drwhat posted:

let us take for example art. Or the experience of being at a particular beautiful vista somewhere, say a teahouse on a mountainside. Or any number of non commodity unique objects. A new technology which hasn't yet been reproduced in enough numbers to be available to everyone. A trip to the new moon colony. the materials to build said moon colony. The means of producing the materials to build that, or any other specialized project. The labour time of a local skilled carpenter. mobility itself.

All of these things are not available in infinite quantities to everyone who may want, even in your utopian condition in which everyone always has enough of any given commodity as they want.

The entire point of an economic system is to allocate scarcity. If there is no scarcity then of course there is no capitalism. You will be waiting a long time for that.

With all due respect, I am finding it difficult to see the relevance of much of the above. Why you introduce 'infinite quantities' is a mystery to me.

Do you honestly think that every single worker, and her family, will take train rides all day, every day, while buying clothes every minute of the day, all week, sipping coffee in bars all day, all week, while sunning themselves every day, all day, on the beach...? Where did this 'infinite' stuff come from? Just like they do when they form strike committees, workers are well able to allocate resources according to need. Socialism will simply generalise this -- with the added difference, workers will control production, too.

The entire point of an economic system is to allocate scarcity. If there is no scarcity then of course there is no capitalism. You will be waiting a long time for that.

Well that may be what you are taught in bourgeois economics, but it has nothing to do with socialism.

libelous_slander posted:

so what is trotskyism?

This will give you some idea:

http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/molyneux/realmarx/index.htm

jools posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

jools posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

jools posted:

and additionally, given your disbelief in this dialectical concept of "quantity becoming quality", at what point does this proletarian (or wholly proletarian-led) revolution become possible? is this merely a tendential matter, the historical "coin" being weighted more or less to a favourable outcome?

Fortunately, it is impossible to tell, otherwise the ruling class would be able to tell too, and prevent it.

The best guide comes from Lenin: revolutions happen when the ruling class can no longer keep on ruling in the same old way, and the working class won't let them. If the working class is prepared to pay the price for each crisis, a revolution can be avoided; otherwise not.

well i mean in a more general historical sense. is it only possible to tell whether a revolution was "doomed" to not being socialist according to trotskyist categories in retrospect?

No, it is possible to say ahead of time whether or not it can bring about socialism based on ideas in Marx and Engels. Which is why Lenin and Trotsky said that if the German revolution failed, their revolution was doomed.

Lenin said absolutely no such thing though?

Oh yes he did; check these out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1610331&postcount=115

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1640164&postcount=10

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1677907&postcount=33

ilmdge posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

But, if there is ever a revolution led by a Trotskyist party, and it doesn't have a significant/predominant working class base, then it will go the way of China and Cuba.

The Draper article you quoted criticized emancipation of the working classes not achieved by the working class itself... does that mean a socialist nation like Cuba would be forever stained by some Original Sin from the method of its founding... can a minority vanguard-type faction not feasibly surrender power to the people... what would the working class emancipating itself look like that eliminates the Bolsheviks, Maoist PLA, etc... And, historically, if such a revolution has not been seen, do you still think it's a practical road to socialism... Pardon my ignorance, I simply don't read.

The whole point of Marxism is that the working class prepares itself to be the ruling class (and thus brings an end to class division) as a result of struggle, not as a result of a gift. In that way it becomes (in Marx's words) a 'class for itself', as opposed to a 'class in itself', as it is now. That is, it reaches a level of practical solidarity and self-organisation through struggle that no gift can possibly bequeath to it. Strikes are small examples of this.

The idea that a powerful elite will surrender power is even more fantastic than any workers' revolution I have ever heard of.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Nov. 16, 2012 02:07:55)

RBC posted:

Also your entire argument hinges on an unlimited supply of fossil fuels in case you haven't realized that yet lol.

Not so. Ever heard of solar energy -- not to mention wind and wave power, or geothermal energy...?

They are only 'non-economical' now because of the need to make a profit, Remove that restraint, and we'd have unlimited supplies of energy.

innsmouthful posted:

rosa what's your opinion on the primacy of the Volk

I'm sorry. What does that mean?

The 'volk' (a suspiciously nationalistic, if not fascisitic term) would, I presume, include the petty bourgeois and the capitalists. By-and-large, enemies of socialism. So, I do not think much of it, if I understand you aright.

Socialism is based on the primacy of the producing class, the proletariat. Period.

RBC posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

drwhat posted:

So there can never be socialism if there is scarcity? Scarcity is inescapable. Did Trotsky claim that socialism can never exist?

Well, no, he maintained that an advanced capitalist country, or rather several of them, could provide the productive capacity for a socialist society once the workers had seized power. The problem would be that unless the revolution spread, it would become isolated and would be forced backwards -- as happened in Russia.

So, productive capacity is a necessary condition for socialism, but it isn't sufficient.

I don't know why you think scarcity is inevitable. These days we have the productive capacity across the planet to cater for everyone's needs. That wasn't the case several generations ago.

