The Critical Mind?

[Hen]

I'm a newbie and I read something...

-
"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate... The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind".
-

I disagree with the idea that in a capitalist society, all human relationship are voluntary - you have no choice but to enter an exploitative labour market. Here, I'm just curious about the right to disagree in a communist society, a majoritarian society. If 51 percent adhere to one opinion and 49 percent adhere to the opposing opinion...Would the 49 percent simply give up their position for the sake of common good, even if decreed by the slightest majority rule? People always attach a lack of critical faculty, sort of brainwashed notion with citizens of communists societies...Is it a misconception?

[Forward Union]

I disagree with the idea that in a capitalist society, all human relationship are voluntary - you have no choice but to enter an exploitative labour market. Here, I'm just curious about the right to disagree in a communist society, a majoritarian society. If 51 percent adhere to one opinion and 49 percent adhere to the opposing opinion...Would the 49 percent simply give up their position for the sake of common good, even if decreed by the slightest majority rule?

The easy answer is yes, but it does depend on the issue at hand. Firstly I would go a little further and say 50% + 1 person is a majority, and therefore wins a democratic vote (But I think thats basically what you were trying to say anyway). The important thing to remember when wincing at that, is that any other construction means that the minority wins and is un democratic.

However, any such society will have a written constitution. Detailing the processes of decision making, as well as the universal rights of people. Which ought to include things like the right to ones own life, the right to ones own labour, etc etc.

The upshot of this that a majority could note vote to liquidate a minority, though it could win out on a decision to build a road here or there.

[Hen]

Yeh I understand majoritarian democracy and its many facets. I'm just unsure of what would happen to the losing minority in a communist society. Would they willingly give up their position because it does not convene with majority rule? Such a mentality, to me, seems to suffocate the critical, creative mind.

[Forward Union]

Yeh I understand majoritarian democracy and its many facets. I'm just unsure of what would happen to the losing minority in a communist society. Would they willingly give up their position because it does not convene with majority rule? Such a mentality, to me, seems to suffocate the critical, creative mind.

Well, take the example of a road. A road is voted on to be built. Now after discussion in sure numerous concessions will be made by each side until a general agreement is made. But lets say there is stil la vocal minority for whatever reason.

Well, the minority will be free to campaign against that decision, produce discussion documents, propose amendments, protest etc. And perhaps they will win more concessions or win entirely in a later discussion. Perhaps not. They can even go on moaning about it after it's all said and done.

Not everyone will be happy with everything that happens, but I also don't think that's a bad thing.

[Hen]

Well, take the example of a road. A road is voted on to be built. Now after discussion in sure numerous concessions will be made by each side until a general agreement is made. But lets say there is stil la vocal minority for whatever reason.

Well, the minority will be free to campaign against that decision, produce discussion documents, propose amendments, protest etc. And perhaps they will win more concessions or win entirely in a later discussion. Perhaps not. They can even go on moaning about it after it's all said and done.

Not everyone will be happy with everything that happens, but I also don't think that's a bad thing.

OK, that makes sense. Decisions are drawn from a rational public forum that lobby the strongest arguments. A Communist public forum would award the argument of the greatest common good, rather than the argument with the most money behind it.

But how does this affect the individual? In capitalism, the individual is supreme - individual judgement, convictions and interests etc. Humans as a 'social being' come behind the 'individual'. If communism was realized then the 'individual' would not just be demoted behind the 'social being', the 'individual' would become the 'social being'. Individual interest would emulate common interest. Common interest would dictate individual interest. Does this eat into the critical and creative mind of the individual? Would it lead to 'the suffocation of instinct'?

[Thirsty Crow]

But how does this affect the individual? In capitalism, the individual is supreme - individual judgement, convictions and interests etc. Humans as a 'social being' come behind the 'individual'. If communism was realized then the 'individual' would not just be demoted behind the 'social being', the 'individual' would become the 'social being'. Individual interest would emulate common interest. Common interest would dictate individual interest. Does this eat into the critical and creative mind of the individual? Would it lead to 'the suffocation of instinct'?

How could the creative and individual mind be an object of derision if the social organization enables diverse "private interests", as long as they do not contain an imminent threat towards the freedom of others, realized in variety of forms which include the common practice of individual direct participation in the decision making process over issues which directly concern him/her as a social being? And is not this "creative faculty" you speak about also inherently a social phenomenon, and not a idealized quasi-entity?
For example, one wouldn't be forced to subject himself/herself to the workings of the division of labour, thus remaining within the sphere of a given occupation, but he/she would be able to diversify his/her field of interest, knowledge and praxis, which in turn would probably lead to a more complete understanding of the world (both human and natural), and a necessary consequence of this one would in fact be a strengthening of this critical faculty?

I don't get it...how could private hegemonic interests (accumulation of wealth, social self-aggrandizement and monopolization of influence) solely guarantee critical faculty?

[NecroCommie]

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate... The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind".
This portion is highly untrue. Human relations are not voluntary in any society with this degree of division of labor. Even if they were, private property does not promote this voluntary position, as in privately owned capital only the capital dictates, not the people with that capital. And capital does not care about your agreement or not, you simply must work for the business owners to survive.

