Hud955
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Still think the following is not a bold sweeping statement to make?Hud955 wrote:The Middle ages were very much a devil-take-the-hindmost kind of society whose social values were far from the ones you propose. This is even more pronounced in hunter gatherer societies, which have been around not for thousands but for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years. These societies are not known for holding compassion in very high esteem. Those that we know of all develop extreme forms of individualism, and members of these societies tend not to help one another when they are in trouble
LOL. Of course I do. What on earth do you think your few casual quotes add up to? Let's just take your aboriginal example. It is rarely a good idea to generalise from traditional Australian aboriginal culture since so much of it was destroyed and altered by heavy contact with Europeans from the nineteenth century onwards. Almost no aboriginal people now live by hunting and gathering, and for a long time many denied their culture and abandoned it. They are now just in the process of rediscovering or remaking it, so there is a real problem of historical continuity. And of course as every anthropologist knows (and as every socialist knows when listening to the ideological claims of any culture) you have to interpret carefully what you read and hear. But even if that were not the case, what would we be able to conclude about aboriginal culture from the extract you quoted? Not a lot I would suggest. Perhaps that families love one another and they have a powerfully ritualised way of expressing that love. Another of your quotes demonstrates, perhaps, that hunter gatherer parents love their children Of course they do! What on earth would you expect? What makes you think that the fact that they have these pretty universal human feelings towards their families defines their social behaviour, which grows out of their social neccessity and not out of family feeling. As, I think, twc is pointing out, trying to intepret cultural 'values' for people whose social conditions are so different from ours and claim them as models for socialism is a dangerous game.Just to reinforce the point, by no means all Australian aboriginal groups were band hunter gatherers. So we need to know what sort of social organisation we are hearing about. Many lived in stratified societies which were not at all egalitarian. In some aboriginal groups, for instance, the disposal of women was historically controlled by older men, so that younger men had to subordinate themselves to obtain a wife. The fact that people can bewail their dead doesn't mean they live in societies that are naturally built around the feelings (or values) of caring, or altruism or egalitarianism. What's happened to your Marxian materialism, SP? Their societies develop in ways that meet the demands of their material conditions and in band hunter-gatherer societies, there appears to be a huge demand for people to be individually self-reliant. There are many, many accounts from anthropologists, some of which will be found in the books I suggested, of people being left to die when they could easily have been helped. Women too are often expected and expect to get on with childbirth by themselves, and when things go wrong, they are often neither comforted nor helped.As for the words you quote from me, they make my point nicely. Picking casual quotes from the Daily Mail, (of all places), or isolated pieces of research demonstrates nothing. It takes a lot of work to synthesise the mass of anthropological data that has been accumulated over the last hundred years. So, in my view at least it is best not to try to hang 'bold' statements of the kind you are making on isolated bits of (in several cases highly dubious) evidence but to go instead to where you will find good generalist analyses. And when you find that there is broad agreement over that analysis, then you accept it. Frankly, when it comes to choosing between the considered opinions of the experienced, and the romanticising of the wishful, I think I know where I prefer to look.
ALB wrote:Whatever else can or cannot be said about "primitive communism" it was:1. The original state of our species homo sapiens which lasted for tens of thousands of years..2. A society based on free access to nature and the sharing of its products.3. Non-hierarchical, i.e a society without social classes.4. A society without a State, i.e without any body of armed men to enforce social discipline (i.e, to stay strictly on topic, without a "police force"). In fact an alternative name amongst anthropologists for such societies is "societies without a state".We point to this of course to show that humans can live in a society without classes, a state, private property or money because they once did, not because we want to idealise the hunter-gatherer way of life. What we want is to create the above social conditions of these societies but on a world scale and on the basis of modern technology which has made this possible.There's a relevant article in the December 2006 Socialist Standard here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2006/no-1228-december-2006/driven-edenCompletely agree with your conclusion Adam and what you say of primitive communism is also true, though it is not so obvious that all hunter gatherer communities did live in a condition of primitive communism. It is only those groups that lived from day to day that this can be said of. It takes very little for social stratification to begin to appear – the storage of food for example. If you reframe your statement to refer to early hunter gatherers rather than 'primitive communism' 1. is definitely true; 2 is very largely true, though not universally by any means; 3 is largely true though evidence of some 'stratified' forms of early society have been discovered by archaeologists (though I don't know enough about that to comment). 4. is also true. I agree with YMS too. Assassination as a form of social control is common within hunter gatherer societies. The normal way of controlling disruptive members is leg pulling and social opprobrium. When that doesn't work, expulsion from the band is normal. And if they refuse to go, some lads get together and bump them off. The murder rate is also very high, though perhaps less than some popular writers have claimed. In principle though you are right and hunter gatherers have some very interesting lessons for us. But we shouldn't romanticise them or turn them into a model for socialism. Their relationship to the means of production will not be the same as in socialism and their level of subsistence is very different. Most goods in hunter-gatherer societies are not owned in common (the unit of possession is generally the family), but that is because most goods are not the means of production. And their concept of possession is of course very different from our concept of ownership.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hud955 wrote:The Middle ages were very much a devil-take-the-hindmost kind of society whose social values were far from the ones you propose. This is even more pronounced in hunter gatherer societies, which have been around not for thousands but for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years. These societies are not known for holding compassion in very high esteem. Those that we know of all develop extreme forms of individualism, and members of these societies tend not to help one another when they are in troubleI would be very interested to see the evidence for this rather bold statement..
