Ike Pettigrew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marcos wrote:Ike Pettigrew wrote:Marcos wrote:What is the difference between your ideas and a typical right winger or anti-communist? We always leave one set idea to adopt another set of ideas, you left the SPGB to take a new set of ideas, and that statement cited above is a living proof of that
Not for the first time, I don't follow your comment/question. My ideas are clearly different from a typical pro-capitalist right-winger: you only have to read my comments to surmise that, not least the comment you've just quoted.
So, why did you answer this post and prior question too ? Ask me if I care
Again, sorry, I genuinely just don't follow you. If you want to explain your point, go ahead.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to re-phrase the assertion to reflect the actual point of dissension" Far too many fucking other people…"For me, the issue is the quality of people. I believe there are different human types and that these types tend to assort into different social systems. Socialism favours people who lean towards mass psychology, collectivism and conformism. That is not the type of person I am. Probably we would be better off with less people. Nature is out of balance, and I believe Man is part of Nature, not above it, and any sound social theory/system has to regard Man within his ecology. This in turn leads to a nationalistic view of things. As I would have it, there is no necessary contradiction between a worker understanding capitalism and socialism and at the same time being concerned for his parochial environment. My argument here is not entirely in contradiction to socialism, I merely point out that in reality such a system must work in line with what I see as Nature, including human nature.
@ Alan JohnstoneI accept there is a tendency for 'human nature' to be used as a catch-all concept for things that can't easily be explained, and no doubt I fall into that difficulty occasionally, but I believe there is such a thing as 'human nature' and I think it is relevant. I completely agree that human nature should not just be cited in a negative context.
twc wrote:Dear Ike,Use value and exchange value are not abstract.Did I say they were? I don't recall saying that.
robbo203 wrote:I am curious about this conception of a possible future society you hold.I may start a new thread to address your various posts.
@ YMSI personally don't believe you can "collectively retain sovereignty" at the scale you believe, not in any meaningful sense. What you propose works in theory, but I would suggest that what works from an academic/paper-shuffler's perspective can't always work well in reality. Socialism as an actual system will, I believe, only amount to a vague reflection of the socialist case, which is really just a hypothesis. In reality, it could very easily turn into quite a nasty system.But we've both had our say now, l suggest we leave it.I do think I've proved my point that socialism as a practical reality will not be able to avoid moral privilege, but that doesn't destroy your case and it wasn't my intention to do so. I'm not laying traps or scoring points here.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm happy to concede to the life guard dragging my idiot arse out of the freezing lake water. Peter sober needs protecting from Peter drunk. Any such authority would be contingent and shifting, not sovereign: sovereignty would be the feature that we abolish (sovereignty I would understand by the great German legal term Comptence Competence).Yes, but that's not the point.
Marcos wrote:What is the difference between your ideas and a typical right winger or anti-communist ? We always leave one set ideas to adopt another sets of ideas, your left the SPGB to take a new set of ideas, and that statement cited above is a living proof of thatNot for the first time, I don't follow your comment/question. My ideas are clearly different from a typical pro-capitalist right-winger: you only have to read my comments to surmise that, not least the comment you've just quoted.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Am i to understand that you do not acknowledge the strong similarity of your own views with the ideologies i have linked to and quoted from, Ike?Perhaps you could tell me what differentiates your position from theirs? What are your criticisms if any of national-anarchism?I have never claimed to be an original thinker, as you appear to do, ike. Why else do you think i call myself a Marxist because i subscribe to many but not all of the ideas Marx developed and i joined a party of like-minded socialists who i have learned a lot from. I don't claim ownership of my ideas. You do apparently.Aren't ideas social, and arise from reading and listening? Perhaps you are indeed unique in giving birth to your own particular set of beliefs without the intercourse and interaction of influences. Maybe so, but i think you have had confirmation of them as "valid" from other sources and they have become reinforced by others acceptance of them. You deny any association with those political tendencies i mentioned. You may well have no dealings with them and offer no formal allegiance towards. But the fact is, your ideas reflect theirs and it is extremely difficult in not seeing you as an advocate for them, either knowingly or unwittinglyIf the cap fits, Ike, wear it. It isn't a tangent, Ike. Nor was it name-calling. But, yes it was labeling you. If you refuse to recognise what you stand for then it is up to others to tell you. I returned to my earlier charge because you repeated your same message in reply to Robbo, which he may not seen the importance of. I merely placed it in context – something i believe you are reluctant to do.I'm not claiming that I or anybody else can come up with an entirely unique set of ideas, but I can have my own ideas and my objection is to being pigeon-holed with the ideas of other people. Besides which, ideological labelling is just a form of name-calling. It's not debate.As a prominent SPGB member and an enthusiastic advocate of the case for world socialism, your mind is operating within a framework of pseudo-rationality in which social questions are answered according to the consistent interior logic of socialism. Any logic sumps that arise from the complexities of the real world can be attributed to various catch-all explanations, such as false consciousness. That makes a debate or discussion between us very difficult, because your mindset is not unlike that of a religious believer and if I say something you disagree with, you are likely to conclude that I am stupid or that I do not understand socialism on some point, rather than questioning your own axioms. That is the mark of a dogmatic mindset or somebody under psychological control.I think the main difference between my views and that of National Anarchists would be that I reject the need for a market system, any system of exchange, and any organised system of property ownership. Therefore, in political economy, my 'socialism' is closer to that of the SPGB, though not quite the same as I would not object to the existence of natural markets or essential individual and collective possessory rights to land, space and buildings.The major point on which I part company with the SPGB is that I would want to see the continuation of organic cultures that have already arisen under capitalism. This will require borders, therefore some rudimentary concept of territorial exclusivity – both at the macro and micro level – would have to be developed and recognised.