robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think different people are wired up differently and that while age may very well be a factor in acquiring language skills it is not the only factor. I am crap at language and always have been. I failed in Afrikaans in my matriculation exams in South Africa and had to do a resit while doing military conscripition. Its only becuase the lengua franca of the South African army was mainly Afrikaans that I managed to acquire a few more words and scrape a pass. Another example. I moved to Spain in 2004 but still cant speak the lingo fluently despite having a Spanish wife! Bloody embarrassing!
Interesting you should mention sleeping on the pavement. The Homeless were cleared off the streets so it would not cause offence https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/420594261751350/
Sympo wrote:"At the end of the day I dont see this as being a problem at all. As I keep on pointing out – even today under capitalism most work is unpaid and falls completely outside of the monetised sector. "He said that useful work (i.e. the stuff people do at their jobs) can never be as enjoyable as doing any other activity because of an inherent sense of obligation to do the work and the time required to do it. This, he claims, would lead to people always preferring to play tennis and write poetry instead of doing real work, which means society collapses.Well I guess the flipant answer to that is that if society collapses becuase of people not wanting to work then those same people are sure as hell not going to be able to play tennis or write poetry Its not rocket science to see that the one kind of activity depends on the other and people will surely see this. After all , these same people would have elected to bring about a socialist society in the first place and so would be aware of what that implies. As the saying goes "Nature ahbors a vacuum" and so does society. In socialism if you cant force people to labour as you can in a class-based society people will willy-nilly step in to do what is necessary – some admittedly sooner than others as we all have different tolerance thresholds – as they already do in a voluntary capacity even under capitalism. Whats more, doing something for the common good (as well as one's own) would earn the praise of others and the more needed the work the stronger the praise it would presumably earn. In a sense the simple law of supply and demand would solve the problem you refer to
Sympo wrote:"Surely these same people who established socialism will understand that if everyone adopted the perspective of the lazy freerider then nothing will get produced"He would reply by saying that society consists of individuals, and that it makes sense to not work if your personal input doesn't affect much.I.e. he's arguing that the inherent selfishness of individuals (which the SPGB doesn't claim will have to go away before Socialism can be possible) is in conflict with what's good for a socialist society.But your self-interest as an individual is bound up with the interest of others in a socialist society. You advance your own interests by advancing theirs. That aside, human beings are not just driven by the motive of self interest alone. Altruism is as much a part of the human psyche as egoism – the dual self model of the person There is also the highly questionable assumption in his argument that not working makes sense from the perspective of the self interested individual. Does it though? Try not working or simply doing something useful like painting your flat or weeding your vegetable patch for a long stretch of time and you will soon enough find yourself bored out of your mind . People have been known to end their own lives because they had lost all sense of purpose by losing the possibility of work. And that is work tainted by capitalism! Imagine how different it would be under socialism when work will be a real pleasure. To pass up on the opportunity to engage in such work would if anything be a negation of self interest to my way of thinking
https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/38 After a very quick perusal of this site. it looks like it contains some interesting material that could be of use. One comment I would make though – and maybe this is unfair of me because i havent read through all the material by any means – is that there seems to be a paucity, if not a complete absence, of any substantive commentary on what Marx had in mind by an alternative to capitalism. This is a point that really niggles me about these left wing academics – Marxologists or whatever they call themselves They will invest disportionately huge amounts of energy into exploring some relatively obscure subject such as the impact of hegelian dialectics on Marx's thought while more or less completely overlooking the Big Picture – the vision of a communist/socialist alternative to capitalism which, after all, is the whole point of the exercise is it not? Its as if some of these people are almost embarrassed to point out that we are talking about a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on free access to goods and voluntary cooperation. Its as if they harbour some cringing fear of being labelled "utopian", and having their credibility questioned, by their "bourgeois" colleagures in the ivory tower of academe. The Comunist Manifesto spoke of communists disdaining to "conceal their views and aims"; among many left wing academics there seems to be a fad for doing precisely that, if indeed communism is their aim at all
