[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

No, I think you're making yourself clear, robbo. I just think that I disagree.I see 'individualism' as a product of a particular society, and not as any sort of 'trans historical' factor in humans.Societies in the past didn't have the concept of 'individual' in the sense we have. Your view about agricultural slaves, it seems to me, is just transposing the way we think now onto the past.

 Hi L Bird But I wasn't talking about "!individualism"!  I agree – individualism is a relatively recent ideological phenomenon and, as I pointed out earlier, closely associated with the rise of capitalism.  Individuality, on the other hand,  means something quite  different to individualism and I attempted to explain the difference in an earlier post   I maintain that individuality is part historical and part trans-historical in  the sense that it is an inevitable outcome of a socialisation process which happens in every society..There is a useful discussion of these terms in Abercrombie, Hill and  Turner's influential book Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism  (1986)  in which they too draw a sharp distinction between individualism and individuality Robin

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Quote:

John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die"

I can guess what he's arguing but, strictly speaking, the title is inaccurate. Apartheid, as the legal separation of the different so-called "races" in South Africa with jobs reserved for some of them, did die (and a good thing too). And it died because it had proved to be a barrier to the normal operation of capitalism and the process of capital accumulation in South Africa. What its death didn't do was to improve the economic situation of most "Africans", even though it did improve that of some of them, not just businesspeople and politicians (who were able to enrich themselves).but also skilled workers (who were able to move into jobs previously reserved for "Whites"). Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.

 Strictly speaking, apartheid has 3 aspects to it1)  social apartheid – what is called petty apartheid (the racial segration of public facilities such as public transport) , the segregation of the education system along so called racial lines , the "Immorality Act" forbidding sexual relationships between races2) economic apartheid  – job reservation and the colour bar3) political apartheid  –  the homeland policy and the denial of political rights to the Black majority within the so called White area of South Africa  (constituting some 87% of the land surface if I recall correctly),  separate constitutional rights for the mixed race ("Cape Coloureds" as they were called) and Asian populations, the further differentiation of the Black homelands along so called tribal or ethnic lines. Of these 3 aspects I would say political apartheid was the most important.  Apartheid was basically the grafting of a racist political ideology onto a capitalist economy.  It  needs to be understood, however,  that it was the British who first implemented many of the basic building  blocks of what emerged as  Apartheid after the second world war.  The Britsh, for instance, introduced the first pass laws and established the first native reserves in Natal and the Cape Colony – not the Boers. I mention this because it is sometimes argued  (by liberals like Merle Lipton) that capitalism and apartheid are fundamentally incompatible, with the implication that the involvement of  (mainly British) capital in the development of South Africa was essentially a progressive influence. Im rather skeptical about this thesis  and though I dont reject it out of hand  I think it is a bit simplisticIn the early days of South African industrial development  big capital, particularly in the case of the mining industry,  quite happily collaborated and colluded with the racist state – long before Aaprtheid was officially introduced  –  to ensure an abundant supply of cheap migrant labour. In fact , the size of the  native reserves were deliberately reduced so as to further undermine what remained of the subsistence economy of Black peasants and make them more dependent on migrant income . For the same reason, hut taxes were introduced or raised  – to force people to become more involved in a money economy It was the structural transformation of the South African economy  particularly after the second world war – with the growth of the  manufacturing  and service sector – which is often presented as the primary impetus begind the long term trend that would eventuate in the demise of apartheid.  In particular, it  was the growing shortage of skilled and semi skilled labour associated with this development that is said to have exerted an irresisitable pressure on the apartheid state  causing it to progressivly soften its hardline stance, ultimately leading the the scrapping of apartheid.  It is from this time that you began to see a split emerging within the white nationalist community between the more pragmatic verligtes and the die-hard verkramptes. I have some problems with this argument even though it has some truth in it , partly because there was in fact an expedient device which the apartheid state could – and to an extent, did – fall back upon to relieve  the shortage of skilled labour if it so desired.  This was called the floating colour bar.  Basically what this meant is that as the pressue of skill shortages grew you could relieve it by allowing  Blacks to do more  and more of the work previously  done by Whites only. In theory this could have nullifed what I term the internalist argumnent  – that capitalism mechanically and of its own accord brought about the demise of Apartheid..  Interestingly,  Harry Oppenhiner Chairman of Anglo American who funded the Progressive party – the political wing oif Liberal capitalism – himself expressed support for the the idea of a floating colour bar. The other problem with the internalist argument is that  even if  Apartheid  had to go because it had become economically ineffiicient  to operate a modernising capitalist economy along those lines,  that cannot possibly be the entire reason why Apartheid went.  More important,  arguably, was the mounting costs to the state resulting from political opposition.   One thinks here of  the enormous costs of  social unrest in the townships, of the government strategy of "total onslaught" against the frontline states (my brother and I narrowly missed being sent into Angola  to fight the Cubans and MPLA  at the time when we were both very naive young army conscripts,  by electing to join the regimental bugle band  back in Namibia!)  and of course the costs of international sanctions.  All these things took a tremendous toll on the apartheid state and caused it to reconsider So it really wasnt as simple as saying that capitalism was fundamentally at odds with apartheid and therefore the latter had to go. There was a lot more to it.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The point Im trying to make is that individuality is to an extent is transhistorical in the sense that it is the outcome of an inevitable process of socialisation that occurs in all societies.

[my bold]Isn't this a contradictory statement?If a society doesn't stress 'individuality' in its socialisation processes, why should notions of 'individuality' emerge?No, I think 'individuality' is entirely historical..

