Science of History

[sublime]

Hi there, love social justice, but am bemused by a theory that claims a teleology towards a classless, stateless society is scientific? That's a laugh, the notion that a classless & stateless society can ever exist without genetic engineering is itself an embarrassing ignorance of Darwin.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with gene tampering in itself, other than you all have such a bitter defeated attitude towards all forms of "fascism". We could engineer a future human race that would have the instincts that Marx built his theory of human nature on, but I'm not sure if engineering a race of people that only care about food, shelter and clothing is a good idea. Don't rule out the idea, though, as communists have been in bed with all the worst aspects of fascism since Marx and his racism towards Jews and Slavs and Mexicans.

The problem with straight socialism is that there is no evidence it works. It's purely hypothetical. It depends on a bunch of philosophical assertions about human nature and "dialectics", that have no empirical weight behind them. So you guys are stuck in some theoretical fantasy land waiting for reality to catch up to your theories.

Don't get me wrong, I support communism in spirit as well. It sounds wonderful to me. I rate it right up there with the tooth fairy and Santa clause. I will support all of them gleefully when there is evidence demonstrating that they work.

Yes, I know I know, capitalism "doesn't work" either; After all, there are is still misery in the world, there are still inequalities, class divisions, racism, selfishness, deviations from perfection, and other such atrocities. Capitalism is very, very flawed. The issue you guys have failed to deal with is that Capitalism has produced all the wealth that humans have heretofore enjoyed. This forum is a testament to capitalism. Marx was well aware of this, which is why he gave a weird approval of capitalism, as the most productive system so far. But his crystal-balling about the next phase didn't work out as he prophesied, because he did not understand Freud and Darwin. Marx didn't realize that humans don't merely want "food, shelter, and clothing", because he is an irrational animal that wants to acquire goods and dominate his fellow man in the midst of any security and comfort. This is the consensus of all modern, non-idealist biology and evolutionary psychology. If you don't believe this, read Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett E. O. Wilson or Robert Wright
It's all pretty straight forward really, which is why why most of us grew out of left-wing utopianism as we exited adolescence.

I look forward to any any arguments that communism can work that appeal to data rather than hypothesis. I would like to believe in classlessness and Santa Clause too.

[Alric]

The problem with straight socialism is that there is no evidence it works. It's purely hypothetical


"The problem with straight socialism is that there is no evidence it works. It's purely hypothetical."

It's actually worse than that. Many people say "Socialism is good in theory but it doesn't work in practice."

This is not correct. It's not good even in theory as a matter of logic, before we even get to the evidence, because even if we had a selfless race of angels who only wanted food, clothing and shelter, it *still* couldn't work. The reason is because a socialist economy would be incapable of economic calculation. Why? Because money is a market phenomenon. The whole of capital accounting would be affected, or rather abolished, by socialism. The socialists have never comprehended the profundity of this point. They simply *assumed* that socialism is possible and the only question is how to get there. Not correct. It *cannot* happen without causing economic chaos, mass starvation and political totalitarianism which, you will recall, is what happened everywhere full socialism was attempted.

Now according to socialist theory, this must be just some kind of strange coincidence. They try to squirm out of it by changing the name of public ownership. But it doesn't matter what you call it, whether communism, socialism, democratic socialism, socialist democracy, the third way, public/private partnership, or sustainability. The problem inheres in state ownership and control of the means of production as such.

Ludwig von Mises demonstrated in 1921 why socialism can't work in theory, let alone in practice, in a short and readable essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth". Highly recommended - Google it. It is a complete and total refutation of the very possibility of socialism above the level of a barter society. No socialist has ever refuted it. But they didn't let that bother them. Not content with the disproof in theory, they went ahead and supplied all the disproof in practice anyone could want by killing 100 million people trying to get it to work.

Even today, they simply ignore all this and push on with their criminally stupid idea that it's a good idea.

You are right to understand it from the point of evolutionary psychology. But that is merely an empirical disproof. With respect, you need to understand it from the point of view of Austrian economics, which provides complete total logical disproofs - categorical disproofs.

You shouldn't admire or aspire to communism or socialism, even in theory. It is bad to the bone and that's why it doesn't work.

[#FF0000]

Hi there, love social justice, but am bemused by a theory that claims a teleology towards a classless, stateless society is scientific? That's a laugh, the notion that a classless & stateless society can ever exist without genetic engineering is itself an embarrassing ignorance of Darwin.

The irony in this statement is really great.


But his crystal-balling about the next phase didn't work out as he prophesied, because he did not understand Freud and Darwin. Marx didn't realize that humans don't merely want "food, shelter, and clothing", because he is an irrational animal that wants to acquire goods and dominate his fellow man in the midst of any security and comfort. This is the consensus of all modern, non-idealist biology and evolutionary psychology. If you don't believe this, read Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett E. O. Wilson or Robert Wright
It's all pretty straight forward really, which is why why most of us grew out of left-wing utopianism as we exited adolescence.

it is like you only read half of of what any of the people you name-dropped ever said hahahah

[Marxaveli]

Ah, the good ol' human nature argument. This is actually one of the arguments made against Communism that is rather easy to retort. The problem with the human nature argument is that, it is, in a nutshell, complete bullshit. Human nature is extremely subjective and thus almost impossible to clearly define. Also, does human nature even EXIST? Even if it does, it is almost certainly a social construct - meaning it is not biological as most people are led to believe. The behavior, nature, and general cognitive processes of human consciousness are determined almost entirely by ENVIRONMENT. So if people are greedy and selfish by nature, it is because they live under Capitalism, a system that promotes and teaches those types of values, which is easy to do under a system where the ruling class also controls all media and information, so the propaganda machine is the dominant source that determines all aspects of discourse and language within a given society. But as the material conditions of society change, so do people - and this has been historically proven as fact. Thus, it can be understood that if something is socially constructed, that it can also be altered or changed. Therefore, human nature, contrary to popular belief, can AND has, changed over time. And it will continue to do so. We are not the same way forever, and demonstrably so. Is that empirical enough for you?

We don't need to see evidence that Socialism can work - the mere fact that Capitalism itself doesn't work (except for the ruling class) is evidence enough that Socialism, while not perfect, is a superior system. What are the alternatives? The workers either control the means to production society functions in a democratic manner, or we have a system of class antagonisms where a small percentile control the means to production and we have oligarchies, corporatism, and a overall dysfunctional society, etc. Besides, it would be a complete straw-man to say Communists are utopian and think society can be perfect. We don't want a perfect society, just a better one.

