How Should Society be Organised? Reader letters in this months issue of Philosophy Now
- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just had a short 200 word article featured in the new issue of Philosophy Now
Darren Poynton wrote:Our present system of society is fraught with contradictions. We have the technological potential to adequately feed, clothe, house and provide a decent life for every man, woman and child on Earth, yet instead of abundance for all there exists poverty, insecurity and misery for the vast majority.At the heart of all these social problems is the conflict between the need to accumulate and reproduce capital on one hand and the need to fulfil human want on the other. Productive activity is mediated through the mechanism of market exchange, so production ceases when profit fails to be realised, not when human need is satisfied. Instead of directly co-ordinating to fulfil its needs, humanity is dominated by the blind imperatives of an economic system. If humanity as a whole were to democratically take control of the productive apparatus of society and free its operations from the constraints of the profit motive, an already existing but as yet untapped potential for abundance could be realised.
This would of course entail a complete transformation in property relations. Instead of a society based on minority control, production for profit, and market exchange, we would have one based on common ownership and production for need. Instead of being mediated through the market system, production decisions would be co-ordinated directly according to the self-defined needs of global society, and the means of production belong to everybody.
Does this mean that I will be forced out of my home, have the clothes taken off my back and the food stolen from my mouth? No. Protection would be invoked – not through the right to property, but directly according the interests of the person involved.
But what about human nature? Deep down, aren’t we all lazy, greedy and aggressive? Firstly, there is no fixed ‘human nature’ independent of society. For example, in a society based on scarcity, the motive is to hoard, since poverty is always around the corner. When society is no longer divided between competing buyers and sellers and labour-power, the motivation to work comes from the satisfaction of fulfilling a need. Instead of an endless drive to accumulate abstract wealth, the guiding principle becomes one of self-mastery and the betterment of society.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/How_Should_Society_Be_Organised
That's a very good article, DJP. Well done for getting it printed. I hope members share and tweet it.
This was one of the other letters, sounds like he's a Zeitgeist Movement or Venus Project fan
Quote:We should be aiming for a utopia: the best of societies, the one that provides in the highest degree all that a society should provide to its citizens. In utopia, the individual is the fundamental reality, not the state. Its fundamental concerns are respecting the natural rights of each person, which entails justice and the happiness of each (as opposed to justice and happiness for classes, averages, or majorities). To achieve this, society should be organized under the governance of robots.Utopia would require a minute management of its resources whilst maximizing private liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness. In utopia, the heavy hand of the ruler is not felt, for autonomy is a natural desire and the right of individuals; but the minute management of resources requires absolute power. However, ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Utopia is therefore a wonderful balancing act.The most fundamental problem of political philosophy is, ‘Who governs the governors?’ It’s a problem because of the weaknesses of humans: people are too ignorant, too stupid, and too evil to run a utopia. No body of people possesses the requisite vast knowledge and perspective. We cannot think fast enough or rationally enough to make the requisite decisions in a timely way, or perhaps at all. We are too selfish to be trusted to govern others with the requisite altruism. But the problem of who governs the governors disappears when the governors are computers that can be programmed with the requisite knowledge, rationality, and altruism.So the three sciences most needed to create utopia are computer science, economics, and ethics. We have little cause to doubt the ultimate triumph of computer science. Economics – the science of the management of resources – is more difficult. However, there is hope that the economic principles of centralized resource management would be easier to determine than those of capitalism, founded as that is on human capriciousness.Ethics is the most difficult of the three sciences. Philosophers have been working on the subject for over two millennia without yet reaching consensus. Furthermore, the principles of ethics must be reduced to programmable form; and of course they must be correct, else our beautiful robots will turn out to be Frankensteins.John Talley, Rutherfordton, NCThere needs to be a rebuttal from the party to this Talley guy. He talks about "human weaknesses" and also "resource management" but cannot seem to look at these subjects from any other perspectve than within the paradigms of Capitalism. If one lives in a "dog eat dog" society, then one would tend to take on these characteristics.
steve colborn wrote:There needs to be a rebuttal from the party to this Talley guy.I don't think the party needs to write a rebuttal since the letter was written to a magazine not us. But there is a forum for anyone so inclined (which isn't me at the moment)http://forum.philosophynow.org/
Agreed, we could take up the question of "human weaknesses" (but they presumably exist as nobody's perfect) but there's nothing wrong with "resource management" as isn't doing this rationally what socialism is about? But this part (emphasis added) is something for one of us to take up:
Quote:We should be aiming for a utopia: the best of societies, the one that provides in the highest degree all that a society should provide to its citizens. In utopia, the individual is the fundamental reality, not the state. Its fundamental concerns are respecting the natural rights of each person, which entails justice and the happiness of each (as opposed to justice and happiness for classes, averages, or majorities). To achieve this, society should be organized under the governance of robots.After all, we've got a talk entitled "I for one welcome our new robot overlords" (even if it's a provocative title not supposed to be taken too literally):http://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/events/192228162/
Okay, so rebuttal wasn't the correct wording but the thought is correct. We talk of "the administration of things" but Talley appears to believe we will still need "the administration of people" and from the way he talks, it's for "our own good". That would presumably need those, "without weaknesses", to sort this out. Just like the Leninists of the Russian revolution.So once again, it would appear our "betters" need to be there to guide us.Hopefully, Talley is not talking about resource management by some "new elite" of Technocrats!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.