The State of This Forum

[Uberak]

This forum is facing a crisis of inactivity.

My real-life problems have basically robbed me of the capacity to be a decently active member, whilst I noticed that even the adminstratorship has either lost interest or are too busy to participate.

Our new membership is also problematic, as they find the site boring due to inactivity. And, we even have a new user who mostly posts non-political posts about climate change, news, and health. I think some of them actually promote climate change denial and conspiracy theories. Though, that isn't new with evilforalltime doing similar antics in another thread. (Of course, it shouldn't be against forum rules to do such things, but I find it rather distracting. We haven't done a good job at drowning minority views that I consider to be ludicrous with our critique and unrelated threads that emphasize what this site is really about.)

So basically, we need to discuss right now the fundamental problem with our site, and what we should do to rectify this problem.

[Celtiberian]

You are correct to draw attention to the inactivity the Socialist Phalanx is experiencing as of late, Uberak. For my part, a demanding job schedule has rendered me too exhausted to participate to the extent I had in previous months. I will, however, do what I can to monitor and post on the forum more frequently.

With respect to the matter of apolitical topics, they are permitted as long as they are posted within the appropriate sub-forums. Conspiracy theories, however outrageous they may be, are also tolerated provided they do not violate forum guidelines. (It is the task of interested members to counter whatever disinformation is presented on the board, and to do so with logical and empirical debate, conducted in a civil manner.) Any posts which do violate forum policy should be reported to the site administration immediately.

I should also mention that the forum is going to be completely renovated in the coming months, in accordance with decisions made by the directive syndicate of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Federation during our first official meeting (held in Miami, FL during the summer of 2013). Further news concerning forum updates is forthcoming.

[Leon Mcnichol]

I would go as far as saying that the reason we face a slump in activity it's because there was never much to being with. Most of the posts are done by the moderators, or a few key loyal users, and we failed to atract a number of users enough to make the forum activity not administrator dependent.

I believe the two main reasons for this is that revleft absorbs most internet leftist users, and also because our forum is not known among real leftist movements that could recommend us to their membership. This second one might be a good idea to begin with, in order to gain more active membership.

[Rofra]

The Dutch section of Stormfront is going down after they banned me for proposing a guaranteed minimum income.

[HomelessArtist]

I am going to suggest chat meetups.
Talk in the chat and then take it to the forums.

Forget it, its a bad idea.

[Celtiberian]

The Dutch section of Stormfront is going down after they banned me for proposing a guaranteed minimum income.

Haven't you heard? Basic income was devised by sinister Judeo-communists who intend on redistributing the legitimately acquired wealth of successful Aryans to the lower races of man.

On a serious note, although I obviously find the notion of a basic income ethically defensible, I don't think it can be successfully implemented within a capitalist state. The productivity losses and fall in the rate of profit that would obtain as a result of labor possessing a superior bargaining position vis-à-vis capital in wage-for-labor-time contract negotiations would prove too destabilizing for the system to tolerate.

[Molov]

Hmm, just remember it's been the holidays. Things always wax and wane in influence over time. Lots of (At least me anyways) have become lurkers in a sense, and for the other reasons that have been said in this thread.

[Rofra]

On a serious note, although I obviously find the notion of a basic income ethically defensible, I don't think it can be successfully implemented within a capitalist state. The productivity losses and fall in the rate of profit that would obtain as a result of labor possessing a superior bargaining position vis-à-vis capital in wage-for-labor-time contract negotiations would prove too destabilizing for the system to tolerate.

A system with a basic income can no longer be called capitalism, that is true. I think the working class should keep up constant pressure on the ruling class, so the ruling class doesn't undermine the basic income with inflation etc.

[Rev Scare]

A system with a basic income can no longer be called capitalism, that is true. I think the working class should keep up constant pressure on the ruling class, so the ruling class doesn't undermine the basic income with inflation etc.

It remains capitalism, as redistribution of wealth does nothing to alter the fundamental mode of production. Capitalists continue to appropriate surplus value in an endless cycle of accumulation. There is no common ownership, workers do not control production, and the capitalist class continues to rule.

What Celtiberian was asserting is that the profit squeeze scenario that a universal basic income would entail would likely prove highly destabilizing to the system, since the continued expansion of value in circulation is the motor force of capitalism. Capitalists require a disempowered workforce. Apart from the ceaseless political difficulties in enacting and maintaining a basic income, the economic consequences would be unsustainable.

As revolutionary socialists, we can offer something infinitely superior to Philippe van Parijs' UBI.

[Celtiberian]

Hmm, just remember it's been the holidays. Things always wax and wane in influence over time.

This is an important observation. The holiday season is definitely a period of low participation on forums in general.

What's more, anyone who has examined the activity of internet forums for any appreciable amount of time knows that, even among the more popular boards, there is always an epicenter, i.e., members responsible for the majority of posts, which, in turn, serve to encourage less committed individuals to register and occasionally respond to threads. Thus there is really nothing unique about the Socialist Phalanx's current predicament.

