Word-confusion between communism-socialism/people
Jos
There seems to be a confusion between 2 groups, the activists
and the people. This confusion seems to prohibit the intellectual
connection between the two, and puts the activists on the fringe
(in large part thanks to the USSR contamination of the words), while
focussing the attention of the people on the lies of the exploiters,
who exploit the confusion.
The confusion revolves around these two words: communism/socialism
and democracy. If there was no such confusion, the world might today
perhaps be another place ...
Because the activists seem to insist on using the word "communism" or
"socialism" to brand themselves, and even worse: because some/many activists
decry "democracy" as being a product of the exploiters (capitalists,
bourgeois if you will), the people will refuse to listen to them,
at least the people in Europe. Some activists (and not just one group,
I see the false distinction democracy/communism-socialism a lot in the
left) use the word "democracy", like the ruling groups of Europe like
to use the word: to refer to the cultural/economic complex of capitalism
mixed with representative "parliamentary" democracy. Ofcourse that is an
extremely diluted form of democracy, and hence does not do justice to
the word.
Because the people insist on using the word "democracy" to brand their
ideology (which is in fact THE EXACT same thing as communism/socialism
is to the activists for what I can tell), they refuse to notice the
complete and utter similarity between their goals, and the goals of
the more radical/activist groups who openly challenge the exploiters.
The root of this misunderstanding might be found (though I'm not sure)
within the work(s) of Marx. His book `capitalism' is a mixture of
breathtaking beauty, as well as almost meaningless theoretical drudgery,
where pages and pages of words comprise no more data then would fit
into half a sentence (even so, the book is very interesting (and moving)
if you just read the good parts). Marx seems to have made or have
picked up on a difference between "democracy". There seems to be a
distinction made between "Democratic revolution", and "socialism"
and "socialist revolution". Where "the socialist revolution must
finish the national-democratic revolution, in order to consolidate
its accomplishments". In fact, there is no such distinction at all,
there are no "two revolutions", this is all a great misunderstanding.
Going back to the MEANING of the words, instead of their form, or
their local contaminations. Democracy means "power to the people",
as a distinction to "power to the ruler". It does really not say
anything about the size of the group, it merely says the base should
decide, the group should decide by majority (or anonymity). What
the communists/socialists say they want, is to make companies be
ruled by their workers, such ruling bodies are (I believe) termed
"soviets", hence the "soviet union". They call this communism
or socialism. However, it is /democracy/. "Communism" means
at the root something like "community", and socialism something
like "social" (obviously). These are vague terms. Hence, the term
"democracy" fits much more precisely the goal which the activists call
"communism/socialism"!, and hence the confusion of the people. ``If its
not democracy, then what is it, dictatorship?!'', and indeed this is
a very good response by the people, and naturally makes them wary
of those who don't carry the banner of "democracy" (IMHO).
What the activists seem to call "socialist" or "communist",
is "democracy within the corporations and within the economy at large".
The goal the communist/socialist activists have, is "making the world
a better place to live for everybody, end exploitation by the few
of the many, end economic suffering", hence they adopt terms that
seem to reflect this "better world".
However, if this "better world", does not include "self-rule" by the
people (democracy), but is still providing nicely for everybody even
though they might be (willing) slaves, then it cannot be "democracy"
while it still can be "communist" or "social". If the masses give up
their power, they lose it, and hence democracy would come to an end,
but "social" or "community" would not necessarily.
I guess that history has shown, that no human and certainly no organization
can be trusted with "power", which is ofcourse one of the best reasons
to support "democracy" as opposed to "dictatorship" which is its natural
opponent (if its not "democracy", then it is not "people power" and
therefore "dictatorship").
I call on the communist/socialist activists, to understand the
confusion they are creating, especially by denouncing "democracy"
(which in such cases as they denounce it, they misapply the term
wrongly to the current capitalist order and its little spice of
corrupt democracy on top), and to make clear that they are the absolute
democrats, they represent the push to perfect democracy by expanding
it from a State matter, also into a corporation (and economic) matter,
if not a "everywhere" matter.
Isn't it clear that the owner of a corporation is in fact no different
from the King who is owner of his country ? Both are dictators, both
can be defeated by "democracy", there is no distinction of revolutions,
its is one and the same. The communist/socialist activists simply focus
their attention to different dictators (company dictators) who remain
undefeated, but they still push for "democracy" above everything else
(perhaps with the exception of those still supporting Stalin, perhaps
somewhat of an interesting example of confusion between "democracy"
and "socialism/communism").
I think that "the people" are thinking more straight in this regard,
the word "democracy" is the better word. However, "democracy" can
probably not work without a /social/ majority, who are committed to
their /community/, because else the democracy would explode or become
unworkable by endless petty squabbles.
Once "the left" understands that democracy is their shared goal, and
that they should push this exact word, and that capitalism as well
as feudalism are both implementations of dictatorial organization
templates who are anti-democratic, the lies of the exploiters can
be more readily challenged. "We bring democracy to Iraq", says the
business dictator ? If the left had challenged Bush to implement
"democracy" within all corporations, 1) he would have had his hands
full with "bringing democracy" in the US, 2) his words would fall
dead on the floor when he would call for the "democratization" of
Iraq, while he had done nothing to democratize his older companies,
and is doing nothing to democratize the US corporations currently.
In that sense, the war in Iraq is the error of the left too, who
fail to curb the push for democracy (false "democracy", again not real
democracy, but the word is being used) into the economy where it
currently is most pressing.
The people seem to have understood that no organization and barely a
person can be trusted with power. Therefore they want "democracy",
which is the word most directly pointing to that "fits every
organization" solution. They don't want "socialism" or "communism"
and won't easily rally behind such terms, because such terms carry in
them the potential seeds of a "good willing monarchy", the "good king".
The past has shown that such systems will always eventually implode
and corrupt themselves. It is therefore the job of the left and the
far left, to clear up this confusion which seems to be their fault
primarily, and to push for real democracy, on the State level and
especially on the company level as well, which is where the revolution
is currently most failing.
As a matter of fact, the pollution by the dictatorial economy of the
State democracy, prohibits the state democracy to become honest. It
continually is confronted by undemocratic forces (capitalism and their
"little" dictators).
From the overthrow of the feudal lords by "democracy", to the
eventual world rule by "democracy" of every organization and company
and economic factor (where there is still place for a `market' BTW,
market and democracy don't bite each other necessarily, "voting with
your wallet" is in fact a form of democracy too) and the overthrow
of capitalism, it is all one large emancipation of the people,
a transition into /democracy/. There are no "two revolutions", first
a "democratic", then a "socialist".
Think in /meaning/, don't think in "words". Then translate the meaning
back into the right words.
It then becomes glaringly obvious that "communism" is in fact democracy
on the company level (yes, what else is new!, but it isn't said). It
is probably no accident that the current powers of capitalism are
pushing for "democracy". They realize probably even better then the
communists/socialists, that this is what the people need and want
for a better world, which is why the people really want it, and what
the communists/socialists want themselves. So they push the idea
relentlessly, and then corrupt it hopelessly in practice, and spin
everything around, leaving many people confused. That the activists
talk in terms like "communism/socialism" which are more or less void,
only aides them enormously.
The words "communism" and "socialism" are weak and misleading, they
don't even represent the push of the communists/socialists very well.
The struggle for a better world is also a mental fight of words and
ideas, of what is popular and what isn't; better play it effectively ...
--
Haines Brown
I'm sympathetic with your frustration over a careless use of
words. However, I find it difficult to address all your points
directly, and so limit myself to merely a summary of my take on the
situation.
The word communism is an old one, and has a variety of
implications. However, I believe it has a specific meaning in relation
to the modern working class movement, as does the word socialism.
I recently came across this quotation from Upton Sinclair's classic
work, The Jungle. It was written in 1906, at a time before the word
communism acquired its own specific meaning. Sinclair suggested that
socialism came down to two basic propositions:
First, that a Socialist believes in the common ownership and
democratic management of the means of producing the necessities of
life; and, second, that a Socialist believes that the means by which
this is to be brought about is a class-conscious political
organization of the wage earners.
Assuming this to be pretty much a consensus view, I note that it
defines both a goal and a means to attain it. All socialist states are
indeed "socialist" in that they are (in principle at least) employing
working-class political power to challenge the private ownership of
the means of production and thereby dissolve the capitalist
class. Only after that has succeeded, would the state become
"communist" (the "state" itself dissolves, but that's another issue).
However, the term socialist has been broadened (since World War I), to
refer to states that do not aim at a classless society, but merely
employ working-class political power to constrain the more pernicious
effects of capitalism. This abandonment of a communist goal is
probably the result of capitalism's not collapsing as quickly as
people at first assumed (thanks to imperialism). Such states are
therefore actually not "socialist" (in terms of Sinclair's
definition), but capitalist.
As a result, the term "communist" has come to imply a person or a
political program that assumes the goal can in fact be realized. That
is, the aim is not to constrain capitalism, but to overthrow it.
Here, I believe, arises some of the confusion with words. A socialist
state (one that has not realized a classless society), nevertheless
pursues a communist objective--revolution--by means of a communist
party. In contrast, a "socialist" state that only seeks to constrain
capitalism is not really socialist, for its working class does not
actually possess the means of production. A socialist state can have a
revolutionary (communist) agenda, but until that goal is reached, it
remains transitional and socialist.
You wisely bring up the issue of democracy. Indeed, I'd agree with
your literal definition of the word as people's power. However, the
word has different meanings in three contexts: capitalism (bourgeois
democracy), socialism (a state with revolutionary objectives), and a
hypothetical communist society.
In capitalist society, politics is structured in such a way that
capitalists remain in possession (ownership or effective control) of
the principle means of production. In Marx's view, this empties
democracy of significant content, and so he dismissed it as
"parliamentary cretanism". Today we tend to distinguish political
democracy and economic democracy. However stunted, bourgeois political
democracy remains important, for it allows the working class (to a
degree) to constrain capitalism, and it contributes (to a degree) to
working-class political development.
Economic democracy can exist to some extent in capitalism. If I
recall, you are interested in workers running the factory, which
ranges, I suppose, from co-management, to workers actually seizing a
factory, to state ownership of some principal means of production. In
each case, however, the system remains capitalist, and at best it is
simply constrained to benefit the working class. For its own survival,
capitalism must ensure the social reproduction of the working class,
and therefore capitalism always requires some constraint. These
examples of economic democracy are just different ways to achieve that
end. Or there can be economic democracy within just the working class:
the union.
In a true socialist state there are factors which contradict
working-class power. For example, the presence of non-wage earning
classes, outside capitalist political forces, or the economic
realities of an external capitalist market. For the revolution to
proceed and deal with these factors, the working class must have full
political power, which is termed a "dictatorship of the
proletariat". In principle this is democratic in that the working
class represents (or soon comes to represent) the overwhelming
majority. It is a kind of majority rule in which the "winner takes
all".
Given the presence of these various forces contrary to the interests
of the working class, it is necessary to institutionalize
working-class interests as a communist party. In a revolutionary
situation, which a socialist state in principle represents, the party
provides working-class direction and solidarity. However, if the
revolutionary project lags or is in fact abandoned, the party acquires
a life of its own, with unfortunate consequences, including a failure
of democracy. Some people have therefore preferred to label such a
situation as "state capitalism" rather than "socialism".
In the future hypothetical communist society, real democracy can exist
because there are no class-contradictions. I suppose that involves
everyone's direct participation in political and economic decision
making rather than just voting for representatives. Given the
complexities of modern society, however, some authority is necessarily
delegated, and this requires effective means to assure accountability
from those holding office.
I've tried here to offer a kind of consensus view rather than venture
too far out on the limb. If I've erred, I'm sure someone will speak
up.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
Thanks for your comments. I like to take the opportunity to offer an
alternative to following, trying to prove why an alternative is needed.
I agree to your explanation about the historical context of the terms
"communism/socialism", but I think the distinction of interest shouldn't be
"capitalism" vs "communism/socialism", but the wider and more obvious
"dictatorship" vs "democracy" (with the understanding that capitalist
production is dictatorial, ofcourse, which it is). It is more correct,
and I think it is more effective. Or is non-capitalist exploitation
acceptable (for instance a system of whip and chain). No, ofcourse not,
as I'm sure all communists would agree.
> I recently came across this quotation from Upton Sinclair's classic
> work, The Jungle. It was written in 1906, at a time before the word
> communism acquired its own specific meaning. Sinclair suggested that
> socialism came down to two basic propositions:
>
> First, that a Socialist believes in the common ownership and
> democratic management of the means of producing the necessities of
> life; and, second, that a Socialist believes that the means by which
> this is to be brought about is a class-conscious political
> organization of the wage earners.
"Common ownership", one of the basic concepts often heard in
relation to a "left revolution", the Beatles even made a song about it
didn't they (imagine a world ...).
The idea of "common" ownership seems problematic, because if the
collective does not posses a means of making collective decisions
(even without resorting to representative democracy which also creates
a management class, the "professional politician", a position which
undoubtedly holds great attraction to individuals of ill intend, and
which creates a wedge between the people), then "common ownership"
is in great danger of degenerating into private ownership of the
management class of the entire "means of production" (see the USSR).
Since "common ownership of all resources" is usually pictured as
being controlled by representatives, that is a recipe for the formation
of a ruling class, which will end up becoming a exploiting ruling class
in a few generations at least, as certain elements such inclined weave
their way in.
The idea of "common ownership" seems to cut very closely to the
"give us a good king now" model. Maybe that is no coincidence because
various forms of kings have ruled humanity for very long. The kings
also "owned everything", controlled what was disowned by the removal
of all small scale "private ownership" by the people if that had
ever existed, and controlled the workers on his property (land).
Since ending private ownership and creating a group that controls
all "in the name of", I think the idea of "equal distribution of
fundamental resources, for life without the right to sell or lose"
might be more stable. Some reasons:
a) the decisions making individual(s) remain very close to what is owned
and if they are sociable people they can cooperate,
b) all people have their very own personal "power base",
c) no "management class" need necessarily emerge, and if one does the
people retain a certain amount of leverage of their own to set right,
d) to the extend a supervising-class is necessary (policing criminals for
instance), they can be kept in the service of the collective of "owners",
of which they are themselves a equal part as well, because power rests
with the people in several ways.
In short distribution of "the ultimate": Power. Ownership of soil,
ownership of democratic decision making rights, retaining nothing
behind (absolute democracy). All power is transferred. This requires
naturally a direct democracy for decision making, as well as a people
who can effectively handle it, socially and practically, on all levels
of organization, and who have the ability to self-organize.
It is always a good idea to limit total amount of ownership that
any person can have, as a fail-save device. Just as the personal
freedoms of the one are limited by the personal freedoms of another,
so the possessions have to be limited, because the possessions of
one are limiting the potential possessions of another in this finite
world.
Where some forms of communism seem to want to distribute "money" or
"services", "good things", "service the needs of the people", they
create the problem of how to distribute these things, and the
problematic power that the distributer ends up possessing. It will always
be people who think they can exploit that position, which will be most
eager to possess it. To others it may just seem `just another job'.
The above model does not try to distribute "results" or "goodwill", or
try to define a somewhat mystical "needs package", but it distributes
only what gives power/potential, and in principal no more. It is
then up to the owners to make it work, to make something happen.
If they go out of work ? They still own their soil, so they are never
without basic Power and potential. If it gets really bad they might
resort back to growing their own food on their own land, until the
situation gets better. If they have work and don't need their soil,
they can rent their soil to the highest bidder, perhaps financing
an education for themselves. If they are lifelong owners, no matter
their skill, they need to be respected. If they join a farm, and join
their soil (swap-move) with the farm's soil, they naturally always retain
the right to step out of the farm and take their soil with them,
prohibit its use. This makes the farm respectful of the worker,
because it needs the soil even if the owning worker is clumsy. Even
the clumsy can have work.
This is just a very quick sketch, the basic idea can be made as
complex as one wants. The key is (as always) the social inclination
of the people occupying the model.
--
Best regards
Haines Brown
> I think the distinction of interest shouldn't be "capitalism" vs
> "communism/socialism", but the wider and more obvious "dictatorship"
> vs "democracy"
Yes, I see an increasing tendency to represent things primarily in
terms of political and human rights. While those things are certainly
important, I believe it represents a limited perspective. Put very
simply, the Marxist achievement was to develop a systemic view, a
holistic view, which integrated politics, society, and economy. To
reduce this to politics I fear undercuts the scientific nature of the
Marxist enterprise. That is, I don't see that a focus on dictatorship
vs. democracy is "wider", but seems narrower.
> (with the understanding that capitalist
> production is dictatorial, ofcourse, which it is). It is more correct,
> and I think it is more effective. Or is non-capitalist exploitation
> acceptable (for instance a system of whip and chain). No, ofcourse not,
> as I'm sure all communists would agree.
Not sure I quite follow you here. A political oppression of labor
(such as speed ups and sweat shops) is of course a bad thing, but I
believe that in Marxism there is a clear distinction between this
"absolute" expoitation, and the relative exploitation of labor. In
principle one would hope that capitalism would today confine itself to
the latter, but sadly there is a lot of absolute exploitation, and it
even seems to be growing.
The relative exploitation of labor, if I may be bold enough to venture
a summary, rests the reasonable assumption that surplus value is
created by labor, and on the fact that the owner or manager of the
factory purchases the factors of production at their fair market
price. Labor is treated as a factor of production (hence is paid by
the hour), and is purchased basically at the cost of social
reproduction (what it costs for the worker to show up at the factory
gate in the morning in a physical and mental condition sufficient to
carry out the tasks of production (wages can be somewhat higher
than just this for several reasons that I'll not explore here).
This is called relative exploitation because it is based on the ratio
of the value the worker brings to the gate and the value he or she
creates once in the workplace. In other words, a well-paid worker
would be highly exploited if he produces enormous value on the job. In
measuring absolute exploitation, we are left with intangibles, such as
the relation of wages to the cost of living.
Why Marxism has focused on relative exploitation is that, again, it
ceases to be a subjective or individual thing (the painfullness of the
experience), but is integrated with the economy as a whole to become a
scientific question.
Marxists generally assume that, like capital itself, the worker brings
value to the production process based on the past (costs of social
reproduction) rather than present and therefore not only are human
needs generally met only to the extent required by production (leading
to a one-sided development of the individual), but it is past needs
that are met rather than needs associated with individual development
in the present.
>> I recently came across this quotation from Upton Sinclair's classic
>> work, The Jungle. It was written in 1906, at a time before the word
>> communism acquired its own specific meaning. Sinclair suggested that
>> socialism came down to two basic propositions:
>>
>> First, that a Socialist believes in the common ownership and
>> democratic management of the means of producing the necessities of
>> life; and, second, that a Socialist believes that the means by which
>> this is to be brought about is a class-conscious political
>> organization of the wage earners.
>
> "Common ownership", one of the basic concepts often heard in
> relation to a "left revolution", the Beatles even made a song about it
> didn't they (imagine a world ...).
"Common ownership" is a term that troubles me a bit. For example,
suppose a state nationalizes the principle means of production. Who
then "owns" them? Ownership, I believe, refers to legally defined
rights of disposition over property. So I don't think the people
actually own the means of production, but rather can "possess" (have
power over) the means of production, which seems to imply democratic
control. Without democratic control, nationalization of the means of
production seems entirely compatible with capitalism. This, I believe,
is the point you also make.
> Since "common ownership of all resources" is usually pictured as
> being controlled by representatives, that is a recipe for the formation
> of a ruling class, which will end up becoming a exploiting ruling class
> in a few generations at least, as certain elements such inclined weave
> their way in.
Well, a classic problem. In modern complex societies, one has to
delegate responsibility, and there is certainly a possibility those
holding office will become an elite (not really "class", but that's
another issue).
For example, in the U.S. until World War II, local politics (ward
politics) was in the hands of local notables, usually people of
influence and wealth. This lent itself to corruption, and so after the
War the system was replaced by professional management. I suppose this
did clean things up a bit, but now power is in the hands of the
bourgeoisie. Before this it was not held by the working class, but at
least the ward heeler was closer to ordinary people and often
responsive to their needs. Not democracy by any means, but at least
often gave people a sense of the government being theirs.
Some of these old timers are still around, and I know some of them
(they are dying off). I (and many others) find them quite likable
types because they were down to earth, not at all phoney, and often
would do what they could to help people in need. None of this could be
said of most of the local politicians we now endure.
> Where some forms of communism seem to want to distribute "money" or
> "services", "good things", "service the needs of the people", they
> create the problem of how to distribute these things, and the
> problematic power that the distributer ends up possessing. It will always
> be people who think they can exploit that position, which will be most
> eager to possess it. To others it may just seem `just another job'.
Not sure I follow you here. A large corporation also has employees who
figure out how to distribute its resources, and on the whole I suppose
it works. These employees are constrained by the limits of their
office (i.e., bureaucracy). An overly centralized planning board will
naturally be out of touch with local needs, but surely there can be a
distribution of reponsibility at all levels. Also, what is called JIT
production relies on modern communications and transportation to
satisfy the needs of a production unit in real time, and I suppose
such methods could be adapted for a distribution of social resources
as well. On the other hand, there are attempts today to use market
mechanisms for distribution of resources in socialist societies, but
that raises a lot of issues I'll not explore here.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
>Jos <J...@ergens.boeitniet> writes:
>> I think the distinction of interest shouldn't be "capitalism" vs
>> "communism/socialism", but the wider and more obvious "dictatorship"
>> vs "democracy"
>
>Yes, I see an increasing tendency to represent things primarily in
>terms of political and human rights. While those things are certainly
>important, I believe it represents a limited perspective. Put very
>simply, the Marxist achievement was to develop a systemic view, a
>holistic view, which integrated politics, society, and economy. To
>reduce this to politics I fear undercuts the scientific nature of the
>Marxist enterprise. That is, I don't see that a focus on dictatorship
>vs. democracy is "wider", but seems narrower.
In trying to formulate an answer to your comment, I discovered (for
myself) that capitalism in its current form is not the problem. The
downward pressure on wages and work conditions, is due to the pressures
of the consumers, who in large majority choose cheap products over social
products. If consumers insisted on social production, then the competition
between companies wouldn't be for cheapest product/service, but for most
socially (or environmentally sustainable) produced product/service.
Some people do put social qualities over pricing qualities, enough
to have a number of social companies/shops supplying this small market
segment. It could be argued, that these companies - even though they
may not have maximized social production - represent "islands of communism
within capitalism", disproving Marxism which claimed this could not happen,
that we needed a "world revolution" eliminating all capitalism.
But what we call "capitalism" now, isn't the same capitalism as when
Marx lived. Perhaps the system was the same, but the workers lacked in
practice the freedom to choose what to purchase. During 1800-1900, workers
earned so little in many factories, they could not afford to choose for
"socially produced products" if they had existed. They had to choose for
the cheapest.
We now live in a form of capitalism, where only the minority really at
the bottom live under conditions that were widespread then. Today at
least in Europe, workers have more then enough money to do away their
car and spend the money on socially produced food and drink. They do not
do this in majority, they mistakenly think perhaps that this isn't
"cool" or "tough" (no idea what the problem is, but many simply don't
do it, maybe its greed).
Now focussing towards greed, where does it come from. Greed is hurting
our entire planet, is threatening to do us all in. So why do we have
greed within humanity, when it doesn't serve us at all. The answer seems
simple enough thanks to modern biology: before humanity gained the upper
hand over all other species, we needed to deceive our predators and
prey, we needed to fight with them, and if possible make them fear us.
We needed the qualities the bad-guys have in most horror movies: cruelty,
perfect deception/lying skills. That's where the qualities that are hurting
us come from: our evolutionary past. The criminal behaviors served us
once, they don't do anymore as a species.
Back to dictatorship/capitalism. Dictatorship is power-differential between
individuals/groups, and the robbery of power is usually or always the
precursor to economic exploitation. It happens in the large by removing
farmers from their land, making them powerless/helpless, and then use
their despair to make them work very hard. It happens in the small by
a bank-robber who robs the personnel of a bank of the power to do what
they want, after which they also rob the bank of money. Dictatorship
is a common denominator between other types of exploitation like slavery
or theocracy, where there need be no money at all in the system. Capital
most certainly is not present in all forms of exploitation. Capital is
obviously not present in exploitation/social-suffering between individuals
of other species then humans.
Therefore: (current) capitalism is not the cause of exploitation,
though the very specific conditions not representative of all
possibilities of a money exchange culture during 1800-1900 may have
rightly focussed attention towards capitalism (I don't know, can't
remember being there). `Dictatorship' provides a wider context. This
context however is very large, it spans many millions of years of
evolution, perhaps hundreds of millions or more, and it spans many
other species besides humans as well. Even though `capitalism' might
seem like offering a wide perspective, there are much wider perspectives
still. Obviously companies are structured dictatorially, causing economic
exploitation by the powerful within the group. It are the "cheap" demands
by the consumers (most of which are proletariat in some form or another),
who have the power to choose differently, that give the most cruel masters
an edge in our culture, because they are most effective at reducing cost,
reducing prices.
The above would make the aim of communist activism: try to realise
further the power of purchase, try to bring the power of the ordinary
workers to the attention. To expand the market for socially produced
products/services, expands the survivability of "communist" companies.
Communist companies cannot survive against downward pricing pressure,
but they can effectively compete in terms of social production.
Money as such, seems in part a device to protect the workers from
freeloaders in a give-only culture. The key of money is then: a /fair/
price, not the lowest price ! Therefore, shopping for social products at
a fair price doesn't seem alien to our culture, but almost seems to be
at the heart of it.
--
Dean T
<Jos> wrote in message news:slrndkcu5...@localhost.localdomain...
> Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, I see an increasing tendency to represent things primarily in
> >terms of political and human rights. While those things are certainly
> >important, I believe it represents a limited perspective. Put very
> >simply, the Marxist achievement was to develop a systemic view, a
> >holistic view, which integrated politics, society, and economy. To
> >reduce this to politics I fear undercuts the scientific nature of the
> >Marxist enterprise. That is, I don't see that a focus on dictatorship
> >vs. democracy is "wider", but seems narrower.
>
> In trying to formulate an answer to your comment, I discovered (for
> myself) that capitalism in its current form is not the problem. The
> downward pressure on wages and work conditions, is due to the pressures
> of the consumers, who in large majority choose cheap products over social
> products.
That is the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard! The downward pressure
on wages and conditions is due to the greed of the capitalists, they are
constantly trying to find new ways to squeeze profit from society. Many
people buy the cheapest products because that's all they can afford.
Assuming that all have the ability to "choose" what they buy is absurd!!
> If consumers insisted on social production, then the competition
> between companies wouldn't be for cheapest product/service, but for most
> socially (or environmentally sustainable) produced product/service.
Again, you are referring to the small percentage of people that can spend
extra money on "feelgood" produce. One example I can think of is organic
food. The price is sometimes double the standard foods.
> Some people do put social qualities over pricing qualities, enough
> to have a number of social companies/shops supplying this small market
> segment. It could be argued, that these companies - even though they
> may not have maximized social production - represent "islands of communism
> within capitalism", disproving Marxism which claimed this could not
happen,
> that we needed a "world revolution" eliminating all capitalism.
>
> But what we call "capitalism" now, isn't the same capitalism as when
> Marx lived. Perhaps the system was the same, but the workers lacked in
> practice the freedom to choose what to purchase. During 1800-1900, workers
> earned so little in many factories, they could not afford to choose for
> "socially produced products" if they had existed. They had to choose for
> the cheapest.
They still do. For the same reasons.
Jos
><Jos> wrote in message news:slrndkcu5...@localhost.localdomain...
>> Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Yes, I see an increasing tendency to represent things primarily in
>> >terms of political and human rights. While those things are certainly
>> >important, I believe it represents a limited perspective. Put very
>> >simply, the Marxist achievement was to develop a systemic view, a
>> >holistic view, which integrated politics, society, and economy. To
>> >reduce this to politics I fear undercuts the scientific nature of the
>> >Marxist enterprise. That is, I don't see that a focus on dictatorship
>> >vs. democracy is "wider", but seems narrower.
>>
>> In trying to formulate an answer to your comment, I discovered (for
>> myself) that capitalism in its current form is not the problem. The
>> downward pressure on wages and work conditions, is due to the pressures
>> of the consumers, who in large majority choose cheap products over social
>> products.
>
>That is the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard!
Great, maybe it's something new then; I'll try to expand the idea ...
> The downward pressure
>on wages and conditions is due to the greed of the capitalists, they are
>constantly trying to find new ways to squeeze profit from society. Many
>people buy the cheapest products because that's all they can afford.
>Assuming that all have the ability to "choose" what they buy is absurd!!
>
>> If consumers insisted on social production, then the competition
>> between companies wouldn't be for cheapest product/service, but for most
>> socially (or environmentally sustainable) produced product/service.
>
>Again, you are referring to the small percentage of people that can spend
>extra money on "feelgood" produce. One example I can think of is organic
>food. The price is sometimes double the standard foods.
Example:
Massive indoor lighting in the evening is pure wastful luxury, a
fridge too (we lived millions of years without it, except for the inuit).
I know, I removed them because I was unhappy with their environmental
footprint. I choose to benefit the environment over the (questionable)
luxury of a fridge or lighting. I choose for a greener future against
such short term cultural artifacts (that seem more about status then
actually being useful anyway, perishable goods can be bought and
be eaten more quickly). This makes me happy (I'm using around 30
Watt in the summer), therefore, these choices even improve my life
immediately. It's not that I don't like luxury, but I like the luxury
of a habitable world more.
This is a choice that almost everybody can make, and that is actually
saving money. Reducing your own environmental and social footprint is
a big money saver. Money that can be spend on social/green products,
for instance, or on charity organizations making the world a more
social place (if that is still possible). You can also use it to work
less, to leave more time for vulenteer work.
