Alt Socialism versus World Socialism

[Ike Pettigrew]

This thread is mainly for robbo, who has asked about my ideas/views.  Before I address robbo's posts, I would like to set out, in the form of a series of dichotomies, a summary of what I call 'Alt Socialism' in comparison to World Socialism.

.

                                                                      

                              ALT SOCIALISM                                                WORLD SOCIALISM

 

State                     Minimal state or soft state                                  Stateless or soft state

 

Authority              Personal                                                             Rational-Bureaucratic

 

Human type         Independent mind;                                             Mass mind; feminine; 'sisters'

                            masculine; 'wolves'                         

 

Gender

structure              Patriarchy, tradition                                             Equality, expediency                                

 

Intellectual

framework           Racialism and ethnoism;                                    Economism;

                            idealism                                                              idealism-materialism                                             

 

Political

unit                     Tribe, nation                                                       Community;

                                                                                                     delegative authorities

 

Geopolitics         Tribalism, nationalism                                        Localism

                                                                                                     and globalism

 

Moral

policy                 Particularism                                                      Universalism

 

Human

relations              Inequality                                                           Equality

 

Culture                Meta-culture                                                      Total culture

 

Systems              Meta-systemisation                                           Total systemisation

 

Nature/Nurture     Naturalistic & social Darwinian                      Environmentalist 

 

Religion             Pagan                                                                Strong atheist     

 

Political

economy          Socialistic                                                            Socialist

 

Property           Pseudo-propertarian/distributistic                    Propertyless

 

Market             Natural exchange                                                No markets

 

Money             Moneyless                                                           Moneyless

 

Nations

and culture      National/tribal boundaries                                Borderless world

[jondwhite]

i don't think there is a mechanism for tables here as such, but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!Also what does it mean to describe 'human type' as wolves?

[jondwhite]

Incidentally, tribal society has been significantly surpassed by civilisation / civilised society. Why regress to tribal?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

… but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!

But be open about the SPGB's version of 'socialism', too, jdw!You won't say either, 'what role would democracy play in your 'socialism', for physics, logic, mathematics, science generally, etc., etc.Apparently, you completely separate 'state, authority, political unit' from the central theoretical core of social production within society.That is, your 'socialism' shares a lack of democracy with Ike's 'alt-socialism'. Both avoid discussing 'social power'.

[Ike Pettigrew]

jondwhite wrote:

Incidentally, tribal society has been significantly surpassed by civilisation / civilised society. Why regress to tribal?

(i). For the reasons just given, I would regard a return to formal tribalism as a progression, not regression.  To draw this theme out a bit more: I regard 'progress' in socio-biological terms.  For example – to me, eugenics is a 'progressive' policy.  It progresses Man.  This goes back to my point about ideologies being a form of systemised assortment of human types and my scepticism about the capability (or cultural compatibility) of sub-Saharan Africans under imposed political economies invented in Europe and designed for European sensibilities and conditions.Possibly you favour socialism because you are mass-minded and you value social approval.  Nothing wrong with that, by the way – I'm not insulting you. No doubt you have many qualities and attributes I lack.  For example, you are probably more moral and ethical than I am, but that just means you are highly-socialised – a nice way of saying you are better house-trained.  Not an insult, because it's important that people like you exist and I can't make the same boast.  I'm not really a very nice person, whereas you probably are.  Good for you!Socialism is a system that favours people who are highly-civilised (i.e. highly-socialised).  To my mind, it's just well-trained obedient pets swapping one home for another, but in any event, it isn't a system that would suit me, as I am not 'civilised' or 'moral'.  Nor would it suit black Africans, in my estimation.  That is not intended as an insult towards me or black Africans, it is just to identify what I see as important points of particular and general differentiation.  We aren't all living on the same curve.  I should have the right to follow my own trajectory, possibly in co-operation with people of like mind, and the same for you, and the same for everybody else – so far as is practicable. This is what I mean by 'meta-utopia'.  We each want to live in our own macrocosm.  Capitalism isn't for us, or even if we can function within it, we are dreaming of something else.  We aren't fulfilled.  Your socialist system would [probably] be a nightmare for me just as much as capitalism is.  Your utopia is my negative utopia (dystopia), using the term 'utopia' in its technical sense.  Let's agree to disagree and go our separate ways. But with respect, that's why we have (and need) nations and borders.  Maybe we need a realignment, the real difference between us is an understanding of the basis of that realignment.  You think it will be according to economic interest predominantly, whereas I draw 'interests' more widely as I believe in the primacy of human quality.(ii). In any case, we still live in a tribal society: it's just that the reality of tribalism has been extended into different multi-faceted spheres of human existence.  We have commercial, economic and business tribes, sports tribes, hobby tribes, political tribes, as well as traditional ethnic tribes, etc. and so on.  If you are going to say capitalism doesn't take adequate account of this, I could not agree with you more, but I don't believe we should try to eradicate what I see as a tribal instinct.

