robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Socialism is evil because it forces socialists to commit the following “immoralities”.
I find Haskin’s argument curious for in what sense does, or can, socialism “force” people to commit the various immoralities he cites? If anything the exact opposite is the case. Socialism provides the optimum circumstances in which a truly “free” society can flourish.
To argue from the example of traditional nomadic hunter-gatherer (or “segmentary lineage”) societies. Part of the reason for their fundamentally egalitarian character lies in the ability of bands to “fission” at any point in time, and vote with their feet, should undesirable hierarchical tendencies and personal animosities build up within the band itself.
Analogously speaking, the structural features of a socialist society – notably, free access and voluntaristic labour – would similarly work to undermine any coercive-cum-hierarchical tendencies that might otherwise emerge in such a society. Quite simply, there would be no leverage – economic or political – that could enable any individual or group to exercise power over any other group in socialism – as there certainly is under capitalism (which Haskins defends).
Then there is this whole argument about “morality” that I find intriguing. Haskins seems to counterpose “morality” to “coercion” as indicated by his use of the word, “force”. Classical sociologists like Durkheim tended to argue to the contrary that “society is a moral order” and that morality itself is essentially coercive or imperative by its very nature. It instructs us as to what we ought or ought not to do.
The difference, I suppose, is that morality, or our acceptance of moral norms, is something that is internalised within the individual in the process of socialisation as we are progressively inducted into society from an early age. External coercion, notably in the form of the state, is something quite different and may or may not align with the moral outlook of individuals
Haskin’s argument that socialism is evil “because it forces people to commit certain immoralities” seems to hinge on this “external” concept of force or coercion as represented by some social institution, such as state, rather than an internalised concept of force which is implicit in the very idea of morality itself. However, he completely fails to demonstrate what this externalised social mechanism could be in a stateless (because classless) socialist society that would force individuals to commit immoral acts or how this mechanism could arise and maintain itself in a social environment in which individuals enjoy free access to their own means of subsistence and voluntarily cooperate with their fellows to produce these means.
One last thing – socialism has sometimes been characterised as a system of a generalised reciprocity or what is called a “gift economy”. I question the idea that socialism can be called an economy at all. The idea that there is such a thing as a separate realm of reality called “the economy” is peculiar to capitalism alone, Adam Smith probably being the first serious commentator to conceptualise the economy in this way.
In pre-capitalist societies, it was difficult if not impossible, to disentangle the moral, political, religious etc aspects of life from the economic aspects. So it will be in a post-capitalist society as well.
Unlike the “balanced reciprocity” of the market which requires equivalence in exchange almost by definition (and hence also a focus on quantification expressed through money), generalised reciprocity essentially entails a moral transaction in the sense of an ongoing obligation to contribute to society and not just to take from it.
Again, this completely undermines the entire thrust of Haskin’s argument because what it suggests is that, in a socialist society, without the kind of class conflict we find in capitalism that reduces the force of morality to a kind of hypocritical humbug or mere moralizing, the power of moral persuasion will, if anything, be greatly enhanced. If morality has hitherto been mere class morality, in a classless society of the future, it will be the much clearer expression of what is in the common interest of everyone. As such, it will have a much more significant and effective role to play in the life of a socialist society, compared to capitalism
Anyway, I couldn’t resist posting, so my apologies to those who detest the notion of ‘Politicised Science’, and prefer a self-selecting elite to hold power in science.
Power to do exactly what LBird????
Specialists, and you long ago agreed there will be specialists as well as generalists in socialism, will by definition always know more than the non-specialists on the subject in question. But they will have zero power over the latter given the nature of a socialist society in which labour is performed on a completely free voluntary basis and goods and services can be freely appropriated without any form of quid pro quo exchange
Free access/voluntary labour eliminates or negates the very mechanism by which some hold power over others. Period
TS yet again airs his obnoxious nationalist views and nationalist assumptions for all his pathetic attempts to present himself as some sort of faux communist (“Communism brings uplift to marginalised groups” – the same sort of argument the British imperialists used to justify their own imperial conquests – that it was good for the natives)
You cannot be a communist and a nationalist. You can only be one of these by jettisoning the other.
