[Wellsy]

Ghandi they are not.

Im not sure who ‘they’ refers to in this case but the point being that Ghandi like many others clearly break laws in pursuit of justice. In retrospect they are now considered heroes, but only if they are in some sense victorious or at least partially so.
Such changes cannot come from adherence to the law but require active disobeying of it.
Although in the case of Ghandi he isn’t a revolutionary as much as a reformer.

[ckaihatsu]

You need an umpire/referee.

That's what law is supposed to do. One of the fundamental tenets of law, and common sense, is that you can't take the law into your own hands.

As Wellsy (Blunden) has pointed out, the only reason that laws exist at all is in an attempt to resolve contradictions -- but in the process of *doing* so, more contradictions are discovered, 'further-down' / more-specifically.

I'm reminded of *fractals* here, incidentally, where trying to resolve boundaries among three adjacent domains just leads into further 'contradictions', which leads into more detail, but without *resolving* the quandary.

(19:41 in the video.)

Newton's Fractal (which Newton knew nothing about)

In terms of political economy the only reason 'law' exists *at all* is because of the institution of *private property*, where conflicting private interests have to be resolved somehow, even to the point of engaging in world warfare.

And don't babble about revolution, terrorists aren't revolutionaries, for one thing. For another, there simply no real world justification for revolt. Their world is a pack of lies..

Bigger than bomb threats: The political violence of national oppression

https://fightbacknews.us1.list-manage.c ... de79fb44fe

[late]

As Wellsy (Blunden) has pointed out, the only reason that laws exist at all is in an attempt to resolve contradictions -- but in the process of *doing* so, more contradictions are discovered, 'further-down' / more-specifically.

I'm reminded of *fractals*

Fractals is an interesting idea, but law is too ad hoc for that to be more than an interesting idea. Still, you get a brownie point from me for making me think.

I think you have it close to backwards, the law tries to avoid contradictions. What you refer to is the ad hoc nature of law. It's like a brick house made up of hundreds of thousands of bricks.

Modern law was inspired by the Enlightenment, as were the ideals of international relations like the idea behind the UN.

You're not far from the obvious. We need a way to resolve conflict globally, and if there is a model better than Rule of Law, I haven't seen it.

[ckaihatsu]

Fractals is an interesting idea, but law is too ad hoc for that to be more than an interesting idea. Still, you get a brownie point from me for making me think.

How *flattering* for you, in your own mind.

I think you have it close to backwards, the law tries to avoid contradictions. What you refer to is the ad hoc nature of law. It's like a brick house made up of hundreds of thousands of bricks.

Modern law was inspired by the Enlightenment, as were the ideals of international relations like the idea behind the UN.

You seem to have missed *this* part:

In terms of political economy the only reason 'law' exists *at all* is because of the institution of *private property*, where conflicting private interests have to be resolved somehow, even to the point of engaging in world warfare.

Remember, this is all *superstructure*. Capitalism has to reward those *of* the superstructure -- and I'd include *rentier capital owners* in that category, clearly.

So it's the [1] nation-state bureaucracy, and the [2] non-productive asset / resource owners, who are capitalism's 'superstructure' -- it's the (non-commodity-productive) administration and the non-commodity-productive rentier-capital ownership ('management'), together, that are the political-cultural 'trappings' of capitalism -- as distinct from its 'base', or means-of-production.

[late]

You seem to have missed *this* part:

Hardly, we've gone over this before explicitly.

Law creates value, it is part of the foundation of the Modern World. You are not going to invest large amounts of money or effort if someone can just take it.

I know you think you can replace it magically, but that's a non-starter. Even with more modest ideas, actually replacing the status quo is close to impossible. One of those ideas is making all companies majority owned by workers. Or having a maximum income, or...

But it would be nice to hear the corrupt squeal like stuck pigs. Guess I'll just have to settle for Trump squealing like a stuck pig.

[ckaihatsu]

Hardly, we've gone over this before explicitly.

Law creates value, it is part of the foundation of the Modern World. You are not going to invest large amounts of money or effort if someone can just take it.

Yes, I know the history of capitalism.

I know you think you can replace it magically, but that's a non-starter.

What the hell *is* this -- you keep imputing some kind of fantasy-land onto my politics, as though it's half-baked or not fully worked-out.

I have a fully consistent *model* available, for anyone's consideration, which also serves as a solid statement of what my politics *are*. No assumptions or imputations needed on your part.

Even with more modest ideas, actually replacing the status quo is close to impossible.

C'mon, late -- people said that about *slavery*, and you're an antifascist yourself.

One of those ideas is making all companies majority owned by workers. Or having a maximum income, or...