Darren redstar wrote:Robbo I think my argument is similar to our position toward anti fascism. As socialists we oppose all forms of capitalist rule and of course oppose fascism which is a form of capitalist class rule, but are also opposed to the ideology of anti fascism which sees fascism as uniquely horrorific and defends and alibis other forms of capitalist rule as preferable.Yes I understand and agree with the point you are making. My only slight quibble (which is more semantic than anything else) is that we are still nevertheless opposed to fascism and are therefore "anti fascist" even if we dont share much common ground with many anti-fascists (who are basically pro-capitalist in the main). Ditto the argument about Zionism and Anti-Semitism. The Socialist position is probably quite unique in that we are able to vigorously oppose the nationalist nonsense that is Zionism without ever making ourselves vulnerable to the accusation that we are somehow courting anti-semitic ideas. This is becuase we oppose all nationalism. Period. It is the capitalist Left who favour Palestinian nationalism who find themselves in a weak position when they try to answer the charge that they are anti-semtic by denying the right of Jews to have their own nation-state while asserting the right of Palestinians to have theirs (although to be fair I suspect most of them opt for a two state solution, not the elimination of Israel per se) That is indeed a case of double standards but it is not an accusation that can remotely be levelled against socialists. We are not in the least interested in promoting any kind of nation state let alone apologising for one
Darren redstar wrote:I think we must distinguish between AntiZionism and opposition to the actions of the Israeli State.all socialists would oppose the murderous, racist and discriminatory policies of Israel but this should not be understood as support for the ideology of AntiZionism. AntiZionism is a procapitalist, nationalist ideology that denies the validity of one state (Israel) and advocates its destruction, but accepts and supports the existence of all other states ( and indeed wishes to replace the Israeli state with a capitalist Palestinian one).as the ideological foundation of Israel is as ‘The Jewish State’ then anti Zionism explicitly denies that the Jewish People are allowed a state of their own ( for socialists who reject the idea of all states this is unremarkable, but anti Zionism is a part of the ideology of the left and inextricably tied to the concept of rights of nations to self determination and the support of nationalisms) It is the refusal of the anti zionists to acknowledge the right of a Jewish State to exist, whilst supporting all other states that gives support to the allegation of anti Semitism ( and allows anti semites to operate within the anti Zionist organisations).Its a good point you raise, Darren. Anti-Zionism can indeed be a vehicle for anti-semitic ideas. But then again we socialists oppose Zionism – do we not? – just as we oppose all other forms of nationalism (which is what Zionism essentially is). So unlike some on the Left , we are surely both antizionist and against antisemitism and regard nationalism and racism as ideological expressions that serve the interests of capital by dividing the working class in order to more effectively rule over it
Sympo wrote:I am currently in a discussion about Socialism, and the person I'm talking to basically said this:Under Socialism, most people would have to work in order for society to work.However, socialists argue that work would be voluntary, and that Socialism would be a society of free access.But under Socialism, as well as under Capitalism, individual members of society contribute with very little labour. It is the total sum of all labour done that makes society function, not the labour of one specific individual.Therefore, most individuals would think "my labour isn't that important, so I can just not do it and instead to other activities that I like more, like playing football." They would be correct in their reasoning, because if just one individual stopped working, it wouldn't matter that much.This would mean that most people wouldn't work under Socialism. When I argued that the amount of labour needed in society would be diminished, and that labour could turn into a more enjoyable activity, he said that he believes that proper work can never be as enjoyable as doing something else, because there automatically exists a sense of obligation. What are your opinions on this reasoning?Hi Sympo I think a sense of obligation to contribute to the common good would be part of the reason why people would work but there are serveral other reasons too – quite apart from the reasons you cite viz that work could be made enjoyable when your labour is no longer alienated labour and when the social workload would be much diminished by the elimination of all those money related occupations etc., There is also the question of how you acquire socal esteem and the respect of your fellows in a socialist society. In capitalism this tends be based upon the accumulation and conspicuous consumption of material wealth. But in a society in which wealth is freely accessible this would make no sense. The only way in which you can gain the respect of others is through your contribution to society , not what you take out it. At the end of the day I dont see this as being a problem