Minimalism
- This topic has 55 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My motivation for class struggle is the existence of capitalism and how it prevents me from satisfying my material interests. You are being pedandic. The class struggle motivates the human being both capitalist and worker. Capitalism prevents me from accessing freely what you call junk. A hungry family is motivated by the need for food/access to resources prevented by the ownership of the means of production. You are confusing over production for the market with actual overproduction to meet human need. I believe that what Marx wrote in 1859 is relevant today and if you dont then your argument is with the SPGB and its principles
On second thoughts, perhaps I have been away too long and have missed something. I am not getting any younger. What IS the case for socialism these days? As a stiking miner being hit in the face by a copper, I was motivated by self interests I need MORE money, better houses, food etc etc. In short self interest. So why do I need to get rid of capitalism today?
No, I’m not being pedantic. I’m being precise. The two things are often confused. Moreover, you’re missing the points that I’m making. I’ll try to make them another way… Is socialism going to increase the production of over-processed, unhealthy food? I wouldn’t have thought so. Hard to imagine very many class-conscious workers calling for increased productivity of Big Macs. How about homeopathic remedies? Do you feel that capitalism is depriving you of access to worse-than-useless medicine? Will socialism increase production of armaments? Will the revolution entail the training of more pet psychologists? The production of even more ‘white goods’ that fall apart or break down within a short space of time? How about plastic bags and bottles? Do we need more of those? Of course not. No, socialism will – as I suggested – rationalise production. And that won’t necessarily mean increasing it. There will, of course, be areas of production where an increase in output is needed. But to argue that an increase in all areas of production is necessary is foolish. The fact that capitalism prevents you from satisfying your needs is, I’d suggest, your motivation for being a socialist. That’s a separate issue to your involvement in the class struggle which is a day-to-day conflict about which you have no choice.
A socialist would not suggest that capitalism is preventing an increase in armaments, but some people may want more big macs than they can afford in capitalism. It is really a matter of taste.
The eating of Big Macs has nothing to do with taste! It’s not called junk food for nothing! And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.
So, I want socialism to increase the production of arms? What?? You really do drift from the point.
So will your socialism not allow people to eat Big Macs, use plastic bottles, play Rugby etc? What about wanking?. Rock music? Alcohol. (probably kills more people than big macs) And if someone is found praying? Not sure I like your socialism.
The abandoning of rational discourse is always a fine way to terminate an argument you’ve already lost. Nice to see you upholding tradition, OGW!
I am not interested in winning an argument. I have heard it all before. Workers have terrible tastes – beer, bingo etc when really they should enjoy Shakespeare! Well we dont! I am eating junk food now – a pie and coffee. How will you prevent people producing alcohol and cheese burgers in your socialism. Insults do not win an argument. Tell me how?
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.”
Looking at the previous posts, I cannot see where OGW made this statement! Can you tell me the post number?
“The fact that capitalism prevents you from satisfying your needs is, I’d suggest, your motivation for being a socialist. That’s a separate issue to your involvement in the class struggle which is a day-to-day conflict about which you have no choice.”
Surely not being able to satisfy ones needs is, a part of the class struggle and not seperate from it and for many, it is indeed, a day to day conflict and struggle. And furthermore, for many they have no choice becaquse not being able to fulfill ones needs is directly attributable to ones relationship to the means of producing and didtributing these things.Post #27, in which OGW suggests that unless a revolution expands production it isn’t a Marxist socialist revolution. There’s some seriously sloppy reading going on here. I had thought that a forum peopled by socialists might be a little more considered than the usual bear-pits. Just goes to vindicate what I’ve been saying about human nature on another thread.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:The eating of Big Macs has nothing to do with taste! It’s not called junk food for nothing! And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.You are using words without definition. How is a cheese burger less healthy than a cake or a pie or a good Merlot. It IS a matter of taste. You cannot force people to eat what you eat.
“Post #27, in which OGW suggests that unless a revolution expands production it isn’t a Marxist socialist revolution. There’s some seriously sloppy reading going on here. I had thought that a forum peopled by socialists might be a little more considered than the usual bear-pits. Just goes to vindicate what I’ve been saying about human nature on another thread.” Insults do not win an argument. You have no answer. Can you confirm that a Marxist revolution will decrease production. It is the ABC of Marxism that relations of production become a restiction on the productive powers of society
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.” This is what you stated Jonathon.
Here is POST 27 in its entirety;
“I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”
Where in this post is EVEN a suggestion that Socialisn will involve an increase in production on all fronts? Nowhere!
Then you, in post 41, had the temerity to say that, “There’s some seriously sloppy reading going on here” and furthermore had the gall to follow up with, “I had thought that a forum peopled by socialists might be a little more considered than the usual bear-pits. Just goes to vindicate what I’ve been saying about human nature on another thread.”
You are the one guilty of sloppy reading and moreover, guilty of putting non-existent words into someone elses mouth. Which is a vindication of nothing, least of all your argument on non-existent human nature.
Blimey. This is really straightforward. Leaving aside the fact that neither Sussex Socialist nor myself ever said that our motivation was anything like what we’ve been accused of, it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production. I’ve merely suggested that that won’t be the case. And what’s happened? A series of distortions and hilarious ad hominem attacks is what’s happened. Shameful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.