Radical change, along “green” and “spiritual” lines

[jondwhite]

Branching off SW's comments in the Corbyn thread

Quote:

Since you asked Alan, my current beliefs are something like this: that socialism, as defined here, is probably not possible, even with the best will in the world, but that nevertheless the world needs radical change, along "green" and "spiritual" lines, or along any lines towards a more compassionate world. So I'm roughly in Russell Brand's camp (though I'm a supporter and member of nothing at the moment). You'd better start another thread if you'd like to discuss this though. Cheers

[stuartw2112]

Don't know if anyone's interested in discussion, but if so, by "green" and "spiritual", I'm thinking Gustav Landauer, EF Schumacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, that kind of thing. On the impossibility of socialism, Alec Nove, Ramsay Steele. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Arthur C Clarke

What is your age right now, Stuart? Are the wrinkles beginning to appear and the hair starting to go grey and disappear? This opinion of Stuart's is shared by overwhelmingly by many – the common sense argument against us that takes many forms –  and it is no wonder from almost the birth of socialism the "impossiblists" have been a minority while the "possiblists" took charge of the labour movement, then took control of governments and nations, and achieved…what, exactly?…certainly not what has been perfecttly "possible" rather a lot less than than that potentially possible. Von Mises has been the father of the case against free access. Others followed on. Nove's book title should be the focal point of our argument…the feasibility….Have we done enough to counter Nove's views? From references on the web, definitely not.  I certainly have not read enough of him or his ideas but nor had he studied the SPGB unlike David Ramsay Steele, our ex-member and proponent of anarcho-capitalism.  Why Stuart considers him as an authority i am not sure since advocates of a version of a capitalism that is impossible to achieve and based upon an ahistorical analysis of the past. I have read the exchanges he has had with ALB and Robbo and what resulted, imho, was a strenthened case for free access socialism since we had to face his challenges and rebut them. I think the Party succeeded. Obviously, you do not, Stuart.So where does Nove undermine the case for free access?Where does DRS convince you that the SPGB are wrong?Of course, there are host of others who argue for "market socialism" or mutualism rather than anarcho-communism. And then there are those who suggest that aspects of lower phase of socialsim ie labour time vouchers will exist for a substantial period. Free access will never be offered a free-ride as the only alternative.As for "green" and "spiritual" these descriptions are where i think the Party has failed and could do better. Both Dietzgen and Pannekoek used the term spiritual as descriptive ways of describing a certain desirable consciousness. If for instance i said "the SPGB seek the spirit of solidarity." We could do more to create a sense of socialist spirituality…More of an emotional appeal…to be more artistic in the way we express our ideas.  I think there has been a reluctance for the party to use the term eco-socialist to express the necessary ecological sustainability of socialist society..our green side rather than red side.As i said about reforms, there are many battles members of the Party could/should be fighting, many of those are within the environmental issues. But each battle is a localised one, and the victory – if there is one – partial and more often than not, pyirrhic. But we cannot distance ourselves from those who seek life-changes and world-changes. Our problem is one of communication and the failure to convey what is required for real change to be accomplished.  We have not sufficiently interacted with the environmentalist movement as much as i personally would have wished.But in another post, i don't consider it to be fundamental disagreement that require resignation. Changing the image and impression the Party gives to others is something members can do from within the Party.There is little wrong in our message, just in the way we tell it. That may be a little too simplistic a response for you, Stuart,…not enough those intellectuals that only get cited to achieve PhDs (a dig at Mason's constant references to authorities i don't think anybody had a scooby-do about. Gorz was the only one i would guess was apopular read)  but rectifying it is certainly complicated enough and a big enough challenge. I think we should return to the basic problem of identification with socialism – common sense  – and develop the many common sense views we hold on the importance of community…or more accurate …communities plural where people can see socialist ideas at work. We also sometimes neglect the need to call for the full development of the individual which was something Marx emphasised as a positve feature to articulate in a lot of articles Mason, Robbo aren't too far of the mark…we should use such cooperative and self-help relationships as signs of times to come, not only as strategies to survive capitalism and certainly not as solutions to societal problems. But as sign-posts.    

