  Most  people thought the sun revolved around the earth a few hundred years ago.  We would still be thinking this if the development of scientific understanding had to conform to a democratic vote 2) It would be impractical   There are literally thousands of scientific theories coming on stream every year.  How would  you organise a global vote by 7 billion of us on each of these thousands of theories?  Also, to vote on something you have to know what it is you are voting on.  No one, not even the most brilliant and talented scientist alive can know anything more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge,  Therefore, almost by definition any vote on any scientific theory, even assuming individuals would be  sufficiently motivated to vote would by default be the vote of a tiny minority who have acquired the knowledge to know what they are voting aboutThe social division of labour gives rise to specialists and experts , almost inevitably.  This is not to advance any kind of elitist view of science as a whole  – that is , in some supra disciplinary sense.  The expert in biochemistry is not an expert in geotectonics or mechanical engineering,  She is only an expert in her own chosen field. To gain competence in her field requires devoting years of study to it and hands on experience but if we all attempted to become competent biochemists none of us would have the time to become competent mechanical engineers or geologists or whatever.  Society would suffer as result. We have to allow for this in socialism and enable individuals to specialise and not just become a jack of all trade in socialism.  This has implications for the conduct of science itself.  For the development and refinement of any particular scientific theory it means most of us of necessity are not going to be able to have much of a say in the outcome.  Of course we can always chose to have a say in the development of this theory. That means equipping ourselves with the means to understand what it involves and socialism will presumably not put any barriers in the way of individuals acquiring such expertise.  But that also means we will most likely not be able to develop an expertise in some other branch of science.That stems from the simple fact that there is an opportunity cost for every decision we takeHowever, all this doesn't matter from the standpoint of socialist democracy, What matters is the application of this scientific knowledge and its implications for the allocation  of resources that affect us all – like the article says. That is where democratic decision really comes into play not in the development of scientific understanding as such,This too is a constraint on the practice of socialist democracy along with the notion of what constitutes the "community"

[robbo203]

 Just came across this which puts a different slant on the matter http://says.com/my/news/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-mark-zuckerberg-donating-99-of-his-fortune-to-charity

[robbo203]

rodshaw wrote:

Yes, but shouldn't the absolute income value be related to prices? 32k dollars is a lot more for someone in a 3rd world country. Or is this figure somehow smoothed – an average, net disposable income figure? Obviously it makes no sense from a capitalist/worker point of view.

 I think it must be a global average.  The link I posted goes on to say this:Of course, Americans live in the United States, contending with U.S. prices. Who constitutes the one percent if you just look at the U.S.? Not surprisingly, it takes a massively higher income to crack the top percentile of wage earners: You’d have to make $434,682 in adjusted gross income to make the cut, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.And to rank amongst the highest one percent of Americans by wealth? That requires net assets of more than $7 million, based on the latest Federal Reserve figures.This  is why I think we need to be careful about using the Occupy movement term the "the top 1 percent" in a way that suggests this refers to the capitalists.  As Alan suggested, it can play into the hands of people like Fox News who use  it to argue that most Americans are in the top 1% and are  therefore capitalists .  Which is of course nonsense

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

FFS I should have known better and that sooner or later or later we would stray on to  this same old monotonous dead-end obsession that LBird has which seems to be the final resting place of each and every discussion anyone ever has with him.

 Which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't transparently a strawman/aunt sally technique. We didn't know that expoitation is a social relationship ffs. 

 Exactly Vin.  And the fact that it is a social relationship does not mean it is not quantifiable.  These things are not mutually exclusive. LBird imagine for some strange reason that he is a Marxist but no Marxist would take up the peculiarly nonsensical position  LBIrd has taken which  would rule out the possibility of a Marxian economics altogether. Like I said, if exploitation cannot be quantified how could you begin to talk about a rate of exploitation as Marx did.  In fact,  by  LBird's reasoning there is no way of telling whether it is the capitalist exploiting the worker or the worker exploiting the capitalist and the whole notion of surplus value or even value must fall by the waysideI would like for him to have explained what exactly he think defines a capiutalust if not someone who has a considerable amount of capital – a quantifiable thing – but as usual he has fled the stage leaving a trail of  unanswered questions and the distinct whiff of red herrings in his wake

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession.

[my bold]No.It's not an 'amount' (a quantitative factor).It's a 'social relationship' (a qualitative factor).Once more, robbo, your philosophical basis is individualist liberalism, not democratic communism.You are interested in 'personal possession' that can be mathematised, counted, quantified, by a method open to individuals, especially an elite of individuals.