Lastly, Marx didn't say that Capitalism would inevitably be succeeded by Socialism so much as he stated it as a necessary change in history to end class conflict and achieve true democracy. The only reason Capitalism has lasted as long as it has, is for 2 reasons: 1. Capitalism exists through deceit. The Bourgeois was perhaps more clever than Marx had anticipated, but that is a completely different thing altogether from Capitalism being a viable system. Reactionary idealism such as religion and Nationalism has been a tool of the ruling class to instil false consciousness on the Proletarian, to keep them pacified. 2. It exists through State force. The police, military, NATO, and all the government and NGO's keep Capitalism propped up through direct power and coercion. This, again, has nothing to do with Capitalism "working" as a system, because without these two things, it would have fallen long ago. The minute the Proletarian sheds false consciousness and achieves class consciousness, Capitalism's days will be numbered. Also, please dont try to conflate Communism and Fascism and claim Marx was racist - this is typical right-wing revisionism! I suppose you are one of those people that reads Jonah Goldberg, and thinks that Hitler was a lefty? Sheesh....

Don't be so sure that a classless/stateless society won't ever happen. I'm sure people in the 1600's never thought they would be free from living under Divine Right Absolutism either, and then the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolutions took place and changed all that. Nor could landlords predict the French Revolution that marked the end of Feudalism.

In short, your arguments against Communism are overly deterministic, short-sighted, and presumptuous - and it is Capitalism, not Socialism, that is grounded in Idealism.

[l'Enfermé]

OP has never met an anthropologist or read anything by Darwin(of whom Marx and Engels were great admirers). It's rather amusing that you insist that it's human nature for man to dominate others and that a stateless and classless society can't possible exist. For the vast majority of their existence, homo sapiens have lived in stateless and classless societies. In reality, there's no such thing as human nature, humans are born as mostly empty vessels and are shaped and filled by their environment.

And how could Marx "understand" Freud if Freud published his first major work 12 years after Marx died? You're a moron.

[l'Enfermé]

edit: accidental double post, sorry

[Baseball]

Ah, the good ol' human nature argument. This is actually one of the arguments made against Communism that is rather easy to retort. The problem with the human nature argument is that, it is, in a nutshell, complete bullshit. Human nature is extremely subjective and thus almost impossible to clearly define. Also, does human nature even EXIST? Even if it does, ect ect.

Nope. People are not a blank slate, to scribble upon it whatever somebody thinks.


ect ect
over time. And it will continue to do so. We are not the same way forever, and demonstrably so. Is that empirical enough for you?

Nobody says things don't change. Things indeed change, OVER TIME, an expression which predictably is rejected by REVOLUTIONARY socialists.


We don't need to see evidence that Socialism can work - the mere fact that Capitalism itself doesn't work (except for the ruling class) is evidence enough that Socialism, while not perfect, is a superior system.

No. It simply means one has gripes with capitalism. It does not demonstrate that socialist solutions are in any way better.


What are the alternatives? The workers either control the means to production society functions in a democratic manner, or we have a system of class antagonisms where a small percentile control the means to production and we have oligarchies, corporatism, and a overall dysfunctional society, etc. Besides, it would be a complete straw-man to say Communists are utopian and think society can be perfect. We don't want a perfect society, just a better one.

But see, the socialists need to demonstrate their theories lead to their claimed outcomes.


Lastly, Marx didn't say that Capitalism would inevitably be succeeded by Socialism so much as he stated it as a necessary change in history to end class conflict and achieve true democracy.


The only reason Capitalism has lasted as long as it has, is for 2 reasons: 1. Capitalism exists through deceit. The Bourgeois was perhaps more clever than Marx had anticipated,

Or perhaps Marx simply was in error about his theories.


but that is a completely different thing altogether from Capitalism being a viable system

I don't know- socialists have been predicting that the end of capitalism is on the horizon for the last century or so. Perhaps deviousness of the capitalist is not the correct answer for the constant disappointment which follows.


Reactionary idealism such as religion and Nationalism has been a tool of the ruling class to instil false consciousness on the Proletarian, to keep them pacified.

That "false consciousness" was installed by folks such as Marx himself- he thought German unification and the creation of single German national state a great step forward. Socialists have always downplayed their role in fostering nationalism in Europe.


The minute the Proletarian sheds false consciousness and achieves class consciousness, Capitalism's days will be numbered.

Except that if you are unable to provide evidence that socialism will work, the above quote is refuted.

[Marxaveli]

Nope. People are not a blank slate, to scribble upon it whatever somebody thinks.Either you are being intellectually dishonest, or you are just flat out wrong. People DO start off as blank slates, and demonstrably so. They are a product of their environment and social material conditions in which they exist. This isn't even really up for debate - history has proven us right, and even John Locke knew this well before Marx came along: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa


Nobody says things don't change. Things indeed change, OVER TIME, an expression which predictably is rejected by REVOLUTIONARY socialists.Not true at all, nobody more than revolutionary Socialists acknowledges that material conditions change over time. It is reactionaries like yourself that think people are the same way forever or that we are "hardwired" a certain way. Which of course, is false as I explained above.


No. It simply means one has gripes with capitalism. It does not demonstrate that socialist solutions are in any way better.
In Socialism, the workers would control the means to production and thus have actual self-determination, unlike in a Capitalist society. There is nothing to demonstrate - Socialism is grounded in materialism, not idealism and folklore like Capitalism. It is Capitalism that has to demonstrate its legitimacy, and thus far, it has failed miserably.


But see, the socialists need to demonstrate their theories lead to their claimed outcomes. Nope. See above.


Or perhaps Marx simply was in error about his theories.You would love to believe that I'm sure. Only problem is, all his critiques of Capitalism have proven correct. Everything that is occurring in the global Capitalist system now was predicted in the Manifesto. You can try and argue against it all you want, but intellectual dishonesty doesn't prove you correct or Marx wrong.