[stuartw2112]

That's a very nice post Alan and I'm pleased to say I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of it! It just leaves me then to try to explain as shortly as possible where I'm coming from.  Free-access socialism is, as I think everyone agrees, only possible on the basis of material abundance. But abundance is unfeasible. In relation to human desires and to the competing uses to which resources and time and energy may be put, resources are always scarce. You need then a method of deciding how to put scarce resources to use. The market provides such a method. Others may be possible, but are unproven (or proven to be disastrous).  Even if it were possible, the attempt to satisfy infinite human desires on the basis of the provision of abundance would surely lead to ecocide – as our current system of state capitalism is doing.  But there is another way to abundance – the practice of satisfying our needs in a minimal way while realising that the way to human happiness is not actually the pursuit of material goods or the satisfaction of all our desires and sensual pleasures, but the pursuit instead of a good life where we take care of one another. The sort of thing Marxists everywhere dismiss as sandal-wearing lentil-munching hippy nonsense because for some reason they want to seem as cynical and materialistic and hardheaded as the capitalists and military.  The development of a practice, a way of life and a politics that is in tune with these insights has fallen I believe to the spiritual traditions and to green philosophy and politics. What's most impressive about the latter is its attempt to include all levels of life in its analysis – from what individuals can do in the here and now to the broadest global levels – and including serious thinking about the problem of transition.  But the main reason I've become a Green is because I wanted to fulfil a prediction Darren O'Neill made a few years ago that that is where I'd end up. He's smart that guy!   

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

So where does Nove undermine the case for free access? Where does DRS convince you that the SPGB are wrong?

Not sure you actually addressed these two questions i asked so that we can have somethng concrete to focus upon.  I want others to join in with this topic thread, if they don't,  you and i might as well just meet some time in the future when i'm back in the UK for a pint or two or three and exchange opinions (hopefully your call for a more spartan lifestyle choices won't include temperance and i expect you to get the first round in!) so i won't in this post try to answer the position you just made. I'm sure you know what the expected replies will consist of so i will be interested in you providing the evidence to disprove them and back up your case.   

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I want others to join in with this topic thread…

Well, here's my tuppence worth.The core of the problem is the separation of 'abundance' from 'satisfaction'.The concept 'abundance' is defined in 'material' terms, outside of any 'ideal' terms.If we use Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (ie. theory and practice), and link 'abundance' and 'satisfaction' to both material and ideal factors, we would employ the concept 'abundance-for'. That is, the issue of 'material abundance' can't be separated from the issue of 'ideal satisfaction'.As a society, we have to decide democratically what 'abundance-for' means.To discuss 'abundance' in simple bourgeois economic terms (meaning 'as much of anything as can be imagined') is to fall into bourgeois thinking.This is related to the scientific notion of 'real' (meaning 'outside any consideration of consciousness'). This is a bourgeois invention, dating from the 'scientific revolution' of the 17th century.We must insist on the concept of 'real-for'. This is the lesson of Einstein, that 'reality' only has a meaning for a consciousness.So, the ideological belief in 'matter' (which can be known in itself) is related to the ideological belief in 'abundance' (which has no social relation to 'satisfaction').stuartw2112 is pointing the way to these answers, with his discussion about 'abundance' and 'satisfaction', but fails to link the two concepts together, and doesn't realise that to talk of 'abundance' as being about 'things', rather than to talk about the social relationship of 'abundance-for', which we humans can control by voting, because it is a social concept amenable to democracy, which leads stuart to 'Green', rather than 'Red', answers to the dilemma.I suggest we clarify what we mean, in this discussion, by 'abundance'.Is it an 'amount' out there, outside of our consciousness (ie. it's 'material') or a 'social estimation' (ie. it's 'ideal-material')?PS. this question is also related to our views of Marx's 'value'. Is it an 'amount' in commodities, which can be counted/measured because it's quantitative, or a social relationship, which can't be counted, and so is qualitative?Is 'abundance' quantitative or is it qualitative?

