Ours to Master

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I didn't say that LBird.   Stop misrepresenting my position!

Don't take things too seriously, robbo.Although I'm pretending that you've said things that you haven't, the purpose is to illustrate where what you are saying leads.So, it's not really 'misrepresentation', as much as 'clarification'.It's like when I 'misrepresent' the 'materialists' as them claiming that "The rocks speak to me!".It's a way of clarifying where their ideas lead, and why we should disregard their 'leadership'.Have a nice afternoon, comrade!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i think part of my understanding is that during the revolution i begin to relate to my fellow workers, not as "class comrades"  but to use that cliche..people…individuals…friends …and neighbours …who have come together in solidarity….we recognise one another as human beings first and foremost…that is our commonality that we come to realise …we dump all the previous identities…class ….nationality…race…gender..all the other etceteras…

All sounds a bit '60s, hippy-ish, 'love and peace, maaaan', to me, alan.I'm inclined to think you're underestimating how much 'people…individuals…friends …and neighbours', as well as 'coming together in solidarity', will also have to develop their detestation and hatred of anything that smacks of socio-economic exploitation, and develop their conscious determination to smash their class enemies…So, peaceful change if the bourgeoisie submit and allow it, but…Let's hope they come to realise just how much of a mess their system is making of our world society and environment… I won't be holding my breath, though…I think Communism will come through class war, not 'love thy neighbour'. Some wars are short and sharp, relying on shock and awe… Let's hope the bourgeois fifth column is strong when the time comes, and betrays its origins…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I didn't say that LBird.   Stop misrepresenting my position!

Don't take things too seriously, robbo.Although I'm pretending that you've said things that you haven't, the purpose is to illustrate where what you are saying leads.

 That too is a misrepresentatation LBird .  Because where you claim what I am saying "leads to", doesnt actually lead to at all  but in quite the opposite direction as I explained And I'm still waiting to hear from you regarding 1) the question of individuality in a hunter gatherer society and 2) what you make of Marx's view that the establishment of socialism/communism presupposes the development of the fully rounded individual rather than the other way round Why won't you address these points?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Why won't you address these points?

Because they are irrelevant.I've tried to talk to you about hunter gatherer society on a thread dedicated to that, but got nowhere.I've tried to talk to you about 'individualism' on a number of threads, but got nowhere.You won't discuss your ideology.You apparently think 'scientific knowledge' is 'true', rather than a social construct, created by 'theory and practice'.I've asked you to say what ideology you use to understand hunter gatherers, individualism, and science. But you won't answer.I've tried patience, comradely appeals, abuse, contempt, fawning, trickery, blackmail, violence, gang warfare…Only thing left is to ignore questions, if only to irritate you as much as I've been irritated.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Why won't you address these points?

Because they are irrelevant.I've tried to talk to you about hunter gatherer society on a thread dedicated to that, but got nowhere.

 Well ,you are the one who claimed that individuality and the concept of the " individual" was invented by "bourgeois society".  I merely pointed out to you that that claim is patently false (see post 38). If you want to bury your head in the sand and continue ignoring the evidence on the grounds that it is "irrelevant" then that is entirely up to you.  Ignorance is bliss but who am I do deny you a bit of bliss in your life

LBird wrote:

I've tried to talk to you about 'individualism' on a number of threads, but got nowhere.You won't discuss your ideology.

Rubbish. I have several times pointed out to you that my ideology is libertarian communism.  I am neither an "individualist" (as you continue to misrepresent me as being) nor a holist (as you are) but take the view that individuals constitute society AND are constituted by society.  Surely this will ring a few bells – even for someone as forgetful as you evidently are!

LBird wrote:

You apparently think 'scientific knowledge' is 'true', rather than a social construct, created by 'theory and practice'.

 Rubbish again!  And it all goes to show how little you bother to read what other people are writing.  You criticize without attempting to get to know the first thing about what or who it is you are criticising.I have never said scientific knowledge is not a social construct or that it is somehow "value free".  I am as strong an opponent of "positivism" as you are if not more so.  All I did was to criticise your crackpot idea of 7 billion people democratically voting on the truth of thousands of scientific theories which totally ignores the reality of the social division of labour and the simple fact that no individual however scientifically gifted can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge

LBird wrote:

I've asked you to say what ideology you use to understand hunter gatherers, individualism, and science. But you won't answer. 

as above

LBird wrote:

I've tried patience, comradely appeals, abuse, contempt, fawning, trickery, blackmail, violence, gang warfare…

 You've forgotten "misrepresentation" in that list but I suppose "trickery" might cover that

