[robbo203]

Still had great difficulty logging in. Is there not a more user friendly way of doing this. How does a newcomer to the forum go about registering?

[robbo203]

Hi zhengenbin Glad to see you overcame the technical problems of contributuing to this forum!  I will transfer my comments from the "comments section" to this thread as below in italics.  The only point I would add is that I think you need to define what you mean by a family:I am curious about your reasoning for saying this,  zhengenbin What makes you think the family as an insititution will disappear in socialism?  Granted the form  that the family takes may be radically different from today but that does not necessarily entail the disappearance of the insitition per se.    Also forcing its disappearnce would be somewhat inconsistent with your suggestion that we should not use force to establish socialism. On this latter point, the problem is that the capitalist class maintains it monopoly ownership of the productive resources of society by force – by means of the state.  Surely that means that to make these resources the common property of everyone (socialism) we have to deprive them of that very force they use to maintain the status quo.  And that surely means capturng the politcal state ourselves (by democratic means) in order to strip the capitalists of their monopoly ownership which , once accomplished, will make the very insitituion of the state itself redundant. If you mean by "force", violence,  then I tend to agree that this would not be necessary and may even be counterproductive.  But force does not have to mean violence – it could also mean,simply,  social pressure or complusion – and it is this latter sense that I think that force will definitely be needed to establish socialism.  I cant see any other way….

[robbo203]

zhengenbin wrote:

A socialist society or a communist society is a stateless, classless, moneyless  and familyless society. And most importantly, a communist society or a socialist society is familyless society(familyless society). Therefore, the realization of a socialist society or a communist society is not dependent on the seizure of power. Because you can't force people into a familyless society.

 I am curious about your reasoning for saying this,  zhengenbin What makes you think the family as an insititution will disappear in socialism?  Granted the form  that the family takes may be radically different from today but that does not necessarily entail the disappearance of the insitition per se.    Also forcing its disappearnce would be somewhat inconsistent with your suggestion that we should not use force to establish socialism. On this latter point, the problem is that the capitalist class maintains it monopoly ownership of the productive resources of society by force – by means of the state.  Surely that means that to make these resources the common property of everyone (socialism) we have to deprive them of that very force they use to maintain the status quo.  And that surely means capturng the politcal state ourselves (by democratic means) in order to strip the capitalists of their monopoly ownership which , once accomplished, will make the very insitituion of the state itself redundant. If you mean by "force", violence,  then I tend to agree that this would not be necessary and may even be counterproductive.  But force does not have to mean violence – it could also mean,simply,  social pressure or complusion – and it is this latter sense that I think that force will definitely be needed to establish socialism.  I cant see any other way….

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Personally I think the former definition of SNLT is more acceptable. 

I personally have a hard time choosing between the two But what are your thoughts on my reasoning?Summary of my reasoning:Labour must be the source of all value (I'll skip going through the reasons as every SPGB member/sympathizer in the thread knows the reasoning behind the statement).But if you make an apple, and I make an apple, and the labour time for them are different, they still have the same value.Therefore SNLT must be something that exists, because it's the only thing that can explain how two individual commodities, that are identical in everything except the individual labour time put into each of them, have the same value. Am I committing a logical fallacy? If so, which one? (Genuine question)

 Hi Sympo,   I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "Therefore SNLT must be something that exists".  It is simply a magnitude denoting the average amount of time required to produce a given commodity on an industry-wide basis.  Its like saying the "average family" has 1.9 kids.  There is no actual family to my knowlege that has 1.9 kids.   Ditto SNLT.  I guess what I am trying to say is that you cannot look at a commodity in isolation from other commodities – or for that matter the value embodied in a particular commodity.  A particular commodity requires a certan amount of actual labour to be produced but this is not its value

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

 So where does the idea of SNLT come from? The value of a commodity must be determined by the labour contained in it. There are two alternative views that one can hold (as far as I know): either thata) it is the individual labour time of a commodity that determines the value of said commodity.For example, if it took two hours for Arnold to pick an apple from a tree, the value of Arnolds apples would be two value units per apple. But if it took Beatrice ten thousand hours to pick an apple from a tree, then the value of Beatrices apples would be ten thousand value units per apple.or thatb) it is the "socially necessary" labour time of the apples (that have been sold) that determines the value of all apples.How one defines what "socially necessary labour time" is more or less irrelevant, because we've already accepted that the value of a commodity is determined by the labour contained in it.Alternative A is unreasonable, and as there is no other alternative than B left (and I can't think of any other option), B must be the right answer.

