Culturalisation: a possible ‘alt-socialism’

[Ike Pettigrew]

How will societal disintegration be prevented in socialism?  It should be obvious that people won't just get along all the time.

I believe private self-reliance will be a sine qua non of a real, workable socialist society.  If socialism happens, a large part of what is now provided by commercial labour will recess back into individual and family life (whatever 'family' is within a given culture), as it will not be efficient to provide some large-scale goods and services which, while important, are not essential to the running of things. 

But some people will be more inclined towards self-reliance than others.  Here I think we are dealing with different human types.  Some types of people are more co-dependent and hive-like in their mentality than others.  Those tendencies will be expressed differently in socialism than they are in capitalism, but socialism is not a proposal to usurp or abolish civilisation per se, so such people will still tend towards socialisation, perhaps living in highly-populated environments in which they will depend on mass production to meet their economic needs.

This point goes back to the elemental fact that the "human race" is in fact made up of different races.  But race is a controversial topic and I will NOT be focusing on it here.  Instead, I would like you to consider that the term 'race' can be used technically to refer to completely inoffensive socio-biological human types and differences: everything from differences in intelligence to impactful variations in personality.

It's an observable verity that birds of a feather flock together.  Goths hang out with Goths, and they are Goths only because they do so.  Academics tend to socialise around people who have a similar intellectual level.  People marry other people who are similar to them.  And so on.  I assume I need not exhaust the point: it's obvious enough.  There is no reason to believe that this aspect of human behaviour would greatly alter in socialism.

A sense of self-reliance may lead some people down the path of wanting to live apart from socialist society.  They may do so as individuals or (more likely) in groups, families and small communities that are culturally-affiliated.  This need not be a threat to socialism.  They will still be part of socialism in the negative sense that they do not directly threaten the existence of the system, but at the same time, they may decide to opt-out of 'democratic mass production' to some degree, providing their own food and energy, home educating their children, and so on.  This could be for a number of reasons that are perfectly benign.

As I have mentioned in my thread on statisation, 'mass production' decisions will have to be taken at some organised level.  The potential is for a political conflict within socialism between 'mass producer socialists' and 'homesteading socialists'.  The former group will live in large population areas: urban or in rural communes that essentially mimic urban attitudes, and will be used to resource-sharing and dependency on mass production facilities.  The latter group will be more self-reliant and need to make less social production decisions, they may be more traditionalistic and family-oriented, and may be more inclined to pseudo-propertarian or distributistic attitudes in which they as individuals or families have land that they farm to meet their own needs. Thus, within socialism, an 'alternative socialism' could develop that is more line with the cultural inclinations of people who do not want to be 'socialised'.   

[jondwhite]

"socio-biological human types and differences: everything from differences in intelligence to impactful variations in personality" participate in democracy equally now (including without getting along ie. Brexit) so there's no reason to suppose this wouldn't be feasible under socialism. By all means meet your own needs, but not at the expense of meeting those of a socialist society.

[Ike Pettigrew]

jondwhite wrote:

"socio-biological human types and differences: everything from differences in intelligence to impactful variations in personality" participate in democracy equally now (including without getting along ie. Brexit) so there's no reason to suppose this wouldn't be feasible under socialism. By all means meet your own needs, but not at the expense of meeting those of a socialist society.

Jon, thank you for the reply.That last part of what you say, which I have emboldened, is very telling and I may come back to it later.  But it may be inadvertent on your part, a casual choice of words, so I don't want to make too much of it.On the main point you make, I accept that co-operation among different types of people is feasible under socalism – or rather, I am not dismissing the possibility outright, as that would be arrogant of me – and I also accept that that has its own significance on account of socialism not being a system of formal compulsion (at least in principle).And I also appreciate that the nature of the political economy will answer some of this.  A farmer or aristocrat is not going to want to retain large tracts of land for ornamental purposes.  You are not going to have pre-modern capitalist hold-outs in a post-capitalist commonwealth.  What I'm referring to here are the groups that fall somewhere in the middle and that might, for cultural reasons, be attracted to pseudo-propertarian and distributistic models that are not capitalist, but echo capitalism, and whose preferred way of living, while not strictly socialist, would not be in contradiction to the larger socialist hegemony.  Not everybody is going to get along.  I'm pretty sure some serious dissent is going to arise, much of it for entirely mundane reasons.  A group of people might value nuclear and extended families, might want to live in a traditional way, might value privacy and 'social order', and so on.  Probably the way to address it will be to allow individuals, families and whole communities to live outside the system, as they wish.  (Of course, I also appreciate that the word 'allow' might be redundant in this hypothetical future context: in futurist discussions like this, we are stuck with present-day lingo and frames of reference, which can make us look clumsy and laden with non sequuntur and other fallacies in the eyes of onlooking pedants).Would the dissidents represent a slow-burning threat to socialism? If people develop alternative cultures and systems, especially if these are based on undemocratic control of resources, how would socialists deal with this? Do you rely on a Might Is Right approach and order the dissidents to desist, using violence if necessary?  And if so, aren't you then adopting, in effect, statehood to enforce socialism, and isn't then socialism itself a standing contradiction and in practice unworkable?That latter point has general application, I believe, though I don't just mean to frame it as a rhetorical question.  

[jondwhite]

Would the Amish Old Order Mennonite be an example you would use?

[Ike Pettigrew]

jondwhite wrote:

Would the Amish Old Order Mennonite be an example you would use?

