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

[stuartw2112]

I don't buy the pscychology stuff I'm afraid. I wouldn't deny that we have a psychology, and obviously an evolved one, and that this must determine our decision-making, including in ways that aren't rational. But the line of argument presented by Meel seems to point in dangerous directions. Why do all these people not agree with me when what I think is so obviously rational and right? Must be cos they is mental in some way. Scary political conclusions may follow. So, one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that the arguments are wrong or shoddy, or do not chime with people's sense of right and wrong. "Give everyone stuff for free," sounds not only like a dream, but morally wrong and environmentally and economically dangerous. "Everyone should work and receive rewards according to their desert," sounds realistic, desirable and morally upright.Of course, maybe socialists are right and conservatives wrong. But you have to make the argument, and make it more and more convincing. You can't just say, why are these irrational fools disagreeing with me? (I'm not saying Meel thinks like this, it just seems a worryingly short leap to such conclusions for me.)

[stuartw2112]

LB: I'm happy to answer your questions, but could you first please tell me your sex, age, class, occupation, and so on, so I can know where you're coming from ideologically?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: I'm happy to answer your questions, but could you first please tell me your sex, age, class, occupation, and so on, so I can know where you're coming from ideologically?

I thought that I'd explained, stuart.We only have to know 'individual traits' if we're using 'abundance-for-individuals' as our basic concept.Perhaps you are (and you should be open about this, if you are), but I'm not.I'm employing 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' and 'abundance-for-proletariat'.Are you using 'abundance-for stuart' as your key concept?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

So, one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that the arguments are wrong or shoddy, or do not chime with people's sense of right and wrong. "Give everyone stuff for free," sounds not only like a dream, but morally wrong and environmentally and economically dangerous. "Everyone should work and receive rewards according to their desert," sounds realistic, desirable and morally upright.Of course, maybe socialists are right and conservatives wrong. But you have to make the argument, and make it more and more convincing. You can't just say, why are these irrational fools disagreeing with me? 

[my bold]But you're using the arguments of the bourgeoisie, stuart.In this society, the concept "Give the rich stuff for free" is the reality.And the concept ""Every worker should work and receive rewards according to their desert" is the reality.Your use of 'everyone' (instead of 'the rich') in the first case, and 'Everyone' (instead of 'worker') in the second case, just hides this reality.We agree that 'deserts' should follow from 'work'.That's our slogan, 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.There is no asocial, ahistorical 'everyone' getting 'stuff for free' or 'undeserved reward'.It's just that our social judgement of what is 'ability' and 'needs' (and what is 'free' and 'deserved') will be decided democratically, and not determined by 'money' and an 'individual's' ability to store it and thus determine their own solitary 'needs'.I think that this is 'making a convincing argument', and that any Democratic Communist would agree with me.

[stuartw2112]

I don't have a key concept and I've made my arguments already. Have nothing to add for now. All the best

[Anonymous]

I certainly don't think that all those who don't get the socialist case are "mental" in any way, and that socialists aren't.  I am only completely ordinary, not especially stupid, not especially clever – and I have been as irrational as it is possible to be at times.  IF the rationale I presented is a plausible one, I have no idea why "reality" descends on some in the area of politics, and not on others.I do think that psychology is important, and within psychology, the subconscious.I also think presenting a credible case is important, so for example saying that everyone can have whatever they like is untrue and not conducive to gaining "converts".  Neither is claiming that socialism will be a society without laws – which isn't the SP's case anymore anyway (as I established in a previous post) – or at least, dissent about this question is allowed.

[stuartw2112]

Fair dos. I just reread your post and couldn't find anything objectional in it at all. Must have been the mood of the moment!

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I don't have a key concept and I've made my arguments already. Have nothing to add for now. All the best

Fine by me, stuart.I'm just pointing out that your post, supposedly criticising socialist views of 'giving undeserved stuff away for free':

stuartw2112 wrote:

So, one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that the arguments are wrong or shoddy, or do not chime with people's sense of right and wrong. "Give everyone stuff for free," sounds not only like a dream, but morally wrong and environmentally and economically dangerous. "Everyone should work and receive rewards according to their desert," sounds realistic, desirable and morally upright.

… is nothing to do with democratic socialism.If you think that your post captures 'socialist' views, then you're wrong.It's better if you argue with what I am saying (that 'abundance' must be related to a 'social consciousness'), rather than give a false account of 'what socialists argue for', and then simply dismiss that.I'm inclined to say that 'one reason why most people reject socialist arguments may be for the simple reason that' they, like you, don't seem to know what those 'arguments' actually are.You seem to have picked up your views of 'what socialism is' from the bourgeoisie, so it's not surprising that you 'reject' those arguments – so do we!So, we're on the same side, to some extent, at least!

[stuartw2112]

Yes, I'm using "abundance" in two different, contradictory ways. If you think that in itself destroys the argument, then just pick another word that you like.The idea that human wants are infinite and insatiable cannot be "bourgeois" since identification of the problem is at least 2,500 years old, if not more. We are hungry ghosts with infinite bellies. Capitalism's craziness is in the belief that these can be satisfied and then we'll be happy. In this sense, (free access) socialism is capitalism's deluded child.

