Argumentation
- This topic has 69 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:It would perhaps be helpful to think of a socialist society in terms of a gift economy – “from each according to his/her abilities to each according to his/her needs.
More like from each according to his whim, to each according to his wants.
DJP wrote:This seems to be a strange comment, as do some of your others, for someone who introduced themselves to the forum as an anarcho-communist.If you haven’t ever been to a coop or a commune, at least watch a documentary about them. If they don’t have clear and well planned rules about how much works needs to be done, and mechanisms to make sure that everyone contributes enough, they simply collapse. Literally no one would do the amount of work needed for a society to subsist if they can take whatever they want regardless of how much (or do they at all) contribute- in that kind of system most people do less then is needed to sustain themselves, and the others, when they see they work both for themselves and for the sloths would either too start to work less, or would leave the communistic system. The only way to believe a community with this kind of system would subsist is to resort to technological utopianism.
Quote:You don’t even seem to have grasped the basic ABCs of anarchism.Please explain them to me. What did I say that isn’t consistent with anarchism?
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I wrongly assumed that you were an anarcho-socialist. Clearly, you find the idea of anarcho-socialism to be ridiculous. You must therefore be a reformist and accept capitalism and all the crap that come with it. – ‘Thou shalt not steal’ etcYou’re still evading the questions. If in a socialist society people could democratically decide that someone else needs my kidney more that I do, and they take it, than I find that kind of socialism not ridiculous, but monsterous. I am against capitalism because capitalism is theft, the capitalist takes the products of worker’s labor, and I surely not going to support any system that is the same in essence, but just replaces the private capitalist with the state or a democratically organized municipality, or a democratically organized world.
Fabian wrote:You’re still evading the questions. If in a socialist society people could democratically decide that someone else needs my kidney more that I do, and they take it, than I find that kind of socialism not ridiculous, but mosterous. I am against capitalism because capitalism is theft, the capitalist takes the products of worker’s labor, and I surely not going to support any system that is the same in essence, but just replaces the private capitalist with the state or a democratically organized municipality, or a democratically organized worldWhere has anyone, on this thread, or any other, suggested a situation whereby in a Socialist society someone would be able to come into your domicile and take your shoes, let alone take one of your kidneys!When Socialists talk of the end of private property, they mean the end of minority ownership of factories, airlines, shipping lines, oil, gas, in fact all minerals. The minority ownership of the means and instruments for producing and distributing what we, as human beings need to live.Socialists do not now, nor ever have wanted to take into COMMON OWNERSHIP peoples personal belongings. Don’t worry, no one will sneak into your house to nick your socks, shoes or any other items. When Socialism comes about, we’ll just pop down to the local distribution centre and get our own.As to where your “misappropriated” kidney argument has come from, I simply can’t imagine. You’ve either just made this load of effuvium up, or have an ulterior motive.Please point to the post where this was raised as even a hypothetical possibility!If not, please refrain from gratuitously making it up as you go along, you’re making my grey matter hurt.
Fabian wrote:Quote:You don’t even seem to have grasped the basic ABCs of anarchism.Please explain them to me. What did I say that isn’t consistent with anarchism?
Better still here’s Alexander Berkmanhttp://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
Perhaps this passage can help our friend Fabian?
Quote:The end of propertyWhat is property? This is not so simple a question to answer. Witness the polemic between Marx and Proudhon. The latter had proposed that ‘property is theft’. Proudhon well understood that property does not originate in nature. It is the product of a society where reign relationships of power, violence and the appropriation of the labour of others. It is said that property is theft, while theft is only defined with reference to property; this is to turn round in circles.The problem becomes more complicated when you go on from property to the abolition of property. Should all property, whether involving means of production or personal possessions, be abolished? Should it be done selectively? Should there be a radical break with all property and anything that resembles it?Communism chooses this last proposition. It is not a question of transferring property titles but of the simple disappearance of property. In revolutionary society no-one will be able to ‘use and abuse’ a good because they are its owner. There will be no exceptions to this rule. Buildings, pins, plots of land will no longer belong to anyone, or if you like, they will belong to everybody. The very idea of property will rapidly be considered absurd.Will everything then equally belong to everybody? Will the first-comer be able to put me out of my house, take my clothes off me or take bread from out of my mouth just because I will no longer be the owner of my house, my clothes or my food? Certainly not; on the contrary, each person’s material and emotional security will be strengthened. It is simply that it will not be the right of property that will be invoked as a protection, but directly the interest of the person concerned. Everybody will have to be able to satisfy their hunger – and be housed and clothed – at their convenience. Everybody will have to be able to live in peace.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1979/no-899-july-1979/world-without-moneyDJP wrote:Fabian wrote:Are you kidding me? You’re talking about a world where there is abundance of everything and it’s all free for everyone to take, even if they don’t contribute, and that kind of a system will sustain itself by I don’t know what kind of magic, and I’m ridiculed for accepting moral norms? That’s not even utopianism, that’s basically a fairy tale.This seems to be a strange comment, as do some of your others, for someone who introduced themselves to the forum as an anarcho-communist. You don’t even seem to have grasped the basic ABCs of anarchism.