[stuartw2112]

Alan: I'm certainly still up for pints of ale, but only if it's organic real ale from local craft brewery. I tried to answer your questions in my own words in my post, and not sure I have much to add. I'd just recommend reading the first two chapters of Nove's book, which were shocking eye-openers to me. Link: http://digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdfLB: Good points actually, mostly agree, except democracy is no answer to the economic question. See link above.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, couple of quickies. Democracy isn't answer to economic question: but freedom is, as is information.  Economic actors need freedom to act/react and information has to be transmitted accurately and quickly.  A chief objection to markets is that the information they convey is slower than modern communication resources, when I can access a real time database of stocks and publicly declare my interest so others can see real time demand, what need then of pricing?Of course, numbers remain relevent: Gale-Shapley stable matching algorithms could be used for allocation of resources such as housing, and adjusted winner auctions could be usd at a strategic allocation level:http://www.nyu.edu/projects/adjustedwinner/(And who knows what else bright spark mathematicians and their deep inductive thinking might come up with if we actually ask them, instead of asking them to produc algorithms to get an edge on the stock market).Yes, abundance doesn't mean each gets their own personal Death Star, but that each may actualise themself, and develop freely as a human behing without fear of material constraint or enslavement to their work.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: Good points actually, mostly agree, except democracy is no answer to the economic question. See link above.

Thanks, stuart.On the issue of 'economic democracy', this is an ideological issue.I'm a Democratic Communist, and I think that you've said that you're not.That's fine that you disagree with me, but I think that you should make clear exactly which political theory that you're using to understand 'abundance' and 'satisfaction'.Unless we clarify the perspectives from which each contributor is viewing the problem, we'll run into misunderstandings.

[stuartw2112]

YMS: Possibly, but my broader point is that it is internal changes that are most important – ie, we should think more about what it might mean to self-actualise, rather than how we could provide the bloater tinkering with his Death Star with more sausages. Which is not necessarily at odds with the SPGB view, with all its talk of "consciousness", though it doesn't have much to say about what that means.LB: I'm not using any political theory to understand these things, just my mind. But I think we've been here before.

[stuartw2112]