 Perhaps I didnt make myself clear enough.  What I was trying to say was that individuality has both a historical and a transhistorical aspect.  Even the agricultural slave in Ancient Rome which you refer to has some sense of himself or herself as a distinct individual never mind what his or her master may think.  My point being that individuation is inevitably part of a socialisation process that happens in every society  and in that sense is transhistorical. Human societies are not bee colonies.  Individuality does not need to be stressed in that sense; it is an emergent property of socialisation.  Where it is stressed then perhaps  we are talking about the historical aspect of individuality…You might want to argue that individuality is always historical in that it is always stressed – more in some societies and less in others – but that is not the same as saying individuality is entirely historical

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

So here's the point Im trying to make: could it be that Marx's preoccupatiuon with the abolition of the division of labour was based on a tacit acceptance of the argument that the division of labour necessitated the existence of a market to mediate between otherwise disconnected and dissimilar individuals…

I don't think the the D of L 'necessitates a market' robbo. All sorts of societies have had a D of L but no market to mediate between 'individuals'.I think 'individualism' is an ideology, not biology.Once all workers, when asked 'Are you an individual?', reply 'No, I'm a worker', then we'll know that we're getting somewhere.The real relations of the market and its ideological excuse both need to be criticised and smashed.We can have a voluntary D of L and still meet the aims of Communism, the building of a society of 'social individuals'. The development of any individual is dependent upon the development of all.

 Oh I perfectly agree that the D of L does not require a market and said as much in an earlier post in which I argued not for its abolition but for a diminution in its extent in communism  (which would happen anyway with the disappearance of money related occupations).  The point is that the D of L  has been conventionally seen as inextricably linked to market exchange ever since Smith penned his "The Wealth oif Nations" and probably earlier.. In  Book 1, Chapter 3 of that work Smith opines thus:As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power, or, in other words, by the extent of the market. When the market is very small, no person can have any encouragement to dedicate himself entirely to one employment, for want of the power to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour as he has occasion for. Marx of course adopted and developed the labour theory of value as presented by Smith and Ricardo. Im wondering therefore  whether, or to what extent, he might also have bought into this idea of Smith's concerning the relationship between the D of L and the market.   There is a logical symmetry to that after all.  If the D of L goes hand in hand with the market then to want to get rid of the market would seem to imply wanting to get rid of the  D of L as well. Which is precisely what Marx  said he wanted The problem is of course  that, for Smith, increases in material output depended very much  on deepening still further the division of labour in society, not scrapping it.  The ‘meanest labourer’ in 18th-century Scotland  he contended,  was much richer in his annual consumption of goods than the ‘richest’ Indian (and African) Prince and this was all down to the  enhanced division of labour .  We know also that for Marx,  the establishment of communism  was predicated on the capacity to produce  a high level of material  output but if that depended on an enhanced  division of labour then we clearly have a problem here.   You cannot logically stipulate as a precondition of communism both the abolition of the D of L  AND the productive potential for abundance.- if that productive potential is dependent on  the D of L. in the first place    Something has to give.  My question is – what? Like you I consider that Marx was wrong to call for scrapping tjhe division of labour and I consider his thoughts on the matter to be somewhat muddled. There is that famous passage in the German Ideology in which he saysAnd finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.Now this is confusing because the social division of labour has precisely to do with the proliferation  of  various kinds of occupations in society.  In suggesting some of the kinds of occupations that might exist in a communist society Marx is contradicting himself  having argued that communism is predicated on the abolition of the division of labour. It wont do to say that in the case of a communist society the difference is that one is not forced to take up one kind of occupation to the exclusion of another.  That is not what the D of L is about. Rather it is about the fact that a variety of occupations exist in the first place. Forcing or confining individuals to a particular occupation or "exclusive sphere of activity." has to do with the relations of productions pertaining to a particular society – i.e. capitalism – rather than the division of labour as such Like you and ironically like Marx as well  (though he did not seem to recognise that this is what he was recommending) I subscribe to the notion  of a voluntaristic  division of labour in which individuals chose what activity to undertake rather than have it forced upon them by the conditions of employment or the fear of unemployment Which brings me neatly  to your point about individualism. Yes individualism is an ideology but you need to make a disrinction between individualism and individuality. These are not the same thing. Individualism is essentially an outer-directed ideological stance which has to do with how we realte to others  as self interested atomised actors. and above all within a socio economic context  .  As an ideological construct it is  closely associated with the rise of capitalism.Individuality or individuation on the other hand is inner directed and has to do with  a sense of oneself  – one's self identity.  Psychoanalysts, particularly those in the Freudian tradition, distinguish between different forms of identification , the earliest of which is called primary identification .  At this stage the infant develops a strong emotional attachment to the significant other but is unable to distinguish itself from the latter  whom it sees as merely an extension of itself.  This is followed by a form of identification called narcissistic identification  which derives from  the experience of loss of, or alienation from,  the other in question. The apprehension that our mother, for instance, is an objective or independent being outside of ourselves and not a mere extension of ourselves,  precipitates a growing sense of self awareness in  which the boundaries between the self and others become apparent.  Thus, our ego comes to be constituted via a process of other-objectification within a kind of individuation-separation dialectic. The point Im trying to make is that individuality is to an extent is transhistorical in the sense that it is the outcome of an inevitable  process of socialisation that occurs in all societies. However, and most importantly  it is also a matter of degree inasmuch a  in some societies it is more strongly developed than in others  and this is where we come back to the my earlier comment on Durkheim's distinction between mechanical  solidarity and organic solidarrty.  Where the former is based on social homogeneity, the later is based oin social  differentiation  in which the division of labour plays a  pre-eminent  role I would argue that it is in a highly differentiated society  and thus one based on a highly developed division of labour that individuality will tend to be most pronounced.  A communist society, Marx claimed and as you noted,  would be one in which  the " full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle" and in which the  " free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" . Far from the individual losing significance and fading from sight,  this would seem to suggest a marked degree of individuality  .  Why that should be so would not simply be due to the fact that a social division of labour would continue to exist in a communist society  but becuase of what follows from the fact that individuals  would be able to more closely approximate the idea of the polytechnic worker Marx imagined would materialise in capitalism as a precondition of communism . It would be because individuals would be able to freely chose what sphere of activity they wished to engage in and so,  to actively constitute themselves as individuals having a distinctive identity and sense of themselves.  This is very different from the kind  of approach that  passively depends on the outer trappings of material possessions  in order to define oneself as individual in the eyes of others.  With that, we relate to others through our possessions; it is objects – commodities – that mediate our social relationships and and atomise us as individuals in relation to one another .  Or to quote  Communist  Manifesto again – the bourgeosie "has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”  .  In a sense this is the very opposite of individuality.  It is a retreat from genuine social intercourse and a denial of our social nature  whereas  individuality by contrast is an outgrowth from our social interactions.  Erich Fromm touched on these two radically different modes of existence – a  "being" mode and a "having" mode – in his book "To Have or To Be" (1979) So finally – phew and sorry about the rambling nature of this post! – to turn to your commentOnce all workers, when asked 'Are you an individual?', reply 'No, I'm a worker', then we'll know that we're getting somewhere.Actually, I would argue to the contrary ,  that it is when  workers reply " Im an individual   not  just a worker" that we will know that we are getting somewhere.  That is the paradox of class conscious workers, having reached the stage of a class-for-itself – that they should want to overthew the very economic category in terms of which they organise themselves against a system that enslaves and dehumanises them  and refuses to consider them as anything other than mere units of labour. For such workers, the truly revolutionary thing to do is to insist that they be treated as  human beings.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Whether or not Marx was right to make the development of a "polyvalent worker" a precondition of socialism/communism (and I'm inclined to favour his other speculation that it requires a collective workforce capable of applying science to production, which we've already got as, after all, workers now collectively run production from top to bottom),  I don't think it can be said that he thought that this was something that workers could choose to themselves become within capitalism.There is a long exposition of his position in section 9 (on the health and education clauses of the Factory Acts) of chapter 15 ("Machinery and Large-Scale Industry) of Capital in which the following passage occurs:

Quote:

But if, on the one hand, variation of work at present imposes itself after the manner of an overpowering natural law, and with the blindly destructive action of a natural law that meets with resistance at all points, modern industry, on the other hand, through its catastrophes imposes the necessity of recognising, as a fundamental law of production, variation of work, consequently fitness of the labourer for varied work, consequently the greatest possible development of his varied aptitudes. It becomes a question of life and death for society to adapt the mode of production to the normal functioning of this law. modern industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the detail-worker of to-day, grappled by life-long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.

It looks as if Engels wasn't the only one to talk of material conditions imposing themselves "after the manner of an overpowering natural law" on society ! But then Engels too was the joint author of the German Ideology and part of the "we" in the less deterministic quote Robbo gave from it.In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what Marx or Engels wrote or thought as socialism/communism does not depend on that. They were just a couple of 19th century socialists whose views on what socialism/communism would or should be like are no more authoritative than those of  any other socialist.

 This last point is true enough.  But I suppose one is compelled to address  what Marx and Engels had to say on account of the idolisation of them by the political Left with whom socialists are engaged in critical debate on a seemingly almost permanant footing.  So what  M & E had  to say on sundry matters has become a sort of standard reference within socialist discourse, almost out of habit. Here i will admit  that  I'm as guilty as the next person in seemingly attaching too much importance to what these two 19th century thinkers had to say, even if a lot of what they had to say is still sound and relevant today. But, as i say,  it is because the Left is seen by socialists as our most promising target constituency that we are compelled to talk to them in terms of the langauge they speak and the idols they worship. On the specific issue of the division of labour, Im more  interested in the actual argument  behind the proposition that capitalism's demise is dependent upon bringing to an end the division of labour than the fact that Marx put forward this proposition. I can sort of see the logic behind what Marx was saying and it goes back to this idea of workers being able to identify with each other sociologically and culturally as a class rather than limit themselves to a mere "job consciousness" Im reminded here of Durkheims distinction between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.  Durkheim argued that in so called primitive traditional societies, a mechanical form of solidarity prevailed.  This was based on principle of homogeneity of outlook, experience  and character. So,  in a hunter-gatherer society for example, almost everyone engaged in roughtly the same kind of activity subject to a crude sexual division of labour (although even this was not an absoiute since there are ethnographic cases of societies where females fully participated in hunting expeditions, for example). Organic solidarity by contrast was based on differentiation, interdependence and above all , of course, the division of labour.  Along with this went the idea that, rather than taking a direct and personal form as in the case of mechanical solidarity where you identify/empathise  with someone else because he or she bears a close similarity to you,  social interactions came  instead to be increasingly mediated by the abstract forces of the market.  Implied in this view of society, which validates the existence of a market as a kind of social glue to bind individuals together, is the idea that it would be very diffluclt to get rid of such a society without catastrophic consequences.  Society would simply break up into a multitude of isolated disconnected atoms with nothing much  to hold them together or mediate between them  by way of a market. In short society as we know it would collapse and we would all go to the dogs (one might note in passing that  nationalist mythology might represent an attempt to address this concern by imputing to individuals an essential  national identity toi be shared with others and it is no concidence that nationalist thinking coincided with the rise of capitalism to complement the latter and to provide the conforting certainty- cum-safety net of an "imagined community" – to use Benedict Anderson's term) This is pure speculation of course but I wonder whether Marx's musings on the division of labour were unwittingly intended to address this problem?.    There is that wonderful,  almost lyrical, passage from the Communist Manifesto that suggests he might haveThe bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.  So here's the point Im trying to make:  could it be that Marx's preoccupatiuon with the abolition of the division of labour was  based on a tacit acceptance of the argument that the division of labour necessitated the existence of a market to mediate between otherwise disconnected and dissimilar individuals  and that consequently his hatred for the market and all other expressions of human alienation forced him to embrace that most primordial form of solidarity – mechanical solidarity – which in modern form would be represented by his ideal of  the polytechnic polyvalent  worker?Robin

