[Chadwick]

Vin wrote:

I will put my pennyworth in1.        ‘Science’ is central to the development of the means and instruments of production within capitalism.2.        Socialists  welcome the advanced development of the means of production (including science) within capitalism  as it is one of the prerequisites for the establishment of socialism.3.       Socialists do not seek to destroy the scientific and other advances made within capitalism. On the contrary we intend to use them for the common good.4.       Knowledge is socially produced and this will continue in socialist society.5.       Logically there can be no ‘elite’ control of the knowledge  as knowledge is socially produced.6.       There can be no ‘elite’ where there is no economic control by minorities

 I would have to agree. Even now, it is bizarre to claim that a social elite control science. There is an elite of a kind, but a meritocratic elite, established through competition of ideas.I know little about chemistry, still less about biology, but when it comes to physics it seems difficult to find a discipline so apolitical. Mathematical models stand and fall on how closely they comport with the objective reality we observe, on their predictive power. The only difference I would envisage there being under a socialist economy would be the tight limits on funding being relieved. There would be more avenues of research explored, and hopefully more scientists to carry it out in place of the work they now do on e.g. defense research.

[Chadwick]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

 – no one is going to vote for a world in which they have no enjoyment. Enjoyment is a desire, not a need, so in a socialist world it would not be catered for and come entirely from playing victorian-era games with sticks you find on the forest floor, or perhaps board games you found in your grandmother's attic. 

Necessities will be given precedence over desires, yes. How is that any different to now? Why the baseless assertion that there will be no enjoyment in a Socialist society? It has already been pointed out that much of the 'work' done in our economy now is of no real value. It is reasonable to assume that we will enjoy comparable standards of living with a shorter working week, so there will likely be more enjoyment, not less. Furthermore, take away the stresses and anxieties caused by our current inequitable distribution of resources (Will I ever afford my own house? What will I do if I get too sick to work?) and the depression that so many people feel doing a soul-destroying job (telephone sales and the like), and standards of mental and physical wellbeing will doubtless improve.Once necessities are met, more resources can be put into recreational activities. There is no reason why we cannot enjoy the same kinds of activities we do now. You mention above the possibility of owning a yacht. In reality, you must conceed that the chances of you doing so are vanishingly small. It is not beyond the wit of humankind to establish similar rewards in a democratically run economy. A reward for exeptional service to society might be a year's (or ten years…) ownership of a yacht, or living in a castle. Or it could be won through a lottery. In our present economic system, such rewards go to those who exploit the workforce – is that truly worthy of reward? Are the fat cats and yacht owners of today the true heroes of the economy, the true innovators and ingenious individuals? No. What have Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch or Fergus Wilson actually done for society? James Dyson is about the only worthwhile rich man I can think of, and even he is motivated more by the opportunities he has to further the cause of engineering than by the material wealth he is able to accrue.

[Chadwick]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

It was said earlier that overpopulation was a good thing because it means more hands; but more hands need more space to work in and the only place to put that extra space is where the rainforests and other protected environments currently are. Doesn't sound great for the environment to me. 

What we argue for is a democratically run economy, run therefore to benefit humanity. The problem of over-population, if we all agree it exists, is one we would need to resolve through democratic discussion. What one person suggests now on some internet forum somewhere is neither here nor there. Not to say, mind you, that opinions can't be aired, but we probably need to move away from the minutiae of very specific problems if we are to address your misconceptions (or perhaps ours) regarding Socialism.

[Chadwick]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

Production is carried out by humans, yes, but money is what makes humans willing to work production lines. Remove money, and all you've got is a hundred people going home and reading a book. 

Can you really not see other possible ways of encouraging people to work? Even now, think about your work place. People feel very strongly that they do not want to let the side down. When the clock hits 5, sure, some people bolt for the door, but for the most part it's apologetically. Those who gleefully leave their colleagues hard at work get talked about. There is no reason why, if for example it is recommended that the average working week consist of at least 30 hours in order to meet a decent standard of life for all, any significant proportion of the workforce should shirk their duty to society. Should such a proportion exist and as a result the average working week rose to 35 hours, think how much stronger still those looking to shirk their duties would feel they are being anti-social. Note that it doesn't require a police force to encourage people to conform to acceptable behaviour, the way in which drink-driving is regarded in British society is testament to that.So what happens if nobody volunteers for dustbin collection? Perhaps if, in recognition of the unpleasant nature of the work that such workers were only asked to work 15 hours per week instead of 30 we might get more volunteers. Or perhaps they get their sports car and retirement 5 years earlier. These are just suggestions. Other possible solutions exist.

[Chadwick]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

"By definition, capitalism doesn't waste resources. The whole idea of capitalism is to reduce expenditure as much as possible. "

But in practice it does nothing of the sort. Think of the panicked tones in which slumps in consumer spending are announced. But what does such a slump really mean? Do we really need to be buying every new thing that comes on the market? Why do we need new numberplates every six months? To try and encourage people to buy more new cars. Is this really necessary? Why does Apple bring out a new computer/phone/watch every few months? Sure, the technology is better, but the root technology, the solid state drives and what have you, is typically no different to that in the previous model. It's just a ploy (which only makes sense in the capitalist model) to keep us spending.Looking at the impact if consumer culture on the environment, is it really the way to go in the future? Do we really need exponential growth in energy consumption? Can we afford to keep the game going? These are irrelevant questions in capitalism, because anything that turns a profit is good. Socialism offers a sane, sustainable model for the future of humanity.

[Author]

Posts