[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

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

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

[robbo203]

imposs1904 wrote:

Link: He has a book to sell.

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

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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

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

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

imposs1904 wrote:

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

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

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

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

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

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

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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

Quote:

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

 

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

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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

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

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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

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

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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

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

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

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

Quote:

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

Here's an extract from Rentoul's article

Quote:

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

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

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

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

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

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

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

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Abilities, needs and rewards will be decided democratically.That is Communism, and it is not individualism, as you and robbo seem to think.

 How does the whole of society "decide democratically" what the "abilities , needs and rewards" are in respect of Citizen Joe Bloggs  (And what "reward" anyway since I had always understood communism would break the link between your productive contribution to society and what you take from society which is to say your contribution would be freely given without remuneration)If advocating from each according to ability to each according to needs makes one an individualist (whatever that means in your book) then that makes Marx a very prominent individualist of sorts

[robbo203]

 

stuartw2112 wrote:

OK, thanks Robin, nothing to add for now. I may be confused, but the ideas I'm trying to get over aren't so much so. Anyone interested in what I'm trying but failing to get over might like to try:From Marx to Mises by David Ramsay Steele The Economics of Feasible Socialism by Alec NoveSmall Is Beautiful by EF Schumacher

 Steele has this rigid conception of socialism as being an economy of society wide  and totally centralised planning and  the so called economic calculation argument which he peddles in a sense relies on such a conception in order to makes its central claim stick – that you cannot operate an advanced large scale economy in the absence of market prices.  But the argument is fundamentally flawed.  It rules out a priori the possibility of a feedback mechanism, which mechanism overcomes the very objections raised  by the ECA to the possibility of running society along socialist lines.  That is because a totally centrally planned economy cannot by its very nature have such a thing as a feedback mechanism – because the totality of production is necessarily planned in advance – and therefore cannot be self correcting.  However, if you drop the dogma that socialism is a centrally planned economy and take instead the view that in socialism the overall pattern of production would be spontaneously arrived at,  you are into a whole different ball game altogether which, quite simply , makes the whole economic calculation argument utterly irrelevant.  YMS is quite right to point out that it is not the exchange of commodities we need but the exchange of information and that independence of the level of the productive unit within a cybernetic feedback structure should give us the scope to be able to manage  Not quite sure why you include Schumacher in your reading list, Stuart. Would it be to counter the view that you imagine is held and endorsed by socialists that on the contrary only "big is beautiful" in line with their (supposed) belief in central planning?  Actually though you don't appear to realise this you are pushing against an open door in that respect in as much as many of us do uphold a vision of socialism in which a great deal of the decisions taken would taken at localised (and small scale) level in socialism.  This includes the authors of the "Socialism as a Practical Alternative" pamphlet whose approach you earlier appeared to scoff at.

[robbo203]