I don't know- socialists have been predicting that the end of capitalism is on the horizon for the last century or so. Perhaps deviousness of the capitalist is not the correct answer for the constant disappointment which follows.
Capitalism is still relatively young (hell it took a good 8 centuries for Capitalism to finally triumph over Feudalism), but as I mentioned earlier, the only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because it exists through propaganda and through state force. The ruling class is very clever and manipulative. But that is all I will merit them, and again, this has nothing to do with Capitalism being successful as an political economic system. Capitalism is like a dam that keeps springing leaks, and everyone has to pluck the holes with their fingers and toes, but its all in vain because eventually you will run out of people to cover those holes, and the whole thing will collapse.


That "false consciousness" was installed by folks such as Marx himself- he thought German unification and the creation of single German national state a great step forward. Socialists have always downplayed their role in fostering nationalism in Europe.
Again, you misconstrue Marx to suit your own purposes. Marx considered Capitalism as a necessary stage in the development of history, and as an improvement over previous modes of production. German unification was important for the nations development into Capitalism to set the stage for possible Socialist revolution. Nationalism isn't fostered by Marxists, it is fostered by the utopian Socialists which Marx rejected. Have you even read the Manifesto? Something tells me you haven't, and that you are just parroting the talking points that the far right spews forth every day.



Except that if you are unable to provide evidence that socialism will work, the above quote is refuted
Socialism, once in place, would prove better by the self-evident material conditions that would constitute its existence: self-determination for workers in a democratic society free of exploitation. Some of your points MIGHT hold water if you were debating a Marxist-Leninist (though even then probably not - at least not vs. the majority here), however, I'm not a Marxist-Leninist. The ruling class KNOWS Socialism is not in their interest because they would lose their power, and of course, they don't want that to happen. So all anti-Communist propaganda and a powerful state are par for the course - to prevent revolution. The Bourgeois knows deep down that Socialism is superior to Capitalism, whether they care to admit it or not. For them, it isn't preferable, but for 99% of society, it is.

[cynicles]

Hey guys! I got this argument that's all new and the left hasn't heard before! Human nature makes their politics impossible!
*insert cocky-faced look*

Watch me quote some scientists that agree with me and ignore the ones who don't!

Then, I'm gunna connect communism and fascism together on spurious terms and wow you all about how evil you are! All while never having understood most of what Marx wrote!

Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus!

Your move lefties! *insert holier than thou condescending look*

[Baseball]

It is reactionaries like yourself that think people are the same way forever

Not at all. Change occurs, over time.




In Socialism, the workers would control the means to production and thus have actual self-determination, unlike in a Capitalist society. There is nothing to demonstrate

You sort of have to describe what it means to say "the workers would control the means to production and thus have actual self-determination..."




Capitalism is still relatively young (hell it took a good 8 centuries for Capitalism to finally triumph over Feudalism), but as I mentioned earlier, the only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because it exists through propaganda and through state force.

It lasts because it is a superior system of production and organization.




Socialism, once in place, would prove better by the self-evident material conditions that would constitute its existence:

Of course, you have just justified the USSR and the Marxist-Lennist spin on things. It is also very extremist- socialism is proven correct when it succeeds and when it does not it means conditions were not right. Socialism is never wrong.
Its a theology.


self-determination for workers in a democratic society free of exploitation.

Which of course requires explanations and demonstrations.
This is of course required for any socialist, not merely those "Marxist-Lenninist" types.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I want to stop hearing about "human nature" from people who never passed bio 30.

[sublime]

Ah, the good ol' human nature argument. This is actually one of the arguments made against Communism that is rather easy to retort. The problem with the human nature argument is that, it is, in a nutshell, complete bullshit. Human nature is extremely subjective and thus almost impossible to clearly define. Also, does human nature even EXIST? Even if it does, it is almost certainly a social construct - meaning it is not biological as most people are led to believe. The behavior, nature, and general cognitive processes of human consciousness are determined almost entirely by ENVIRONMENT. So if people are greedy and selfish by nature, it is because they live under Capitalism, a system that promotes and teaches those types of values, which is easy to do under a system where the ruling class also controls all media and information, so the propaganda machine is the dominant source that determines all aspects of discourse and language within a given society. But as the material conditions of society change, so do people - and this has been historically proven as fact. Thus, it can be understood that if something is socially constructed, that it can also be altered or changed. Therefore, human nature, contrary to popular belief, can AND has, changed over time. And it will continue to do so. We are not the same way forever, and demonstrably so. Is that empirical enough for you?

We don't need to see evidence that Socialism can work - the mere fact that Capitalism itself doesn't work (except for the ruling class) is evidence enough that Socialism, while not perfect, is a superior system. What are the alternatives? The workers either control the means to production society functions in a democratic manner, or we have a system of class antagonisms where a small percentile control the means to production and we have oligarchies, corporatism, and a overall dysfunctional society, etc. Besides, it would be a complete straw-man to say Communists are utopian and think society can be perfect. We don't want a perfect society, just a better one.

Lastly, Marx didn't say that Capitalism would inevitably be succeeded by Socialism so much as he stated it as a necessary change in history to end class conflict and achieve true democracy. The only reason Capitalism has lasted as long as it has, is for 2 reasons: 1. Capitalism exists through deceit. The Bourgeois was perhaps more clever than Marx had anticipated, but that is a completely different thing altogether from Capitalism being a viable system. Reactionary idealism such as religion and Nationalism has been a tool of the ruling class to instil false consciousness on the Proletarian, to keep them pacified. 2. It exists through State force. The police, military, NATO, and all the government and NGO's keep Capitalism propped up through direct power and coercion. This, again, has nothing to do with Capitalism "working" as a system, because without these two things, it would have fallen long ago. The minute the Proletarian sheds false consciousness and achieves class consciousness, Capitalism's days will be numbered. Also, please dont try to conflate Communism and Fascism and claim Marx was racist - this is typical right-wing revisionism! I suppose you are one of those people that reads Jonah Goldberg, and thinks that Hitler was a lefty? Sheesh....

Don't be so sure that a classless/stateless society won't ever happen. I'm sure people in the 1600's never thought they would be free from living under Divine Right Absolutism either, and then the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolutions took place and changed all that. Nor could landlords predict the French Revolution that marked the end of Feudalism.

In short, your arguments against Communism are overly deterministic, short-sighted, and presumptuous - and it is Capitalism, not Socialism, that is grounded in Idealism.