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Unless I have seriously misread him, he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not , it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material reality, before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind but an objective organisational reality…

I have the sinking feeling here, robbo, that your use of the philosophical categories 'materal' and 'objective' might be very different to those that I think that Marx used. Your usage suggests, to me, Engels' science, rather than Marx's. But we've had a number of recent discussions about these issues, and I'm sure that both me and everyone else has had enough of that debate, for now at least.Please take my absence of a longer reply, not as ignoring your reasonable post, but as current exhaustion about discussing this.If you feel compelled to resurrect this debate, could you read some of the other relevant threads first, to get some feel for my position, and then I will be pleased to answer any questions you have. Cheers, comrade.Apologies if I've misunderstood you.

 Hi LBird No,  Im certainly not using  Engelsian philosophical categories of "material" and "objective". I did glance though the mega debates on this forum on dialectics , science and whatnot  and found it all fascinating stuff –  if perhaps a bit too much to keep up with.  As a matter of fact, by and large I found myself very much in agreement with the position you yourself expressed throughout. Perhaps, the expression "material fact of life" might be misleading or potentially misleading. But the point I wanted to convey from my reading of Marx in the passage I quoted is that he seemed to have envisaged the development of the polytechnic worker (as an ideal type) as being a precondtion for establishing communism and by polytechnic he meant someone who was multi-skilled and all rounded in a quite literal sense – that is someone who is able to quite lierally undertake a great variety of different task.  This is what I was getting at My point was that the division of labour under capitalism in fact prevents this from happening and is leading in the quite opposite direction of deskilling alongside excessive specialisation. It is therefore  denying  to us the very precondition set out by Marx himself  for the establishment of communism.  My argument  (in oppostion to what Marx is apparently saying) is that the abolition of the division labour should not be seen as a precondition of communism but rather as a consequence of conmunism but even then only to a limited extent. (more anon)  I think Marx was mistaken in his views and was led to this erroneous concluson by the rather abstract  line of argument he was bent upon pursuing. Somewhere along that line he lost touch with reality. I  hesitate to call it "material reality" for fear of offending but Im sure you get my drift I dont think in any case we should be talking in such stark absolutist terms of "abolishing  the division of labour". As has been poiinted out by others here, as far as the social division of labour is concerned  it is quite absurd to suggest that we could all turn our hand to being a nuclear physicis on monday , a structural engineer on tuesday and a concert hall painist on wednesday.   Clearly, there are some kinds of work  that require a very considerable degree of specialisation and focus to achieve an acceptable level of competence. One could also make out a case for retaining to some extent  a technical division of labour as I know  only too well in my own line of work as  landscape gardener who has someone else working with him..  I get Miguel to make the cement while I do the arty farty stuff. Well,  he's a lot younger than me so Ive got a good enough excuse! As in all things,  its a case of exercising moderation . What is the problem is not the division of labour as such as its extreme application which, in capitalism,  is compounded by the fact that we are not at liberty to just move from one workplace to another but are bound by contract and fear of life on the dole.  In socialism, I suggest, even the most  highly qualified specialist would benefit from the leavening experience of dabbling in a variety of different jobs now and then. Variety is, after all, the spice of life, innit? Robin

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Surely the task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'. Indeed, the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.So, it's not so much 'the nature of work under capitalism', but the criticism of 'the nature of work under capitalism' that is able to be developed only due to the prior existence of that 'nature'. Communism requires an active and critical proletariat to develop within capitalist relations of production.The 'all-round development of individuals' is our own task, and the fulfilling of that task itself will prove us to be fitted to move to Communism………….Workers themselves have to see through the 'job consciousness'; surely it can't be long before students (many now from a proletarian background) start to see through the myth that the purpose of 'education' is to 'get a job', rather than its real purpose of 'teaching critical thought'. Indeed, there have been some straws in the wind recently, in 'economics' departments, at least. So, I don't think you're being 'pessimistic', just 'realistic' at the present. Time will tell, if workers will start to see through the 'work for shit wages, in a shit job, to consume shite' propaganda put forward by the ruling class.