If you can forgive the narcissism, this is a piece I wrote on related themes recently. It embarrasses me to think of the gap between my prescriptions and my own behaviour, but I hope it's of interest. What is socialist consciousness? “… socialist consciousness requires workers to experience ‘a process of complete mental reconstruction. Years of thoroughly impregnated prejudices and attitudes towards social behaviour must be overcome . . . the whole ideology of capitalism will be rejected lock, stock and barrel.’ Images of The New Socialist Man come to mind – but socialists do need to think very carefully about this question of what it means to have achieved the necessary consciousness for social liberation.”–Steve Coleman, ‘Impossibilism’ The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands alone among socialists and Marxists in its peculiar insistence on the importance of “socialist consciousness”. Socialism, in this view, is impossible unless and until a majority of the world’s workers undergo a “process of mental reconstruction”. To put it another way, that the inner transformation of individuals is more important than, and logically prior to, any meaningful transformation in the structures and institutions of the outer world. This may be a peculiar point of view, but it is surely the right one. An unaddressed question, however, is precisely what is meant by socialist consciousness and how it is to be achieved. Steve Coleman, quoting an author in the Socialist Standard, puts his finger on it (see epigraph above). Socialist consciousness is a “process of complete mental reconstruction”, one where years (indeed millennia) of “thoroughly impregnated prejudices and attitudes towards social behaviour” are decisively overcome. Socialists must, as Coleman rightly says, “think very carefully” about what all this might mean. In his own essay, Coleman makes the observation and lets the thinking stop there. He doesn’t tell us what socialist consciousness is or how it is to be achieved beyond stating that it is a matter of “understanding” and “desire”, before going on to imply that the task is mostly one of propaganda and education and political organisation. This is perhaps necessary but surely inadequate, as we shall explore below. Socialism really is impossibleOne way of thinking about this is to imagine, for the sake of argument, that “socialist consciousness”, whatever it may be, really is not possible under capitalism, as the Leninists insist. The logical conclusion, if this were so, is that socialism would be impossible too. Grasping this point will help us understand and sympathise with every right-wing and common-sensical objection to socialism we’ve ever heard. To give just the most obvious examples, human nature, as it manifests in capitalist societies, clearly does make socialism an unlikely proposition. Greed and violence really does make stateless abundance and free access improbable ways of organising economies. Revolutions really must end in the establishment of new tyrannies. A party taking power in the name of the workers really would end up having to impose a dictatorship. The SPGB links arms with socialism’s opponents on every point. Having linked arms with our new anti-socialist friends, perhaps we might sit down to consider together what “socialist consciousness” might be, ie, what kind of inner transformation might turn socialism from a “nice idea” into a real practical possibility. It’s not what you think it isTo the knowledge of this writer, very little has been written, either within or without the party, on what socialist consciousness might mean. A more common conception among Marxists generally is the related idea of “class consciousness”. But by this seems to be meant little more than knowledge or awareness that one is part of a social class. We must all surely know of people who have such awareness, but are nevertheless not socialists. Indeed, there’s no obvious reason why such a class-conscious person might not also be a Tory, depending on their political views and upbringing, precise position in class hierarchies, and so on. Class consciousness is clearly not necessarily much help to us. Is it, then, a matter of “understanding” or “desire”, as Coleman puts it? The way to see that it is not is to conduct a scientific experiment of our own. Think of a person you know who lays claim to a good understanding of socialist issues – perhaps they’ve read every word of Marx and Engels and Morris and so on – and who has a burning desire for socialism. Now closely watch that person as they conduct themselves in social life. Do they, to use Coleman’s words again, demonstrate by their actions that they have overcome, lock, stock and barrel, impregnated prejudices and attitudes towards social behaviour? Have they achieved a “complete mental reconstruction”? Have they achieved “the necessary consciousness for social liberation”? Whether the person you are observing is yourself or your worst enemy doesn’t in the end matter, and in neither case is moral judgement or censure implied. If your subject is the worst arsehole and hypocrite imaginable, he or she is only sharing in the general social madness, and is no doubt nevertheless very nice indeed to their dog. But while we refrain from judging, let us nevertheless continue to observe closely and carefully. Let us see what is there, and think about the implications. You might see that socialist “understanding” and “desire” has, if anything, made us worse. Our superior understanding alienates us from our fellow workers, and we get frustrated and angry that they can’t see as we do. Our desire for socialism burns to anger at the social injustices we must live with every day, and we turn into monsters of negativity and aggression. Frustration, anger, pride in superior knowledge, alienation from our fellow man, negativity, aggression – are these the characteristics of the “necessary consciousness for social liberation”? Surely not. If socialist consciousness isn’t then what we think it is or what we desire, what is it? What I would like to suggest is that socialist consciousness is what arises spontaneously and without volition from a total awareness of our situation. That starts with us as individuals – the exercise I suggested above needs to be continued. Proceed carefully and slowly, for such scientific observation demands great skill and subtlety and patience. Watch and appreciate every aspect of your own consciousness and experience – the thinking and the emotions, and how they feed each other; your desire to be proved right; to do the right thing… and get applause for it; the aggression and irritability; the constant search for gratification and entertainment; your childishness when you don’t get your own way in even the slightest degree; your shyness and desire to assert yourself; your pride in achievement; your desire to go out and change the world, and to curl up in a darkened room and forget the whole thing. That’s the internal aspect. We hardly need to go into the external aspects when all we have to do is switch on the news. But make this too part of your scientific experiment, your awareness of the world we live in – the world we help to create and sustain everyday by our thoughts and our actions. The wars. The violence. The greed. The stupidity. The ecological destruction. The ugliness. The pettiness. The class struggle. The SPGB is quite right to insist, against other Marxists, than socialist consciousness does not arise spontaneously out of the class struggle, but rather out of our consciousness of and reflection on the total situation we find ourselves in. This then is our answer to the question in the title. Out of the total awareness of our total situation arises a consciousness adequate to that situation – a direct and immediate consequence of that awareness is that we grow up and become and act as responsible adults in this crazy and immature world. Those who were hoping for an intellectually satisfying answer to the question might be very disappointed by this anti-climax. But the truth is that the whole question of consciousness is a very tricky one scientifically and philosophically. As a practical matter, however, we can just accept the unsatisfactoriness of it. We may not quite be able to grasp consciousness – let alone socialist consciousness – scientifically or intellectually, but consciousness is the one thing we have good access to and a measure of control over from the inside. So let’s start with what we have – the common inheritance of all humanity – and begin our study of ourselves, from the inside, to see whether the answer to the possibility of socialism doesn’t lie within. Although we don’t really know what socialist consciousness is, nevertheless “by their fruits ye shall know them”. We know it when we see it. We know it by its signs – friendliness, kindliness, patience, compassion, service, work freely given without expectation of reward, moderation, open mindedness, good heartedness, forgiveness, altruism, sharing, generosity. When socialist consciousness comes into this world, then so too inevitably does socialism.       