at all. As I keep on pointing out – even today under capitalism most work is unpaid and falls completely outside of the monetised sector. Besides, socialism requires that a majority want it and understand the implications of what they are wanting. Surely these same people who established socialsim will understand that if everyone adoped the pesrpective of the lazy freerider then nothing will get produced and no one, including the free rider, will stand to gain anything from such a perspective. So the argument that socialism will collapse becuase nobody wil turned to do the work can be easiyl countered with a reductio ad absurdum argument bsed on what woud nappen if that tryuly gined out to be the case. Would indiviuals complacently contemplate the prospect of mass starvation knowing full well that they cannot physically force others to labour,? I dont think so
Perhaps a ""bullshit job" could be defined minimally as a job that wouldnt exist if capitalism didnt exist – that is to say, if production for use was the sole criterion of production – although Graeber seems to mean by BS jobs something more than this. Also, it has to be born in mind that much useful non BS work goes into supporting and underpinning BS work. What proporrtion of the electricity generated by power stations goes into supporting the acitvities of the armamanets industry. How many constructon workers are involved in building banks and so on, Are these jobs which apprear to be socially useful, by extension, BS jobs as well? Perhaps Graeber needs to be sent a copy of this Party pamphlet in which a whole lot of socially useless prpducts and activities are listed http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-live Once again, this is yet another example of where having a specific well-researched pamphlet on a particular topic – in this case, on the extent pf capitalism's structural waste – could be invaluable and serve as a reference which people like Graeber could draw upon
alanjjohnstone wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44099540I'm not defending Livingstone but i have difficulty in tracing any BBC fact check on his claims, surely a news agency if they wish to be balanced does it own history research and can judge who is more correct, Livingstone or his critics.On Livingstone this might be of interest mondoweiss.net/2017/04/twisting-livingstones-zionism/
alanjjohnstone wrote:Once again, it seems that the forum users are dropping in number. Take myself and Marcos out and it would appear for much of the time the forum is inactive except for the occasional posting of WSM internal matters.If my posts are too frequent even if they are mostly follow-ups to previous threads and apt news-items are discouraging others from commenting, i will readily reduce the frequency of the contributions.I, for one, greatly value your contributions and the numerous interesting links you provide. I'm sure many others here do as well. So keep up the good work! The fortunes of the forum tend to be cyclical so I wouldnt worry too much about the current lull in acitivity
Bijou Drains wrote:ALB wrote:I don't think we can use that argument as the intention of the movers was clear (it goes without saying that we can't give money to non-socialists). Personally I voted against it and didn't and still don't agree with it. I am imagine you are in the same position. In fact at that Conference most of the delegates were against it too, but the membership vote didn't back them and the motion was carried. Democracy is democracy and we have to abide by resolutions that we don't agree with.As I mentioned, when the Indian party asked for money (I think it was them — our retiring Treasurer will know) provision was made for individual members to pay.The motion states “groups and individuals”, the SPC is neither of things, it is a political party and part of the World Socialist Movement. I would argue that the motion doesn’t and was never intended to cover this situation.
Yes I would agree. A companion party is not the same thing as a group and I cannot imagine anyone objecting to sending some money to the Canadian Party, The EC would be perfectly in order to allow such a thing. Perhaps some branch could put forward a proposal to that effect. Does it need to wait till ADM?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Maybe do Sylvia Pankhurst's two essays Future Society and Socialism with an intro by ourselves?Just an idea. As a member of the Publications Comm, I support this suggestion. Quite apart from anything else, it brings home the point that socialism as the Party defines it is what was generally understood to mean socialism prior to the Bolsheviks and Lenin (with his peculiar concept of socialism as meaning a "state capitalist monopoly" run in the interest of the whole people). That apart, we need a much greater diversity of pamphlets in stock in my view so anything in that direction gets my support
Marcos wrote:Prakash RP wrote:I've already explained it. Compulsory labour, in the communist mode of production, consists of only socially necessary labour and is duly rewarded. For this reason, it's outright wrong to view it as ' coerced ' or ' forced ', OK ?REPEATING THE SAME SHIT ALL OVER AGAIN
