The Tenets of Human Progress

[Havet]

This is an open thread regarding your opinion (and the reasons behind it) on the main faculties that have allowed for all of the human progress we experience today.

It is intended that you name the abstract principles/faculties which have allowed such progress, not the agents which have acted to establish them (individuals, the state, a revolution, etc)

In my opinion, the three main faculties which promote all of human progress are:

Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem

Which are translated into three main areas:

Science, Industry, Art

They are translated, in my opinion, according to the following principles:

- Science exists only with the exercise of reason and other likewise important factors (such as empirical testing, peer-review, etc). But Reason is the main faculty, because it integrates the phenomena observed.

- Industry exists only as a means to satisfy a purpose: existence. (For the sake of argument, lets not make any judgement on the way this industry is managed). Whether the purpose of existence is merely survival (food and agricultural industry) or the facilitating of one's means to achieve a purpose during his/her existence (car industry, energy industry, telecommunications industry, etc).

- Art exists as an expression of one's self-esteem, the desire of one's own wish to show his/her ideas and subjective values. It also serves a great role in society given that it allows one to realize which aspects of his/her experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important, and by exchanging such products of their mind with others can they appreciate other forms of expression which reflect their own values, but which they had not yet imagined they could be brought up in a physical form.

An underlining principle in all these three faculties is production. Every single one of these faculties requires a producer and a product. In the case of science, the producer is a scientist and the principles/theories are the product. In the case of industry, the producers are workers (according to communist beliefs, don't lets quarrel over this point) and the physical objects (food, appliances, tools) are the products. In the case of art, the artist is the producer, and the work of art (which is subjective) is the product of such creation.

Hence, the main characteristic which defines human beings is the ability to produce in 3 critical ways. In other species, production is usually restricted to only one "sector": Industry (specifically, the production of food, or its hunting).

What are your thoughts on this?

[Havet]

If anyone's wondering, I wrote this all by myself. I did not copy this from anywhere.

[¿Que?]

Well I hate to see a thread go unanswered, so here's my take on it.

You seem to be falling into the idealist assumption. You want people to name the faculties that have allowed for human progress, when in fact I would say that it is not faculties that allow for human progress but rather material conditions. (In any case, you don't seem to clearly define what would constitute a faculty).

In other words, in a capitalist society, progress comes about through the contradictions between capital and labor. In feudal and pre-feudal societies, the means of production had not developed into anything that could be called capital, but similar contradictions existed such as with the feudal land owners and the peasants (I guess, I'm really not 100% on this last point).

Have you read Marx's The German Ideology? In my opinion, it does an excellent job in tracing the development of capitalist society as the development of private property through the division of labor. You really only have to read Part 1 to get to the relevant material.

I think the point is that progress is more the result of what people do as opposed to what they think. And what they do essentially boils down to relations between labor and the means of production.

I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, and don't feel like digging out my copy of TGI to provide a more appropriate Marxist response, but if you're interested, I would be more than happy to do so when I'm feeling less lethargic.

[Havet]

Well I hate to see a thread go unanswered, so here's my take on it.

You seem to be falling into the idealist assumption. You want people to name the faculties that have allowed for human progress, when in fact I would say that it is not faculties that allow for human progress but rather material conditions. (In any case, you don't seem to clearly define what would constitute a faculty).

In other words, in a capitalist society, progress comes about through the contradictions between capital and labor. In feudal and pre-feudal societies, the means of production had not developed into anything that could be called capital, but similar contradictions existed such as with the feudal land owners and the peasants (I guess, I'm really not 100% on this last point).

Have you read Marx's The German Ideology? In my opinion, it does an excellent job in tracing the development of capitalist society as the development of private property through the division of labor. You really only have to read Part 1 to get to the relevant material.

I think the point is that progress is more the result of what people do as opposed to what they think. And what they do essentially boils down to relations between labor and the means of production.

I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, and don't feel like digging out my copy of TGI to provide a more appropriate Marxist response, but if you're interested, I would be more than happy to do so when I'm feeling less lethargic.

But what people do is necessarily conditioned by what they think. Without thought one cannot live or survive. Well, one can, but we would not develop past pre-historic levels (aka caveman era).

If it were true that only material conditions were responsible for progress, we would have never left the caveman era. Someone had to think and to labor in order to create new material conditions. This is why I value production in every sense, and its source, the human mind.

[Physicist]

My three piers of progress are a little more disappointing:

Sex, Weapons, and Death.

[Havet]

My three piers of progress are a little more disappointing:

Sex, Weapons, and Death.

Come on now...be serious :D

[¿Que?]

But what people do is necessarily conditioned by what they think. Without thought one cannot live or survive. Well, one can, but we would not develop past pre-historic levels (aka caveman era).