Ofcourse there is always someone to find who doesn't
have this choice, but that is no excuse for the 90% of the people in
western culture who have significant or some purchasing freedom above
the absolute minimum where all choice seazes. Food is redicilously
cheap as it is BTW, for 15 minutes of work everybody can buy a sack
of 5 kg potatoes (that's 2 weeks worth of potato eating!).
Communists should aplaud social/green products, because they comprise
kernels of more social and less abusive greedy behavior. Contrary
to old communist beliefs, they are stable islands of socialism /
communism. These beliefs were based on past past failures for what I
understand (commune?). But I know they are stable, because we have
these social/green companies here and some go back decades, more are
emerging every few years, another food-store, a butcher, a clothes
store, a coffee store. Decades of operation is more then can be
said for many "profit maximization" companies: the costumers are
loyal. There are now a number of social/green companies within the
same segment (food), competing for the favors of the consumers they
service! I count 3 or 4 (on 175.000 people), but I may not know them
all. That is very stable, even though it is a very limited number. The
reason they are stable is the existing market they serve.
If a rich person elects to buy product there, better there then
anywhere else I'd say. Ofcourse rich people buing social/green do
not absolutely help in the overall picture. They should first give
their wealth to charity instead, if they want to make a net positive
impact. For them it is just false "feelgood". But that isn't the
issue regarding these products and hardly the fault of the people
creating them.
If there is no market for social/green products, then there
is no consumer and therefore no democratic support for a more
socialist/democratic/green society either. As a matter of fact,
going through the market seems a "choice" today. Isn't it a nice
way for people to find new ways of organizing themselves ? If it
fails, not millions of people affected by the experiment. Just one
company going bankrupt. The amount of people wishing to work within a
social/green company, would be proportional to the number of consumers
for social/green products, as all consumers are also workers.
All that we have to do, is make sure everyone has "purchasing freedom",
and that the state remains democratic. The people too poor for this
choice, have to get more money. Sadly though, the current situation
also shows that once workers are liberated enough to have purchasing
freedom, they do choose luxury over social/green in overwhelming
majority, causing their own economic suffering (they are inhabiting the
companies that have to produce "cheapest" too). Not much can be done
about that in the short term, except perhaps making them notice their
economic mistakes ? It might produce another world war that shows the
people the results of their actions, it is a democratic decision to
live in hell by the majority. I guess they like it, pain, suffering,
war, destruction. Or maybe there isn't anyone explaining them what to
do differently that could work, showing them they might have had the
key in their pocket all along.
--
Haines Brown
> Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>>Jos <J...@ergens.boeitniet> writes:
> The downward pressure on wages and work conditions, is due to the
> pressures of the consumers, who in large majority choose cheap
> products over social products.
Yes, I believe this is referred to as market competition. The
"consumers" (which includes everyone who enters the marketplace,
including capitalists themselves), seeks to purchase the least
expensive product available. One always looks into the relation of
value to cost, the "biggest bang for the buck", as they say here.
There are, of course, important exceptions. a) Consumers living at the
edge have to pay the minimum price regardless of value. Many people in
my neighborhood seek the least expensive apartment regardless of its
appeal, for the prices are so high they can't survive if they were to
begin considering what they got for their money. b) There may be no
real choices available, where prices are not determined by
competition. Monopoly capitalism is a classic example. Many of my
neighbors have no effective access to a grocery store and must pay the
high prices and submit to the limited selection and poor quality
available in local "ma and pa" stores. c) Ignorance of comparative
value. Products are usually purchased on the basis of slick
advertising and predatory marketing policies. For example (a pet
peeve), if people were to choose on the basis of rational
decision-making, they would never buy Microsoft Windows.
> If consumers insisted on social production, then the competition
> between companies wouldn't be for cheapest product/service, but for
> most socially (or environmentally sustainable) produced
> product/service.
I'm unclear, but by "social production" do you mean production that
takes into consideration the wellbeing or interests of the consumer,
regardless of maximal profit? Putting a safety feature into a car, for
example, that would not be readily apparent to its consumer? Do you
mean, for example, not dumping one's toxic waste, but disposing of it
properly?
If a producer for some reason offers a product that has greater social
value, then is the consumer not getting more for the resulting
increased price? If I knew the car I was about to purchase had a
safety feature, I might gladly pay more for it. If I knew the producer
of a product was environmentally responsible, don't I get a benefit
from the extra cost of his product?
The problem, then is not the consumer, who still seeks the greatest
personal or social benefit for the least cost, but the producer, who
often is interested solely in profit, regardless of the value of his
product. Investors of capital in public corporations are required by
law to invest in what yields the highest return (what is called
"fiduciary responsibility"). This law was challenged at one time (in
the context of the anti-Apartheid struggle here), but it remains on
the whole true that the person making investment decisions knows that
he will gain from making choices that gives the stock holders the
greatest financial return on their investment, regardless of social
values. Again, there are exceptions to a degree.
> Some people do put social qualities over pricing qualities, enough
> to have a number of social companies/shops supplying this small
> market segment. It could be argued, that these companies - even
> though they may not have maximized social production - represent
> "islands of communism within capitalism", disproving Marxism which
> claimed this could not happen, that we needed a "world revolution"
> eliminating all capitalism.
I believe you are going out on a limb here. It is never either/or, but
only the extent to which social values are taken into consideration in
addition to price. I'm sure what you mean by "small market segment",
for the product that responds to social values, simply charges more
because the product has this added cost of production. This is like
any other product in which higher prices are often assumed to reflect
greater value. If I buy a luxurious car, I do so because I'm willing
to pay for greater value. Part of that value is in the car itself,
such as greater comfort, but part of it is a social value such as the
prestige I gain as I drive down the street.
The point is that these social values are real. One might argue that
they benefit society as a whole rather than the individual consumer,
but what benefits society also benefits me. A philosophical issue
here is whether I'm a social being or a greedy individual.
I'm also not comfortable with your "islands of communism". True, under
socialism, production is supposed to be socially responsible, but that
is only an effect of social control over the means of production, not
the definition of socialism itself. For example, a law requiring auto
manufacturers to include a piece of safety equipment imposes social
values on production, but does not change the capitalist system. All
manufacturers are subject to the law, which levels the field of
competition, and profits still have to be ploughed back into
technology to reduce prices so that the auto remains competitive in
the marketplace. What drives production remains primarily profit, not
value.
> But what we call "capitalism" now, isn't the same capitalism as when
> Marx lived. Perhaps the system was the same, but the workers lacked
> in practice the freedom to choose what to purchase. During
> 1800-1900, workers earned so little in many factories, they could
> not afford to choose for "socially produced products" if they had
> existed. They had to choose for the cheapest.
The socialist argument is that workers are paid a "subsistence" wage,
which supports the development of the worker in the way and to the
extent required by the current development of capitalist
production. In the U.S., having to purchase a car is almost mandatory
for anyone living outside major cities, for otherwise you would not
make it to work. So the ability to purchase one is part of
subsistence.
Many workers (wage earners) enjoy slightly more than a subsistence
wage for a variety of reasons (union struggle, overtime, imperialism),
and so may be able to purchase something better than the least
expensive reliable car. This is an example of what is called an
"auxiliary hypothesis" in the philosophy of science, which in itself
does not invalidate the theory; it is merely an exception to it.
> We now live in a form of capitalism, where only the minority really
> at the bottom live under conditions that were widespread then. Today
> at least in Europe, workers have more then enough money to do away
> their car and spend the money on socially produced food and
> drink. They do not do this in majority, they mistakenly think
> perhaps that this isn't "cool" or "tough" (no idea what the problem
> is, but many simply don't do it, maybe its greed).
Not sure I follow you. I assume you mean that in Europe workers have
enough disposable income to purchase not only a car, but to indulge
themselves in luxuries, such as eating at a good restaurant. If wages
are subject to the constraints of the labor market, how did they get
this extra income? That needs to be explained before coming to any
conclusion. In principle, if there is competition for jobs, the job
will go to whoever is willing to work for less, and wages eventually
are dragged down to the subsistence level.
That is, there must be a specific reason why wages are often not at
the subsistence level. I might cook up an hypotheses why this is so,
but the main thing is that there must be reasons why the outcome of
the capitalist system deviates from its expected behavior. In lieu of
that reason, we would have to reconceptualize the dynamics of the
capitalist system, which at this point no one seems able to do.
I don't want to get hung up on one hypothesis or the other, but just
by way of example let me offer one. The labor market and the market
for products is today global. Many of the products purchased in Europe
were produced with inexpensive overseas labor. Because the product
market also tends to be global, this tends to reduce the living cost
of someone living in Europe and therefore increases his disposable
income. Ultimately, the global mobility of labor and products will
drag down the living standard of most workers in developed capitalist
nations, but that process is only beginning (as seen in the fear and
resentment of the Gastarbeiter in Germany). It is often estimated that
the standard of living in the U.S. by 2050 will be the same as in
China. If global labor were to enjoy a lifestyle well over subsistence
(which itself tends to rise), then I believe there will be some
interesting consequences.
> Now focussing towards greed, where does it come from. Greed is
> hurting our entire planet, is threatening to do us all in. So why do
> we have greed within humanity, when it doesn't serve us at all. The
> answer seems simple enough thanks to modern biology: before humanity
> gained the upper hand over all other species, we needed to deceive
> our predators and prey, we needed to fight with them, and if
> possible make them fear us. We needed the qualities the bad-guys
> have in most horror movies: cruelty, perfect deception/lying
> skills. That's where the qualities that are hurting us come from:
> our evolutionary past. The criminal behaviors served us once, they
> don't do anymore as a species.
I won't explore this at length, but there's a lot to object to
here. For one thing, the traditional notion of evolution is that it is
"red of tooth and claw". However, we know that not all species are
engaged in a struggle over limited resources. Some find a niche and
live in it very comfortably. However, even were we to grant that
species are competitive, not all members of all species are
competitive with each other. Some species have "family" solidarity,
where competition is external to the reproductive unit; some species
are social, and competition (except perhaps for the leadership
position) project their aggression outside the social unit. Human
beings are social animals (like wolves), and in terms of survival tend
to be aggressive in terms of groups. The point is, this has nothing to
do with "greed", which is an individual trait.
My second objection is that historians would insist that features of
human nature, assuming that they are even definable in the first
place, can not serve to explain history. There are technical reasons
for this I'll not explore into here.
> Back to dictatorship/capitalism. Dictatorship is power-differential
> between individuals/groups, and the robbery of power is usually or
> always the precursor to economic exploitation.
I'm not sure that dictatorship is reducible to a power
differential. Many people are stronger than I, but don't for that
reason bully me. The collective power of a state is always necessarily
more powerful than any individual or group, but that does not make all
states dictatorship. But this is a small point.
I naturally ask myself, in following your points, whether you are
trying to summarize a socialist position or offering a counter to
it. So all I can say is that the basis of exploitation in Marxist
terms is expressed on economic rather than political terms. That is,
the owner of the means of production must generally compete in the
market place and so produce his goods as inexpensively as
possible. The costs of production are the costs of the factors of
production purchased in the marketplace. One factor is labor, which he
tries to purchase as cheaply as possible, which is its market value
(costs of its social reproduction defining "subsistence"). Marxists
argue that labor is paid for its cost of reproduction, but not for the
value that labor creates while producing (some would question the
labor theory of value implied here). Labor is paid for its social
reproduction, but not its development beyond that required by
developing prouctive technology, and (for reasons that may not be
immediately obvious), labor necessarily experiences unsatisfied needs.
So while there is in fact an economic power differential here, it
represents a necessary condition rather than exploitation itself. For
example, suppose we had a small manufacturer of screw gauges that sold
the product to a large aircraft engine manufacturer. There is a
substantial economic power differential here, but I don't see that the
relationship is obviously exploitive. Billy Gates has enormous wealth,
but since I'm allergic to his products, he does not manage to exploit
me, etc.
> It happens in the large by removing farmers from their land, making
> them powerless/helpless, and then use their despair to make them
> work very hard. It happens in the small by a bank-robber who robs
> the personnel of a bank of the power to do what they want, after
> which they also rob the bank of money.
The first example is important. The second, I wonder about. It
certainly involves a transfer of wealth thanks to a (political) power
differential. The victimized bank collects its insurance, which raises
the rates for all banks, but I don't think this is a Marxian notion of
exploitation. In fact, Marxism marginalizes "absolute exploitation"
(sweatshops, for example) and looks rather to "relative exploitation"
as I described above. The reason, I suppose, is that absolute
exploitation is not systemic and therefore offers little basis for
action or change. That is, if we rebel in the face of absolute
exploitation, it ends nothing but a bandaid, a very temporary and
localized relief.
> Dictatorship is a common denominator between other types of
> exploitation like slavery or theocracy, where there need be no money
> at all in the system. Capital most certainly is not present in all
> forms of exploitation. Capital is obviously not present in
> exploitation/social-suffering between individuals of other species
> then humans.
Yes, which is one reason (if I accept your definition of
"dictatorship" as merely a power inequity) Marxism avoids this
perspective. It becomes part of the human condition, insensitive to
the development of history, and therefore not something we can do much
about without changing other things.
> Therefore: (current) capitalism is not the cause of exploitation,
> though the very specific conditions not representative of all
> possibilities of a money exchange culture during 1800-1900 may have
> rightly focussed attention towards capitalism (I don't know, can't
> remember being there).
Yes, given your definition. I believe it is to anthropologists we must
turn to explain the emergence of power differentials. They worry a
good deal about the transition from an elite (non-exploitive by
definition, despite a power differential) to state formation (where
the ruling class position depends on curtailing the power of everyone
else). However, we end up in your terms with the fact that any
state/government is by definition an exploitive dictatorship, which
tends to reconcile us to that miserable condition, for there's really
no alternative to having government (some anarchists might argue
otherwise).
> `Dictatorship' provides a wider context. This context however is
> very large, it spans many millions of years of evolution, perhaps
> hundreds of millions or more, and it spans many other species
> besides humans as well.
And that's the problem with it: it looses any explanatory power.
> Even though `capitalism' might seem like offering a wide
> perspective, there are much wider perspectives still.
I don't know if you intend this, but the implication is that
capitalism is simply a result of the human condition in modern
circumstances, and so we had best just accept it as inevitable.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
I understand that the above is the present situation. But we need to
separate out two groups: those that have purchasing freedom, and those
that don't. The issue of exactly where to put the separating line is
another independent issue, deserving of its own attention. The problem
of no stores being available offering social/green products is a
local problem, which may be the result of lack of demand for them.
The issue of "who to blame for not supporting green/social products"
I find irrelevant. There is no blame to be placed upon poor people.
The only thing that matters is: how do we improve the world, what are
our options, what do we tell people they could do that would help.
Group 1. "without purchasing freedom". These people should be assisted
in any way possible, to improve their economic situation. Charity,
better jobs, strikes to force better wages, revolution if you will ...
This group cannot be demanded to buy social/green ofcourse, because
any money that goes to aleviate the poverty of workers making the
social product, would do an equally good job in aleviating the poverty
of the poor consumer. There is no social divident achieved. Very
simply: if the social product is aiding
wealthier-then-the-consumer-itself poor workers elsewhere (maybe in
another continent), then buying it is not social.
Group 2. "with purchasing freedom". These people would support a more
social world, would they buy social/green products. If this group
becomes a (large) majority, the socialist/communist world has become
an everyday fact of life. The investment made by this group is also
into "awareness", knowing that you're actually buying green/social,
and are not being fooled. This group might also give to charity, charity
is a form of informal government.
Who is group 1 and who is group 2. This is an individual matter. But I
guess that often people decide they are "without purchasing freedom",
simply because they like the additional luxury but don't want to admit it to
themselves, while they are more wealthy then the producers of "fair
trade" products. Fortunately given the above rules, the truth can be
found out for each product, and a rational decision can be made as to
where the money would behave socially (within the wallet of the poor
consumer, or within the trade of the poor producer). With green it might
not be as simple (?).
Practical problems, like no green/social products available. Perhaps
demand is too low, perhaps do a survey and bring it to the attention
of shop owners a proffit could be made by selling some social/green
product(s). If nothing is possible, the excess money could also be
spend on buying just the social/green part: give money to a charity
organization, which is ofcourse simply purchasing services for a more
social/green world. In that respect, charities are businesses, offering
a service for money.
>> If consumers insisted on social production, then the competition
>> between companies wouldn't be for cheapest product/service, but for
>> most socially (or environmentally sustainable) produced
>> product/service.
>
> I'm unclear, but by "social production" do you mean production that
> takes into consideration the wellbeing or interests of the consumer,
> regardless of maximal profit?
yes
> Putting a safety feature into a car, for
> example, that would not be readily apparent to its consumer? Do you
> mean, for example, not dumping one's toxic waste, but disposing of it
> properly?
With "social" I mean things like: "fair wages", "good working
conditions", "no labor-speed so intense that it deteriorates the body",
"being on speaking terms with management", "management which regards
workers as humans, not machines", and more advanced: "democratic
decision making within the company", "buying raw materials and services
from other social groups". Basically anything that is based upon
"mutual benefit" between people, as opposed to "trying to gratify the
self to the cost of others" like "trying to screw workers out of every
last penny", "making the wage difference as high as possible in your
own advantage", "buy slave or child labor products to save cost",
"commit crime".
With "green": "buy sustainable energy", "dispose of toxic waste
properly", etc etc.
Ofcourse a company doesn't have to do everything, if it just has a
margin of being more social/green, that that can be reflected in a
proportional preference by buyers. This creates a competition between
groups for the social/green consumers, making ever more social/green
groups come into being if demand for more keeps up.
> If a producer for some reason offers a product that has greater social
> value, then is the consumer not getting more for the resulting
> increased price? If I knew the car I was about to purchase had a
> safety feature, I might gladly pay more for it. If I knew the producer
> of a product was environmentally responsible, don't I get a benefit
> from the extra cost of his product?
The social/green value cannot be determined by examining the product or
service itself. Green energy works just as well as more polluting
energy. You cannot determine from looking at a table, whether the
workers making it made a fair or starvation wage (compared to other
within the production group).
A safety feature in a car, is simply part of the product. A gun may
be socially produced, even a weapon of war. The key is that the consumer
is buying something else, he/she is buying a more social/green world.
He/she is paying a tax to support this world, if you will.
This tax can come around back to the consumers eventually in varies ways.
It is an investment into the (far) future. If social/green products are
being bought - and they are, for the first time saturday I saw green
potatoes in a ordinary supermarket for the first time, the social/green
products are increasing their market share apparently - then
social/green companies are being maintained as part of our overall
culture, the situation on the planet. When these social/green companies
grow, they need more workers. One of these workers could one day be
you or me, or any consumer. That means effectively, the worker is
liberated from (some) downward wage pressures. If "social" products,
produced by groups "where all wages are equal or within strict limits"
become very popular, these groups grow proportionally, and start "eating
up" the consumers themselves, who at other hours of the day are workers.
It is a flexible, fluid situation, which is also robust and challenging.
In a sense: the capitalists are being competed with by communists,
within the market place for favor of consumers. Consumers are a
mixed group, this provides some core stability for both, while the fight
is over the middle groups. This seems a much much better procedure for
progressive advance, then a planned economy or total revolution (at least
in Holland).
If everyone were a saint
(as I may have said earlier), then any system would work fine and evolve
fine. Given that's not the case, a situation were both groups can live
together is great. Both groups can learn from eachother, and from
eachothers mistakes, or whatever. It is lively, therefore it promotes
psychological/spiritual growth in individuals. That is much better then
either a socially planned economy where power is heavily centralized
(the "good king" is in power), or a fascisticly planned economy where
power is heavily centralized (the "bad king" is in power).
It has the bonus of being democratic, and therefore produce a society
that is a more precise reflection of the moral behaviors of all
individuals at any given time and place. Because more different
moral behaviors can be expressed within the system freely. That
doesn't mean I like all moral behaviors, but it is better that they
are being expressed then that they are subjugated. Example: buing
cheap, or buying social/green, are 2 types of moral behavior. I like
buying social/green, so I do. Someone else doesn't, but I'm not
forcing him/her to. They can both be expressed if money-exchange
is not so degenerated that allmost all have no purchasing freedom
and no company startup power, because then people are forced to buy
cheapest. They can both be expressed if communism is not so repressive,
that only social/green products are available. Forcing people to be
"good", is not good. It is better to have them make their mistakes
and hope they learn someday. Unfortunately they will lead to some
pain, but it is also what makes life interesting and an adventure.
How would a child learn to walk properly, if it never bumped its
head and felt pain. When something is an adventure, there is a natural
sense of wellbeing, excitement, even if the adventure may cause pain
at some point. It wouldn't be an adventure without it would it. Pain
and mistakes cannot and should not be eliminated. As a matter of fact,
trying to do so causes pain itself (repression).
The above launches a new challange for communism: to make the social
products popular, and to produce them. This is not going to go perfect,
but there is a demand, and therefore there is room to make the
necessary mistakes. In a way, it is simply "start living communism".
One of the best ways to start, is to create market demand, and to be
a purchaser yourself, because that is the basis upon which it stands.
> The problem, then is not the consumer, who still seeks the greatest
> personal or social benefit for the least cost, but the producer, who
> often is interested solely in profit, regardless of the value of his
> product. Investors of capital in public corporations are required by
> law to invest in what yields the highest return (what is called
> "fiduciary responsibility"). This law was challenged at one time (in
> the context of the anti-Apartheid struggle here), but it remains on
> the whole true that the person making investment decisions knows that
> he will gain from making choices that gives the stock holders the
> greatest financial return on their investment, regardless of social
> values. Again, there are exceptions to a degree.
I believe all money investing, except your basic loan making at non
loan-shark rates, are parasitic and anti-social. The money invester
has a lot of money, if he/she were social, it would be spend on
charity immediately. This would be an investment "in the conditions
of life on this planet", which would return its own rewards.
The invester of money is not doing anything productive, with money
hoarded in an anti-social manner (because not redistributed for the
common good since there is no personal need for large sums), he/she
tries to manouver him/her-self into a position a tick occupies: a
parasitic situation. The invester tries to suck the profit others
create by working, if possible without end and if possible at maximum
rate. Investers, share-holders, are parasites. Public money should
most obviously be spend on public work. If not, you might even decide
to destroy the money, in order to reduce inflation and benefit all
that own some money.
Some investers go to meetings, to discuss some issues about the course
of the company. The amount of parasitic behavior is then slightly
reduced because they do "some work". It is easy to compute how parasitic
they are in each such case: how much money do they get, how many hours
are they productive. This yields an hourly rate, which can be compared
to other workers in the group. If it is any higher then any worker,
there is a parasitic sucktion taking place on that worker. If a share
holder is never productive in such meetings, then the parasitic sucktion
is infinite: an infinitely high hourly wage, since it is money / ~0.
The investers are anti-social. One way to get around them, is by simply
not offering shares for your company, and hope for costumers that see
this as a upside, perhaps part of the social strategy of a company.
Not shareholders should profit and have power by doing (virtually) nothing,
workers should instead. Well "should", that would be social.
Again the added value of the market-view is apparent: we're not fighting
against an all powerful global elite which we can never see or touch,
we investigate the companies we buy or products/services and through our
choices win small victories ! That is most certainly a much better
outlook for winning, we can do something, we can achieve something, here
now directly. Ofcourse you need greater numbers for greater results,
but even an individual action has a result, however small. This may be
satisfying in itself.
>> Some people do put social qualities over pricing qualities, enough
>> to have a number of social companies/shops supplying this small
>> market segment. It could be argued, that these companies - even
>> though they may not have maximized social production - represent
>> "islands of communism within capitalism", disproving Marxism which
>> claimed this could not happen, that we needed a "world revolution"
>> eliminating all capitalism.
>
> I believe you are going out on a limb here. It is never either/or, but
> only the extent to which social values are taken into consideration in
> addition to price. I'm sure what you mean by "small market segment",
> for the product that responds to social values, simply charges more
> because the product has this added cost of production. This is like
> any other product in which higher prices are often assumed to reflect
> greater value. If I buy a luxurious car, I do so because I'm willing
> to pay for greater value. Part of that value is in the car itself,
> such as greater comfort, but part of it is a social value such as the
> prestige I gain as I drive down the street.
You can get prestige from anything, or hatred for anything. If someone
drove through my street in a luxurious car, that only produces negative
prestige with me. If I see someone on a bike, that produces positive
prestige with me. Prestige is "what other people think about what I'm
doing". You can get that from anything economical or otherwise, it has
no direct bearing on production or the product/service.
When you buy social/green, there is nothing different about the
product. The ""needed"" luxurious car may purchased from several
supliers. There are no specialized social/green car companies that
I know, but there undoubtedly are social/green differences between
car manufacturers. The buyer has a choice: will I not care about
social/green and choose most prestige for lowest price, or will
I make a consious choice between a) the car manufacturer that has
recently forcefully fired thousands of workers to further enrich
its shareholders, or b) shall I buy my car from a car manufacturer
that hasn't done that, and is also developing new green cars for the
future. I'm sure something like such a difference can be found out
in real life, if one is willing to pay attention to the companies,
especially with something as large scale as car production. The
prestige gained from either car may be expected to be equal, even
the price may be equal. The buyer including social/green, is essentially
sacrificing some money and time and some prestige on the car perhaps,
to promote social/green.
Give money to a charity, that is the most pure form of purchasing
green/social, so it should give some clarity about what you exactly
buy then. In essense, by buying social/green, you're buying from
companies which have a charity aspect to them. Therefore you promote
the charity-companies share within the economy, and reduce the
greed-companies share.
> The point is that these social values are real. One might argue that
> they benefit society as a whole rather than the individual consumer,
> but what benefits society also benefits me. A philosophical issue
> here is whether I'm a social being or a greedy individual.
A "social" action benefits all including the activist, but can
potentially in the short run hurt the activist physically (but this
may be compensated mentally/psychologically). An "anti-social" action
benefits the activist itself in the short run (typically economically),
while hurting everybody else including the activist in the long run.
> I'm also not comfortable with your "islands of communism". True, under
> socialism, production is supposed to be socially responsible, but that
> is only an effect of social control over the means of production, not
> the definition of socialism itself. For example, a law requiring auto
> manufacturers to include a piece of safety equipment imposes social
> values on production, but does not change the capitalist system. All
> manufacturers are subject to the law, which levels the field of
> competition, and profits still have to be ploughed back into
> technology to reduce prices so that the auto remains competitive in
> the marketplace. What drives production remains primarily profit, not
> value.
That law doesn't change the money/product-exchange culture, and it
doesn't alter the existence of capital (huge sums of hoarded money).
What drives the market-place, is what drives consumers. If consumers
have purchasing power and they choose cheapest, they are as greedy
as the capitalists they deride for being greedy. Being generous means
giving money away that you don't have to, that is the opposite of greed.
Why should capitalistic management give money away when it isn't forced,
when consumers aren't giving away money when they aren't forced (like
buying social/green). Both groups are one group: the greedy. Both groups
have all the power they ever need to make the world better, both can
even achieve it without the other. If capitalistic management remains
greedy but consumers/workers are switching in large majority to
green/social/charity, then greedy capitalist magament is likely to eventually
melt away into the criminal underworld and prison. While they melt away,
a new group of people gains levels of power, thanks to the success of
their (more) green/social companies. These people will naturally be
more social, and not exploit workers, because being social is at the
core of their success and business. To a degree, "these people" can be
a workers collective, depending on what companies become succesful
in the hypothetical future where a majority of people with purchasing
freedom become generous and choose green/social. If this happens, it is
only likely isn't it, that people without purchasing freedom will be
lifted from their situation. Because that is what social is about, and
what drives the company popularity. Consumers will just continue to make
the choices, between more and less social/green companies. This will
make the market work for communism.
To the degree people are not generous, isn't it poetic justice they
create their own downward wage pressures, and naturally make the most
agressive worker bosses their masters, who are able to decrease the
wage/production ratio most, and hoard most money for leverage in the
market battles, giving most proffit to the leading elite shareholder
parasites (which they one day hope to become), for favors by Big Money ?
It is all in the hands of the ordinary person, I suggest people use it
more. It is occuring already, we're just talking about something
that is happening. It seems time communist theory wakes up to it, and
to its potential. Why they haven't, I don't know. Maybe too fixated
on Marxist theory from the 1800-1900, when capitalism meant people had
no purchasing freedom at all; a completely different situation from
today.
Having a car is indulging themselves in luxuries (damaging the planet
in the process I might add). They cannot eat in a good restaurant
every week or perhaps every month, though, but it differs very much
between workers of all kinds.
See other post on what I mean with disposable income. If you have a
fridge, if you have lights on in the evening: that is your disposable
income at work for luxuries. I suggest we look at other parts of the world
to compare, and to our natural environment: - do the extreme 3rd world
poor have lights on in their homes at night ? - do they have a frigde ?
I'm not even talking about such things like cars. Unbelievable what
people think is "essential" these days, what was unimaginable /luxury/
just 200 years ago, pure folly for the super rich. And that's what it
still is: folly, disposable luxury. We cannot live without water, we
can live without many other things. Because we can dispose of it, it
gives us power to reapply that disposable income associated with it.
This is a qualitative change in behavior, which when applied smart
can make the world more fair. If the medium-poor really want "equality",
they have to invest the little power they have in it. If they aren't,
then they're just wealthy rich in unfavorable circumstances, and the
poverty experienced might be poetic justice for the quality of their
behavior. In the sense that "the currently rich are waiting in line to
join them there", I mean. Perhaps the world is just, after all.
> If wages
> are subject to the constraints of the labor market, how did they get
> this extra income? That needs to be explained before coming to any
> conclusion. In principle, if there is competition for jobs, the job
> will go to whoever is willing to work for less, and wages eventually
> are dragged down to the subsistence level.
Wages go down only when consumers want cheapest products/services,
ofcourse. It is the greed of the consumers, which bites them (the
poor more then the rich obviously, but still) when they are working.
If consumers reward companies with more equal wages, and are willing to
pay an extra buck if need be, then equal wages it is.
Gosh, this is so simple !