That's the type of community that would balk at socialism and would want to retain exclusive control of land, how it is used, exchanged and inherited, in order to ensure the continuation of their culture.  They won't be Amish unless they have their own land.  That would in effect mean an island of property ownership within socialism.  That said, I doubt they would be very disruptive, so the potential for toleration is high, but that can only be conditional on them not being disrupted by outsiders.  What if people start turning up wanting to live on their "spare" land?  What happens then?  What we have here is the classic problem of majority versus minority rights, and I think this reveals a major flaw in the socialist case.  If the majority is always right, due to your reverence for democracy, then cultural diversity will not be respected.  Thus, the seeds of socialism's downfall are sown from the very beginning: what dooms the idea is this 'democracy' that you love so much.The impression I have from a reply of Alan Johnstone's on a different thread is that it is hoped that such groups can be left alone, but in principle there could be violent intervention to deny property rights where this is considered necessary.  That being the case, it just seems to me that, while socialism could certainly work, it would not be expressed in the ideal sense you think, as you will have a state, i.e. a morally-privileged political entity, just not in name, while at the same time individuals will be stripped of all property rights.  That sounds a lot like tyranny to me, it's just that in this case the tyranny comes with a smiley face and nice intentions.  This quasi-state you will have will, among other things, have the task of enforcing 'democratic' socialist norms, using violence if needed, an expression of a Might Is Right philosophy.I think the basic flaw with a democracy of this type, which is based on delegative assemblies, is that it has to cater to the lowest common denominator, as numbers overwhelm good sense.  Anybody who understands human nature and dynamics can see what will happen.Democracy is not always very nice, even when the intentions are fine.  The sort of system you envisage could be like having your life run by an officious allotment committee.  I shudder at the thought.  Capitalism is bad, but at least under the capitalist system there is the opportunity for a good deal of practical sovereignty, if you arrange your affairs properly.

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Would the Amish Old Order Mennonite be an example you would use?

That's the type of community that would balk at socialism and would want to retain exclusive control of land, how it is used, exchanged and inherited, in order to ensure the continuation of their culture.  They won't be Amish unless they have their own land.  That would in effect mean an island of property ownership within socialism.  That said, I doubt they would be very disruptive, so the potential for toleration is high, but that can only be conditional on them not being disrupted by outsiders.  What if people start turning up wanting to live on their "spare" land?  What happens then?  What we have here is the classic problem of majority versus minority rights, and I think this reveals a major flaw in the socialist case.  If the majority is always right, due to your reverence for democracy, then cultural diversity will not be respected.  Thus, the seeds of socialism's downfall are sown from the very beginning: what dooms the idea is this 'democracy' that you love so much.The impression I have from a reply of Alan Johnstone's on a different thread is that it is hoped that such groups can be left alone, but in principle there could be violent intervention to deny property rights where this is considered necessary.  That being the case, it just seems to me that, while socialism could certainly work, it would not be expressed in the ideal sense you think, as you will have a state, i.e. a morally-privileged political entity, just not in name, while at the same time individuals will be stripped of all property rights.  That sounds a lot like tyranny to me, it's just that in this case the tyranny comes with a smiley face and nice intentions.  This quasi-state you will have will, among other things, have the task of enforcing 'democratic' socialist norms, using violence if needed, an expression of a Might Is Right philosophy.I think the basic flaw with a democracy of this type, which is based on delegative assemblies, is that it has to cater to the lowest common denominator, as numbers overwhelm good sense.  Anybody who understands human nature and dynamics can see what will happen.Democracy is not always very nice, even when the intentions are fine.  The sort of system you envisage could be like having your life run by an officious allotment committee.  I shudder at the thought.  Capitalism is bad, but at least under the capitalist system there is the opportunity for a good deal of practical sovereignty, if you arrange your affairs properly.

Are you referring to human nature or human behaviours?

[Ike Pettigrew]

Marcos wrote:

Are you referring to human nature or human behaviours?

I know where you're going with this.  As a former Party member, I have had such discussions and I know the script; I've discussed it exhaustively in other contexts as well.In short, I don't consider the distinction to be of any (or much) practical value.  Nor do I regard the distinction as relevant to this particular thread, though you may disagree (and, by the way, it is not my intention to be evasive).We could say that a spider spins a web not because it is genetically-programmed to do so but because it is its dogma that it should do so.  But even then, we are still left with the question of what leads to such dogmas?  The point is regressional.All, or at any rate most, animals (including humans) have to eat, breathe, expel waste and reproduce.  I imagine your position is to minimise human nature, or even deny it altogether, and you will perhaps say that any residual human nature that may exist is confined to anything incidental to these actions.  I will say human nature is broader than that and casts a vestigial shadow over much of what we manifestly call human behaviour.  But I would also argue that even if I am wrong on that narrow point, it changes nothing about what I say here.

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

I will say human nature is broader than that and casts a vestigial shadow over much of what we manifestly call human behaviour.

It always surprises me that when "human nature" is cited, it is invariably in a negative context.Supposing there is a "human nature", wouldn't many of its characteristics be positive ones? Certainly, things are "natural" to human beings, but what and to what degree?Yup, since i was born, i always put myself first…took quite a few years before i realised i may be the centre of my world but definitely not the centre of the world.And just how detrimental is this "human nature" to the establishment of socialismI am always minded of the Situationist- influenced pamphlet – "The Right to be Greedy" and its opening sentences

Quote:

 Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society. The present forms of greed lose out, in the end, because they turn out to be not greedy enough.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/for-ourselves-the-right-to-be-greedy-theses-on-the-practical-necessity-of-demanding-everything

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ Alan JohnstoneI accept there is a tendency for 'human nature' to be used as a catch-all concept for things that can't easily be explained, and no doubt I fall into that difficulty occasionally, but I believe there is such a thing as 'human nature' and I think it is relevant. I completely agree that human nature should not just be cited in a negative context.  

[Author]

Posts