Hi L BirdI agree with what you seem to be saying or recommending  – that it is the criticism of the nature of work under capitalism  that needs to be developed but I dont think that is what Marx is saying.in this particular quote of his. Unless I have seriously misread him,  he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not ,  it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material  reality,  before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind  but an objective organbisational reality which Marx seems to be saying has to be changed before we can change over to communism. If that is what Marx is saying then I would  respond that I do not think this is the case and I would concur with you in stressing the importance of consciousness and criticism in the development of a class conscious outlook. However , while it is true to say, as you do, that " the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.e,   I dont quite see how you can then say  the  task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'".  On the face of it , what you seem to be suggesting is that an active class conscious proletariat should itself proactively undertake the task of transforming workers into the all-rounded polytechnic ideal type sought after by Marx.. How would you propose to do that? The proletariat doesnt employ itself and cannot therefore dictate the terms under which it is employed or the form in which work is apportioned and allocated between the workers. It can only defensively nibble away at the corners of capitalism's diktats from above reinforced in – and by – an environment of rampant market competition. Even, then, if workers are able to gain some consessions from empoyers vis a vis the division of labour it is only  the technical division of labour we are talking about operating with a particular factory or office. It does nothing to advance all roundedness in term of the social division of labour for the reason that individuals workers are tied to particular jobs in capitalism and cannot freely move around from one workplace to another and engage in different kinds of production We live in a society in which work  and the  very nature of work is fundamentally subordinated and subservient  to the needs of capital and the capitalist class – which class, after all, owns and controls the means of production ands therefore has the capacity to imposes it own wishes on the producers. Technology is never neutral, it  organised and structured in accordance with those needs and this is reflected very much in the division of labour . So, for example,  a more complex elaborated  division of labour tends to  make for increased productivity per worker and  thus ultimately more profits. for the business concerned. Exactly what the capitalists want. and need To change that you would have to expropriate the expropriators to bring the productive resources and technological infrastructure of society  under common ownership. i.,e. establish communism. But Marx's  point seems to be that the establishment of communism presupposes the prior development of all-rounded multi-skilled polytechnic worker which,  I suggested,  is effectively blocked by present day capitalist control of the means of production .  You can see where the logic of this argument is going  – that Marx has kinda painted himself into a corner with this argument of his – that only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate the productive forces when, actually,  they first have to appropriate the productive forces in order to develop in the all rounded fashion they desire I might have misread you but you seem to be implying that Marx was right to stress the need for workers to develop in a polytechnic fashion but that it is up to a class conscious proltariat to promoite this developemtn since it will not be the "mechanical product of physical productive forcess". If so I think you are mistaken.  While the productive forces do indeed include human beings from the persectivwe oif capitalist political economy their humanity and their consciousness counts for nought.  They as as dispensable as the clapped out machinery that is written off. A bit of poetic licence perhaps but you get my drift. I take a different stance. The establishment of  communism does NOT depend on transcending the division of labour and the emrgence of Marx's  polytechnic worker – althrough it might well depend on a critique of the division of labour as part of a general critique of capitalism itself.  The establishment of communism wiould thus depend amongst other things on the desire to transforn the very nature of work itself and how it is organised  rather than the actual transformation of work which , while the means of production remain in the hands of a parasittic minority  will not become a reality and will only remain a quest

[robbo203]

With regard to my earlier post (no 31) here is the crucial quote from "The German ideology" which bears out the point  I was making. The key sentence is in bold "We have already shown above that the abolition of a state of affairs in which relations become independent of individuals, in which individuality is subservient to chance and the personal relations of individuals are subordinated to general class relations, etc. — that the abolition of this state of affairs is determined in the final analysis by the abolition of division of labour. We have also shown that the abolition of division of labour is determined by the development of intercourse and productive forces to such a degree of universality that private property and division of labour become fetters on them. We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces, and because the contradiction between the classes has reached its extreme limit. Finally, we have shown that the abolition of private property and of the division of labour is itself the association of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse." If Marx was right in thinking this what are the implications of such an insight for the establishment of socialism?  Is the nature of work under capitalism  being transformed in such a way as to foster the "all round development of individuals" that would allow them to appropriate the productive forces? In attacking the division of labour Marx might not have had so much in mind the social division of labour – the range of occupations necessary to the production and reproduction of existing society – as  the technical division of labour and the stultifying fragmentation of the work process into endlessly repetitive simple movements that this entailed   – something which inspired Ruskin  (I think) to comment along the lines that it is not work that is being divided but men.  Are we moving away from a society based on a pronounced technical division of labour.? If so how does this square with the phenomenon of deskilling? What of the growth of sweatshop  labour in many  Third world countries subcontracted to work for big brand names and under conditions as deplorable as anything to be found in Victorian England?  What of the increase in low paid service sector workers in the West,  flipping burgers in fast food outlets  or working from those depressing  call centres that have sprung everywhere lately? There does seem to be a marked polarisiation of work today with the movement towards highly skilled  and highly paid work being counterposed by an opposite  movement towards low paid low skilled work.  It is jobs in the middle of this spectrum that have been clobbered most,  leading to angst-ridden expressions of concern on the part of some commentators about the "hollowing out" and decline of the  so called middle classes., that bastion of bourgeois respectabilityThe psychological effect of what is a kind of  de facto divide and rule strategy in terms of promoting job consciousness at the expense of class consciousness,  would seem on the face of it, to be somewhat discouraging from a revolutionary socialist perspective. Or am I being unduly pessimistic? 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Here is a post I found on the WSM forum. “At the core of the highest phase of communist society, as described in Marx’s early writings, is the abolition of labour. The more famous abolition of private property, the well-known abolition of the state, and the lesser-known abolition of the division of labour are all conditional upon the abolition of labour itself.” http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/can-we-completely-abolish-labor-right-now-final/ "According to my calculations, today anywhere from 92% to 98% of all labor performed in our economy is now superfluous and can be abolished" 