[Hen]

How could the creative and individual mind be an object of derision if the social organization enables diverse "private interests", as long as they do not contain an imminent threat towards the freedom of others, realized in variety of forms which include the common practice of individual direct participation in the decision making process over issues which directly concern him/her as a social being? And is not this "creative faculty" you speak about also inherently a social phenomenon, and not a idealized quasi-entity?
For example, one wouldn't be forced to subject himself/herself to the workings of the division of labour, thus remaining within the sphere of a given occupation, but he/she would be able to diversify his/her field of interest, knowledge and praxis, which in turn would probably lead to a more complete understanding of the world (both human and natural), and a necessary consequence of this one would in fact be a strengthening of this critical faculty?

I don't get it...how could private hegemonic interests (accumulation of wealth, social self-aggrandizement and monopolization of influence) solely guarantee critical faculty?

This is a dangerous comparison, but I'm in the learning section so.. :)
In the same way that many Americans are obsessed with protecting their "true freedoms" (Obamacare), citizens of communist societies maybe obsessed with a social responsibility. So being socialized in such a way, I'm told that Justin Beiber is really great and has been socially validated, so even though his music is shit, would the communist inside me tell me that he is socially validated therefore he must be good. I'll download him. God help me. Tell me I'm being stupid and this is wrong.

[Forward Union]

This is a dangerous comparison, but I'm in the learning section so.. :)
In the same way that many Americans are obsessed with protecting their "true freedoms" (Obamacare), citizens of communist societies maybe obsessed with a social responsibility. So being socialized in such a way, I'm told that Justin Beiber is really great and has been socially validated, so even though his music is shit, would the communist inside me tell me that he is socially validated therefore he must be good. I'll download him. God help me. Tell me I'm being stupid and this is wrong.

Well I think music is a very different thing, maybe you want to pick a better example to make your question a bit clearer.

But It's none of societies bussiness what music you prefer, what your favourite colour is, or what clothes you feel most comfortable in. There wouldn't be a vote on which music is "good". You may decide that, because a particular artist is well respected socially that you might want to listen to them, but that's really nothing to do with politics. Maybe sociology has something to say about that though.

Building a road however, dramatically effects everyone in the area, and will do for some generations, thus must be discussed and voted on by those affected.

[ckaihatsu]

If communism was realized then the 'individual' would not just be demoted behind the 'social being', the 'individual' would become the 'social being'. Individual interest would emulate common interest. Common interest would dictate individual interest. Does this eat into the critical and creative mind of the individual? Would it lead to 'the suffocation of instinct'?


Allow me to put this into a generic individual-in-relation-to-society framework, no matter what type of society that may be. In *any* society *no one* will be at the service of society 24/7, for all the days of their lives. So this is really more a matter of a 'gray area', or 'parameters', on *how much* time and effort one may spend in a 'socialized' mode, as opposed to more-personal (individualistic) interests.

Currently no one can spend all of their waking hours at work -- though the working class has been increasingly squeezed for increased productivity so as to offset business losses due to decades-long declines in the real economy. Can we say that the providing of labor hours to business is beneficial to the 'social being' and to the 'common interest'? Does working long weeks wear people out and lead to 'the suffocation of instinct'?

Note that our current civilization's goal of increased profits for business doesn't really help individuals' own 'social being' -- because of the lack of any individual-derived democratic inputs into setting economic policy -- and sheer work hours don't add to the 'common interest' -- since politics isn't decided by how much time one puts in at work, or by any kind of mass decision-making over the political policies themselves.

So, again, all of this is relative -- we might try to arrive at some "civilizational" policies, or guidelines, on *what percent* of a person's life would be best spent in 'socialized' modes, including work and societal concerns, and the administration of personal concerns, and *what percent* should be reserved for personal interests and relationships. As we know, mass socialization, as into cities, is *not* a requirement for human living, and plenty of people continue to live in much smaller groupings, with pluses and minuses for both ways. But since urban life is much more the norm these days we may want to reconsider just *how* we're doing it, and how much of a two-way street there is between the individual and the societal.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is a dangerous comparison, but I'm in the learning section so.. :)
In the same way that many Americans are obsessed with protecting their "true freedoms" (Obamacare), citizens of communist societies maybe obsessed with a social responsibility. So being socialized in such a way, I'm told that Justin Beiber is really great and has been socially validated, so even though his music is shit, would the communist inside me tell me that he is socially validated therefore he must be good. I'll download him. God help me. Tell me I'm being stupid and this is wrong.

Well, it's not only a "dangerous" comparison, but a faulty one.
Music, as well as any other art forms, are indeed social constructs, but it would be faulty to assume that critical faculty deals with what is specific to music - tones, rhythms, scales, techniques of singing and playing, the overall matter of musical composition which is a distinguishing factor.
Now, as far as other aspects of musical phenomena are concerned - these are open to the workings of a critical mind. But your assumption that communities should validate certain artists and other not, without a shadow of a doubt, is dubious. Why should a child be socialized in accord with a final set of allowed and approved artistic sources, especially when it is logical to conclude that developments and new phenomena will become more pronounced due to the elimination of the profit motive which is the foremost driving factor behind cultural development nowadays.
And as far as degenerate "contents" are concerned (flat out racism, xenophobia, chauvinism, sexism etc.)... I think that it should be a matter of social responsibility in that social pressure should be exercised and the person should be pointed out his/her mistakes. Also, if music, for instance, would be used as a vehicle of propaganda for the before mentioned ideas, people would be completely free to boycott the artist thus depriving him/her of a vital aspect of being a musician - those who enjoy (and participate in) your endeavour.
In this sense, I can assume that the only guiding line as far as socialization is concerned would take up the content of "be constantly critical of bigotry in art and other forms of communication...and enjoy yourself".