Perhaps our resident bootlicker of the billionaire-friendly Chinese capitalist regime should consider changing his pseudonym. Anyone who considers themselves to be a “True Scotsman” is a world away from the kind of thinking that asserts “The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got” (Communist Manifesto)
TS
That’s precisely what I’m doing right now. I’m trying to learn what is your strategy for combating the inevitable counter-revolutionary violence. Instead I hear there will be none, Lol, or I’m insulted. Why won’t anyone directly answer the question?
Your question has already been answered but you are refusing to open your ears and listen
Our conception of socialism – the Marxian one – requires that a significant majority of the population first want and understand it. It cannot be imposed from above by some tiny clique of Leninist vanguardists
In the process of arriving at that socialist majority, the entire social outlook will almost inevitably and progressively change in an incremental fashion. Socialist and democratic ideas cannot gain traction, grow and flourish in the same soil as undemocratic or pro-capitalist ideas. One can only grow at the expense of the other
What does that mean? It means by the time socialists constitute a significant majority of the population and socialism is on the cards, the character of the opposition to socialism will have changed as well in line with the change in the entire ethos of society. Even socialism’s sternest opponents will be far more heavily be influenced by democratic values than is the case today.
In this situation, the likelihood of a recalcitrant minority attempting to violently resist the democratic will of the majority is absolutely minimal. Even in capitalism, as has been explained to you many times, when the will of the majority is peacefully and vigorously asserted, dictatorships crumble. The collapse of state capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe was accomplished with little or no bloodshed (apart from Rumania, if I remember correctly).
The “people’s will” is an irresistible force once it gets going and no army however heavily armed can defeat it. Besides the armed forces by the time socialism is on the cards will itself have been heavily influenced by socialist ideas as well as the climate of opinion in society changes. The idea that some crazed General can direct soldiers to flout the clear will of the majority is ludicrous and there are plenty of historical precedents to prove this point.
So it’s sheer romantic nonsense on your part to imagine you need some kind of large-scale military force organized on authoritarian lines to deal with some imagined counter-revolutionary threat. Since you are not a socialist but a bourgeois nationalist, you take as your template of “revolution”, the violent civil wars to eject some existing capitalist government and install another. This is implicit in your whole line of thinking. You are not looking at this issue as a socialist might.
The SPGB does not rule out completely the possibility that there might some small-scale violent resistance. This will have to be dealt with but it doesn’t require battalions of military personnel to squash the resistance. That’s an absurd scenario on your part. The vast majority of non-socialists – a minority of the population – by the time socialism is on the cards will almost certainly just go along peacefully with what society as a whole has decided. It would not be in their interests to support a handful of nutters taking to the hills with their Kalashnikovs to foment violence and they would see this.
And any minimal support for violently resisting the new freely established social order will pretty soon die out as the benefits it brings soon enough become apparent to all
Interesting article
People are animals, but we’re unlike other animals. We have complex languages that let us articulate and communicate ideas. We’re creative: we make art, music, tools. Our imaginations let us think up worlds that once existed, dream up worlds that might yet exist, and reorder the external world according to those thoughts. Our social lives are complex networks of families, friends and tribes, linked by a sense of responsibility towards each other. We also have awareness of ourselves and our universe: sentience, sapience, consciousness, whatever you call it.
And yet the distinction between ourselves and other animals is, arguably, artificial. Animals are more like humans than we might think – or like to think. Almost all behaviour we once considered unique to ourselves are seen in animals, even if they’re less well developed.
—-
And in the past, some species were far more like us than other apes – Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo erectus and Neanderthals. Homo sapiens is the only survivor of a once diverse group of humans and human-like apes, the hominins, which includes around 20 known species and probably dozens of unknown species.The extinction of those other hominins wiped out all the species that were intermediate between ourselves and other apes, creating the impression that some vast, unbridgeable gulf separates us from the rest of life on Earth. But the division would be far less clear if those species still existed. What looks like a bright, sharp dividing line is really an artefact of extinction.
That’s a good article by Jonathan Cook you posted, Alan
I was struck by one passage
Paradoxically, at the same time as Boris Johnson’s government has been seeking to silence criticism of Israel, it has also been demanding an end to what it calls “cancel culture” at universities – chiefly attempts by students to deny a platform to racist and transphobic speakers.
Surely the witchhunt and sacking of Miller is a prime example of “cancel culture”?
