[Ike Pettigrew]

robbo203 wrote:

I dont see the reasoning behind this at all.  Why cannot socialism be culturally hetereogenous as well as an "interlocking system the world over"? The "system" is  basically defined by the economic relations that obtain between people with respect to the means of producing wealth.  I really cannot see any problem about the same kinds of economic relationships that typify socialism – common ownership, free access to goods and serices, volunteer labour etc etc – existing right across the world –  but at the same tme , there being a considerable degree of cultural diversity across the world.  Unless, that is,  one takes a reductionist-cum-mechanistic view of culture as a  mere "reflection" of the "economic base".  Thats surely not your position – is it, Ike?

I DO think that a common economic system would struggle with cultural heterogeneity.  No, I'm not a mechanist at all, but any global system – a pretty ambitious goal – is going to have some drastic creative tensions within it. In truth, you can't have a common system that is just 'social' or 'economic', it has to be total and embrace all aspects of life.  Not total in that everybody is brainwashed to the nth, but total in the sense that to be socialist becomes the basic principle of life.  I would like to think that in a socialist society, most people will not even use the term 'socialism' and will not even understand what socialism is, they will just be ordinary people living ordinary lives.  A comparison can be made with capitalism, which in its own way is totalitarian in the proper sense of the word in that most people are carrying out the practices of capitalism unthinkingly and unconsciously: that, indeed, is the very problem that leads to the existence of the SPGB and this forum.Socialism, too, will be totalitarian: i.e. it will have its own totality of values, systems and credos that people unconsciously live by.  However, within this 'total culture', some groups will develop their own practices and habits.  I don't believe you can treat economic life and culture as completely separate things.  They work in tandem and influence each other.  If disparate cultures develop in socialism, you may find that slowly some groups/communities start to evolve in a different socio-economic direction and become socialistic and pseudo-propertarian rather than socialist, or they may come under other influences, perhaps from their own heritage/ethnic past, or whatever. Maybe these departures could be tolerated.  We like to imagine socialism as a global behemoth, albeit a democratic one, when in reality – as people on here are reminding us – much of what goes on, even as mass producers, would be fairly anarchistic in character, and so there may not be any motive force to require conformity with the 'total system'.  Also, people just might not care what is happening on the other side of the world.  Or would they?  If islands of dissent grow, what happens?  How does socialism assert its authority, based on democratic legitimacy, if a sizeable number of people democratically (on their own terms) decide they want to go their own way?I personally could not agree with a global common system of ownership unless it also respected and maintained national/cultural boundaries, and maybe even tribal boundaries, and unless such a system also permitted variations and separate development: what I regard as proper democracy, because it embodies minority protection, a necessary precondition for virtuous government. Of course, what I think about it doesn't matter.  But that is what I think.  I believe that for a system to work, it has to balance different aspects of human nature (or commonly-understood behaviour, if you prefer).  You will balk at this, but hang on: what makes you certain you know what's best?  If we're going to build a system that works for everybody, then let it take account of everybody (at least, everybody in archetype).

[Ike Pettigrew]

Marcos wrote:

Are you referring to human nature or human behaviours?

I know where you're going with this.  As a former Party member, I have had such discussions and I know the script; I've discussed it exhaustively in other contexts as well.In short, I don't consider the distinction to be of any (or much) practical value.  Nor do I regard the distinction as relevant to this particular thread, though you may disagree (and, by the way, it is not my intention to be evasive).We could say that a spider spins a web not because it is genetically-programmed to do so but because it is its dogma that it should do so.  But even then, we are still left with the question of what leads to such dogmas?  The point is regressional.All, or at any rate most, animals (including humans) have to eat, breathe, expel waste and reproduce.  I imagine your position is to minimise human nature, or even deny it altogether, and you will perhaps say that any residual human nature that may exist is confined to anything incidental to these actions.  I will say human nature is broader than that and casts a vestigial shadow over much of what we manifestly call human behaviour.  But I would also argue that even if I am wrong on that narrow point, it changes nothing about what I say here.