If it were true that only material conditions were responsible for progress, we would have never left the caveman era. Someone had to think and to labor in order to create new material conditions. This is why I value production in every sense, and its source, the human mind.
True enough, but are you suggesting that people's thoughts are independent of the particular context in which they occur (historical, social, etc)?

There is a very important and very famous passage by Marx which deals with this issue.

In the social production (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#production) of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm#relations-production) which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#productive-forces). The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/o.htm#mode-production) of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#consciousness) of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm

The degree to which material conditions shape people's consciousness is a matter up for debate. Some would argue that there is a dialectical process which as material conditions shape consciousness, so consciousness shapes material conditions.

I don't think you are totally wrong. However, it seems in explaining human progress you stop short at thought, consciousness, the human mind etc., rather than ask what shapes and conditions those thoughts.

[Havet]

True enough, but are you suggesting that people's thoughts are independent of the particular context in which they occur (historical, social, etc)?

Oh, certainly not. Sorry if I made myself unclear.


The degree to which material conditions shape people's consciousness is a matter up for debate. Some would argue that there is a dialectical process which as material conditions shape consciousness, so consciousness shapes material conditions.

I don't think you are totally wrong. However, it seems in explaining human progress you stop short at thought, consciousness, the human mind etc., rather than ask what shapes and conditions those thoughts.

I "stopped short" because I place a much higher value in "original" or "low-materially-shaped thought" given that it indisputably is the main progressing factor. Inventions and scientific theories and engineering principles are what have shaped material conditions and even historical/social contexts. And while a portion of these products of mind are slightly shaped by their surroundings, there is always something new added, something that wasn't there before, something completely apart from material conditions.

That's how I see it at least.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While the things you listed are undoubtedly valuable - well scientific reasoning anyway (i'm not sure about self-esteem or purpose because these seem more subjective) - the comrade is correct that it is idealist in that you are putting the cart (ideas) before the horse (material reality).

Science industry and art need material surplus to really develop. In class societies, there is a division of labor which in some ways was beneficial because it freed some people from daily labor to concentrate on developing technology or art and so on... a priest or chief or whatnot.


But what people do is necessarily conditioned by what they think.And what they think is based on material circumstances. The Romans invented a steam-engine but they didn't know what to do with it other than make toys and gimmicky "animitronic" temples because their society was based on slave-labor and so why build a steam-powered machine to save labor, when you can just take all the labor you need from France?


Without thought one cannot live or survive. Well, one can, but we would not develop past pre-historic levels (aka caveman era).No neolithic nomadic group sat around and dreamed up the idea of irrigation out of nowhere - again it came from material developments. People gathered food and realized it grew better in some areas and then realized where they spit or shit the seeds of some plants produced new plants... this led to early farming and then problems with early farming led to the material need to develop irrigation, ploughs, and so on.


If it were true that only material conditions were responsible for progress, we would have never left the caveman era. Someone had to think and to labor in order to create new material conditions. This is why I value production in every sense, and its source, the human mind.The human mind of the neolithic people and the human mind of today are the same and yet the average person today has a lot different basic skills and general knowledge than someone 10,000 years ago. A "caveman" could not conceive of things that we think of not because he wasn't intelligent enough, but because he lived in a totally different material reality.

[Havet]

And what they think is based on material circumstances. The Romans invented a steam-engine but they didn't know what to do with it other than make toys and gimmicky "animitronic" temples because their society was based on slave-labor and so why build a steam-powered machine to save labor, when you can just take all the labor you need from France?

Still they invented it, when nobody had thought of it before. Ideas preceded material restrictions. If thought was always subject to material conditions first, then NOTHING new would ever get built because we would be subject to the immediate moment ALWAYS, and would not be able to conceive BEYOND it.


No neolithic nomadic group sat around and dreamed up the idea of irrigation out of nowhere - again it came from material developments. People gathered food and realized it grew better in some areas and then realized where they spit or shit the seeds of some plants produced new plants... this led to early farming and then problems with early farming led to the material need to develop irrigation, ploughs, and so on.

No, it didnt just come from material developments. That "realization" you talk of is ingenious thought, which precedes labor and material restrictions (normal thought is, of course, restricted to material restrictions, but ingenious thought isn't).


The human mind of the neolithic people and the human mind of today are the same and yet the average person today has a lot different basic skills and general knowledge than someone 10,000 years ago. A "caveman" could not conceive of things that we think of not because he wasn't intelligent enough, but because he lived in a totally different material reality.

And what shaped material reality? Ingenious THOUGHT.