The reasons cultural anthropologists deny human nature is because they have to; An adaption explanation takes away the focus from the social explanations, and anthropologists would really have nothing much to do, having discovered they have wasted 3 years of their life getting a degree.

Cultural anthropologists are notoriously non-scientific. They can't be bothered learning about genetics or cognitive science or evolutionary psychology. You need to investigate these disciplines, which investigate, the adaptionist origins of behavior.

The idea that there is no human nature is itself a construct, one that contradicts common sense and evidence. Nobody believes this but the most quacky ivory tower socialists (these people tend to call themselves anthropologists these days ). You can disregard anything that is published the aegis of "anthropology". It's is the boondocks of academia. A few Marxists have found refuge there, probably attracted to the obfuscation, mendacity, and unfalsifiability that are it's currency.

Here is all you need to know about the state of modern Anthropology:

Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift

By NICHOLAS WADE - NY Times

Published: December 9, 2010

Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.

During the last 10 years the two factions have been through a phase of bitter tribal warfare after the more politically active group attacked work on the Yanomamo people of Venezuela and Brazil by Napoleon Chagnon, a science-oriented anthropologist, and James Neel, a medical geneticist who died in 2000. With the wounds of this conflict still fresh, many science-based anthropologists were dismayed to learn last month that the long-range plan of the association would no longer be to advance anthropology as a science but rather to focus on “public understanding.”
Until now, the association’s long-range plan was “to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects.” The executive board revised this last month to say, “The purposes of the association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.” This is followed by a list of anthropological subdisciplines that includes political research.
The word “science” has been excised from two other places in the revised statement.
The association’s president, Virginia Dominguez of the University of Illinois, said in an e-mail that the word had been dropped because the board sought to include anthropologists who do not locate their work within the sciences, as well as those who do. She said the new statement could be modified if the board received any good suggestions for doing so.
The new long-range plan differs from the association’s “statement of purpose,” which remains unchanged, Dr. Dominguez said. That statement still describes anthropology as a science.
Peter Peregrine, president of the Society for Anthropological Sciences, an affiliate of the American Anthropological Association, wrote in an e-mail to members that the proposed changes would undermine American anthropology, and he urged members to make their views known.
Dr. Peregrine, who is at Lawrence University in Wisconsin, said in an interview that the dropping of the references to science “just blows the top off” the tensions between the two factions. “Even if the board goes back to the old wording, the cat’s out of the bag and is running around clawing up the furniture,” he said.
He attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists, who see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the authority of science. “Much of this is like creationism in that it is based on the rejection of rational argument and thought,” he said.
Dr. Dominguez denied that critical anthropologists or postmodernist thinking had influenced the new statement. She said in an e-mail that she was aware that science-oriented anthropologists had from time to time expressed worry about and disapproval of their nonscientific colleagues. “Marginalization is never a welcome experience,” she said.

[sublime]

OP has never met an anthropologist or read anything by Darwin(of whom Marx and Engels were great admirers). It's rather amusing that you insist that it's human nature for man to dominate others and that a stateless and classless society can't possible exist. For the vast majority of their existence, homo sapiens have lived in stateless and classless societies. In reality, there's no such thing as human nature, humans are born as mostly empty vessels and are shaped and filled by their environment.

And how could Marx "understand" Freud if Freud published his first major work 12 years after Marx died? You're a moron.


Marx being a follower of Darwin, sort of, yes. This doesn't mean he properly understood Darwin. At least he didn't understand the applications to psychology. Marx was attracted to the parallel of natural evolution with his own notion of political evolution (which he called historical materialism ). He really wanted his theory to be the natural selection of economic systems. This was very misguided.

To get Darwin's view on evolution of behaviors you have to read The Decent of Man (1871 ). Darwin clearly hints at the need to explain psychological traits as adaptations. Marx's ideas are not compatible with this part of Darwinism, because it gives a biological basis to most of the things Marx and Engels ascribed to social relationships. It is hard wired.

As for Freud being post-Marx, yes I know that. I never said he should have been expected to have understood Freud, it wasn't his fault.

[Positivist]

Marx was of Jewish descent...

[sublime]

Marx was of Jewish descent...

He wouldn't the first self-hating Jew to have been born.

[sublime]

I want to stop hearing about "human nature" from people who never passed bio 30.

Biology doesn't have that much to do with psychology, or cognitive science, which are the sciences of behavior. Edward O Wilson was the father of modern sociobiology, and listed the static qualities of human nature. Richard Dawkins has written famously about how humans are innately selfish.

"We are born selfish" - Richard Dawkins

"We used to think that our fate was in our stars. Now we know, in large part, that our fate is in our genes." - James Watson

"The newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don't depend on information coming in from the senses." - Steven Pinker

[Marxaveli]

The reasons cultural anthropologists deny human nature is because they have to; An adaption explanation takes away the focus from the social explanations, and anthropologists would really have nothing much to do, having discovered they have wasted 3 years of their life getting a degree.

Cultural anthropologists are notoriously non-scientific. They can't be bothered learning about genetics or cognitive science or evolutionary psychology. You need to investigate these disciplines, which investigate, the adaptionist origins of behavior.

The idea that there is no human nature is itself a construct, one that contradicts common sense and evidence. Nobody believes this but the most quacky ivory tower socialists (these people tend to call themselves anthropologists these days ). You can disregard anything that is published the aegis of "anthropology". It's is the boondocks of academia. A few Marxists have found refuge there, probably attracted to the obfuscation, mendacity, and unfalsifiability that are it's currency.

Here is all you need to know about the state of modern Anthropology:

Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift

By NICHOLAS WADE - NY Times

Published: December 9, 2010

Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.