 Hi Stuart, There are a lot of points you raise, some highly contentious, which I will try to answer.  In general, I would say  that it is neither my position, nor that of the SPGB, that socialism offers some kind of magic wand solution to the economic  problems that the world faces, only that it is much better and, likely, much more effective way of going about solving those problems to the extent that this is possible. And no that doesn't necessarily mean "all those people who can't currently afford an iPhone can have one, and all those people going to be bed hungry tonight can have steak and chips tomorrow". Caricature is just a convenient  way of trying to short circuit an inconvenient argument.   Like your silly claim that I have "already worked out that such preposterous, ridiculous problems just won't arise because, well, because they're silly, dammit, and I won't have any silliness spoiling my lovely dreams of the future.  Less of these colourful rhetorical flourishes and more in the way of meaty argument, wouldn't go amiss, Stuart! But first a point of clarification. I don't know who these " millions and millions of people" are "all of whom have some understanding of and desire for socialism".  I only wish it were true but I doubt the veracity of this claim.  Its a question of terminology, I guess.  In the context of this forum, however, we are talking about "socialism" as a strictly non-market non-statist form of society in which the means of production are owned in common.  You are perfectly at liberty to define socialism – or indeed capitalism  – in some other way but then we would be talking at cross purposes.  Ultimately its not the label that counts but the contents  in the bottle I stand by my assertion that socialism as defined above and irrespective of the label you wish to attach to it, is indeed the  "only conceivable" way out of capitalism in all its guises.  What other option is on the cards? You don't spell out anything at all that we could sink our teeth into but instead cover your tracks with the vaguest of generalities  What are these other ideas that you say  are absolutely "conceivable" and "doable".  Put them on the table and lets discuss them.. Lets see whether they amount to something different to capitalism I suppose it is possible  that society could regress into some form of barbarism  brought upon by ecological collapse or global warfare.  That would clearly not be  socialism but nor would it be recognisably capitalism any longer.   However I am assuming "by way out of capitalism" is meant  an alternative that has been intentionally proposed and not one simply imposed by adverse circumstances.  You have ruled out non market socialism as "impossible" so we are left with only some form of market system . That being the case, I would say that this inexorably works to sustain and keep intact the very existence of capitalism in one form or another. I still think that you do not understand at all the argument about a spontaneous economic order in which the overall pattern or production is arrived at, not through conscious centralised direction, but through the spontaneous interaction of the different parts of the economy in the form of a feedback mechanism.  You get it the wrong way round when you assert the market creates this spontaneous order.  In fact the anachocaps with whom you fallen into some kind of strange sympathy would, oddly enough, see things differently.  They would argue that it is the complexity problem that gives rise to the need for a spontaneous order which in turn gives rise to the need for market prices to coordinate and give direction to productive activity. They are wrong as are you.  A spontaneous order does not necessitate the market (actually the opposite is true).   It is the socio economic relations of private property in the context of a spontaneously ordered system of production that gives rise to the market.   Your confusion on this question is neatly summed up by your attempt to characterise my position  as based on a "non-market market".  You cannot seem to detach the concept of spontaneity from that of the market and this explains why like the anarcho caps you are driven to declare dogmatically that any alternative to the market must ipso facto involve society wide central planning. But the argument is completely invalid.  You cant see this because like your new found friends on the Libertarian Right you cannot see that a mechanism already exists that permits the coordination of economic activity on a global scale  that is 1) fully consistent with a spontaneous order and 2)  does not invoke the bogeyman of central planning at all – namely, a globalised and self regulating system of stock control. Its not enough Stuart to acknowledge, as you do. that "all societies organise some things communistically (internal organisation of capitalist firms say)" The interrelations between productive entities can likewise be organised on this basis except that they would no longer be constituted as capitalist firms.  That involves changing the purpose of economic activity  from production for the market to production directly and solely for use. The technical infrastructure to permit this to happen and to spontaneously  coordinate production on a worldwide basis is already in place.  This will be at the very heart of a communist system of coordination and, ironically enough, were such a mechanism not to exist, capitalism itself could not exist, could not function for even a single day.  It would collapse in total chaos.  Try to imagine capitalism operating without a self regulating system of stock control using calculation in kind.  The very idea is absurd

[robbo203]

Hi Stuart 

stuartw2112 wrote:

Yes indeed, this is exactly the "error" I've fallen into, though obviously I don't share your judgement of the arguments! I accept the argument that, with the best will in the world, any attempt to seize state power and implement full communism will see the economy lunge disastrously down a Bolshevik type road. You obviously cannot object to the possibility of this in principle, for it's precisely analagous what you say happens to well-meaning types who take over capitalist governments. 

 I don't accept this argument at all and I find it quite difficult to imagine how you yourself, given your acquaintance with the  SPGB, could come up with such a preposterous idea.  I mean this is almost a kind of stereotypical "Colonel Blimp" knee jerk response to the proposal of a genuine class conscious – with the emphasis on conscious – socialist revolution:  "Damn Bolshies! They'll bring ruin to the economy!" Does it not occur to you that we are not talking at all about  a state capitalist minority revolution in a relatively backward peasant based  economy?

stuartw2112 wrote:

There are dangers lurking in the whole Marxian project: The first is that modern industrial society can be or should be subject to conscious control and planning, and that this will give better results than the spontaneous order created by the market. For me, this danger is not in the least averted by someone assuring us that the planning will be democratic, or that the centralising impetus will be checked by all kinds of decentralising good intentions. The centralising logic is inherent in the whole argument and intent. 

I think with respect you are treating this as a dogma in the same way as the anarchocaps cling to the conviction that socialism must necessarily be a centrally planned economy, they simply cannto handle the idea that things might be different.  There is no "must" about it.  Where did you get the idea  that the "centralising logic is inherent in the whole argument and intent"  Who said so and why should we take them at their word. Did you not read at all my argument about the need for a feedback mechanism?  I reject your claim about the spontaneous order "created" by the market. I don't think even the anarcho caps make such a claim.  They would argue to the contrary that it is the spontaneous order that creates or necessitates the market .  They are dead wrong – as are you. The market is only a particular instantiation of a spontaneous order.  There are other ways in which spontaneous order can manifest itself outside of the market. As I explained, a self regulating system of stock control using calculation in kind is one such example.  In fact capitalism can only exist and function thanks to these kinds of mechanisms that precisely a communist society would make use of

stuartw2112 wrote:

The second is that Marxists are thoroughly opposed to creating blueprints for the future. But nevertheless, they are intent on taking state power in order to usher in the future society. This means that, when Marxists take power, they have absolutely no idea what they are supposed to do with it. But they have power, they have an idea that they are in the right and God (sorry, History) is on their side, that they must keep their enemies in check and start planning the economy so it works for the benefit of everyone. A chilling prospect. In other words, I now accept totally that Stalinism is a warning to all socialists, even those who strenuously reject Stalinism and are jolly nice chaps.

 This is a ridiculous argument Stuart.  You seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that it is absolutely indispensable to an authentic  socialist revolution that it presupposes people in their millions have a pretty good idea of what they want to do having captured state power.  You aare ddressing this whole argument as if we were Leninists wanting to lead the workers to socialism without the workers having to want and understand socialism in the first place 

stuartw2112 wrote:

These are not original arguments, obviously, but they strike me as convincing. Convincing as they are, they are not to me depressing. It doesn't stop me being a libertarian socialist. On the contrary, it frees one from unrealistic hopes and expectations and makes one sensitive to the dangers in authoritarianism of all kinds (including the authoritarianism of those who are damn sure they've got it all sussed out).

 Capitalism in all its guises – including the Stalinist model you invoke as some kind of warning to socialists which we should take heed of – is authoritarian by nature.  But you offer no way out of capitalism and indeed dismiss the only conceivable way way out as "impossible".  Draw your own conclusions, Stuart

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

 I'm sceptical that modern industrial society can be organised on communist lines, or that it would be desirable if it could be. 

 Perhaps,  Stuart, you ought to consider  the possibility that what is meant  by society being "organised on communist lines" is something much more flexible, elaborate and altogether richer in organisational terms than you might have allowed for. I have a sneaking suspicion that what lies behind your whole argument  is the idea a communist society  would be one that would be highly centralised,  where all decisions, certainly those of any import, would be effected by some kind of single  global planning centre.  This is certainly the conception of communism/socialism that is advanced by the anarcho-capitalists and you have admitted to having been influenced by their argument.  Their argument boils down to saying that modern industrial societies are just far too complex to be organised in this centralised "communistic" fashion whereby society as a whole speaks with one mind and one voice in respect of the the literally billions of economic  decisions that have to be made on a daily basis.  Calculation in kind , they say,  is feasible only within small scale units – like the family household –  but for anything larger than that  you need the objective metric of market prices to guide the allocation of resources.  The greater the scope you allow for the interplay of market forces, the great the probability of arriving at an optimal allocation outcome. Even the (state capitalist) Soviet Union which of course  never dispensed with the market relation, was obliged to bend to this truth as its economic base became progressively  more diversified and developed. Hence Perestroika and ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. However this whole argument or train of thought is a bogus one, from beginning to end.  I have been battling for years against what I see as a gross misconception of what a communist or socialist society is about which I think, with all respect, surfaces in your own arguments.  I would maintain that socialism would necessarily be to a very large extent a decentralised system of production in the literal sense and  that the coordination of productive activities would be effected very largely though a feedback mechanism – a self regulating system of stock control. In my exchanges with various Leftists on others forums I have been accused of advancing a sort of marketised version of communism.  This is totally to misunderstand the point.  There is absolutely nothing in the way of quid pro quo market exchanges within this schema. A spontaneously ordered economy –  that is to say, one in which the overall pattern of production is not centrally planned but arrived at spontaneously – does not depend on the market at all.  On the contrary, the market depends utterly on precisely that feedback mechanism I have pointed to above – a self regulating system of stock control.  Try to imagine how, say, a modern supermarket in a capitalist economy could operate without this and without physical calculation in kind (literally counting how many tins of baked beans you've got left on the shelf and how many more you need to order).  It can't.  Capitalism would not last a single day if it could not fall back on these kinds procedures which do not require a market at all in order to be implemented Any modern large scale society must necessarily be a spontaneously ordered one in this technical sense – that is to say, it cannot be operated from some mythical single centre but instead must involve the application of some kind of feedback mechanism.  Market capitalism is but one example of a spontaneously ordered economy .  The fatal error of the anarcho capitalists is to assume that market prices are the precondition and capture the very essence, of  such an economy.  That might well be the same error you have fallen into Stuart judging by your comments although I  am not entirely sure of this at this point in time.

[Author]

Posts