[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Vin, I agree that the traits suggesting empathy in certain animals has nothing to do with morality. Morality simply refers to a social code of conduct.Socialist morality would simply be a set of rules based around the need to curb what would be deemed anti-social behaviour.

 Hmm,  I wouldnt say empathy has nothing to do with morality, SP.  It has something to do with morality just as recipocrity or notions of fairness has something to do wth morality as well.  These things are the building blocks of a moral outlook and are presupposed by a moral outlook. Morality, as you say, is a set of rules – or expectations – governing behaviour, which rules can vary from one society to another and from one class to another.Ultuinately these rules ,or expectations,  are framed with the interests and wellbeing of others in mind as opposed to just one 's own interests anbd wellbeing  (which is a prudental rather than a moral concern). Socialism is necessarily both a prudentual and moral project becuase, as I have argued, you simply cannot get to socialism except on the basis of uniting with others – workers – whose interests and wellbeing are a concern to you as well as your own and becuase these other individuals are regarded by you as having value in themselves.  That is to say, socialism necessarily involves an altruistic component Translating our altruistuic regard for fellow workers into a set of tacit rules or expectations is precisely what a socialist morality consists in and we cannot do without it as socialists even if some ous like to pretend it doesnt exist!

[robbo203]

   

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

 

robbo203 wrote:

Do you imagine for one moment that the world that exists is one that correlates with your hypothetical dreamworld  of a level playing field? Do you really think that the 62 multibillionaires who  currently own between them more wealth than half the world's population – 3,500,000,000 people – have contributed as much to humanity as the latter?  I would put it to you that the "rewards" that these  62 individuals have received has very little, if anything ,to do with their own effort but overwhelmingly has to do with efforts of those who produce their wealth for them – the working class.  The workers in effect run capitalism from top to bottom but are largely excluded from the means of production However  hard they work it is the owners of capital that reap the benefits simple because they own capital and not because they merited or worked for what they  receive

 Please tell me you're joking right now.   

Nope. The production of goods and services under capitalism is carried out from top to bottom by the working class of wage and salary earners, even though capitalism itself is essentially run in the interests of the tiny nonproductive owning or capitalist class – that is to say, essentially geared to the pursuit of profit from the investments made by the latter class.  What part of this statement do you disagree with or don’t understand?  

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

As for the rest: Those billionaires aren't these lazy, useless invalids you think they are. They give huge sums to charity, they invest huge sums in businesses. They're the lifeblood of capitalism. Without them, capitalism would crumble. They're far more important than expendable workers who can just be replaced with another person if they screw up. 

It is not part of my argument that the billionaire class consists of “lazy, useless invalids”.  Actually, even if they all worked their socks off 24/7 and 365 days of the year it would still be the case that overwhelmingly the money they have acquired to invest in business or give away to charity would have come from the efforts of the working class, not them  They have acquired this money simply by virtue of the fact that they have ownership rights over the means of production and are thus able to exploit the excluded property-less  majority by paying the latter significantly less in wages and salaries than the value of the goods and service the latter provide or make As Ray B. Williams notes:Some of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in North America say there is no such thing as the "self-made man." With more millionaires making, rather than inheriting, their wealth, there is a false belief that they made it on their own without help, a new report published by the Boston-based non-profit United For a Fair Economy, states. The group has signed more than 2,200 millionaires and billionaires to a petition to reform and keep the U.S. inheritance tax. The report says the myth of "self-made wealth is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation."  The individuals profiled in the report believed they prospered in large part due to things beyond their control and because of the support of others. Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world said, "I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned." Erick Schmidt, CEO of Google says, "Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize that I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant."  ("The myths of the "self-made man" and meritocracy"  Psychology TodayJune 13, 2010)Also, your views on the nature and motive force behind philanthropocapitalism strike me as a little naïve and gullible.  Check this out  https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/george-soros-philanthrocapitalism-millennium-villages/  

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

 You ignored the problem. Your argument against the existence of banks is that they take up unnecessary space and resources. I was simply pointing out that the use of those resources would just be replaced by the administration necessary in socialism. You need the administration to figure out rations and make sure people aren't taking more than their fair share. You also need the administration to keep track of who has what. Socialist society requires people be able to obtain what they need, but how are they supposed to do that if no one knows where the item in question actually is? Just walk around until you find someone who has it? Your counter to the rations argument will be to say that people will only take what they need out of 'good will'. To this, I direct you to Denmark in 2012, a welfare state in which only 73% of independent citizens had any kind of employment, and a lot of this employment had very short work hours too. This includes people who work only because working is necessary to have the money to live properly. Imagine how much that willingness to work would decrease if Denmark were to abolish money and give everyone, even if you don't work, the resources necessary to live comfortably. 