Yeah, I know. Remind me, how many revolutions have you spontaneously erupted lately? One? Half? A quarter? Zero? Oh, yeah, zero. Is that what oblivion looks like? Well, you’re welcome to it. Enjoy.
At least, TrueScotsman, we are socialists; you sadly are not. You are a bootlicking supporter of the billionaire-friendly Chinese capitalist regime. The only kind of revolution your way of thinking could ever countenance is a bourgeois-capitalist one.
True, a socialist revolution may never materialise. That would be your loss as well as ours as workers, sneer at though you will. Your rhetorical question – how many revolutions have we spontaneously erupted lately? – only highlights how remote and opposed are your ideas to revolutionary socialism. It is not up to the SPGB to foment a socialist revolution. Such a revolution can only be made by the working class as a whole; it cannot be led or imposed from above. If it were (and your rhetorical question implies that you think it should be) it would not, and could not, possibly be a socialist revolution
So keep up with sneering if you must; it only shows you up for who you are. An apologist for capitalism
“So far in this exchange I have maintained what I would consider a degree of civility towards you. However I now weary of your ad hominems.”
Hear! Hear!, Alan!
I am surprised by the degree of forbearance you display in your dealings with TrueScotman whose relentless reliance on ad homs – some very much below the belt – is proof enough, if proof were needed, just how weak are his actual substantive arguments. They serve merely as a distraction from the latter.
In any other forum but this he would have long ago been booted out as troll. Perhaps he needs to reflect on this and adjust his behaviour to something approaching what we might expect of an adult
TruesScotsman STILL doesn’t get it. He never seems to learn anything from this discourse but rambles on with the same old dreary monologue.
Socialists DO NOT take sides in inter capitalist rivalries.
We no more support imperialist capitalist America than we support imperialist capitalist China. A plague on both their houses!
If state-capitalist China is building up its military capacity in response to the military threat of American capitalism we no more support this than we support the US surrounding China with military bases. We don’t pick sides. We oppose ALL of capitalism’s nation-states and the toxic anti-working class ideology of nationalism
TruesScotman is a self-declared nationalist and a fanatical anti-socialist to boot, a stooge and bootlicker of the Red Bourgeoisie and their billionaire-friendly political henchmen in power in Beijing.
Politically, he stands in complete opposition to the interests of the Chinese working class whose interests cannot be served by promoting China’s model of capitalism – or any other model of capitalism – as something to be emulated
I see there is a talk on Chinese state capitalism tomorrow (sept 26th) on discord. Perhaps TS can chip in given his support for the regime
Got this in my intray
“A reminder of tomorrow’s Discord public meeting, specifically arranged
to suit time zones east of UK – Sunday 26 September 10am BST (GMT + 1).CLOSE UP WITH STATE CAPITALISM IN CHINA
Andy Thomas talks about his personal experience of doing business in
China, where tightening bureaucratic control is clashing with the
aspirations of the rising capitalist class.”TS I would far sooner be a “purist snowflake”, as you call it, than a deluded bootlicker of Chinese state capitalism (or any other version of capitalism) with its imperialist ambitions to match those of any other imperialist power under global capitalism
Our resident bootlicker of Chinese state capitalism, TrueScotsman, has a touching naivete as to the motives that drive this imperialist power. It’s the same kind of wishy-washy arguments that supporters of the Gates Foundation or some other such charitable concern wheel out in support of their pet concern and TS could just as easily slip into the role of a supporter of the Gates Foundation as he is of Chinese imperialist policy.
Philanthrocapitalism has a hidden agenda and it comes with strings attached. Chinese capitalist aid to Africa and elsewhere is not fundamentally driven by a benevolent concern for the well-being of Africans; rather it is about capturing markets and securing access to resources in the long run. Only a gullible fool would think otherwise.
Here is quite a useful article I’ve randomly picked that gives the lie to TS’s pro-capitalist propaganda and there are plenty more articles from multiple sources that arrive at the same conclusion
Capitalist China is an even more unequal society than capitalist US:
The level of income inequality in China today is very high. According to the official data (which do not provide micro information that can be independently verified), China’s Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality that ranges from 0 to 1) is around 0.47. By comparison, that of the United States is around 0.41
The Red Bourgeosie are doing very nicely thanks to the business-friendly anti-working class regime that administers China. Beijing is now home to more billionaires than any other city in the world
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56671638
China is a capitalist paradise for the super rich
