Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I remember some channel 4 show, many years ago: a mock Parliament. One episodes, the ordinary members of the public in the chamber started out overwhelmingly supporting the death penalty, they debated it a while, took evidence from expert witnesses, and by the end of the programme, had changed their minds, nad overwhelmingly voted it down. Part of the point of democracy is to force experts to explain their ideas to idots like me (hence why I opposed changes in the co-op to get rid of the lay board in favour of technical experts running the show).
Vin wrote:There's a short video doing the rounds on twitter clearly produced by the Green Party using snippets of May and Caroline Lucas in a mock debate. Wonder why the Greens are not worried about 'copyright' ? Why doesn't May sue?Are we missing great opportunities I also see that the Greens have produced Whiteboard AnimationsI suspect the greens could survive being askd to pay…
LBird wrote:Who controls the social production of truth?*sigh* everyone, and therefore no-one. The same answer as to who owns the means of production.
Yes, and there is a question how much of their feathered nest they could carry away with them if they lost their jobs,a nd there were privately wealthy people too. The point is that some CEOs and bureaucrats are capitalists, but not all, and not by simple means of being a CEO/bureaucrat.
CEOs have PAs, workers are there at the top. Below them are senior executives, not all of whom are on bonus and share scemes (depending on the size of the firm). Senior civil servants are employees…
Indeed, after I get my nomination papers in today, I shall be sending a letter tothe local press saying the Socialist Party will be standing against Jeremy Corbyn in Islington North: let them issue the retractions.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I entirely agree with the above. We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."[my bold]As I said to alan earlier, you're using the words, but missing the meaning.Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so, you'll remain in the world of 'free individuals', and a system of production that reflects those needs, interests and purposes.
Well, to return to Chuck's words: a "community of free individuals" is the who, and freely and democratically is the answer to how. Or, as Engels phrased it "a society organised on a socialist basis" a society is a coming together of people, not an amorphous abstraction.The whole point of socialism is to produce a consious association, where humans, as people, come together by design, not accidentally.Now, maybe when Karl Marx used the words "free individuals" he didn't mean "free individuals" but in fact Giant Fighting Robots. So, yes, it will be the Giant Fighting Robots do the consious applying. Perhaps.We need to remember that Marx was a humanist, and his idea of communism was a society whee the free development of each shall be the condition for the free development of all. We will be producing humans, and well rounded individuals, not producing a borganism.
I entirely agree with the above. We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."
Education is not a one way street: of course there will be social education, but unless you are dividing society into two parts, the educated and the educator, the co-producer of the education product will change it.(what there won't be any of is coercion, not edumacation).
I don't regard social education as coercion, I was simply point out that there wouldn't be any, and if any individuals chose to decide they wanted matter, they could have it. Indeed, if a minority feel they need to have matter, the community would provide it.
LBird wrote:Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?No reason at all why they can't, they're free to do so. They're free to rename the moon. Free to decide gravity doesn't exist. Of course, as a free association, this only applies to the willingness of the members of the association to comply without coercion.
There will be no proletariat in the future society, but it will be organised by the free association of producers, democratically.or, put another way "a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."