> That is, there must be a specific reason why wages are often not at
> the subsistence level. I might cook up an hypotheses why this is so,
> but the main thing is that there must be reasons why the outcome of
> the capitalist system deviates from its expected behavior. In lieu of
> that reason, we would have to reconceptualize the dynamics of the
> capitalist system, which at this point no one seems able to do.
I tend to see things in terms of basic behavior qualities, like "greedy
behavior", or "violent", or "generous", or "smart". I think the
behaviors of the atoms (individuals) determine the quality of the
substance (society), and how it reacts (develops). When doing this,
I see that when "greed" is pervasive in a "money-exchange culture with
majority purchasing freedom (disposable income)", that consumers cause
the adverse worker conditions (as above, through selection processes,
like "natural selection" in biology). Because of the agressive downward
price and wage pressure, you might expect companies where every
individual is a poor worker, because that generates the lowest price.
I see no way out of this technical problem without resorting to the
original problem: greed. It is obvious that in a fight between greedy,
some will do better then others (the nature of fighting, some win
some lose). These who do better will get a bigger slice of the pie,
and they are defending it from the others. So, there are two opposing
forces in the economy: downward wage/price pressure from collective
greed, and the power of the stronger fighters who want to hoard for
themselves. It is not unlikely to believe, that the stronger fighters,
all having secured a much larger slice, will stop fighting with
eathother most of the time. Some kind of balance might develop, between
the downward equalizing pressure of collective greed, and the power
of the wealthy to resist it.
To prevent the poor from also developing a strategic bond against
the wealthy, the poor could be divided against themselves. What better
way then to divide them up into infinite classes of wealth, which are
all low, and make them fight between eachother for a larger breadcrumb.
Hence: the carreer, where almost every worker earns a different hourly
wage from another, dividing them between themselves. Now, all
individuals are separated, there is no collective attack on the position
of the also divided between themselves rich. All divisions that can
be created between others, prohibit these others (whoever they are,
rich or poor), from banding together against "yourself". Even in
chimp society, powerful leaders can be ejected from the group by a
strategic allience between less powerful males.
This analyses isn't focussing on details of our culture, but more on
dynamics that might be a little bit more fundamental, to understand
apparent contradictions in this culture.
> I don't want to get hung up on one hypothesis or the other, but just
> by way of example let me offer one. The labor market and the market
> for products is today global. Many of the products purchased in Europe
> were produced with inexpensive overseas labor. Because the product
> market also tends to be global, this tends to reduce the living cost
> of someone living in Europe and therefore increases his disposable
> income. Ultimately, the global mobility of labor and products will
> drag down the living standard of most workers in developed capitalist
> nations, but that process is only beginning (as seen in the fear and
> resentment of the Gastarbeiter in Germany). It is often estimated that
> the standard of living in the U.S. by 2050 will be the same as in
> China. If global labor were to enjoy a lifestyle well over subsistence
> (which itself tends to rise), then I believe there will be some
> interesting consequences.
Depends on how they will use their disposable income.
>> Now focussing towards greed, where does it come from. Greed is
>> hurting our entire planet, is threatening to do us all in. So why do
>> we have greed within humanity, when it doesn't serve us at all. The
>> answer seems simple enough thanks to modern biology: before humanity
>> gained the upper hand over all other species, we needed to deceive
>> our predators and prey, we needed to fight with them, and if
>> possible make them fear us. We needed the qualities the bad-guys
>> have in most horror movies: cruelty, perfect deception/lying
>> skills. That's where the qualities that are hurting us come from:
>> our evolutionary past. The criminal behaviors served us once, they
>> don't do anymore as a species.
>
> I won't explore this at length, but there's a lot to object to
> here. For one thing, the traditional notion of evolution is that it is
> "red of tooth and claw". However, we know that not all species are
> engaged in a struggle over limited resources. Some find a niche and
> live in it very comfortably. However, even were we to grant that
> species are competitive, not all members of all species are
> competitive with each other. Some species have "family" solidarity,
> where competition is external to the reproductive unit; some species
> are social, and competition (except perhaps for the leadership
> position) project their aggression outside the social unit. Human
> beings are social animals (like wolves), and in terms of survival tend
> to be aggressive in terms of groups. The point is, this has nothing to
> do with "greed", which is an individual trait.
I may have to write a ton of more lines to explain it so it becomes
acceptable. But since we're already virtually writing a book here...
You said nothing that I disagree with, except for the latest part.
I take humanity, and notice that it was a long time ago in direct
physical combat with a number of species, wolves being one. We did
not find a niche and happily lived in it unopposed. We shot deer,
battled tigres and bears; we seem to even have extincted the mamoth
species. We are a predator, and we are at odds with other predators
and prey, over their lives and over their territory.
Because we are "in battle" (as in fact all species I can imagine
right now) as a species, we need qualities that make us good fighters,
as said. Therefore we need some internal fighting, to determine who
will be "leader" and therefore "father/mother children", to select
good fighting stock.
"Greed" means "the eternal desire to own more, which is never satisfied".
The "leader" needs to be greedy, in order to a) bring him/her into
confrontation with other would-be leaders (who are also greedy), so the
fight can begin and determine "best breeder"; b) the greedier the leader
is, the more territory/females he/she wants to collect, and the more
children will be borne by the highest championship winner. It is like
a local contest, which produces a winner, and give him/her the power
to make some children. But why stop there, let two local champions duke
it out, and let the winner make all children in the combined territory.
That way, humanity won't get stuck with one half of somewhat inferior
fighter children, which is threatening its position against *other*
species, who are racing us to extinction as we are them.
So, greed is a natural trait, a virtue. At least, then. Since we as a
species are now unopposed, we don't need to select for best fighters
anymore. We are no longer a fighting species, or actually we are a
fighting species that is now in a position where fighting is no longer
useful but extremely damaging instead. We have to find a new way,
evolutionary, I guess. People fought eachother to the death over
access to willing females just a few hundred years ago (duels for
instance). It is undeniable how close this behavior mimmicks the
behavior of many if not most "fighting" mammels. The fact this behavior
is disappearing, is some indication of the changing qualities we
accept as as species. An end to economic suffering of the poor, which
seems merely a device to find "best fighting stock", is then also on
the drawing board. That is good to know I guess.
> My second objection is that historians would insist that features of
> human nature, assuming that they are even definable in the first
> place, can not serve to explain history. There are technical reasons
> for this I'll not explore into here.
This is not a historical explanation, but an evolutionary one.
Timescales are so large and effects so slow, that particular historical
events can at best be a show that is played before this backdrop.
It cannot be denied, that humanity was once a species one in many,
and that it is now the supreme commander of all species on Earth,
that is pretty much god-like in power compared to any other. This change
has evolved slowly, but it is a strong change. I think it is going to
affect such traits as greed, over the hundreds of thousands of years,
maybe quicker, who knows. It is important in its own right, doesn't
matter whether it doesn't explain any particular historical event or not.
>> Back to dictatorship/capitalism. Dictatorship is power-differential
>> between individuals/groups, and the robbery of power is usually or
>> always the precursor to economic exploitation.
>
> I'm not sure that dictatorship is reducible to a power
> differential. Many people are stronger than I, but don't for that
> reason bully me. The collective power of a state is always necessarily
> more powerful than any individual or group, but that does not make all
> states dictatorship. But this is a small point.
>
> I naturally ask myself, in following your points, whether you are
> trying to summarize a socialist position or offering a counter to
> it.
I'm trying to expand its historical viewpoint to include an evolutionary
one, I'm trying to find effective ways to promote "social behavior", that
reduces economic suffering and war, and that do not cause more damage
then they fix. If I'm at odds with "socialism", then I would simply
redefine socialist to be in line with me, if I conclude by method is
more effective (ofcourse).
> So all I can say is that the basis of exploitation in Marxist
> terms is expressed on economic rather than political terms. That is,
> the owner of the means of production must generally compete in the
> market place and so produce his goods as inexpensively as
> possible. The costs of production are the costs of the factors of
> production purchased in the marketplace. One factor is labor, which he
> tries to purchase as cheaply as possible, which is its market value
> (costs of its social reproduction defining "subsistence"). Marxists
> argue that labor is paid for its cost of reproduction, but not for the
> value that labor creates while producing (some would question the
> labor theory of value implied here). Labor is paid for its social
> reproduction, but not its development beyond that required by
> developing prouctive technology, and (for reasons that may not be
> immediately obvious), labor necessarily experiences unsatisfied needs.
That is the viewpoint of the ruler. I think labor is payed equal to
its realized power. The less power labor has, the less it will be payed.
If the power is zero, the above Maxist view applies: labor merely
serves the needs for social reproduction of labor. Labor experiences
relative unsatisfied needs, when it has a negative power differential
with the rulers, which the rulers exploit against them. The analyses
above shows that once labor achieves some power (for instance disposable
income), and they don't use it socially, they become the cause of
their own exploitation.
The ideas here about buying social/green/charity, are ideas
that built upon the next stage of worker development, after they have
gained access to disposable income, which they did not have when Marx
lived. Marxist theory would be applicable when there is no disposable
income, Jos theory (if I may be so rude) becomes applicable when there is.
There is no clash I guess.
> So while there is in fact an economic power differential here, it
> represents a necessary condition rather than exploitation itself. For
> example, suppose we had a small manufacturer of screw gauges that sold
> the product to a large aircraft engine manufacturer. There is a
> substantial economic power differential here, but I don't see that the
> relationship is obviously exploitive. Billy Gates has enormous wealth,
> but since I'm allergic to his products, he does not manage to exploit
> me, etc.
But many companies you use products from, use his software, and pay
heavily for its high price and lacking stability. This translates into
a higher cost of all these services. Since MS software is pervasive,
everything is more costly then it would otherwise potentially be. This
ties down disposable income, which might have been used differently.
It now sits in Bill Gates pocket instead.
You also chose a very funny example, because MS usual strategy is to
find a small powerless company that creates something of interest, and
then it buys up the entire company, making it its own. How's that for
power struggle. However, you're pointing to power differences within
the ruling owning class. These power differences are not the greatest,
the power-differences between that producer of screws and its cleaning
personell is much greater, the power difference between Bill Gates and
his cleaning personell is even greater still. The hourly wage difference
is equaly astronomical. Relative exploitation within a group. Ofcourse
Bill might say, "there is no group, I'm hiring these workers as
individuals". But that only underscores the lack of community and the
resulting exploitation.
Using Linux BTW, is choosing social, because it is a social production
process without economic exploitation. Most interestingly BTW, it is
zero cost, and top quality.
Then it may belong in the evolutionary research area. We cannot change
it at all (according the above analyses of evolution/power of humanity),
unless we dramatically and fundamentally alter the conditions in which
we live, causing new qualities of life to become succesful. Such change
can barely be imagined or affected by any group. However, I think it has
taken place, whether we like it or not, so we can at least take notice of
it (change from fight- to cooperative needs, thanks to practical change
of our position in nature).
>> Therefore: (current) capitalism is not the cause of exploitation,
>> though the very specific conditions not representative of all
>> possibilities of a money exchange culture during 1800-1900 may have
>> rightly focussed attention towards capitalism (I don't know, can't
>> remember being there).
>
> Yes, given your definition. I believe it is to anthropologists we must
> turn to explain the emergence of power differentials. They worry a
> good deal about the transition from an elite (non-exploitive by
> definition, despite a power differential) to state formation (where
> the ruling class position depends on curtailing the power of everyone
> else). However, we end up in your terms with the fact that any
> state/government is by definition an exploitive dictatorship, which
> tends to reconcile us to that miserable condition, for there's really
> no alternative to having government (some anarchists might argue
> otherwise).
I also think a government is not principally needed for any conceivable
species/situation at all. For humanity it seems presently mostly a
response to lacking skill and lacking moral perfection.
To be able to live without government, is actually simple. You just
need to measure up to the qualitative specifications.
- You need to find an economic balance with all other individuals in
the group (or species), you actively enforce this against the
detriment of your own wealth, in a manner that gives you more pleasure
then keeping the wealth (otherwise it is not sustainable),
- You try to be productive like others are productive, this has to give
you pleasure also.
- You try to find a balance with nature, so nobody needs to come in and
stop you for destroying too much. Nature's existence has to give you
more pleasure then its destruction.
Charity organizations then form informal governemnt organs. It is all
very simple, but it depends on some moral change. Lacking that,
everything will always be a failure, which is a good thing: we can learn
something from the pain caused. So its not really a failure at all.
>> `Dictatorship' provides a wider context. This context however is
>> very large, it spans many millions of years of evolution, perhaps
>> hundreds of millions or more, and it spans many other species
>> besides humans as well.
>
> And that's the problem with it: it looses any explanatory power.
The problems of our society cannot be overcome or understood by a
historical context. This is perhaps a mistake in Marxism, which was
developed when evolutionary theory didn't even exist or was just
beginning. Marxism doesn't have the scientific benefits we now enjoy.
>> Even though `capitalism' might seem like offering a wide
>> perspective, there are much wider perspectives still.
>
> I don't know if you intend this, but the implication is that
> capitalism is simply a result of the human condition in modern
> circumstances, and so we had best just accept it as inevitable.
The implication is, that "human condition" is changing and needs
to change to face new circumstances, an evolutionary inescapable
pressure without destroying the last hundred thousand years of
"history", but even then we might redevelop into this circumstance:
our position of power, our lack of need for fighting skills.
We most definitely shouldn't accept the current situation as
inevitable, rather we should find hope in the knowledge that this
situation will likely be temporary (if you believe the evolutionary
story, I do). We can understand now that capitalism with purchasing
freedom offers us great possibilities that can be effective
immediately, possibilities that we should not be ignoring if we
want to end suffering asap. Capitalism is merely money-exchange,
the problem lies with pervasive greed, not with the system and/or
its historical roots. The historical analyses is important in its
own right, but lacks the perspective to come to satisfying explanations
for our situation, our past and future. The historical analyses makes
the mistake, of trying to explain evolutionary changes in a historical
context. It cannot find an answer, because its scope in time is way
too limited. Therefore it cannot pin down the problem on any one
event, any one prince, any one country or invention. It cannot get
its finger behind the problem. Therefore it cannot explain it and cannot
guide us. It can only record the read we take, and look at a the road
ahead and behind until the latest bend. You need archeology to see
some direction of the road we travel, and even that we need to place
within the much wider frame of evolution in order to make sense of it.
The most immediate mistake of Marxism seems to be: to put sainthood
on the labor force, which it sees as helpless victims, saints opressed
by demons. This is probably a result of the sympathy felt for the
suffering masses.
Analyses which goes into the psyche of humanity (greed), shows that
the capitalistic system is producing its adverce effects because of
this greed, and not because of its cultural details. Capitalism
appears to be merely one cultural implement of money-exchange, and
it appears neutral, a context merely (as argued), not the cause of
any trouble whatsoever ("change a few laws and things are pretty much
communistic"). Given that we know capitalism is merely a context,
and not our enemy, we can put a social meaning into this context
instead of wasting our energy on fighting "windmills" (context).
--
Best regards.
(Did not in any way attempt for brevity, since everything was already
posted before mostly, we're just expanding so who cares. Feel free
to snip with extreme prejudice...)
Haines Brown
> On 2005-10-08, Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>> Jos writes:
> I understand that the above is the present situation. But we need to
> separate out two groups: those that have purchasing freedom, and
> those that don't. The issue of exactly where to put the separating
> line is another independent issue, deserving of its own attention.
I have a little difficulty following your point. I am confused by
three factors that appear to be conflated here: a) whether the
consumer has disposable income, b) whether there are socially
beneficial products available in the marketplace, c) whether the
consumer with disposable income chooses them. It would be useful to
know if these in fact are the factors you bring into account.
Without being certain of your point, it might be useful to refer back
to the classic (i.e., classical political economy) representation of
the situation. The autonomous (vs. social) individual makes himself
aware of what is available in the marketplace, and then chooses among
them which result in an increase in his "talents"/profits. A word was
invented in the 18th century to describe such a choice, and it is
"rational". Today, this model is called "optimal decision theory".
The model has been subject to much criticism by Marxists, and even by
capitalists, although it remains an ideological foundation of
capitalism. For one thing, this simple mechanistic view fails to the
extent we act as social beings rather than as social atoms. When the
actor is a social being, unequivocal causality ceases to exist. But
the capitalist, whose situation is much more narrowly defined, can
reliably (everything else being the same) make such rational
decisions, and hence, we have economic (positivist) science (a
non-positivist economic science involving processes with probabilistic
outcomes is exemplified by Marxism).
Then indeed consumer pressure, if we assume the consumer has
disposable income (income significantly higher than subsistence) can
indeed bring pressure on manufacturers to offer products that have
value that benefits society as a whole. In fact, that does
happen. Even the capitalist may make such decisions in relatively
developed capitalist systems.
The problems, I believe, are two. For one thing, it considers only a
relatively developed capitalist economy, disregarding the global
context, which makes such luxury temporary and local. For another, it
disregards the contradictions of capitalism, which (arguably) must
ultimately reduce disposable income and the availability of socially
responsible products.
For example, the rising global demand for petroleum products and
increasing costs of production due to a variety of factors, including
limited raw materials, has resulted in a significant rise in gasoline
prices in the U.S. This has in fact reduced the amount of
discretionary (non-subsistence) travel in the U.S. While it might
hasten the move to make more fuel efficient cars available, the
lowered standard of living, due in part to increased fuel costs (as it
affects food prices, etc.), makes the consumer less able to afford
more environmentally responsible means of transportation (I don't want
to get hung up on the specifics of this example, for it is only by way
of illustration).
I'm not sure, but your argument seems to be one in defense of the
capitalist system in that the system is capable of supporting social
or environmental development. My general reaction is that, yes, but
only temporarily and locally and to a limited degree.
> The problem of no stores being available offering social/green
> products is a local problem, which may be the result of lack of
> demand for them.
Things are always complicated, which is why I believe we need to grasp
realities in terms of dynamic systems and not reduce them to consumer
choices. There exists an environmentally-sensitive grocery store that
people could use, but it involves a long bus trip and a significant
walk from the final bus stop. People here are for the most part not
even aware of this store, and certainly would be shocked at its
prices. On the other hand, there is an African community on the next
street, and we have a couple African-oriented stores on the
corner. People do patronize them, not because of prices, but because
they speak the same language and feel comfortable in them. People are
willing to buy and wear African Moslem and Nigerian clothing, despite
the cost, because such clothing offers substantial social value. But
this seems a very local deviation from the norm, and I'm sure they
make sacrifices in other consumables in order to preserve social
identity (although I've never discussed this with them, for it would
be rude).
> With "social" [production] I mean things like: "fair wages", "good
> working conditions", "no labor-speed so intense that it deteriorates
> the body", "being on speaking terms with management", "management
> which regards workers as humans, not machines", and more advanced:
> "democratic decision making within the company", "buying raw
> materials and services from other social groups". Basically anything
> that is based upon "mutual benefit" between people, as opposed to
> "trying to gratify the self to the cost of others" like "trying to
> screw workers out of every last penny", "making the wage difference
> as high as possible in your own advantage", "buy slave or child
> labor products to save cost", "commit crime".
What this boils down to, I believe, is a capitalist with a moral
sense. In an advanced capitalist economy, such capitalists certainly
do exist, and some even carry out their good intentions. But your
point seems extracted from context and reduces the reality to its
exceptions. We need a systemic and global view of things, which I
believe suggests that such behavior is exceptional, local, and
ultimately doomed to failure. There is much to suggest that even in
some advanced capitalist society, such good intentions are
withering. Pension plans, labor contracts with medical insurance,
etc., etc. I can only speak of the U.S. where I happen to live, but
things seem to be headed in a long-term downward direction for labor.
I'm made uncomfortable by any analysis of the economy that depends on
moral choices. In church, the preacher says that if we all act like
good Christians, it will be a better world. Undoubtedly that's true,
but the issue is why we actually don't act that way. To broaden
optimal decision theory to include social and environmental factors in
decision making seems an ideological defense of the capitalist system
that fails to grasp the real objective forces that drive it.
> The above launches a new challange for communism: to make the social
> products popular, and to produce them. This is not going to go
> perfect, but there is a demand, and therefore there is room to make
> the necessary mistakes. In a way, it is simply "start living
> communism". One of the best ways to start, is to create market
> demand, and to be a purchaser yourself, because that is the basis
> upon which it stands.
I understood your position to be a defense of capitalism. Communism
does not seem relevant to it--at least not so far. The crux of the
matter seems to be the determinants of what happens to the economic
surplus. An enlightened democracy could indeed encourage a more
socially responsible production, but if the economic environment is
one of competition in the market place, the surplus must primarily
serve to increase productivity, and that ultimately reduces labor to
subsistence.
> You can get prestige from anything, or hatred for anything. If
> someone drove through my street in a luxurious car, that only
> produces negative prestige with me. If I see someone on a bike, that
> produces positive prestige with me.
Interesting. We live in different kinds of social worlds. I have
contact mostly with people who are poor or of low income. It is
important that the preacher have a huge luxurious car. I dress up
because it facilitates positive social relations with my neighbors,
for it shows respect for them; in the white suburbs, people dress down
to enter such relations. People here don't make judgements if you ride
a bike, for it is a common mode of transportation, and if you were to
buy a fancy new car, people would be happy for you and not judge you
negatively for it. My wife often says, the working class deserves the
best. All this has to do with social psychology, not the dynamics of
the capitalist system.
>> For example, a law requiring auto manufacturers to include a piece
>> of safety equipment imposes social values on production, but does
>> not change the capitalist system. All manufacturers are subject to
>> the law, which levels the field of competition, and profits still
>> have to be ploughed back into technology to reduce prices so that
>> the auto remains competitive in the marketplace. What drives
>> production remains primarily profit, not value.
>
> That law doesn't change the money/product-exchange culture, and it
> doesn't alter the existence of capital (huge sums of hoarded money).
Again, I have trouble with your reduction of an economic system to
culture and the choices we as individuals may make.
> See other post on what I mean with disposable income. If you have a
> fridge, if you have lights on in the evening: that is your
> disposable income at work for luxuries.
Minor point, but we apparently are using the term "disposable income"
differently. I meant by it income over and above subsistence; you
apparently mean all income over which we make choices. I would not
consider expenditures to ensure subsistence to involve choice.
> I tend to see things in terms of basic behavior qualities, like
> "greedy behavior", or "violent", or "generous", or "smart".
Yes, I believe that to be the problem. To reduce an economic system to
the choices people make strikes me as capitalist in nature. Is it your
intention to defend the capitalist system in principle, or to offer an
alternative to it?
> I think the behaviors of the atoms (individuals) determine the
> quality of the substance (society), and how it reacts (develops).
And, again, you seem to reduce society to social atoms, which is
implicitly a defense of the capitalist system. Is that your intention?
> You said nothing that I disagree with, except for the latest part.
> I take humanity, and notice that it was a long time ago in direct
> physical combat with a number of species, wolves being one. We did
> not find a niche and happily lived in it unopposed. We shot deer,
> battled tigres and bears; we seem to even have extincted the mamoth
> species. We are a predator, and we are at odds with other predators
> and prey, over their lives and over their territory.
Your aim seems to be to arrive at a definition of human nature. Such
an enterprise is open to serious question. I don't think you
description of palaeolithic man would stand up, either (Hollywood,
yes, but not archaeology). The point is, human nature evolves.
> I'm trying to expand its historical viewpoint to include an
> evolutionary one, I'm trying to find effective ways to promote
> "social behavior", that reduces economic suffering and war, and that
> do not cause more damage then they fix. If I'm at odds with
> "socialism", then I would simply redefine socialist to be in line
> with me, if I conclude by method is more effective (ofcourse).
Your motives are admirable, although your method strikes me as
unscientific. I don't get the impression you are developing socialism,
but offering a utopian defense of capitalism.
> I also think a government is not principally needed for any
> conceivable species/situation at all. For humanity it seems
> presently mostly a response to lacking skill and lacking moral
> perfection.
>
> To be able to live without government, is actually simple. You just
> need to measure up to the qualitative specifications.
OK, I understand your position better. I won't enter here into a
critique of old fashioned anarchism. You really should, though,
distance yourself from Marxism (with which you profoundly disagree)
and socialism (if by the word we mean revolutionary socialism), and
the working class (anarchism is not a working-class ideology, but in
origin, one of petty private producers). Many anarchists today embrace
a Marxist analysis, but you do not seem to be one of them.
> The problems of our society cannot be overcome or understood by a
> historical context. This is perhaps a mistake in Marxism, which was
> developed when evolutionary theory didn't even exist or was just
> beginning. Marxism doesn't have the scientific benefits we now
> enjoy.
Wow!
> We most definitely shouldn't accept the current situation as
> inevitable, rather we should find hope in the knowledge that this
> situation will likely be temporary (if you believe the evolutionary
> story, I do). We can understand now that capitalism with purchasing
> freedom offers us great possibilities that can be effective
> immediately, possibilities that we should not be ignoring if we want
> to end suffering asap.
OK, thanks for the clarification of your position, which I take to be
anarchist, with the hope that capitalism will evolve in that
direction. Not a working-class ideology, of course.
> The most immediate mistake of Marxism seems to be: to put sainthood
> on the labor force, which it sees as helpless victims, saints
> opressed by demons. This is probably a result of the sympathy felt
> for the suffering masses.
As a member of the working class, I'm happy to be sainted ;-) However,
I'm not a helpless victim, for I (naively?) expect that international
labor solidarity can and will dispose of the capitalist system.
Much of our debate does not make much progress because it has become
apparent that we disagree on some basics. In terms of science, a major
basic point of disagreement has to do with reductionism. In terms of
social perspective, it has to do with our respective class locations.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
ultra_nosh_hambone
Jos
>Jos <J...@ergens.boeitniet> writes:
>> On 2005-10-08, Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>>> Jos writes:
>> I understand that the above is the present situation. But we need to
>> separate out two groups: those that have purchasing freedom, and
>> those that don't. The issue of exactly where to put the separating
>> line is another independent issue, deserving of its own attention.
>
>I have a little difficulty following your point. I am confused by
>three factors that appear to be conflated here: a) whether the
>consumer has disposable income, b) whether there are socially
>beneficial products available in the marketplace, c) whether the
>consumer with disposable income chooses them. It would be useful to
>know if these in fact are the factors you bring into account.
These factors don't seem merged, but even if they are, it is the
duty of our mind to separate them. Your point b): there are social
products available throughout the western world at least. If no
products/services are closely, it is even possible to just purchase
the socially beneficial fraction as a stand-alone (charity).
>Without being certain of your point, it might be useful to refer back
>to the classic (i.e., classical political economy) representation of
>the situation. The autonomous (vs. social) individual makes himself
>aware of what is available in the marketplace, and then chooses among
>them which result in an increase in his "talents"/profits. A word was
>invented in the 18th century to describe such a choice, and it is
>"rational". Today, this model is called "optimal decision theory".
Wow, that word choice very sad indeed, talk about political coloring of
the vocabulary. I guess that proves that the above theories do not in any
way classify as scientific; there are immediate political/moralistic
elements attached to certain behaviors "a priori". These will prevent
an objective development of the theory.
To make matters worse: essentially criminal "anti-group" behavior
is termed "rational".
I prefer to call such choices "anti-social", the obvious
up-side of this choice of words, is that it is by definition the
opposite for "social". "Social" behaviors immediately imply a potential
short-term sacrifice of the individual for the group, where the group
interest may reflect back on the individual. We all know what it means.
I also object against the term "autonomous", this again is a tainted
term. You can be 100% social, and 100% autonomous. Autonomy
merely means "self-guiding". We can see from this choice of opposite
toward social ("autonomous"), that these economists also apparently did not
believe a being could exist that was acting socially without being forced to.
The opposite to "autonomous" being "guided" or even "forced".
I guess that only deepens their own moral predicament. They can not even
imagine a social individual, they are probably very anti-social then.
Perhaps hardly surprising, economists earn(ed) large incomes, and as
such were behaving anti-socially in the face of economic suffering from
others. It seems their theories were designed to make themselves believe
they were doing the right thing. Self-delusion.
>The model has been subject to much criticism by Marxists, and even by
>capitalists, although it remains an ideological foundation of
>capitalism.
Does "capitalism" has a ideological foundation ? I don't think so.
Capitalism is a situation of "dictatorship of big money", such a
dictatorship emerges. It does not need an ideology, it is rooted in
the anti-social behaviors of those owning the money (among others).
The need for `power' is evolutionary determined in the human species
(discussed elsewhere), as such `power' is implemented in any way
the current culture affords. If the mainstream of culture is religious,
the dictatorship clothes itself in religious symbols; if it is
trade, it clothes itself in capital; if it is direct contact, it creates
slavery.
There seems only an evolutionary "ideology" in this if we really must
find one. But that seems hardly "intellectual", more instinctual. And
it worked, in the past.
The problem in our discussion is, that we discussing from very different
viewpoints.
> For one thing, this simple mechanistic view fails to the
>extent we act as social beings rather than as social atoms. When the
>actor is a social being, unequivocal causality ceases to exist. But
>the capitalist, whose situation is much more narrowly defined, can
>reliably (everything else being the same) make such rational
>decisions, and hence, we have economic (positivist) science (a
>non-positivist economic science involving processes with probabilistic
>outcomes is exemplified by Marxism).
I agree that in the case of the anti-social/solitary/autonomous/"rational",
you see how this word immediately destroys any rational argument ... so
much so that I need to start again.
I agree that in the case of the anti-social/solitary being, its actions
are more predictable. However, I personally attach to this individual
a certain extend of "confusion". The anti-social/solitary being does not
understand (apparently), the benefits of social behavior. It is obvious
(to me) that if humanity had never worked together, but was a
non-social creature like turtles, that we would never have developed
any technology, no fire, no axes, no livestock, no nothing. We would be
one among many animals. Evolutionary, the non-social/solitary human is
irrational, it does not understand what is its own best interest.
While making a non-social/anti-social decision, the person only sees
a certain amount of future ahead. It does not calculate within the
results of its actions, what will happen to the general culture and how
that in the far future will affect hem/her. The social individual
however does factor this in. Therefore the social-individual looks much
further into the future then the non-social/anti-social. To put it
bluntly: the non-social/anti-social are also intellectually impaired.