Try:The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways by Robert L Kelly (the early chapters give a good account of the history of studies among foragers – the current term in anthropology for hunter gatherers. One of the best ways to get into the subject at something more than the popular level.)The Cambridge encyclopaedia of hunter gatherers. (Gives a good overview of various cultures, though is a bit vague about what it defines as hunter gatherers).The other side of Eden by Hugh Brody (Looks at hunter gatherers in general but particularly focuses on the Inuit – a great read)Life histories of the Dobe !Kung by Nancy Howell (Much as it says)Anthropology and the Bushman by Alan Barnard (Barnard is always worth reading. He is usually accessible and fair minded.)On primitive society by C R Hallpike (Hallpike is now retired and a bit crusty but he is very easy to read and gives a good general overview.)or practically anything else on the subject. Far from being a 'bold' statement, this is really very uncontroversial stuff. The evidence is long-standing and overwhelming. Though you will get all sorts of confusing views promoted by popular writers, largely because they do not distinguish between the various kinds of hunter-gatherer groups and their very different forms of organisation.
Steve, it is because I am a member of the SPGB, a Marxist and a materialist that I fundamentally disagree that values are the starting point of any socialist discussion. I'm really very surprised to hear all this idealist thinking coming from you and SP.
Steve. LOL. I haven't a clue what your comments about religion and original sin are aimed at. Your comments appear to have missed the whole point of my comment and to provide no answer to it even though they appear to disagree with it. Take another look.If you claim that anthropologists have falsified the evidence, for whatever personal reasons, where then are you getting your information on hunter gatherers from? I'm guessing that you haven't spent your life doing field work among them. The view you present of hunter-gatherers is a sentimental one. Many social anthropolgists in the past had Marxist leanings, (though their Marxism tended to be of the 'vulgar' variety.) Socialists need to look the evidence squarely in the face and deal with it.Just to pick up one point, for example: many hunter-gatherer groups *are* socially stratified. Some, like the Indians of the pacific north west are even slave owners. This is why social anthropologists divide them into various categories of social organisation. I spoke of 'band hunter-gatherers' which are those that have an egalitarian lifestyle. Many others don't. Those that do are not, as you believe, full of compassion and empathy. This is a myth. Band hunter-gatherer societies whether they are found in the arctic or in the African Savannah are universally individualistic in their organisation. They share, and they work together for the mutual interest of the group, but they are not what we would call alutruistic or compassionate or empathic at all in their relationships. Individuals are brought up from the moment they are born to know their own mind, to act on it and to take complete responsibility for their own lives. They do not, on their whole, go out of their way to help each other when they are in trouble. The research of anthropologists of all political tendencies from field studies around the world over a very long period confirms this over and again.