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ Alan Johnstone (and moderator1)I wasn't criticising the Moderator, I was just being humourous and having some fun with Vin.  I appreciate not everybody will share my (very dry) sense of humour.I have nothing to criticise the SPGB for, as a party or even as individuals.  I have the utmost respect for you personally, for the SPGB and for everybody here.  You are the only political party, of any stripe, worthy of respect – for reasons that are (or should) be obvious.There is no criticism from me here.  I only critique your case, and then only because I am trying to work things out in my own head.  I was educated in the Marxian tradition, so you will – perhaps – understand what I mean by that.  Although I am not a Marx-ist any more, I am – in a sense – still a 'Marxist' tribally and intellectually, and in that tradition, I can be disputatious and critical.  But only because it helps me understand.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Thanks for the replies.Apologies for my infraction of the rules, but I can't help it.  It's a character flaw I have where I lash out and I'm too old to do anything about it now.  It's your forum and I am just here as a guest, I appreciate that.I'll leave this for now, but the replies from Alan Johnstone and YMS have been especially helpful and I will need to give this further thought.I think there is an admission here on the part of socialists that morally-privileged authority must exist even in socialism.  That's not a startling admission and this was never about me setting a trap for you or anything like that.  Nobody pretends that socialism is going to be a perfect society.  I appreciate your candour because it helps me in understanding things (or clarifying things in my own mind).  I hope it also helps others.If I do return, I hope we can continue this habit of constructive dialogue.  My position is not too far removed from yours, I hold no brief for capitalism, but I'm sorry to say that I will probably never be able to reconcile myself to socialism fully due to some very important principles that, I believe, have to be accommodated in any workable system.  For one thing, I am wary of 'systems' per se when it comes to how people should or ought to live, and I am sceptical about the workability (and moral decency) of any sort of 'global' system.  I agree that capitalism does not work for the great majority of people, but I wonder if that tells us not just something about capitalism itself, but also about global systems?  Of course, I understand that socialism would not necessarily be culturally homogeneous, but it would still be the same interlocking system the world over and, to my mind, a workable system has to take account fully of different human types and cultural differences.One perspective that has influenced me in this critical direction is Nozick's meta-utopian framework:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopiahttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/063119780X

[Ike Pettigrew]

I've thought about this further. While YMS and Alan Johnstone's posts do address the concern to some extent, they don't address it completely or satisfy the objection.Socialism would abolish property-based sovereignty, with the result that 'minority rights' would be vulnerable when in conflict with majority rights.  This can apply not just to mass production decisions, but as mentioned above, also to land use decisions and in all sorts of other areas where a committee of some sort would have to make decisions.Socialism would not necessarily abolish the concept of 'morally-privileged authority', because a decision has to be taken by somebody somewhere.  I would argue that authority cannot be abolished, it can only be counteracted.  Your method is democratic consent, but this relies on an assumption that democratic consent can practically apply legitimacy to all decisions, when in reality there cannot be consultation about everything.  In reality, I think you are just sticking a label on sovereignty and calling it 'democracy'.Even a networked decision-making process for mass production would, to an extent, rely on delegation of authority to decision-makers within the network (whatever form it takes, whether virtual or real-life), and group interests would develop (as I would hold that that is human nature).

[Ike Pettigrew]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

One thing that we can look at is the 'creative commons': admittedly, this is based on property, but essentially releases it into the wild.  The idea is that the originator asserts their copyright, but then allows other people to use their work, as long as they pass on the terms and conditions (usually to acknowledge the originator, and to foorbid commercial exploitation).There's no reason creative copmmons type arrangements couldn't apply to the use of housing, fields, factories, etc.  So, not exactly usufruct, but near: more like a factory, field or house is held in trust by a group where society at large is the beneficiary.No need, then, for a worldwide committee planning everything, but instead nested self organised associations in continuous conversation.

I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED THAT SOCIALISM WILL INVOLVE A WORLDWIDE COMMITTEE PLANNING EVERYTHING.  In fact, if you look again at the opening post, and at least one of my posts elsewhere, I explicitly state the exact opposite.That being said, your post is useful.  It goes some way to address my concerns, but it seems to me that what you outline is not how the system has to work.  It could work in the way I outlined, indeed how I outline it is what would normally be expected – but your post seems to imply that you appreciate the dangers of such a system.