 Sympo I think the usual definition of SNLT is the average industry-wide amount of labour time required to produce a given commodity.   So for example if we assume there are only 3 businesses each producing exactly the same output  of a given commodity X wth firm A taking 2 hours to produce X; firm B, 4 hours and firm C , 6 hours then SNLT will coincide with  B.  If the outputs of A, B and C differ then SNLT will correspondingly differ. However, I have also come across the argument suggesting that SNLT corresponds to the "best practice" prevailing in a particular industry which in this case would be Firm A.  I think the argument is that since Firm A has adopted the best practice it will sooner or later crowd out its rivals and so its production time will then become the norm Personally I think the former definition of SNLT is more acceptable.  But of course this is a simplified example which, amongst other things,  ignores the value embodied in the machinery used to manufacture X that will be incorporated in X along with the contribution of living labour

[robbo203]

Some interesting information herehttps://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/15/why-china-holds-all-the-aces-in-a-full-blown-us-china-trade-war.html 

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

hallblithe wrote:

Cited here: Cognitive Dissonance: The Psychological Phenomenon that Explains Why Intellectuals Can’t Stop Believing Socialism Works

What's the politics behind that site? It has hints of 'alt-right'.

  This info on the author of the peice tells us something about his politics"Jon previously was the Senior Editor of The History Channel Magazine, Managing Editor at Scout.com, and general assignment reporter for the Panama City News Herald. He also served as a White House intern in the speech writing department of George. W Bush. "   

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

Most of you on this thread are FASCISTS, and truly ignorant, bitter morons, bemoaning the fact that you have amounted to absolutely nothing, or published anything of any value! I am please that like the chicken shits that you all are, I do not know your real names, arm-chair marxists. And I have answered all your queries…but you refuse to accept the answers. So from now on, every time you hear someone laughing, note that it is me laughing, laughing at a bunch of anonymous losers and spineless cowards, lost in the confines of 19th century failures.SPGB is the honorable term for fascism, a collection pool for idiots.Fuck YOu ALL!!!Anarchism, Now! Anarchism Forever! 

 I think, MBellemare, youve just blown it now and completely lost any credbility and respect you might have had with this little tantrum of yours.  To be honest, I'm more saddened than disgusted   Im not quite sure what has gotten into you to respond in this manner – clearly there seems to be some sort of personal issues lurking in the background – but I dont propose to respond in any detail.  There is little point.I will however take you up on just one  point – your earlier accusation that I am "coward" for "hiding behind a moniker" rather than reveal my real name.  Look,  this is so silly I cant believe any intelligent person can come out with such daft comment.  I am quite happy to reveal to you by real name – I am Robin Cox and I live in Spain – and the moniker I use  was simply chosen because it matches the one I use on Facebook.  Thats it.  Its not like I have given the matter a second thought but you seem to want to read into people's actions all sorts of things which are really just a figment of your own imagination Im not quite sure why you think it so important to know the real identity of other people on ths forum – this is a site for exchanging political ideas , not a dating agency – but you should know that some people (it doesnt bother me, one way or the other) might have legitimate reasons for remaining anoymous, which I surely dont need to spell out to you.   Try to be a bit more tactful in future, OK?

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

It all depends on whose standards and criteria one is judging by, Robbo203.  You and SPGB certainly do not have a monopoly on what actually constitutes twaddle and what actually constitutes verity. No matter what you think ROBBO203, the post-modernists were right on at least one count. There is no longer a universal criteria by which to judge once and for all. 

 Does this mean we (or you for that matter as regards your views about the SPGB) are not entitled to express an opinion on what constitutes twaddle and what constitutes truth    If anything goes is it perfectly acceptable for a racist to call for the genocidal liquidation  of people with a differnet skin colour or for a  misogynist to insist that women should be confined to the kitchen or bedroom but on no account should be allowed in to the workplace?If there is no universal human standard one can appeal to then on what grounds could you possibly object to this racist or mysogynist if you think all views are equally valid?

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

Robbo203, You have no idea what you are talking about. To quote, Max Stirner, " You have wheels in your head…you are haunted by spooks"…a zealot from a bye-gone era. (like there is an authentic reading of Marx, or authentic universal truth. Could you be more obsolete and a 20th century block-head! 

 I think when you've calmed down you will see this is quite uncalled for.  I simply said that you seem to be confusing us with authoritarian Leninism to which I am opposed every bit as much as you are.  Neither do we take Marx as bible.   There is much that he wrote that is sound and it is silly to suggest otherwise but there is also stuff that he wrote with which we sharply disagree.   With respect I think I know a lot more about the SPGB than you despite your suggestion that I have no idea what I am talking. As for my views on postmodernism yes I have read some of the literature – Jean Baudrillard and his bizarre notion of simulacra, Lacan and a few others – but I can't say I am overly impressed. For the most part I think its just a load of pretentious twaddle.  Since you havent offered any reason why I should think otherwise  I cant really comment on why you think I am a 20th century blockhead for not going along with all that pretentious twaddle Besides, all this is straying a long  way off from the subject of this thread – Marx and Automation – dont you think?

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

Steve San fran…don't let these marxists ideologues get you down. There are may be 2 or 3 genuine people on this thread, ready to discuss new possibilities. You being one. The rest are not interested in original thoughts…but like neo-stalinists they are more interested to stuff marxism down people's throats like the out of touch, out of date *tankies*, they are. Be grateful these *tankies* do not have any influence any longer, bud. That is why these *tankies* shit on everything new and post-marxist on this thread. That is all *tankies* have left. Spewing verbal diarrhea on everything that is different, heterogeneous and post-modern on this thread. Steve they are authoritarian totalitarianists…bitter that much of the totalitarian marxist narrative ended in a horror show. Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, Forever!