SocialistPunk wrote:Did Karl Marx suddenly one day think, "I know, I think I will formulate a critical analysis of the current economic system, just for a laugh." I wonder if he was at all motivated by the industrial scale misery he saw on a daily basis, as a result of capitalism? I expect he sought to improve socialism, make it a stronger more robust ideology that could be a realistic basis for positive revolutionary change….With that in mind, it is not unreasonable to expect a socialist society to start off with a given set of values that are at the opposite end of the scale to that of capitalism. The two ideologies are opposites, are they not?Where is the problem?the problem is that no, you can't expect socialism to start off with a given set of values. The strength of the socialist case is that it doesn't require people to have good postive, communitarian values before they can establish a good positive, communitarian society. Some people may be primarily motivated by a hatred of the capitalist class. Some may be just sick of capitalism and have given little through to what will replace it. Some may have fearful or entirely selfish or self-centred reasons for wanting it. I know some socialists who happily admit to that, and as a young man I guess it was true of me too. Some might only have a partial understanding of their exploitation and be going along for the ride because they feel it is safer to go with the majority. There could be all kinds of reasons why people might join a socialist movement. Of course it is true to say that people who have the values of a Cameron or a Thatcher are unlikely to become socialists, but black and white arguments like that are fallacious. There are many other possible values which may motivate socialists. Marx grounds his theory in material conditions and not in values for a reason. The reason is that material conditions (wage-labour relationships) are uniform and social; 'values' are individual are various. Capitalism may cause people to respond with all kinds of values from socialist ones to facist ones. We could have no faith in human values unless we were clear that behind the arising of values there lies a material and historical process (the exploitative nature of capitalism) that is driving values in a socialist direction. Human beings have a huge capacity for co-operative working or living. That's true, but capitalism is not going to bring that fully out in them. But if capitalism hasn't, we presume that socialism will. Then we have to ask what values will be most appropriate. We can't be absolutely sure. It may be for instance that in the early days of socialism, we will need ego-fuelled techies fascinated with problem solving rather than caring, compassionate types to feed the millions that capitalism had abandoned. Who knows? The material conditions will decide that.
I disagree SP. Human beings almost certainly have a *capacity* or *potentiality* to feel compassion, behave altruistically, and create democratic institutions, just as they have a capacity to feel rage, act violently and develop tyrannies. But the claim that compassion etc has been around in society for thousands of years in any significant degree, is not obviously true. The fact that in Western society it has always been held up as an ideal to aim for, demonstrates the degree to which it was, in fact, lacking. In Western Europe the huge change towards more humane ways of treating each other and more respectful ways of behaving towards the human body only began in the eighteenth century. The Middle ages were very much a devil-take-the-hindmost kind of society whose social values were far from the ones you propose. This is even more pronounced in hunter gatherer societies, which have been around not for thousands but for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years. These societies are not known for holding compassion in very high esteem. Those that we know of all develop extreme forms of individualism, and members of these societies tend not to help one another when they are in trouble. There are a very great many accounts of this in the anthropological literature. (People often confuse co-operation with compassion, empathy altruism etc. These are not the same thing and they don't necessarily go together.) And here lies the problem with the utopian view. People have a strong tendency to project their own values, desires and experiences onto the future (and into the past).While I imagine you are right, Steve, and the lesson of capitalism will haunt socialist society for a long time, memory does eventually fade, so we cannot rely on it forever. And insofar as socialism does sustain its egalitarian character, it may not be the values that SP proposes that will be needed to do that. There is good evidence, for example, to suppose that hunter gather societies are aware of the dangers of social stratification and it is through individualism and not altruism that they have been able to keep it at bay. Of course hunter gatherer societies are not socialist, and I hope SP is right in his belief that compassion and mutual support will be the way socialism develops, but we cannot be entirely sure. We'll have to wait and see.Steve, I imagine you are right again that socialism will seek to minimise physical coercion, though I suspect they will use social disapproval very extensively to maintain social cohesion. Human beings are, and as far as anyone can tell, always have been very sensitive to social disapproval and it is a powerful means of holding society together. Hunter gatherer societies also rely on humour a great deal.
I'm with YMS on this one. I don't think he said anything about Utopia, SP. He spoke about 'utopianism' which is not the same thing. I assume he was referring to a bunch of theories that include the idea that we have to become better people before we can effectively introduce socialism. You're right. We can be remarkably co-operative within capitalism and to my mind that's not particularly surprising. To function at all, capitalism requires a very high degree of co-operation, just as it requires a high degree of competition. But just as we can behave co-operatively in capitalism though, we can also behave in very anti-social, self-centred and competitive ways. From my perspective, socialist theory scores on this point because to achieve socialism it doesn't demand everyone to become better, kinder, more thoughtful and more co-operative first. In a hugely competitive and dog-eat-dog society like capitalism that would sound like a tall order. You might as well go out and tell everyone to 'love thy neighbour as thyself.' All socialism requires is a recognition of material class interest. I agree with you, though, in one sense, because as a socialist movement arises from people who have recognised that they have a common interest in overturning capitalism, they may well begin to acquire a more developed collective consciousness in which co-operative behaviour is reinforced. And in those circumstances more co-operative values are likely to arise in the prelude to socialist wresting control from the capitalist class. But a large scale refocusing of social values in a single direction is only likely to occur if there are shifts in our material conditions or relationships first. Individuals may have many different motives for wanting socialism and many different theories about why they want it or what it will look like once it arrives, but people are only likely to coalesce into a large scale movement if the material conditions arise to focus it in that direction. So, I disagree that you can contrast materialist socialism, (or more perjoratively 'mechanical' socialism) with 'values''. The two are both expressions of our relationship with our environment. But values arise primarily as a consequence of material conditions and only secondarily as a cause of them. It is utopian, I think, to hold to a set of values and then propose a society that is built on them. That might be attractive to the imagination of individuals who hold those values and that vision, but it won't make a mass movement.