[mikelepore]

Before human beings in their present form existed, some primates, for a reason that no one knows, came down of the trees and lived on the ground. There they didn't have such easy access to the fruit, and were more likely to become food for predators. Their bodies also lacked built-in weapons, such as the bear's claws and the cat's speed. Some of these vulnerable primates picked up sticks and stones, and found ways to use those objects to acquire food, and to avoid becoming someone else's food. It seems that the major way, and perhaps the only way, that a branch on the evolutionary tree can develop into a tool-making species and a reasoning species is for the environment to give the animals a problem that's difficult to solve to just the right degree. If the problem is too difficult than they may become extinct, and if the problem is too easy to solve then there is no selection pressure. In our case, the clever and dexterous ones were successful in finding ways to use the sticks and stones to survive. Modern technology is an extrapolation of the same trajectory. Our modern chemistry and aeronautics and architecture and so on are all based on the same abstract reasoning and nimble fingers that gave the early ancestors something urgent to do about an approaching tiger or a season of famine. Likewise, If we ever learn about intelligent and industrious beings who live on another planet, we will probably fnd that their environment presented their ancestors with a problem that required them to pick up common natural objects and to manipulate those objects in creative ways for the purpose of survival.

[RGacky3]

The thing is "progress" is such a subjective concept its almost impossible to measure it. So It really depends, progress for whome? What type? Whos progression? Its too subjective to answer.

[Jazzratt]

Collective effort and struggle are the only real vehicles of progress. We progress in the sciences as a collective struggle against ignorance and we progress as a society through collective struggle against our more individualist rulers. Everything else is just so much toss.

[¿Que?]

I "stopped short" because I place a much higher value in "original" or "low-materially-shaped thought" given that it indisputably is the main progressing factor.
"original" thought and "low-materially-shaped thought". What are these categories? I've never heard of this. If you could provide a link in reference to this.


Inventions and scientific theories and engineering principles are what have shaped material conditions and even historical/social contexts.
Are, is, be. oof! I would say one "determines" the other.


And while a portion of these products of mind are slightly shaped by their surroundings, there is always something new added, something that wasn't there before, something completely apart from material conditions.

That's how I see it at least.
You say slightly, well in fact it's more than slightly. Then again, I think it's pointless to try to quantify something like this.

[Havet]

"original" thought and "low-materially-shaped thought". What are these categories? I've never heard of this. If you could provide a link in reference to this.

That's just crutch words I made up because I wasn't being able to fully express myself. It's basically the "new" part added to an invention, and that "new" part is not conditioned by the material surroundings.


You say slightly, well in fact it's more than slightly. Then again, I think it's pointless to try to quantify something like this.

Well, I tend to agree with you on that. There's no way one can quantify these things. But when I hear people here saying that material conditions are the only thing that counts, I naturally disagree.

[Dean]

Community is the fundamental characteristic of human society which has led to massive advances across fields. Edison's light bulb was impossible without the pretext of advanced academic and industrial forces.

[Robert]

Conscience, driven by the moral sense. Which comes from ... I have no idea.

[Bud Struggle]

Conscience, driven by the moral sense. Which comes from ... I have no idea.

Well, there is that old premise of.......God. ;)

[Robert]

Well, there is that old premise of.......God.

Yes.

I struggle with it, but it's as satisfactory an explanation as any I can come up with.

[Havet]

Community is the fundamental characteristic of human society which has led to massive advances across fields. Edison's light bulb was impossible without the pretext of advanced academic and industrial forces.

And advanced academic and industrial forces would have been impossible without the pretext of someone's independent thought.

[¿Que?]

Hayenmill, while it is certainly true that these forces are to a certain extent comprised of human thought, you are being reductive in giving thought so much weight on the matter (no pun intended).

First of all, in the case of productive forces, for example, these are the relationship between people (who think) and the means of production. Productive forces are not just thoughts. And they are not just the relationship between thoughts and the means of production because thoughts require people. Essentially it comes down to human activity (my original argument, however wrong headed I was in trying to support that argument).

This second part is a little more complicated, but bear with me, I'm still learning...Human activity is a social process, and as such becomes objectified as things in the real world. There are two aspects to this. First, human labor becomes objectified as commodities. Second, social structures are objectified when peoples' activity sustain these structures and yet they are outside of their control.

Finally, thought itself is socially constructed. There is no thought that occurs in a vacuum.

Clearly you are attempting to argue for the primacy of a certain type of thought (Reason, Purpose, Self esteem) as causal factors of human progress. But to me, that's sort of like arguing which faculty is responsible for making your car run. Which is to say, sure, without a person, the car does not do anything, but there is so much more than thought necessary to make a car go (metal, gas, oil) and anyway, if you were going to name a fundamental property, it would be human activity, since that is what made the car AND makes it go.

