stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks again, one final thing and I'll leave you alone! Just genuinely interested in this whole issue. Do you consider Robin's reply to the ECA and, say, the "Socialism As A Practical Alternative" pamphlet to be adequate responses? Presumably in general terms you do, being a member and all, but do you think they are wanting? Need more detail, updating? If so, and you could roughly sketch how and in what way, would be very interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers.
Thanks YMS. Are you familiar with Cockshott's stuff? If so and you have a thought to share, please do!
A couple of links for anyone interested in what I'm talking about: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/ec.htm http://redplenty.com/Red_Plenty/Front_page.html
I think Meel's concerns are to the point – these are the kinds of things we should think more carefully about, and not try to sweep under the carpet.Robin presents the SPGB case, which I presume he reiterates for the benefit of other readers and not for me! But yes, I'm afraid I do rather find Mises' argument persuasive, nor do I think the example of the Societ Union can be so glibly swept under the carpet, along with all other difficulties, and made to vanish with a magic wand called "abundance". I've just this moment finished reading Red Plenty by Francis Spufford, so that's where I'm coming from. (Don't worry – I have no intention of becoming another McDonagh and boring the arse off everyone with talk of tons of rubber and tons of steel. And yes, I've read your detailed and in its own way impressive rebuttal of the argument Robin. It's just where I'm at at the moment and would be happy to hear from anyone who has any sympathy with the Mises' position – it was not unknown within the SPGB when I was a member.)
Thinking about it, there is an interesting issue here. The anthroopologist Marshall Sahlins, writing about hunter-gatherer societies of plenty and material abundance (Stone Age Economics), claimed that the modern world faced a choice. Either it could try to achieve abundance using the market and consumerist system as we know it. Or it could use the "zen", hunter-gatherer approach, which was to do with limiting your desires, making do with what you have and turning your attention to more pressing matters, such as how to dance beautifully.The trouble with the first approach is an environmental one – trying to satisfy limitless desires with scarce resources is leading us to environmental disaster.The trouble with the second is that it would require billions of people signing up to a political (spiritual?) programme that would guarantee them lower material living standards. The odds of such a proposal winning mass support would seem uncertain at best.Marxian socialism instead tries to have its cake and eat it too – promising material abundance, organised industrially but without markets, but anyway the result, we are promised, will be less materially motivated people, dedicated to the common good. The trouble with this approach is the problem of economic calculation and the warning of the Soviet Union.Funnily enough, I suppose I'm more with the zen approach than anything, ie, agree more with Richard than my previous posts might have led you to believe. The point of my posts was to question what use the zen approach can have in a world organised on industrial lines – and perhaps necessarily organised on industrial lines, given how many mouths we have to feed.What we could do with is some better utopias. What actually is the alternative? In detail?
I don't see how a fact can be either inspiring or depressing – it's just a fact. Or do you think that an alternative is on the agenda? (I'm not of course against trying to change the agenda. However, a return to 1970s-style welfare-state capitalism seems to be about the most radical thing people can imagine.)
My point was that what counts as "basic comfort" is a socially determined thing. Richard wants his internet connection – something most of the world does not have, and that capitalism is all too eager to scramble to provide, and which presupposes a vast capitalist infrastructure, including mines. Having decent food produced by modern methods, even the greenest ones, presupposes oil – and hence the Middle East. Richard assures us that he doesn't need a TV or Coronation Street and is quite happy to live by books alone. But it's far from obvious that there's anything more to object to in a TV than in an Internet connection. Maybe I like Corrie, and am able to enjoy both that and Dostoevsky. What's wrong with that?In short, I agree with the implication made by others. Ethical consumerism makes no difference – except maybe to make its practitioners feel better about themselves. Nothing wrong with that – but it will not lead to the collapse of capitalism. And a damn good thing too since capitalism is how the world makes its living, and no alternative is on the agenda nor will be for the foreseeable future.
Welcome to the forum Meel. I'd love to argue with you, but sadly I found myself in agreement with everything you wrote! Ah well, maybe next time!
Besides, what is basic comfort? Would it include a car, a TV, a games console, ready meals, washing machine, etc,etc? And hence regular purchases of petrol and accessories, subscriptions to quality dramas, washing powders, etc, etc? Seems to me that capitalism could and does thrive on providing basic comforts!
Fascinating stuff from Alan there. The idea that emotions influence our behaviour and that emotions are an evolved mechanism, ie are determined by genes, ' seems entirely uncontroversial. Perhaps that kind of talk will seem more convincing to people than "genes for" language, even though they're saying the same thing.
Indeed, excellent point, well made!I think I was trying to get at something similar when I kept asking him what the point of discussing anything was. Are we trying to get at "the truth"? Or are we just spinning tales from our own ideological perspective? Clearly, most of the time we're just doing the latter. But if the former is not possible, if we're not at least trying to push in that direction, why should I listen to your story at all? Mine is bound to be far more interesting and witty than yours!
On ideology and the impossibility of communication: Yes, I agree with YMS. When Ayn Rand first met her future acolytes Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, they report that they eagerly started asking her questions. She batted them all away, and said that talking with each other was impossible unless they could be sure they were talking the same language. And that took a lot of time, effort and discussion. Hence her often asked question, "What are your premises?"Rand I think was right about this. I think it's one of the reasons the SPGB functions better internally than many other political organisations: the "membership test" ensures that everyone can speak the language and communicate with each other. And it's why internet chat can sometimes be so hard and degenerate so quickly into rudeness – we've not even sussed out our "premises"!Anyway, I hope my admiting that I like Ayn Rand will help LBird see that actually I'm even worse philosophically than he suspected!
One of the things I love about Chomsky is that he is a bucket of cold water in the face for anyone who thinks they really know anything – ie, no one is a bigger party-pooper when it comes to wild speculation than he is (as I found out in the interview I linked to earlier). As he has pointed out, we know the complete genetic code and every detail of the neurological wiring and cellular organisation of the nematode worm C. elegans. And yet we still know nothing about how it decides whether to turn left or right. (Details from memory, so maybe wrong, but you see the point.) Given that gap in our knowledge, what hope for people who think they've figured out how language works, or how it evolved? Physicists don't even know what "material" is. What hope for "materialist" accounts of complex social phenomena such as say wars? None of this stops him or anyone else yakking on about it of course. But humility might be called for!