It's obviously true that we can't second guess what attitudes a socialist community would take on this issue at any future time or in any particular circumstances. Personally, though, I hope, that they wouldn't be motivated to institute a dealth penalty or any kind of retributive response to anti-social behaviour. I'm just thinking about what kind of institutions would be needed to back that up and I can't say that they would appear very social to me. As far as I can tell there are four reasons for acting against someone who steps out of line socially. You can take your revenge on them; you can place some limitation on them to protect the rest of society from a repetition of their anti-social behaviour; you can make an example of them to deter others from behaving in in a similar way; or you can attempt to 'rehabilitate them by making them understand the consequences of their behaviour. Capital punishment as a form of deterrence or retribution seem a particularly unsocial act to me. Deterrence denies the social identity of a person since they are merely being used as an object to enforce acceptable behaviour in others. Retribution is not much better. It's a comprehensible desire but its main aim is to make those affected feel better. The death penalty in particular seems an excessive way to do this, and in any case, there are far better ways of dealing with rage and anger (and therefore fear) than killing someone. That leaves the two genuinely social motivations of 'rehabilitation' and limitation. Clearly the death penalty is not going to rehabilitate anyone, and though it will effectively limit them from any future anti-social acts, once again it seems excessive. I would presume in a community of freely associating human beings, the aim would be to deal with people who engage in antisocial behaviour by encouraging them wherever possible to behave socially, and, if necessary to protect society in future by placing some limitation on their ability to repeat the behaviour. The minimum effective limitation would be all that was required.I don't like speculating about whether institutions common in capitalism would exist within socialism. I find that confusing.. I think it's probably better to start by asking what would the needs of socialist society be and work outwards from there. Even if I thought that socialist society would need some established coercive force to deal with antisocial behavour, I can't imagine it would be anything like a poorly unacountable, full-time, legally backed 'police force' like we have at present. 'Police force' would therefore be the wrong phrase.
Hi AlexanderWatching 'libertarians' (and fundamental christians) go through their set routines occasionally provides some entertainment but, truth to tell, it soon starts to get boring. And reading through your last post, I have to say, it’s been a long time since I’ve read such a litany of straw-man arguments in one place. What can I say? Judging by the rag bag of strange beliefs you ascribed to me, it’s clear you regard me as a kind of idiot, which is, I suppose, an obvious way of dealing with people whose views you don't take the time to understand. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough? Yet it's hard to be clear with someone who is trying to corner you into a anticipated answer and then starts making wild comments when he doesn't get the expected response.You say at one moment in your last post that you 'literally' do not understand where one of us was coming from. Can we be honest? This is, as we both know, entirely understandable, since socialists are materialists and 'libertarians' are not. We ground our views in the real world of social activity and the experience of real human beings. We don't appeal to airy abstractions and self-justifying definitions, and we don't recognise the 'libertarian's' desocialised and abstract concept of 'the individual' – at least, not as anything belonging in this world.Unlike toads, humans do not live isolated lives. Even before we were human, our ancestors were adapted by millions of years of evolution to social living. This means that, for human beings, there never has been a time when we had an individual existence separate from society. We only become individuals through and within society, and the individual and society are complementary aspects of a single social reality. The productive relationships within the societies we create, moreover, are not just random constructions but have a uniform social character, providing us with a common experience and a common interest. Almost every point of genuine disagreement we have had so far derives from this. If you are interested in a conversation, I'm game, but really, Alexander – get to the point! There's plenty of material to choose from, but I only have time to skim over a couple of issues. Here are some thoughts before I go to bed. It is perfectly legitimate to refer to workers being forced to work for a living. You are wrong, first, in your own terms, since there is no linguistic barrier to the use of the word in this sense. ‘Forced by circumstance’ is a perfectly legitimate usage, and in this case is more accurate than 'pressured' which implies a social alternative. Beyond that, nit-picking over words does not alter social realities. When we consider the material conditions that workers find themselves in, it becomes abundantly clear that being 'forced' into employment exactly describes their social position. Employment is the only way they have of supporting their family and themselves. It is naive to imply, as you do, that as there are opportunities for a few to find alternative ways of making a living in capitalism, this somehow undermines the social reality of the vast majority. Social mobility is very low in all capitalist countries: the alternatives to employment for workers are few, and only a few have the temperament and luck to make use of them. Your comments about a CEO not being able to give up a job are vague or disingenuous. A capitalist (who is not necessarily a CEO) is