FFS I should have known better and that sooner or later or later we would stray on to  this same old monotonous dead-end obsession that LBird has which seems to be the final resting place of each and every discussion anyone ever has with him.Yes LBird we all know that "exploitation is a social relationship"  Stop trying to teach us how to such eggs! The relevant question is how do you differentiate between the two parties that make  up or constitute  this dyadic relationship?  What distinguishes a capitalist from a worker?If you were a Marxist then you would know the answer to that.  A capitalist is someone who possesses sufficient capital to enable him or her to live off the proceeds of his or her investments.  If you have another definition of a capitalist then lets hear itThere is no such thing as a free-floating social relationship that does not occur between empirical flesh and blood people.  Just as there is not such a thing as the individual outside society so there is no such thing as a society without individualsYou have never understood that and that is the same reason why you do  not  understand that exploitation is both qualitative and quantitative. You claim to be a Marxist but what was Marx thinking of writing about the "rate if exploitation" is he imagined it could not be quantified after a fashion?And the biggest joke of all is that you then proceed to solemnly inform us that the  bourgeoisie constitute 5% of the population. Pray do tell us –  how did you arrive at this …er…quantitative figure and on what basis did you differentiate between the bourgeoisie and the rest of us if not in some quantitative fashion?Over to you LBird

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

'Income', meaning 'earnings' or 'earned income', has nothing to do with 'class'. The belief that 'income' relates to 'class' is a liberal individualist belief, and comes from bourgeois sociology.'Class' is a 'social relationship' which is 'exploitative'. So, a boss who has a poorly-performing firm, and continues to pay their workers more than they receive themslef, is in a different class from the workers, and is still exploiting those workers, even though they have more income than the boss.This example may be an extreme one, which doesn't often occur, but is used to bring out the exploitative relationship at the heart of the Marxist definition of 'class'.It is not defined by 'income', but by 'exploitative relationship'.

Qualifying it as "unearned" income would certainly be strongly indicative of an exploitative relationship, though  Also the income stream generated by a capitalist's investment does not all go towards funding the personal consumption needs of that capitalist.  Much of it wlll be reinvested as capital.The proportions may vary according to circumstances   So the above boss may pay himself less than his workers but the other part of his income which you overlook will go towards keeping the business – HIS  business – afloat

.LBird wrote:

If I was pressed to put a % figure on classes, I would probably put it at 5% bourgeoisie, 15% petit-bourgeoisie, and 80% proletariat. Of course, these are estimates, and subject to changes in capitalism, and location in world production, but they help us to get away from the liberal nonsense that only 1% (or even less) are our enemies.That is, perhaps 1 in 5 people have a socio-economic interest in capitalism continuing, at present. That's why they are still very powerful and influential. Things will change, but it doesn't pay to underestimate the difficulties facing us at present.

 "Petit-bourgeoisie" is category that can and ought to be dropped in my opinion though some leftists love to use the term as a handy form of abuse. It is also ironically a divisive term that divides workers form each each other , makes the working class seem smaller than it is,and thereby serves the interests of capital.   If you want to be pedantic about it, most workers own a little bit of capital anyway – even if its just a savings account tucked away in a post office.  Many also contribute to one or other pension fund. The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession.  This is where quantitative differences become qualitative onesFrom that point of view there are only two classes in society – the capitalists and the workers – but there is a grey area where one class shades into the other.The figure of 5% for the bourgeosie is far too high in my opinion – certainly in global terms.  Though you dismiss income as an indicator of class – I tend to think of it as a proxy indicator – 5% would include a lot of people on a substantially lower income than the $32K threshold required to get you into the top 1% of income earners globally.  I dont think it is remotely plausible that a member of the bourgeosie or capitalist class would have an income of $32k per year let alone substantially less.Consequently a more realistic figure would be something like 99.9% workers (we will disregrard the position of peasants for the sake of the argument) and 0.1% capitalists.  There are sociological gradations within the working class of course but at end of the day the vast majority are working class because they possess little or no capital to live upon

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Yes, this is often the argument i have heard on Fox TV. That most Americans are part of the 1% so why should the poor be complaining… 

Maybe Fox TV sees eye to eye with Lenin on the question of the Labour aristocracy LOL

[robbo203]

Ah sorry the figure should be 32K US dollars not pounds.  So the threshold of entry to the top 1% in global terms is even lower than the one I citedI couldnt find the orginal FB article but found this instead which corrobrates what I said above"According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut.Using current exchange rates, that amounts to roughly:29,100 euros2.1 million Indian rupees, or200,900 Chinese yuanSo if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top one percent worldwide"Read more: Are You In The Top One Percent Of The World? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp#ixzz3salV7NLiFollow us: Investopedia on Facebook  As an afterthought I suppose it could be argued that wjat essentially characterises a member of the capitalist class is the possession of capital rather than a high income stream as such.  This is true but I would imagine there is a significant degree of correlation between these two things… 

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

It seems LBird rejects this material analysis but doesn't have an alternative – apart from we all have a vote to value items – so resorts to obfuscation and becomes frustratedThat is hardly simplifying things for fellow workers, is it?