 Very interesting article, Vin, but I think the figure of 92-98% is a gross exaggeration.  Interestingly enough, it is similar to the figure of 95% cited by Marshall McLuhan many years ago.  A much more realistc estimate would be in the order of 50-60% Bear in mind that these figures relate to the official "white" economy with perhaps a passing nod at the unofficial "black" economy.  They do not refer to the very large grey economy which comprises all unpaid  work outside the market, of which the biggest component is the household sector followed by charitable work.  According to UN figures,  just over half of all work hours in both developed and developing countries pertain to the grey economy which is itself a kind of validation of the case for a non market world.  Come socialism,  we are certainly not going to be "liberated" from the need to carry on with such work – even given the accoutrements of a hi tech modern lifestyle available to us. Frankly speaking, the idea of being served breakfast in bed by a programmed robot is almost as appalling as going to bed with a robot.  Lets just hope "The Stepford Wives" will remain an entertaining work of fiction. Still,  the figure of 60% for the paid economy represents a very significant diminution of the social workload (or, alternatively, a massive boost in the productive potential of a socialist society in terms of the resources and labour power to be redirected towards socially useful production.  Of course , what goes with this also is a sharp contraction in the range of the social division of labour as we know it. Many of the jobs that are vitally necessary to a capitalist economy will, quite simply, no longer exist.   

[robbo203]

I dont know if this helps but Ive written something on this subject   which appears on my blog page on Revleft herehttp://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1510It basically concerns Marx's idealised conception of the all-rounded polytechnic worker  who embodies within herself a " totality of capacities"  and was seen by him as an essential precondition for the collective appropriation of the means of production – communism..  I think the idea is nonsense, put in this starkly dogmatic  form, but that is not to say that relatively speaking, a greater degree of all roundedness skills-wise might not help to foster a greater sense of common identity between workers and of the feasiibility of taking over the means of production iin general and running them in the interests of everyone EDIT: Just tried the link and it doesnt seem to work. So if interested go to my homepage and click on blog at the top  http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13232

[robbo203]

Hi Admice. I assume the post is referring to me but , if not, thanks anyway . Living in Granada that is roughly the view I get to see everyday!   The cloud formation in this part of the world is actually quite unique and the effects are often stunning.  The Alpujarras just south of the Sierra Nevada which is basically a long valley running between the Sierra and the (somewhat lower)  Contraviesa mountain range (where I used to live)  has a particular kind of topography  – so Im told  but Im no expert – which  generates thermals that shape or sculpture the clouds in this way.  Apparently the Alpujarras is one of only 7 or 8 places in the world where this happensAnyway,  check out this link which has a few pictures of local clouds (amongst other things) …Cheers Robin https://www.google.es/search?q=clouds+over+contraviesa+spain&client=firefox-a&hs=RxQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fjyWUsO7IILG7Abts4HoAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=704

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

jpodcaster wrote:

Also let's not forget that, whatever your views on the "wishy-washy reformism" of LU, the organisation contains a significant minority of men and women with a commitment to a socialism virtually indistinguishable from that envisaged by the SPGB, including ex-members and sympathisers.

Does that mean that Robin Cox's World in Common group has decided to "enter" the new party?

 AdamJust to be clear – the World in Common Group is no more "Robin Cox's group" than the SPGB is " Adam Buick's group".  And, no, WIC has not decided to "enter the new party" since that would be completely at variance with its stated purpose.  WiC embraces a diversity of currents or tendencies within the non-market anti-statist  political sector  – including, of course, SPGB-style impossibilism – and is not to be linked with any one particular tendency or current, Party or group.  It therefore has nothing to say as an organisation on the matter under discussion though individual members are free to reach their own conclusions.  Wic is not, and never has been, a political party. Speaking  personally, I do not know enough about this proposed new political party to comment authoritatively on it..  I live in Spain so forgive me if political developments happening in that far flung rain-sodden little island somewhere off the North West coast of  Europe appear a little remote.  I do occasionally pop in and have a nosey around on the SPGB forum  (which, I have to say, does the SPGB much credit) which is how I came across your comment above.  I  have a lot of other things on my plate at the moment and wouldn't normally be drawn into a discussion these days but could not let your comment pass unanswered. Speaking personally, from the little I know of LUP, and here I obviously stand to be corrected, I am slightly  puzzled by Stuart's preference for some other platform than  the  "socialist platfom".   I would have thought that thatwould have been the more obvious one for a socialist to support – although am I correct in saying it has attracted the usual suspects in the form of disaffected trots, cpgbers. and the like and that this perhaps might be the reason why Stuart is disinclined to support this platform?  Perhaps he can enlighten me on this? I would also add that while reference has been made to the Second International, it is not enough simply to possess  a "correct" understanding of  what  socialism is about.  The Second International amply displayed such an understanding in elaborating its revolutionary maximum programme yet, at the same time, pursued a minimum programme of reforms.  Inevitably the latter crowded out the former and, like the Cheshire Cats proverbial grin, any vision or hope of a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism faded with the rising political fortunes of these fake "socialist"  Social Democratic cum Labour type parties. In truth, that is what would concern me most about LUP.   What guarantee is there that it would not go down the same road and arrive at the same dead end, assuming it were to take off as a political party? On the other hand, there is the perennial question of "what to do in the meantime" which, I quess,  is something that the LUP is trying after a fashion to address and which, unfortunately, the SPGB has yet to adequately address.  Putting the case for socialism is all very well – and, of course, absolutely indispensable – but is it compelling enough on its own to make a difference? Inadvertently it comes across as an invitation to abandon what matters in the here and now for the sake of a long term goal – however much you insist that socialism is your immediate goal.  Realistically, and this is the point, most workers dont consider it is anywhere near immediately attainable even if this boils down to a self fulfilling prophecy as far as they are concerned. So what are they to do  in the meantime?  More to the point what are we to say in the meantime if reformism is not the answer?  That, I guess,  is the real dilemma we constantly face as revolutionary socialists