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: I'm not using any political theory to understand these things, just my mind. But I think we've been here before.

[my bold]Yes, we have, haven't we?So, to you, 'just using your own individual mind' is in no way based upon a 'political theory', or the perspective of a class which since the 17th century has stressed 'individualism' as a way to 'understand these things', and in whose society you've been raised, socialised and educated?It's an ideological belief, stuart, the statement that "I'm not using any political theory to understand these things, just my mind".What's more, the belief doesn't stand up to scientific examination.Even with 'rocks'. Ask Einstein.

[stuartw2112]

I didn't say my own individual mind. I just said my mind. Which obviously is conditioned by the historical period I'm living in, cultural norms, my biology, my values, etc. What I want to know is why you don't also tells us about these things when you say you're a "Democratic Communist" as an explanation of how your mind is conditioned. Why don't you also say (guessing): I'm a Democratic Communist, and a man, age 45, who was brought up in a working class household in Birmingham, whose parents were Labour supporters and very loving and supportive when I was growing up, who works as a clerk in an office, who is never happier than when out in the countryside, eating chocolate, etc, etc, etc….

[LBird]

Since you seem to have approved of some of my first post, at least, stuart, perhaps I can elaborate the concept 'abundance-for'.If we start from 'abundance-for', the next question that arises is "for whom or what is the 'for' ".I'd suggest that this could be either a 'for' for 'individuals' or for 'social groups'.So, we would have, from the first perspective, 'abundance-for stuart', 'abundance-for-LBird', 'abundance-for-alanjjohnstone', etc., until all 7 billion individuals on this planet have their own, personal  'abundance-for'.There could be a perspective that is social, but not socialist. For example, a nationalist perspective could argue for 'abundance-for-British', 'abundance-for-French', etc.There could even be a conservative universalist perspective, which would stress 'abundance-for-all', an 'organic' view of humanity (which, to us, would be ignoring social and historical factors).But the perspective I would argue for is social and socialist, so that I would begin from the concepts 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', 'abundance-for-proletariat', 'abundance-for-peasantry', etc. This is clearly a class-based perspective, which you would expect me to embrace.So, in this discussion, I would be concerned to differentiate 'abundance-for-proletariat' from 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', in any discussion about 'abundance' and 'satisfaction', which were the two concepts that you outlined as worthy for discussion in an earlier post.Whilst 'abundance' is not linked to a 'satisfaction', it remains an empty discussion about 'piles of things'.Which concept do you wish to use, stuart? The separation of 'abundance' and 'satisfaction' (which I don't think you do, from what you've said), or from a version of 'abundance-for'?Do you wish to employ 'abundance-for-stuart', etc., as your latter posts suggest?