But it would be nice to hear the corrupt squeal like stuck pigs. Guess I'll just have to settle for Trump squealing like a stuck pig.

Hey, *there's* some positivity from you, in the right direction.

I happen to be *critical* of Wolff's 'worker cooperatives', mostly because he's unable to address *how* the co-workers are to acquire such costly private infrastructure in the first place. Bake sales at the local church don't cut it.

That said, though, I do support workers collectivism on-the-ground, as long as it's not geographically *separatist*. The point should be top-down for the sake of overthrowing the bourgeoisie (working class class war), but bottom-up once the class division is overcome since workers are inherently on-the-ground and know their workplaces the best, of anyone.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

---

A proletarian revolution would mean taking the world's material economy *off* of the market system -- but then, what should *replace* it? Once the paradigm of exchange-values is imploded, how would an egalitarian society properly value goods, resources, and materials, *and* various different liberated-labor efforts (work roles), without regressing back to the use of market exchanges and exchange values?

One major problem with the 'communal' approach, even if implemented worldwide, is that we can't just pretend that all work roles are the same -- the unstated assumption with the 'communal' approach is that as long as one is *contributing* to the material commons, one should be able to *partake* from that resulting complex social production, for one's own needs. This is *not* an entirely bad premise, actually, because one implication of it is that people should be consuming from social production according to their *needs*, and not according to what they've *contributed* to society, because that would mean rewards-for-labor, or the implicit *commodification* of labor based on what goods can be exchanged for it.

This may sound *strange* at first, but one could think of it as a new Enlightenment of social norms -- all social production should be for satisfying *human need*, and for no other reason. It's only with the relatively recent advent of *industrial* mass production techniques that humanity is able to realize far more output / productivity for labor inputs, and this dynamic is what modern communism is premised on, since surplus labor value is currently *seized* by private ownership for its own self-aggrandizement. Under communism all labor value, however measured, would benefit those who need to take and consume from it, regardless of their contributions to the creation of it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to elaborate on this point, with content from another thread:

The point should be top-down for the sake of overthrowing the bourgeoisie (working class class war), but bottom-up once the class division is overcome

I think you're overly concerned with *formalities*. 'Vanguardism', in whatever sense, *can't* be a replacement for on-the-ground mass sentiment because -- on paper at least -- all representatives are *recallable*. That said, though, I'm not a Stalinist and I'm not arguing *for* bureaucratic elitism as the preferred mode of government / administration.

Vanguardism would be the *workers state*, and the vanguard would be like the delegates that countries send abroad for matters of state -- a *tiny* number of persons compared to the vaster interests that they formally represent (those of the working class).

'Revolution' *implies* / is-the-definition-of, a sufficient mass force from below that thoroughly displaces bourgeois class rule.

Finally, *any* kind of vanguardism -- even 'deformed', elitist kinds -- would be an improvement over the countries of the bourgeoisie, and their *present-day* 'vanguardism' for the interests of private capital.

viewtopic.php?p=15209482#p15209482

[late]

I have a fully consistent *model* available, for anyone's consideration, which also serves as a solid statement of what my politics *are*. No assumptions or imputations needed on your part.


The point should be top-down for the sake of overthrowing the bourgeoisie (working class class war), but bottom-up once the class division is overcome since workers are inherently on-the-ground and know their workplaces the best, of anyone.


Emergent Central Planning

You need a lot more than a model..

That's one of your problems, relinquishing power doesn't often happen. We got lucky with Washington, but his sort doesn't usually gain power in the first place.

Which brings up what I see as another problem. Central planning simply can't handle a modern economy, not even with a bank of supercomputers. You're going to need a lot of bottom up from the start.

Something money based economies have been doing for centuries...

[ckaihatsu]

You need a lot more than a model..

Understood.

That's one of your problems, relinquishing power doesn't often happen. We got lucky with Washington, but his sort doesn't usually gain power in the first place.

Yup.

Which brings up what I see as another problem. Central planning simply can't handle a modern economy, not even with a bank of supercomputers. You're going to need a lot of bottom up from the start.

Top-down Stalinistic central planning *shouldn't* be done, mostly because of the *elitism* involved around who gets to be a non-commodity-producing *bureaucrat*, and who doesn't. The income disparities may not be as stark as what we have here under capitalism (https://aflcio.org/executive-paywatch/company-pay-ratios), but it would still be bureaucratic elitism of a sort.

Also, it would be *linear*-based, which is logistically problematic. I've heard of the historical Project Cybersyn, but its linear approach does necessitate a *granular* treatment, which is then computationally intensive, as you're pointing out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input%E2% ... tput_model

Something money based economies have been doing for centuries...