[Havet]

agustin, I'll just answer to one particular argument of yours, which I find most noteworthy of reference


Finally, thought itself is socially constructed. There is no thought that occurs in a vacuum.

If thought itself were only socially constructed, that would mean no new inventions and ideas, since thought would come from previous knowledge and wisdom. In short, that belief assumes that human beings never invented anything and merely "reflected" what was floating around in the "social atmosphere", which is impossible, because the previous "social atmosphere" did not have any idea on how to make fire, for example (if we go back to the dawn of mankind).

[RGacky3]

Finally, thought itself is socially constructed. There is no thought that occurs in a vacuum.

That does'nt mean though is a social construct. Just because meals are prepared from many ingredients does'nt mean the individual chef prepared the meal.

[¿Que?]

If thought itself were only socially constructed, that would mean no new inventions and ideas, since thought would come from previous knowledge and wisdom. In short, that belief assumes that human beings never invented anything and merely "reflected" what was floating around in the "social atmosphere", which is impossible, because the previous "social atmosphere" did not have any idea on how to make fire, for example (if we go back to the dawn of mankind).
social constructionism and social constructivism don't assume that thought "merely reflects" the "social atmosphere". That is a strawman. When people are born, there are certain structures in place already, for example, language, government, gender roles etc. These will probably continue to exist after the person is dead (although they do change). These structures by and large determine how we think, but again, through social interaction, these structures have a tendency to change as well. However, people are not denied agency by these structures. They constrain behavior, they limit the types of choices we make, but we are still capable of making choices.

You have to realize that there is little that thought in the highly abstracted way you talk about it can really do. Can you create fire by thinking it? Do you think you can stop the government from oppressing people by thinking? Of course not. The guy that discovered how to create fire did so through societal pressures as well as through natural constraints. For example, why would he try to make fire unless he was cold? This leads us to considering the role of the body in (if we consider the OP) our ideas of human progress.

But let me turn the tables on you. How do you define thought? What is the mechanism by which thought does whatever it does? Give me some idea of where you're coming from, just to make sure we are starting from the same premises.

[Dean]

And advanced academic and industrial forces would have been impossible without the pretext of someone's independent thought.

Correction: without the pretext of the independent thought of multiple people.

Nobody is singly responsible for human industry, but "individual thought" is indeed a valuable tool. That is why the fundamental character of communist social theory is the intimate association of the human character, that is the human being and all it thinks, with the labor of the human being, that is the material character of his or her existence. If we are to take "individualism" seriously, it must mean something for all individuals, and must describe the character of material phenomena.

[trivas7]

Hayenmill --

You are using Rand's axiomatic concepts to describe what she would regard as the wellsprings of human progress, no? In her terms, consciousness is an irreducible primary of the world; in Marxist terms, it is secondary to historically mediated economic formations. IMHO this is an entirely academic discussion that depends on one's metaphysical premises. Or is it a chicken-and-egg kinda thing? Objectivists are perhaps correct in calling Marxism materialism a denigration of the human mind; OTOH Marxists take Objectivism (and other Randisms) as pure intrinsic idealism used for bourgeois propaganda.

[Dean]

Objectivists are perhaps correct in calling Marxism materialism a denigration of the human mind

This is only accurate in terms of vulgar Marxism - that is, those who think that economic conditions, which define human labor activity, are solely defined by realities external to the human character. This is indeed an absurd, mechanistic approach to the issue, but it should be noted that vast numbers of capitalists have incredibly absurd, mechanistic attitudes about the human animal, as well. Such denigration of the human being is by no means limited to either field, and its vast presence can be seen as a fundamental failing of our prevalent social conditions.

However, even a cursory glance at Marx's theories shows how absurd this position is - human alienation from his/her labor is a fundamental issue in Marxist theory, and furthermore all other sorts of human issues - such as religion and community association - get significant focus in Marx's writing, as well as in the writings of Critical Theorists, and Marxists / materialists of all stripes.

What is confounding is that materialism is routinely attacked from so-called "secular" right wing edifices. In their wise, analytical state, they would have us look to something other than the material world to understand the same! I suspect, as this is routinely played out in the hyper-idealist arguments people like Hayemill use, that they simply don't analyze the material conditions of our society...*

*I'm not accusing you of this, btw.

[¿Que?]

This is only accurate in terms of vulgar Marxism - that is, those who think that economic conditions, which define human labor activity, are solely defined by realities external to the human character.
Would you mind providing a reference to this. I've always understood vulgar Marxism to be essentially the same as economic determinism.

[trivas7]

This is only accurate in terms of vulgar Marxism

However, even a cursory glance at Marx's theories shows how absurd this position is - human alienation from his/her labor is a fundamental issue in Marxist theory, and furthermore all other sorts of human issues - such as religion and community association - get significant focus in Marx's writing, as well as in the writings of Critical Theorists, and Marxists / materialists of all stripes.

