Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Engels wrote:Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.Sympo wrote:"Class consciousness has developed"Has it though? In what way?Sympo wrote:In many countries, people identify themselves as workers, and, importantly, vote as such. What has not developed is socialist consciousness, being content with using state regulation to cure the problems of the market system: at least that is thinking in the right direction, though.Sympo wrote:"For example, worker's unions drove forward the existence of the wage relation, using market forces to destroy the restrictive feudal practices of bonded labour"What do you mean with "wage relation"?
A elationship between an employee and an oehrwise propertylessemployee from who they buy labour power.
Sympo wrote:"(…)when political power is frustrated, we will have to overturn the system."What happens if we don't?Barbarism, fall in wages and living standards. Until the next time.
Sympo wrote:"There's nothing special or partcularly progressive about capitalism, except the working class itself."I think a system that gives us the chance of establishing socialism is kind of progressive (not saying capitalism is a good system).BUt it is the working class that makes it progressive, never the capitalists.
Sympo wrote:"(…)compared to 1914, the world is a very different place, the raw stuff of capitalism remains, that's true, but there is widespread cronyism and corruption added to that now. The state has become more and more essential to capitalism, etc."Do you mean to suggest that the longer capitalism remains, the more corrupt and cronyist it becomes?This view would contrast with a common view that, in the beginning of the industrial revolution, things were worse for most people than it is now. Things like healthcare, wages, living conditions etc are alledgedly much better than they were back then. But perhaps this view ignores that a large part of the world have conditions that are much worse than in the USA and Western Europe (for example, India)?I apologize for asking so many questions, but it's an interesting topicLiving standards have risen, largely ebcause of the fall in the cost of the means of living (production is more efficient), i.e. our share of the wealth has hardly improved. But it's not just that cronyism rises (that happens with every boom since the dawn of time), it is that wealth has become even more conentrated (which icnreases the volume of hangers on), and has changed into les personal, in some aspects, forms of capitalism. We always need to go back to the real society as it is before us, and how it changes, rather than relying on the abstract model.
Sympo wrote:"[T]hese things could occur, but the logic of capitalism(…)is the development of a working class movement capable of abolishing capitalism, and in whose interest it is to create socialism. "Sure, it's the interest of the working class to create socialism, but most workers today aren't socialists. Most of their parents weren't socialists. Most of their grandparents weren't socialists. I don't know if it is your opinion I'm arguing against right now, but why would class consciousness have to develop?Class consciousness has developed, and been there since the start, as EP Thompson points out, the working class was there at its own creation, and made itself. Socialist consciousness can only come about from the impossibility to retaining capitalist consciousness among the workers. For example, worker's unions drove forward the existence of the wage relation, using market forces to destroy the restrictive feudal practices of bonded labour, it was an emancipation, of sorts. When we can no longer use our market power to improve our lot, we will have to rely on political power (that is very true these days), when political power is frustrated, we will have to overturn the system. It's just a timescale cannot be put on these things.
Sympo wrote:"Capitalism is not interesting except for the category of the propertyless working class who could realise socialism."What does this mean?There's nothing special or partcularly progressive about capitalism, except the working class itself.
Sympo wrote:"Arguably, it was the discovery of the Americas, and the huge surpluses of gold and people that lead to capitalism, not feualism itself (although we can look at the years preceeding the Black Death for a former occasion that feudalism nearly burst its bounds."What you've written here appears to me as a rejection of the idea that there exists a law that says that less developed societies eventually turn into more developed ones. Would that be contrary to historical materialism?No, not really: each society develops in it's own circumstances, there is no abstract law of development that says any given society must turn into a specific otehr society, but that each society has developed from the one before it it, and it will change, given its specific circumstances into somethign else, especially if we consciously guide it.
Sympo wrote:"That is a good question, i'd say yes, that antagonism is inherently unstable, and so eventually it must lead to a crisis and dramatic change: that change is not teleological leading from one thing to the next, and i can swing back and forth many times, per my black death example above, feualism re-asserted itself very strongly after that."But we can see in modern history that there is class conflict, and then nothing happens. The inherent conflict remains yet the system remains aswell.I kind of see it as a matador and a bull for the moment. The bull might kill the matador eventually in a bullfighting session but it is not certain.Thisngs do channge, though thre is a lot of ideology goes into pretending nothing has changed, governments in particular will try never to be seen to have backed down, so the ruling class generally: compared to 1914, the world is a very different place, the raw stuff of capitalism remains, that's true, but there is widespread cronyism and corruption added to that now. The state has become more and more essential to capitalism, etc.