During the last 10 years the two factions have been through a phase of bitter tribal warfare after the more politically active group attacked work on the Yanomamo people of Venezuela and Brazil by Napoleon Chagnon, a science-oriented anthropologist, and James Neel, a medical geneticist who died in 2000. With the wounds of this conflict still fresh, many science-based anthropologists were dismayed to learn last month that the long-range plan of the association would no longer be to advance anthropology as a science but rather to focus on “public understanding.”
Until now, the association’s long-range plan was “to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects.” The executive board revised this last month to say, “The purposes of the association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.” This is followed by a list of anthropological subdisciplines that includes political research.
The word “science” has been excised from two other places in the revised statement.
The association’s president, Virginia Dominguez of the University of Illinois, said in an e-mail that the word had been dropped because the board sought to include anthropologists who do not locate their work within the sciences, as well as those who do. She said the new statement could be modified if the board received any good suggestions for doing so.
The new long-range plan differs from the association’s “statement of purpose,” which remains unchanged, Dr. Dominguez said. That statement still describes anthropology as a science.
Peter Peregrine, president of the Society for Anthropological Sciences, an affiliate of the American Anthropological Association, wrote in an e-mail to members that the proposed changes would undermine American anthropology, and he urged members to make their views known.
Dr. Peregrine, who is at Lawrence University in Wisconsin, said in an interview that the dropping of the references to science “just blows the top off” the tensions between the two factions. “Even if the board goes back to the old wording, the cat’s out of the bag and is running around clawing up the furniture,” he said.
He attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists, who see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the authority of science. “Much of this is like creationism in that it is based on the rejection of rational argument and thought,” he said.
Dr. Dominguez denied that critical anthropologists or postmodernist thinking had influenced the new statement. She said in an e-mail that she was aware that science-oriented anthropologists had from time to time expressed worry about and disapproval of their nonscientific colleagues. “Marginalization is never a welcome experience,” she said.

Yea, because one article written by some random douche bag at the NY Times totally debunks centuries of historical material EVIDENCE to the contrary. Right. :rolleyes:

Look, I can sit here and cherry pick a bunch of articles or books that support my side of the argument - but there is no need to do that when I simply have history on my side that demonstrably proves me correct.

The only reason people believe in human nature or that people are intrinsically good or evil is because it gets shoved down our throats so much. As Lenin once said, "A lie told long enough, becomes the truth"......you say only Ivory Tower socialists reject human nature, but I can just as easily say that only reactionaries and capitalists buy into that bullshit to use as justification for their economic and social positions. You might be able to fool most people with that nonsense, but you sure as hell don't have me fooled, or anyone with an ounce of the ability to think critically for that matter either. You can call Marxists delusional all you like, but we have history on our side. You, simply, do NOT. Nurture done won out against Nature long ago homie. /thread

[Positivist]

Problems with your arguments:
1. "Full socialism" has never been implemented anywhere. In the USSR and people's democracies compensation was still deeply stratified, money was still used, workers had little to no say in production, etc. These features cannot possibly exist within socialism because socialism is by its very definition a society free of those things. There was incentive to work in the previous attempts at socialism so the collapse of these societies does not prove, or even support your human nature argument.

2. As another poster mentioned, classless hunter-gatherer tribes haven constituted the most common form of social organization throughout human history. In these societies there was no incentive to perform labor other than to meet the needs of the community as a whole. This anthropological fact is itself enough to dispute your claim that such a society is impossible. How could it be impossible if it has existed?

3. Marx did not "support capitalism in a weird way" he supported that it advanced the means of production and opposed that it impoverished the masses and destroyed their communities. Support is not so simple a phenomenon that you either fully support something or not.

4. Communists do not promote a society where peoples only basic needs are met. Communists promote a society where conscientouss management of resources and automation of production allow people to pursue fulfilling activities and which can supply the necessary materials for every person to accomplish this.

5. Self-interest is not as simple as the blind pursuit of accumulating more and more wealth. Living for the accumulation of wealth (either to double your mutli-million dollar stock portfolio, or most commonly just to make a living) intereferes with the pursuit of fulfilling activities, with the establishment of meaningful relationships and community, and with preserving the very existence of our species.

6. Those who suffer under capitalism aren't just people who "cant trope with capitalism" because they are inferior to the gods of industry or somethign like that. The class relations between capitalists and wage-laborers were historically founded over 500 years ago as feudalism waned and at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The feudal lords and vassals who were losing property and declining in status forcibly evicted peasants from their land in order to rebuild themselves as the elite of society. The first example of this was the enclosure movement in England. After the sharp decline in population following the famines and plagues of the fourteenth century, feudal lords began to fight over the flailing base of serfs. In order to fund this they levied more harsh collections on their serfs, inspiring many of them to leave the lords they were previously attached to for lords who charged much less rent, or simply revolted. In time the majority of the population was made up of free peasants who produced enough to sustain their families. The lords, unhappy with living on declined or non-existent rent, they launched massive military campaigns aimed at driving peasants from their property and divorcing them from their means of subsistence. In order to survive the peasants had to seek out the repropertied ruling class, and sell their labour power (time and energy) for significantly less than it was worth. You see capitalism is just a restructuring of feudalism, just as feudalism is just a restructuring of slavery. All societies built upon the domination of a single class of owners over an immense majority is only possible through coercion. This feature is what unites all class society.

6. Ludwig Von Mises' "refutation" of socialism is very cute. Its based off of tremendous abstraction, and a limited mindset, and there are quite a few socialist refutations of his critique. Oh and by the way he didn't claim that money was impossible in a socialist society, he claimed that money is necessary for exchange (which is disproved by both early hunter gatherer societies and later barter communities) and that since socialism rejects money, it could never function. He didn't claim that "money couldn't work in socialism" as you have asserted. You either didn't read the piece or are too stupid to understand what he was saying.

[Positivist]

Biology doesn't have that much to do with psychology, or cognitive science, which are the sciences of behavior. Edward O Wilson was the father of modern sociobiology, and listed the static qualities of human nature. Richard Dawkins has written famously about how humans are innately selfish.

"We are born selfish" - Richard Dawkins

"We used to think that our fate was in our stars. Now we know, in large part, that our fate is in our genes." - James Watson

"The newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don't depend on information coming in from the senses." - Steven Pinker

By rejecting the role of biology in psychology and cognitive science you are denying your own argument. And so we can establish this right away, putting something in quotation marks does not make it true.

