Greetings fellow socialists, please support me as I try to spread socialism to the youth.
- This topic has 91 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Alex Woodrow wrote:We, as human beings, are capable of producing an abundance of resources all in our local communities, hence every local community worldwide can stand on their own two feet.
and
Alex Woodrow wrote:Local communities want to live a happy and healthy life by where they have enough resources to survive,These are two different things. Maybe some local communities, standing on their own two feet, might be able to produce enough to survive but at a very primitive level, but I don't think any would be able to produce an abundance of resources.I can see local communities in a socialist world being self-administering but that's not the same as self-sufficient. I can also see local communities organising the provision of various services locally, but the problem is the production of the materials used in providing these services, eg while cars and electrical equipment could be repaired locally (as in fact they are mostly today) they could not be manufactured in every local community (nor could the extraction of the materials to make them).I don't understand why you are insisting that local communities should not get manufactured resources from outside their boundaries or why you think this would undermine their autonomy.. I can't imagine many local communities rejecting this.As I said, self-administration yes, but self-sufficiency just doesn't make sense.
Well first off ALB may I say that I should have made it more clear regarding what resources local communities are able to produce. All local communities can produce enough resources to survive, and depending on issues such as the volume of certain materials some communities will create an abundance in certain things while others will create enought o survive on, nevertheless everyone will still lead a happy and healthy life, and we shall all just work according to our ability, take according to our need, and the abundance of resources which we produce we won't need so can be saved for future generations.Your examples of cars is irrelevant to a world of localism, as localism is environmentally friendly and, if people live in their own community, there won't be any need for them to travel thus they won't need cars and can be occupied doing other jobs.May I ask though how do you know that some local communities can't be "self-sufficient"? Do you have any evidence for this?
Alex Woodrow wrote:May I ask though how do you know that some local communities can't be "self-sufficient"? Do you have any evidence for this?The simple fact is that the raws materials needed to produce the goods and facilities needed to sustain a society with a decent level of health care etc are not available everywhere across the globe.Are you some kind of primitivist?
If it is impossible for any society that involves groups much larger than a village or small town to be a free society then it would make the socialist proposal of a world of free federations of towns, cities and countryside impossible. Such federations are obviously a form of mass society/civilisation. Indeed, localism can be self-sustaining but at what level of technology? We can easily return to Amish-type communities. But at what cost? Perhaps we could give up television and radio, computers and the internet and mobile phones since the parts for such consist of rare elements only available in a few parts of the world. But can we do without life-support systems or insulin for diabetes and a host of other necessities for our well-being which cannot be produced locally. However, socialism will not be shaped by a small minority in the SPGB nor according to the vision of any one individual or particular section of the population. I am a world socialist. I am an urban dweller.
No wonder, Alex, that DJP asks if you're a primitivist (a 'caveman tendency' socialist)! You don't like cars (that was only an example) but what about computers? You can't be saying that each local community should produce its own?The way you have put the case for 'localism' goes beyond what others such as anarchists and Greens who favour a high degree of decentralisation have proposed. None, as far as I know, advocate that local communities should have to survive entirely on their own resources and envisage them either negotiating with other communities to get what they can't produce themselves or federating together to get access to what can't be produced locally. Murray Bookchin and those who think like him envisage more or less self-sufficient 'bioregions' but these would be more the size of a country than a small town or village.If you were to abandon the idea that each local community can produce all its needs you might have a better case as it's patently obvious that that can't work.
DJP, may I ask, where across the globe are raw materials needed to produce goods and facilities not available?In terms of being primitive, I do like nature and the environement because it is great for the world and looks beautiful. So maybe I am some kind of primitivist.
ALB, people who advocate a society of globalism aren't socialists, because globalism has forms of hierachy and thus this always leads to corruption. How would your sort of idea of delegates be any different to this oligarchy which we have at the present day.Each local community can create internets. Are you looking down on local communities?
You really are a capitalist alanjjohnstone aren't you. Saying local communities can't stand on their own two feet. Using central bodies as a means of using materialism brainwashing the masses saying "you must have this" and "you must have that."I must admit at first I thought the SPGB were for the people, though now I am thinking that the group is possibly a sell out.