LBird wrote:Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control.And if it had been voted up by the majority (since, after all, Eugenics only effects other people's children, never mine), would you and the otehr opponents of Eugenics be prevented from holding your views, and mprisoned in the communist prisons by the communist police backed up by the communist army?You have exposed your ideology, and it is not communist.
Lbird wrote:I'd be prepared to vote for the arrest and imprisonment of a 'brown paper envelope physicist' who proposed to test explosives on children.BTW, how can we democratically decide to arrest this person withou reading their works? What you're saying here is that we would have to disseminate their writings to everyone so that we could have a vote to ban them, because their dissemination was dangerous. Democratic censorship sounds somewhat difficult…
LBird wrote:But, you're concerned to equate 'socialism' with the Soviet Union, which was neither socialist, democratic, nor run by workers' power. And based upon that smear, you wish to then charge me with Stalinist politics.Or, rather, knowing the concerns many workers have, and the memory of the Soviet expriement, they would be concerned by the idea of a democratic editor deciding what gets published. Especially with a singular model. It is reasonable to ask for, and expect, a simple reassurance, which you failed to give, that minority opinions would be circulated. This has practical implications, much like the eco-system of automated stock market trading, similarity of ideas can lead to bad ideas, we need dissent and mnorty opnions to grow to be ale to use thm if the time comes.
LBird wrote:Why would there be a need for 'unofficial publication', in a society concerned to disseminate all information that meets the democratically-decided needs, interests and purposes of the world social producers?Because one person, or a minority of people, are voted down, but feel strongly enough to publish anyway. Again, you could simply say, that every effort will be made to disseminate ideas.
LBird wrote:You seem to want 'isolated individuals' to determine those social needs, interests and purposes, or think that the mass of humans on this planet are incapable of deciding whether the views of any individual are dangerous to our lives, and so should be prevented.Prevented? Again, you could have said: the brown paper lady would be prevented from publishing. You could have said that, after all, she is stealing from the common store to publish her works. But, again, you couldn't say that. I wonder why.But, how can we know what our intellectual needs are, unless we see the range of options available. Last year, in the UK alone, 170 book *titles* were published There is no way to pre-vet that volume of production (and, note, this is print) The only response is to allow an abundance of ideas to be produced, and then develop ways of navigating among them, including preservation and dissemination in print for some ideas that match a specific need identified by a goup: that is the publisher's role, and many and varied types of publisher will need to exist in a socialist society.
LBird wrote:But, frankly, I do think that society will be faced with tough decisions about 'dissident insanity', and I'm prepared to argue that those decisions to suppress those dangerous ideas, should be in the democratic hands of all, not in the hands of your 'materialist elite', who regard the masses as essentially stupid, and who will make the wrong decisions. I'd be prepared to vote for the arrest and imprisonment of a 'brown paper envelope physicist' who proposed to test explosives on children.Surely, collecttively, democratically, we would see that proposition and decline to act uponm it. How long would you imprison this person for? But, lets tajke some more marginal versions: anti-Vax? New Age Cancer treatments?Can I just ask: who will run your prisons? Who will do the arresting?
Hate to point this out, but samizdat publishing was a thing in the Soviet Union, that most workers would understand. The question of unofficial publication, linked closely to the planning problem of secondary uses, are hardly insane issues.You could have easily answered: minority viewpoints will be given space an opportunity to publish and express their ideas, and thee will be no repurcussions for the publication of heterodox ideas.A fair minded reader would be right to ask why you could not give that simple answer, and instead spent a lot of effort pathologising the dissident as insane.