[sublime]

Yea, because one article written by some random douche bag at the NY Times totally debunks centuries of historical material EVIDENCE to the contrary. Right. :rolleyes:

You are going to have to do much better than this. Except even if you do, there are simply too many historical examples that contradict the notion that human nature and consciousness are mostly biological. The only reason people believe in human nature or that people are intrinsically good or evil is because it gets shoved down our throats so much. As Lenin once said, "A lie told long enough, becomes the truth"......you say only Ivory Tower socialists reject human nature, but I can just as easily say that only reactionaries and capitalists buy into that bullshit to use as justification for their economic and social positions. You might be able to fool most people with that nonsense, but you sure as hell don't have me fooled, or anyone with an ounce of the ability to think critically for that matter either. You can call Marxists delusional all you like, but we have history on our side. You, simply, do NOT. Nurture done won out against Nature long ago homie. /thread

My friend, it's not me that's trying to fool you. It's the consensus of all modern research that uses scientific methods to investigate the question (cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology etc). You are fooling yourself. The fact that you would rather trot out a stale old Lenin quote than something with some actual modern scientific vigor (such as something by Richard Lewontin ) says it all really: You are much more interested in ideology than fact.

[Positivist]

He wouldn't the first self-hating Jew to have been born.

This is an extremely idiotic post which has sadly revealed that debating with you will be no more fruitful than any of the other wannabe millionaires lurking the opposing ideologies section of this forum. That being said this post actuslly may have use in raising some important questions for you and your buddies. If Marx was hypothetically a self-hating Jew, then was he born this way? Did he come out of the womb despising his own existence due to its association with a complex culture which has developed over thousands of years? That sure is logical. Or maybe he had a tendency for self hatred and projected it unto a group which he identified with (despite the fact that his family converted for business purposes when Marx was very young, and Marx had rejected any tod already by his twenties.) Even if hypothetically such a tendency did exist, how did it develop? Was he born with it? Was it inevitable that he'd be a self hating anti-semite? By that logic sucicide cannot be prevented, and racism is justified. Though I guess this isn't news to you presuming that you really do believe these things.

[sublime]

By rejecting the role of biology in psychology and cognitive science you are denying your own argument. And so we can establish this right away, putting something in quotation marks does not make it true.

You missed my point. Biology is about the body. Cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are about the mind. Mind controls behavior.

Basically, those that call themselves "biologists" are not the best people to ask about human nature. Those that study the brain are.

Of course biologists are much better to ask than social scientists, who only research at the level of statistics.

[Marxaveli]

Sheesh, no wonder society is so ass backwards. Most of it lacks critical thinking and uses the same circular logic and fallacies as "sublime" does. Sad really, people like this make me question if Evolution is really true or not. Heh.

[Caj]

Richard Dawkins has written famously about how humans are innately selfish.

If you're going to be spouting a bunch of biological determinist pseudo-science, at least display a basic understanding of the works of those you are citing. Richard Dawkins argued that genes are "selfish" (in a metaphorical sense). Genetic "selfishness" is completely compatible with the existence of human cooperation, altruism, etc. as Dawkins has explicitly stated.

[Positivist]

Sheesh, no wonder society is so ass backwards. Most of it lacks critical thinking and uses the same circular logic and fallacies as "sublime" does. Sad really, people like this make me question if Evolution is really true or not. Heh.

Inb4 sublime pisses his pants over the evolution joke.

[sublime]

This is an extremely idiotic post which has sadly revealed that debating with you will be no more fruitful than any of the other wannabe millionaires lurking the opposing ideologies section of this forum. That being said this post actuslly may have use in raising some important questions for you and your buddies. If Marx was hypothetically a self-hating Jew, then was he born this way? Did he come out of the womb despising his own existence due to its association with a complex culture which has developed over thousands of years? That sure is logical. Or maybe he had a tendency for self hatred and projected it unto a group which he identified with (despite the fact that his family converted for business purposes when Marx was very young, and Marx had rejected any tod already by his twenties.) Even if hypothetically such a tendency did exist, how did it develop? Was he born with it? Was it inevitable that he'd be a self hating anti-semite? By that logic sucicide cannot be prevented, and racism is justified. Though I guess this isn't news to you presuming that you really do believe these things.

I have no-idea why Marx was a "self-hating Jew", or even if he was. I only noted that Jews have displayed ethnocentric attitudes to Jews before, denied their own ethnicity, collaborated with Nazi, and other such opportunistic and self-hating behavior. The point is that it happens, not just with Jews - there have been sad cases of self-hating blacks as well, where they got involved in medical adventures in lightening their skin. So saying "Marx was of Jewish decent .. " does not invalidate the ideal that Marx was racist against Jews.

As for the sources of Marx's racist attitudes, I'm not sure what they are? How would I know? I can't think of a reason why hating your own race would having any genetic basis. As far as I know, self-hate is symptomatic of depression and autophobia. These illnesses certainly do have a genetic component, but of course there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the two.

Your line of questioning leads me to believe that you might be confusing the idea of "genetic determinism" with the idea of "genes having a role in psychology"; The former is nonsense, the latter is a fact.

Genetics can never explain behavior on an individual level. It can explain it on a macro level though, which is much more important when talking about human behavior, history and sociology.

You are certainly right about quoting experts not being a logical disproof. However, those quotes all come from experts in their field. These are all titans in the fields of genetics and biology, so I see no reason why they should be overlooked. They are certainly a lot more credible than the views of 19th century utopians such as Marx and Engels, for example. However, if you would like to quote some of your own Marxist experts on evolutionary psychology (Like Richard Lewontin and Stephen J Gould ), I would be happy to dissect and ridicule them also.

[sublime]

If you're going to be spouting a bunch of biological determinist pseudo-science, at least display a basic understanding of the works of those you are citing. Richard Dawkins argued that genes are "selfish" (in a metaphorical sense). Genetic "selfishness" is completely compatible with the existence of human cooperation, altruism, etc. as Dawkins has explicitly stated.

Yes he does, but gene selfishness manifests as organism selfishness, as he says also. Do you want to debate that Dawkins believes that organisms are fundamentally selfish? Begin quoting, I'm happy to start this debate anywhere.

Before we get too far into it, let me state that I realise that a gene centered view of evolution doesn't mean we are robots who are genetically determined. Both Dawkins and I and every other sentient individual acknowledge that free will has the power to trump biology (as when you masturbate ). This doesn't change the fact that all out instincts are selfish, racist, aggressive and nepotistic, and are responsible for much of the worlds misery.

So yeah, now that we've got our terms defined, lets get into an analysis of how Dawkins' proofs are compatible with socialism. You can start.