Indeed. This authoritarian troll never seems to answer the criticisms made of his model of compulsory labour such as how do you ensure that those who monitoe enforce this whole elaborate and costly system of compulsion will not themselves abuse the system and emerge as a new ruling class. Likewise he has no idea of what metric he proposes to use to ensure that everyone does exactly the same amount of work. Is it equal hours or equal intensity of work or what? He thinks compulsory labour is not coerced labour becuase it is "duly awarded" -(the same argument could be used to justify wage labour) even though the whole point of the exercise to withold consumer goods to those who do not work or work enough. What is that if not coercion? He has little to no understanding of Marxist terminology and terms such as "necessary labour" – that portion of the labour performed by the worker under capitalism for which she receives a wage to produce and reproduce her labour power – and seems to think that necessary labour, and therefore the sale of labour power for a wage, will continue in a communist society. In fact he seems to think that necessary labour can be prised apart and separated out from surplus labour as different segments of labour time much like the way the feudal serf perfomed compulsory labour for her lord some days of the week while labouring for herself on other days of the week. That is precisely the view that Marx attacked which was expressed by those who feared that shortenening of working week would reduce the amount time available for the production of surplus value under capitalism Above all what we have not had from this individual is a single sensible coherent argument raised against the principle "from each according to abilty to each according to need" – only a boring and inane repetition of the same old mantra that it is "silly" or "immature" Claiming something is "silly is not a serious argument against the communist case for free access and voluntary labour. Ive met dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who have made more of an effort trying to refute this case on the grounds of "human nature" than this troll though quite evidently he is cut from the same cloth as them – an unreconstructed conservative incongruously posing as a "communist" So yes Marcos I agree – he is just repeating the same shit all over again and there is little point continuing the discussion. Im done with him
Prakash RP wrote:My ideas about communism are wholly based on the thought of Marx & Engels. I've already provided my ideas with incontestable citations from CAPITAL VOL I & III to show that there's no contradiction between my view of communism and that of Marx's and Engels's. It's only Marx's view of the basic principle of the higher phase of communism occurring in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that I find irreconcilable with his view of the classless communistI have already demonstrated the absurdity of this claim. Just because you believe that the principle “from each to ability to each according to need” is not feasible, does NOT mean the principle is "irreconcilable" with communism. It merely means it is unfeasible, in your eyes. You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word "irreconcilable"
Prakash RP wrote:' People are not lazy in general but you have opted to make a generalised statement … ' ( ibid ) This is an instance of misinterpretation of my views. I never said anything to the effect that people in general are workshy.I didn’t say you said everyone is workshy. I acknowledged that you said some people are not. However, it must be the case that you think that on balance people are workshy otherwise why would you advocate a system of compulsory labour for everyone? Clearly you believe a system of voluntary labour would not work because people as a whole would not come forward in sufficient numbers to perform the work and so would have to be forced to work. My argument is not to deny that some people, probably a tiny minority, may be disposed to be lazy and free ride. Rather, I contend that this is not going to be problem given the sheer productivity of modern production. If anything the problem will be finding enough work to go around (particularly since the need for most kinds of work we do today will disappear with the disappearance of the capitalist money economy). If the so called problem of the workshy in a communist society ever became a problem then it will be addressed informally by a change in attitude towards such people – that is to say by social pressure and social opinion which is a very effective mechanism – perhaps the most effective mechanism we can think of given that human beings are by nature, social animals. You do NOT need a state-like system that micro-manages every citizen to ensure that they put in their requisite number of hours per week as determined by some technocratic elite I note that you have not responded to my point that actually , and there have been numerous studies to back up this point, paying people to work corrodes the intrinsic motivation to work. You effectively want to pay people to work by linking their consumption to what they contribute to society by way of labour input. You want to impose compulsory labour even on those – the majority – who are not workshy and would not be in a communist society by your own admission. If anything is calculated to make people more “workshy” it is exactly what you propose I also note that once again you have failed to explain how you are going to measure people’s labour contribution. If I turn up to office and do 8 hours labour, sipping coffee and surfing the internet, will I get the same bundle of consumer goods as someone who works down a sewer shovelling shit?