[Richard]

I'm tempted to just make a big bowl of popcorn and sit back and watch the fur fly, but I'll try to contribute! I think somewhere in here LBird mentioned "biological existence" and the "ideological concept" of the individual and maybe that's the key, or at least one number in the combination for the lock.How about this: I am a biological entity, an individual human being. However, since roughly the Renaissance the idea of individuality has been promoted for various reasons. Maybe the social concept of individuality was needed for the development of capitalism. From what little I know of Medieval society it was probably a more organic society than ours and as the influence of the Church declined in Europe that organic cohesiveness fell apart and before you could say "Protestant work ethic" everyone was buying smart phones! That's my version of Western history – eat your heart out, Kenneth Clark!So, we have biological individuals who came to see themselves more and more as socio-economic individuals. This socio-economic concept of individuality may be unique to Western society or it may be spread as capitalism spreads; maybe it's part and parcel of capitalism. I don't know.

[robbo203]

Richard wrote:

I'm tempted to just make a big bowl of popcorn and sit back and watch the fur fly, but I'll try to contribute! I think somewhere in here LBird mentioned "biological existence" and the "ideological concept" of the individual and maybe that's the key, or at least one number in the combination for the lock.How about this: I am a biological entity, an individual human being. However, since roughly the Renaissance the idea of individuality has been promoted for various reasons. Maybe the social concept of individuality was needed for the development of capitalism. From what little I know of Medieval society it was probably a more organic society than ours and as the influence of the Church declined in Europe that organic cohesiveness fell apart and before you could say "Protestant work ethic" everyone was buying smart phones! That's my version of Western history – eat your heart out, Kenneth Clark!So, we have biological individuals who came to see themselves more and more as socio-economic individuals. This socio-economic concept of individuality may be unique to Western society or it may be spread as capitalism spreads; maybe it's part and parcel of capitalism. I don't know.

 Hi Richard If you can get hold of a book called "Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism" by Abercrombie et al it is worth a read.  The authors make a distinction between individuality and individualism – the latter being an essentially outer-oriented socio-economic concept whereas the former has to do with one's inner subjective life, one's apprehension of oneself as a distinct thinking feeling being There has always been individuality in this sense but the social emphasis placed on it has varied historically . For the overwhelming bulk of our existence as hunter gatherers , human beings exhibited a very marked degree of individuality. It went hand in hand with a fiercely egalitarian way of life. It was the rise of class society that brought about the attempt to suppress individuality – though as I have argued, this could not ultimately succeed and for which reason you had such things as "slaves revolts" predicated on a sense of outrage on the part of the slaves at the treatment they received The medieval organic society you refer to was a rigidly hierarchical one in which individuals were expected to know their "place".  But even back in the 12th century or even earlier there were cultural  inklings of developments that were to come like the practice of taking private confessions in church which was symbolically quite an important shift You saySo, we have biological individuals who came to see themselves more and more as socio-economic individuals. This socio-economic concept of individuality may be unique to Western society or it may be spread as capitalism spreadsThis is correct as far it goes except that what you are talking about is individualism not individuality! In fact , in many ways individualism pits itself against individuality and you cannot begin to understand the whole backlash of the Romantic movement against a "soulless" industrial capitalism without recognising this  difference. It is absolutely key to everything about that movement It is individuality, not individualism, that socialists should be stressing and it ties in completely with our egalitarian ethos (remember the point about hunter gatherers!).  What we oppose is individualism which is predicated on the idea of  the self-interested atomised individuals competing with his or her fellows. Individuality is something totally different and ties in with the humanistic concept of the individual striving for self actualization (Maslow's hierarchy of needs)Marx and Engels were fierce advocate of individuality but opponents of individualism. This is absolutely clear from comments I have already posted like this oneWe have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces  (German Ideology) In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”, (Communist Manifesto) My emphases

[Richard]

robbo203 wrote:

 If you can get hold of a book called "Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism" by Abercrombie et al it is worth a read.  The authors make a distinction between individuality and individualism – the latter being an essentially outer-oriented socio-economic concept whereas the former has to do with one's inner subjective life, one's apprehension of oneself as a distinct thinking feeling being

I will definitely beg, borrow or steal this book! It sounds very interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

robbo203 wrote:

 There has always been individuality in this sense but the social emphasis placed on it has varied historically .

