Status differentiation in a socialist society
- This topic has 29 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Bijou Drains wrote: “No doubt, in L Bird world we will have to have a full world wide plebiscite before we fall in love.”
Thanks, BD, you’ve confirmed my suspicions!
You can’t tell the difference between ‘social production’ and ‘individual emotion’!
Seriously, though, unless you address the political issue (is democratic production fundamental to a future socialist society?), then we’ll never get onto discussing Vygotsky, for example. I know that you’ve some interest in him, but we’ve never managed to discuss him and his Marxism.
robbo203 wrote: “To keep it simple, society is not going to vote on what I eat for breakfast or what clothes I put on when I get up in the morning, is it?”
You’re having the same problem as Bijou Drains, robbo.
The difference between ‘personal, individual consumption’ and ‘social production’.
Conflating the two is a common conservative tactic – “The Communists will force you to share your underpants!”. “The Communists will collectivise your window-boxes!”.
Understanding sarcasm deoesn’t seem to be your strong suit does it, Birdy boy.
I suppose it’s because most people take your views and ideas seriously (Sarcasm alert- Sarcasm alart-Sarcasm alert!)
Bijou Drains wrote: “Understanding sarcasm deoesn’t seem to be your strong suit does it, Birdy boy.”
And understanding that you’re being given the benefit of the doubt doesn’t seem to be yours, Drainy content!
BD wrote: “I suppose it’s because most people take your views and ideas seriously (Sarcasm alert- Sarcasm alart-Sarcasm alert!)”
I suppose it’s because I am trying to take your views and ideas seriously (Politics alert – Philosophy alert – Socialism alert!)
Is this really the low standard of political engagement that the SPGB sets itself? Piss-taking is no substitute for educated debate.
So, no political discussion about ‘Status Differentiation in a Socialist Society’, and especially the role of democracy in that differentiation?
The difference between ‘personal, individual consumption’ and ‘social production’.
Conflating the two is a common conservative tactic – “The Communists will force you to share your underpants!”. “The Communists will collectivise your window-box
This is precisely why you are playing into the hands of those very conservatives by suggesting that that is precisely what communism would do!
LB (much as I love you and your cookie ideas dearly) – Having spent many years of fruitless attempts to engage with you about your frankly bizarre ideas regarding the requirement of holding plebiscites about scientific theory, claims that you can provide no evidence of any living person supporting, ideas which you have provided no supporting evidence or citable quotations from any noted political source to back up your proposed system of universal plebiscites, claims that are based purely based on your self assertion that Marx thought this, or Marx said the other, I have given up any attempt to engage you in any rational or productive debate.
We now have the spectacle of another interesting debate about the nature of status within a Socialist Society sidelined by your personal hobby horse.
No doubt you will counter any views or arguments other than those with telling those who disagree with you that they “talk to rocks”. You refuse to answer any of the obvious flaws in your proposals such as:
“considering the enormous number of scientific theory how could resources be allocated to carry out the necessary number of plebiscites required”
“even if the plebiscites were held, what would happen to those of us who think that alternative theories are more plausible that than the ones receiving the majority vote”
“If a scientific orthodoxy (voted on by a plebiscite) turns out to be incorrect, what is the process for changing that orthodoxy?”Your only response is to state that anyone who asks these questions doesn’t understand Marx.
That is not a process of debate, that is you stating the same thing over and over again, a dictatorship of one.
Anyone who doesn’t indulge you with discussion of your impractical, unsupported and idiosyncratic notions, is dismissed as being either a Leninist, a crass idealist or uneducated.
Fortunately for you, it appears that you believe that reality exists only within the confines of your own furtive imaginings. Therefore as I don’t materially exist, you don’t need to worry. Clearly I am a figment of your oppressed consciousness.
As I have stated in the past, no doubt we would get along like a house on fire if we were having a couple of pints together and shooting the breeze and I wish you no ill. Sadly, however, your debating style of ignoring the questions asked about your views leaves with me no other option than use my default option of taking the piss, so taking the piss I have and taking the piss I will continue.
Bijou Drains wrote: “LB (much as I love you and your cookie ideas dearly) – Having spent many years of fruitless attempts to engage with you about your frankly bizarre ideas regarding the requirement of holding plebiscites about scientific theory, claims that you can provide no evidence of any living person supporting, ideas which you have provided no supporting evidence or citable quotations from any noted political source to back up your proposed system of universal plebiscites, claims that are based purely based on your self assertion that Marx thought this, or Marx said the other, I have given up any attempt to engage you in any rational or productive debate.”
I’m not sure why someone as bright and often as funny as you should continue to repeat the ‘straw man’ approach to political debate.
Instead of engaging with (and, if necessary, criticising) what I write, you all seem to adopt the same method as (unfortunately, as I’ve said before) Lenin and his ‘materialism’. That is, make up an position that the opponent doesn’t hold, slander the opponent with personal insults, and put forward a frankly outdated argument that convinces no-one. That’s what Lenin did in his Materialism and Emperiocriticism, and is what you’re doing now. No-one now reads Lenin’s works for political enlightenment, only for lessons of how-not-to-do politics and philosophy.
Anyone who’s followed my posts has found hundreds of ‘supporting evidence and citable quotations’, covering Marx, Engels, politics, philosophy, physics, logic, psychology, etc. These cover Kant, Labriola, Sorel, Brzozowski, Dietzgen, Bogdanov, Lukacs, Untermann, Korsch, Pannekoek, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Vygotsky, Fleck, Zilsel, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Smolin, to name a few, and not including the many historians, because even I’m tiring of trying to reason with you with evidence.
Still, to end on a positive note, I agree that having a pint (or several), would probably turn out to be a good laugh. I always enjoy it when your more subtle sense of humour is given an outing, even when it’s directed at me.
As for the complexity of debating politics and philosophy, though, mate, you’re clearly in the right party!
“As for the complexity of debating politics and philosophy, though, mate, you’re clearly in the right party!”
I didn’t realise it was a party, I thought it was a work event. Nobody warned me that the SPGB was a Party. I have therefore informed Her Majesty the Queen that I was a member of the Socialist Party during the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral. I only went to Head Office for 25 minutes.
Forum rules
Your use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules.1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.
3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.
4. Do not use the forum to send any material that you know or should know would expose the SPGB to criminal or civil liability. This includes but is not limited to material which constitutes libel, harassment, or violation of copyright. You may, of course, quote portions of third-party publications for ‘fair dealing’ purposes such as criticism or review.
5. Do not use the forum to send any material or links to material that you know or should know contains or exposes readers to malware, computer viruses, trojans, and so forth.
6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.
9. Do not vandalise or tamper with the forums in order to deface them, to impersonate or deny access to others, or to evade the enforcement of these rules.
10. You retain the copyright to the original material you post. By posting on these forums you grant the SPGB and its successors and assigns a non-exclusive irrevocable right to publish your posting in any manner it or they see fit without notice or compensation to you.
11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.
12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.
13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.
14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
I hope the above isn’t directed at BD’s last post as I found it very amusing. We need more humour in the ‘Party’.
I hope the above isn’t directed at BD’s last post as I found it very amusing. We need more humour in the ‘Party
It is directed at everyone.
I always thought that being humourous WAS a way of raising my social status (the topic of discussion). However to be fair to MC my family and loved ones HAVE always WARNED ME that it wasn’t big and wasn’t clever, a bit like swearing and farting. (Where we still diverge)
In childhood it definitely provided a degree of protection from the myriad of psychopaths and general “heed the balls” that inhabited my particular part of working class culture.
And I would hope, actually insist, that taking the piss is a prerequisite of any socialist society.
A point that I am certain that my antagonist/partner in crime, L Bird would, possibly for once, support me!
Bijou Drains wrote: “A point that I am certain that my antagonist/partner in crime, L Bird would, possibly for once, support me!”
‘Possibly for once‘? I always support your use of humour in discussions, BD! Even taking the piss out of me!
In fact, I’d elect you to a higher status! [to keep mod happy, about course of this topic, and my democratic concerns regarding ‘differentiation’]
[edit] BD for the status of ‘Chief-head-the-ball’!
And I would hope, actually insist, that taking the piss is a prerequisite of any socialist society.
Actually, BD, that is a very perceptive point and one that directly connects with the topic under discussion
In hunter-gatherer societies, one of the ways in which the group ensured its egalitarian nature was by taking the piss out of anyone who sought to get above their station and lord it over others (remember the distinction between status hierarchies and dominance hierachies – this would be a case of wanting to transform the former into the latter)
Anyway here’s an interesting peice on the subject:
The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone’s boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone—especially some young man—attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.