under no material necessity to work. He has many options. He may, as some do, pay others to run his businesses for him, or he may become an investor rather than industrialist and strain his hearing once a year at a company AGM to hear what income his investment has generated. A capitalist may choose to spend time at the office, read the reports his employees provide him, do deals and make decisions on where his capital will achieve the greatest rate of exploitation. He may, if he wishes, take an interest in the detailed productive activities of his companies, and if he is of an entrepreneurial turn of mind he may even choose to do some productive work. The fact remains, though, that he can choose to do none of these things if it suits him. He may choose to put his capital in the hands of a broker. In the ultimate case, he can, for example, sell off his property and stock and withdraw to a large house in the country and live the live of a person of 'private means', as did so many British capitalists in the mid-nineteenth century. Again, not a choice workers can make. Much the same is true of your landlord. If he owns just one or two properties, yes, he may have to do some work on his rented property to maintain its value and keep it in a condition suitable for letting – just as he would have done if he had he lived in these properties himself. He has probably bought the properties under a buy-to-let mortgage and expects the tenant to pay him enough rent not just to compensate him for the repairs he does but to pay his mortgage. In other words, he expects the tenant to buy the house for him and provide him with an asset as well as an income. If he has to work, then he does not fall into the clear paradigm of a capitalist, but into that grey area between the classes. But once again, cherry picking examples from the margins does not change the facts of life for the vast and representative majority. If your landlord is anything other than in a small way of business, though, he will advance his capital and employ others to carry out all these essential tasks for him. He will engage gas contractors, electricians, general builders, bailiffs, accountants etc. He will set up a housing management company to administer his property, or contract the work to an agency, who will employ its own workers for the task. And once again the same comments apply. All of this, begins also to point to another difference between the working class and the capitalist class. The labour of the working class is productive: it creates wealth. The 'labour' of the capitalist class is merely directed towards extracting wealth from others. 'Wage slavery' is not a term I use myself as most people find it too demeaning to even contemplate, and they prefer to fall back on the claim that socialists only use it to make rhetorical or emotive statements. This is short sighted, since 'wage slavery' is, in fact, an accurate and apt description of the condition of the working class in capitalism. Your rejection of the idea, as far as I can see, is based on a very superficial reading of the various ways 'slavery' as a social relationship has actually manifested throughout history, and also upon the conditions under which the working class survive under capitalism. There is an interesting discussion here if you want to take it further – let me know. Right now though, it would take more time than I have available.As for 'values', I'm tired, Alexander. I'm not going to deal with the absurd pudding you made of my last remarks on this matter. Go back and read again what I wrote and not what you imagined I wrote, and indeed, look back at your comments before that to see why I wrote it. Cheers
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:For example, if I see a banana growing on a tree, I can't claim to "own" it just like that. But if I climb the tree and pick up the banana, everyone intuitively understands that it wouldn't be appropriate for you to just take away the banana from me like I did from the tree.Actually, ISTR when we had a talk addressed by an anthropologist, Camilla Power, she told us of the Tanzanian tribes people who had exactly the opposite view. If one of their number has a honeycomb, someone would just wander up to them, and demand it be handed over, and they just would. The expectation is that food is shared out. [Edited wrong country]
Just to reinforce what you have said, young Smeet, this is an extremely common (almost universal) way of organising affairs among band hunter-gatherers around the world. Although the social norms vary slightly, the principle is always the same: to ensure that no individual member of the band acquires more wealth or status than any other. And the sharing of meat, or the basic foodstuff, is completely universal in this form of social organisation. Many band-hunter gatherer groups have very detailed rules for the sharing of meat, and are very precise about it. In some cases it is not even the hunter who killed the animal that has the right to share it; sometimes, for instance, it is the person who made the arrow. It is also normal among such groups for a skilled hunter to make little of his individual skill. But it goes much deeper than this. Band hunter gatherer groups are universally egalitarian in every way, a fact that makes nonsense of just about all the universalising claims of neo-classical and Austrian economics.Anthropologists and archaeologists are now completely agreed that it was in egalitarian groups like these that we have spent the vast majority of our time on earth as modern humans (about 200,000 years). It is only in the last 10,000 years that we have lived in propertied societies; a mere blip. Your 'intuitive' belief, Alexander, is not a universal of human societies, but merely a reflection of the fact that you have been brought up in a private property society and have unconsicously absorbed its rules and conventions. It is a profoundly false assumption that what seems 'intuitively' true for you as a member of one form of society is 'intuitively' true for all people whatever the form of social organisation they have grown up in. Anthropologists have done a lot of field work among band hunter gatherer groups: inuit, ju/'hoansi, aka, hadza, yamana and many others. What is intriguing is that the basic form of social organisation remains the same whether it is found in the Arctic tundra or at the equator, in mountainous regions or in the savannah.