[Anonymous]

I was going to start a new topic on the subject of psychology, but after reading the contributions here, particularly Stuart’s on consciousness, think my reflections may fall within this thread.I have often wondered why more people do not join the socialist case, as it is so blindingly obvious to see that our society is built on a great big lie.  I do not think you need to do a great deal of thinking to see that it is built on the toil of the many and the exploitation by the few.  It seems to me to be a typical “emperor’s new clothes” situation; it is plain to see that the emperor has no clothes – why, then, do so few speak up against it.A few paragraphs that I have just read in Christopher Badcock’s “Evolutionary Psychology – A Critical Introduction” sheds light on what I think may be going on.The paragraphs I’m going to quote come from a chapter where he discusses “split-brain” research.  The chapter discusses the “conscious”, the “preconscious” and the “unconscious” in Freudian terms; “conscious as that which occupies current awareness”, “preconscious as that which can be voluntarily be recalled to consciousness”; “unconscious as that which can’t be recalled under any circumstances.” (p 147)Research objects have had the connection between their right and left brains severed to stop violent and persistent epilepsy.   The contention is that the left brain is fully conscious, and that this has its root in that this is where language is produced (to be fully conscious, concepts have to be put into language terms).  The right brain is “unconscious” and is a “reality checker”, it checks the “stories” produced by the left brain, to ensure they do not veer to far from reality.Badcock quotes the neurologist V.S. Ramachandran:“Ramachandran suggest that located in the left hemisphere there is a mechanism for imposing consistency in the form of small rationalizations, repressions and so on.  Where an anomaly is detected, the left hemisphere tries to impose consistency by ignoring or supressing the contrary evidence, for example by Freudian defence mechanisms.  However, he also suggests that there is an ‘anomaly detector’ in the right hemisphere whose sole purpose is to serve as a ‘devil’s advocate’ that periodically challenges the left hemisphere’s ‘story’ and detects anomalies and discrepancies.  He speculates that when the anomaly reaches a critical threshold, an interaction with the right hemisphere forces a complete change in one’s world view.  Ramachandran adds that you could think of an anomaly detector ‘as a mechanism for preserving intellectual honesty or integrity….. I might be willing to engage in some minor rationalization, i.e., make some small false assumptions to get on with my life, but when the false beliefs become too far removed from reality, my anomaly detector kicks in and makes me re-evaluate the situation’ (1995:39).” (p 144)It would take too long to describe the experiments that have been carried out to substantiate these claims, however, it’s the line about making assumptions and stories “to get on with my life” that interests me.  So, you are growing up in a society dominated by an elite and their managers who you have to please at all costs in order to live.  The greatest question that looms over any growing youngster is: ”what am I going to do for a job”, or “am I going to get a job”, and for some;  ”how am I going to get that well-paid job”.  Resolving this question determines your life, your ability to have a family – sometimes if you will live at all.The job of the left brain is to let you “get on with your life”, to be psychologically stable enough to go about your daily life.If you fully realise the true nature of society, not only is it very painful to grasp the lack of control you have over your life, but also, if you start speaking up against your exploiters, you would be biting the hand that feeds you.  More often than not, you would be seen as a trouble maker, you would sometimes be one of the first to be made redundant when the firm downsizes, would be bypassed for promotions and so on – all things that would jeopardize your ability to either support a current family or acquire a future family.  You have just one shot at this – a life is very short.If an individual grasps aspects of this reality, but at the same time realise that “time is of the essence”, then it is not unlikely that reality is repressed.The ideas of “consciousness” and “free will” are difficult ones.  There has been some research recently which questions whether we really have “free will”, as they have measured our “readiness” for an action fractions of a second before we are conscious of our choice.  I haven’t got a source to refer to at the moment, but could dig it out if anyone is interested – I guess many of you will have read it anyhow.“He [Ramachandran] adds that Freud’s ‘basic idea – that consciousness is simply the tip of the iceberg and that our behaviour is mostly governed by a cauldron of emotions and motives of which we are largely unconscious (“the unconscious mind”) – is  still a perfectly valid concept that is sure to have a tremendous impact on both psychology and neurology’ (Ramachandran 1996).  Joseph LeDoux agrees that ‘Freud was right on the mark when he described consciousness as the tip of the mental iceberg’ (LeDoux 1996:25).” P146

[Author]

Posts