LOL.That is to put it mildly! But I dont think LBird has the foggiest idea just how daft what he is arguing for actually is. He is a completely lost in his own little fantasy world, bless his little cotton socks.  Apart from anything else, the valuation of goods according to their socially necessary labour content is an abstraction  relevant only to a society in which goods take the form of commodities.  It wont be relevant in the slightest to a communist society in which commodity production has ceased to exist.  End of.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

The materialists, including you robbo, have already 'concluded' that there is 'nothing of substance' to 'ideas'.That's the whole point of Engels' 'materialism'.The bourgeoisie removed 'consciousness' from its considerations of 'nature/being', to reflect their removal of 'society' from 'property'.They supposedly 'discover' an 'external static reality', whereas Marx argued for the 'changing' of a 'malleable relationship between consciousness and being'.I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

 No, LBird, there  nothing of substance to YOUR ideas, not "ideas" as such you numbskull ! In particular your totalistic idea of the global workforce  democratically controlling every aspect of world production which is a breathtakingly stupid idea.  And if you cant see that by now then I have no hope for you. Strangely enough , though you would not have noticed it, so obsessed are you with presenting an utterly distorted picture of what other people are saying in order to give yourself a leg up, I have actually been no less critical of mechanical materialism and postivisim as you have been.  But you have conveniently forgotten all that havent you? Always always always  -you conveniently find  some way of evading having to the answer the simple straightforward questions I asked of you in my previous post.  Always!  You are intellectually dishonest  and devious  LBird.  I really cannot be bothered to take you seriously anymore

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"?

Y'know, sometimes I wonder at the childishness of all this.I say 'theory and practice' – the materialists say 'what about practice, LBird'.I say 'subject and object' – the materialists say 'what about object, LBird'.I say 'ideal and material' – the materialists say 'what about material, LBird'.I say 'mind and matter' – the materialists say 'what about matter, LBird'.I say 'consciousness and being' – the materialists say 'what about being, LBird'.I say 'quality and quantity' – the materialists say 'what about quantity, LBird'.I just know that if I said that 'I love cheese and onion crisps', the materialists would complain about my hatred of onion.I have to believe that you're all doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that 'materialists can't read'. It's so circular and depressing – we never take the discussion forward.

 Well you started it all off by your assertion that it is "not a matter of counting heads" when you could have very easily said it is "not ONLY a matter of counting heads" Clearly you do now acknowlege that counting heads does matter.  Good.  So  now can we move on to the main points which are 1.  How will 7 billion workers be expected to vote on the question of value in the workers democracy?  What are the mechanisms and procedures involved in a global vote of this kind? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?and2, Why do you consider that the law of value will continue to apply in a communist society thus requiring the workers to vote upon its application when such a law is only applicable to a commodity producing society?Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..

Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird.  So help me our here.  You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy.  Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?

No, it's not 'a matter of counting heads' (a physical count of material beings), but 'a matter of counting minds/opinions' (which includes, obviously, consciousness). So, it's as much qualitative as quantitative. 'Counting heads' is merely quantitative. You might argue 'it's only a matter of words', but I think your choice of words is very revealing.

 You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"? How would you know what was the majority position and what was the minority position without "counting"?  The idea is absurd. That aside you have still not answered my main point LBird.  Why in a communist society would workers want to vote on the question of value at all?  Value as I tried to explain, pertains only to a system of commodity production.  Communists advocate a society without commodity prduction yet here you are arguing that value is something that will be a question to be voted upon in a communist society. You clearly do not understand Marxism if you think that law of value will apply to such a society.

LBird wrote:

To control the means of production, we have to control all of our social activities. There can't be an elite who claim to know, outside of our democratic control. That leads to 'private property' in both ideal and material.

 There are two different responses to this claim of yours LBird Firstly, your postion is far too black of white. We either have to control all our social acitivites or an elite will control them, according to you.  I take a quite different position to your control freakery .  That there will be a huge chunk of our social acitivites that will not need to be subject to any control at all but will be spontaneously orderedSecondly who is the "we" in "we have to control all our social activities".  Are the citizens of Greenwich in communist New York going to have the right to determine where the citizens of Barnet in communist London want to locate their spanking new community centre in a future communist society? If so can you explain how this is going to be done in practice.  If not , then this would mean that some of us would control some social activities relevant to us while others would control other activities relevant to them so that there would be a spatial division in  decisionmaking.This, too, undercuts your simplistic black-or-white representation of democratic control in a communist society

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy?  What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?

You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?

 Not at all   LBird.  Im just curious as to how you figure 7 billion workers are gonna vote on the question of value.  What does that mean in plain english? What is the motion(s) that they are supposed to be voting on? What are the procedures involved in collecting and processing the votes of 7 billion workers? And what is gonna happen when the result of the global vote is  eventually revealed – that is to say, what is the real world effect that this vote is goonna have? Why are you so reticent about providing a straight answer to all these fairly simple straightforward questions?Oh and while you are at it, could you please explain what is the point in voting on the question of value anyway.  You claim to be a Marxist.  Well I thought that that Marx was fairly clear on the matter – that socially necessary labour time was something that was only discoverable through the market in a post hoc sense. Do you envisage retaining the market in your workers democracy LBird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..

 Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird.  So help me our here.  You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy.  Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Do we really have to have a discussion about the benefits of 'democracy' for the proletariat?I won't derail this thread, but simply say that I was answering alan's appeal for an understandable explanation.One's view of 'value' will be determined by one's view of "workers' democracy".

 Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy?  What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote? I fondly imagined that the "law of value" would disappear under communism anyway

[Author]

Posts