ALB wrote:I got a joke result too — technical middle class, just because I don't go the opera or know a solicitor. The whole thing is rubbish, or at most a game. Or maybe something more sinister: an attempt to create the illusion that a wage and salary working class no longer exists or is only a dwindling 14% of the population.LOL. What a joke. I got technical middle class even when I did put that I know a solicitor and went to the opera. In fact, I tried answering that I know postal workers and shop assistants and listen to rock and go to gigs. I also tried putting I know a solicitor and office manager and go to the opera and the theatre. I then tried mixing them about. Whatever I put, it made no difference. I'm still technical middle class. Even dafter – the description they give of technical middle class doesn't fit me at all. Clearly their definition of this 'class' is primarily based on financial information
"I do see quite a few problems. For instance, the simple fact that the core of government mainly consists of the "capitalist class", as I'm sure you're well aware of. So it seems incredibly unlikely that they would allow for a true socialist party to ever be elected (just as a truly capitalist party will never be elected)".It is not just unlikely but inconceivable that a capitalist class would 'agree' to a working class dispossessing them of their wealth, and removing the basis on which their social role is built – which is why the overturning of capitalism can only be done by a mass working class movement. As the working class comprise the vast majority of capitalist society and are responsible for its entire wealth production, and as the rule of the capitalist class is currently maintained only by working class acceptance in the economic sphere of the wage labour-capital relationship, in the political sphere of capitalist ideology, and materially by their employment in the military and the police, there is nothing a minority capitalist class could do to prevent a mass working class movement overturning the system. "Or the still fairly open question of how resources would be efficiently allocated in the absence of a monetary system."The' efficient' 'allocation' of resources is a problem only for a propertied (class) society. The aim of a classless society we can suppose is the collective identification and satisfaction of social need. The management of resources to this end can be achieved as it is largely achieved under capitalism, not by monetary, but by material calculation (Von Mises notwithstanding). Money is a very poor indicator of many things a socialist society might come to value and therefore neechoose to calculate, like social need, like a sustainable use of raw materials, like environmental stability,like the needs of family/social life, like congenial work programmes, or democratic involvement in productive decision-making – to name but a few."Or even if it is really possible to make a clear distinction between the working and the capitalist classes."The distinction is very clear but not abosolute. As with any social or large-scale system, categories shade into one another but for the vast majority of people the matter could not be more straightforward. It hinges on people's relationship to the means of production. Those who own sufficient of the means of production not to have to sell their labour to earn a living are members of the capitalist class. Those that do not own sufficient of the means of production and have to sell their labour to survive, are members of the working class. "So, unless I got it completely wrong, I think we have arrived at a fair answer to my main question; namely that socialism strives to adapt social values to whatever serves the purpose of attaining and advancing a classless and moneyless society. Or to put it even more simply – individual socialists can have differing and even contradictory personal values, because the only thing that connects them is their class interest (which can also differ for every individual)".Yes, you got it completely wrong, Alexander. And as long as you continue to try to impose an idealist conceptual framework upon a materialist socialist argument you will go on getting it wrong. Socialism is not about adapting values. It is not about values at all. It is about the necessary working class response to the material pressures within capitalism. And no, as members of the working class, our class position and therefore our class interest is objective and does not differ for every individual. "This explains why it can be rather confusing to read socialist writing – for instance, when they criticize bourgeois ethics from a class interest viewpoint while using the same moral terminology (slavery, robbery, etc.) from a personal values perspective ("I don't want to be a slave.", etc.)."There is a trend in academic philosophy, particularly fashionable about ten years ago, but still around today which claims that words like 'slavery' contain moral judgements. Many now argue against this, as I would – for several reasons. If you want to go into them we can, but these are drily technical arguments and there is a much more important and material point to make: yes, we do use clearly moral termiology, but we use it for a very particular purpose and in a circumscribed manner. We use it to critique capitalism, and in so doing turn capitalist values back against they system that has given rise to them. It is a demonstration of the hypocritical and self-contradictory nature of capitalist ideology. We do not use moral terminology to define or describe socialism as a movement, an aim or a future society.