  This is an absurd argument you are presenting here.  Once again – where is the need for the  administration "to keep track of who has what” in a socialist society and what on earth has this got to do with banking and the provision of finance which would not exist in a socialist society?  By socialism we mean quite literally a society based on the common ownership of the means of producing wealth.  Common ownership necessarily means the absence of economic exchange or to put it differently economic exchange = markets – implies the existence of private property and hence the absence of common ownership. Given common ownership of the means of production what this also means is people have direct free access to the wealth that is produced which in turn implies that the wealth that is produced is done so on a completely voluntary unpaid basis. All of these features are logically interconnected: common ownership, no economic exchange, free access, volunteer labour.  You can’t have one without the other. The administration required for a socialist society to operate will be a tiny fraction of the size of capitalism’s sprawling bloated bureaucracies.  What will need to be kept track of is not what individuals consume but broad patterns of consumption in respect of the aggregate demand for specific lines of goods to ensure there is an adequate supply to meet future demand.  This is something that is already done today in the guise of a self-regulating system of stock control based on calculation in kind e.g. numbers of tins of baked beans on the shelves.  However, alongside calculation in kind we also find today, monetary calculation.  Socialism will dispense with the latter but retain the former so simple logic will tell you that in terms of its administrative apparatus socialism will be vastly more streamlined than capitalism. On the question of work incentive, it is a complete myth to suggest that without monetary incentives individuals will be less inclined to work.  Actually there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that monetary incentives (so called) actually have the effect of undermining the intrinsic motive to work.  See for example "Does Pay Motivate Volunteers?"  (Review of Economics and Statistics, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich , Working Paper Series , ISSN 1424-0459 , Working Paper No. 7, May 1999) which is a classic study in that field. A further point to make in this regard is that most of the work that we do even in capitalism is unpaid.  This is what constitutes what is called the grey economy which is counterposed to the official white market economy and the unofficial black market economy. Studies undertaken by social reearhers and bodies like UN  have shown that in terms of total hours worked , the grey economy is marginally larger than both the white and black economies combined  

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

So a socialist state's production would be only enough to meet human needs, and not human desires. Sounds like a horrible world to live in if the food available to you is only what is necessary to live, where entertainment is scarce because you don't need it; only want it. Where no one can go on holiday because they don't need to; only want to.

There is no socialist state in socialism.  In the classical definition of socialism the state disappears since it is an instrument of class rule whereas with socialism classes cease to exist in the Marxian sense.  Hence, Engel’s observationThe people’sstatehas been flung in our teeth ad nauseamby the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm On the question of needs and desires – who said anything about socialism providing just a bare minimum to sustain life?  This is purely your invention and projection onto socialism what you imagine it to be. Quite simply, socialism will provide whatever the people of a socialist society will want it to provide – not a nanny state, not a corporation but the people themselves, freely and voluntarily. Socialism is all about the removal of barriers to what human beings desire not adding to the already substantial barriers presented by the market.  “Need” is, in any case, a socially and historically variable concept.  100 years ago we did not “need” television or washing machines. Can the same be said today?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Human beings are, by nature, moral animals.  Its part of what makes us human.  It stems from the fact that we live in societies – that we are social creatures.  

A bold statement , cde. Which animals to you consider immoral or non moral and why? 

Slight difference between "immoral" and "non moral", Vin, since immorality presupposes a systen of moral values to begin with whereas non morality or amorality does not.  Human behaviour has both moral and amoral components . And not just human behaviour.  Some animal behaviour too – particularly in primates – is morally driven or at least exhibits the rudimentary building blocks of a proto-morality.  Read Frans de Waal on the subject or check out this    https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Another argument defending capitalism from its critics as 'evil' is that capitalism delivers growth and development (or even raises living standards). 'Ferraris for All' is a particularly memorable title of a recent book along these lines. We as socialists shouldn't fall prey to this argument from economic development and should do so by avoiding framing our argument in moral terms and make that point that if we can, then we will deliver 'Ferraris for all'.