What is confounding is that materialism is routinely attacked from so-called "secular" right wing edifices. In their wise, analytical state, they would have us look to something other than the material world to understand the same! I suspect, as this is routinely played out in the hyper-idealist arguments people like Hayemill use, that they simply don't analyze the material conditions of our society...*


Well, I plead guilty to often using Randian categories to understand the world.

These days Marxists themselves attack the very foundations of materialism, as any reader of Rosa's posts can attest to. From a non-Marxist viewpoint the most cogent rebut to Marx IMHO is that his revolutionary program ultimately falls into the same utopianism he decried in other's "socialisms". As evidence I point to the last 10 years or so of Marx's life where, in search of the nature of primitive accumulation(?), he cast about in interminable study of the Iriquois Indians and other primitive people desperately looking models of historical communism.

[Dean]

Would you mind providing a reference to this. I've always understood vulgar Marxism to be essentially the same as economic determinism.
Unfortunately, I cannot. This is purely from my discussions with other leftists here, and not so much from other publications and works.


Well, I plead guilty to often using Randian categories to understand the world.
In what way?


These days Marxists themselves attack the very foundations of materialism, as any reader of Rosa's posts can attest to. From a non-Marxist viewpoint the most cogent rebut to Marx IMHO is that his revolutionary program ultimately falls into the same utopianism he decried in other's "socialisms". As evidence I point to the last 10 years or so of Marx's life where, in search of the nature of primitive accumulation(?), he cast about in interminable study of the Iriquois Indians and other primitive people desperately looking models of historical communism.
I think she has her own materialist approach (though it often spills into mystical obsession with language, ironically). But she is certainly materialist.

In terms of utopianism, Marxists and other material socialists are the only people I've ever seen coherently describe the methods of state and economic control. In turn, there is a lot of idealism and outright nonsense that comes from the libertarian right - such as the dubious notion that capitalist firms can exist without utilizing force to further their interests. Subsequently, I am somewhat concerned as to whether or not a sustainable communist society is possible, yet I am absolutely certain that corporate martial law is the only possible outcome of widespread privatization and hyper-individualism.

The notion that people can constantly compete and sustain balance seems a lot more dubious than the notion that people can constantly work together toward collective ends and sustain balance.

[trivas7]

The notion that people can constantly compete and sustain balance seems a lot more dubious than the notion that people can constantly work together toward collective ends and sustain balance.
I'm not sure why you counterpose competition w/ balance (you are concerned w/ sustainability, perhaps?). Why isn't this -- people working together toward collective ends -- a purely utopian notion when the entire history of class society is based on competition, economic power and creative destruction? Capitalism has shown its resiliency time and again to remake itself in opposition to Marx's doctrine.

[anticap]

The idealist believes that a particular species of ape, Homo sapiens, is effectively a god who makes the world go 'round. Naturally, therefore, those apes who have an especially bright idea that helps the world turn faster are entitled to actually live as gods (with the rest being admonished to pay close attention so that they, too, might one day eat and dress better than those good-for-nothing apes who refuse to live up to their godlike potential).

The materialist laughs at this primitive hubris.

[Dean]

I'm not sure why you counterpose competition w/ balance (you are concerned w/ sustainability, perhaps?). Why isn't this -- people working together toward collective ends -- a purely utopian notion when the entire history of class society is based on competition, economic power and creative destruction? Capitalism has shown its resiliency time and again to remake itself in opposition to Marx's doctrine.

At least you appreciate this starting point - that class society is a fundamentally capitalist enterprise. The human race can never be free within a class system. Just as Lenin said (and I'm not a Leninist in the least), "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." This correlates succinctly with the former argument.

What needs to be asked therefore, is not should capital or communism be achieved, but rather what is the most sustainable system most resembling the communist paradigm. So then we have all sorts of people proposing social democracy, collective bargaining, redistribution of wealth, soviet collectives, anarcho-syndicates and worker councils.

But you make a good point - in the context of a capitalist world politic, collectivized systems have consistently been hijacked by, attacked externally by, and subsumed into the paradigm of capital. Simply put, collectivized systems are not sufficiently competitive. They were never built to be competitive; they were built to be representative of the interests of their respective constituencies.

What then? Do we simply give up? I say, "no." We must return to the earlier question - that is, "what is the most sustainable system most resembling the communist paradigm?". It is evident that communism is the only system of economic organization which represents the collective and individual interests of those involved.

So, is a better system impossible? Then give up on human society, for what further use is analysis, systematization, criticism and the rest, if we cannot even expect to attain it?