Furthermore, in a socialist society waste (on advertising, marketing, arms production, policing, duplication, economic slumps, unemployment, under-employment, rentier capitalists, the 'idle rich', royal families, etc., etc.) will largely be eliminated freeing up resources even further. Moreover, productivity will sky-rocket in a socialist society (explanation supplied on request).

So basically you've seen star trek a few times and consider yourself an expert on socialism.

In fact, my ideas are all based on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhByQr3rYG8

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Aug. 21, 2013 01:52:02)

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

innsmouthful posted:
rosa what's your opinion on the primacy of the Volk


I'm sorry. What does that mean?

The 'volk' (a suspiciously nationalistic, if not fascisitic term) would, I presume, include the petty bourgeois and the capitalists. By-and-large, enemies of socialism. So, I do not think much of it, if I understand you aright.

Socialism is based on the primacy of the producing class, the proletariat. Period.

but that's like 10% of the population of a first world country, the rest are lumpenproles, capitalist or lumpenbougiouse

Not so, the working class and their familes form at least 70% of the population of the 'advanced' economies.

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
innsmouthful posted:
rosa what's your opinion on the primacy of the Volk


I'm sorry. What does that mean?

The 'volk' (a suspiciously nationalistic, if not fascisitic term) would, I presume, include the petty bourgeois and the capitalists. By-and-large, enemies of socialism. So, I do not think much of it, if I understand you aright.

Socialism is based on the primacy of the producing class, the proletariat. Period.
but that's like 10% of the population of a first world country, the rest are lumpenproles, capitalist or lumpenbougiouse


Not so, the working class and their familes form at least 70% of the population of the 'advanced' economies.

That’s about how many people work in the services sector: They’re hardly ‘working class’ when they live so high on the hog on the labour of the global proletariat

What is “revolutionary” about a class of people who have public healthcare (let’s exclude the US from this), education, labor rights, unions, more calories than they could ever need, mortages, and a constant funnel of fun, entertaining products funnelled into their homes and lives?

tpaine posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

innsmouthful posted:
rosa what's your opinion on the primacy of the Volk


I'm sorry. What does that mean?

The 'volk' (a suspiciously nationalistic, if not fascisitic term) would, I presume, include the petty bourgeois and the capitalists. By-and-large, enemies of socialism. So, I do not think much of it, if I understand you aright.

Socialism is based on the primacy of the producing class, the proletariat. Period.

but that's like 10% of the population of a first world country, the rest are lumpenproles, capitalist or lumpenbougiouse

Not so, the working class and their familes form at least 70% of the population of the 'advanced' economies.

i guess this is literally true, as only 70% of americans actually have jobs now

The boss of Barclays has a job, but he is hardly working class!

swirlsofhistory posted:

I think Kripke is on the right lines (but I am not sure of the Von Mises analogy). However, Kripke ruins his argument by characterising Wittgenstein as some sort of sceptic, which he wasn't.

These days this view is called 'Left Wittgensteinianism', as opposed to 'Right Wittgensteinianism' (whose main proponent is Peter Hacker).

I am not sure why you think Wittgenstein's work should pose a problem for socialist planning (if the latter is not understood along the lines we saw in the former Soviet Union). I can't see that it does.

And Neo-classical economics, of the sort von Mises helped inflict on humanity, has been well and truly demolished in this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned/dp/1848139926/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1352969376&sr=8-2

There’s a chapter in David Bloor’s Wittgenstein, Rules, and Institutions on the analogy with von Mises in Kripke. Kripke thinks that since Mises argument has been mostly rejected, then W’s views on rule-following might be in jeopardy.

Unless I’m mistaken, the scepticism argument says that since we’ve learned rules with infinite applications only after learning to use them in a finite number of applications, so we can’t be sure if our past applications of the rule were the same as how we currently use them. We can’t find a fact to tell us that yes, our past applications of the rule are the same as our current.

Of course, the absence of any additional rule that says what we know about the rule needs to be altered would indicate that there’s no expectation of scepticism about whether we’re using it as we always have.

Well, if that is so the same comment applies to the above words (in that you can't be sure from moment to moment what either you or Kripke mean), and all sense is lost.

That was one of the central messages of On Certainty.

Bloor's book is excellent, except his argument collapses into the same extreme individualism that he is concerned to attack (since he has accepted far too much of Kripke's argument).

I still fail to see the link between Wittgenstein and von Mises, despite what Bloor says.

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
innsmouthful posted:
rosa what's your opinion on the primacy of the Volk


I'm sorry. What does that mean?

The 'volk' (a suspiciously nationalistic, if not fascisitic term) would, I presume, include the petty bourgeois and the capitalists. By-and-large, enemies of socialism. So, I do not think much of it, if I understand you aright.