 You cannot but frame the argument against capitalism in moral terms. It is unavoidable and inevitable.  The very concept of  "class exploitation" is a value laden term which denotes moral disapproval.  The very process of class identification and forging class solidarity is in part a moral process becuase it is predicated on a concern for the wellbeing of fellow workers and a belief that they have value in themselves.  This is what makes it a moral perspective – by definition.  True, this is not conventional bourgeois morality but it is morality all the same – the proletarian morality that Engels and others were on about it.  We should acknowledge and embrace such a thing, not pretend it doesnt exist. Human beings are, by nature, moral animals.  Its part of what makes us human.  It stems from the fact that we live in societies – that we are social creatures.  Though I dont agree with his political philosophy, the 19th century sociologist, Emile Durkheim was surely right to say that all societies are in a sense moral constructions.  Socialism will be no exception .  And the ends and the means must harmonise. The movement to establish socialism must involve, amongst other things,  the promotion of moral values that it would wish to see incarnated in a future socialist societySometimes I think the people who say socialism is not in part based a moral perspective  dont really  understand  what morality is about at all. They think morality is something that is preached from a pulpit on Sundays.  They confuse a particular instance of morality with morality itselfI repeat again – for socialists to argue that socialism is a simply a matter of self interest and nothing more  is not only a profoundly anti social and anti socialist thing to say  which elevates the individual above all else and regards all others outside of the individual as having no value in themselves,  it also converges completely with, and reinforces,  the model of  society advanced by people like Adam Smith which entrenches "self interest" as the absolute and governing form of motivation.  The only substantive difference between socialists who think like this and the free marketeers is that the former believe socialism rather than capitalism  will deliver "ferraris for all" and to hell with environmental consequencesAfter all ,why should we care seeing as we are "amoral"?

[robbo203]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

Capitalism doesn't aim to meet human needs; it meets human desires, which does coincide with needs on the lower end. Anytime someone wants something, they can probably get it and if they work hard enough (ignoring opportunity, for the minute. Let's pretend it's a world where everyone starts at least average, as is the most desirable world), they can afford to buy it. This is a natural reward system of capitalism, in that the more you contribute to humanity, the more you get out of it, and that's fair because in a world with an equal starting point like the one I hypothesised just now, that is what exists. 

Are you serious? Do you imagine for one moment that the world that exists is one that correlates with your hypothetical dreamworld  of a level playing field? Do you really think that the 62 multibillionaires who  currently own between them more wealth than half the world's population – 3,500,000,000 people – have contributed as much to humanity as the latter?  I would put it to you that the "rewards" that these  62 individuals have received has very little, if anything ,to do with their own effort but overwhelmingly has to do with efforts of those who produce their wealth for them – the working class.  The workers in effect run capitalism from top to bottom but are largely excluded from the means of production However  hard they work it is the owners of capital that reap the benefits simple because they own capital and not because they merited or worked for what they  receive Also capitalism is not about "meeting human desires".  In fact that is a rather odd thing to say given that the bourgeois economists, with whom I am guessing you are in some sympathy, confidently inform us that our desires are (allegedly) insatiable.  Rather , capitalism is all about the cultivation of desires that ultinatrelt cannot be met through such as means as advertising becuase this is the corrollary of its own iirrational expansionist dynamic:  producton for the sake of production 

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

You've failed to tell me why banks are actually bad; just that a world without money wouldn't need them. What it would need though, is administrative facilities in which people keep record of who has what, who needs what, and arranges for the person who has the item to give it to the person who needs the item, which also requires energy, raw materials and labour. Or would you have the people organising this just do so from cardboard boxes in the street? And that's another point. The ones organising the system have more power than the ones subject to it, which is another obstacle to socialism and proves it could only work on a very small, self-sufficient scale inside a world where everyone is in such mini-societies. Once you get enough people in your society, you need people to keep track of who has what because not everyone is going to be a personal acquaintance of Andy the Lumberjack. 