[sublime]

Either you are being intellectually dishonest, or you are just flat out wrong. People DO start off as blank slates, and demonstrably so. They are a product of their environment and social material conditions in which they exist. This isn't even really up for debate - history has proven us right, and even John Locke knew this well before Marx came along



OK, are you serious? The doctrine of tabula rasa is one of the most nonsensical and embarrassing in history. Don't get me wrong, John Lock was a great philosopher, but he was wrong about tabula rase, and so was David Hume and the British empiricists. Quoting sources from the 17th century is just a bad idea to start with, but if you want to have a philosophical debate about it .. dear lord .. Kant is certainly not my favorite philosopher but he proved that the mind is hard -wired with certain necessary conditions. In a more modern sense, Chomsky and Steven Pinker have proved that the human mind has an innate algorithm for learning language. Steven Pinker has even written a book about it called "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" (he is a colleague of Chomsky, and a Chomskian before you go writing him off as a bourgeois apologist ).

Lol, dd you even read through the very article you posted, on tabula rasa?

To quote:


As in Philosophy, there has been an enduring claim by a minority in the fields of psychology and neurobiology that the brain is tabula rasa, at least with respect to its behavioural repertoire. Thus several psychologists such as Howe have argued against the existence of innate talent,[2] while in neuroscience there have been debates that the brain functions with Mass action, rather than by a series of interacting mechanisms – for instance by Karl Lashley and others.
Other psychologists and neurobiologists recognize that the entire cerebral cortex is indeed preprogrammed and organized in order to process sensory input, motor control, emotions, and natural responses.[3] These programmed mechanisms in the brain then act to learn and refine the ability of the organism.[4][5] For example, psychologist Steven Pinker argues that while the brain is "programmed" to pick up spoken language easily, it is not programmed to learn to read and write, and a human generally will not spontaneously learn to do so.[6]
Bold added for emphasis ..

[sublime]

Watch me quote some scientists that agree with me and ignore the ones who don't!



Who are the ones who don't? I am quite happy to consider their views. I like to have a firm logical foundation for my opinions, and avoid ideology altogether, so I will be happy consider any arguments to my opinions.

[Le Socialiste]

I suppose there is nothing wrong with gene tampering in itself, other than you all have such a bitter defeated attitude towards all forms of "fascism". We could engineer a future human race that would have the instincts that Marx built his theory of human nature on, but I'm not sure if engineering a race of people that only care about food, shelter and clothing is a good idea. Don't rule out the idea, though, as communists have been in bed with all the worst aspects of fascism since Marx and his racism towards Jews and Slavs and Mexicans.

Fascism arises as the desperate expression of an embattled ruling-class, who are too willing to drop any pretenses of “democracy” when it suits them. Classic examples may be found in the historical origins, rise, and ascension to power by these elements in Italy and Germany, aided in part by the backing and patronage of predominantly ruling-class interests. One may point to any number of instances in history that properly align themselves with these examples, from Franco’s Spain to Pinochet’s Chile. But these have less to do with any predetermined, moral or genetic failings; rather, they are culminations inherent in capital’s methods of production, which in turn influences all ranges of political and social life. This applies to any and all past and prior economic systems which, when reduced to their respective historical methods of production and distribution, can outline how they shaped and continue to shape familial, social, and governmental bodies. You hide behind Darwin without even a modest understanding of the man’s work, substituting your own misguided, ahistorical assertions (which border on social darwinism) in their place, mistakenly ascribing to Darwin what he himself - in all likelihood, given what I’ve read of him - wrote. Your understanding of the history of human behavior and social forms of organization are pitifully lacking in evidence, when all legitimate factors point in the opposite direction. But let’s look a little closer at what you’ve said here.

It’s true that people have other interests beyond those of “food, shelter, and clothing.” But you fail to realize (or perhaps neglect to point out) that these things are vitally necessary to our wellbeing and general livelihoods. If you should eke out a “living” (I laugh to call it that) on less than $2 a day - something half the world population (roughly 3 billion people) does - your primary concerns will surround the necessities of living. This includes food, shelter, and clothing, which we - by which I mean the world - produces an abundance of each year. We produce and harvest enough food to feed the earth’s population several times over, possess the means of ensuring that each person has clothes on their backs, and enjoy enough shelter to house the vast majority of society - if not all of it. Yet food shortages are common occurrences, people die from lack of protective clothing against the elements, and entire neighborhoods, apartment buildings, and city blocks sit empty and unused while people live in want of shelter. These are key essentials, without which people cannot enjoy life in recreation or indulge in their own creative impulses.

One of the great paradoxical antagonisms of capitalism is its ability to produce these abundances while simultaneously creating a continual state of scarcity that is driven by profit over human need. Before you dive into the “innate selfishness of human society”, it might help to know that, contrary to your beliefs, people have existed along egalitarian lines for the bulk of their existence, divvying up work and distributing the results according to need as opposed to what might turn the greatest profit. Social relationships haven’t existed in a state of stasis all these years; in many Native American cultures the lines distinguishing men and women were often blurred when women were permitted to dress as men if they wished to “marry” other women (and vice versa), while it wasn’t uncommon for a Greek man to take a male lover or carry on a relationship with one in ancient Greece (the latter is pretty common knowledge). In Western Europe emotional and sexual relationships between men and women were strictly monogamous (or were presented as such) and greatly influenced by the roles and positions of male patriarchy and the Church, where male circumcision was thought to curb “excess” sexual urges, and a woman’s passive, submissive “nature” was considered a result of her sexual and reproductive organization (something which is still held today, unfortunately). Contrast this to how most Native American societies viewed sex, sexuality, and gender:

“On the whole, American Indian societies were more permissive than any of the European Christian nations that began the conquest of Native America in the late 15th century. Among Indians, virginity was not necessarily prized in either sex. Sexual experimentation was regarded as ordinary adolescent behavior, and many tribes permitted—indeed expected— young people to gain sexual experience before marriage. […] As in other cultures, Native American sexual life and identity developed during childhood. The process varied from tribe to tribe in native North America, but most children learned about sexuality from adult behavior and talk. In the Qipi Eskimo society of the eastern Arctic, for example, parents taught about sex through play and example. Mothers and fathers openly touched, kissed, and admired their babies' genitals during infancy. Sexual play among Eskimo children continued well into adolescence. Children talked openly about sexual experiences, and parents took these discussions as a sign of normal child development” (Bales, Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia).