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum ,

You are begging the question here and have failed to see the difference between banning someone for the views they expressed and banning them for their behaviour (they way they put across their views).The two individuals were not personally abusive; their personal behaviour was different: abusing their right under the rules to post 3 messages a day every day for months on end. The result was that discussion about other aspects was swamped and people left the forum. They were in effect behaving like those who sent spam sex messages to your old open forum (which led you to take the drastic step of closing the whole thing down). In any event, nobody is banned from arguing for circular cities or anarcho-capitalism either on this or the WSM_Forum

 I believe you are mistaken. It was very clear why they were banned and this was explained in a post by the new moderator on August 17thThe point of view of David and Bob has been adequately discussed in thisforum for a long period. This is the forum of the World Socialist Movementand its companion parties, and our main purpose is to discuss aboutsocialism and communism, and to discuss the case of the socialist party,but it was not created in order to attack the party, and to discouragepeoples who wants to become members of the party,This is not a forum for Anarcho-capitalism, Cooperativism, oranti-communism, or in order to make propaganda to those political trends,who ever wants to know about both subject matter, our website has plentyof information, or they can go the archives of the forum.Note the reference to the forum not being created "in order to attack the Party." I read that as saying no criticism of the  party is to be allowedI dont think your argument stands up to scrutiny – that these members were banned because they abused the rule of post only 3 messages per day.  Ive done that myself on occasions as have others but if that really was a problem in the case of these two individuals  then  answer is simple – you put them under moderation.  You dont ban them. Besides,  I think I can distinctly recall Bob at least saying on one or two occasions that he could not answer another post becuase he had reached his 3 post limit 

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.

This raises another relevant question. Your semi-closed forum can take a vote of all the members since you exist essentially only on the internet. Nothing wrong with that  or that way of consulting forum members, It is democratic.Our forums are different. They are set up, run and paid for by parties which exist outside of cyberspace, so we have to use a different form of democratic control. A majority of members of the WSM_Forum are not socialists let alone members, so why should they have a right to say how the forum is run? If we go down that road, then the forum would be open to take over by opponents or people with a different agenda from us.

 This is not the point at all.  The WSM forum belongs to the WSM and it is quite right that the WSM should control if and not people on the forum itself. I'm not questioning that at all. and I think you misunderstood me when I said a poll was conducted  by World in Common on whether to expel someone for supporting the Americans in the Iraq War becuase it contravened the terms of joining the forum.  The poll was conducted within WIC itself not among members on the worldincommon forum most of whom are not members of WICOne other thing – setting up a yahoogroup costs nothing so there is nothing to be paid for. Unless the situation has changed recently. Has it?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

You raise an interesting point, Robbo, about what to do with about people like Bob Howes (who favours small-scale co-operatives and circular cities) and Dave McDonagh (who is an anarcho-capitalist) who use a forum set up by somebody else to propagate their own views so frequently and over so long a period of time (years) as to virtually take it over and turn it into a forum discussing their ideas not those of those who set up (run and pay for) the forum.Party opinion was divided on this and still is, but in the end the decision was taken by the moderator to ban them. Previously, a decision had been made to set up this forum here, as one with separate threads, which would mean that those who wanted to discuss with the likes of them could do so on a separate thread of its own. As far as I know, Bob Howes is a registered member of this forum but has not contributed much since nobody replied to him.This of course is only a problem for open forums (ie forums open to anybody) like this one and the still extant WSM Forum. It's not a problem that we have on our own member-only forums. Nor is it a problem for your own forum which (I maybe wrong on this) is not open to everyone but only to people who broadly agree with a non-market anti-state position. In other words, McDonagh would not be admitted in the first place. I'm not quite sure why Bob Howes isn't (or perhaps he is, if not why not?). I believe also that, at one time, you did run an open forum like this one but changed its nature to a semi-closed one precisely to avoid problems like those posed by Howes and McDonagh. Incidentally, have you ever had to ask someone to leave your forum because it became evident after they joined that they were not part of the broad non-market, anti-state sector? Or is there perhaps a test to join?The point I'm making (and it's not intended as a polemical debating point) is this: is there any difference in principle between not allowing McDonagh to join in the first place and allowing him to join and then excluding him for trying to take it over and turn it into a forum discussing anarcho-capitalism, not socialism?  Either way, McDonagh does not get to express his views on the forum (though on our forum someone else can and I think still does, but can't on yours). Can in fairness those who have chosen the first option accuse those who have chosen the second of "censorship"?Let's see if we can have an intelligent, reasonable and polite discussion on this question/problem.