[Ike Pettigrew]

jondwhite wrote:

i don't think there is a mechanism for tables here as such, but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!Also what does it mean to describe 'human type' as wolves?

I don't regard 'democracy' as a valid notional objective, partly because I think most arguments for democracy are nominalist – which, incidentally, I regard as one of the central politico-philosophical insights of Marx, though that doesn't mean Marx-ists understand practical democracy better than anybody else.  A democratic process does not necessarily result in a democratic experience.  It is, in any case, a malleable term: what does 'democracy' mean, exactly?  The answer seems to depend on who, when and where you are.  To me, a desirable state of affairs is a system or anti-system in which I can live as I wish, with only my own limitations and surrounding Nature to constrain me.  I am not interested in fancy words and nice ideas, I just want to live how I want.  If that turns out to look democratic, then all well and good, but I don't much care about that one way or the other.  Living how I want requires strong minority protections, so that my views about how to live are not overturned by you and other members of any gang you might form to press me, and so that we don't come into conflict with each other without good reason.  That protection comes in the form of property.  That, however, does not mean I argue for a system of private property, but I must have the right to possess my own territory or space and be separate from you so that I can live as I want. I see nothing obnoxious in this, for me or for you, but you may disagree – but then, that just means we're different people, which reinforces my logic. I think that ideologies are really about systematic assortment of human types.  If you want to live in a system of communal ownership, you and others who like that idea should be allowed to put it into practice.  Likewise, I should be allowed to stay away from you.  That brings me to the figurative reference to wolves and sisters.  Socialists are sisters, while National Socialists are wolves.  The former believe in a co-operative totality, whereas the latter believe in a restoration of masculinity and barbarianism.  I believe in a world of wolves because I think that is simply the way human beings really are and civilisation is just a construct to suppress natural instincts. A world of sisters – which you want – might functional well, but it would just be a continuation of civilisation, and as such, it would diminish not empower the individual.  Under such a system, I suspect 'democracy' (as you would have it) would come to be seen much as we regard tyranny today – for reasons I think I have already explained at length in other threads.

[Ike Pettigrew]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

… but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!

But be open about the SPGB's version of 'socialism', too, jdw!You won't say either, 'what role would democracy play in your 'socialism', for physics, logic, mathematics, science generally, etc., etc.Apparently, you completely separate 'state, authority, political unit' from the central theoretical core of social production within society.That is, your 'socialism' shares a lack of democracy with Ike's 'alt-socialism'. Both avoid discussing 'social power'.

I have no interest in your 'democracy', which it seems to me involves turning workers into Voting Noddies.  Shall it be butter or guns for production this year, comrades?  Guns says I.  So I can shoot whoever thought this miserable 'workers' democracy' up. I darkly jest, but for me, your socialism would be a dreary, miserable experience.  Perhaps not for you.  Fine.  You have your way of life, I have mine – but then we come to the problem of how we go our separate ways.On the matter of social power, I am clear in my own mind that there is an objective physical reality and also an objective morality (in the sense of broad precepts) and an objective truth about everything or most things.  It follows that there must be a social hierarchy, which I would anyway consider to be the natural state of affairs; and I think that knowledge, at least in its received form, is ultimately based on authority.But I understand your ideas, and I repeat that I think you put them across well and they can even be accommodated to some limited extent within my views about the metaphysics of social power.  I don't pretend that reality is unchangeable or insusceptible to subjectivity and social influences.  My position is nuanced.

[Author]

Posts