Quote:Only the democratic producers can assess the usefulness, potential usefulness, or sheer lunacy of these 'brown envelope' theories. Perhaps others will look with favour on your individualist theory never to dismiss any 'theory', and they'll then assign the social labour, required to write out all those brown envelopes, to everyone on this planet.*watches Lbird dance around the point*The Theorist, having been rejected by he 'social producers' managers to scrape together enough envelopes, waste paper or other materials in order to print a few thousand pamphlets at home (she re-purposes wallpaper, even). She sends these pamphlets to the great and smal libraries housing collections in her language.Her theories, whilst rejected, did garner the support of a minority, she's not alone, and she's still publishing. And, for added fun, she has been working in her field for decades, and is no crank.Should libraries stock her books/pamphlets? Should she be stopped?BTW, I do think that in socialism, every paper that confirms to a certain production quality should have a space in scholarly publications, and self publication for small groups and individuals should be an option. I should hope that the elected editor should allow dissenting voices, just on principle.
Sympo wrote:whether or not capitalism will inevitably lead to socialismNo, capitalism could lead to a post-nuclear war cindr, a runaway greenhouse planet,a new slave society: these things could occur, but the logic of capitalism, and the direct consequences of its working is the development of a working class movement capable of abolishing capitalism, and in whose interest it is to create socialism. Capitalism is not interesting except for the category of the propertyless working class who could realise socialism.
Sympo wrote:whether or not there are several "roads" to take when humans create history (for example, would it be possible that feudalism would be succeeded by a system other than capitalism?)Feudalism seemed not to lead to Capitalism in the East, China kept a very stable system for a very long time. Arguably, it was the discovery of the Americas, and the huge surpluses of gold and people that lead to capitalism, not feualism itself (although we can look at the years preceeding the Black Death for a former occasion that feudalism nearly burst its bounds.
Sympo wrote:whether or not a class-based society (and therefore a society of class antagonisms) must develop into a new societyThat is a good question, i'd say yes, that antagonism is inherently unstable, and so eventually it must lead to a crisis and dramatic change: that change is not teleological leading from one thing to the next, and i can swing back and forth many times, per my black death example above, feualism re-asserted itself very strongly after that.The book reviewed here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1311-november-2013/how-did-social-inequality-arise
teh Smet Meister wrote:At this point, it should be noted, the authors present evidence of societies oscillating between equality and hierarchy, and elite groups lose their grasp on power (through incompetence, or in-fighting, or both). It should also be noted that these developments are not dependent on the state of agriculture or prevailing techniques of production, and seem to stem as much from the capacity of individuals at the right time taking chances and staking a claim to pre-eminence.LBird wrote:Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.Because their theories have been voted down? Because the democratically elected editor declined to publish their paper? But, of sound mind, and determined in their views despite the vote, they keep on disseminating their documents. Would libraries be allowed to pass them on?So, would you print and disseminate rejected ideas? Would there be a Rupert Sheldrake in your world?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?BTW, duly noted that you didn't answr this question.
I've a pamphlet at home from when John McDonnell was standing for Labour Leader, entitled 'Another world is possible', that's what, 2005?
But don't you accept that different groups within society will have different needs, I would, for instance, have no need for voting for the editor of the Aberdeen Herald (or whatever the local paper will be called), but we will need local papers on a local scale. One editor cannot vote for them all.Juries are democratic, n'est pas, Engels has spoken.
Don't you know? Don't you see? Hasn't it been obvious all along?I AM ENGELS!Mwuhahahahahaha.Anyway, that aside. There doesn't have to be only one path to publishing, different materials, in different contexts (and different volumes) will need different scales of invovlement by different people: the editors of some learned societies would be elected,by that society, and their publications mainly disseminated to their memebrs.At some point in the process comes technical unelected labour: or will we elect every library shelver?Citizen juries are perfectly compatable with democratic control, and may have a role to play. The point is, socialism ends the material interst in such control, there would be no incentive nor advantage in manipulating the scientific content of scholarly publishing.BTW, in the UK your local public library has can give you access to a limited range of peer reviewed scientific journals already:http://freetoviewjournals.pls.org.uk/Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?
LBird wrote:Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.Yes, I agree entirely, the task of assessing the quality of writing must be under democratic control, but we can't all read a book before we decide to publish it to everyone, someone has to perform the editorial function: certainly, juries, volunteer editorial boards, learned societies, etc. will have a role to play. But the bottom line is, we need to know before we open the book, or journal article, are we looking at the results of serious study by someone with a track record in the field, or the writings of a 13-year old boy in their bedroom. teh latter, is of course, free to publish, and may well turn something worthwhile up.