Hi AlexanderI’ve just seen this discussion for the first time. This is a subject that interests me so I’ve responded to some of your points at some length. That makes this post rather long, but heigh ho! This level of fundamental disagreement is not going to be resolved in a few lines.Socialists do not, as you do, begin with a value framework. Nor, as you seem to suppose, is there any logical or substantial reason why they should. If we can be said to have a value at all it is our class interest, and even that is to stretch a point to meet your need to see things in these terms, since that social interest can be demonstrated objectively whether we acknowledge and value it or not. Even if you see this as a value, it is not a moral value, and socialism is not a moral quest. Your confusion arises because you are trying to squeeze a socialist (materialist) square peg into an abstract (idealist) round hole. And that cannot be done.For instance no evaluative framework is required to define the structure of a future (post-capitalist) world. In a sense, that structure defines itself, as it is the only discernible form of sustainable social structure that could result from the overthrow of capitalist society by the working class in pursuit of its interests. By perceiving, through their daily experience, that private ownership of capital and property is the means by which their interest is thwarted in capitalist society, they develop the motivation to remove it, and in removing it, they create socialism, the propertyless society. The rest follows. Classes have supplanted one another throughout history and none of them have done it for moral reasons – because they believed they ought to. It is even doubtful whether they had a clear idea of where their actions were ultimately taking them. They simply followed their own immediate interests, and this led them to overthrow the existing ruling class whose interests were opposed to their own. This means that you cannot ignore working class interest as you propose. If you try to do this then no real discussion about socialism is possible. The interests of the working class are fundamental. Values like the ‘equality of decision-making power’ are merely consequential on this. If it were possible that working-class interests could be met some other way within socialism than by the abolition of private property, then they would be, and some other set of values would be substituted for the ones we now broadly perceive. As they can’t, equality of decision-making power is not a value for us but a practical means to realise our interests.As it is a practical activity, socialism does not require working people to have a philosophical view. They only have to see that the world they live in, is a world in which their interests are not being served, that the underlying cause is the institution of private property, and then feel sufficiently motivated to do something about that. The only reason socialists might need to be philosophical about this is because there are people out there who are trapped in an abstract and rationalistic way of thinking divorced from real life, and for propaganda reasons their arguments need to be answeredIn fact, when a socialist movement does develop, individuals are likely to have a wide range of different values, some of them selfless some very selfish. The underlying motivation will not be their individual values but their shared class interest.But because our case and our cause are non-evaluative, that doesn’t mean, as you suggest, that we are striving towards a valueless society. That would be impossible. All societies evolve an ethical or evaluative framework in which people live, and that evaluative framework broadly reflects the social relationships that are possible within that society. Socialist society will inevitably evolve its own social values based on its particular and unique social relationships, and no doubt those values will change and develop over time as social institutions change and develop. The task of socialists is to overthrow the property structure of capitalism and in so doing build the social relationships of socialism in the interests of the sole remaining class. Your belief that we should start with values is fundamentally back to front.This is again seen in your assertion that values are subjective, which is assuredly not the case. Values are individual but they are far from subjective. They emerge from their social and ultimately from their material context. The range of values possible in the UK for example, is wholly different from those in the tribal regions of India for example, or from those that existed among pre-soviet peasants. Values themselves take their general character from being adapted to the kinds of societies from which they emerge.So trying to analyse the socialist position in evaluative terms and squeezing an ethical principle out of it is a futile and unproductive activity. The kind of sub-Kantian position which you proposed earlier for example does not fit with socialist materialism at all. We do not place the greatest value on respecting the autonomy of other people’s bodies, thoughts and actions as you suggest. As Adam has pointed out to you, we would deny the autonomy of the thoughts and actions of the capitalist class if they stood in the way of a socialist majority pursuing its interests through socialism. I think you are trapped in an abstract and distinctly ‘capitalist’ way of thinking that does not enable you to see the materialist point of view. Indeed, the reason why this kind of academic abstraction is so pervasive within capitalism is that it effectively diverts attention from the actual material conditions of our lives, and away from material practice which is conditioned by time and space. No substantive conclusion can ever be derived ‘from a purely logical point of view’ since no amount of valid a priori or analytic reasoning can establish a synthetic truth.