 Why would you want to keep track of who has what in a socialist society? To what end? We already know that the means of prpduction would be owned in common in such a society.  So your question really presupposes a property based society and is thus irrelevant.  In any case,  you dont seem to understand what banks are for.  They are not there to organise the distribution of energy raw materials and labour., they are there to provide finance – financial capital fro businesses , mortgage loans etc etc- and so presuppose a society in which finance is essential to "oil the wheels" of commerce and industry within a capitalist society.  That wont be the case in socialism in which there will be no "finance" and therefore no banks.  Socialism will produce directly ad solely for human need.  You have already conceded that capitalism is not about meeting human needs.  So from a socialist standpoint, anything that is superfluous to, or departs from, the task of meeting humans needs is wasteful and unecessary, Its not that banks are  "bad", its just that they produce nothing of value – they are socially useless – and divert  vast amounts of human and material resources from socially useful production.  The banking sector is just one aspect of an array of socially useless activities under capitalism whose function is to seve the systemic needs of the system itself not human needs

TheSpainishInquisition wrote:

What form does this waste take? You've only said that it makes waste, not what the waste actually is. In the same way, I could say that socialism produces a lot of waste, and the only choice you have is to believe me, or ask me what form the waste takes. 

  Structural waste takes the form of all those activities under capitalism that do not meet human needs  but merely exist to seve the systemioc needs of the system itself and are thus socially useless from the standpoint of directly meeting human needs.

[robbo203]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

By definition, capitalism doesn't waste resources. The whole idea of capitalism is to reduce expenditure as much as possible. 

Lol SpanishInquistion.  By whose definition is this the case? Looking at the matter abstractly and purely from the point of view of the competing productive units – businesses – then it is certainly true that each business has an an incentive to reduce all unnecessary costs  in order to maximise its profit margin and stave off the competition.  I guess thats what you mean by capitalism not wasting resources.Your mistake , however, is to equate "capitalism" with the individual productive unit under capitalism.  The problem with your "methodological individualism", as it is called, is that you cannot see the wood for the trees. You cannot see the way capitalism functions as a system.  It is only when you've stepped outside of the box youve trapped yourself in and look at the question of resource allocation from a genuinely non-market socialist perspective that you can begin to see just how grotesquely wasteful capitalism actually is from the standpoint of meeting human need. The great bulk of economic activity in the formal sector of the capitalist economy  is completely and utterly useless from the standpoint of meeting human needs.  Such activity occurs simply and solely to enable the system to operate on its own terms. You can get a rough idea of the extent of structural waste in capitalism  – a concept which only becomes visible and salient through the prism of a socialist perspective – by trawling through data bases like the American Bureau of Labor Statistics which contains comprehensive information about the occupational structure of the US economy. Take just one small aspect of this structural waste – such as direct financial  activities like banking   Now banks will not be needed in a socialist society since economic exchange will cease to exist and hence also a means of exchange in the form of money. According to  the BLS  site, for the US alone there are about 8.2 million workers employed in "financial acitivities"  (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm). This  of course is only the tip of the iceberg because a substantial chunk of the apparently "socially useful sector "of the economy – like the construction industry or the power supply indistry – is actually put to the service of  the socially useless sector of the economy itself.  That is to say, institutions like banks need to be housed in buildings which require energy, raw materials and human labour to be built and maintained on an ongoing basis. Financial acitivites comprise, as I say, just one aspect of capitalism's structural waste; there are many others.  Some estimates of the percentage of structural waste inside capitalism are very high indeed- Marshall McLuhan famously put the figure at 95% which I think is a gross overestimate.  I think a more reasonable figure would be between a half and two thirds of the formal sector. To put this in perspective , what this means is that socialism could, at the very least,  double the amount of socially useful wealth produced compared with capitalism using the same quanitities or human labour and materials – or alternatively could produce the same socially useful output  using half the human labour and resoruces that we use today under capitalism

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

 1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

 Er..Moderator, if you care to read more carefully what I read you will see that it is actually a development on what I had previously written, not a mere repetitiion of the latter.  This is what tends to spoil debate on this forum – the occasional over zealous and heavy handed interventions on your part. Can I suggest you try to be a bit more accommodating and flexible by way of moderating your own moderation, eh?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…democracy is … not about establishing Truth…

