The singularity and socialism
- This topic has 20 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Has anyone come across this book before – "The Singularity and Socialism: Marx, Mises, Complexity Theory, Techno-Optimism and the Way to the Age of Abundance". It was published in 2015. Any observations? Here's an interview with the author
I gave three interviews so far with another 1000 word review coming out soon. Click on the links below http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/murphy20150626 http://www.seriouswonder.com/singularity-socialism-interview-author-c-james-townsend/ http://adamalonzi.libsyn.com/the-economics-of-the-singularity-with-c-james-townsend-mises-marx-complexity-theory-techno-optimism-and-the-way-to-abundance
On the Mises type argument we have I believe the following. “The charge that sways juries and offends public sensitivities … is that greedy corporations sacrifice human lives to increase their profits. Is this charge true? Of course it is. But this isn’t a criticism of corporations; rather it is a reflection of the proper functioning of a market economy. Corporations routinely sacrifice the lives of some of their customers to increase profits, and we are all better off because they do. That’s right, we are lucky to live in an economy that allows corporations to increase profits by intentionally selling products less safe than could be produced. The desirability of sacrificing lives for profits may not be as comforting as milk, cookies and a bedtime story, but it follows directly from a reality we cannot wish away.” http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/charles_kochs_disturbing_high_school_economics_20160602 Now some might think this sounds more like; Friedrich Nietzsche CHAPTER IX (What is Noble?) Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;–but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch09.htm But no it isn’t as we see when the argument is played out. By saving money on cheaper, less safe cars, one can spend more money on other more life enhancing things like good health insurance when the brakes fail. And thus it is up to the consumer to rationally decide on the marginal utility of the one over the other. I suppose the ‘external costs’ of being knocked off your bike with a car with bad brakes can be covered by the no win no fee free market ambulance chasers. So everything is ok in the end. Nietzsche didn’t like socialist much and perhaps Anarchist less; depending on whether being called a rabble or Christian is worse. I think he thought of socialists as Leninist and Blanquist really and on that I think he had something interesting to say re vanguardism that resonated with me anyway. And ‘anarchists’ would for him fit in more neatly with libertarian communism and us I suppose. So take it on the chin; we are the ancestors of early Christianity. THE ANTICHRIST by Friedrich Nietzsche Published 1895 Translation by H.L. Mencken Published 1920 Page 57 Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence— who make him envious and teach him revenge…. Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of“equal” rights…. What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.— The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry…. De-railing the thread now. I suspect that there was a literally Genre from the 18th century onwards of allegorical and metaphoric irony. It was used quite frequently in the politically repressive Stalinist bloc as part of the culture of ‘comedy’. As far as the 19th century Germans of a Hegelian disposition were concerned, more famous for their humour than the French like Rousseau, taking the complete opposite ‘critical’ position, whatever that was, was considered creative and therefore good. Actually the ‘content’ of Socratic dialectics and dialectics. I think Karl got a bit pissed of with that with his anti Bauer ‘criticising criticism’? Don’t worry it is not that much high brow bollocks if you can understand playing devils advocate. I think I have learned loads in the past by putting a capitalist, von mises hat on arguing with my other avatar self and realising when I was getting into trouble, further down the line, and over what before my avatar was. I think Stirner was a complete joker! Stirner who asked what was wrong with having recreational sex with your mother in 1842; which is a bit over the top today. According to his wife suffered from erectile dysfunction after he opened the bathroom door and saw her naked getting out of the bath. It is a field day for the Freudians and ‘archetypal’ Jungians; Stirner, the European Bête Noir, taught Greek in a young ladies finishing school. Greek and Roman mythology is replete with unsuspecting males accidentally discovering female idols in various undressed states when bathing, eg Daphne which never turned out well. Sorry, got fed up with Marx and I am reading Ovid now and the planet nine stuff.
During your interview with Serious Wonder you mention:It also shows the futility of the present groping after a transeconomic mechanism that will allow us to solve today’s problems that movements like the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement are trying to find in a mythical Resource Based System, but failing to, as they don’t have an understanding of valid economics which an RBE refutes. Having followed TZM since its formation I'm intrigued on how you reached this conclusion. How does a RBE refute valid economics? My understanding of a RBE is its end goal is socialism. A system of society based on production for use, free access to human need, where money has no function, the state no purpose and capital and labour a mention in the literature dedicated to system analysis and the revolutionary process.
I dont have time to engage in every comment section, my book has all the relevant facts and notes on this subject. Thank you
Then why should we bother to discuss your idea? But it does mean that I don't need to finish ploughing through that interview to try and understand what you're trying to get at. I suspended my reading about a quarter through because up to then most of it came across as pretentious waffle and name dropping.
Your response is why I don't debate or discuss my work in comment sections. #1 an in depth discussion that is based on years of research cant be covered in so small a space. #2. I run into people who are only interested in pointless argument and/or blog droping. And By your response it is obvious that it would not be a fruitful exchange. You've already descended into immature comments.
You don't have to discuss with me but I thought you might have had the politeness to discuss with the others who have shown an interest in and commented on your ideas rather than dismissing them by saying haven't got the time.
Cjames1961 wrote:I dont have time to engage in every comment section, my book has all the relevant facts and notes on this subject. Thank youHaving listened to the podcast and glanced through your book, unfortunately I failed to find any facts and notes which explain why a RBE refutes valid economics. I may well have missed them so it would be appreciated if you would kindly narrow down the search by referring me to the relevant chapter(s) which explain your assertion in more detail.
ALBOne person who is commenting here is why I don’t waste my time anymore discussing in-depth complex ideas in comment sections. As he said he "glanced through [my] book" which is truly a case of intellectual dishonesty. Doing hermeneutical hopscotch through anyone’s work to find one thing you disagree with, never engaging the content deeply and honestly, and then “repudiating” it is truly a farcical pastime. Strawman arguments appeal only to strawman intellects. People who do these kind of things only goal seems to be to appear “superior” to minor intellects and get them not to read any book they take an instant reactionary dislike to. Having never read it fully themselves, or done any in depth research on the subject matter from all sides, they of course are an expert in the field.Since the Marxian economist Meghnad Desai read my book and enjoyed it an acknowledged that I was correct that he pulled his punch at the end of his book and that I completed his own train of reasoning is more than enough acclaim for me. I have had Techno-Marxist’s rave about it as well. One said it was the best book on Marx he had read in a long long time. Across the spectrum and from every political vantage point those who have truly read it in depth have enjoyed it. In fact, the only people who “don’t get it” have been conservatives. Conservatives seem to have a mental block where this kind of “evolutionary” and technological content is concerned. They are also reactionary against the term “socialism” in the title.I personally adhere to the older “Promethean ideals” of socialism. This is firmly based in honesty, virtue, integrity, especially intellectual honesty, and honor. The Sargasso Sea of today, lying for expediency on behalf of one’s beliefs/ideology I truly abhor. We have lowered ourselves by engaging in tactics that have not built socialism up, but rather have torn it intellectually down. Many on the neo-left today have so narrowed their intellectual horizons that they are living in a rut, by a rigid petrified catechism that is not open to any other interpretations of the “faith” they believe in. Or what is truly sad, they have a “blogged consciousness.” They speak, think and post in patchwork blog memes thrown out at random as an answer to any content they may find “difficult” or “troubling.” It is truly sad as Marx himself said, “Question everything.” At each new millennium it is customary to reexamine what has gone before and to look forward to what can be, based on correcting any erroneous interpretations of the past. The Frankfurt school tried to do this in the early 20th century. In that same vein I did my research.I am willing to discuss the issues in my book with anyone who actually reads through it, page by page, and has knowledgeable questions and/or comments. All of my contact info is in the front cover pages.I know that this is not a satisfying answer for people who have been miseducated and “dumbed down” by todays educational system and the internet and want easy quick answers on the fly, but nothing is more satisfying then actually rolling up one’s intellectual sleeves, fully using one’s brain and doing the in depth mental work. Thank you
Thanks.[Edit]Forgot to add that we know Lord Desai and he knows us as we debated him in January 1994 on "Which Way to End Poverty?" Can't remember if he was making the point at that time that we have to put up with capitalism (and poverty) till it is "fully developed".
An in depth discussion based on years of research, according to the "great author" yet in his interview he states:"The high intellectual theorists of Communism/Socialism stated that socialism was only possible in the realm of abundance, and no leftist theorist of any strong Marxian standing that I can think of before the 1950’s advocated a return to medievalism in any form."So years of research never took him as far as William Morris, where was he doing his research, the Public bar of the Crown and Anchor Hotel?
Brian wrote:Cjames1961 wrote:I dont have time to engage in every comment section, my book has all the relevant facts and notes on this subject. Thank youHaving listened to the podcast and glanced through your book, unfortunately I failed to find any facts and notes which explain why a RBE refutes valid economics. I may well have missed them so it would be appreciated if you would kindly narrow down the search by referring me to the relevant chapter(s) which explain your assertion in more detail.
Hmm. I always apply the dictum 'Question everything' and the only reponse I get in this case is the seemingly intellectual brush-off with more than a touch of arrogance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.