Yes, it was a rather rapid transition from anarcho-communist to free marketeer. But let’s not forget that Proudhon, who anarchists praise as one of their founding fathers, was one too, a free marketeer that is. He envisaged an economy of artisans and cooperatives producing for exchange at labour cost without the interference of a state. Forum members in London and its environs will be able to hear more about this at a talk by our comrade Steve Clayton on “PROUDHON’S PIPE DREAM AND OTHER FAIRY TALES: SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM VERSUS UTOPIAN SOCIALISM” on Sunday 28 October 7pm.at our premises, 52 Clapham High St, SW4 7UN.So perhaps it’s just anarcho-communism, where money would be redundant, that he doesn’t understand.
I’ve disagreed with Robin before about this ‘extended gift’ trope, so far as I am concerned, we are about breaking the link between labour and return outright. In our workplaces, right now, we don’t treat it as a gift economy. We co-operate (laterally) with our colleagues to get work done: we approach the person whose task is designated or who can achieve an end, and ask them to do things.This is faintly relevant to the main topic under consideration. In hunter gatherer tribes, so I believe, a general rule operates called the Own Kill Rule (or some variations on it).The principle is, if you kill it, you don’t get to eat it. Maybe hunter gatherers are just immoral in completely repudiating Lockean property principles. Of course, this works because you get to eat what others kill (either through a name relationship, or through clan connections). but that’s not a gift, because, you don’t have a choice, that’s just the arrangement, and it works because it’s in everyone’s generalised interest to keep the system going, the first to defect will be the loser.While I’m on this kick, I recall reading an account of, I think it was a polynesian man, who didn’t own a thing. the land he worked was his uncles, his trees belonged to his cousin, his spade was his neighbour’s dog’s, etc. He had full control and use of these things, but if asked, not a tiny bit actually belonged to him.
ALB wrote:Forum members in London and its environs will be able to hear more about this at a talk by our comrade Steve Clayton on “PROUDHON’S PIPE DREAM AND OTHER FAIRY TALES: SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM VERSUS UTOPIAN SOCIALISM” on Sunday 28 October 7pm.at our premises, 52 Clapham High St, SW4 7UN.Young Master Smeet wrote:I’ve disagreed with Robin before about this ‘extended gift’ trope, so far as I am concerned, we are about breaking the link between labour and return outright. In our workplaces, right now, we don’t treat it as a gift economy. We co-operate (laterally) with our colleagues to get work done: we approach the person whose task is designated or who can achieve an end, and ask them to do things.This is faintly relevant to the main topic under consideration. In hunter gatherer tribes, so I believe, a general rule operates called the Own Kill Rule (or some variations on it).The principle is, if you kill it, you don’t get to eat it. Maybe hunter gatherers are just immoral in completely repudiating Lockean property principles. Of course, this works because you get to eat what others kill (either through a name relationship, or through clan connections). but that’s not a gift, because, you don’t have a choice, that’s just the arrangement, and it works because it’s in everyone’s generalised interest to keep the system going, the first to defect will be the loser.I’m not quite sure what you are on about here. ” Breaking the link between labour and return outright ” in the sense that there is no quid pro quo set up is precisely what is meant by “generalised reciprocity”. It is a generalized or diffused sense of moral obligation that obtains between you as an individual and the society or collectivity in which you exist. You depend on society and society depends on you and others like you and so what we as individuals are enabled to take from society for our own needs goes with the understanding that we ought also to make some contribution to the production of these things in the first place. . It is a moral transaction rather than economic transaction as such The examples you give confirm rather than refute what I am saying. To say that the hunter gatherer has no choice but to refrain from eating what he kills so that the group as a whole can benefit (of which he is a part) and therefore is “not a gift” , is to misconstrue completely what is meant by a gift economy in the first place. The whole point of a gift economy is the sense of moral obligation that is built into it that induces you to reciprocate – to put back something into society what you have taken out of it. To say that you are under a moral obligation is precisely to denote a lack of choice that is implicit in the gift relationship ( or at least ” lack of choice” in relative terms since the Hunter-gatherer can always choose to eat his kill but it comes at a cost of incurring the wrath of the group). Its the same with Xmas gifts. Someone one gives you a gift and you feel obliged to buy something in return. Does the fact that you feel obliged to do so make it any the less a gift? Of course notThis is actually – ironically – one of the strongest arguments against the human nature argument raised by people like Fabian on this list, and the absurd claim that people are naturally indolent and need to be induced to work by means of monetary incentives. Thats nonsense anyway since most actual work that is carried out today even under capitalism is unpaid work outside of the market economy (which is by no mean limited to the domestic household economy BTW)
Quote:I’m not quite sure what you are on about here. ” Breaking the link between labour and return outright ” in the sense that there is no quid pro quo set up is precisely what is meant by “generalised reciprocity”.Well, in the sense that work becomes an end in itself rather than a means to a personal end, which it remains if it is in any sense reciprocal.I think the own kill rule contrasts with chiefly feast giving, indeed as precisely a means of preventing that sort of gifting (and ultimately potlatching).
steve colborn wrote:Where has anyone, on this thread, or any other, suggested a situation whereby in a Socialist society someone would be able to come into your domicile and take your shoes, let alone take one of your kidneys!I know that personal property in socialism will be respected. My question is why? What is the justification for people having the right to personal possessions that socialists adhere to?
