LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sotionov wrote:To dream about an emergence of a race of 'new man' who will go against this biological imperative only propelled by his own will-power, without any external motivation (even if he does or doesn't- he's not denied access to anything)- is to delude oneself and be utopian.
Sotionov, I’m sympathetic to your wish to hear of some social ‘safety mechanisms’ (or safety nets under a walking rope, as you put it), but I think you seriously underestimate the ability of humans to change their ‘natures’ under different social circumstances.To talk of a ‘biological imperative’ within humans (an ‘imperative’ which can’t be altered by society), or to use the term ‘utopian’ to describe any social arrangements which are different to those of today, is essentially to be employing a conservative ideological framework. I’m not calling you a conservative, but I am pointing out the philosophical roots of one of your ideological building blocks. What’s more, it isn’t a building block shared by most Communists, who tend to be more historical in their outlook, and stress ‘change and society’ over ‘fixity and biology’.As I’ve said, I think that your wish to discuss future ‘social mechanisms’ is worth pursuing, but for me the basis would be the difficulties of a transition from a bourgeois ideologically-based society to a new Communist-inspired one. That is, I see it as a malleable social issue, not a fixed biological one. And further, I think I could be persuaded otherwise about the need for ‘safety mechanisms’ by the other posters. Certainly, ‘numbers’ would be a big factor, here. A few incorrigible lead-swingers would be pitied rather than condemned.Within history, we have many examples of humans proving the incorrectness of the theory of the ‘biological imperative’: one only has to look at wars like the First World War, where (at least for the first half) millions of men willingly climbed out of trenches, laden like donkeys with masses of equipment, and slowly walked towards impenetrable banks of barbed wire, whilst being mown down by intense machine gun fire. Why? Because of the social power of ideas, like Nationalism and Comradeship. Their individual wish to defend their own country, combined with their wish not to be thought a coward by their comrades, meant that any ‘biological imperative’ to live, was overcome.It’s not utopian to learn from history. If even death can be embraced willingly, due to the power of a particular consciousness, surely cleaning toilets, etc., will present less of a challenge for humanity?
Sotionov wrote:I will repeat my position which was not concretely answered, and I will rephrase it a little.Today we have two facts of life:1. In order to provide for people's needs, people need to work.2. People don't like to do (hard, dirty and dangerous) work, and will avoid it if they can.Now, I see three positions you could take in relation these facts.- If you don't think that these two facts will be overcame with the abolition of capitalism, then we are going to need mechanisms to ensure that if someone consumes, he should also contribute accoding to his abilities….[my bold]I agree. These 'mechanisms' will involve rethinking and reordering social structures and ideologies, which is why I've mentioned 'social authority', the concept of the 'social individual', the social determination of 'free access', and most importantly of all, democratic control, involving mandated, revokable delegates. Communist mechanisms, in fact.
Sotionov, post #8, wrote:It is my opinion that a view calling for free access rests preciselly on utopianism, one kind of which I mentioned- the utopian notion of the new man… Both are assumptions, wishful thinking, and even if there are arguments in favor of such assumptions, it is irresponsible and counter-productive to base our aspirations and struggle solely on assumptions.Well, not so much 'the new man', the 'the new human', I think we'd argue! Women and men will both be involved.But I think you're right to highlight this, as I think Communists do have an assumption, that the process of humans coming to realise that capitalism doesn't work for most humans and that a better way of structuring our socio-economic arrangements can be achieved by humans with Communism. This is an assumption, but I wouldn't call it 'utopian' or 'wishful thinking'. I fact, in contrast, I'd call it 'irresponsible and counter-productive' not to share this assumption. The alternative is to believe that human actions that we all see in this society are 'natural' and can't be changed. Again, I, like most Communists, don't share that static view of 'human nature'.