Alex Woodrow wrote:DJP, may I ask, where across the globe are raw materials needed to produce goods and facilities not available?In terms of being primitive, I do like nature and the environement because it is great for the world and looks beautiful. So maybe I am some kind of primitivist.If you think your local area can source all the raw materials that are necessary to build for example a modern hospital or an internet terminal or any of the other complicated goods that are necessary for the production of abundance you are surely deluded.If you think that it would be desirable to live in a society without such things I would strongly disagree.
Alex, I think you should read these pamphlets, otherwise it seems to me we are talking at cross-purposes..Socialism As a Practicle Alternative:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativeFrom Capitalism to Socialism:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-liveThe Alternative to Capitalism:http://libcom.org/library/alternative-capitalism
Risking criticism of quoting another iconic figure this is what the anarchist Kropotkin says about global organisation.You said "globalism has forms of hierachy and thus this always leads to corruption. How would your sort of idea of delegates be any different to this oligarchy which we have at the present day" Kropotkin said "…The Postal Union did not elect an international postal parliament in order to make laws for all postal organizations adherent to the Union. The railways of Europe did not elect an international railway parliament in order to regulate the running of the trains and the partition of the income of international traffic; and the Meteorological and Geological Societies of Europe did not elect either meteorological or geological parliaments to plan polar stations, or to establish a uniform subdivision of geological formations and uniform coloration of geological maps. They proceeded by means of agreement. To agree together they resorted to congresses; but while sending delegates to their congresses, they did not elect MPs bons a tout faire; they did not say to them, `Vote about everything you like — we shall obey.' They put questions and discussed them first themselves; then they sent delegates acquainted with the special question to be discussed at the congress, and they sent delegates — not rulers. Their delegates returned from the congress with no laws in their pockets, but with proposals of agreements…"http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/kropotki/sp000875.html He appeared to understand that globalisation doesn't necessary mean oppression. So next time you send a letter to your friend in Australia, consider the global co-operation by mutual agreement required in achieving from post-box to letter-box. Local communities are unable to create their local internet, the equipment , the cables, the electronics are a collective endeavour of world wide production from the plastics to the metals to the silicon chips, the mining of the ores, the drilling of the oil, to the manufacturing processes. It is a collaborative venture, not some village handicraft where you make a modem out of some wood, some nails and a hammer!! Also consider if people do not leave the local community and new members arrive the gene pool shrinks and in-breeding grows. Men and women have always been migrants.
So give me specific examples of raw materials which you can't find in a certain area which people need so that they can live.
I have read these pamphlets and understand where you are coming from.It is just what really annoys me mainly about the SPGB is not actually having a world that co-operates, as that is fine if that is what the people want, same as how it is fine to have localism if that is what the people want.What is really getting on my nerves is this whole idea of certain material conditions meaning that there apparently couldn't be a transformation from capitalism to socialism. People on this forum have openly defended the Soviet Union, saying how it wasn't possible to go straight from capitalism to socialism in 1917, and I just looked at ways around those sorts of scenarios, seeing localism as the best solution.
alanjjohnstone I understand what you are saying and, coming from an anarchist, your idea of delegates would be all right as long as the democratically elected delegates purely worked in the interests of the people. I do have my doubts though with the SPGB, and if they were to be democratically elected as delegates whether they would serve the people or lie their way into power and be like the Soviet Union, since party sympathisers on this forum have openly defended the Soviet Union and how Russia in 1917 couldn't go straight from capitalism to socialism. I guess trust here is the most important thing, and I personally think that, if the SPGB are a party for democratic socialism, then they would have at least ninety nine percent of their members supporting the revolution of tomorrow rather than going on about the Soviet Union and saying how they couldn't go straight from capitalism to socialism in 1917.I also saw the Kropotkin quotes, and I do agree with what he is saying. It is all right to elect delegates as long as they stick by their promises.I guess the main factors here are trust and implementation. Less talk, more action.
Alex Woodrow wrote:So give me specific examples of raw materials which you can't find in a certain area which people need so that they can live.Well if you insist on being spoon-fed.To have any level of technological development you're going to need access to copper, if you have any knowledge of geology you will know that this is not evenly distributed throughout the Earths crust and can only be found in certain areas.But, if you want to take it down to the most basic level, how about flint for making arrow heads and tools? Again, flint only occurs in areas where the geological conditions are right, in this case it is formed in chalk deposits.So even at the most basic level of technology no single local area is ever going to be able to produce all the raw materials it requires, nature is not so kind.I think where you are going wrong is assuming global = hierarchical and local = egalitarian. This is a fallacy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.