 It seems M Bellamere does not know what the word "Tankies" means or that socialists have been amongst the fiercest critics of the whole authoritarian Leninist project right from the start.    That makes his comment that we are "bitter" that it all ended in a "horror show" all the more incomprehensible. MBellamere – please, please please  – do some basic homework on this before commenting.  You are clearly confusing socialists and socialism as we see it with something else.  And no we dont "shit on everything new and post-marxist on this thread".  Marx and Marxism is fallible like any other point of view and there are things that Marx said with which we strongly disagree.  At the same time,  dont just accept new ideas just because they are (supposedly) new.  You are doing exactly  what you accuse your critics of doing by doing this – being dogmatic. There are very serious criticisms to be made of post modernism which you have simply ignored

[robbo203]

Curious.  Ultra orthodox Jews who want to see the state of Israel dismantled…https://www.facebook.com/VICEVideo/videos/1874151472641483/ 

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

 I see our "structural anarchist" is a post modernist of sorts.  Well that figures.  A recipe for narcissism and working class disempowerment if there ever was one

 There is a clutch of reviews of books on the theme of postmodernism here – from the Socialist Standard :http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1999/no-1136-april-1999/book-reviews If MBellamare really does subscribe to this regressive and narcisssitic nonsense that is postmodernism he needs to undestand what an insidious impact it has on the whole project of working class emancipation. Far from assisting  the realisation of a truly anarchist society which he and, in a sense, we too want it will do the very opposite 

[robbo203]

Bijou Drains wrote:

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/11/the-post-modern-project-is-not-complete/ When you're in a hole, son, stop digging!

 I see our "structural anarchist" is a post modernist of sorts.  Well that figures.  A recipe for narcissism and working class disempowerment if there ever was one

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

Huh…I place Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism in the same boat. They are meta-narratives, which lack any validity and/or any overarching logic, by which we can *all* live by. Both are out for power and to enslave the world under one rubric. With the death of God, Marxism and Bourgeois-capitalism have sought to fill the void left by the death of God and Christianity, with their own religion. Both have sought to become the new religion, the new saving grace of humanity.Both are to be done away with. And, anarchism, the only socio-economic system, which has made plurality, diversity and  socio-economic multiplicity, the center of its program and theory, is the only road out of Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism alike. Only thru differences, can totalitarian bourgeois-capitalism and totalitarian Marxism, avoided and overcome.You see, structural-anarchism is bent on doing away with both Marxism and Bourgeois-Capitalism, that is, reducing them to the level from which they sprang as just two micro-narratives, who have gotten too big for their own good and the good of the general-population.Here are some of the outdated, nonsensical terms within Marx's texts that are utterly useless today (I won't bother with capitalism, because it is totally useless):Here are the outdated obsolete Marxist terms:Socially Necesary Labor-Time.  (Obsolete)The tedential law of the falling rate of profit. (Obsolete and a Lie)The Proletariat.  (Obsolete)The Dictatorship of The Proletariat. (Obsolete)Total Value = Total Price. (Obsolete)Unproductive labor and Productive Labor. (Obsolete)Abstract Labor. (Obsolete)Historical Materialism. (A Lie)Dialectical Materialism. (A Fallacy)Value ( A figment of the imagination)(Now there are a lot of other terms within Marx, which have not lost their importance today, principally, EXPLOITATION)Nevertheless, anyone, who defends any of these outdated obsolete terms, or thinks these terms are even applicable today, is deluded, dishonest and an impediment to intellectual and revolutionary progress.

 This is absurd and ludicrously dogmatic to boot.  One does not have to agree with everything Marx wrote – the SPGB  certainly does not – to see this is nonsense.  And incidentally,  I dont know of any self respecting anarchist who would go along with what you say either – at least not in its totality  – unless you are maybe unwittngly alluding to the anarcho-capitalist crowd perhaps.   So exploitation, according to you, has lost it importance,eh?  Does that mean capitalism is no longer an exploitative society and, if so, why bother to overthrow it?  How is Historical Materialism a "Lie?"   In what sense is the distinction between unproductive (non-surplus value producing) labour  and productive labour  (labour that produces surplus value ) "obsolete"  (it seems you share the same worldview as the bourgeois neoclassical economists in that case).  How is the proletariat obsolete when it is growing rapidly across the world with the relative decline in peasant production?  How is the tendential law of the falling rate of profit. "Obsolete and a Lie"? Are you aware that Marx also specified certain factors that counteract the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Here are some statistical data that completely refute your unsubstantiated assertion  https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-us-rate-of-profit-1948-2015/  One could go on.  You talk about Marxism having become a religion but actually looking at your own comments I would suggest that that jibe would far more accurately apply to your own worldview which strikes me as having little to do with anarchism  and would certainly be rejected by most anarchists as some kind of post-modernist mish mash

[Author]

Posts