Once more, robbo can't be any clearer.He holds to an ideology that claims that 'Truth' is not established by democracy.It doesn't take much thinking about his ideological claim, that 'democracy is not about establishing the Truth' (which is also a claim that bourgeois ideology makes), to start to wonder, if not the democratic proletariat, then just who does 'establish the Truth'?From logic alone, we Democratic Communists must assume that robbo has in mind an 'elite' who are to 'establish the Truth'.Those who know the events of the 20th century, and are aware of regimes that claimed to be 'socialist', but also refused to allow workers to actively participate in the production of truth, also refused to allow workers to participate in politics, or in the distribution of social production… in fact, those regimes, which also claimed that 'Truth is not established by democracy', weren't 'socialist' at all.Only the class conscious proletariat, building towards a socialism in which they will themselves determine production, can be the source of any claims for 'truths'.Whilst workers look to any persons or organisations which clearly deny the active role of the revolutionary proletariat in all areas of social production, then those workers will be lied to and fooled. The result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'.This is the fruit of 'materialism'. Materialism claims that the 'material' ('matter' or 'physical') speaks alone to a 'special elite' (but doesn't speak to workers, who are too poorly educated, or even have no interest, to participate), and so, from the very outset, denies the possibility of democracy in the means of production. For materialists, 'matter' is the 'active side', and so workers cannot vote upon what 'matter' actually 'is'. The materialists argue that 'matter just is', and they claim that they (and they alone) 'know' matter, because they have a non-political method which allows elite minorities to access 'matter', outside of considerations of socio-historical consciousness, or the wishes or purposes of the proletariat.They claim physics is non-political. This is a bourgeois claim, and its emergence can be located in history.This claim leads to the ideological belief that 'Truth' is outside of any considerations of social consciousness, and so outside issues of democracy.Beware, any workers reading, an elite plans openly to deny democracy in the means of production: this elite actually says so, and you should take their open claims seriously.

 Youre just waffling LBird and not making much sense at all.  I note that ,having lied through your teeth in your earlier post about me (and presumably others here too) wanting to "deny democracy in the means of production", you are still persisting with  this line of argument although youve wisely chosen not to name names in this latest attempt of yours to throw mud around in the hope that it wil stick on someone I have made clear what my position is. I see absolutely no point in submitting scientifc theories to a democratic vote.  You have not  once explained why this is necessary and what is supposed to happen once a scientific truth has been democratically voted on.  Is dissenting opinion going to be suppressed after the vote? No? Well then what was the vote supposed to be abou?.  What was its  purpose?  Just to demonstrate that a majority thinks a particular scientific theory was "true"  – or alternatively not "true".  Big deal, then what?  .  In what way  is this democratic decision going to be meaningfully implemented or applied and to what end?.  You dont explain.  You never explain.  You cant explain and that is because, quite clearly, you dont really understand democracy., do you LBird ?  You  don't really understand what it is for. Weve been over this several times but still you dont get it  You can't seem to see that there is a world of difference between calling for "democratic control over the means of production" and calling for a "democratic vote to determine the truth of a scientifc theory,"  The former is  both practical .and necessary in a socialist society; the latter is just plain nuts and betrays a kind of religious cum dogmatic attitude towards "Scientific Truth" that you shoud want to formalise it in this way. And we wont even go into the logistics of organising tens of thousands of  worldwide plebsicites for every scientific theory going becuase I know you are too embarrassed to even attempt an answer – arnet you LBird? – so I will spare you any further embarrassment.Do I think there will be an elite community of astrophysicists in socialism who know a lot more about astrophysics than the average guy in th street.  Absolutely!  Dont you LBird? Answer this – how many years of study do you reckon it takes to become an accomplished astrophysist?  I dont know but lets hazard a guess and say 10 years.  So according to you in order to avoid there being an elite of astrophysicists everyone will need to commit at least ten years of their life to the  intensiive study of astrophysics,  That way we can all be accompished astrophysists, familiar with all the theories circulating in the field of astrophysics and hence able to vote knowledgeably on whether these theories are true or false. Yes?But  hold on a moment – what about the molecular biologists or the oncologists or the people into plate tectonics or the cognitive sceintists and so on and so on.  There are probably thousands upon thousands of different specialisms.  So what are you gonna suggest, LBird?  That we devote 10 years of our lives to each of these as  well? Well, Im sorry to disappoint you but unfortunately we  have only a limited lifespan and we can't do everything So LBird there are only two choices left 1) keep our already incredibly complex social division of labour intact and concede therefore that you are always goig to have experts – what you call the "elite" – in what ever field you care to mention2) abolish this social division so that we all become "jack of all trades" and masters of none and witness the rapid decline of science and technology, followed in short order by the collapse of society's infrastucture and productive capacity Is this an "ideological " statement on my part.  Sure it is! I dont know what you are – presumably some kindi of primitivist by the sound of it –  but I am democratic communist and I am concerned that a socialist or communist society should be able to materially support its population, not collapse into barbarism and a vicious struggle over a  rapidly diminishing pool of resources,  Encouraging expertise is part of what is needed to sustain a level of output that would enable such a society to floursih. That does not mean as you stupidly claim,  that the result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'. You forget  firstly that there will be no one elite but multiple "elites" in each of their specialised fields. The astrophysicist is not part of the elite of molecular biologists in the field of molecular biology.  Secondly there will be no impediment whatsoever placed on anyone to pursue whatever field interests him or her and to develop expertise in that field. Socialism will be a completely open society in that respect.  That does not mean there will be no examinations and qualifications en route to acquiring expertise. If you imagine just anyine is going to be able to perform the task of a brain surgeon without being qualified to do so then you are seriously deluded. And thirdly what leverage could scientific experts exert over the population at large in a society in which the principles of free access and volunteer labour apply?.  None at all.  And the oorrolary of that is prceisely "democratic control over the means of production". The democratic determination of Scientifc Truth , on the other hand. is an irrelevance and utter baloney