Bingo! Give that man a cigar! That's what I've been trying to say all along! Different societies have placed different emphases on individuality but it was always there. We are individuals; to deny this is to deny our basic Humanity.

robbo203 wrote:

The medieval organic society you refer to was a rigidly hierarchical one in which individuals were expected to know their "place".  But even back in the 12th century or even earlier there were cultural  inklings of developments that were to come like the practice of taking private confessions in church which was symbolically quite an important shift

Carrying that a step further, couldn't you say that the rise of Protestant sects and the concomitant internalization of sin played a role in bringing individualism to the forefront? People stopped going to priests for forgiveness, instead they developed an internal dialogue with "God", the hierarchical structure based on the Catholic Church became far less important in countries such as England and the Netherlands where capitalism found the most fertile soil. God helps those who help themselves! Ironically enough, out of this same soil grew the ideas of people like Gerrard Winstanley, the Levellers, the True Levellers, the quakers, the ranters and the rest of the revolutionaries of the poor who briefly flourished during the Civil Wars.

robbo203 wrote:

…you cannot begin to understand the whole backlash of the Romantic movement against a "soulless" industrial capitalism without recognising this  difference. It is absolutely key to everything about that movement

That's something else I'll have to read about and ponder.

robbo203 wrote:

What we oppose is individualism which is predicated on the idea of  the self-interested atomised individuals competing with his or her fellows.

You should read Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society", I think you might find it interesting. I have to admit that I haven't read much of Marx which is probably not the right thing to say on this site but it is the truth. Having admitted that I haven't read the guy, I'm still not surprised to hear that he was concerned with the dehumanization that came with capitalism. What little I do know of Marx leads me to believe that he was a Humanist above all else!I'm always amazed that we have a society of individual mass men (and women, of course). We're a society that emphasizes individualism while at the same time requiring conformity and group effort; no wonder people today feel confused and alienated!

[robbo203]

Richard wrote:

 Bingo! Give that man a cigar! That's what I've been trying to say all along! Different societies have placed different emphases on individuality but it was always there. We are individuals; to deny this is to deny our basic Humanity.

 Yes. I would say that this  "over-socialised" model of the individual as lacking in individuality is something that sprang from 19th century sociology in the shape of people like Comte, Durkheim Tonnies etc. This marked a shift away from the 18th century Enlightenment idea of society as a contract between (rational, self interested and fundamentally atomised) individuals to the idea of society as a community bound together by moral obligations.  You can see this in Tonnies very important distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft .  Durkheim too, with his emphasis on the division of labour, sought to show how the form of solidarity between individuals (without which no society was possible)  was changing: the mechanical solidarity of traditional societies based on the idea of similarity between individuals was being replaced by the organic solidarity of modern societies based on an advanced division of labour and hence marked differences between individuals – individuality! The religious ties that kept people together in traditional society (the word "religion" comes from the world " re-ligare" meaning to re-bind or re-connect – like the “ligament” which joins the muscle to the bone) were weakening in an increasingly secularised  and mass urbanised society and people like Durkheim fretted over the implications of this development for the maintenance of social order.  For that reason he advocated a kind of secularised religion in the guise of the state. The state should increasingly play the role that religion had played in traditional society What I'm trying to say here, and what this illustrates, is that the 19th roots of much contemporary sociology  are in  a sense fundamentally conservative and reactionary and we should be aware of this.  The big theme of 19th sociology was, as I say, how to maintain social order in the context of a society undergoing disintegration with the rise of industrial capitalism.  To that end  the logic of the argument deployed by sociologists like Durkheim  required that traditional societies be portrayed by way of contrast as completely lacking in individuality compared  to modern societies (and, by implication, the expression of individuality was posited as being somehow problematic for modern societies).  This was armchair Sociology based on theoretical deductions and abstract reasoning, not empirical investigation.  20th centruy Anthropology has repudiated this idea of traditional societies as lacking in individuality.  However back in the 19th century Anthropology , Sociology's cousin, which focussed more directly on these supposed primitive traditional societies had clear links with the whole imperialist project and the "white man's burden" which it sought to justify in social darwinist terms. It too had a reactionary aspect to it – like Sociology Ironically, there is a sense in which it can be said that the greatest threat to individuality was capitalism itself – in the conformity it sought to impose in era of "Fordist mass production" and standardisation ( in the early 20th century).  These days we have supposedly moved beyond this centralised "Fordist" conception of society in which "big is beautiful" into a post modern era underpinned by computer technology and the Internet , in which differences are supposedly celebrated and individuals are encouraged to "do their own thing".  But while that seems like a good thing there is a reactionary twist to this as well in postmodernism's abandonment of all "grand metanarratives" (including Marxism for example) and in its determination not to see the wood for the  trees.  But thats another subject for another thread I guess….

[Author]

Posts