ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here is how the Dutch Marxist Anton Pannekoek put it in his 1944 Anthropogenesis.
Seems ok to me (except not saying that humans are animals too) and the points I have been trying to make.
”There are thee main characteristics which differentiate between man and animal. Firstly, there is abstract thinking. Although animals do show a certain measure of intelligence, and though mental processes do take place with them which have their seat in highly developed brains, the capacity for abstract thought is only found in man. This is the thinking in concepts which has elevated him to so high a level of theoretical knowledge and science. Secondly there is speech, there is the use of language. Although animals do produce sounds intended for mutual information, with man alone these sounds have significance as names, and thus are the basis of a high spiritual culture. Thirdly there is the use of tools made by himself. Even though animals do make use of dead things from their natural surroundings as aids to their own support, with man this has become an habitual use of implements specially made for a purpose and according to a preconceived plan. These implements are the basis of an ever growing technique, and therefore of our entire material civilization.”
If he wasn’t using the word “bacteria” as a term of abuse, why did he use it to describe humans? I never did biology in school but I think that biologists divide life-forms into kingdoms, one of which is animals and another bacteria. So it is inaccurate to describe humans, as animals, as bacteria. But in this case it is more than a error of taxonomy (for which Bijou’s observer from another planet might be excused). It was clearly to intimate that humans were just as “lowly” as bacteria, an appeal to the popular ascription of inferiority to bacteria.
Now he’s calling humans bacteria. He criticises the view that humans are superior to other animals (which nobody here has argued) and says that the correct attitude it that humans are just different as are all species (which is true) but his language reveals that he actually thinks that humans are inferior.
But language is no more unique to humans than tool-making (since other animals do use sounds and signs to communicate with each other). Human language, however is qualitatively different in that it is based on abstracting in the mind parts of experience and naming them; it is with these named abstractions (“symbols”) that humans think enabling, as you say, humans to pass this on to others especially future generations, so that knowledge accumulates.
It is the same with tool-making. Some animals do this but on nothing like the scale that humans do; which explains the evolution of human society in line with the development of tool-making and tool-using.
So I think that a visitor from another planet would classify humans as unique not only in terms of language and thinking based on abstractions but also in terms of the extent of their tool-making as a result of this. If political correctness didn’t exist on their planet they might even venture to describe humans as being better at this than all other animals.
Who said that the lockdown was imposed for the benefit of the “middle class” and “petty bourgeoisie “:
I never understood the title of this thread. I think it is meant to suggest that animalism is a bad thing but according to this, it doesn’t sound so bad:
”Animalism is a communist philosophy of all of the animals being treated equal and sharing equally in both the responsibilities and rewards of the farm. Communism is defined as follows: Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.”
The Party used to refer to the so-called “Communist Party” in the late 20s and early 30s are the “Commotionist Party”.
I think (hope) it’s a one-off just for 75th anniversary. But still appalling, a re- affirmation that “We will do it again. Don’t know where. Don’t know when.”
It doesn’t follow that finding mobile phones useful, indeed very useful, means that you don’t value the things you list.
Anyway perhaps we should migrate this discussion to the one you started on digitalisation since it’s a bit off topic — though, come to think of it, what would lockdown be like for personal interaction without the internet? Lucky it got invented as there’d be virtually none.
I can’t see why it is the “nature” of a mobile phone to “replace” face to face conversation any more than it’s the nature of an ordinary phone to do so. It’s a useful tool for communication between humans. And how do mobile phones deprive you of the option of face to face conversations?
ps texting is a good innovation too.
What’s wrong with mobile phones? A great invention. Means I can respond to criticism of them from wherever I am at any time.
That’s what preliminary results had suggested and what you would expect — that with a hassle-free payment people would feel less stress in terms of financial security (relative of course) and not having to prove to the authorities that they were not looking for work all the time. It’s simpler and cheaper for the authorities to administer too.
The trouble is that, while paying the same amount to every citizen whether working or not avoids means testing for the unemployed, this would be hugely expensive and have a perverse effect on the wages of those in employment. It is also politically difficult as the unemployed are not a group that is universally popular ( which might explain why when UBI was put to a referendum in Switzerland 70% voted against).
UBI would only work if you took the U out ( or made it stand for Unemployment rather than Universal ) and so as a reform of the welfare system (poor law). To avoid means testing it would have to be paid to anyone not working even if voluntarily. The rate would have to be minimal (€560 is only about £125 a week) so as not to undermine the wages system by encouraging too much voluntary unemployment. £125 a week would seem low enough for that but nobody could live on that amount unless their housing was free or subsidised (and so back to means testing!). Such a reform might work if a government could get the political support to bring it in ( which is not automatically evident).
There is nothing wrong with the idea that everybody should have access as of right to something they need — that’s the basis for distributing goods and services in socialism — but is of limited applicability under capitalism. And even under capitalism doing this directly by providing something free is probably better than doing this via a monetary payment.
“Why should socialists worry about a surveillance state? We’re not conspirators.”
Agreed the Party has nothing to hide from anyone including the State except the membership list (some employers might not like to employ socialists). But I would have thought we were against the State monitoring the activity of its subjects, socialists included. Or do you like the DWP snooping to see if you are genuinely seeking employment? Or your personal life being tracked?