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

A number of comrades have tried to convince me that the SPGB is not Leninist, and have been at pains to persuade me that the SPGB really is committed to "workers' democratic control of the means of production", and so the SPGB is 'socialist' in the sense that it claims to be.But, as I keep asking those well-meaning comrades, can't they read what is being written, by those opposed workers' democracy, on this site?Here, once more:

robbo203 wrote:

Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"…

I really don't understand how those comrades who are defending the SPGB can interpret this in any other way than a denial of workers' control, that is, a denial of democracy within the means of production.

  Either you a very serious problem with your eyesight, LBird, or your are being grossly dishonest.  Here is what I actually wroteCommunist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"  – that would be absolutely pointless anyway.-  but to decisions relating to the regulation and control of the means of production and it will operate at multiple levels – local regional and , much more rarely, the global levelNow explain to me in what way is this  a "denial of democracy within the means of production"?

LBird wrote:

Apparently, for those within the SPGB who agree with robbo, the social production of scientific knowledge and social truths will be in the hands of a self-selected elite. They keep saying this, so I take them at their word, and I'm not sure why other comrades are not taking them at their word.To me, this is not any form of 'socialism', but simply a retread of Leninism, where an elite with a 'special consciousness' (which by their definition is not available to all workers, otherwise they'd agree to workers' democratic control) tell the 'unconscious masses' what the 'Truth' is.

What bilge. I am quite happy to acknowlege that I will never be an accomplished nuclear physicist or a molecular biologist in socialism. I recognise, unlike LBird, that there will always be those far more accomplished in these fields than I could ever be and who will understand theories that I cannot even get my head around. Is that a problem? Not in the least.  Why shoud it be? If it is a problem then how does LBird propose that we get round this problem in socialism?  How does he propose to do away with the incredibily complex social division of labour upon which our advanced technology is based?  Spell it out in detail LBird.  Childishly claiming it is "Leninism" is no answerHow are we all gonna  become accomplished nuclear physicists and molecular biologists ( not to mention the numerous other fields of sceitific expertise)  in socialism ?  Becuase if we dont then its gonna be pretty difficult to meaningfully vote on some abstruse theory we know nothing about, dont you think? Thats is to say nothing  of the logistiscs of organising this global vote or even the very purpose for holding it anyway. On this last point I still have no idea why you think a vote is necessary.  Say for the sake of argument you manage to organise this vote  and the Truth of a  some scientific theory is democratically established.  OK now what? What are we supposed to do with this democratic decision?   Will  people be sanctioned for questoning the Truth or what?.  You dont explain . You never expain.  Thats becuase you dont understand what democracy is for . It is not about establishing Truth but about the resolution of conflicting interests .That is why it makes no difference to me whatsoever that some know a lot more than I will ever know, They cannot use that knowledge against me in the area of practical decisionmaking which is where the real significance of  democracy actually  lies 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, Vin, would 'all' democratically control maths, physics, etc.?It's a simple question – will 'all' control the production of 'truth'?