Sotionov, post #8, wrote:What i[f] the abolition of capitalism doesn't usher an era where people will as a rule have a new human nature that would make the system impossible to fail…But 'abolition' is only one half of the equation: there has to be a 'creative' aspect to the 'systemic' changes you are discussing. Whether that creative process constitutes 'a new human nature', or just a 'coming to consciousness' by most humans of the essential inhumanity of capitalism, is perhaps a matter of emphasis. But clearly, the use of the term 'human nature' is usually employed by conservative thinkers, who are keen to stress, for obvious reasons, the 'fixedness' of human behaviour. On the whole, Communists do not share this notion of a 'fixed human nature'.
Sotionov, post #11, wrote:Because there are forces that make us experience consequences for not doing them. If i don't clean my house, it's going to turn into a hazardous and inhabitable pile of waste, and I'd have to move out and live on the street or rent a place or buy a new one. The only difference would be that in a socialist society forces that motivate people to do the unpleasant work would be removed, and people would have all the incentive to stop doing it. Let someone else do it, I have free access to everything. If my place turns into a waste pit, what do I care, I'll just go into another place, it's free.I think that it's more correct to say that the nature of these social forces will change, rather than that they will be entirely removed. But that opinion is linked to my earlier post about 'social authority' and the social determination of 'free access'.Again, those who stress the 'individual' nature of the concept of 'free access' (your 'waste pit' analogy) tend to have a more anarchistic view of the term.Perhaps we can discuss those differing 'social forces', which have always existed in all human societies, and always will. And I think this is linked to the notion of a 'social individual', as opposed to the bourgeois myth of the 'free individual' (the serial 'waste pit' creator, who just doesn't care about their relations, friends and comrades).
ALB wrote:…as long as it is understood that it can only be free access to what society has decided should be produced…[my bold]This seems to be saying much the same as I've said, ALB.'Free access' is a socially-determined term, not an individually-determined one.
alanjjohnstone wrote:In present society there are numerous organisations that determine ability… a means where ability is determined by an accepted, neutral arbitrator, not the individual. I do not see them disappearing when socialism is established. Nor do i view them as authoritarian.Yes, I agree, with the caveat the 'arbitrator' is subject to democratic controls, ie. elected, mandated, revokable, etc. 'Authority' in itself is not necessarily 'authoritarian'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think when it comes to production issues then it can only be social.Yeah, same comment as previous.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It is the summation of individual decisions about consumption…This point, though, I think requires further elaboration. I would regard 'consumption decisions', too, to be as social as 'ability' and 'production', rather than, as you've put it, 'individual decisions'.That is, some products would be socially determined to be classed as 'come and take, at individual whim', but other products would require the sanction of the community within which the 'individual' is an active member.That is, 'free-access' is determined at the social level: the commune determines both the 'on whim' and the 'on consultation with comrades' levels of 'access'. 'Free', here, is a social freedom, not a 'freedom' subject to individuals' tantrums, of 'I want! I want! I want!'.To me, this is why it's called 'Communism', and not 'Individualism'.We are 'social individual', not 'free individuals' (sic), as bourgeois ideology teaches us. Indeed, brainwashes us.
Sotionov wrote:The core question I have for the people who hold the free-access view is: how is the principle "from each according to their ability, for each according to their need" concretely to be implemented?Related to this 'core question' are the additional questions of "Who decides what 'ability' and 'need' consist of?" and "At what level is 'free-access' defined?'.From my previous discussions with comrades and on LibCom, it seems to be assumed by many Communists that 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access' will be determined by 'each individual'.I've argued in the past that all three have to be defined/determined at the level of the commune/community/Workers' Council. That is, 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access' are social issues, not individual issues.This definition thus begins to undermine the problems of individuals and their supposed laziness, selfishness and greed (which supposed 'innateness in humans' is always the philosophical starting point for arguments by anti-Communists), but then raises the issue of 'social authority' within Communist society.I know from past experience that many Communists, influenced by this society, still hold to a notion of 'individual sovereignty' when it comes to defining these terms, of 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access'.What do others think about this issue of the level of definition, individual or social?