Prakash RP wrote:' Excuse me but you are the one arguing for a system of compulsory or coerced labour. How are you going to implement this compulsion? ' ( ibid ) ou've certainly raised a sensible point : how to implement this compulsion ? But you seem to be outright unaware of the distinction between the two points : what we have to do and how we have to do it. The fact of the matter is the workshy, the crafty and crooked, and all other elements opposed to communism must be dealt with successfully if we are for communism. You seem to be all for, unconsciously, abandoning communism if you must choose between communism ( with compulsion meant to check up on anti-communist elements ) and not communism. My dear friend, compulsion and the application of force are inseparable from life. As a responsible guardian or teacher, you can't avoid using compulsion or force to deal with unruly and disobedient kids, can you ?It is so telling that you should use the example of unruly and disobedient kids to argue the case for universal compulsory labour in communism. You want to treat every adult in a communist society as a child in some kind of parent-child relationship in which you see yourself as performing the role of the parent. Once again, this demonstrates the contempt you have for your fellow workers. They can’t be trusted to do the work so you and your fellow members in your Leninist style vanguard have to patronisingly direct them to do what needs to be done in a communist society if it is not to collapse. You have still not explained why those who compel others to labour and oversee/manage the latter’s labour performance in this system of compulsory labour you wish to enforce, will not themselves become a new ruling class and bring about the very collapse of a communist society you claim to want
Prakash RP wrote:The irreconcilable contradiction between the communist aim of the classless society and the principle at issue shows the impracticability of this principle and why it's incompatible with free communist society. Your silence on this point is intriguing and might be taken to mean silly evasion, I'm afraid to say.Now you are just being ridiculous. There is no “irreconcilable contradiction between the communist aim of the classless society” and the principle “from each according to ability to each according to ability”. That principle is the perfectly logical expression or outcome of common ownership of the means of production. Common ownership which even somebody as deficient in his grasp of logic as you must realise, is the negation of all forms of economic exchange. Exchange implies private property. Common property implies the absence of exchange which is precisely what “free access” entails. And free access, as I explained, goes hand in hand with voluntary labour. So where, oh, where, Mr “Originator of a THESIS on money's incapacity” (LOL) is the contradiction? C’mon spit it out and tell us in plain English? I think you have so tied yourself up in knots over this issue that you can’t seem to understand what it’s about anymore Whether the principle is “impracticable” is your opinion. You are entitled to express it but you are not entitled to infer from this that the principle is therefore in irreconcilable contradiction with classless communism which is what you are trying to do in your usual cack-handed clumsy fashion. I completely repudiate your claim that the principle is impractical. Far from being silent on the point I have demonstrated several times in this exchange that your arguments are weak and unconvincing. I have repeatedly cited evidence to support my case such as the fact that, even under capitalism, there is a huge amount of voluntary labour going on. There have been numerous well researched empirical studies bearing out the point about the intrinsic motivation involved in work and how paying people to work has a corrosive impact on this intrinsic motivation. What has been your response to these arguments? Zero! Zilch. Complete silence! You would do well to respond to my arguments before accusing others of being silent about yours. Not only have I defended the principle of voluntary labour as a basic structural characteristic of communist society and one that is eminently practical, I have also asked certain questions concerning your proposed alternative for a communist society – namely compulsory labour. Unlike you, I am not a dogmatist. I don’t say compulsory labour is logically incompatible with a communist society or completely inconceivable but I do believe it goes against the grain of a communist society and that there is a high probability that it could bring about the reinstatement of some form of class society. Who is going to do the compelling in the case of a system of compulsory labour? Who is going to compel the compellers? How are you going to enforce the rule that all should put their fair share of labour? What metric are going to use to determine what a “fair share” is? Is an hour’s work by a janitor the same value as an hour’s work of a neurosurgeon? You refuse to answer these questions and that is because I suspect you realise that to go down this road that could backfire on you badly. At the end of the day I think your basic ideology is a sort of quasi-Stalinist authoritarianism. You seem to like talking a lot about “backbone” and dealing with the “workshy” in the same contemptuous manner that you might expect a Tory Minister of Employment to do in a Party Conference rant. Certainly, you seem to share the same core bourgeois assumptions that are to be found in most mainstream economic textbooks – like the idea that labour is a “disutility” that needs to be compensated. Or that human beings are naturally greedy with insatiable appetites so that allowing them free access to goods in a communist society would mean they would strip the store of goods in minutes like some plague of locusts Little wonder you get such short shrift on this forum. In case you haven’t noticed, this is a forum for communists, not conservatives!