 No , because1) there is absolutely no need for thisand 2) it is logistically impossible for 7 billion people to vote on tens of thousands of scientific theories and only a complete fantasist  would think otherwise.Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"  – that would be absolutely pointless anyway.-  but to decisions relating to the regulation and control of the means of production and it will operate at multiple levels – local regional and , much more rarely, the global levelQED

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Well the ruling class don't regard welfare of the working class as crucial, are all the ruling class immoral? Why are working class largely not socialist, are they immoral too? What workers need is economic identification and economic solidarity with their class not pious sacrificing your own interests, individual workers should strive for the best deal under capitalism AND to propagate socialism in their own self interest! Mixing in morality leads to "hard work" under capitalism prevailing as the highest or only moral dimension.

 Non sequiturs JBond… Even if the ruling class does not regard the welfare of workers as crucial,  that does not mean we workers should take our cue from them.  Revolutionary socialists are meant to break with the idea sof the ruling class, not reinforce them. Also you still dont get the point.  Forging soldiarity with our fellow workers is necessarily and implictly, in part,  a moral endeavour.  You talk about the "pious "sacrificing of one's interest but imagine if workers literally took what you said at face value.  The idea of collectively uniting to mount a strike for example would simply be rendered impossible because, after all,  a strike involves a temporary sacrifice in the form of a loss of earnings , The whole appeal to strike action is based on the premiss that all the workers involved would hopefully benefit in the long run.  Logically,  you are saying that the interests of other workers matters as well as your own and this is precisely what I am saying a moral outlook consists in. A purely instumentalist approach to other workers which is what you seem to be advicating may be amoral but its is incapable on its own of rousing anyone to effectively participate in any kind of collective action in my view let alone forge any kind of sense of collective solidarity.  How could it when you are effectively saying to fellow workers I am only using you to further my own ends.? That sounds just like the capitalists you rightly criticise.  And the capitalists can also use that very same argument to dissuade the individuals workers  from participating in a strike.  Loyal workers wil be rewarded, they could say, by keeping their jobs or even securing promotion after the strike. You will not be able to mount any counter argument to what these capitalists are saying becuase basically you will be thinking along the same instrumentalist lines as them

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

No it is not a moral case (or both) and capitalism is not evil. It is just there are more working class than ruling class and a higher standard of living can be achieved.

 I disagree. It is both a moral case and a matter of self interests.  These two things complement each other and are both vital to the case for socialism.  If moral identification with fellow workers was irrelevant – that is, if you did not think the interests of other workers had value in itself and that you had no intrinsic reason to be concerned with their welfrare and wellbeiing (which is what morality is about)  – then how could you possibly develop a sense of class solidarity with them?  You express class solidarity with them because you empathise with their condition even to the extent of expressing the desire to altruistically sacrifice your own interests for the furtherance of your class interest (as Marx himself had specifically noted).  This is the "proletarian morality" Engels was on about – not the timeless morality of the Christians – and he was right to emphasise it.If you dispense with the moral dimension all that awaits is you is abyss of  the Smithian free market dogma of purely self interested motivation.  As I said, you might just as well strive to become a capitalst in that case rather than propagate socialism.  It utterly destroys and subverts any conception of a genuine collective class solidarity with its totally instrumentalist view of other workers as merely a means to serve your own private ends

[robbo203]

Evil as a metaphysical construction or force at large in the world out there doesnt exist.  Thats true enough. To say capitalism is evil is an anthropomorphism and capitalism is not a person or even a thing. Nevertheless, saying "capitalism is evil "  properly understood – is a metaphor or shorthand way of saying that the effects of capitalism are morally repulsive.  And since we wouldnt be socialists if we did not think that these effects of capitalism are indeed morally repulsive – not simply that capitalism is not in our "self interest" – then seen in this light, I think it OK to talk about capitalism being evil so long as we are not being literal about it. If you are going to argue that socialism is purely a matter of our own "self interests".then this leads to directly into the kind of thinking that lay behind Adam Smith's model of the invisible hand of the market.  You might as well give up propagatng socialism and focus on becoming a rich capitalist.  Socialists care about the wellbeing of our fellow  workers and it is for this reason that the very concept of class solidarity is by definition at least in part a moral construction.  The case for socialism is thus both a moral one and a  matter of interests.  You cannot separate one from the other without turning the whole case into an incoherent  shambles

[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. 

[Author]

Posts