 My response to this is simple and straightfoirward.  I accept fully the case for having restricted forums where this is warranted.   So for example there is nothing wrong with having SPINTCOM restricted to members of the SPGB only.  Afterall it is about the internal business of the SPGB and, quite rightly, it is for the SPGB membership to have a say in this, not outsiders In World in Common there have been 3 forums – the COMMONER forum for members of WIC only (equivalent to SPINTCOM), WORLDINCOMMON forum restricted to people in the non market anti-statist sector and WICOPENDEBATE a public forum.  This last forum was NOT changed to a semi closed   forum but was simply closed down because it had been more or less dead as a forum for quite a while and was also becoming vulnernable to SPAM   (sex sites)  which is a sure sign of terminal decline if Im not mistaken.  It was agreed by the group to close down the forum as it served no real purpose anymore which is a pity in some ways  since in the early days it was quite a lively place with all sorts of ideas being tossed around.  As far the WORLDINCOMMON forum is concerned there was one individual who was expelled from the forum for expressing views contrary to the nonmarket anti-statist sector  – I think it was for supporting the American regime in the Iraq war.  The explusion was carried out democratically and by poll of WIC members if I recall correctly So I have no objection in principle to restricting the membership of a forum, according to certain criteria – PROVIDING these are made explicit and justified at the outset and constitute as it were the basis of  kind of contractural understanding involved in joining a forum in the first place. I dont even mind the idea of  altering the criteria later on so as change a forum into a semi closed one PROVIDING this is done democratically in advance and made clear to the members of the forum in advance What I strongly object to is the arbitrary use of power to expel 2 individuals from a supposedly completely open public forum in the case of the WSM forum and the binning of posts by a member of this forum . In the former case , the justification advanced by the new moderator  (unilaterally it would seem)  for expelling the two individuals concerned was that the forum was not the place to discuss the ideas these two individuals advanced since they were not relevant to the case for socialism.  That is bullshit.  They were completely relevant to the "case for socialism" even if in the case of McDonagh this meant trying to demonstrate that socialism was an impossiblity .  How on earth could this NOT be relevant?  (I believe a similar argument was advanced for binning Bob Howe's post on this forum) The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum ,  That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Editorial – the Case Against CensorshipOur answer to all censors is to reaffirm that workers are quite capable of judging for themselves, quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and working out which ideas accord with their interests – and which do not. The best condition for the emergence of socialist understanding remains free and frank discussion. May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.

 I absolutely agree.  Yet on this forum what do we find but the thread  of one individual – Bob Howes – summarily dispatched to the bin.  Why? Because it was deemed by someone that such ideas are not appropriate for discussion on a socialist forum. Now I have had many arguments with Bob on his pet theory that workers setting up capitalist businesses on their own is the way to go and that this will give them the sense of empowerment  that will enable them to make a revolution and also provide the necessary funds for socialist propaganda.  Mistaken though this argument may be in broad outline, I defy anyone to show how it is not appropriate for discussion in a socialist forum Over on the WSM forum, this same individual – Bob Howes-  and another – the anarcho-capitalist atheist, David McDonagh (see where atheistic ideas can lead to) –  were actually booted off the  forum altogether.   I think that was an absolutely outrageous thing to do.  I agree that particularly in McDonagh's case he has the irritating habit of uttering the same old insufferably repetitive mantras which add nothing of substance to the debate but more effective moderation could easily have dealt with this.  However, stylistic considerations aside,  the ideas that McDonough was advancing were absolutely relevant  to a socialist forum.  He wasn't  talking about knitting patterns for a sewing circle.  He was putting forward an argument – the so called economic calculation  argument – which purports to show that socialism would be impossible. How anyone can say that is not relevant beats me. Instead of tackling these arguments head on what did we have but a shrill chorus of complaints from certain members about the antics of  McDonough and one or two others – like his sidekick , Tet  – calling for their expulsion . Apart from anything else this is so so shortsighted.  Some members don't seem to understand that McDonagh was doing us a favour.  The ECA is an excellent heuristic tool  for developing our ideas about a socialist society.  So rather than deal with this argument head on  these same members simply ran away from it ,  reinforcing the impression that they simply had no answer to it , some leaving the forum altogther, and so allowing it to appear to have been "taken over" by  a triumphal McDonough and his cronies. It was a classic  example of a self fulfilling prophecy,  For me personally the annoying thing is that just at the point where I had forced McDonough to look for  empirical proof to back up his outlandish claims about the distribution of wealth and he had agreed to do some research and come back with the evidence – thus breaking the habit of a lifetime – he and Bob Howes were summarily banned!  For me this was the nadir of Party democracy.  This is the kind of stuff your would expect to see in some outfit like REVLEFT which some time ago initiated a mass clear-out of many active users on that forum to whom Admin had taken  a dislike for one reason or another.  This is not the kind of thing you would expect to see in a socialist forum and particularly not one run by a socialist party which claims to be the most democratic and open organisation of all Now we see talk on this forum the idea being raised  of the possibility of "permanently" excluding certain users and of the need for "responsibility".  Responsibility towards whom or what for chrissakes?  What sort of language is this?  It is the language of the thought police, of a kow towing  rank-and-file membership overseen by its handpicked minders , and of Orwellian double speak. – even if it is hedged about with qualifying "ifs" and "maybes"  No –  if this is supposed to be a public forum open to all and sundry then  the ideas of all and sundry  should be allowed an airing –  however uncomfortable they might be to socialists –  providing they are not about  knitting patterns or taking a personal swipe at some other forum user.  The editorial from the Socialist Standard which Socialist Punk has pasted declares "We have always practised what we preach"  Really?  Always?

[Author]

Posts