[Red Aegis]

I'm still alive, just pretty busy. I'm working a lot.

[elysium]

I think this is indicative of a lack of community, a collapse of society and culture. Many people are isolated and alienated, and often are unable to afford an internet connection.

It seems that at some point, the SP will need to be seen, before being heard.

For instance, along the lines of how OWS handed out literature from tents, tables, and communicated with individuals ; however, a more immediate approach styled upon local needs and tendencies. Detroit, for example; a SP food pantry could be established with other supportive groups from the area, in seeking an understanding of their living and working environment concerns and issues. These interactions, and could then be put on the SF radio show, local news stations, excerpts could be posted online.

I would be willing to help in this regard. Even generating canned goods, and making deliveries would be a great relief to some, and garner some attention to many of the issues the Socialist Phalanx wants to convey.

[Rofra]

It remains capitalism, as redistribution of wealth does nothing to alter the fundamental mode of production. Capitalists continue to appropriate surplus value in an endless cycle of accumulation. There is no common ownership, workers do not control production, and the capitalist class continues to rule.

As revolutionary socialists, we can offer something infinitely superior to Philippe van Parijs' UBI.

The cosmopolitan outfit Doorbraak in the Netherlands made more or less the same argument, calling basic income reformist and even statist.
http://www.doorbraak.eu/hoe-bevrijdend-de-eis-van-een-onvoorwaardelijke-basisinkomen/

However, the combination of basic income and open borders would, by Cloward-Piven, raze capitalism to the ground.

What Celtiberian was asserting is that the profit squeeze scenario that a universal basic income would entail would likely prove highly destabilizing to the system, since the continued expansion of value in circulation is the motor force of capitalism. Capitalists require a disempowered workforce. Apart from the ceaseless political difficulties in enacting and maintaining a basic income, the economic consequences would be unsustainable.

As I said, Cloward-Piven.

[Celtiberian]

However, the combination of basic income and open borders would, by Cloward-Piven, raze capitalism to the ground.

The trouble with the Cloward-Piven strategy is that the system simply would not abide by it. The neoliberal backlash, observed in recent decades, against the welfare state is empirical proof that the moment social programs begin to interfere with the process of capital accumulation, the representatives of the bourgeoisie, i.e., state bureaucrats, will mobilize across party lines to dismantle them. In the case of a basic income, the legislation likely wouldn't even pass in the first place.

[Rofra]

The trouble with the Cloward-Piven strategy is that the system simply would not abide by it. The neoliberal backlash, observed in recent decades, against the welfare state is empirical proof that the moment social programs begin to interfere with the process of capital accumulation, the representatives of the bourgeoisie, i.e., state bureaucrats, will mobilize across party lines to dismantle them. In the case of a basic income, the legislation likely wouldn't even pass in the first place.

Could be seen as defeatism. And even after a succesful revolution, you still have to watch out for counter-revolution. I think revolution as a point and revolution as a process (reformism, fabianism) is somewhat a false opposition. The threat of revolution is necessary for reformism to succeed, and reformism destabilizes by Cloward-Piven. How do you envision revolution without any reformism?

[Celtiberian]

Could be seen as defeatism.

I prefer to consider it realism. Acknowledging that certain reform efforts are futile in no way implies that capitalism itself cannot be overthrown.

And even after a succesful revolution, you still have to watch out for counter-revolution.

Indeed, but that's a separate issue.

I think revolution as a point and revolution as a process (reformism, fabianism) is somewhat a false opposition. The threat of revolution is necessary for reformism to succeed, and reformism destabilizes by Cloward-Piven. How do you envision revolution without any reformism?

There are a limited number of reforms which can materially benefit the working class under capitalism. Immigration restrictions; capital, rent, and price controls; and universal health care are among them. The problem is that even if an endogenous or exogenous threat exists which terrifies the bourgeoisie into capitulating to social reformers, the reforms are ultimately temporary, as the moment the threat recedes the ruling class sets about overturning that legislation. The welfare programs and market regulations which were enacted as a result of the Soviet threat during the 1930s-'40s in North America and Europe, for example, have been progressively dismantled since 1989.

There is an additional problem. Reformism is often premised upon the notion that what's beneficial for the proletariat is beneficial for the economy (and even if this isn't yours or Piven's specific position, it is that of the preponderance of basic income advocates). However, being that capitalism's raison d'etre is the accumulation of profit, it follows that programs which interfere with that process will hinder the functionality of the system. Thus we find that countries which enacted social democratic reforms most vigorously (e.g., France during François Mitterrand's administration and Britain during the Old Labour period) performed poorly relative to more conservative countries, thereby leading to unemployment and general economic stagnation. This can have unfortunate consequences for the socialists who were supportive of those reforms. For instance, the working class can suspect that socialists are 'impractical Utopians' who support 'job killing' legislation.

A more fruitful endeavor for communists to engage in, in my opinion, would be to devote our efforts to educating the working class to realize that what would improve their lives is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. The reputation of our subversive acts should never depend on how well they can be integrated into capitalism.

[Sponsored content]