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, at a slight risk, I'd say reality would decide how many fire doors would be needed, but the point would be that we provide sufficient so that in any conceivable emergency, the devil wouldn't force that dilemma on us: and in that way we'd know genuine freedom. It doesn't matter who makes the decision, so long as everyone has the possibility of escape. Practical abundance effectively removes the political question.I completely understand the point that freedom requires co-operation and that socialism, understood properly, is actually based on rational self-interest (the point that I think you are really making). In the example of the theatre, some expert (or group of experts) has to decide how to ensure that everybody has a practical possibility of escape (and surely the same decision is made under capitalism, though that's irrelevant for the moment). We've accepted, I think, that – even in socialism – this decision will involve a compromise with other factors, such as efficiency, so the probability of escape will not be 100%. That being the case, there is no guarantee that a tragedy could be averted. Somebody might die or suffer serious injury, even without the profit motive.Of course, I'm straining the point with your example of the theatre. It's obvious that certain mundane decisions should be taken by experts, and I completely understand that such decisions will probably be superior in socialism, for reasons that are, again, relatively obvious to anybody familiar with the socialist case. But my conclusion is that even under socialism, somebody will have to swing the blade, pull the lever, make the decision, etc., not just in regard to the obvious subject-matter where most of us would naturally defer to an expert, but also in non-technical areas. I think socialism will have its own 'politics', pools of self-interest will develop and there will be disagreements between vested interests and a need to exert authority. You will not be able to completely remove moral privilege: i.e. the situation where an individual or group has sovereignty over others, permanently, temporarily or fleetingly. Therefore, as a practical proposition, socialism will not be a completely 'democratic' system, and probably can't be. This presents me (and perhaps you) with a problem: how will minority groups be protected from the majority right? Will they just move away? Will they be allowed to? What is the nature of 'common ownership'? Does it mean that everything is owned by each individual, or does it mean that everything is controlled democratically? If the former, then presumably people can go where they like and do what they like and any official incursions will only be of the negative variety, but if the position is actually the latter, then potentially we will be living in a tyranny as bad as capitalism, if not worse.
Prakash,I think you've simply misunderstood what I was saying.For instance, you quote me as stating that:"Both use-value and exchange-value have "value" in common. "I'm sure I did indeed make that statement, but then, how does the following statement of yours relate to it?
Quote:"But according to Marx, both ' use-value ' and ' exchange-value ' are abstractions, and he used the term ' value ' to mean only ' exchange-value '."In my post, I make that very statement as well: I say somewhere that exchange value is value. The fact that I say that use-value and exchange-value have value in common only means something in the context of the passage in which that statement was made. It just means a word in common. I can't be bothered to go back and find it and explain further.And it may be that prices are determined by the market, but I didn't say anything to contradict that.Just to be clear, my post wasn't addressing your question about whether you have found something unique. That doesn't interest me, and just looking back at the thread, I think that has already been answered for you.I don't want to look at posts #51 and #55. I think this is boring and I can't be bothered.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A socialist says there could have been enough firedoors for everyone. The point of socialism is we can only be as free as we help each other to be.The problem there is that your socialist is being rather banal and trying to pull the wool over our eyes. How do we decide if there are enough fire doors for everyone? In a 200-seat theatre, do we have 200 fire doors? No, that won't be architecturally-efficient, so who makes the serious decision about the ratio of fire doors to capacity? Oh, it's that socialist again. And who is this 'socialist'? Who appointed or elected him to make this decision? What if I disagree with his decision? What if he's wrong and his negligence causes death or serious injury? By the way, it's quite fascinating to me that you, presumably a socialist of some kind, would invoke religious concepts to make your argument. Perhaps I am being unfair, but I had not expected a socialist to call up the Devil and the forces of 'good' and 'evil' for assistance. It's been a few years, but I seem to recall that socialism is an amoral case, and in fact a progressive stage beyond capitalism, not some sort of moral utopia.
@ Alan Johnstone and MarcosWill you address the points I make or are you here to just throw labels and slogans around? I DO respect the SPGB and its members, but not when you go off on tangents like this. Screaming "Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!", in whatever form, like a bunch of teenage girls, is just a way of saying that you can't cope with ideas.I am none of the things you state. I understand the urge to categorise, but attaching labels to me is not an argument and suggests you're throwing in the towel in terms of thinking. We can either discuss things like mature adults or play games. Certainly, if it makes you feel better about yourself, feel free to call me a National Socialist. I really don't mind. But it's just a label, and in my case only very roughly accurate, and simply pinning a plastic badge on someone or something is not substantiation and tells us little. You would pin a plastic badge on a socialist society and call it 'democracy', but I would argue that it isn't truly democracy, for the reasons I have given. In fact, socialism would be wide open to abuses due to, among other things, its lack of minority protection against moral privilege. You will deny this, but only because you focus on form and ignore substance. You think good intentions and nice labels are enough. Stick a badge on it that says 'Democracy' and everything's fine.I am able to think for myself. I don't need to subscribe to dogmas that somebody else has invented in order to limit and control me psychologically, whether it is world socialism, National Socialism, National Anarchism, National Bolshevism or the Monster Raving Loony Party.