Socialism is based on the primacy of the producing class, the proletariat. Period.
but that's like 10% of the population of a first world country, the rest are lumpenproles, capitalist or lumpenbougiouse


Not so, the working class and their familes form at least 70% of the population of the 'advanced' economies.
That’s about how many people work in the services sector: They’re hardly ‘working class’ when they live so high on the hog on the labour of the global proletariat

What is “revolutionary” about a class of people who have public healthcare (let’s exclude the US from this), education, labor rights, unions, more calories than they could ever need, mortages, and a constant funnel of fun, entertaining products funnelled into their homes and lives?



Those who work in the service sector (but what do you mean by that?) are workers. If they earn a wage and have little or no control over their own labour power, that makes them workers.

Moreover, they do not live 'high on the hog'. What planet are you on? Sure they have a higher standard of living than most in the 'third world', but that just means they have more to defend. You can see that in the mass strikes that are now going on in Europe:

http://libcom.org/news/europe-strike-against-austerity-live-updates-13112012

Furthermore, workers in the more advanced economies are far more exploited than those in the 'third world' because of the productivity of their labour.







I can just see a hospital porter or a shopworker affording property like these!

Uh they have houses like that in the global south too you know. Also, "defending" those privileged sounds pretty reactionary, not revolutionary. Like how the white Russians defended the nobility and such.

Also those benefits and priviliges that first world "workers" have are funded by their exploitation of the third world

Sure the rich have big houses in the 'third world', but that just underlines my point. Which worker in 'the west' has a big house anywhere?

Defending one's home is hardly reactionary! No more so than defending one's mud hut or one's straw mattress. This is basic materialism; workers will defend their material gains, and that is what propels them into strike action, which in turn shapes them into a fighting force (as opposed to merely being consumers), eventually capable of taking on the boss-class, and overthrowing it.

Also those benefits and priviliges that first world "workers" have are funded by their exploitation of the third world

That idea is based on a serious error Lenin made (about the so-called 'labour aristocracy'), corrected here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm

So, workers in 'the west' aren't 'funded' in the way you say. Bosses certainly are.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Nov. 16, 2012 03:12:05)

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
innsmouthful posted:
rosa what's your opinion on the primacy of the Volk


I'm sorry. What does that mean?

The 'volk' (a suspiciously nationalistic, if not fascisitic term) would, I presume, include the petty bourgeois and the capitalists. By-and-large, enemies of socialism. So, I do not think much of it, if I understand you aright.

Socialism is based on the primacy of the producing class, the proletariat. Period.
but that's like 10% of the population of a first world country, the rest are lumpenproles, capitalist or lumpenbougiouse


Not so, the working class and their familes form at least 70% of the population of the 'advanced' economies.
That’s about how many people work in the services sector: They’re hardly ‘working class’ when they live so high on the hog on the labour of the global proletariat

What is “revolutionary” about a class of people who have public healthcare (let’s exclude the US from this), education, labor rights, unions, more calories than they could ever need, mortages, and a constant funnel of fun, entertaining products funnelled into their homes and lives?



Those who work in the service sector (but what do you mean by that?) are workers. If they earn a wage and have little or no control over their own labour power, that makes them workers.

Moreover, they do not live 'high on the hog'. What planet are you on? Sure they have a higher standard of living than most in the 'third world', but that just means they have more to defend. You can see that in the mass strikes that are now going on in Europe:

http://libcom.org/news/europe-strike-against-austerity-live-updates-13112012

Furthermore, workers in the more advanced economies are far more exploited than those in the 'third world' because of the productivity of their labour.







I can just see a hospital porter or a shopworker affording property like these!
Uh they have houses like that in the global south too you know. Also, "defending" those privileged sounds pretty reactionary, not revolutionary. Like how the white Russians defended the nobility and such.

Also those benefits and priviliges that first world "workers" have are funded by their exploitation of the third world


Sure the rich have big houses in the 'third world', but that just underlines my point. Which worker in 'the west' has a big house anywhere?

Detroit, sells for $24,000

Defending one's home is hardly reactionary!

I agree!

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat
or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there. - Orwell

No more so than defending one's mud hut or one's straw mattress. This is basic materialism; workers will defend their material gains, and that is what propels them into strike action, which in turn shapes them into a fighting force (as opposed to merely being consumers), eventually capable of taking on the boss-class, and overthrowing it.

Their material gains come at the expense of the class they are subjugating though

That idea is based on a serious error Lenin made (about the so-called 'labour aristocracy'), corrected here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm

So, workers in 'the west' aren't 'funded' in the way you say. Bosses certainly are.

So we are just going to ignore all the coffee/food/oil/iphones/clothes/toys that the masses of people in the first world can afford that come from exploitation in the global south?

Their material gains come at the expense of the class they are subjugating though

I'm sorry, who is 'subjugating' whom?

So we are just going to ignore all the coffee/food/oil/iphones/clothes/toys that the masses of people in the first world can afford that come from exploitation in the global south?

If you read that article to which I linked in my last post, you'll see that that isn't so. Here it is again:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm