Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m fairly sure I read Marx’s description of the difference between private property and personal property a little while back. (Might have been the Civil War in France, I recently moved house and my books are still all over the place). He used the term abolition of private property in terms of the creation of private private property from the (then historically much more recent) enclosures of what had been common property from which capital had accumulated leding to factories, etc. and personal property, that being homes, furniture and personal posessions, etc.
robbo203 wrote: “…democracy has its limits…”
I don’t suppose that you’ll tell what these limits are, and who determines these limits, and how they do so.
The limits to democracy will be set democratically and will likely vary according to the particular circumstances. For instance democracy very likely wouldn’t entail a world wide plebiscite on what I was going to have for my breakfast, however democratic decisions about what different types of foodstuffs would be grown might limit my choices to the extent that a breakfast of lark’s tongues in aspic might not be on the menu. However if for some reason there was a pestilant plague of larks, it might be decided (through whatever democratic structure had democratically been decided upon) to get those delicious little song birds back on the menu.
Similarly with music, the amount of resources used to produce musical instruments might be decided by democratic methods, what people use the instruments to play would not. I would argue that the stradivarious violins and the 1950s Les Paul Guitars would be commonly owned and accessed by the most proficient musicians (which again might be decided by some democratic method)
How much of the community resources are used to record and distribute recordings (although the amount of resources used to do this now are far less than they have every been and in a resource rich society should not be an issue) might be decided democratically, what people choose to listen to from what is produced would not.
(and as it happens, his list of favourite artists reads exactly like one of mine!).
Hang on, should the proletariate not have had a vote on that???
Whilst I acknowledge the influence of marketing on music, I would argue that with greater creative access you get greater musical creativity and that creativity always out does the marketing strategy of capitalism.
Whether it’s Robert Johnson screwing a pick up on a guitar, Elvis Presley blending blues with country music, Charlie Parker using contrafact to change melodies, the 60’s British blues movement sending blues back to America, punk rock cutting out the record companies and making their own records, through to kids now, using YouTube to publicise their own music and blending old with new, the greater the access the greater the music.
A socialist society would surely open up a plethora of musical avenues, not ones limited by “what sells” or whose daddy owns the record company.
L Bird’s concept of the tyranny of the majority, where somehow musical production is based on some kind of voting system where only the popular is produced sounds like some kind of Eurovision hell to me.
Perhaps our feathered friend would benefit from reading a little more William Morris.
I forgot, BD, that you won the Chase and are just the person to have on a quiz team.
Is that not elitism, comrade?
ALB –
With the exception of the Animals all of them
Kinks – Ray Davies
The Small faces Marriott – Lane
The Who – Townshend
Cream – Bruce and Clapton mainly
Free – Rogers and FrazerBijou Drains wrote: “No doubt if you get your way all we’ll get to listen to will be The Birdy Song and the Feckin Beatles (the world’s most over rated band)”
Hey, I’ve got a soft spot for The Animals, and Eric Burdon’s voice!
It’s not that I dislike the Beatles, but that I think the view that they were muscial geniuses without compare in their era is an overstatement. I don’t think they were head and shoulders above their contemporaries. The Kinks, The Small Faces, The Who, Van Morrison, Cream, Free (and maybe the Animals) were producing equally good if not better music at the time.
Which goes to show the individuality of musical taste and why Socialism and the release from the fetter of the money system, will unlease an even greater variety of musical talent.
Bijou Drains wrote: “So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.”
L Bird wrote “If these social products were not subject to democracy, BD, who do you have in mind that would have power over them?”
So we’re going to have a society that votes on whether or not a song can be produced, whether or not a book can be produced, whether or not a painting can be produced.
I don’t think your a Socialist after all, you’re really Simon Cowell’s evil twin, who’s been taking too much bad acid!!
No doubt if you get your way all we’ll get to listen to will be The Birdy Song and the Feckin Beatles (the world’s most over rated band)
You do right to be suspcious of Freud, but fair play to him he did have moments of high insight (the unconscious mind for instance).
I would argue that in a more limited sense abstract thinking is present in some some animal minds. If you think of Pavlov and his dogs, the association between ringing bells and food is to an extent abstract.
I would argue that in human babies that abstract is far greater, Attachment theory suggests that out experiences of the first two years of our lives are highly important for all kinds of symbolic thought and associations, Object Relations theory and Fairbairns six ego positions theory are all very much based on the importance of symbolic thought in pre verbal children (although a word of caution, the whole world population have not had a vote on any of these theories)
ALB, I think there’s a whole different thread on when abstract thinking begins, however there is a plethora of evidence that shows that abstract thinking is a process that infants use, even before they develop language. There is similar evidence that similar processes continue into adult life, it’s just that we are less aware of that form of thinking.
That’s why Paul Gascoigne, who can hardly string a sentence together can be considered a genius with a football, similar for musical genius, artistic genius, etc. None of which require thought in the form of language.
ALB – Although I agree with you, I must take you up on the point you make “because no one can think without language”, Babies don’t have language, but it would be wrong to assume that babies do not think. The concept of pre verbal thinking is acknoledged from Freud to Vygostksy.
So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…you state that the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity.”
No, BD, Marx stated this. I just happen to agree with Marx.
Again you make assertions that are incorrect. Where did Marx actually state the exact following words “the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity”,
If you are unable to produce the exact quote, I can only assume you haven’t got it.
Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, etc. argued that we need to account for both ideal and material. They are both part of humanity.
Agreed
The only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity. Or, social production.
You have made an assertion without any supporting evidence, you state that the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity. Human activity is not the only form of animal consciousness, animals as diverse as octupuses and ravens have used tools to consciously change their environment.
Thus, social production is regarded as the creator of material and ideal. And if we create both, we can change both, which was Marx’s whole point.
Again an assertion with no underpinning evidence. Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter state “we need to account for both ideal and material” accounting for both the material and the ideal does not elevate social production to the status of the creator of material and ideal, therefore your conclusion that “if we create both we can change both” is invalid and illogical. Furthermore even if it were true it does not follow that just because you create something it is possible that you can change it. As a species we create an awful lot of carbon dioxide through breathing, that doesn’t mean we can change the way we breathe
“Yellow is found between green and orange on the spectrum of visible light. It is the color the human eye sees when it looks at light with a dominant wavelength between 570 and 590 nanometers.”
I propose that this scienists’ definition be put to a world referendum. Is there a seconder?
ALB, you are displaying your elitist tendencies! You naughty materialist. Surely before we can define yellow we need to define colour, wavelengths, spectrum, nanometers and perhaps more importantly the concept of number. Unless we democratically decide the socially produced concept of number, we are guilty of Leninist-Englesian distortion of Marx!!!! and anyway, who said you could use letters to signify speech without having a vote on it.
“power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony……….. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you……………. I mean, if I went ’round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!”