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

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.

  Strikes me that the position you are outlining above is curiously contradictory or at any rate, paradoxical   If "abundance is unfeasible" as you claim then how can there be "another way to abundance" as you equally assert? .  Seems you are shifting from one definition of "abundance" to another to suit your argument.  In the first instance it is in relation to the bourgeois dogma of"infinite human desires"; in the second it is in relation to 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 You say  that " Marxists everywhere" dismiss the latter as sandal-wearing lentil-munching hippy nonsense because for some reason they want to seem as cynical and materialistic and hardheaded as the capitalists etc. Really? I can recall Hardy writing in the Socialist Standard years ago arguing that, if anything, in the early days of socialism workers, at least in some parts of the developed world, may have to accept a cut  in living standards  so the rest of the world can catch up.  What we may have to forfeit in quantitative terms we gain in qualitative terms – one reason why I maintain the case for socialism cannot simply be an economic one but inescapably is also a moral one.  Happiness is not something you can buy over the counter and, if that was the case, the mega-rich would be wallowing in blissful contentment.  The evidence suggests otherwise Anyone who considers socialism to be a simply a question of "self interest", thereby applies to socialism a capitalist logic that negates the very possiblity of socialism ever coming about.   For the logic of self interest within a competitive capitalist environment is that there is no limit to what we materially desire since the interests of others are of no account.  Certainly no Marxist I know of would ever go along with the bourgeois myth of "infinite human desires". Where do you get this idea from? The biggest irony of all , Stuart, is that here you are defending the market  and the so called "economic calculation argument" that justifies the existence of the market as the most .. ahem …rational way of allocating scarce resoruces –  actually, if anything, capitalism has become the most horrendously inefficient and irrational mode of resource allocation that has ever existed –  when it is very market system itself you apparently support that enshrines and institutionalises this pernicious dogma that "human wants are insatiable". The unending quest for profit which is built into a competitive system of  capital accummulation has as its corrollary, the need for unending economic growth and hence the limitless expansion of market demand itself,.  That is the logic of capitalism even if what capitalism needs, capitalism may not always get because of its own internal contradictions. Nevertheless, that logic that drives the system also  conditions the consumer – even the mega-rich – to be eternally dissatisfied with his or her material lot and to always want more and more to fill the void in their lives that the system conditions them to feel.  You want things to be otherwise but you dont seemingly want to challenge the system that prevents things being otherwise….

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

The idea that human wants are infinite and insatiable…

[my bold]Now, stuart, you've moved from the concept of 'abundance-for-individual' to the conservative concept that I outlined earlier, which stresses an undifferentiated 'humanity' (the 'organic' analogy), and which is 'abundance-for-all'.If you wish to use this conservative concept, that's fine, but you should really say that you're employing this, especially to yourself, so that you can understand why a socialist that employs the different concepts of 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' and 'abundance-for-proletariat' will disagree with you.

stuartw2112 wrote:

We are hungry ghosts with infinite bellies.

Once again, stuart, this is merely bourgeois propaganda. I don't actually know anybody with a 'infinite belly', although I do know some people who argue the very same as you, but they're not class conscious workers.Rather than 'infinite', most workers I know want a good, enjoyable, well-paid job, to be able to look forward to a decent pension and retirement at a reasonable age (55? 60? 65?), a proper holiday in the sun each year, a house big and well-appointed enough for their families – these are hardly 'infinite' desires, and we are well capable of 'satisfying' these needs even today, never mind under some putative socialism.Of course, someone could argue that once workers have these needs fulfilled, they'll then want 'as much gold as they can eat' (Pythonism), but if we start from class analysis, rather than either 'isolated individuals' or 'we're all in this together' (the latter which your quote above suggests), then we're back to determining which concept of 'abundance-for' we wish to employ, to understand these issues.

[LBird]

Perhaps a look at 'housing' as an issue regarding 'abundance'.If we look  at housing using the concept 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', then we can see that 'housing' is supposedly, unsuffixed, 'abundant'. Many bourgeois own more than one house, many own several, and some in business own thousands. There are also hundreds of thousands of empty houses in the UK, so clearly there is 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie' (which they call simple 'abundance', a concept which hides class content).But when looked at using the concept 'abundance-for-proletariat', we can see a shortage of housing for workers, especially young, low-paid, unemployed, or poorly-educated workers. Many workers, even if they find relatively 'good' jobs, will never be able to find decent 'housing'. Perhaps as a society, we'll go back to 'rented slums' as the basis of 'housing' for workers.So, to sum up, if we use the unsuffixed, bourgeois concept of 'abundance', we can see that there is an abundance of 'housing' – there are empty houses everywhere, as empirical confirmation of this apparent 'fact'.But, if we employ the class conscious concepts of 'abundance-for-bourgeois' and 'abundance-for-proletariat', we can start to see the contradictory 'truths' for each class.To discuss 'abundance' is a concession to the ruling class, and employing this concept means that we'll lose the argument, because 'empirical reality' supports the notion of 'housing abundance'. From there, it's a short step to blame lazy, stupid, drunken workers for not working hard enough to buy those 'empty houses' which are clearly in 'abundance'.

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Yes, I'm using "abundance" in two different, contradictory ways. If you think that in itself destroys the argument, then just pick another word that you like. 

 I'm not quite sure what you mean Stuart. Its not for me to salvage the argument you present but for you to chose the appropriate word yourself that has that effect.  As your argument stands it does indeed come across as contradictory and therefore unconvincing. You seems to have bought into the anarcho capitalist case presented by the likes of Ramsay Steele. Fair enough. Thats your prerogative.  But  I would say that that case turns on a similar confusion of terms.  The concept of "opportunity costs", for instance, conveys this idea of built in scarcity which buttresses your claim that abundance is impossible.  So the opportunity cost of my decision to respond to your post is that I forfeit the possibility of doing something else in this time.  Maybe jogging down to the village to buy a newspaper or perhaps cleaning out the chicken run which is beginning to get a bit smelly.  There is an air of tautological certainty about this argument about opportunity costs which the anarcho caps constantly wield,  which I maintain is based on a psychologically unrealistic perspective. I'm not going to fret about that newspaper I don't have in my hands at this precise moment and if I did I would be frankly unable to concentrate on the task at hand.  That is why I maintain the anarcho capitalist case is 'psychologically empty' . It is based on pure abstraction which has no purchase in the real world we inhabit What I am trying to suggest to you, Stuart, is that if you are going to use a term like abundance then use it consistently so we know what we are talking about. I maintain the abundance is a relation between supply and demand broadly speaking both of which are limited and historically variable depending on the social context 

stuartw2112 wrote:

The idea that human wants are infinite and insatiable cannot be "bourgeois" since identification of the problem is at least 2,500 years old, if not more. We are hungry ghosts with infinite bellies. Capitalism's craziness is in the belief that these can be satisfied and then we'll be happy. In this sense, (free access) socialism is capitalism's deluded child.

 Well, given your anthropological background, Stuart, you will no doubt be aware of Marshall Sahlin's book on the hunter gatherers – the original affluent society – and Sahlins suggestion, which I think you echoed in your earlier post, that there are two ways to affluence – the conventional capitalist approach which is to produce more and the Zen approach which  is to want less.  Hunter gatherers would simply not recognise the  description of  themselves as hungry ghosts with infinite bellies. The idea  that human wants are insatiable may very well have predated capitalism .  It would fit in with the zero sum game of empire building in ancient civilisations in which rulers sought to enlarge their domains at the expense of rivals.  Wherever there is competition of this nature – over material stuff – the logic of such competition pushes one to want to acquire more and more.  Material acquisition converts into social prestige which is unbounded. Nevertheless I would suggest that with the advent of capitalism what was essentially a restricted ruling class outlook became universalised and the concept of infinite wants became formally enshrined in bourgeois economics and through the praxis of capitalism itself with its appeal to mass consumerism.  No other social system in history has this built in predisposition to urge the consumer  to consume more. So I reject utterly your claim that free access socialism is the deluded child of capitalism.  On the contrary, free access socialism is the one and only thing that can ultimately destroy the unlimited pursuit of material wants.  Free access to goods and services means amongst other things that you can no longer secure the esteem and respectful awe of others based on what you possess or consumer and the only way in which can acquire such esteem is through what you contribute to society and not what you take out of it.Also, of course ,there is simply no point in taking more than you need when what you need is sufficiently available.  I live outside a spa town in Southern Spain in which potable water flows freely  in abundance through the many fuentes scattered around the town.  I'm not aware of any frenzied rush of afflicted consumers to the nearest fuente to fill up every conceivable container  they can lay their handsNo, it is capitalism that encourages a scarcity mentality and it is capitalism which also incidentally directly creates scarcity through its systematic and structural diversion of a vast and growing proportion of its manpower and resources away from, and at the expense of, socially useful ends into such socially wasteful activities as banking , insurance, and armaments production.  Such things serve a very clear purpose in capitalism but will have no place in free access socialism whatsoever.

[alanjjohnstone]

Never let a hungry ghost into an all-you-can-eat buffet, a restaurant model that would surely guarantee bankruptcy if customers did possess an infinite belly…(even though i have on occasions tried to prove them wrong and failed). But i know you are speaking about spiritual hunger…

Quote:

"Physical hunger doesn't bother us. It's easy to take care of, to find something to eat that satisfies the hunger. Spiritual hunger, however, is another matter. The more we eat, the more we hunger. This is the problem we're caught in- being annoyed, pestered, bothered, agitated by spiritual hunger. When nothing annoys the mind, that is true happiness."http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/ret/haphung1.htm#EndlessHunger

(Perhaps of interest to you, Suan Mokkh was just a hour or so car trip away from my late wife's home. I visited it twice in the 90s but just for a shady picnic spot. I did buy a selection of their lit to read, though)

[ALB]

Not been following this thread but here's something for those on it to get their teeth into (or their backs up):http://ppesydney.net/new-and-green-materialism/Green materialism sounds a whole lot better than Green spirituality !

[Author]

Posts