Of course, I propose a contrary viewpoint which is just as mystical as it is rooted in core material phenomena. I believe, strongly and as a result of all that I've seen in my 24 years on this planet and in this society, that human beings have an unrivaled ability to create systems and tools which further their interests more succinctly and more efficiently in every epoch. The collective knowledge, lifestyles and culture of human society always builds upon itself, and even while the media serves the interests of capital primarily, it does not seem to be able to excise the revolutionary tendency persistent in all human society.

If we can't make a better world, that is a shame. But the grandest works of human beings are the tools of economic and political organization which rise and fall, and their constant evolution gives me the utmost confidence that collective human interests will one day be represented concisely in the extant social, economic and political systems.

[Havet]

How do you define thought?

The process by which neurons transmit information through electrochemical signaling, and create new information from previous existing one.


What is the mechanism by which thought does whatever it does?

Human labor. But I think human labor can exist without thought, whereas thought cannot exist without human labor. Thought is the faculty which allows for the cognitive identification of objective reality and allows for the betterment of one's labor and achievement of a certain purpose. Labor alone is useless, and so is thought alone. But thought has infinitely more value, as it is infinitely reproduceable.

[Havet]

Hayenmill --

You are using Rand's axiomatic concepts to describe what she would regard as the wellsprings of human progress, no?

Yes, but I did not explain it according to her beliefs, nor did I assume they were axiomatic.

[anticap]

Simply put, collectivized systems are not sufficiently competitive. They were never built to be competitive; they were built to be representative of the interests of their respective constituencies.

This is important. Competition is never necessary unless the aim is to defeat or destroy. That isn't to say that competition is only useful for those purposes -- it can be used to create -- but that it only becomes necessary when we seek to defeat or destroy (as in war, which is simply a grand competition). When we seek to create, anything that we might achieve through competition we could also achieve through cooperation.

Contrary to capitalism, collectivized systems are inherently cooperative. In order to defeat capitalism, advocates of such a system would have to compete with it in advance -- whether by fighting a revolutionary war, or by competing politically to install incremental reforms -- since they won't be equipped to compete once their system is in place.

As long as capitalism survives, advocates of cooperative systems will have to either compromise and settle for a mixed system that is equipped to compete, or be prepared to isolate themselves from the capitalist world.

[trivas7]

Contrary to capitalism, collectivized systems are inherently cooperative.
Try to convince the millions of people who have ever lived under socialist regimes of this. History knows only of collectivized systems that have brutally opposed human rights, systematically destroyed the incentive to cooperate, or have maimed in the name of socialism any human solidarity that previously perdured.

[Dean]

Try to convince the millions of people who have ever lived under socialist regimes of this. History knows only of collectivized systems that have brutally opposed human rights, systematically destroyed the incentive to cooperate, or have maimed in the name of socialism any human solidarity that previously perdured.

Those regimes acquired the means of production to maintain economic hegemony over their respective populations. You might as well point to McDonald's as an example of collectivist failure, if we are to take that route.

Simply put, those regimes were not collectively managed, in terms of production, distribution or politics. And this is a well established fact - by and large, they instituted a bureaucratic system of capital management, all under the guise of Communist utopianism.

Its no surprise that they were massive failures - in terms of the soviet system in particular, one could actually see the Kronstadt rebellion as the last viable soviet regime which was crushed by the Bolsheviks - the latter simply maintained soviet rhetoric for 69 years or so because it gave them enormous political capital to work with.

If you look at these different modes of organization from an analytical, materialist perspective - that is critically ascertaining if the mode of political and economic control was collectively managed, for instance - your criticism of collectivism can be seen for what it really is - criticism of a centralized method of management.

Of course, you can always fall back on arguments that "collectivism will never work" for this or that reason, but as we've seen, the alternative is political centrism and conservatism or a state of capitalist martial law.

[trivas7]

Of course, you can always fall back on arguments that "collectivism will never work" for this or that reason, but as we've seen, the alternative is political centrism and conservatism or a state of capitalist martial law.
My criticism of collectivism is an historical one: until you can point to an historical example of a regime that is/was collectively managed you're merely positing a utopian ideal. Where there are no alternatives there is nothing to choose from.

[Dean]

My criticism of collectivism is an historical one: until you can point to an historical example of a regime that is/was collectively managed you're merely positing a utopian ideal. Where there are no alternatives there is nothing to choose from.

Your criticism is not historical because you are attributing features of distinctly non-collective regimes to collectivism.

Its incredibly defeatist to say that we only have the right to choose from regimes extant in the past. What I am proposing is not an ideal, but stems from a materialist analysis of history and I propose that we work against all the forces whose history is a contradiction to the interests of the human race and society.