“At the moment, it eludes me as to why you seem to be denying to hold such basic values. But it is to your own detriment. It prevents you from seeing what is at the core of our social problems. No, it's not money, neither is it "greed" or political corruption or even capitalism itself. I can confidently say that because none of these things prevent you and every other advocate of socialism from going forth and founding a socialist city or state or even merely not participating in the current system by not using the means of exchange as devised by the state to facilitate this system. What prevents you from doing that is force. But it has nothing to do with the capitalists you criticize – apple and walmart can't force you to buy their products or work for them. But the government can (and it does).”The reason it eludes you, Alexander, is that you are trapped in an abstract way of thinking. I think Brian’s post answers your substantive point. No-one forces the working class to support capitalism. It supports it of its own free will. What prevents it from forming a socialist society (neither a city, nor a state) is a majority of socialists. (And we are not particularly interested in mere non-participation in capitalism – because non-participation does not further working class interests. Our aim is wholly different.) Within capitalism, the state and the capitalist class are not exactly the same thing, but they are very close. Historically, classes appeared before the state. The state appears to have emerged to manage the tensions between antagonistic classes and to further the interests of the ruling class that had control of it. The coercive power of the state is no small matter for socialists but it is not an underlying cause of working class problems. The role of the state is to protect the interests of the capitalist class as a whole against those of the working class. The state cannot be eliminated without eliminating capitalism, since capitalism cannot exist without it. As long as you try to superimpose an unrealistic and abstract way of reasoning on these material facts you will fail to understand the case for socialism and your critique will fly wide of the mark.
It is always useful to have an agreed starting point for a group like this – even if you want to keep it very informal. Nothing need be set in stone at this stage and anything decided can then be varied according to need, but having a broad plan at the outset can forestall difficulties later. For example:What are the group's aims? (Not necessarily obvious, and not everyone may have the same idea.) How big do you want it to be? (Beyond a certain size it will become impossible to manage.)Who is going to be invited to join? And therefore how do you want to promote it? Do you want a membership arrangement? (Even if the membership is open to everyone, a semi-formal arrangement can sometimes help to create commitment.) Do you want to treat this first title as a test run, and maybe keep it just to a few people? – or do you want to open it out from the word go? Do you want an open or closed group? Making it open to all is possible but could raise some problems for regular contributers who want to focus on the text and not get caught up in peripheral (or personal or political) issues from casual or outside contributers. What could you do to limit or manage this?If it is an open group, will you allow people join in ad hoc once the reading is under way?Do you want the reading to be structured and ask for structured responses, so everyone moves ahead at the same rate, and talks about the same things (broadly) at the same time? Or do you just want an informal space for people to contribute thoughts and carry out independent conversations? Do you want some rules for responding? How will people use the discussion space, for example? Will it be a free for all? Or do you want to give it a pre-determined structure – even if a minimal one? Do you want a 'moderator' or 'chairperson' with elected decision-making powers? Do you want to ask for positive contributions? Not ones that criticise other people's views? (The content can be the same; only the way preople present it is different.)Do you want to limit the size of contributions? (to prevent some individuals dominating others who are less forthcoming or articulate?)Do you want to work though the first text section by section, discussing each as you go? Or do you read it all through and then pick themes to discuss? Or do you want some other arrangement?What's the decision-making process on this: group vote or concensus or through an elected decision-maker (chairperson)If you are going to work through a text section by section, do you want to set a time allowance for people to read and digest the material, perhaps making allowance for slow or more thoughtful readers and those without a lot of time to spare? How will this be set?And no doubt there are other issues the group can think of.