They may be rational in the short term given their limited future
perspective, however they are apparently of lower intelligence. If
anyone is rational here, it is the social person.
I assume you agree with this.
>Then indeed consumer pressure, if we assume the consumer has
>disposable income (income significantly higher than subsistence) can
>indeed bring pressure on manufacturers to offer products that have
>value that benefits society as a whole. In fact, that does
>happen. Even the capitalist may make such decisions in relatively
>developed capitalist systems.
And workers may turn around and create social/green businesses.
IOW, "capitalism" has not yet completely degenerated, workers still
have a certain amount of power to play with.
>The problems, I believe, are two. For one thing, it considers only a
>relatively developed capitalist economy, disregarding the global
>context, which makes such luxury temporary and local. For another, it
>disregards the contradictions of capitalism, which (arguably) must
>ultimately reduce disposable income and the availability of socially
>responsible products.
Only when the social/green companies are run into the ground for lack
of ... costumers !
I agree that the above only takes into account a local and developed
"trade" system. However, I think that "communist groups" are
disregarding the power that workers have in this more developed trade
system. In my view, the communists _only_ try to fix the "hard" problem
by "hard action" (revolution). This is good, it needs fixing. But
communism has already been very successful in many parts of the world,
especially the west and Europe; everywhere where workers have disposable
income. I'm not saying that "hard action" (strike, revolution) are
wrong, I'm just saying there are new fields that can be ploughed from
here on.
A 2-tier approach. When economic suffering is at subsistence-level,
traditional communism applies (hard action). Once it has done its job,
extreme money positions have somewhat lifted: power becomes more distributed.
This power should be used by the collective of people, to create
social companies, and be generous in purchasing them. Through this
device, concentrations of money can be kept under control. It prevents
hard-oppression from re-occurring within the system of trade.
Trade is IMHO a device to protect producers from giving products to
non-productive people. It is assumed that if someone has a product or
money to give, he/she was responsible for creating it, has worked for it
with roughly equal effort as all.
The reason we have trade, is to protect ourselves from non-productive-people,
criminals.
Because we have criminals, the society and also the trade-system to
keep them out is under pressure (obviously).
This pressure if extreme enough, can cause the trade system to
degenerate. Large position of power (money) are accumulated, this is
"capital". These positions are principally accumulated within companies
(hard crime like counter fitting aside), thanks to the hourly-wage
differential between them. Especially the difference "worker/owner",
or "wage/profit".
A way to prevent this from re-occurring time and time again, is for
the productive people, to apply a natural selection process against
all companies, to weed out those that behave anti-socially. To select
for a coffee that does not aim to create money-concentrations for the
owner, but to give a fair price to farmers, means the economy is kept
balanced. Hard oppression is evaded from occurring, the trade system
is lubricated by the generosity of the people who are willing to pay
a surplus amount of money to select for social companies (if need be,
social companies are not by definition producing more expensive
products).
One of the mistakes historical communism might have made, is to support
the idea of a "planned economy". I believe this is caused by
misunderstanding trade itself, and a misunderstanding of that the
essential problem is dictatorial, and not trade or money.
Also a great overestimating of the capability - socially and
technically - of the people to hold on to democratic power seems to
have occurred. The communists seemed to have aimed for a society where
there are simply no criminals anymore against which we need (balanced)
trade to protect ourselves from. Another mistake seems to have been the
believe in the uncorruptability of the communist groups themselves,
and the detrimental effects of any and all power concentrations on
the psyche of any person. Again, understandable mistakes given the
pressing nature of the situation 1800-1900. It is hardly their fault
that people later did not re-examine theories and refine them. I
remember reading the communist intellectuals thought we would fix things
our own way in the future, and not need any recipe from them. Indeed
(and thanks for that), so lets do it.
The market is a democratic device, once power in it becomes (more)
distributed. It is a system under pressure (it cannot be any other
way, because otherwise all would be 100% social and trade would be
superfluous and die, resulting in a give-give society), and therefore
it needs a certain "power" to keep it from degenerating. Like dikes,
they need to be maintained constantly. The generosity of the consumers,
and their intimate knowledge about the companies from which they
purchase, can be a strength-field that pushes trade into balance.
Without such a strength-field, traditional communist theory of the
degenerating nature of trade/capitalism applies (I guess, why not).
>For example, the rising global demand for petroleum products and
>increasing costs of production due to a variety of factors, including
>limited raw materials, has resulted in a significant rise in gasoline
>prices in the U.S. This has in fact reduced the amount of
>discretionary (non-subsistence) travel in the U.S. While it might
>hasten the move to make more fuel efficient cars available, the
>lowered standard of living, due in part to increased fuel costs (as it
>affects food prices, etc.), makes the consumer less able to afford
>more environmentally responsible means of transportation (I don't want
>to get hung up on the specifics of this example, for it is only by way
>of illustration).
I agree completely with what seems your point. My reaction is: the
more consumers behave out of greed, the more the systems chokes their
income because of this, and the less freedom they have left to act
generously. When they do not use their freedom to do "social", they are
losing their freedom to do "social or anti-social". Once they have
completely lost their freedom, trade has completely lost its balance.
The only thing that remains is revolution, and hopefully do it better
next time ? I guess in a very real sense, that is exactly where we are
now. We've had big money dictatorship (1800-1900), and we had a
revolution to counter. Now trade is starting to degenerate worldwide
again, the system is not correcting itself through consumer action.
But we still have some disposable income left. What are we doing with
it ? The communists should IMHO point out how the system can be forced
into stability from within the trade device. This may cause some people
to start buying social/green, and every cent they spend in this manner
is power to the trade-balancing field; the effect that reduces
concentrations of money, capital.
>I'm not sure, but your argument seems to be one in defense of the
>capitalist system in that the system is capable of supporting social
>or environmental development. My general reaction is that, yes, but
>only temporarily and locally and to a limited degree.
Thanks for that remark. There is a great cause for confusion with the
word "capitalism". I (come to) use it to mean "great concentrations of
money" within a trade-system. Many people however contrast "capitalist
trade economy" with "communist planned economy". This contrast equates
capitalism with trade.
I see it like "trade" a positive device (see above). I produce 2 hammers,
you produce two buckets of nails, we swap and help each other build our
homes. There is no exploitation here, we are merely making sure we are
both productive. I could have given you a hammer in good faith, in the
hope you will help me next spring in catching deer. But that is only
possible if I know you very well, trust you, because there are people
out there who would take advantage of us if they could, by just taking
and not producing anything. Our communities have become so large, we do
not know anymore with whom we are interacting. Therefore we need immediate
reassurance, the other is being productive. That is trade, swapping;
money trade is a more developed culture of trade, a sophistication of
the basic principle.
Trade is good!
Capitalism however, is characterized by the huge accumulation of
products/services or money, within the trade system. It is disease of
trade, not trade itself. Capital is held by people who do not wish to
share their money for the common good, if they did they would not hold
on to large sums of money. When large concentrations of money exist
(and that may be in an authoritarian state or in private individuals),
trade is degenerating, when the productive people are reduced to slaves, the
trade device is for all intents and purposes, dead.
Capitalism is diseased trade.
Communism has not identified trade correctly, and equated it with
its disease, capitalism. Because of this, communism does not seem to
realize the power it has within a system of not-yet-broken-down trade.
Even within degenerating trade, every opportunity to do "social" should
be seized. Even if no hope seem realistic, call it an exercise in future
behavior once the situation has been corrected through hard action
(revolution/strike) or soft action (social/green purchasing preferences).
Maybe that's a good name for it: soft communism. Which does not oppose
hard communism, but augments it once hard communism has done its work.
It takes over, and speeds the world towards a more social world which
hard communism can never hope to achieve through planned economy and/or
force-fed democracy. People need to grow, that is not possible from
within a tightly controlled system. Trade, and generous/knowledgeable
consumers, provide the context, lubrication/defense, and educative-environment
("company success") for this to occur. You already mentioned earlier
that people need learning (modern political process as learning democracy),
couldn't agree more.
>> The problem of no stores being available offering social/green
>> products is a local problem, which may be the result of lack of
>> demand for them.
>
>Things are always complicated, which is why I believe we need to grasp
>realities in terms of dynamic systems and not reduce them to consumer
>choices.
Consumer choices are part of our dynamic system. At least for the
places, where people have disposable income.
> There exists an environmentally-sensitive grocery store that
>people could use, but it involves a long bus trip and a significant
>walk from the final bus stop. People here are for the most part not
>even aware of this store, and certainly would be shocked at its
>prices. On the other hand, there is an African community on the next
>street, and we have a couple African-oriented stores on the
>corner. People do patronize them, not because of prices, but because
>they speak the same language and feel comfortable in them. People are
>willing to buy and wear African Moslem and Nigerian clothing, despite
>the cost, because such clothing offers substantial social value. But
>this seems a very local deviation from the norm, and I'm sure they
>make sacrifices in other consumables in order to preserve social
>identity (although I've never discussed this with them, for it would
>be rude).
Then I have to conclude, that in my local area the people are more
social in their consumption.
But things do not have to be so black and white, also in your
neighborhood. In most cases, people can at least choose between a few
stores for groceries. Within these stores, they can choose between
varies products. Every one of these stores and every product producer
will have a different social fingerprint. If you buy your food from
a small local store, the money is not being accumulated within the
empire of a large super market chain. Some choice could be made.
When no choices remain, you can still do it: make over disposable
income to charity organizations, and buy pure social/green services.
It is the same thing to some degree. When I buy "biological milk",
I'm paying a little more for cows better life. If I bought standard
milk, and gave some money to an animal charity instead, which I couldn't
do when buying biological milk because then the money has gone into
the cows, the charity is expected (and I should ofcourse check this)
to help some other animals elsewhere. The net-result is the same.
If nothing exist at all, if you're forced to attend one store, have
no disposable income, then you don't belong to the group with the power
to work from within trade. All that's left seems to be hard action.
To the degree that disposable income is at hand, perhaps it would
be better spend on this hard action instead, which can be seen as a
form of charity (activism).
>> With "social" [production] I mean things like: "fair wages", "good
>> working conditions", "no labor-speed so intense that it deteriorates
>> the body", "being on speaking terms with management", "management
>> which regards workers as humans, not machines", and more advanced:
>> "democratic decision making within the company", "buying raw
>> materials and services from other social groups". Basically anything
>> that is based upon "mutual benefit" between people, as opposed to
>> "trying to gratify the self to the cost of others" like "trying to
>> screw workers out of every last penny", "making the wage difference
>> as high as possible in your own advantage", "buy slave or child
>> labor products to save cost", "commit crime".
>
>What this boils down to, I believe, is a capitalist with a moral
>sense.
No, a capitalist has by definition a large concentration of money.
Once that is occurring (for the sake of the capitalist), we can't expect
any moral sense anymore.
> In an advanced capitalist economy, such capitalists certainly
>do exist, and some even carry out their good intentions. But your
>point seems extracted from context and reduces the reality to its
>exceptions. We need a systemic and global view of things, which I
>believe suggests that such behavior is exceptional, local, and
>ultimately doomed to failure.
Well, I'm trying to talk that out of your head. It will however be
more doomed to failure in the short run, if we believe it to be
a useless course of action. Then there will be fewer social/green
consumers, and the "generosity/knowledge field" correcting trade will
be weaker. This will cause trade to degenerate quicker into capitalism,
and capitalism will eventually become slavery.
You want a "systemic and global view of things", I give you one.
If you want to hold-on to the view of 1800-1900 traditional communism,
you are IMHO making a mistaken analysis. The system cannot be boiled
down to either "capitalism" or "communism". A certain mix has occurred.
But the mix covers up a much more fundamental cultural artefact:
trade. To understand trade, means to be able to put capitalism in its
place, and means to be able to see a way toward the future past
revolution for communism (the humanitarian ideals that are the
fingerprint of communist culture; fair wages, democracy, etc).
To stay with the capitalism=trade theory, you achieve 2 things:
1. You will give the capitalists an unlimited amount of credit, because
as "defenders of trade" they are right. You will never defeat the
capitalists, who really are the disease of trade and not its
defender. They only defend trade, because it is their infected body !
2. You might demonize trade, and not realize its potential. Potential it
had in the past and can have in the future.
You may say that the "soft communism" theory (capitalism is a disease
within balanced trade and democracy) is derived from local context,
not expected to be anything but a incident. That is the negative
approach, equally valid is the argument that some people have found a
way forward within trade and against capitalism, without resorting to
strikes and revolution. The fact of the matter is, that social companies
exist and are stable, and that some of the organization that is the
core of these companies and their products, spans the globe. It is
neither localized, nor is it short lived, nor is it simplistic. These
companies are based on consumers, not on activists. That makes them
stable.
> There is much to suggest that even in
>some advanced capitalist society, such good intentions are
>withering. Pension plans, labor contracts with medical insurance,
>etc., etc. I can only speak of the U.S. where I happen to live, but
>things seem to be headed in a long-term downward direction for labor.
>
>I'm made uncomfortable by any analysis of the economy that depends on
>moral choices. In church, the preacher says that if we all act like
>good Christians, it will be a better world. Undoubtedly that's true,
>but the issue is why we actually don't act that way.
Correction, I do, and many do. Enough to have some impact.
BTW, I've explained what is the cause of greed. It is an evolutionary
artefact, from when humanity lived in another biological niche. Given
acceptance of that analysis, it becomes clear that generous/knowledgeable
consumers are not a little sparkle in the dark, but rather are the
first signs of withering greed within our species. Greed which has to
disappear from humanity because of our new biological role/niche, simple
evolutionary pressures. The choice is, to hop on to the future now, or
wait a little longer and suffer the consequences.
> To broaden
>optimal decision theory to include social and environmental factors in
>decision making seems an ideological defense of the capitalist system
>that fails to grasp the real objective forces that drive it.
You're equating capitalism with trade.
And I have adequately explained what drives capitalism (a disease of
a trade system): greed, now an evolutionary artefact, once needed to
find the best fighting individuals for breeding and cultural development.
That drives capitalism. Unfortunately it affects both the minority of
criminals/capitalists, as greedy consumers.
To reduce the amount of pain we are suffering from consumer greed and
capitalist greed, we can only offer people a little free advice and
understanding. To destroy the dictatorship of money within trade, and
replace it with the dictatorship of a communist party within a
democracy, is merely switching one problem for another. I believe that
communism is trying too go too quickly, absolute democracy is something
the people cannot handle, and technology is barely available if even
that. Meanwhile, in chasing culturally and technically impossible dreams,
the communists forget the real power they have in the here and now:
curing trade, proving what they are worth in making social companies
tick.
Only once trade is corrected, can we start talking about a democratic
production planning, with the understanding that markets pose a very
advance democratic device in and of itself, given disposable income
freedom.
Communism seems to not have a sound way forward past creating the
rebellion of slaves, and managing a (constant) revolution to correct
immediate suffering. Rather then what you say above, it is communism
which fails to create a stable new conducive environment, after the
slaves have been liberated.
Communism and capitalism both seem to fail currently. Capitalism
because it is a disease in trade, communism because it fails to
detect the healthy trade body beneath the capitalist infection (or
call it cancer), and therefore fails to cure trade, to the extend
it can be cured on any given moment. Trade itself is an immune response
against anti-social individuals having infected the group. Capitalism
means that this immune response itself has been overwhelmed by the
anti-social units, because trade becomes a vehicle for greed and
its advance. However, once cured, trade is worth having as a basic
anti-social infection fighter, at least until we can cure the presence
of anti-social individuals in some other manner.
>> The above launches a new challange for communism: to make the social
>> products popular, and to produce them. This is not going to go
>> perfect, but there is a demand, and therefore there is room to make
>> the necessary mistakes. In a way, it is simply "start living
>> communism". One of the best ways to start, is to create market
>> demand, and to be a purchaser yourself, because that is the basis
>> upon which it stands.
>
>I understood your position to be a defense of capitalism. Communism
>does not seem relevant to it--at least not so far.
The "worker democracy, workers running the company through (direct)
democracy", is at the heart (for me) when it comes to social products.
This may still be too advanced for the present-day humanity, and we'll
have to settle for "fair wage coffee" or things like that in the
meantime. But my goal is still absolute democracy, within everywhere.
That seems to be the core issue with communism as well, at least
originally.
> The crux of the
>matter seems to be the determinants of what happens to the economic
>surplus. An enlightened democracy could indeed encourage a more
>socially responsible production, but if the economic environment is
>one of competition in the market place, the surplus must primarily
>serve to increase productivity, and that ultimately reduces labor to
>subsistence.
Which is the result of consumer = worker greed.
When looking at it evolutionary, there is nothing wrong with the pain
the situation causes. We need the "pain and no gain", to experience
that greed (fighting) is obsolete in our new role.
To take the pain away, is like having a toddler who can't walk, and
put him in an automated wheelchair. He won't bump his head anymore,
good ? He will never learn how to walk either. Still good ? But, we
have a choice: do we want to be a slow learner, or a quick learner. Do
we need to break our legs twenty times before we can walk, or can we do
it without breaking our legs from now on. It requires some attention to
detail to learn how to walk.
Similarly, it requires humanity (us) some attention to our cultural
processes to learn how to affect them for a better outcome. Since
we have just left our old niche of a fighting species, it is natural
that we are greedy and prone to fighting.
Perhaps you find my argumentation "moralistic". If so, that might mean
you have some disposable income you are not spending socially/green ?
Perhaps that might be a reason for you to not want to accept what to
me seems the obvious. But don't get me wrong: I think it is only natural
that people are spending money in greed. As said, we need to experience
why greed has lost its attraction for our species, we /need/ to feel
the pain it causes. As a species, we cannot simply go on a theory, we
need reality. Some people may have more experience with the pain greed
causes humanity as a whole then others, and therefore they have come to
be more social quicker then others.
>> You can get prestige from anything, or hatred for anything. If
>> someone drove through my street in a luxurious car, that only
>> produces negative prestige with me. If I see someone on a bike, that
>> produces positive prestige with me.
>
>Interesting. We live in different kinds of social worlds. I have
>contact mostly with people who are poor or of low income. It is
>important that the preacher have a huge luxurious car. I dress up
>because it facilitates positive social relations with my neighbors,
>for it shows respect for them; in the white suburbs, people dress down
>to enter such relations. People here don't make judgements if you ride
>a bike, for it is a common mode of transportation, and if you were to
>buy a fancy new car, people would be happy for you and not judge you
>negatively for it. My wife often says, the working class deserves the
>best. All this has to do with social psychology, not the dynamics of
>the capitalist system.
True.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work, and keeps the working class down.
The problem here is: the working class needs to invest that little it
has. This cuts into their luxury spending. Ofcourse do the working
class deserve the best. In a way it is sad that if they choose cheapest
products to "get the best for their money", they are cutting themselves.
I'm not saying working class doesn't deserve the best, I'm just saying
how they can get the best in the more distant future. Just like a
capitalist will have to invest his/her wealth to achieve something, so
do we. "No pain, no gain". The remarks of your wife might perhaps be
best applied in a wider picture. Working class deserve the best: so
we buy social products to give those coffee farmers who have less then
us still a better meal today. They are working class as well, we should
show solidarity with them. Eventually (given many centuries, or even
tomorrow for some individuals), this system of generosity will start
picking us all up, if we want to, and prove we want to.
BTW, what makes you think I earn a lot of money ? I'm pretty much at
the bottom, a little over 800/month Euro, which is a reprieve from
when a had even less. We ride bikes here, I believe we are the second
most bike riding country in the world, my city was elected biking town
of Europe some years ago.
>>> For example, a law requiring auto manufacturers to include a piece
>>> of safety equipment imposes social values on production, but does
>>> not change the capitalist system. All manufacturers are subject to
>>> the law, which levels the field of competition, and profits still
>>> have to be ploughed back into technology to reduce prices so that
>>> the auto remains competitive in the marketplace. What drives
>>> production remains primarily profit, not value.
>>
>> That law doesn't change the money/product-exchange culture, and it
>> doesn't alter the existence of capital (huge sums of hoarded money).
>
>Again, I have trouble with your reduction of an economic system to
>culture and the choices we as individuals may make.
The whole world is build up from the atomic choices of all individuals.
The resulting building reflect the qualities of these choice-blocks
closely.
>> See other post on what I mean with disposable income. If you have a
>> fridge, if you have lights on in the evening: that is your
>> disposable income at work for luxuries.
>
>Minor point, but we apparently are using the term "disposable income"
>differently. I meant by it income over and above subsistence; you
>apparently mean all income over which we make choices. I would not
>consider expenditures to ensure subsistence to involve choice.
I saw the difference also, but it is irrelevant. I'll accept your term
"disposable income". My very minor reason for choosing "purchasing
freedom", would be when slaves have a choice between 2 stores, one
using slave-labor and a wealthy boss, the other a democracy and profit
sharing, both offering the same profits for the same prices, that then
the worker at subsistence level has no disposable income, yet retains
the ability to choose social/green or not. Given that example, it seems
purchasing freedom is something that exists even beyond disposable
income.
>> I tend to see things in terms of basic behavior qualities, like
>> "greedy behavior", or "violent", or "generous", or "smart".
>
>Yes, I believe that to be the problem. To reduce an economic system to
>the choices people make strikes me as capitalist in nature. Is it your
>intention to defend the capitalist system in principle, or to offer an
>alternative to it?
I believe it to be a problem that you refuse to factor in individual
power into the system. This way, you cut down the power the working
class has. If you don't know you are powerful, you are not powerful.
The capitalists exploit the confusion, or rather, go unopposed thanks
to it.
It is my intention to find a way to end economic suffering, and
spiritual suffering (dictatorship).
As I have said, capitalism is a disease within a healthy body of trade.
The trade-body is a defense against what come to be capitalists once
they have overtaken the trade-body. This may be a theoretical approach
and not be adequately represented within history, however I think the
effects argued for speak for themselves.
The alternative I found is: balanced trade, where concentration of
money power (capital) are eliminated. The immediate shock-cure if
you will, might be to pass certain laws. But "if we continue to live
unhealthy, we will just get sick again, and again, and again". The
necessary laws have been passed and forced by communist revolution
and its aftermath, still affecting the world today.
Now we need to cure the disease from the inside out. For that I
recommend a therapy of enlightened consumer spending. We all know it
can work, there is no point in denying that it will work. It will
work immediately in the small, liberating some individual workers
somewhere, and it will work in the large, liberating us all (except
the criminals ofcourse, who will be forced out of their capital
positions through economic pressures and/or laws).
I guess we all know it is true, so the next thing is: what will the
capitalists do, now they know we know. We have to think ahead of them
ofcourse, to beat them. Fortunately, we have the power of revolution
now. And that is why workers are at a little over subsistence. The
capitalists know we can violently rebel and take over their power.
They try to stop this from occurring by giving workers a little more
money then subsistence. You see: the wage of the workers is directly
related to their power. The threat of communist revolution is very
real as history has proven. This is power (hard power).
>> I think the behaviors of the atoms (individuals) determine the
>> quality of the substance (society), and how it reacts (develops).
>
>And, again, you seem to reduce society to social atoms, which is
>implicitly a defense of the capitalist system. Is that your intention?
No it is not a defense at all, merely an observation of the present.
I guess I now know you are not a generous/knowledgeable consumer (no
offense). You actions affect the whole, whether you like it or not.
My intention is to understand the truth, in order to find a way forward.
My style is to not give a "damn" about whether any analysis might
offend my friends, because I feel that we are better of with a accurate
analysis and the results it can bring, then playing nice with everybody
and not realizing our potential. Not realizing our potential will
eventually probably result in much more then mere offended friends,
like war and death, slavery.
When "judging" the social atoms (choices), I do not take a moralistic
approach "you should this/that", I take a technical approach "do this
then that effect, do that then that". When "judging" the resulting
social systems, I do not take a moralistic approach either, but take
a scientific evolutionary approach "because we needed to be such and
such in the past, that's why we are such and such in the present, and
this and that will be our future", "we can make the journey long or
short, whatever we want, whatever we need". Even there I'm not
moralistic, because I'm saying "we need a reality check".
But to the degree that my remarks are mistaken for moralistic, I'm
one of the social atoms on this Earth, and nothing is stopping me from
arguing this analysis, hoping we will suffer a little less then we might
otherwise do. I am also motivated by the danger of atomic war. We really
need to learn something here, or there might not be a species left to
learn anything anymore, not to mention the other species we have the
potential for wiping out. We seem to be behind on the learning curve,
compared to our technological prowess. But also this can be easily
explained: we thank our biological position to our technology. So,
technology came first, then came our new niche as ruler species. This
evidently results in a delay between behavioral adaptation to the new
niche, which came later then technology, while technology is racing ahead
thanks to its head-start. As a result, we are left with power we really
cannot handle behaviorally. This is now threatening us, the planet.
>> You said nothing that I disagree with, except for the latest part.
>> I take humanity, and notice that it was a long time ago in direct
>> physical combat with a number of species, wolves being one. We did
>> not find a niche and happily lived in it unopposed. We shot deer,
>> battled tigres and bears; we seem to even have extincted the mamoth
>> species. We are a predator, and we are at odds with other predators
>> and prey, over their lives and over their territory.
>
>Your aim seems to be to arrive at a definition of human nature. Such
>an enterprise is open to serious question. I don't think you
>description of palaeolithic man would stand up, either (Hollywood,
>yes, but not archaeology). The point is, human nature evolves.
>
>> I'm trying to expand its historical viewpoint to include an
>> evolutionary one, I'm trying to find effective ways to promote
>> "social behavior", that reduces economic suffering and war, and that
>> do not cause more damage then they fix. If I'm at odds with
>> "socialism", then I would simply redefine socialist to be in line
>> with me, if I conclude by method is more effective (ofcourse).
>
>Your motives are admirable, although your method strikes me as
>unscientific. I don't get the impression you are developing socialism,
>but offering a utopian defense of capitalism.
Focus on "trade", that seems an easy way into my argument. My arguments
are perhaps relatively abstract. When I say "trade", I'm thinking
"atom X creates desirable A, atom Y creates desirable B, they swap
desirables". This can be widely applied. The question is: why do they
do this, why not simply give each other their products and do away with
the drag the swap-process itself creates. The obvious conclusion:
"atom Z creates nothing, but is always on hand to pretend he/she
deserves to get the desirables, X and Y are defending themselves!".
I'm not thinking about Coca Cola, or IMF or whatever, or what they
call "free trade" these days. When I think "capitalism", I think that
the immediate problem is that people (like yourself) equate it with
trade. But it is not trade. Look at the above atoms, they trade.
Yet neither holds capital. Therefore: capitalism is not trade.
The problems in the world: "some atoms suffer economically and
produce a lot of desire-ables, others take advantage and come to
own many desire-ables while not producing any or much". Most obviously
there is a power difference, because the atoms rebel this situation
but are helpless in correcting it. This can be due to relative
weaknesses in terms of numbers, physical strength, or intellectual
understanding. The last is some of the problem. It turns out, that
the suffering atoms are in fact very equal to the ones who take
advantage, because they are not fundamentally behaving differently
when possessing small amounts of capital (disposable income). They
hunt down their own pleasure with total disregard of their fellow
atoms (in large majority).
Since many atoms oppose their own economic suffering, is this a
problem of "position within the exploitation hierarchy", or is
this a fundamental "rejection of any exploitation hierarchy". In
the first case, the situation is merely one of "go go go atoms,
fight your way to the top, that's what you like, the bad comes
with the territory". In the second case, the atoms are expected
to behave fundamentally different: when having small amounts of
capital, they are spending it qualitatively different then the
capitalists, or /want to spend it differently, but don't know how/.
It is for these last fraction that my analysis is meant: now they
know how they can spend their money in a meaningful way. Don't listen
to whomever they believe to be their friend, that says "don't buy
those `feel good for the rich' social/green products, they are `bad'".
They are not bad, they correct the "trade" device.
When the power of this fraction is released by this understanding,
this produces more pressure on the economy to behave socially/green.
I ofcourse hope that this pressure will outdo any pressure I might
have applied myself from doing something else then writing here.
Evolution plays into understanding "the enemy", and "the enemy within"
if one exists. The analysis is very short: "before the atoms needed
fighting with other substances (species), now they've conquered all
other substances and have achieved this through non-physical-fighting
properties". The conclusion is simple: fighting is obsolete, therefore
economic exploitation has become obsolete. This is a very hopeful
situation to end economic suffering. Reality check: evolution takes
place in very large time scales.
From there, the discussion can be diversified endlessly.
>> I also think a government is not principally needed for any
>> conceivable species/situation at all. For humanity it seems
>> presently mostly a response to lacking skill and lacking moral
>> perfection.
>>
>> To be able to live without government, is actually simple. You just
>> need to measure up to the qualitative specifications.
>
>OK, I understand your position better. I won't enter here into a
>critique of old fashioned anarchism. You really should, though,
>distance yourself from Marxism (with which you profoundly disagree)
>and socialism (if by the word we mean revolutionary socialism), and
>the working class (anarchism is not a working-class ideology, but in
>origin, one of petty private producers). Many anarchists today embrace
>a Marxist analysis, but you do not seem to be one of them.
It is exactly this what I'm trying to correct: the petty! division of
social people in all kinds sub-groups which are supposed to fight
each other. We don't need to fight. All these divisions are merely
weakening us, you are weakening the working class by offering them
a choice: me or you. I do not oppose Marx, even though I don't agree
with everything. I do not oppose you, I merely try to make you aware
of your own power within the system. I guess that if you don't wish
to know about this power, that is another matter. The analysis stands
still unopposed.
>> The problems of our society cannot be overcome or understood by a
>> historical context. This is perhaps a mistake in Marxism, which was
>> developed when evolutionary theory didn't even exist or was just
>> beginning. Marxism doesn't have the scientific benefits we now
>> enjoy.
>
>Wow!