The extent of my idealism stems from my attitude that human beings ought to be able to control their own labor. Nowhere do I impose this idealism on the material world, but rather, capitalist libertarians and their ilk routinely impose their idealist sense of "state-free market freedom" on the material conditions of economy and politic.

There is no evidence that "collective interests" are ever at the heart of state and corporate violence, but rather the contrary is evident. However, the capitalist mode of production is consistently a driving force in destructive, hierarchical and centralizing features of human economy.

[trivas7]

Your criticism is not historical because you are attributing features of distinctly non-collective regimes to collectivism.

OTC, your fervid convictions are ahistorical b/c you attribute features of collectivism to -- nothing in particular.

[Dean]

OTC, your fervid convictions are ahistorical b/c you attribute features of collectivism to -- nothing in particular.

Have you really resorted to this kind of obtuseness? Sure, for the sake of argument, lets assume that collectivism is ahistorical. What does that even matter? I have already layed out my attitudes about creating a better world, none of which you confronted. Rather you attempted to refute the fact that you were using distinctly non-collectivist examples as arguments against collectivism by claiming that "collectivism has never existed."

Well, it stands to mention that a free, capitalist market has never existed, but that doesn't provide meaning to understand the method and direction of class society. Contrarily, it can be demonstrated by the etymology of the term "capitalist" and the character of industry that the representative interests of centralizing, hierarchical structures are indeed capitalist.

I could challenge you to provide examples of a free market system, but we both know they never existed. And again, that's a pretty evident result of the fact that mutually antagonistic forces (the masses of social organization set to compete with each other) consistently lead to different systems of competition, some of which (and all of the successful ones) provide hegemony and coercive tactics to maintain their power.

Society probably has a decent chance if a power structure directly accountable to the interests of their entire constituency can be achieved. But competition is the underlying fault line of all of our international corporate and state aggressions, and they consistently end in massive attacks on the interests of common people, since the structures, again, don't represent their interests.

If you can't confront these points about the destructive character of competition, all you're attacks on collectivism amount to nothing more than destructive nihilism.

[trivas7]

Have you really resorted to this kind of obtuseness? Sure, for the sake of argument, lets assume that collectivism is ahistorical. What does that even matter? I have already layed out my attitudes about creating a better world, none of which you confronted. Rather you attempted to refute the fact that you were using distinctly non-collectivist examples as arguments against collectivism by claiming that "collectivism has never existed."

If you can't confront these points about the destructive character of competition, all you're attacks on collectivism amount to nothing more than destructive nihilism.
I have yet to be persuaded that collectivism has proved itself superior to the mishmash of collectivism-statism-corporatism that currently exists. Like most idealists when confronted with the historical facts of implementing their position in the real world you'd rather appeal to some underlying argument you find probative. So be it.

[Dean]

I have yet to be persuaded that collectivism has proved itself superior to the mishmash of collectivism-statism-corporatism that currently exists. Like most idealists when confronted with the historical facts of implementing their position in the real world you'd rather appeal to some underlying argument you find probative. So be it.

The material character of collectivism is clearly superior. Whether or not it is sustainable is the only question to speak of. But, as we have seen, systems of hierarchy are endemic to capital and other competitive structures, so, as I've said before, the question is not is collectivism better, but rather, what degree of collective organization is sustainable? I don't think you know the answer any more than I do; all I can say is that we need to try to increasingly approach those forms of social organization which have more sustainable relations (that is less competitive ones) and more egalitarian representation of interests of people.

I have shown very clearly how capital produces competitive, inegalitarian and subsequently fragile societies. Even as the antithesis to systems of capital, collectivism is by far a more viable system.

You may have some legitimate doubts about collectivism, and that's fine. But simply expressing that you do have these doubts is not as valuable as explicitly expressing what these doubts are so that I can understand them.

[trivas7]

The material character of collectivism is clearly superior.
Who cares? A hundred and fifty or so years of empirical history ought to make it clear that Marx's project for "human emancipation" has been a failure stemming from the perverse logic of Marx's project itself. For historical necessity and revolutionary worker consciousness have never intersected in the real world. Marxism in practice led to the opposite of the results intended in theory, for only force could close the gap.

OTOH, the logic of industrial society does not lead to communism, it leads to a prosaic welfare state -- where the "renegade" Kautsky wound up. OTOH, "proletarian" revolution can be brought to society only by such professional bearers of revolutionary consciousness as hail "from the bourgeois intelligentsia", and only by declaring "class war" against their putative social base. For in fact class revolutions are eschatological myths pointing the way to a "radiant future" beyond human alienation. But there is no "socialist society" waiting beyond the exit from "capitalism": only a Soviet-style regime.