[Ike Pettigrew]

ALB wrote:

You've missed the point. The objection is not to you (or anyone else) criticising what we do stand for, but to you asking us to defend something you attribute to us but that we don't stand for (i.e.to defend something that doesn't exist). You can of course criticise that idea too but don't attribute it to us and don't expect us to defend it.

I think you misunderstand me, but I'm not interested in discussing it anymore.I'm sick of internet discussions in which people like you with a sense of entitlement and imagined grievance go round in circles with:"But you're asking us to defend X, Y and Z", etc. and similar.I'm not asking you to defend anything.I wish you would grow up and either just add a constructive comment in the thread OR fuck off.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Marcos wrote:

We can not argue against something that has never existed. I have almost read the whole index  and pamphlets written by the SPGB and have not  seen such claim, on the contrary, we have widely discussed them

I am not "arguing against something that has never existed", I am critiquing the socialist case as it exists today.  Your objection, in any case, makes no sense.  If it's wrong or redundant to critique the socialist case, then why does this forum exist?  Why don't the public just accept socialism and get on with it?We can either examine the socialist case or we cannot.  It's not a religion.  It is open to criticism.  Just because nobody else has come up with the same criticism does not invalidate it.But again, my concern here is with something that is rarely examined: how socialism would likely operate in practice, something we can reasonably speculate about (to a degree) based on extrapolations of the relevant principles.  It is one thing to have ideas, it is another thing to implement them.

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Are people on holiday or do i detect a decline in usage of this forum?Is it heading the same way as our previous Yahoo lists?Surely there is enough going on the world for more than a few members to engage others on this forum.

I have to return to my original comment bt now add…this forum is boring an certainly not attractive for the casual visitor to linger…I've tried both to post informative messages and provocative ones to revive interest…but to no avail…

Your problem is that people now use blogs and articles to comment.You need a really good blog up and running that is relevant and controversial and attracts attention with the aim of attracting hundreds of commenters to it.

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ LBirdYou are correct, though a paradox arises in that I may ask myself by what measure or standard I consider you correct and we are then back to ideological materialism.  So I will say you are right.  Either way, I agree.

[Ike Pettigrew]

My post was clearly not abusive, but it's your forum, you decide who you want here.  It makes little difference to me.Here's a tune I think Vin will specially like:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QES-eQ4lR5U

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ikepissheed wrote:

 I'm quite knowledgeable and insightful when it comes to psychology and could in fact spend a long time analysing you, but I don't have the time or the inclination.  

You are a prick with an inflated opinion of yourself but full of shit. I have met someone like you before on this forum. He was allowed to spread his shit for three years. 

 I do indeed have an inflated opinion of myself.  Thank you for pointing that out.  I am, as you say, a wonderful human being, and really quite brilliant.Thank you, thank you, once again.You're too kind.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Brian wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ Vin.  Being in the SPGB allows you to adopt the pretense of bravery while aligning yourself with views that are in reality generally tolerated, if not acceptable.  I'm quite knowledgeable and insightful when it comes to psychology and could in fact spend a long time analysing you, but I don't have the time or the inclination.  

Vin, like yourself is no longer a member of the SPGB.  

.Just to clarify –  I am not 'like' the imbecile Ike Pettigrew in any other way and I didn't leave because of a disagreement with the SPGB case. I left because you prevented me from telling the working class about it. Like I say – just to clarify 

 Vin loves the drama.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gwiInUNf_s

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ robbo and ALB,That's not actually an assumption I am making. Indeed, if you look again at what I said at the outset, I think I actually make (or at least infer) the important distinction in the post between individual/communal decisions and mass production decisions.  I completely understand that much of production within socialism will be at the individual and community level, and be essentially self-directed – in fact, I think I have stated this explicitly somewhere.However I do appreciate the replies, even if I think there may be a slight misunderstanding about what I am getting at.  Unfortunately I lack the time to respond more fully.We will have to leave this for now.

[Ike Pettigrew]

I will give this some thought.  I am not entirely convinced by your response, and this is one of my main objections to socialism.  Another way to put it would be that socialism itself embodies just another form of statehood in that moral privilege is exercised by a majority against a minority, a social condition that does not (or need not) exist in a comparable society that allows property-based sovereignty.

[Author]

Posts