Because my friend, even to bring about a Socialist, or shall we say, an alternative society, will require an enormous amount of cooperation and common understanding. Do you imagine this understanding will just disappear? I think not. It will not merely be a revolution in the sense of a change of socio-economic system, it will also entail a revolution in thought, in the way we relate one to another.In the time leading up to a revolution, with the greater awareness of ourselves AS A CLASS, that this will necessarily entail, think of the burgeoning freedom of thought this will bring about. Of the possibilities of living in a society of cooperation, rather than the dog eat dog competition of Capitalism.These are the reasons, the justification, for claiming people having the right to personal possessions. But, if you are still not convinced and YOU are one of the people you claim will want others personal possessions, I’ll keep a ood supply of socks, (laundered of course), so you can help yourself and although it will be a pain, you can help youself to whatever else you would like to take, I’m sure other members of society will help replenish my losses at the local depot. But you are not talking about yourself are you, but os others?By the way, by your obfuscation of the issue, you still haven’t answered this,
Quote:“Where has anyone, on this thread, or any other, suggested a situation whereby in a Socialist society someone would be able to come into your domicile and take your shoes, let alone take one of your kidneys!”Will you answer this or not? Or will you continue to obfuscate!
steve colborn wrote:Because my friend, even to bring about a Socialist, or shall we say, an alternative society, will require an enormous amount of cooperation and common understanding.Why does socialism respect X? Beacause establishment of socialism requires X. Really?
Quote:Do you imagine this understanding will just disappear? I think not. It will not merely be a revolution in the sense of a change of socio-economic system, it will also entail a revolution in thought, in the way we relate one to another.Something like a conversion by irresistible grace?
Quote:These are the reasons, the justification, for claiming people having the right to personal possessions.Elaborating on your circular reasoning is not justification. Every view is based some beneath it, and that one on the one beneath it, and you have to have some foundational ethical views as the bottom line, otherwise you’ll just be talking nonsense based on nothing. It’s something like saying- I don’t care whether 2+2=5 is correct or not, I just care about anough people accepting it, and establishing a system where the theory that 2+2=4 that has been fed to us by today’s rulers will be abolished.
Quote:“Where has anyone, on this thread, or any other, suggested a situation whereby in a Socialist society someone would be able to come into your domicile and take your shoes, let alone take one of your kidneys!”I did. Being that you don’t have any ethical stance on autonomy of the individual I want you to concretely say does that mean that it’s not wrong for someone to take a kidney from me without my consent. And if the answer is no, then why? If you don’t accept my right to exclusive use of my body (being that you don’t believe in anything like what is called natural right), I want to know on what do you base your assumption that my body will be safe in a socialist society?
Fabian wrote:I did. Being that you don’t have any ethical stance on autonomy of the individual I want you to conretely say does that mean that it’s not wrong for someone to take a kidney from me without my consent. And if the answer is no, then why? If you don’t accept my right to exclusive use of my body (being that you don’t believe in anything like what is called natural right), I want to know on what do you base your assumption that my body will be safe in a socialist society?You did indeed Fabian. you made up your OWN argument, then demanded others answer a point that was never raised before you did, indeed is not even an issue, except in the twisted tautological mind, you seem to inhabit.I asked for your reply as to where, apart from you anyone had mentioned, or even slightly inferred, individuals could lose their kidneys to others, without their express permission. No answer was forthcoming.Indeed, the whole of your response above, was an exercise in illogical prevarication. I’ve had enough of your nonsense and will not play YOUR GAME. If others wish to continue to indulge your blatant nonsense, that is their choice. As for me, asta la vista.
You know, if I’m a Jew, and someone starded to talk about how Jews have no rights and a system should be established that includes that notion, I’m sure as hell going to become concerned. Likewise, being human, when you talk about humans having no rights, and that no one should have any ethical obligation to be, I’m surely going to wonder what exactly does that mean and entail.
Fabian wrote:I know that personal property in socialism will be respected. My question is why? What is the justification for people having the right to personal possessions that socialists adhere to?The answer is quite simple. Socialism is a system for the direct fulfilment of human need therefore it is not some abstract appeal to property rights that will offer people protection but the fact that each persons well being and security has become the interest of all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.