Yep. I have the following excerpt for you. No rush. I think it addresses your point.

[M]y 'labor credits' is *not* the same as conventional Marxist 'labor vouchers'. Labor vouchers are meant to be a wages-like *placeholder* -- as I understand it -- for formally recognizing liberated-work voluntarily done for the collective / commons, and to *reward* that effort with a monetary-type reciprocity, though one that's controlled *intentionally* by an administrative portion of the revolutionary, upsurging workers.

I find this conventional rewards-for-labor approach to be misguided, since it's not in the direction of the ultimate goal, that being to *eliminate* money (and all private-property relations) -- and I would argue *as soon as possible* so that society-in-revolt is on the right path towards moneylessness.

On the other hand, my 'labor credits' formulation is meant to "valuate" one thing only, that of liberated-labor-effort-hours, and to keep this "valuation" / quantification strictly *internal* to the subset of people who are *active* liberated-workers -- labor credits are voluntarily forwarded to those who step-up to do socially-necessary labor, going-forward, for the public good.

So your question can be rephrased as 'How does a labor [credit] not reproduce the same relationship and function of money?'

You can use your browser to search on the thread for the '-> So labor credits are just *money*! Communism is supposed to be moneyless!' section, but here's the concept, anyway:

Labor credits are *not* money / currency, because no items are ever *commodified*. Labor credits are not exchangeable for any goods / resources / materials, because that would be equivalent to the *commodification* of those items. Communism is supposed to be about fulfilling unmet human needs (and wants), so what counts from the consumer is *how badly* they want something to be produced, by active liberated laborers, if not already immediately available. Under capitalism this takes the form of *increasing* exchange-values -- a material incentive -- by funneling demand-by-money, as into auctions and bidding wars, which has *nothing* to do with the serving of outstanding human needs.

Labor credits, differently from currency and commodification, measure *how badly* consumers need / want something (some form of socially necessary production), by *standardizing* everyone's demands to a person-by-person 'daily demands list' according to relative *priority*, through intentional rankings (#1, #2, #3, etc.). This means that exchange values / money is no longer necessary for the function of measuring relative demand.

Here's from the model:


consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

https://tinyurl.com/labor-credits-faq

---


With *all* social demand quantified on such a *gradient*, it becomes clear to liberated-workers what is being *most* demanded on-the-whole (top-ten, etc.), giving the necessary information to them to respond appropriately in where they should put their labor-efforts. (All individual-demands-list formal-items, like 'proposals' and 'policy packages', are aggregated by rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.) and *tallied*, to show a finely-resolved differentiation of quantified support for each given topic, proposal, or policy. (And only formalized, finalized 'policy packages' are candidates for implementation by available-and-willing liberated labor.)

The labor credits help-out in this regard by showing discrete, relative levels of support from the liberated laborers *themselves*, since labor credits in-hand indicate a person's past work done, giving them the fractional authority to select *specific* available-and-willing liberated-workers for new labor efforts, for policy-package-designated work roles, and for the detailed scheduling of those work roles, going-forward. Yet the labor credits are *still* not money, because the market of exchange values is no longer required for the material-economic function of discerning (organic) demand, whether large or small.

(You may want to search on the page for the '-> Why should anyone give a shit about labor credits?' section and just read that.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[ckaihatsu]

Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[Rich]

So this thread's intention was to explain why I think in the relatively recent past it was right to stand along side and in some cases literally fight along side, Marxists and far leftists on many social cultural / issues. For another example, I think the radical, confrontational, potentially violent civil rights movement in Northern Ireland at the end of the nineteen sixties was a thoroughly good thing. On certain issues I still remain a radical leftist, such as my opposition to making British people stateless because they have Pakistani parents. But it seems that these issues do not greatly interest the modern left. When it comes to the identity issues that so fire up the left today I'm left completely cold.

Anyway this brilliant article (even if it was written by a Brexiteer), The feebleness of white nationalists, does an excellent job of explaining why Neo Confederates and Hitler lovers are no threat what so ever.

Note this doesn't mean that a few disaffected right wing individuals won't commit violent even lethal acts. The point is they are complete failures as terrorists. Contrast this with the Muslims that slaughtered Charlie Hebbdo, Muslims have forced their agenda on us. They have put every journalist in fear. The terrorism of the ethnic European far right is utterly futile. No western journalist is too afraid to criticise Hitler. No journalist is too afraid to criticise the Confederacy. And even if The Donald had got his second term no western journalist would have been too afraid to criticise Donald Trump. Even under a second term the problem would have been journalists that were too afraid not to criticise Trump.