You are trying to isolate yourself from my rationale. This is
unfortunate (IMHO).
.-)
>> We most definitely shouldn't accept the current situation as
>> inevitable, rather we should find hope in the knowledge that this
>> situation will likely be temporary (if you believe the evolutionary
>> story, I do). We can understand now that capitalism with purchasing
>> freedom offers us great possibilities that can be effective
>> immediately, possibilities that we should not be ignoring if we want
>> to end suffering asap.
>
>OK, thanks for the clarification of your position, which I take to be
>anarchist, with the hope that capitalism will evolve in that
>direction. Not a working-class ideology, of course.
Wrong. First: you are trying to push me in one of the boxes that fight
among each other. However, being in favor of democracy I'm not an
absolute anarchist. Sometimes I wonder what label I should wear, but I
come to the conclusion that I could wear them all.
I do not hope that capitalism will evolve into a better future, it is
a disease that will need to be removed. The working class with its new
powers it has to thank communism for, plays a critical role in removing
capitalism. But, because sections of communism have sold out to
capitalism (sometimes termed state capitalism, with authoritarian
states), communism has not understood how to move forward from here.
It is still rooting for revolution, or authoritarian rule. These things
hurt the working-class. The working class may like the idea, that it
has no power so it has no responsibility for its own situation and needs
not do anything about it. Unfortunately, I don't think this is true.
Some sacrifice seems to have to be made. How else can it be: a social
individual sacrifices in the short term for the group. The working
class does not wish to know, it is infected by the capitalist disease
as well. This undercuts their power to seek the cure, while the disease
is progressing and causing suffering.
Even if another cycle of oppression/revolution is needed, to cure
(through the above mentioned devices) trade (and please try to remove
your idea that "trade" means capitalism or has much relation with
the currently very sick world) seems the most viable option for the
long term. For the extremely long term (or extremely advanced
individuals), when everybody is behaving 100% social and reliable, as
well with a very high degree of competence, trade could be eliminated
and anarchy paired with democracy become viable. But in the present
such goals (which are in fact shared by the "classless" aims of
communism, there is no real distinction between communism/anarchy at
all, it is all imagination) are unrealistic. Humanity cannot handle
anarchy (yet), therefore anarchy causes chaos instead of the excitement
of freedom. The freedom humanity already seeks, the responsibility
and competence are lacking to make it work, the freedom just ends up
being abused, or (communication) incompetence makes life too difficult.
I stress again: anarchy is no option for humanity right now, or even
in the next thousands of years (IMHO). I do not seek anarchy.
>> The most immediate mistake of Marxism seems to be: to put sainthood
>> on the labor force, which it sees as helpless victims, saints
>> opressed by demons. This is probably a result of the sympathy felt
>> for the suffering masses.
>
>As a member of the working class, I'm happy to be sainted ;-) However,
>I'm not a helpless victim, for I (naively?) expect that international
>labor solidarity can and will dispose of the capitalist system.
Capitalism is not trade. We will get rid of capitalism (I hope), but
why should be choose to leave certain avenues of progress open to us ?
If you want to win over capitalism, take them all.
>Much of our debate does not make much progress because it has become
>apparent that we disagree on some basics. In terms of science, a major
>basic point of disagreement has to do with reductionism. In terms of
>social perspective, it has to do with our respective class locations.
Gosh, you really think I'm big money ?
Let me tell you what certificate I recently gained: office cleaner
(SVS). I am currently working in a canteen (coffee, tea, bread,
candy, cleaning, etc), and plan on being a office cleaner after
this. Already been a cleaner before, but now I hope to get back to
it. I'm not planning on becoming a manager with any cleaning company,
because I have objections to such things. A full time office cleaner
earns about 7 Euro/hour, this is a real concern for me, because I
have certain volunteer activities I'm not prepared to give up for
anything.
Marx (?) said: "the liberation of the working class, will have to
be the result of the working class itself". I am exactly stressing
that. Use your power as a consumer, which all workers are, to
change the economy. It doesn't have to be an exclusive focus (better
not be, we need the threat of revolution to keep our income above
subsistance to be able to!), but it is something we can do. Seems
I'm not "out of line" with communism or socialism at all, I sure
don't feel that way.
--
Best regards.
Haines Brown
Jos, first allow me to apologize for my overly long and turgid message
last time. It was apparently written quickly or when I was exhausted.
My central concern was that we may adopt ideological positions that we
think of as having a certain character (progressive, liberal,
conservative, to borrow U.S. jargon), but when viewed objectively
might actually not be what we intend. So in your case, I was
attempting to do two things: a) elicit your own self-characterization,
b) examine some of your views I hoped objectively. If there turns out
to be an inconsistency, hopefully you or I might try to resolve it.
Jos writes:
> Your point b): there are social products available throughout the
> western world at least. If no products/services are closely, it is
> even possible to just purchase the socially beneficial fraction as a
> stand-alone (charity).
Yes. I won't quibble over whether charity actually does provide
something in return. I.e., if we are social beings, there is little
self-other dichotomy. Christian theology makes a parallel (but not the
same) point by distinguishing amor and agape.
>>Without being certain of your point, it might be useful to refer
>>back to the classic (i.e., classical political economy)
>>representation of the situation. The autonomous (vs. social)
>>individual makes himself aware of what is available in the
>>marketplace, and then chooses among them which result in an increase
>>in his "talents"/profits. A word was invented in the 18th century to
>>describe such a choice, and it is "rational". Today, this model is
>>called "optimal decision theory".
>
> Wow, that word choice very sad indeed, talk about political coloring
> of the vocabulary. I guess that proves that the above theories do
> not in any way classify as scientific; there are immediate
> political/moralistic elements attached to certain behaviors "a
> priori". These will prevent an objective development of the theory.
There are a lot of issues here. If I understand you correctly, you
insist that we have a priori imperatives that color our choices, that
fact makes our choices non-rational, unscientific.
This indeed was a major point in classical political economy, for it
wanted to reduce any presence of irrational factors (particularly
religious) so that an economic science might therefore emerge.
I hope you understand I was only trying to describe bourgeois
ideology, not defend it.
However, I'm not sure I can agree with your second point. Sociology,
for example, which I assume is a science, has no problem taking into
account our biases, presuppositions, ideological assumptions, when it
tries to explain behavior. Since the early 20th century (Annales
School, for example), the social sciences have distanced themselves
from late 19th century positivism, and even the natural sciences have
done that to a significant extent.
This leaves two questions in my mind. a) To what extent do you feel
that late 19th century positivism is necessary for knowledge to be
scientific (the question is rhetorical; I'm not encouraging you to
pursue this big issue ;-), b) Are you suggesting that capitalist
optimal decision theory in economics is alone truly
rational/scientific?
> To make matters worse: essentially criminal "anti-group" behavior is
> termed "rational".
>
> I prefer to call such choices "anti-social", the obvious up-side of
> this choice of words, is that it is by definition the opposite for
> "social". "Social" behaviors immediately imply a potential
> short-term sacrifice of the individual for the group, where the
> group interest may reflect back on the individual. We all know what
> it means.
It seems you are using the word "social" differently than I. You seem
to mean something positive by it, while I only meant connectedness,
for good or ill.
Whether a social action (in your sense) implies short-term self
sacrifice for the group, I'm not sure. My previous paragraph was
interrupted by a telephone call. I went to some effort to make the
person at the other hand feel good. It was no sacrifice on my part,
but a pleasure to do so. Without developing the point, it is my
assumption that if we are social beings, much of our "social" behavior
really benefits us immediately, for the other person is not an
"other", but part of ourselves. I don't know that I'd sacrifice my own
interests if the group or individuals within it were really alien to
me. But, of course, the whole issue of altruism is highly ideological
and controversial.
> I also object against the term "autonomous", this again is a tainted
> term.
Again, I hope you understand that I was only describing an ideological
position, not defending it. As I said before, I assume we are all
social (in my sense) beings, not social atoms (autonomous). So if you
are suggesting that the notion of an autonomous individual is
problematic, I'd agree.
> You can be 100% social, and 100% autonomous. Autonomy merely means
> "self-guiding". We can see from this choice of opposite toward
> social ("autonomous"), that these economists also apparently did not
> believe a being could exist that was acting socially without being
> forced to.
Complicated ;-). Your first sentence still seems to presume separate
categories: individual and society. You seem to be saying that the
individual can choose to take social factors into consideration in
making his choices. My point, in contrast, was ontological: the
individual is simply a unique expression of the social. That is,
society gives rise to individuals. Another way to put it, the
individual is a posteriori, not a priori; individuals arise from
society rather than society arising from an association of
individuals.
Classical political economy started with individuals, who then enter
into contracts with each other to form societies. I prefer the
opposite view that social development gives rise to individuals. It
seems to me this two views are contradictory and each has enormous
implications that shape the conclusions to which we might come in our
investigation of social processes.
>>The model has been subject to much criticism by Marxists, and even
>>by capitalists, although it remains an ideological foundation of
>>capitalism.
>
> Does "capitalism" has a ideological foundation ? I don't think so.
> Capitalism is a situation of "dictatorship of big money", such a
> dictatorship emerges.
Here again, we are using words differently. By "ideological" I meant a
set of values and ideas that are functional in relation to class. I
would therefore not say that ideology represents a falsehood, but only
that it is one-sided. It is generally felt that classical political
economy was the foundation of capitalist ideology. Your "dictatorship
of big money" seems a description of a situation rather than a
characterization of an ideology.
To take a relevant example, if one makes the individual a priori, and
that individual happens to own means of production, then that fact
ends up a priori as well. Society, then, arises in terms it; it is a
given. If, on the other hand, society is primary, then a person's
ownership of the means of production is a result of social
development. It is an historical fact open to challenge, not an a
priori precondition of our social existence.
> The problem in our discussion is, that we discussing from very
> different viewpoints.
I'm still trying to decide that. We have used some words differently,
but you have made clear your meanings, and so that's no problem. You
seem critical of classical political economy, and if so, we may be on
the same wavelength.
> I agree that in the case of the
> anti-social/solitary/autonomous/"rational", you see how this word
> immediately destroys any rational argument ... so much so that I
> need to start again.
I suspect we only differ here on your use of the word "rational". My
question would be, do you take it to be synonymous with "reasoned", or
do you use it in a somewhat different way? For example, I would call
altruistic behavior entirely rational, but classical political economy
would disagree, for it presumed all action must be self-interested in
that in principle it benefits only the individual.
> It is obvious (to me) that if humanity had never worked together,
> but was a non-social creature like turtles, that we would never have
> developed any technology, no fire, no axes, no livestock, no
> nothing. We would be one among many animals. Evolutionary, the
> non-social/solitary human is irrational, it does not understand what
> is its own best interest.
Agreed.
> While making a non-social/anti-social decision, the person only sees
> a certain amount of future ahead. It does not calculate within the
> results of its actions, what will happen to the general culture and
> how that in the far future will affect hem/her.
Not agreed. In the previous paragraph, you seem to be assuming the
individual is a social being; in the next paragraph, you seem to
assume that at the moment of action, the individual is acting
autonomously.
> The social individual however does factor this in. Therefore the
> social-individual looks much further into the future then the
> non-social/anti-social. To put it bluntly: the
> non-social/anti-social are also intellectually impaired. They may
> be rational in the short term given their limited future
> perspective, however they are apparently of lower intelligence. If
> anyone is rational here, it is the social person.
I suspect you are arguing that a person who disregards the social
consequences of his action is acting foolishly. The enlightened
individual takes into consideration long-term consequences and tailors
his activity in light of them. My objection here is that you still
assume the individual is a separate ontological category, only that
some individuals are smarter than others.
> And workers may turn around and create social/green businesses.
> IOW, "capitalism" has not yet completely degenerated, workers still
> have a certain amount of power to play with.
A worker who founds a business is by definition no longer a "worker",
but a member of the petite bourgeoisie. Not sure I correctly
understood your point here.
> However, I think that "communist groups" are disregarding the power
> that workers have in this more developed trade system. In my view,
> the communists _only_ try to fix the "hard" problem by "hard action"
> (revolution). This is good, it needs fixing. But communism has
> already been very successful in many parts of the world, especially
> the west and Europe; everywhere where workers have disposable
> income. I'm not saying that "hard action" (strike, revolution) are
> wrong, I'm just saying there are new fields that can be ploughed
> from here on.
>
> A 2-tier approach. When economic suffering is at subsistence-level,
> traditional communism applies (hard action). Once it has done its
> job, extreme money positions have somewhat lifted: power becomes
> more distributed.
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that communism
(revolution) is appropriate in depressed situations, but once
capitalism flourishes, the revolutionary agenda becomes
unnecessary. That is, do you assume that capitalism can persist
indefinitely and does not create social and economic problems it can't
resolve? If so, we would differ here.
Also, I'm left unclear by your suggestion that communism has proven
successful in Europe, for I can't think of any examples. Perhaps you
are thinking of so-called "socialist" regimes in Europe that carry out
a developed social welfare policy (Nederland?).
> This power should be used by the collective of people, to create
> social companies, and be generous in purchasing them. Through this
> device, concentrations of money can be kept under control. It
> prevents hard-oppression from re-occurring within the system of
> trade.
Here we would differ. I assume that in a liberal (unrestrained)
exchange system, the rich will get richer. I believe this is
historically the case (unless the state intervenes), and it is
predicted in scientific terms (it is called "deviation amplification"
in general systems theory).
> Trade is IMHO a device to protect producers from giving products to
> non-productive people. It is assumed that if someone has a product
> or money to give, he/she was responsible for creating it, has worked
> for it with roughly equal effort as all.
>
> The reason we have trade, is to protect ourselves from
> non-productive-people, criminals.
A quaint notion borrowed from classical political economy
(non-productive classes like clergy and aristocracy). I'd be one of
these people (I'm retired). Most of my grandchildren would end up
criminal. My many neighbors who are unable to work or can't find work
become social parasites. A non-working housewife would fall into the
same criminal class. The displaced folks from New Orleans, etc. Not
only do you seem to presume the autonomy of the individual, but you
apparently define the essential value of the individual in terms of
market relations.
> A way to prevent this from re-occurring time and time again, is for
> the productive people, to apply a natural selection process against
> all companies, to weed out those that behave anti-socially. To
> select for a coffee that does not aim to create money-concentrations
> for the owner, but to give a fair price to farmers, means the
> economy is kept balanced. Hard oppression is evaded from occurring,
> the trade system is lubricated by the generosity of the people who
> are willing to pay a surplus amount of money to select for social
> companies (if need be, social companies are not by definition
> producing more expensive products).
I'm not sure I understand. It seems to be that (through education?) we
might achieve enough socially aware consumers to brings pressure on
capitalist enterprises to be more socially responsible in their
production. Is this your point? I suppose it could happen, but I don't
know how.
> One of the mistakes historical communism might have made, is to
> support the idea of a "planned economy". I believe this is caused by
> misunderstanding trade itself, and a misunderstanding of that the
> essential problem is dictatorial, and not trade or money.
I'm still unclear here. The issue is whether exchanges represent a
zero-sum game. Unless there are external forces at work (monopoly,
personal desperation, etc.), equal values are exchanged, for otherwise
you would not enter the relationship. I realize that you touched upon
this and I may not have raised the issue before because I was trying
to grasp your broader concern for power relations.
> Also a great overestimating of the capability - socially and
> technically - of the people to hold on to democratic power seems to
> have occurred. The communists seemed to have aimed for a society
> where there are simply no criminals anymore against which we need
> (balanced) trade to protect ourselves from. Another mistake seems to
> have been the believe in the uncorruptability of the communist
> groups themselves, and the detrimental effects of any and all power
> concentrations on the psyche of any person.
I may agree with this to a large extent. That is, socialist projects
may well have underestimated the extent to which social realities are
inflexible and the ability of power to corrupt.
> I remember reading the communist intellectuals thought we would fix
> things our own way in the future, and not need any recipe from
> them. Indeed (and thanks for that), so lets do it.
I'm curious. Who are these intellectuals who offered a vision of the
future?
> The market is a democratic device, once power in it becomes (more)
> distributed.
Here, again, I must disagree for a variety of reasons. A mass of
consumers might take it into their head to boycott McDonalds because
it sells worthless (socially irresponsible) food values. This has not
had much effect, of course. Why not? And even if McDonalds decided to
sell real food for a change, would that reduce the exploitation of its
workforce by one iota?
> Without such a strength-field, traditional communist theory of the
> degenerating nature of trade/capitalism applies (I guess, why not).
I don't believe Marxist theory (outside discussions of monopoly
capital and imperialism) assumed that the problem of exploitation lies
in the sphere of exchange, but in that of production. The degenerating
nature of capitalism refers to the system as a whole, not its
particular spheres of operation. That is, it assumes that while
exploitation takes place in the sphere of production, the
contradictions of capitalism arise when production is linked with
exchange. The worker senses that he is being exploited at work, but
that at best leads to a strike and hopefully a better labor
contract. The system remains intact. This is the problem with "bread
and butter" unionism: you struggle to stay afloat, but that is a
sort-range and parochial attitude (cheap labor in China will cost you
your nice job). Only when the worker also takes into account the
sphere of exchange (looks beyond his problems in the workplace), do
his needs come to imply the need for political change.
> The communists should IMHO point out how the system can be forced
> into stability from within the trade device. This may cause some
> people to start buying social/green, and every cent they spend in
> this manner is power to the trade-balancing field; the effect that
> reduces concentrations of money, capital.
I'm not sure any Marxist would argue that an intervention into
mercantile relations would do any more than alleviate the effects of
capitalism, rather than replace it. In fact, the history of trade
constraints seems largely a capitalist (or nationalist) tactic. That
socialist states follow suit does not seem to distinguish socialism.
>>I'm not sure, but your argument seems to be one in defense of the
>>capitalist system in that the system is capable of supporting social
>>or environmental development. My general reaction is that, yes, but
>>only temporarily and locally and to a limited degree.
>
> Thanks for that remark. There is a great cause for confusion with
> the word "capitalism". I (come to) use it to mean "great
> concentrations of money" within a trade-system. Many people however
> contrast "capitalist trade economy" with "communist planned
> economy". This contrast equates capitalism with trade.
Yes, "capitalism" is a slippery term. It seems to me that under modern
conditions, productivity is often a result of the concentration of
capital, and there's no way around that fact. If, on the other hand,
you believe it is possible for humankind to survive with a break up of
large capital into small enterprises, I'd like to know.
All economies are planned to a degree. With the Katrina disaster in
the U.S., the government first offered non-bid contracts for the
rebuilding of New Orleans. The resulting outcry was so great, Bush had
to cancel the contracts and reassign them by putting them up to bid
(with contracts for most ending up with the same corporations, I
gather). The first approach was an example of planning in that
contracts went to capitalists friendly to the administration. The
second approach was also planned even though contracts in theory now
went to low bidders and were therefore presumably bilateral. While the
planning is now reduced, it still involves a priori notions of what
projects must be done and who is qualified to do it. And isn't
responding to public concerns a plan? Isn't a federal initiative for
re-development of the city in itself a plan? A true laissez-faire
approach would be to let people and local businesses fend for
themselves.
> I see it like "trade" a positive device (see above). I produce 2
> hammers, you produce two buckets of nails, we swap and help each
> other build our homes.
> That is trade, swapping; money trade is a more developed culture of
> trade, a sophistication of the basic principle.
>
> Trade is good!
Yes, that is the zero-sum game argument, but it isolates the exchange
from context. If I had stolen the two hammers and exchanged them for
your hard-won nails, there would not be an equitable exchange of
values, for the hammers came to me cheaply. If I had a lot of useless
hammers in storage, and you needed the nails to build desperately
needed shelter, would that be an equal exchange of values? This is why
Marxism is careful to distinguish use-value and exchange-value. The
two hammers and your nails might have equivalent prices in the market
place, and so we will have exchanged equal exchange values, but if you
lack a roof over your head and I have plenty of hammers to spare, the
use-values are quite different. Exchange value is a function of the
market place; use value is a social relation.
> Capitalism however, is characterized by the huge accumulation of
> products/services or money, within the trade system. It is disease
> of trade, not trade itself.
Again, the concentration of wealth seems to be a natural consequence
of capitalist exchanges. The question is whether the concentration is
an effect of the capitalist system, or is accidental and subject to
correction within the capitalist system. Again, are you suggesting
that large units of production can be replaced by small units and
still maintain productivity? The capitalists have a notion they call
"efficiencies of scale". Are you denying there is such a thing?
> Capital is held by people who do not wish to share their money for
> the common good, if they did they would not hold on to large sums of
> money.
Utopian. When you put your money into a savings account, are you being
greedy, or are you simply preparing for a rainy day or retirement?
While undoubtedly many people are greedy (not most people, I would
insist), Marxism discounts the personal ambitions of the capitalist,
and represents him as ultimately a victim of a system he does not
really control. The analogy he used is the Sorcer's Apprentice, who
sets mysterious forces in motion over which he looses control.
> Communism has not identified trade correctly, and equated it with
> its disease, capitalism.
I wonder, again, where you get your idea of Marxism.
> People need to grow, that is not possible from within a tightly
> controlled system.
I'm all for people growing, but to see constraints as inhibiting it
strikes me as a false dichotomy. All development arises because of
constraints. Parenting, school, violin lessons, etc. There is
currently a debate in the world whether free trade or reasonable
protectionism is more likely to result in a nation's social-economic
development. It is complicated by the fact that there's empirical
evidence in support of either side. But note that the U.S., the
principle advocate of free trade, does not practice it itself. It
advocates free trade only where it is likely to be enriched by it.
>>Things are always complicated, which is why I believe we need to
>>grasp realities in terms of dynamic systems and not reduce them to
>>consumer choices.
>
> Consumer choices are part of our dynamic system. At least for the
> places, where people have disposable income.
My point is that we need to grasp that system as a whole and see trade
relations as only a part of it. It is (historically) very doubtful
that exchanges, which are more or less universal, give rise to a
system that came into existence in only very recent times. The same
applies to a presumed human nature (greed). If greed were a part of
human nature (which I doubt), then it becomes universal and can't
explain any particular system. If greed is one manifestation of that
system, then it seems an effect rather than cause, and will not
disappear as long as the system persists. If, on the other hand, greed
is the engine of the (existing) capitalist system, then we have begged
the question.
>> There exists an environmentally-sensitive grocery store
>>that people could use, but it involves a long bus trip and a
>>significant walk from the final bus stop. People here are for the
>>most part not even aware of this store, and certainly would be
>>shocked at its prices. On the other hand, there is an African
>>community on the next street, and we have a couple African-oriented
>>stores on the corner. People do patronize them, not because of
>>prices, but because they speak the same language and feel
>>comfortable in them. People are willing to buy and wear African
>>Moslem and Nigerian clothing, despite the cost, because such
>>clothing offers substantial social value. But this seems a very
>>local deviation from the norm, and I'm sure they make sacrifices in
>>other consumables in order to preserve social identity (although
>>I've never discussed this with them, for it would be rude).
>
> Then I have to conclude, that in my local area the people are more
> social in their consumption.
That could well be true. People in Europe have a hard time grasping
the poverty and desperation of great numbers of people in the U.S.,
who are not making a choice among various options when they go out to
purchase a product. In your use of the word "social", my neighbors
have no thought about the social effect of their choices because they
are (culturally or economically) not thinking of themselves as
decision-makers in the marketplace. They purchase goods because they
can afford to satisfy their needs or to serve personal
gratification. They sometimes dismiss people who are "consumers" as
"bourgie". I'm not criticizing my neighbors, for they seem to have
more positive social values than better off folks in the
suburbs. Oddly, a well-heeled suburban shopper who makes a point of
choosing products that have social value (in your sense) often strikes
me as rather anti-social! I'm not sure why. Perhaps because they make
an abstract decision based on an intellectualized position. They seem
cold. I guess I'm suggesting that market decisions are an artificial
activity, not really social (in my sense of the word), even if those
decisions take their social consequences into account. However, I may
be talking nonsense here.
> But things do not have to be so black and white, also in your
> neighborhood. In most cases, people can at least choose between a
> few stores for groceries. Within these stores, they can choose
> between varies products. Every one of these stores and every product
> producer will have a different social fingerprint.
While I agree things are not so black and white, and I agree that
choices could be made, in fact that is unlikely. The neighborhood
stores are basically all alike (except that they cater to different
ethnic identities). They offer little choice in products. People have
no idea at all what product might be socially positive. It is not just
objective circumstances, but also a culture of poverty. Most people
here have cultural backgrounds (Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Africa,
African-American people with roots in the rural South, and even older
white working-class folks), in which a consumerist culture did not
exist. Consumerism is a very modern and limited phenomenon, and while
you may assume or hope that it trickles down to the world's masses,
I'm not optimistic (nor hopeful) this will happen. Given the social
transformations taking place in our world, more and more people are
entering the market place. However, to make choices there informed by
abstract values seems only possible if these people have the luxury of
paying more in order to gain some abstract and remote benefit. Given
the growth of global poverty, I doubt this will happen. On the other
hand, these people are being rapidly socialized (in my sense of the
word), and so are acquiring potential social power that they can, and
to some extent do), employ to promote social progress.
Behind some of my comments is an argument in favor of existential
(Zen?) behavior rather than goal-oriented behavior. To pursue this
point would require that I enter into a lengthy and boring diatribe,
which I'll spare you. But what it comes down to is my conviction that
we should or must act in terms of the real potentials and needs as
they exist in the present, not some ideal goal off in the future. I
wonder if the former is characteristic of the working class, while the
latter that of the bourgeoisie, but it would too bold of me to insist
upon this.
> If nothing exist at all, if you're forced to attend one store, have
> no disposable income, then you don't belong to the group with the
> power to work from within trade. All that's left seems to be hard
> action. To the degree that disposable income is at hand, perhaps it
> would be better spend on this hard action instead, which can be seen
> as a form of charity (activism).
Yes. Our only difference here is just what is meant by disposable
income (now you are using the word in my sense). It makes a big
difference if that income is predictable (rather than the result of a
job you know you won't be having very long, or an accident of fate, or
if that disposable income is marginal), and it makes a difference if
"society" for you consists of your friends, family, neighbors or
fellow workers, or if it is an abstraction. It is common in our world
for workers getting a job abroad to send what money they can to their
relatives back home. The decision to do so is "social" in my sense,
but perhaps not in yours. Most of my neighbors simply don't "belong"
to U.S. society, to say nothing of global society. I had dinner with
my Swiss niece this evening, and she said that while she appreciates
the advantages of having been born in Switzerland, she does not think
of herself as Swiss. This is not ignorance on their part, for if you
are habitually at the short end of the social stick, you certainly
don't identity with the other end. For the bourgeoisie, the nation is
often real because it must to some extent create a political
commonwealth from which they (to an extent) benefit. That just isn't
so for enormous numbers of other people.
> You want a "systemic and global view of things", I give you one. If
> you want to hold-on to the view of 1800-1900 traditional communism,
> you are IMHO making a mistaken analysis. The system cannot be boiled
> down to either "capitalism" or "communism". A certain mix has
> occurred.
Hold it there! ;-). Modern communism arose around 1900, and I wouldn't
know what to do with traditional (utopian) communism, which shouldn't
be taken into account here. Modern communism has subsequently evolved
(Lenin, for example, to say nothing of folks like Gramsci or Lukacs),
and today is a highly diverse body of thinking. But what it comes down
to, as I may have suggested before, is that the overwhelming majority
of people control the means of production (i.e., economic democracy),
and that to achieve such a situation requires restructuring the
system, i.e., revolution. Your reaction doesn't seem to critize such
points, but to consist rather in offering an alternative.
I also don't agree that a "mix" is possible, given my two points
above. You seem to offer an alternative based on a) consumerism that
acts in terms of social abstractions, b) the dissolution of large
scale economic enterprises. Before that could happen, people the world
over would have to participate in real (i.e., economic democracy) so
that the wider society ceases being an abstraction, and somehow we
would have to make small enterprises as efficient as large ones.
> To stay with the capitalism=trade theory, you achieve 2 things:
> 1. You will give the capitalists an unlimited amount of credit,
> because as "defenders of trade" they are right. You will never
> defeat the capitalists, who really are the disease of trade and not
> its defender. They only defend trade, because it is their infected
> body !
Interesting. I'm certainly not one to equate capitalism with
trade. Trade is a universal, and I would see it as merely a necessary
condition of the capitalist system.
> 2. You might demonize trade, and not realize its
> potential. Potential it had in the past and can have in the future.
I'm also not willing to demonize trade. It is always necessary, and
under the right circumstances can be fair enough. My only objection is
to see trade, rather than people, as the source of good, of social
potentials. After all, if trade is a zero sum game, in itself it
yields no surplus value.
> You may say that the "soft communism" theory (capitalism is a
> disease within balanced trade and democracy) is derived from local
> context, not expected to be anything but a incident.
I don't accept your "soft" communism as a valid concept. Although some
capitalist states do have a large degree of planification or employ
extensive social welfare policies, I would not call them _really_
socialist, no less "communist". Some of the terms we are using here
are not sharply defined in a way we mutually understand.
> That is the negative approach, equally valid is the argument that
> some people have found a way forward within trade and against
> capitalism, without resorting to strikes and revolution. The fact of
> the matter is, that social companies exist and are stable, and that
> some of the organization that is the core of these companies and
> their products, spans the globe.
OK, but why are you not then defending a reformed capitalism? If
consumers and capitalists were by some magic to become socially
conscious, I'm sure life would be better. However, the fact remains
that as long as corporations are in competition, they _must_ sell a
given use value at nearly the lowest possible exchange value, which
means they _must_ become more productive, which in turn means greater
exploitation at the workplace, for wages are limited by labor market
constraints, and yet labor produces ever greater value which is
_necessarily_ directed at enhancing competitiveness rather than social
development--the worker's development. For a capitalist to reduce his
competitive position in the market by introducing social value into
his product seems unlikely, although undoubtedly it has occasionally
been done.
