|
Party
News: Fircroft Summer School
This
weekend some 40-plus members, sympathisers and Standard-subscribers
from as far a field as Italy, Turkey and USA gathered for a weekend
of discussion and debate at the annual summer school organised by
Birmingham Branch.
Under
the theme “Thinkers of the 20th Century” a range of
ideas – from disciplines as diverse as anthropology, information
technology, literature and philosophy - were reviewed from a
socialist perspective and much heated debate followed.
Its
not surprising that a recurring issue throughout such a themed
weekend is that of “freedom”. Much abused in everyday currency,
“freedom” often translates as little more than lower taxes and
fewer regulations, issues of little or no concern to world
socialists. In contrast, socialists are intensely interested in
freedom, whether its the freedom we have to surpass the gene as a
constraint on how we live, the freedom to work co-operatively in
software development/use software without restrictions, or the more
abstract freedom of the individual under the state.
The
dystopian visions of Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) and George
Orwell (1984) then, formed a large part of the discussions around the
first two talks from Richard Headicar and Mike Foster respectively.
What sort of state do we live in now? Which dismal projection has
survived the best ? Probably a bit of both is the answer: Orwell's
boot stamping on the face is still prevalent in many parts of the
world as the market system emerges to an ungrateful population of new
wage-earners. “Late” capitalist states on the other hand have
clearly evolved more complex and subtle forms of oppression,
including of course the diversions of Big Brother (the TV “reality”
show) and the dubious freedom of consumer choice.
To
what extent can you separate the thinker from the thoughts ? While
Orwell got his hands dirty down mines, in hotel kitchens and most
famously on the frontline in Spain, Aldous Huxley in common with most
of the other thinkers risked little more than a paper cut in the
drawing rooms of Bloomsbury. Does this influence how we read each
author ?
As
Marx famously noted, “the philosophers have only interpreted the
world the point is to change it”. Someone who has done very little
interpretation of the world, but by contrast has undeniably changed
it is Richard Stallman. A software engineer turned intellectual
property activist, Stallman developed GNU software, CopyLeft and the
free software movement. This has inverted contract law to ensure that
CopyLeft software (such as Linux operating system) gets the fullest
expression of its use value (i.e. it is free to copy and use), but
has effectively no exchange value as users have to agree to make
available and not restrict access to any amendments made to it.
Tristan Miller discussed how this little oasis of “socialistic”
production has grown unstoppably within the body of capitalism and
effectively mirrors – albeit within the software and digital music
communities – all the features of “from each according to
ability, to each according to need”.
The
subject of freedom of the individual phenotype (e.g. human) as
opposed to the dubious constraints of biological determinism arose
during Adam Buick's introduction to the cultural anthropologist
Ashley Montagu, who is best known for his contributions during the
middle part of last century to the nature v nurture debate. It is
likely that his writings will stand the test of time better than the
more recent fashions of biological determinism - sociobiology and
evolutionary psychology - as typified by the “popular” science
writers Richard Dawkins, E O Wilson and Steven Pinker. If human
nature is slowly becoming less of an ideological “barrier to
socialism “than it once was, it will be due to the painstaking work
of real scientists such as Montagu.
Simon
Wigley got the short straw in having to present the ideas of the
Frankfurt School of philosophy shortly after a large Saturday lunch.
He stuck to the brief given to him admirably however, particularly
given that he had little enthusiasm for these ideas, as he made
clear. Whilst some in the audience wanted to shoot the piano player,
others were grateful that Simon had done the hard work of reading
this stuff and translating it from the English for our benefit.
Personally
speaking I gained most from this talk – even if it was only to gain
confidence that the Frankfurt emperors were indeed just as stark
naked as I had always suspected, and that rather than being
extensions to marxist philosophy, the ideas of Adorno, Habermas et al
(along with the post-modern ideas they set the scene for) are
negations of class-based analysis, of the enlightenment, and even of
the scientific method that drove it.
The
material conditions of capitalism really haven't changed that much in
the last century – and our philosophies really don’t look like
they need to change much either. Anyone who thinks that world
socialists are intellectuals, academics or armchair philosophers
would have been pleasantly surprised at the disdain with which these
ideas – far removed from anything actually to do with working class
experience – were discussed. Habermas could have dug coal during
the Spanish Civil War for all I know, but – judged on their own
merit - his ideas still should not be taken seriously.
In
summary, there is of course a perpetual tension between theory and
practice that no political organisation, whether liberal, marxist or
anarchist, gets right all the time. However, assisted by a plentiful
supply (according to need of course) of the local Black Country beer,
and the opportunity to catch up with old comrades and new
sympathisers, most attendees I spoke with left the weekend feeling
stimulated, reinvigorated and better-prepared for the more practical
need to spread the socialist case. Surely, the ideal balance between
ideas and action.
BG
|