[anticap]

Who cares? A hundred and fifty or so years of empirical history ought to make it clear that Marx's project for "human emancipation" has been a failure stemming from the perverse logic of Marx's project itself. For historical necessity and revolutionary worker consciousness have never intersected in the real world. Marxism in practice led to the opposite of the results intended in theory, for only force could close the gap.

Based on the above, your working definition for "Marxism" is "Marx's project." I'm glad, because I too reject the notion that "Marxism" is anything done by anyone who calls themselves a Marxist.

So then: where and when did "Marx's project" lead "to the opposite of the results intended in [his] theory"?

Your answer should include the following:

1. A precise definition of "Marx's project," in Marx's own words.

2. A historical, economic, and political analysis of each example you provide of a place where "Marx's project" lead "to the opposite of the results intended in [his] theory."

3. A delineation of the causal link between the two.

In short: your task is to hang "Stalin's gulags" and "Mao's famines" around Marx's neck, using materials found here (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/).

[Dean]

Who cares? A hundred and fifty or so years of empirical history ought to make it clear that Marx's project for "human emancipation" has been a failure stemming from the perverse logic of Marx's project itself. For historical necessity and revolutionary worker consciousness have never intersected in the real world. Marxism in practice led to the opposite of the results intended in theory, for only force could close the gap.
If you can provide specific, systemic examples of Marxism in practice, whose character as collectivist (rather than propertarian) was responsible for some fatal failing, I would concede your point.

But your categorical dismissal of "Marxist" regimes, and with that your acceptance of the prevalent (erroneous) view among capitalist economists - that is that using the name of Marx is synonymous with Marxist or collectivist policies - is incredibly obtuse and serves as a vulgar criticism.


OTOH, the logic of industrial society does not lead to communism, it leads to a prosaic welfare state -- where the "renegade" Kautsky wound up. OTOH, "proletarian" revolution can be brought to society only by such professional bearers of revolutionary consciousness as hail "from the bourgeois intelligentsia", and only by declaring "class war" against their putative social base. For in fact class revolutions are eschatological myths pointing the way to a "radiant future" beyond human alienation. But there is no "socialist society" waiting beyond the exit from "capitalism": only a Soviet-style regime.

Perhaps. But I doubt it will have soviet rhetoric - Huxley's nightmare, that is the intensive corporation-worship by a subservient consumer / laborer population - seems a much more likely future than outward oppression.

It's all perfectly acceptable in the context of a libertarian milieu, the false "non-aggression pact" which doesn't even recognize possession of material property which controls the livelihood and quality of human life for others as the obvious coercive condition that it is.

You know how much it irks you when propertarianism is attacked from the standpoint that capitalism has shown itself to be a failure? Well, that's how us communists feel when you point to evidently centralized systems of economic control as collectivist.

The real question is, what has largely dictated the norms of society, or for that matter, what system has more directly worked against the interests of human beings in general - collectivist or capitalist systems?

Has the free enterprise of a small population defined the economic character of our society, or has the human race en masse defined this character, and subsequently can be blamed?


Communists promote what seems evident with a rudimentary background in history: that is, that all the old state, feudal and property structures were translated into the next epoch, and it has always been a narrow strata which defines our economy, and is responsible for its apparent failings. Communists seek to limit this phenomenon by whatever means are available.

The propertarians seek the actively promotion of such systems of centralized control, with the dubious claim that a property owner seeking material gain will "inevitably empower the consumer and laborer." But rather, the evident truth is that their empowerment leads to an environment less satisfactory for the capitalist. Subsequently, disinformation and other methods of control are exerted by the propertied, and we know the rest.

Let me ask you: how would you have society arranged? You seem readily able to criticize from a very safe, hardly defined position (with cursory arguments, nonetheless). Maybe you should stick your neck out a little, too.

[trivas7]

Let me ask you: how would you have society arranged?
Since no human being can know everything there is to know about society, people cannot simply redesign it anew. Human being are as much the creatures of their historical context as they are creators. The utopian relies on a pretense of knowledge or privileged information in an attempt to construct a bridge from the current society to the future.

Whereas collectivists have criticized bourgeois theorists for embracing "ahistorical" and "state of nature" arguments for capitalism, they themselves have embraced an ahistorical, exaggerated sense of human possibility. Marx himself succumbs to the same constructivist impulse he was critical of in the work of the utopian socialists. Implicit in the communist ideal is the presumption that human beings can achieve godlike control over society, as if from an Archimedean standpoint, transcending unintended social consequences such that every action brings about a known effect. This is the illusory belief that one can live in a world in which every action produces consistent and predictable outcomes. Invariably, the quest for total knowledge becomes a quest for totalitarian control.