For example, cars in the U.S. must have air bags, which increase the
cost, I believe, about $200. Manufacturers would not have taken this
step unless government intervened (i.e., social planning) to level the
field by requiring all manufacturers to do the same. Government acted
because it needed to ensure the political commonwealth necessary for
its survival. The existence of these air bags did nothing for the
exploitation of auto workers. Their wages presumably stayed the same,
even though they were producing a better product.
And just who are these "some people" and what are these socially
conscious corporations? Do these "some people" refer to the masses of
people in Indonesia, Nigeria, China, India, etc., who are really who
count. I can't think of any large transnational corporations with a
conscience, but perhaps you can offer some examples. My Swiss niece
just gave me some Lindt chocolate bars (they are made in her home
town), but she is undoubtedly unaware of the relation of the chocolate
industry and child labor in West Africa, which is near slavery.
> It is neither localized, nor is it short lived, nor is it
> simplistic. These companies are based on consumers, not on
> activists. That makes them stable.
Yes, the producer depends on the consumer, and if the consumer makes
his wishes known, to an extent the producer will respond. However, it
is my understanding that the corporations must be driven by profits,
and consumers are only a means to that end. Also, I wonder about your
word "stable". The corporate world today strikes me as anything but
stable.
>>I'm made uncomfortable by any analysis of the economy that depends
>>on moral choices. In church, the preacher says that if we all act
>>like good Christians, it will be a better world. Undoubtedly that's
>>true, but the issue is why we actually don't act that way.
>
> Correction, I do, and many do. Enough to have some impact.
Do I understand correctly that you believe that such a moral
transformation is possible? How would it be achieved? How would it
arrive at more than just "some" impact and end by transforming the
character of the system itself?
> BTW, I've explained what is the cause of greed. It is an
> evolutionary artefact, from when humanity lived in another
> biological niche. Given acceptance of that analysis, it becomes
> clear that generous/knowledgeable consumers are not a little sparkle
> in the dark, but rather are the first signs of withering greed
> within our species. Greed which has to disappear from humanity
> because of our new biological role/niche, simple evolutionary
> pressures. The choice is, to hop on to the future now, or wait a
> little longer and suffer the consequences.
In a _very_ general sense, I may agree. I'm made nervous, however, by
your reference to a new "biological role/niche". Since we are speaking
of capitalism, would "new" refer to today's situation in comparison to
some precapitalist past, such as 15th century Europe? If so, what's
the "biological" difference?
Also, "to hope on to the future now" sounds utopian. See my comment
above about existential choices.
>> To broaden
>>optimal decision theory to include social and environmental factors
>>in decision making seems an ideological defense of the capitalist
>>system that fails to grasp the real objective forces that drive it.
>
> You're equating capitalism with trade.
I don't, and I don't see how you infer this from what I said. I only
tried to bring out one point of capitalist ideology, and not my own
views except at the end, where I suggested that capitalism can't be
reduced to optimal decision theory.
> To reduce the amount of pain we are suffering from consumer greed
> and capitalist greed, we can only offer people a little free advice
> and understanding.
Who is the "we" here? Does your line of thinking correspond to that of
any organized group or definable social interest?
> To destroy the dictatorship of money within trade, and replace it
> with the dictatorship of a communist party within a democracy, is
> merely switching one problem for another.
If I may take a liberty in interpreting you viewpoint, it seems to
boil down to your revulsion for one person telling another what to do
and having some advantage that allows him to get away with it. I'm
sympathetic to the extent that, like everyone else, I've been in
situations where I'm compelled to do things contrary to my
interst. Very distasteful.
But, like everyone else, I've also been compelled to do things that I
don't detest. Above I went to the extent of suggesting development is
impossible without the presence of a constraint. If that is a valid
point, then it seems that the issue is not the compulsion itself, but
something else. For example, perhaps we want to be compelled if it
supports our development, but would rather avoid it if it seems
contrary to our interests.
> I believe that communism is trying too go too quickly, absolute
> democracy is something the people cannot handle,
Don't know if I would agree with that. The sudden imposition of
"absolute" (I prefer terms like real, economic, or participatory)
democracy on today's society would indeed perhaps result in chaos,
whether carried out by a capitalist or socialist state. However, I see
democratic participation as a schooling, as a training of the
individual in social consciousness. If so, I'm always in favor of more
of it, but it must be a slow transition.
Communist regimes (if by that you mean revolutionary socialist
governments), went far in developing democracy and replacing royal
absolutism, or subjection to a landlord, or slave labor at the
workplace with greater social consciousness and
participation. However, I'm also willing to admit there have been
terrible failures in reaching that goal. Given this, however, if we
consider political consciousness and democratic participation, and
compare, say, the U.S.S.R. in 1957 with Tsarist Russia in 1857, even
with all the flaws in the Soviet state, didn't it represent a
significant move toward democracy? If nothing else, it set it up as a
valid and desirable social goal, which was not the case before.
> and technology is barely available if even that. Meanwhile, in
> chasing culturally and technically impossible dreams, the communists
> forget the real power they have in the here and now: curing trade,
> proving what they are worth in making social companies tick.
Not the goal of revolutionary socialist regimes. Their trade policies
are indistinguishable from that of many capitalist governments, and
their aim was the dissolution of private capital, not to make
capitalist enterprises more responsible. France's experiment with
nationalizing major industries was not the decision of communists, but
of capitalists (if we admit that socialist governments in Europe don't
aim to get rid of capitalism).
> Communism seems to not have a sound way forward past creating the
> rebellion of slaves, and managing a (constant) revolution to correct
> immediate suffering. Rather then what you say above, it is communism
> which fails to create a stable new conducive environment, after the
> slaves have been liberated.
Reading you literally, the central aim of communism is not the freedom
of slaves, but the liberation of the modern (industrial) working
class. Peasants and slaves may be swept up on the change and even
benefit from it, but their situation is not the focus of Marxism. It
is an ideology of, by, and for the modern working class. That some
non-working class elements are not so easily disregarded is a fact of
life that communists have had to confront with varying success.
Also, the aim is revolution, and since none managed to achieve a
communist society, the revolutionary enterprise is intended to be
disruptive. Marxists hold that while a "stable" communist society is
the aim, to get there you have to crack some (political) eggs. If they
are not willing to do that, then they are not communist. The
capitalist order also came about through a long protracted series of
bourgeois revolutions, which also cracked some eggs in order to arrive
at a new order with some degree of stability. Any revolutionary
changes in world history involve periods of disorder, and in fact
history seems to alternate between (harmonious) evolution and
(chaotic) revolution. I'd even suggest that's how historical progress
is achieved.
> Communism and capitalism both seem to fail currently.
Keep in mind that the world holds capitalist and socialist
regimes. The former is a project completed; the latter a project not
yet fulfilled. There are no "communist" societies.
Also keep in mind that what socialist regimes exist, live in world
dominated by capitalism. If there is "failure" (and I'd not employ
such an absolute term, even for capitalism), it seems more likely to
be the effect of capitalism. We have to specify what we mean by
failure. If, for example, we consider the development of a nation's
people, what more remarkable a success story than China? What
miserable nations can we think of? Haiti? Are they socialist or
capitalist? If we use any other criterion, we are equally likely to
come up with ambivalent results. It seems to me that the world is
undergoing a dramatic and profound transformation today, and where it
will lead no one knows. There are enormous potentials at present for
both good and ill. It would be of little use to separate everything
into social-economic categories and then conclude they all fail. I'm
not sure we have failed, but if we have, I'm not at all certain we can
point our finger at one type of state or the other to blame, for we
are actually all part of one system, a world system, made up of parts
that are interactive and interdependent, even though to an extent
contradictory.
>>I understood your position to be a defense of capitalism. Communism
>>does not seem relevant to it--at least not so far.
>
> The "worker democracy, workers running the company through (direct)
> democracy", is at the heart (for me) when it comes to social
> products.
Aha, there's a problem. Workers running a factory is surely not
communism, for nothing has changed. The workers just end up exploiting
themselves, for the production of surplus value needed to ensure
competitive productivity remains in place.
A little thought experiment: Suppose a private manufacturing company
goes public and stock in it is sold. For the sake of argument, let us
suppose that there is something that ensures no one can own more than
a few shares, so that ownership of the factory ends up entirely in the
hands of the working class, who buys stock to supplement their income
or as a way to save. Now, what happens to the workers employed by that
company? I suggest they experience no change whatsoever. In fact, if
the old owner happened to be paternalistic, their situation may
actually deteriorate as the stockholders come to insist on the maximum
return on their investment.
Why is this? For one thing, ownership is separated from management,
and even if by some miracle the majority of stock holders were aware
of and even concerned about the wellbeing of "their" workers, they
would have to intervene actively (unlikely) and be willing to forego
some of their income or savings in order to better the workers in the
factory. The change in ownership has not removed the factory from
having to show a profit by selling in the marketplace, and it is to
the stock holders' interest that their investment be a sound one. It
is not simply greed or social indifference on their part, for it was
the reason for their purchase of stocks in the first place to have a
decent return or a secure investment. No one is going to invest their
savings in the stock of a company that they know to be "off the
wall". In other words, the conditions under which the investment
choice is made dictates certain expectations for a public corporation,
and any social objectives must be compatible with a good return on the
investment, or else no one would buy the stock.
Now turning to situations in which there is co-management or even a
worker take over of a plant. Undoubtedly the various worker
participation schemes (including union contracts), can improve the lot
of the worker, but as long as wages are largely determined by the
labor market and the surplus value is realized through sale in a
competitive marketplace, the worker will not receive back most of the
value he creates on the job.
> But my goal is still absolute democracy, within everywhere. That
> seems to be the core issue with communism as well, at least
> originally.
A laudable goal, but I suggest the way to achieve it is to engage the
real limits and potentials that exist in our actual situation. Having
a goal can have moral value and may help organize our thinking, but
the real issue must be to engage reality, not a chimera. This reality
is the overwhelming majority of people in the here and now, the
working class. Tactics don't reduce to strategy.
>>if the economic environment is one of competition in the market
>>place, the surplus must primarily serve to increase productivity,
>>and that ultimately reduces labor to subsistence.
>
> Which is the result of consumer = worker greed.
So do I infer correctly that the consumer=worker is the cause of his
own misery? That gets capitalism off the hook nicely, doesn't it (a la
Malthus). Have you read Malthus? I believe you would find him
instructive, for his position resembles yours, and yet you would not
find him attractive (for the same reason no one else does, either).
> Similarly, it requires humanity (us) some attention to our cultural
> processes to learn how to affect them for a better outcome. Since we
> have just left our old niche of a fighting species, it is natural
> that we are greedy and prone to fighting.
I could say a lot here, but hold myself back. The concept "humanity"
strikes me as an empty abstraction. I know what social classes are,
and I know what humans are, but humanity?
Your "better outcome" could simply mean greater gain (due to greed,
you insist). If we don't assume humans are social (in my sense)
animals, it would be hard to understand why a person would make
decisions counter to his own interest. That indeed would be
irrational.
I know some people who are greedy and contentious (well, not really,
but for the sake of argument I'll assume those folks exist), and many
who are the opposite. If these behaviors have become embedded in our
nature through evolution, wouldn't nearly everyone exhibit them?
However, the only significant group that I can feel comfortable saying
are regularly greedy and predatory are the capitalists.
In historical terms, "greed" was only invented in Europe in the 11th
century (as indicated in a change in the conventional list of vices),
and it was an effect of the growing importance of market
relations. Being predatory at the time was very much an effect of the
emergent feudal ruling class, who were not predatory by nature, but
well knew that a predatory behavior offered great potential benefits
along with the considerable risks. A classic example is killing of
one's brothers in order to avoid partiable inheritance and therefore
ending up with a peasant existence.
> Perhaps you find my argumentation "moralistic". If so, that might
> mean you have some disposable income you are not spending
> socially/green ? Perhaps that might be a reason for you to not want
> to accept what to me seems the obvious.
To not have others accept what we think obvious is part of the human
condition ;-(. Been there; done that. I admire your moral sense, but
fear only that you have not laid bare any mechanism by which those
values might be eventually realized.
> But don't get me wrong: I think it is only natural that people are
> spending money in greed.
But that remains a contested point. I raised objections that were
historical (I didn't elaborate this objection, but noted it in
passing), that were philosophical, and ones based on my observance of
people. You might challenge me on all counts, but so far you have not
done do, and so the point remains contested.
> As said, we need to experience why greed has lost its attraction for
> our species, we /need/ to feel the pain it causes. As a species, we
> cannot simply go on a theory, we need reality.
And just how do you expose the mass of people to more reality than
they already experience? It seems to me that the working class has
plenty of exposure to reality, although I can't say that for much of
the bourgeoisie. Don't underestimate the sophistication and
understanding of the working class just because it exists in a world
different than your own.
> Some people may have more experience with the pain greed causes
> humanity as a whole then others, and therefore they have come to be
> more social quicker then others.
And who might these people be? Exactly what social experience do they
have that differentiates them from the working class? Are you
suggesting that people with wider horizons tend to act better than
others? Most of the outstanding jerks I have known have been people
with the advantage of college education, travel, and some disposable
income. These folks come from the suburbs into my neighborhood to buy
drugs and women, and based on my regular experience of them, they
certainly have foreshortened moral horizons.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work, and keeps the working class down.
> The problem here is: the working class needs to invest that little
> it has. This cuts into their luxury spending.
Wow! I'll not comment on this, for it speaks for itself.
> I'm not saying working class doesn't deserve the best, I'm just
> saying how they can get the best in the more distant future. Just
> like a capitalist will have to invest his/her wealth to achieve
> something, so do we. "No pain, no gain".
Someone else you might read is Benjamin Franklin. Or, better yet, read
D. H. Lawrence's biting critique of him. Hilarious.
> BTW, what makes you think I earn a lot of money ? I'm pretty much at
> the bottom, a little over 800/month Euro, which is a reprieve from
> when a had even less.
Sorry if I gave the impression of personalizing things. I wasn't
really thinking of what income you might enjoy, but more of your
cultural environment and your class allegiance. No question that life
in the Nederland is more attractive than here; I hope I'm not just
being jealous ;-).
>>Again, I have trouble with your reduction of an economic system to
>>culture and the choices we as individuals may make.
>
> The whole world is build up from the atomic choices of all
> individuals. The resulting building reflect the qualities of these
> choice-blocks closely.
Here I object in principle: systems have emergent properties that
can't be reduced to the properties or behaviors of their parts.
>>Yes, I believe that to be the problem. To reduce an economic system
>>to the choices people make strikes me as capitalist in nature. Is it
>>your intention to defend the capitalist system in principle, or to
>>offer an alternative to it?
>
> I believe it to be a problem that you refuse to factor in individual
> power into the system. This way, you cut down the power the working
> class has. If you don't know you are powerful, you are not powerful.
> The capitalists exploit the confusion, or rather, go unopposed
> thanks to it.
Well, you are right in that we can't ignore the individual, but it
would be just as wrong to ignore properties or behaviors specific to
the social whole. The old debate, generally described as the issue of
parts and wholes, died out shortly after World War II. There are
several books from the time with that as their concern, among which
are David Bohm (natural science), perhaps Piaget, and particularly a
philosophical work with that as its title, but I can't recall the
author, and also Oskar Lange in relation to economics.
As for working class individuals, given their relation of production,
they have virtually no power at all. Ever try talking your boss into a
raise? The power of the working class arises from its solidarity, and
as far as your next point is concerned, a strike action usually offers
evidence enough of that strength. If workers are reduced to individual
consumers, they have negligible wealth, and therefore negligible
power. Now, of course, your reply would be, what if they all acted
wisely and agreed to buy green products? Yes, that would make a
difference. However, these two examples are not
analogous. Working-class solidarity is forged by a shared experience
of the workplace; it is instinctive (in effect), and has a material
basis. On the other hand, to make consumer choices in concert with
most other people is really a stretch. It's basis is not material, but
shared culture and values; it does not offer the hope for immediate
gratification (such as a better contract), but merely the moral
satisfaction that you may have done some good, somehow, somewhere, for
somebody. Such decision making is important, but I don't think it has
much to do with real power.
It is tried often enough, such as in boycotts. I can't begin to recall
how many times as part of my union activities I've participated in
boycotts or actually picketed an offender. However, the target was one
from which they suffered direct grievance. But ask yourself, what
social class tends more to be drawn to this tactic when applied to
distant and abstract issues? Every weekend, there is an anti-war
(Iraq) gathering, but it takes place in a lily-white suburb, mostly
middle-class/professional folks, and absolutely no people of color. If
you travel in certain circles, you become aware of things, but that
does not necessarily result in being able to effect change. For
example, how many ordinary people (here) have even heard of Myanmar?
While a boycott can have an effect, it seems tot have had effect upon
Myanmar. More to the point, how about the huge number of people still
suffering from Katrina. For reasons having to do with social
psychology, I'm sure, some people readily overlook problems that are
immediate and tangible and fixate instead on some distant vague issue,
usually just one or two. Action that is intellectually based seems to
have a success that is limited, temporary or trivial, and however
necessary such an action is upon occasion, it does not offer itself as
an attractive tactic for changing the world. That's the difference
between trying to reform capitalism and to replace it.
> This may be a theoretical approach and not be adequately represented
> within history, however I think the effects argued for speak for
> themselves.
I'd be suspicious of a tactic that was not based both on theory and on
history. If you are suggesting your moral/spiritual approach has
persuasive "effects", are you not arguing from history? If, on the
other hand, you only mean that your argument is solid because it is
logical and self-evident, I don't think that suffices. What is logical
and self-evident for one person won't be for another.
> The alternative I found is: balanced trade, where concentration of
> money power (capital) are eliminated. The immediate shock-cure if
> you will, might be to pass certain laws. But "if we continue to live
> unhealthy, we will just get sick again, and again, and again". The
> necessary laws have been passed and forced by communist revolution
> and its aftermath, still affecting the world today.
This summation of your position helps. So you wish to replace big
capital by little capital (everything else being the same, efficient
enterprises by inefficient ones), and you look to the capitalist state
to pass laws to enforce its own dissolution. Chavez, down in Venezuela
decided to give some vacant hacienda land to the indigenous people,
and look what a fuss that raised! Can you imagine Bush, whose sole
purpose in life seems to be to promote capitalism and imperialism,
telling those who paid for his election that they will henceforth be
deprived of much of their wealth and privilege? How long do you think
he would last? And, again, your reference to a communist revolution
having already passed such laws, which evidently only hang in abeyance
and ready to be implemented by capitalists--leaves me entirely
mystified. Just when did the Nederland have its communist revolution,
and just where in its books reside these anti-capitalist laws?
> Now we need to cure the disease from the inside out. For that I
> recommend a therapy of enlightened consumer spending. We all know it
> can work, there is no point in denying that it will work.
There's a difference between saying it _does_ work and it _could_
work. Offer me some non-trivial examples in the international
marketplace where enlightened consumer spending has brought
fundamental change. In China, the consumption of polished (white) rice
and disposable wooden chopsticks have very bad effects on nutrition
and the forest, and the Chinese people are becoming more aware of
it. If cultural patterns in China change, it may result in improved
nutrition and save some forest, but has the system changed as a
result?
>>> I think the behaviors of the atoms (individuals) determine the
>>> quality of the substance (society), and how it reacts (develops).
>>
>>And, again, you seem to reduce society to social atoms, which is
>>implicitly a defense of the capitalist system. Is that your
>>intention?
>
> No it is not a defense at all, merely an observation of the present.
> I guess I now know you are not a generous/knowledgeable consumer (no
> offense). You actions affect the whole, whether you like it or not.
I must beg to differ. How we represent society in thought is (I would
argue) necessarily ideological, which is to say, it represents a way
of thinking that has a functional relation to one or another social
class. We (you and I) live in a capitalist environment, and it seems
inevitable that we are subject to the influence of capitalist
ideology. The working class finds it relatively easy to escape that
influence because its outlook is likely to be based on the
working-class experience. The petite bourgeoisie, in conventional
Marxist thinking, has an ambivalent position, and is likely to be
influenced by both ideologies, although not having an ideology
specific to it. I'm not developing the argument here, but only hinting
the course it would take. The conclusion would be that we adopt a
working class ideology or a capitalist ideology, or otherwise occupy
an ambivalent position that is highly contradictory. I say this to
shed a little more light on the comment to which you respond.
I would strongly object to your point that one's outlook is not
ideological, but merely an observation of present facts. My objection
would rest primarily on the conventional philosophy of science. To put
the point in those terms, no "observation" is free of axioms, of
observational hypotheses, of presumed knowledge and values. This does
not invalidate the truth value of scientific knowledge, but does bring
to the fore the difficult issue of how we manage to validate that
knowledge.
> My intention is to understand the truth, in order to find a way
> forward. My style is to not give a "damn" about whether any
> analysis might offend my friends, because I feel that we are better
> of with a accurate analysis and the results it can bring, then
> playing nice with everybody and not realizing our potential. Not
> realizing our potential will eventually probably result in much more
> then mere offended friends, like war and death, slavery.
Yes, I can't object to that. However, it is now generally understood
that we are not autonomous investigators of truth, but act in a social
context that tends to define how we know truth when we see it. Thomas
Kuhn, for example, showed that scientific truth is never disconnected
from what our peers consider being true, whether we end agreeing with
them or not. Our pursuit of truth always stands on the platform of our
social existence and can't be separated from it. This is not to
denigrate your virtuous pursuit of truth or to belittle in any way
your effort to avoid conventions simply because it would be easier to
conform to them.
> Even there I'm not moralistic, because I'm saying "we need a reality
> check".
I see no reason why you presume a tension between moral values and
scientific truth. But this is a big topic I'll not enter into here.
> Focus on "trade", that seems an easy way into my argument. My
> arguments are perhaps relatively abstract. When I say "trade", I'm
> thinking "atom X creates desirable A, atom Y creates desirable B,
> they swap desirables". This can be widely applied. The question is:
> why do they do this, why not simply give each other their products
> and do away with the drag the swap-process itself creates. The
> obvious conclusion: "atom Z creates nothing, but is always on hand
> to pretend he/she deserves to get the desirables, X and Y are
> defending themselves!".
While, like everyone else, I enter the market place to exchange
equivalent values, that is only part of the social relations into
which I enter, and perhaps a minor part. I made a very petty purchase
in a store today, but there were three other instances in which
greater value either passed from my hands to others, or for which I
was recipient. These were not really exchanges, but expressions of
love or friendship. I'm not sure if it is your intention, but to
reduce human relationships to the exchange of values would seem to
impoverish those relationships.
> I'm not thinking about Coca Cola, or IMF or whatever, or what they
> call "free trade" these days. When I think "capitalism", I think
> that the immediate problem is that people (like yourself) equate it
> with trade. But it is not trade. Look at the above atoms, they
> trade. Yet neither holds capital. Therefore: capitalism is not
> trade.
I hope you understand by now that I'm not equating capitalism with
trade. I would define capitalism as a specific kind of relation
between the spheres of production and exchange, not either by itself.
> The problems in the world: "some atoms suffer economically and
> produce a lot of desire-ables, others take advantage and come to own
> many desire-ables while not producing any or much".
You appear to embrace an atomistic view of society, and it was my
contention that such a view characterizes the basis of capitalist
ideology. I'm not sure how you avoid a conclusion that your outlook
represents a variety of capitalist ideology.
>>OK, I understand your position better. I won't enter here into a
>>critique of old fashioned anarchism. You really should, though,
>>distance yourself from Marxism (with which you profoundly disagree)
>>and socialism (if by the word we mean revolutionary socialism), and
>>the working class (anarchism is not a working-class ideology, but in
>>origin, one of petty private producers). Many anarchists today
>>embrace a Marxist analysis, but you do not seem to be one of them.
>
> It is exactly this what I'm trying to correct: the petty! division
> of social people in all kinds sub-groups which are supposed to fight
> each other.
I get the feeling you reject my effort to characterize your views in
terms of one class ideology or another. So I suppose the question
comes down to whether our thinking is inevitably ideological. Many
people in the natural sciences like to think their knowledge is
un-ideological, but to imply that social or economic knowledge can
manage that trick is, I believe, a difficult position to defend and
one not generally held today. This does not mean you are wrong, of
course, but it suggests that you need some powerful argumentation in
defense of it. Granted, in philosophical terms, the burden of proof
rests upon me, the one making the positive assertion.
> I merely try to make you aware of your own power within the
> system. I guess that if you don't wish to know about this power,
> that is another matter. The analysis stands still unopposed.
I appreciate your good intentions, but as you can see, I'm not feeling
particularly powerless. I have the perhaps naive belief that
working-class solidarity represents a potential capable of doing
almost anything. So my adoption of your recommendation that I define
my power in terms of being an enlightened consumer would represent for
me a loss of power, not a gain.
>>> The problems of our society cannot be overcome or understood by a
>>> historical context. This is perhaps a mistake in Marxism, which
>>> was developed when evolutionary theory didn't even exist or was
>>> just beginning. Marxism doesn't have the scientific benefits we
>>> now enjoy.
>>
>>Wow!
>
> You are trying to isolate yourself from my rationale. This is
> unfortunate (IMHO).
No, my "Wow!" was not a reflection upon your rational, but upon your
presumed facts in each of your three sentences. Just to take an
example, Lord Acton once suggested that historical consciousness is
the cornerstone of human liberty. Despite Henry Ford ("History is
bunk!") and despite Nietzsche, I think this remains the consensus
today, although people might be hard pressed to explain just why they
believe it to be so. To paraphrase Marx: without historic
consciousness, we end prisoners of an eternal present. To argue
otherwise is, of course possible, but unlikely to carry much weight.
>>OK, thanks for the clarification of your position, which I take to
>>be anarchist, with the hope that capitalism will evolve in that
>>direction. Not a working-class ideology, of course.
>
> Wrong. First: you are trying to push me in one of the boxes that
> fight among each other. However, being in favor of democracy I'm not
> an absolute anarchist. Sometimes I wonder what label I should wear,
> but I come to the conclusion that I could wear them all.
Yes, I must apologize for the presumption to shoehorn your views into
some general category (which is different from my earlier comment
about ideology having a functional relation with class). But is your
objection simply that you don't like to be pigeon-holed, or that you
disagree with the anarchist position itself?
> For the extremely long term (or extremely advanced individuals),
> when everybody is behaving 100% social and reliable, as well with a
> very high degree of competence, trade could be eliminated and
> anarchy paired with democracy become viable. But in the present such
> goals (which are in fact shared by the "classless" aims of
> communism, there is no real distinction between communism/anarchy at
> all, it is all imagination) are unrealistic. Humanity cannot handle
> anarchy (yet), therefore anarchy causes chaos instead of the
> excitement of freedom. The freedom humanity already seeks, the
> responsibility and competence are lacking to make it work, the
> freedom just ends up being abused, or (communication) incompetence
> makes life too difficult. I stress again: anarchy is no option for
> humanity right now, or even in the next thousands of years (IMHO). I
> do not seek anarchy.
I'm not unsympathetic to your views, but they strike me as
utopian. I'll not belabor my point, in part because I've addressed
aspects of it already.
>>Much of our debate does not make much progress because it has become
>>apparent that we disagree on some basics. In terms of science, a
>>major basic point of disagreement has to do with reductionism. In
>>terms of social perspective, it has to do with our respective class
>>locations.
>
> Gosh, you really think I'm big money ?
I've no idea how you infer this from my point. It seems patent that
your conception of society reduces it to social atoms. That is,
society represents individuals who decide to enter into an association
of some kind. I tried to suggest such a view is not really an obvious
one, and an alternative to it exists. We adopt one ontological
presumption or the other for some reason, hopefully a good
one. Wouldn't you agree that it is a profound difference whether we
start with the social being (society generates individuation) or with
the social atom, who then combines to form a society? I then ventured
that our choice in this matter has probable relevance to our social
(class) location. I don't see how this bears at all on any personal
characteristics that you might have.
> Let me tell you what certificate I recently gained: office cleaner
> (SVS). I am currently working in a canteen (coffee, tea, bread,
> candy, cleaning, etc), and plan on being a office cleaner after
> this. Already been a cleaner before, but now I hope to get back to
> it. I'm not planning on becoming a manager with any cleaning
> company, because I have objections to such things. A full time
> office cleaner earns about 7 Euro/hour, this is a real concern for
> me, because I have certain volunteer activities I'm not prepared to
> give up for anything.
And what objection do you have becoming a manager? I suspect this
would be a challenging and more interesting job, and I'm sure it pays
better. Do you shun it because it gives you some authority over
others? This would be natural if you have difficulty in your social
relations, but I won't presume that. Having authority over others is
part of the human condition. A nice example is the Benedictine Rule,
for it suggests that, except the newest member of the community, each
monk is simultaneously ruler and ruled, is both responsible for
correcting his fellow monks and to accept their (in the case of the
abbot, God's) correction in good spirit. It seems to me this is a good
description of positive social relations. If I don't offer kindly
advice to someone in need of it, I betray them; if I'm impervious to
the criticism of my peers, I betray myself.
Please let me apologize for running on like this. I picked up and
continued my thread several times today, and the result is an awfully
long diatribe.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
>Jos, first allow me to apologize for my overly long and turgid message
>last time. It was apparently written quickly or when I was exhausted.
I'm just glad I finally met someone who could outdo me in sheer volume ;-).
Congrats.
I've answered your post, it resulted in a 1700+ lines monster. I'll
spare you the trouble.
Working through your material, I discovered time and again that our
difference lies in: historical perspective (the last centuries)
vs evolutionary perspective (the last millions (billions) of years).
With evolutionary perspective, I mean this:
A B C
---------------------->-------------------------->-------------------------
1 One among many | Apex (top) predator | Unopposed planet master
animals | | species
---------------------->-------------------------->-------------------------
2 Non technological | rudimentary tools | Totally superior abilities
---------------------->-------------------------->-------------------------
3 fighting skills needed for survival | fighting skills obsolete
------------------------------------------------->-------------------------
This seems for me to explain why people want to exploit each other.
It is not "evil", it is natural. It has merely become useless, and
therefore "evil". A relic from our evolutionary past.
Token from the discussion:
>>>> The problems of our society cannot be overcome or understood by a
>>>> historical context. This is perhaps a mistake in Marxism, which
>>>> was developed when evolutionary theory didn't even exist or was
>>>> just beginning. Marxism doesn't have the scientific benefits we
>>>> now enjoy.
>>>
>>>Wow!
>>
>> You are trying to isolate yourself from my rationale. This is
>> unfortunate (IMHO).
>
>No, my "Wow!" was not a reflection upon your rational, but upon your
>presumed facts in each of your three sentences. Just to take an
>example, Lord Acton once suggested that historical consciousness is
>the cornerstone of human liberty. Despite Henry Ford ("History is
>bunk!") and despite Nietzsche, I think this remains the consensus
>today, although people might be hard pressed to explain just why they
>believe it to be so. To paraphrase Marx: without historic
>consciousness, we end prisoners of an eternal present. To argue
>otherwise is, of course possible, but unlikely to carry much weight.
Oh sorry. I meant that we need to look wider still. Historical understanding
I often think is the most important thing, most important science there
is (I'm breaking up ;-). But we need deeper insight, look back much
further then history can. Even to the time when we may not even have
had names, and further back. That is inclusive with historical, at the
same time it negates historical as being "trivial" in the face of the
developments that can (I think) explain our problems.
Example: can we explain the communist revolution in 1917 (?), by analyzing
what certain heroes playing a role in it, did the month prior ? Or week
prior ? What they had for breakfast the day of the revolution ? We
can't understand it unless we go towards larger timescales, to years
and decades, centuries to explain the context. We will only confuse when
we look at month and weeks.
This is what I think is happening now, we cannot understand our economic
problems, our "system problems" when we look at "petty decades" and
"simple centuries/millennia". They just confuse.
Without fundamental understanding offered by the evolutionary perspective,
we cannot frame capitalism, the working class, what a revolution means
if anything, what our time frame expectations for change should be, and
what we should be looking at as progress and perhaps importantly: what
our position is, and what strategies can be rejected and what can be
adopted placing them before this light. It is not that I *want* to place
everything in a evolutionary as opposed to historical context, I just don't
think there is any other way to achieve meaningful understanding. Then
again, evolution does not need understanding.
--
Shall we try to stay within 100 lines (give/take) ? I did that the first
posts in this thread, even though it means losing lots of interesting
side allies. The 100 mark was once recommended to me on Usenet, seems to
be a good rule of thumb.
Haines Brown
Sorry for the delay in my reply, for I have been away for over a
week. I'll try to keep this reply to under 100 lines as you suggest.
I have no objection at all to one adopting a historical or
evolutionary approach, and in fact I agree that it is essential to do
so. However, we can't impose arbitrary categories, but must justify
them.
For example, your "one among many animals"/"apex predator"/unupposed
planet master". Not only must these categories be empirically true,
but they must have explanatory powre.
At the risk of trivializing your point, let me try to illustrate
this. You are concerned with power relations, which I would define as
a capacity to bring about change. However, you seem to define it
rather in terms of the power of one species over another and
specifically in terms of aggression.
You have not shown that humans are predators. They were at times, but
they were also gatherers/scavengers. I don't think your categorization
stands up in fact as a generalization. If we pass from paleolithic
times to neolithic, we tend to assume that folks are out farming. That
involves an increase in power, but probably a decrease in predatory
behavior. Etc.
Even if the degree of "predatoriness" were an empirically valid
measure, what does that tell us? Humans much of the time lived from
hunting and fishing, but what does that tell me about mankind and
particularly about history? I know people who fish and some who do
not. Are the former predators and not the latter? And what does our
biologically-based behavior have to do with human history, which is
not about biological life, but about social life? Etc.
What I'm saying comes down to the concern that you take a (weak) fact
from the past and impose it on the present without showing that it is
somehow basic and that is it in some way relevant to the
present. People are also bipedal, and while that is a fact and it may
be a necessary condition, but tells me virtually nothing about the way
things are developing in the world today.
An evolutionary perspective I would assume would indeed explain how we
arrived where we are at present by considering historical
dynamics. However, this process is emergent, which means that what
shapes the world today is not what existed in the distant past or
through all time, but what existed yesterday. As I suggested before,
general laws cannot explain history, for history is always creating
new laws. That's what evolution is all about.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
>Sorry for the delay in my reply, for I have been away for over a week.
No need to apologize.
I feel you're trying to get an evolutionary understanding, by
extending your historical understanding back in time, to the brink
of what is possible. Then you mentioned certain historical details
about long past times. That people fished, but also farmed. You
are essentially still thinking in a historical context, I think.
You talked about people fishing. The same thing happens in your
argument (fortunately for my argument :-). When people sit by the
water side and cast a line, that is not the real fishing humanity
is engaged in. When humanity fishes, it goes out into the ocean on
a boat many tens of meters long, steel, with a cannon on the bow,
to shoot some whales. Or it launches complete fishing factories that
scrape the bottom of the ocean and turn it into waste. Are they
not predators ? Aren't we eating this fish collectively ? Sure.
That makes us predators.
What marine animal can match this ? The answer is obvious: none. Which
animal in the sea is even the remotest threat to our fishing ? We are
so much ahead, that the term "apex predator" seems besides the point.
But even whether we're predators or vegetarians is besides the point.
Both predators and vegetarian species are under pressure to create
fighting skills, because almost all species are under a fighting threat
from other species.
I think that our respective arguments are still made within a different
context. The evolutionary context you propose focusses on the history
of mankind (we fished, we farmed). I still call that historical details
that have no swaying weight on the evolutionary context. Within the
evolutionary context, the whole emergence of humanity is more or less
a detail, however since we seem to evolve into a new niche, it is a
detail of interest. Whether we're bipedal, have hands, farmed, fished,
who cares. We might as well have had 8 arms and ventured out unto the
land with sea-water tanks. We might as well have algae for breakfast.
As long as we would have complete untouchable power over all other species,
and be beyond their threat, all such things are details !
So I guess, it really is a context switch.
Usually in biological systems ourselves aside, there are a few animals
we are most powerful. Lions for example, are not under much threat
from any other animal. We call them "top predator" to distinguish from
predators that are themselves preyed upon. But even they can get
occasionally killed by other animals. They are ahead, but only slightly.
Likely they will also stay slightly ahead because they are already
successful, there is no evolutionary pressure to evolve much more powerful.
As their prey evolves, they evolve with it. But again: the issue is not
predators vs vegetarians. What matters is: what are the evolutionary
pressures on a species.
Back to "whatever happens to be the `planet master species', be it an
insect, a fish, an octopus, a monkey, a bird, whatever". Since our power
is based within our technology, and we can make this technology very
powerful, we've broken with the usual evolutionary pressures that
other species feel. Of interest to our subject (how to make the world
more social, communism, prevent war, exploitation) is, that we *no longer*
feel a fighting pressure.
Ofcourse I need to prove that we once did, and do no more, to have an
argument that we are faced with old evolutionary behaviors that are hurting
us now. It is however beyond scientific controversy that we evolved
from a more monkey type of animal. It is also beyond archaeological
controversy that we once had much less technology. We fought with
bow and arrow, and before that with sticks and stones. Monkeys today
fight with sticks and stones. In a way, these monkeys are making their
first moves to becoming technological. It is also accepted, that monkeys
are faced with fighting threats, and that they therefore have to evolve
fighting skills. How better to do that, then fight ? Why else do all
these species fight amongst themselves, about lots of things. How does
this help them ? How do you explain it. I explain it by claiming it
gives an evolutionary edge, when the species are confronted with fighting
threats from other species.
Our context is still different. The "usual" things in the `historical
context' are things like: the roman empire, varies religions, migrations,
wars, kingdoms. The "usual" things in `archaeological context' are:
hunter/gathering, farming, fishing, tools. The "usual" things in `evolutionary
context' are (at least that's what I do): predatory species, vegetarian
species, plant life, pressures on entire species, "what gives a species
power". When in historical context, you might say "such and such model
airplane", in archaeological context "fossil fuel engine transportation
devices", in evolutionary context "technology infinite leaps ahead of any
other species".
Once you switch into evolutionary context, even the archaeological past
melts away as trivial. That proves it is really another context.
--
Best regards
Haines Brown
context.
Jos writes:
> I feel you're trying to get an evolutionary understanding, by
> extending your historical understanding back in time, to the brink
> of what is possible.
Perhaps there may be confusion over my use of the term "evolution". By
evolution, I mean a succession of states in which each state is in
part a function of the prior state and is made possible by that prior
state. I was not using the word solely in a biological context, but
apply it as well to such things as culture and history.
In terms of human history, there is a kind of evolution which is
conventionally called "progress". This word has been contentious
because it often implies a telos (a goal), which is arguably
metaphysical. Or it entails some measure of what progress is, and this
measure is a cultural artifact and hence subjective.
Nevertheless, I consider the word "progress" useful (and
scientific). I won't go into this because I'm not sure it is relevant,
but essentially, it rests upon my assumption that in any human
situation, there are both potentials for action and unmet needs, both
of which evolve, and needs arise from the construction of
potentials. So, as we meet needs, we create new potentials and needs,
making change both possible and necessary. Hence there is a
probability that human potentials (capacity for action) accumulate in
history, and hence progress. Is this mounting potential for action a
subjective measure of progress? Perhaps, but it may also be the
implication of life itself. That is, if a species is alive, it must
act, almost by definition, and so a capacity for action is a condition
of life. As for the conventional telos objection, systems theory has
demonstrated that systems can act as if governed by a telos without
actually having one.
Not sure if all this helps clear up my own position on the issue at
hand.
> When people sit by the water side and cast a line, that is not the
> real fishing humanity is engaged in. When humanity fishes, it goes
> out into the ocean on a boat many tens of meters long, steel, with a
> cannon on the bow, to shoot some whales. Or it launches complete
> fishing factories that scrape the bottom of the ocean and turn it
> into waste. Are they not predators ? Aren't we eating this fish
> collectively ? Sure. That makes us predators.
As biological entities, we must eat, and that means we do damage to
our environment by consuming living beings and damaging the
environment. Second law of thermodynamics: you can't maintain a far
from equilibrium system without dissipating (increasing entropy) its
environment. Our technology merely facilitates this dissipation and
hence creates greater potentials for action.
There are tactics to minimize this damage to our environment or to
project dissipation into areas that in the short run seem less
harmful, but I afraid the fact remains that the condition of life is
death. Our being predatory animals is just one manifestation of this
general rule. Were we in a space craft in the distant future and in
possession of a limitless energy source, we could synthesize food, I
suppose, but we still degrade our environment by putting out heat into
space, although the impact in practical terms would be negligible.
> But even whether we're predators or vegetarians is besides the
> point. Both predators and vegetarian species are under pressure to
> create fighting skills, because almost all species are under a
> fighting threat from other species.
Here I may have a problem. To plant my corn might be called
"predatory" in some sense, but not in the usual sense, of course. The
condition of our growing corn is a dissipation of our environment. To
put this in the framework you have constructed, it means we have power
over nature to dissipate it. If you infer that this means humans have
a "predatory" relation with the environment, I'll accept your meaning
for the term.
However, I believe you go beyond this in two respects: a) that it is a
definition of human nature rather than a feature of life in general,
b) that having power over something else explains human history.
If so, I'd object to both inferences. I'll not elaborate, for I'm not
sure I'm getting your point.
a) To define a human nature seems problematic. Our "nature" appears to
evolve. Even if we grant that, as living beings, we always seek to
control our environment, such as having power over other species, that
seems only a part of what we are and what we do, perhaps a small or
uninteresting one. There is a danger here of reductionism.
b) It is generally felt by historians that whatever is constant fails
to explain the human past. Human history is emergent, which means that
outcomes, while to some extent a function of the immediate past, also
are unique (creative) and therefore don't reduce to simply a function
of the past. So any constants in history, while they act as
constraints on what will emerge, do not really explain it. Knowing
that humans are creative is implied by the ancient Egyptians building
pyramids, but does not explain them.
Another issue that may be present here: are all power relations
exploitive? As I write this, I struggle to have power over words and
ideas to shape them in some meaningful way. Even if I were to use the
word "predatory" here, who is the looser? In terms of my use of words
and ideas to influence your own thinking, to the extent I succeed, I
have power over you. Am I exploiting you? Of course not. Ideally, my
questions and suggestions contribute to your development, and as I
respond to that development, I develop as well. The word "predatory"
seems ill-suited in this case, for there is a bilateral (dialectical)
benefit. But this does not counter my thermodynamic point aboce, for
as we engage in this activity, we dissipate enormous quantities of
heat (the brain does that more than almost anything else), and this
ultimate dissipation of our environments is the condition for our
mutual development through dialog.
In simpler terms, I don't believe all power relations are
exploitive. A piano teacher disciplines the pupil, not to exploit, but
to develop the pupil. Because both work up a sweat, nature is
dissipated, but not the two people. Both are emergent, in that the
pupil gains a mastery of the skill, and the teacher makes a
living. This addresses your point, I believe, that all inequitable
power relations are pernicious. If you disagree, then we need to
explore the issue further.
> But again: the issue is not predators vs vegetarians. What matters
> is: what are the evolutionary pressures on a species.
I'm not sure to what "pressures" you refer. Biological evolution is
not simply an adaptation to a niche, for then it would not take
place. Adaptation is a condition of existence, not a cause of
development. Speciation events are spontaneous, random,
unpredictable. Some genetic changes turn out to be functional, some
do not.
> Since our power is based within our technology, and we can make this
> technology very powerful, we've broken with the usual evolutionary
> pressures that other species feel. Of interest to our subject (how
> to make the world more social, communism, prevent war, exploitation)
> is, that we *no longer* feel a fighting pressure.
True, but I'd disagree with a possible implication here that human
aggression is basically a hangover from our biological past rather
than a result of the kind of system we live in at present. That our
fate today depends on technology seems to imply that social ills, for
the most part, are to be addressed by technical means (using the word
very loosely to include things like revolution).
If by "fighting" you mean social aggression in the strict sense, I
don't see that as a constant factor in the human past. My own state
happens to be constantly engaged in aggressive war, but my neighbors
are not and generally get along with each other well enough. While we
unfortunately have plenty of examples of aggression, that seems more a
function of the kind of situation we are in than some kind of
mysterious hang over from the past. Is Bush's war against the world's
working class due to his aggressive nature, or is it a condition
necessary for capitalist profits?
> Ofcourse I need to prove that we once did, and do no more, to have
> an argument that we are faced with old evolutionary behaviors that
> are hurting us now.
> I explain it by claiming it gives an evolutionary edge, when the
> species are confronted with fighting threats from other species.
Your line of argument confuses me. Are you saying that we are no
longer predators because of our unique evolution as a species, are we
predators because of modern circumstances? If the latter, then I'd
agree. Or are you saying that our success in life since the beginning
of civilization depends on our having evolved superb fighting skills?
> Our context is still different. The "usual" things in the
> `historical context' are things like: the roman empire, varies
> religions, migrations, wars, kingdoms. The "usual" things in
> `archaeological context' are: hunter/gathering, farming, fishing,
> tools. The "usual" things in `evolutionary context' are (at least
> that's what I do): predatory species, vegetarian species, plant
> life, pressures on entire species, "what gives a species power".
Yes. Historical analysis tends to ask how a particular unique
situation came about (much like the weatherman, also employing an
"evolutionary science"). Archaeology (accepting your characterization,
which I do with reservation), often thinks in terms of social types,
not unique instances, and explores the functionality of those types,
and empirical specifics are instances of types. Your "evolutionary
context" looks, apparently, at the biological determinants of
behavior. I suspect all three are valid and are simply different ways
to address different kinds of questions. Every situation is unique, is
(to a degree) functionally coherent, and is biologically
constrained. If true, then the question is what we seek to achieve
through our explanation of the human situation.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
>Jos, I'm still unclear about your point regarding evolutionary
>context.
Ok, I'm not presuming that I'm not confused or confusing.
I am using the word "evolution" as in "evolution of species, evolution
of manking". What you call "biological evolution".
<snip>
>but essentially, it rests upon my assumption that in any human
>situation, there are both potentials for action and unmet needs, both
>of which evolve, and needs arise from the construction of potentials.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Like: "there is a potential for cells to move, which some take, creating
the need for additional energy to make this moving possible; a potential
which is exploited, creating a secondary need" ? Ok, I can see what
you mean I guess. Exploiting the potential for tasty food, creates the need
for better kitchens, recepies, etc etc.
> So, as we meet needs, we create new potentials and needs,
>making change both possible and necessary. Hence there is a
>probability that human potentials (capacity for action) accumulate in
>history, and hence progress. Is this mounting potential for action a
>subjective measure of progress? Perhaps, but it may also be the
>implication of life itself. That is, if a species is alive, it must
>act, almost by definition, and so a capacity for action is a condition
>of life. As for the conventional telos objection, systems theory has
>demonstrated that systems can act as if governed by a telos without
>actually having one.
My argument seems to fit nicely into your rule: "`potentials' create
`needs' create `mounting potentials', where the `parts without a goal'
nevertheless act as if `striving for a goal'". This is even more wide then
my argument about (biological) evolution. My argument might be filling
in a blank between your above argument and your and historical understanding:
what goal does the `system' (is species) strive for ? That which turns
out to be succesful in its biological niche ! It does indeed not need
to strive for this conciously at all, it will happen automatically, as
individual chaotic action gets either frustrated (killed ultimately, or
just falling from favor with the ladies/boys, which is the "intelligent
design" component of evolution) or promoted by the given circumstances.
Example: a group of lions that fight eachother for dominance, will
create a good fighting offspring. This needs no argument. Another
group that doesn't, will produce less good quality fighters, equally
obvious. Children look (a little) like their parents, especially
biologically. The individual parts have no goal, are merely chaotic
in their actions, following their own instincts. In the end, only
the fighting lions remain, because they promote within themselves
the needed skills. The non-infighting lions were overtaken by the
developments of their prey, which does fight internally. They no
longer could keep up and died out from starvation. The lions as
a species appeared to have moved conciously into the direction of
promoting fighting skills by infighing. As if they had had a meeting
where they discussed that fighting over dominence between themselves
was a good idea. But no such meeting took place. It may have only
taken one fighting lion to create the infighting stock, which became
succesful.
This kind of thinking can also be applied to humans, which is the essence
of my argument. I've by now forgotten why I wanted to make this point ;-).
Perhaps it was to show that timescales we're dealing with are much
larger then mere centuries or thousands of years. Or to tie it back towards
the free market: given that a chaotic system creates "evolutionary
goal behavior in the whole system, while the parts are chaotic", it is
a good idea to have individuals have the freedom to express their own
moral flavor, and "let evolution sort them out". Criminals kill eachother,
this is excellent !
Being agressive is a risk. Since we're no longer fighting other
species, only the downsides remain. When the upsides are gone and
only downsides remain, evolution dictates that the behavior will
die down as well. If no alternatives are created in the chaos of
individual choice, it is conceivable an entire species might even die
out (for lack of creativity).
Such theory suggests then, it is a bad idea to have a planned economy,
where all are forced to behave "social". If you do that, 1) you are
yourself behaving agressively toward those that are agressive, putting
you at an evolutionary disadvantage (interestingly it all doesn't matter,
because you are in a disadvantage and will eventually get killed, which
is excellent in evolutionary terms), 2) the necessary evolutionary
chaos diminishes, within which we (humanity) can find new succesful
answers to our new problem. Such theory also suggests, that Marxist
theory is way off in understanding our social problems. Understanding the
problems of worker exploitation cannot be found a mere 2 or 3 centuries
back, or by putting the blame on a few criminals calling themselves
nobility or whatever. More like 2 or 3 million years back. That means
that perhaps the entire body of "communist scientific understanding
about the present social state", has been put into a wrong category
of understanding (historical, rather then evolutionary). It can all
go down the toilet ;-).
Whoops, there's the 100 lines mark.
Two short remarks: the word "predator" doesn't matter for my argument,
we might as well have been a vegetarian species. The word "power" I
use for fights between species (a lion fights a zebra), fighting between
individuals of the same species for dominance etc. Not "fighting a
rock or branch, or a piano". The kind of power that puts workers down
and creates exploitive power hierarchies in humans as they do in other
species.
And I do not agree that there is not much agression on this world,
for what I see our planet is one huge firebal of war - almost
everywhere. Even if an office seems the picture of peace and order,
if one person makes 8 Euro/hour, another 20 Euro/hour, I see that as
an act of agression, spoiling for a fight, perhaps even hatred. I
can only explain it by going back to our very recent evolutionary
past. Can you explain it differently ? You seem to think the agression
in humanity is simply a chaotic choice some individuals have made ?
The argument isn't without merrit, but I still think the evolutionary
one is more convincing.
--
Best regards.
Haines Brown
> Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>>Jos, I'm still unclear about your point regarding evolutionary
>>context.
>
> Ok, I'm not presuming that I'm not confused or confusing. I am
> using the word "evolution" as in "evolution of species, evolution of
> manking". What you call "biological evolution".
Yes, I was using the word "evolution" more broadly, as in "the
tropical storm evolved from a state 4 to a state 5 as it moved over
warmer waters."
>>but essentially, it rests upon my assumption that in any human
>>situation, there are both potentials for action and unmet needs,
>>both of which evolve, and needs arise from the construction of
>>potentials.
>
> Like: "there is a potential for cells to move, which some take,
> creating the need for additional energy to make this moving
> possible; a potential which is exploited, creating a secondary need"
> ? Ok, I can see what you mean I guess. Exploiting the potential for
> tasty food, creates the need for better kitchens, recepies, etc etc.
Just to be sure we are on the same wave-length, here is an example of
what I meant. In 19th-century U.S., workers needed transportation to
get to work, but as industries developed, they could no longer remain
downtown, but were relocated along new rail spurs. This relocation of
industry away from population centers required greater mobility for
workers to get to their jobs, and so came the trolley, and eventually
the automobile. This new technical capacity for transport (including
the railroads themselves), required the production of large quantities
of cheap steel (Bessemer process). The new techniques of steel
production entailed new needs, and the satisfaction of these new needs
gave rise to new capacities for action.
> My argument might be filling in a blank between your above argument
> and your and historical understanding: what goal does the `system'
> (is species) strive for ? That which turns out to be succesful in
> its biological niche ! It does indeed not need to strive for this
> conciously at all, it will happen automatically, as individual
> chaotic action gets either frustrated (killed ultimately, or just
> falling from favor with the ladies/boys, which is the "intelligent
> design" component of evolution) or promoted by the given
> circumstances.
Yes, regarding bioevolution. Genetic mutation is indeed
chaotic. However, in applying this to human historical evolution, I'm
left with a question: cultural (using the term in a broad technical
sense) is not chaotic or random, but purposeful. People must adapt to
circumstance, but if that were there were to it, extra-somatic human
development would not have occurred. Humans are also
creative. Sometimes rather than adapt to circumstance, humans strive
to change it instead. I mention this picky point because I'm trying to
get a handle on what implications you think bioevolution has for human
history.
> This kind of thinking can also be applied to humans, which is the
> essence of my argument.
More specifically, we arguably fashion our own human nature, so that
it is difficult to start with some presumed feature of human nature
inherited from our biological past (predation) to explain history.
> Being agressive is a risk.
I also have problems in a practical sense: I don't drive, and so I can
say that I really have no acquaintances who appear to be
aggressive. While some have spent time in prison for aggressive
behavior, they aren't normally so.
> Since we're no longer fighting other species, only the downsides
> remain. When the upsides are gone and only downsides remain,
> evolution dictates that the behavior will die down as well.
Do I understand you correctly that our aggressive behavior is, or will
become, increasingly counterproductive, and so will die out of itself?
It seems to me that such lessons are available to us in our daily
lives, and any aggressive impulses manifested by youth tend to
disappear with maturity.
> Such theory suggests then, it is a bad idea to have a planned
> economy, where all are forced to behave "social". If you do that, 1)
> you are yourself behaving agressively toward those that are
> agressive, putting you at an evolutionary disadvantage
> (interestingly it all doesn't matter, because you are in a
> disadvantage and will eventually get killed, which is excellent in
> evolutionary terms),
Here you make some jumps that leave me trailing in your dust. One is
an apparent equation of power over something with aggression. I
offered before examples were striving for power over someone else can
result in their development, and is perhaps the only way we can
develop. A parent disciplining a child is not manifesting aggression,
but a loving concern.
Another jump is your presumption that we are "forced" to be social,
rather than starting out with our being social animals in the first
place. I'd argue that parental discipline does not make us into social
animals, but shapes just what kind of social animal we are. That is, I
think of being social as having an essential connection, even if that
connection is aggressive/predatory. A dog is a social animal, whether
it be a leader or follower.
> Whoops, there's the 100 lines mark.
I've tried to limit myself as well, but I see that I'm at 121 lines,
and so will strive to be very brief ;-)
> The word "power" I use for fights between species
I don't know what justifies your making this association. Power means
the capacity to bring about change. Fighting seems only one
manifestation of it. Even in the animal world, not all species always
fight, but all require power. I've never seen worms fighting ;-)
> And I do not agree that there is not much agression on this world,
> for what I see our planet is one huge firebal of war - almost
> everywhere. Even if an office seems the picture of peace and order,
> if one person makes 8 Euro/hour, another 20 Euro/hour, I see that as
> an act of agression,
I'm sympathetic, but I don't know I'd quite agree. Much aggression in
our world is the doing of states, not people, and even this is a
function of circumstance (global death though violence has declined
significantly in the last decade or two, as a serious study has
shown).
> spoiling for a fight, perhaps even hatred. I can only explain it by
> going back to our very recent evolutionary past. Can you explain it
> differently ? You seem to think the agression in humanity is simply
> a chaotic choice some individuals have made ? The argument isn't
> without merrit, but I still think the evolutionary one is more
> convincing.
Again, Bush may be spoiling for a fight, but I don't really expect
that kind of behavior on the street. It happens, but
exceptionally. When you say "our very recent evolutionary past", I'm
not sure to what you refer. Our palaeolithic past? The 20th century?
Also, I don't see aggression as "chaotic", but as purposeful, even if
that purpose is psychological. Here may be one area in which we part
ways. If action were truly chaotic, then indeed the reason for it
seems remote. If aggression, on the other hand, is rationally
purposeful (robbing a bank), or irrationally purposeful (arising from
feelings of personal inadequacy), we have explanations near at
hand. I'm sure there is an element of randomness in human affairs, but
I must assume otherwise, for I have a need to arrive at satisfactory
explanations for the course of events in order to gain power over
them.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
>Jos writes:
>> Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>> Whoops, there's the 100 lines mark.
>
>I've tried to limit myself as well, but I see that I'm at 121 lines,
>and so will strive to be very brief ;-)
Below I've put a large piece of text, a sort of rundown starting with
our still different point of view and ending with my argument. I'm
sorry that it is "a bit" long but since it keeps on coming back... To keep
volume small I'm always only responding in the weekend to this
thread. May I suggest you delete it all and respond to the total or
what seems most relevant (for volume) ?
>> The word "power" I use for fights between species
>
>I don't know what justifies your making this association. Power means
>the capacity to bring about change. Fighting seems only one
>manifestation of it. Even in the animal world, not all species always
>fight, but all require power. I've never seen worms fighting ;-)
Interesting, that seems to fit the theory. The worms have to deal with
predators, and therefore need fighting skills. The worms that fought
between themselves may have had a biological advantage, producing better
children.
>> And I do not agree that there is not much agression on this world,
>> for what I see our planet is one huge firebal of war - almost
>> everywhere. Even if an office seems the picture of peace and order,
>> if one person makes 8 Euro/hour, another 20 Euro/hour, I see that as
>> an act of agression,
>
>I'm sympathetic, but I don't know I'd quite agree. Much aggression in
>our world is the doing of states, not people, and even this is a
>function of circumstance (global death though violence has declined
>significantly in the last decade or two, as a serious study has
>shown).
It is my impression that most people agree with wage differences. I
conclude that they believe in power hierarchies, in dominance of one
over the other. Ofter I hear these (to me disgusting) behaviors
rationalized; he/she needs more money, because "he/she has more
responsibility", that type of excuses. It feels bad to be working
for something, and then have someone comment in a way that implies
I should gladly accept my relatively low pay because I (apparently)
cannot or will not carry responsibility, that I should be happy that
those exploiting are so "good to make the decisions in the company
for me, that I should surrender more of the spoils of produce to them
per working hour". It is sickening and demotivating, especially
knowing that wage disparities are not 1.X factors that might be
put under the rug of being a good sport, but in the same company one
person may make 7 Euro/hour, another might make 5000! Still there
are shareholders, who have near infinite hourly turnover (since they
put in near zero work, dividing by zero means infinite hourly wage).
Only workers who do dangerous work, should get a higher monthly
paycheck, but do cops earn the most money so they can retire sooner ?
No. Also people who have work that requires them to have a lot of
attention or whatever, work that can only be done during small
portions of the day, may need a 10 fold hourly wage in order to arrive
at a livable monthly wage. I can imagine some exception like this,
of which *bearing responsility* is ofcourse not one. Having
responsibility (power) is a source of pleasure and fun. If anything
you should pay for it. I guess these feelings put me in the communist
political camp. However it does not have to mean the end of wage
differences at all. Businesses can still compete in terms of competence,
and if wages are equal within companies that seems fine to me. They
can then still differ between companies of varying success.
I've not completely thought things through about wages though. However
it is bizarre to see how humanity has implemented the monkey power
hierarchy, and made it have an almost infinite number of steps.
Meanwhile, the entire concept behind the monkey power hierarchy has
lost relevance to humanity.
>Also, I don't see aggression as "chaotic", but as purposeful, even if
>that purpose is psychological. Here may be one area in which we part
>ways. If action were truly chaotic, then indeed the reason for it
You mention "parting ways", I do not believe we are parting ways.
We are still somewhat on "different wave lengths", this only produces
the illusion we are on different wave lengths (IMHO). I'm still
looking from a birdseye view, or the "so remote everything blurs
into nothing - view" if you will (in the negative); you're still
looking with a microscope comparatively, or the "so close you
might misunderstand my argument about the bigger picture - view"
(in the negative).
When I say "agression", "spoiling for a fight", I'm really just
``sitting comfortably on the moon, and watching a 5 minutes video
clip about life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the present
day.'' I'm not pinpointing one act of agression, analysing it, and
coming to the conclusion it is "spoiling for a fight".
When we pinpoint one act of agression, there may (and probably will)
be all kinds of reasons for it. To make it more complicated, there is
even agression to stop agression. From this "microscope" viewpoint,
things are interesting, and complicated. When we find answers to
particular acts of agression, we can "gain power over" them. This
is good, we obviously need this. In order to understand why Bush is
agressive, we need to pinpoint him and put him onder a microscope.
However very soon we will want to take a step back. We come to
understand that Bush is part of a group, he is not alone. What does
this group want, why are they agressive, what is their objective.
Now all of a sudden we're dealing with a wider perspective, into
which individual deviations are to be ignored in order to understand
the more fundamental inner workings of this subgroup within the US.
Our focus on the individual Bush blurs. Perhaps Bush is trying to
outdo his father, perhaps he is a cold blooded murderer, perhaps he
just likes money, perhaps this or that, maybe he is controlled by
others of more ability. When we step back and look at the group
around Bush (the group Bush is a part off), we start generalizing.
The answers we find can be relevant, not just the few coming years
as is the case when analyzing Bush, but they may be relevant in the
coming decades and centuries, depending on how wide we want to make
this group and how much power they seem to have. We can even start
analyzing US culture as a subgroup of humanity. Individual acts blur,
and it becomes very hard to make any definite statement about such
general issues, starting from a collection of historical individual
acts. We may even wonder if we can say anything of relevance.
What we're doing in these analyses, is comparing. When we analyze
Bush, we compare him with other humans. We will fault him for
criminal behavior (like murder), but not for acts that are more or
less accepted but still hurt the general wellbeing (like driving cars
needlessly, or lying). When people start finding a match with their
own behavior, I guess that is where their analyses will become
morally neutral. If I say "don't drive a car needlessly", many people
will start to see me as their enemy. They can go no further in
isolating Bush and his group, because they themselves are starting to
be picked up in the group they're analyzing.
When we look at the group around Bush, we will compare this group
to the rest of humanity that we know. There might even get an element
of "are the acts of this group objectively good for us" into this, even
if the acts of the group are normally accepted for individuals. The reason
is ofcourse their power. There is some moral absolutism trickling into
the argument.
However I find a majoritiy of humanity that I know to be agressive
more or less, and it seems pretty clear that the human collective is
destroying itself, commiting suicide environmentally. What is also
clear, is that humanity is hurting itself economically. My analyses
of the economy suggests that the fault for this does not lie with
any individual, but with the consumer collective. They shop for
cheapest, press down all wages and bring the most "evil" leaders to
the top. Then they complain about these leaders, who are merely the
essence of their own actions. When the human collective (consumer,
which everyone is) sees Bush, it sees itself in a more evolved "pure"
form. To wit: greed, anti social economic behavior (egoistic/selfish
to the detriment of others and the whole).
So, I do not conclude the problems of humanity are caused by any
(misguided, mutated?) individual, or with any group (candidates are:
crime, religion maffia, war industry, capitalism), but rather rests
within the essense of humanity as a whole, the acts of the collective,
whether they belong to this or that subgroup. That is not the same
as saying "everyone is guilty", but "the majority is guilty to such
a degree, that it causes ill effects".
However, there is a slight problem when "all" are the problem: where
do we find something to compare "all" with ? Bush we can compare to other
leaders, the Bush-group with other subgroups; essentially we're still
comparing humans with other humans. When we go wider in terms of
"more humans in our focus, namely the majority", we're starting to
notice we're excluding still a lot of beings, although they're not
human: other animals. When we look at all of humanity in space, it
follows to start looking at all of humanity in time, namely biological
evolution. We've widened our focus, but by noticing what lies directly
outside our focus (just as we can do with Bush) we have found new
material to which to compare what we focus on with.
This can give us a new sense of objectivity, that is divorced from
humanity. It will not explain Bush as different from other humans,
it will not explain the direct objectives of the Bush-group. We're
sitting on the moon, we cannot see Bush or his group. All we see are
lots of species on the Earth, interacting with eachother. We cannot see
the French Revolution take place, although we possibly could see atom
bombs explode, a new low/high in the threat that agression presents
to humanity.
It is like we're putting all of humanity of the last 2 centuries in
a food processor, stir it to pulp, and tasting a drop. What do we
taste. What do we taste compared to other animals, and what does it
mean in terms of evolutionary advantages or disadvantages. We might
conclude that actions that are "good for a species' survival" taste
good, and those that are bad, taste bad. The leg of the wildebeast
tastes good, because it is well designed for long running, and it
needs lots of running to find grass. We do not say anything about
any individual wildebeast though, and we need to link the wildebeast
pulp with the requirenments of its world.
The actions of individuals are not chaotic, but since we are looking
from a perspective where individuals fade in terms of size and
lifespan, they simply don't register. Like the acts of individual
flies seem chaotic in a swarm. They are not, they may have very good
reasons to move this millisecond to the right and another to the left.
When we look at the movement of the entire swarm though, we had best
investigate the surroundings of the swarm and the interests of the
swarm. This way we can predict the movement of the entire swarm, even
if individual members seem to go in all directions. Therefore we can
only say something about "the agression taste in humanity as a whole",
and "whether this is a useful psychological component in general,
given the centuries and millions of years possibly ahead, and judged
from the needs that the species experience in its biological position".
I argue (following current scientific thinking), that agression in
most other species tastes good. It is useful, because they need to
sharpen their battle skills with predators and/or prey. They do what
they need to do, in order to survive. Humanity also tastes aggressive,
and I do not merely mean war. In many species power hierarchies are
established through violence, to establish mating rights. Why does
humanity continue to have power hierarchies (like wage disparities) ?
Where is the threat that humanity faces ?
Comparing humanity with internal acts in other species or
single-celled organisms, and we find that life is capable of sharing
the essentials of life for nothing. These comparisons give us something
of an objective baseline, a spectrum of behavior to pin humanity
on somewhere. The spectrum "social (loving, caring) - agressive
(destructive, competitive to the death)". It turns out humanity is
not completely as agressive as could be; like some animals who eat
eachother and eat their young, do not live in groups, perhaps even
eat their mates after mating. But it is neither as social as some
species are; like giving food and shelter to all that ask for it,
working together and sharing the profits completely according to
needs without taking more then needed. Both extreme behaviors do
take place, but the bulk of humanity is somewhere in between.
In order to judge whether agression "tastes good", we need to know
what our biological position is, and whether our "half way on the
agression scale position" helps our survival. A wildebeast may have
a great running leg, but if it no longer needs to run long distances,
it "has a bad taste", perhaps a climbing leg would have been better
given the circumstances.
My argument about this is, that humanity is in the /unique/ "planet master
niche" of biological life, thanks to our technology. We are the world's
only super power, and none can ever dream to even taunt us. Not in a
million years anyway, which are evolutionary timescales. No species
is threatening us, so why does humanity still taste like agression
to a degree ? We can simply pick up a gun and shoot that bear, orka,
or whatever in cold blood. In a worst case we drop a thousand pounds
bomb, we may even build weapons that destroy all life on Earth.
The psychology of agression may only blur our vision. We do not
need agression, at least not in the industrial parts of the world, for
survival. We do not need to select for fighting skills, therefore we
do not need agression and greed.
Like you say: we need to understand in order to gain power. We can
simply conclude: agression is bad, it must go. But it pays (probably)
to understand agression better, where it came from is always a good
start. Evolutionary we had an ape like ancestor, and the times that
the majority of humanity faced agression from predators, are not very
distant at all. Even religious people probably won't deny that. Some
people still face some predators sometimes.
Conclusion: agression is an evolutionary leftover from a time that
we needed it. This explains why it is present in the majority of
humanity, and not simply in a few mutated groups or individual that
have since attacked humanity. For communist theory: the nobility is
not an evil scurge brought on humanity, but simply the most agressive
and backward part of it (once humanity's greatest hero's). Communist
theory holds that the subjugated groups are peaceful or become peaceful.
That seems logical. However "we" are still agressive and selfish
enough to turn our economy against us through shopping for cheapest.
We are not good enough to carry a social society yet, otherwise we
would live in it already.
This indeed says nothing about any particular human, only something
about the soup you can cook by putting everyone in the blender, where
we can only make the broadest of historical distinctions. Possibly
like we can never go below timescales of 10,000-1000,000 years, we can
never go below investigating groups of 10,000-1000,000 individuals. The
context of this view hits on the grain of the picture, we may only
see noise and our own imagination.
If there is some objectivity in this conclusion about the evolutionary
root of agression/power-hieararchy and it being obsolete, then this
viewpoint should provide some interesting stuff.
First we can analyse agression in the above evolutionary-useful
further. If agression is understood in that context, then agression
is about making the species a better competitor with other species,
in the evolutionary arms race. Most important in this race, given
the timescales it is played out in, is giving birth to children.
The agression must be past on to children, or perhaps more to the
point: the agression must select for individuals that are good
fighters. This may be because they are more agressive fighters, or
simply because they have more muscles or better bones. It all counts,
and is to be decided in battle (a battle that I think wage disparities
are an echo off). Naturally many species choose to battle about mating
rights in some way or the other. Females like the stronger fighters,
because they produce more succesful offspring.
We can find this behavior also in the historic past of humanity,
although it is dying out. This is more proof. It is often wondered
why human females choose mates which abuse them, and why they seem
to stick with them. Some females seem to wonder "why they are
atracted to the `wrong men'". This can be explained as prehistoric
instincts.
Now you can wonder: "what does all this matter for the present".
"How does it help us fight the exploitation of workers by xxx."
It does not help us fight Bush or the Bush group, although it can
give us some clues about where their motivations come from (namely
they are cavemen in suits, or even going back further). We can
understand that they are probably behaving out of ancient instincts,
that insofar as they seek war and dominance, they are behaving like
an alpha leader in a group where agression is relevant for survival.
Which means: they will seek the destruction and/or stifling of life
of everyone who they determine to be the lowest ranks of success
in their fight over dominance. "These losers must not breed, or if
they will humanity will end up with losers who can't fight and we
might die out". That this is no longer relevant seems (ironically)
to line up with the popular idea about the brain capacity of Bush Jr:
they haven't noticed yet that fighting and agression are obsolete
behaviors for a technological superior humanity. By this analyses,
we are only helped in making a very very very broad outline, reference
frame, into which to place career criminal leaders and criminal
groups. A spectrum of expectation, where any individual may exhibit
extreme deviations from the expected, although a group can be expected
to be closer to the expected, and the whole of humanity even more,
as you might expect <g> (do I write understandably ???).
The advantage of this analyses, is only useful in the area from which
it was derived: namely biologically evolutionary timescales, and
very large percentages of humanity or just humanity as a whole. This
is however relevant to communist theory, which deals with global issues
and large timescales. We can use it for planning over the tens of
thousands of years, "for strategy not for tactics". The advantage
of this analyses is also (ironically!) this analyses itself. Once
we agree and understand that this analyses is not without value,
we have a powerful mental tool in our hands, to prove peace is
the way forward. Peace in "evolutionary terms", which is something
like "absolute peace", and it cuts very closely at the acts of the
individual itself. It asks not to force peace on others (an act of
war), but it asks to be peaceful yourself and survive. The survival
of the peaceful. I've seen a documentary about Darwin on TV, and
I'm confident he'd be sympathetic to the idea (he apparently didn't
believe in animal reduction of humanity).
From this vantage point can also follow other strategies. They have
more to do with "freedom and let the killers kill themselves", then
with "armed revolution and enforce economic justice". The reason is
that if you're peaceful/social (not agressive, not seeking power
hierarchy and dominance), you should seek your own survival and the
survival of those like you. This is something ofcourse which is
already happening naturally, but we can augment this with consiousness.
If we seek armed revolution, we might get killed, which is very
unfortunate ;-) (lol). We should only seek armed revolution, if the
cost outweigh the concequences of not doing it. In other words: not
until peaceful people are being exterminated (again) by an agressor.
It also that we need to protect a level of freedom in order to let
evolution do its part, and create an environment which might
actively promote the more social people and put the less social at
a disadvantage. Again this already happens automatically in the very
large sense, if this argument is sound, which is that we do no longer
need agression in our new biological role. But why not augment this
with understanding, we can swim with the tide of evolution. Evolution
may be the more perfect tool to create results, however we are also
as creative mental individuals part of evolution; and we can understand
that mental opression of people (religions do that a lot) is an act
of agression and seeking dominance.
What it can more practically mean, is that we as consumers promote
social companies: consious consuming. This is along the line of our
natural evolution. The reverse: promoting anti-social companies has
very bad effects for us. When we act out of greed, we search for
cheapest products. This promotes shops where workers are put down as
much as possible.
The reason is simple: 2 group of 100 people. 1 group consists of
a chosen government of 10 people, the other has 1 dictator and 9
well armed fighters and the rest are slaves. Who will produce the most.
Obviously the dictator group, because the workers are simply worked
to their maximum. They can therefore ask a lower price for products,
even after skimming lots of profits for the dictator. When people
promote this kind of economic activity, not before long they will
have to be themselves included in such wage slavery firms, because
that is all that is succesful in the economy and all that is present.
It seems natural that such a degenerated economy will make an
organizational switch towards outright dictatorship. That is the
only way to make even cheaper products, and the business dictators
are evolving into their truer form of alpha monkeys who use direct
force. This is not wrong, this is what we (the consumer collective)
have asked for, this is what we ourselves are.
The implication of bio evolution on human history, is a very thin,
almost invisible and sometimes completely invisible backdrop current.
When we go back a long way in history, we can expect a slightly higher
level of infighting, and when we look at the far future a slightly
lower level. Because agression itself is the motor behind this,
because it a) kills the agressive in great numbers usually, and b)
proves to the mate selecting instincts that fighting means failure;
we can expect after every severe period of agression a leap forward in
appreciation for peace within the general population takes place that
is more then merely a direct reaction to suffering. From historical
perspective this cannot be proven. Biological evolution took place:
fighters died in great numbers, evolutionary proof of peace as a good
quality rather then sin was attained. The implication is also more
direct: because we now know this (?), this can give us hope. This may
directly cause certain "historical" particular activity to come about.
--
Haines Brown
The basic issues seem to be:
a) Let's assume that humans inherit an instinctive predilection to
fight or take flight in the face of danger. Even if I'm alert to
dangers in certain social situations, like most others, I'm much
more inclined to take evasive action, which requires "power" only in
my definition of the word (a capacity to act). It does not
necessarily imply fighting in the sense of being aggressive toward
others.
b) In human life, social dangers seem exceptional and therefore
ill-suited as the basis of a social theory. I'm sure we have
instincts, but justification is required to single out one (lest we
be guilty of reductionism). And (for reasons I'll not explore here)
any constant factor cannot be used for historical explanation; it
constrains historical outcomes, but does not explain them.
c) By my definition of power (a capacity to act), it is important
that we all have it, but why assume that this power implies we
necessarily fight among ourselves? I tried to argue that power of
one person over another may not reduce the person with the less
power, but may instead develop them (the discipline of a teacher or
parent, for example). You seem to condemn unequal power relations
because you assume that they are always negative. I don't believe
you have addressed my objection to this yet.
I believe there are serious philosophical problems in your equating
distinct categories and employing one instance to stand for the whole.
You next make several points that I understand as follow:
a) People accept the existence of wage differentials.
b) Wage differentials imply power hierarchies.
c) Power hierarchies are a bad thing.
I hope I've got this right. First, I agree that people tend to accept
wage differentials. One factor is that in Marxist theory, people are
paid for their costs of social reproduction and hence their potential
productivity, so someone with a training or a fancy education will
usually make more. People, I believe, accept the justice of this. If
you struggled to put yourself through school, you deserve the extra
reward, for you are only being compensated for the costs and effort
you had put out.
However, a problem arises when there are immense wage differentials
that exceed the differential costs of social reproduction, especially,
for example, CEOs with astronomical incomes. I believe it is a fact
that excessive income differentials are ultimately socially damaging,
but you seem to object to there being any differentials (with certain
exceptions). That is, we must decide whether (in the capitalist
system) differentials arising from differential costs of social
reproduction are in themselves bad, or only excessive differentials.
I'm not comfortable with your equating wage differentials with power
relations. While it is true that more money means more power in the
marketplace, and while we live in a society in which social relations
often reduce to money, a person's potential power over others because
of his greater wealth does not mean he exercises that power over them,
especially in some negative way. I know people who have more wealth
than I, but they have no power over me because a) they choose not to
exercise that potential power, b) In practical terms, they generally
would have limited power over me even if they chose to exercise it. c)
The power of one person over another seems insignificant if the power
rests only on normal wage differentials. If a person's weekly income
is $200 more than that of another person (a very significant
differential in my community), what power does that give that person
over them?
In short, potential power gains no significance until it is
exercised. Most people on the street probably have greater physical
power than I, but that does not lead me to fear them, for I know that
generally they won't exercise that power at my expense.
I'm not here considering whether in some ideal society all incomes
(with or without minor exceptions) should be equal.
> it is bizarre to see how humanity has implemented the monkey power
> hierarchy, and made it have an almost infinite number of steps.
> Meanwhile, the entire concept behind the monkey power hierarchy has
> lost relevance to humanity.
Yes, I suppose, but how far do you carry this? Among social animals, a
pecking order is socially useful, I assume. Among humans, leadership
also seems necessary. Humans strive to constrain (by constitutional
and other means the power implied by leadership so that it must serve
the wellbeing of those being led. Putting aside the issue that this
constraint sometimes fails, it seems to me that leadership is a social
good because a) there are needs to be addressed that are specific to
the social whole and there are social capacities that will not emerge
without the presence of some kind of organizing institution. If you
are suggesting that all leadership is essentially pernicious, I'd have
to disagree, and I suspect most other people would as well.
> I'm still looking from a birdseye view, or the "so remote everything
> blurs into nothing - view" if you will (in the negative); you're
> still looking with a microscope comparatively, or the "so close you
> might misunderstand my argument about the bigger picture - view" (in
> the negative).
Although a complex issue, I must beg to differ. I don't believe there
is a way to abstract oneself from the fray to gain an Olympian view of
things. In empiricist terms, if abstraction separates itself from
empirical specificity, I believe explanation collapses in human
affairs (emergent systems). A general law only specifies the relative
probability of possible outcomes, not the actual outcome in emergent
systems. I do believe a systemic approach is possible that manages to
encompass everything (gains universality), while at the same time
remains in touch with empirical specificity. But as I said, this is a
big and complicated issue. In any case, what justifies your supposed
"birds-eye view"?
> When I say "agression", "spoiling for a fight", I'm really just
> ``sitting comfortably on the moon
The historian Stavrianos also once argued that we needed a lunar
vantage point in order to grasp world history. His suggestion does not
hold up. What the historian gains by this is that only large-scale
phenomena remain visible. One sees the rising and falling of
civilizations, but looses sight of what caused them to rise and
fall. We don't know much by seeing that civilizations generally rise
and fall without understanding the inner mechanism that explains such
behavior. Advocates of world systems theory suggest that trade cycles
implies the existence of an underlying economic "system", but that
merely offers a framework for investigation, not a substitute for a
study of specific instances.
I agree with your example of Bush, in that we should stand back from
what makes this individual tick in order to grasp the social
environment in which he operates. However, this becomes problematic if
by so doing we loose sight of the individual. That is, Bush's
personality must surely remain a factor, even if we take into account
the social influences upon his actions. While on the whole,
personality is reduced in relative importance when we take social
forces into account, it remains a factor nevertheless. A sociological
historiography does exist, but it has not fared very well for this
reason, for its results seem one-sided.
> The answers we find can be relevant, not just the few coming years
> as is the case when analyzing Bush, but they may be relevant in the
> coming decades and centuries, depending on how wide we want to make
> this group and how much power they seem to have. We can even start
> analyzing US culture as a subgroup of humanity. Individual acts
> blur, and it becomes very hard to make any definite statement about
> such general issues, starting from a collection of historical
> individual acts. We may even wonder if we can say anything of
> relevance.
I'd raise the same objections here as above. Our separation from
Julius Caesar by two millennia does not reduce the importance of his
personality for explaining Roman history. That we now place his
actions in context is not the result of distance (the passage of
time), but of the development of historiography that feels doing so is
necessary for a better understanding. Also, that U.S. culture is an
instance of human culture gets us nowhere. Human culture is a thin
abstraction that tells us virtually nothing were we seeking to explain
U.S. history.
> However I find a majoritiy of humanity that I know to be agressive
> more or less,
A surprising statement. If we discount the actions of states, and if
we discount career criminals and psychopaths, how much violence is
left? In my neighborhood, visible violence is exceptional and is
nearly always the result of criminal action. Private violence (spousal
abuse, for example), may be more common, but is hardly the norm and
can perhaps be best explained in terms of social psychology than any
innate aggressiveness. That is, violence does not seem "normal".
> and it seems pretty clear that the human collective is destroying
> itself, commiting suicide environmentally.
Natural environment? Perhaps. Social environment? I see no evidence of
this. I'd agree that it is the nature of the system to cause a
negative effect on society, but it is something else to suggest that
society is being destroyed. We can, and we do, act to limit those
negative effects. Nothing is foreordained to suggest that society will
simply collapse, in part because the negative effects are usually
accompanied by the development of greater capacities to counter those
effects (through either evolution or revolution).
I also am very uncertain about your identification of "consumerism"
with greed. If I seek to find a good at the lowest price, am I being
greedy? To pay an unnecessarily high price for something just seems
irrational, everything else being the same. My wellbeing depends to a
significant extent on the amount of money I have, and to waste it
would be silly. Were I to purchase goods I don't need (including the
need to gain pleasure from using or viewing such products), then that
would be an example of greed. Greed seems to be where mere possession
itself is its own objective, and I see precious few examples of
it. However, "consumerism" is an ambivalent word, and perhaps you
really mean greed by it. But in this case, I'm not familiar with any
consumerists. I'm sure greedy people exist, but they don't seem the
norm.
"Materialism" is an ambivalent word, and not all meanings are
negative. That I compare the prices of goods does not make me a
"materialist" in the sense of being obsessed with possession, but is
merely a wise marshalling of my resources.
> They shop for cheapest, press down all wages and bring the most
> "evil" leaders to the top.
Shopping for the cheapest price seems only common sense. That
corporations face market competition may be one reason for them to
cheapen the price as best they can, not only by improving
productivity, but also by depressing wages. But it seems to me you are
blaming the victim and excluding the possibility of an alternative
economic system if you suggest that our shopping for the cheapest
price is the cause of our low wages. More obviously it is the
capitalist system that is the cause of our ills.
Under socialism, if the product price were determined by the costs of
production, there would result minimal prices, and that would be
it. However, missing would be the economic drive for increased
productivity. That drive would require (for better or worse) a
political source. For example, if we assume that a socialist system
uses the marketplace for the distribution of goods and that comparable
products in the market have differential prices because of the
differential technical advance of the factories producing them, then
evidence would be in hand to compare relative productivity, and a
political decision could be based on this to close the less efficient
factory. If so, technology would advance, although perhaps not as
quickly as under capitalist conditions.
> This can give us a new sense of objectivity, that is divorced from
> humanity.
Ouch! Such a divorce I hope I never experience. I don't think it is
necessarily a price we must pay for objectivity.
> In a worst case we drop a thousand pounds bomb, we may even build
> weapons that destroy all life on Earth. The psychology of agression
> may only blur our vision.
As I said before, this "we" makes me nervous. Cooking up a war in Iraq
was not my decision. It would never have occurred to me to do such a
thing. That is, I believe the "state" has to be understood as a
specific institution with a specific purpose, and not merely an
expression of its citizens (unlike "government").
You elaborated your theory and I've tried to let you proceed without
interruption, for I feel that it arises from some assumptions with
which I would disagree. So I have generally tried to stick with these
basic assumptions.
Again, an apology for the length of my message. If you (perhaps
wisely) choose to reduce the frequency of our exchange, you should be
made aware that I'll be away from my computer from the end of this
week for the rest of the month.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
(...)
> That
>corporations face market competition may be one reason for them to
>cheapen the price as best they can, not only by improving
>productivity, but also by depressing wages.
>
> KB1GRM
Just out of curiosity, what does KB1GRM mean ? And: what is your
political persuasion ?
I think we should end our debate/discussion. We are merely starting
to spin in circles that we have already visited and revisited. I've
made my point many times, and I'm glad for that opportunity.
Good luck with your Unix, I saw on dejanews you're busy with it.
--
Haines Brown
> Just out of curiosity, what does KB1GRM mean ? And: what is your
> political persuasion ?
Shame on you ;-) KB1GRM is an amateur radio call sign, and in that
circle is as much my name as "Haines Brown".
My political persuasion? Labels can be misleading, and so let me
rather describe my position:
a) I believe the capitalist system ultimately can't work, and
meanwhile is generating a lot of misery.
b) I also believe that a new kind of order that is democratic (i.e.,
arises from the interest of the working class) is possible.
c) To replace the capitalist order implies a systemic change, and
that can only be done by political means--through working-class
political power.
d) While how working-class political power might be implemented is
an open question, I'm inclined to believe it requires revolution
(not just in the sense the word can legitimately be used, which is
structural transformation, but in terms of an explicit contest for
political power).
> I think we should end our debate/discussion. We are merely starting
> to spin in circles that we have already visited and revisited. I've
> made my point many times, and I'm glad for that opportunity.
OK. One last comment: I tried to distinguish your basic assumptions
from the development of your position, and I recommend you give this
serious thought.
I promise not to respond back, but I'm curious about your reaction to
the above four points, not so much to contest them (which might
encourage further debate), but more in terms of why you are surprised
anyone should hold them.
> Good luck with your Unix, I saw on dejanews you're busy with it.
Thanks. I have a lot of fun with Linux/Debian and recommend that you
give it a try.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
Jos
>Jos writes:
>> Just out of curiosity, what does KB1GRM mean ? And: what is your
>> political persuasion ?
>
>Shame on you ;-) KB1GRM is an amateur radio call sign, and in that
>circle is as much my name as "Haines Brown".
>
>My political persuasion? Labels can be misleading, and so let me
>rather describe my position:
>
> a) I believe the capitalist system ultimately can't work, and
> meanwhile is generating a lot of misery.
I agree, with the sidenote that I do not believe capitalism to be
a "system" at all. I believe capitalism to be the "system of
domination/dictatorship/crime" being implemented somewhat (as much
as it can) within our trade /system/. As such, capitalism is more or
less foreign to our system and can be ejected without too much harm
from a system level viewpoint. The psychology however is alltogether
more difficult. By rejecting capitalism, we liberate and free the
market (that is notably a complete 180 from the current capitalist
propaganda, must be a good sign ;-). Their type of "freedom", is the
"freedom to dominate others", which is not really freedom is it.
> b) I also believe that a new kind of order that is democratic (i.e.,
> arises from the interest of the working class) is possible.
My thoughts exactly.
> c) To replace the capitalist order implies a systemic change, and
> that can only be done by political means--through working-class
> political power.
>
> d) While how working-class political power might be implemented is
> an open question, I'm inclined to believe it requires revolution
> (not just in the sense the word can legitimately be used, which is
> structural transformation, but in terms of an explicit contest for
> political power).
Here we differ slighly. Where you seem to believe the capitalist /system/
is the cause of the problems, I put the blame on the activities of the
majority of people, and that has to include a very large, probably
overwhelming majority, of workers.
Measuring up our respective views, I come to the conclusions that:
a) My strategy will not produce any results over a short time period,
and they may be politically superfluous. Meanwhile your strategy can
correct a lot of suffering using political power.
b) Your strategy contains a potential flaw: how can you assign democratic
power to "the masses" when are causing the problems (if my analyses
holds up, and I believe it does). Therefore, your strategy may not
work over very large timescales, because it does not address the
root causes of our suffering. On the other hand, long timescales are
usually only affected by trial and error; therefore nothing but error
may ultimately save us.
>> I think we should end our debate/discussion. We are merely starting
>> to spin in circles that we have already visited and revisited. I've
>> made my point many times, and I'm glad for that opportunity.
>
>OK. One last comment: I tried to distinguish your basic assumptions
>from the development of your position, and I recommend you give this
>serious thought.
>
>I promise not to respond back,
Feel free to, if you feel it is useful even after all that's been said.
> but I'm curious about your reaction to
>the above four points, not so much to contest them (which might
>encourage further debate), but more in terms of why you are surprised
>anyone should hold them.
I am not in the least surprised. Actually your opinion seems to be
an exact match of what I think the majority in the left thinks. That is,
that "capitalism is a system", that "the system is wrong", that we can
"beat it by another system", and that answers lie in the direction of
"democracy". But capitalism is not a system, it is a old evolutionary
instinct to dominate (IMHO). Trade is a system, and it is a good system.
These ideas should change the political proposals the left is offering
to the electorate, and I hope that it can make the left stronger and
more credible.
Currently, the left is very weak in theoretical terms, and I believe
this is mostly due to misunderstanding our economy and capitalism, a
leftover from communist plan economy and their failure to strive for
more democracy (which actually is putting that type of "communism" in
the same category as capitalism: striving for domination).
>> Good luck with your Unix, I saw on dejanews you're busy with it.
>
>Thanks. I have a lot of fun with Linux/Debian and recommend that you
>give it a try.
Well actually, I'm an author of some Linux programs (can I say
that?) :-), you might notice these messages are coming from a Linux
newsreader (or did I tweak the binary, hmm). Linux is great, Debian
is great. Been using it for years (since 1998 or 99). See headers
for my homepage if you're interested.
--