If we’re to assume “human nature” to be a constant, driving factor determining our moral and social compasses and modes of organization, then how does one explain such wide developmental disparities in human sex and sexuality? How does one argue that humanity is naturally selfish when such traits were widely condemned and marginalized in early communal societies, where concepts of domination weren’t the predominate philosophy of the day until the emergence of class societies thousands of years later? What about war, or violence in general? As Engels noted, early human societies knew no “soldiers, no gendarmes or police, no nobles [or] kings, no prisons," and in Native American societies (like the Iroquois) "[A]ll quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole of the community affected ... There cannot be any poor or needy - the communal household and the gens know their responsibility toward the old, the sick, and those disabled in war. There is no place yet for slaves, nor, as a rule, for the subjugation of other tribes." Human nature determines very little regarding social behavior; instead, we are greatly influenced by existing and developing conditions attributed wholly to the material. It does not pull our strings per se, rather we tend to draw our ideas and perceptions of life and society from a wide array of factors made available, in part, by the historical and material development of our surroundings - and by extension the world.


The problem with straight socialism is that there is no evidence it works. It's purely hypothetical. It depends on a bunch of philosophical assertions about human nature and "dialectics", that have no empirical weight behind them. So you guys are stuck in some theoretical fantasy land waiting for reality to catch up to your theories.

That’s funny, considering Marx devoted his life to the study of economics and their impact on social relationships, including modes of political organization, assessing its effects from a strictly scientific viewpoint in accordance with its methods of analysis and the testing thereof. Marx developed his theories through practical application and by taking note of a range of historical precedences. He harshly criticized his “utopian” contemporaries for their idealism, as they completely based their assertions on some vague harmonious interchange between societies with little to no grounding in reality. Marx and Engels, along with those who continued and expanded on their tradition, recognized that a correct analysis grounds itself in previous and existing conditions, and is proven through application. Capitalism is ridden with class antagonisms and contradictions, it undergoes a cyclical series of booms and busts, profit supersedes need to the disadvantage of the environment, society, and general wellbeing, and produces the mass means necessary for the next eventual stage of development. The rise of the “liberal” bourgeoisie of the late-eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries marked feudalism’s death knells; so too, logically, must the conditions created and sustained herein develop to a point of non-sustainability, necessitating its overthrow and dismantlement for the next historical epoch of human development.

We may draw inspiration from the triumphs, defeats, and setbacks of the working-class in past struggles, from the Russian soviet to the Iranian shora. We can determine what works and what doesn’t in accordance with the flexibility of theory, its application, and given conditions. We will learn from the pitfalls of reformism and appeasement, correctly identifying which tactics are appropriate depending on the occasion. We have history to guide the way forward, all manners of instances and examples to learn from, and how these succeeded or fell short. We have a wealth of information and evidence that legitimates what began with Marx and was continued after his death by others. That we live in a “theoretical fantasy land” is laughable. Try harder.


Don't get me wrong, I support communism in spirit as well. It sounds wonderful to me. I rate it right up there with the tooth fairy and Santa clause. I will support all of them gleefully when there is evidence demonstrating that they work.

Tooth comes out, you put it under a pillow. Go to sleep, wake up the next morning to money. How does that not work? Seems like evidence to me. :closedeyes:


Yes, I know I know, capitalism "doesn't work" either; After all, there are is still misery in the world, there are still inequalities, class divisions, racism, selfishness, deviations from perfection, and other such atrocities. Capitalism is very, very flawed. The issue you guys have failed to deal with is that Capitalism has produced all the wealth that humans have heretofore enjoyed.

Because it’s Capitalism that produces commodities, builds cities and infrastructure, sows, cultivates, and harvests agricultural products, and provides multiple services - not the workers putting in the labor, time, and manpower. :rolleyes:

Capitalism lays the groundwork for this development, it creates the conditions for the kind of mass labor power necessary to meet and fulfill certain tasks; but it is, first and foremost, a material development enabling this advancement, not what you (and others) have made it out to be. Plus, all that wealth? Very little of it enjoyed by the actual producers and laborers of society - the working-class.


This forum is a testament to capitalism. Marx was well aware of this, which is why he gave a weird approval of capitalism, as the most productive system so far. But his crystal-balling about the next phase didn't work out as he prophesied, because he did not understand Freud and Darwin.

I’m fairly certain you don’t understand Freud or Darwin, much less Marx.


Marx didn't realize that humans don't merely want "food, shelter, and clothing", because he is an irrational animal that wants to acquire goods and dominate his fellow man in the midst of any security and comfort. This is the consensus of all modern, non-idealist biology and evolutionary psychology.

I’ve already covered much of this, so I needn’t expand on how you’ve been proven wrong here. It’s cute that you thought to take the time and troll us with an argument heard hundreds of times before, though. It’s flattering. Now fuck off.

[Marxaveli]

Awesome post there, comrade. You explained it much more eloquently and decisively than I did. Be as it may, reactionaries like baseball and sublime will most likely keep spreading the gospel that Capitalism is the be-all/end-all system, and that it is a natural occurrence as a result of "human nature", although history, as I and many in this thread have explained, has shown otherwise.

[Marxaveli]

My friend, it's not me that's trying to fool you. It's the consensus of all modern research that uses scientific methods to investigate the question (cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology etc). You are fooling yourself. The fact that you would rather trot out a stale old Lenin quote than something with some actual modern scientific vigor (such as something by Richard Lewontin ) says it all really: You are much more interested in ideology than fact.

ROFL. Dream on boy, dream on.

It is YOU that is more interested in ideology - which you try to hide with your pseudo-intellectualism and misconstruing science to cover it up. All the while not knowing your history (or denying it). And as others have pointed out, you don't even have the slightest understanding of the people you quote anyways, nor do you have any understanding of Marx or Communism in general. History has already demonstrably proven you wrong countless times, yet you continue to deny it or dodge it. If you really don't think environment and social conditions are the primary factory in determining human behavior, consciousness, and actions - despite them demonstrably being so throughout history - then you are in denial. Read that word carefully: D-E-N-I-A-L. And even the small role that genetics and biology do have, it really doesn't mean shit, since those things themselves can be affected by environment also. The only things I will merit "human nature" are our will to survive and procreate, and even those can still be changed by environment. This all boils down to the Nurture vs. Nature argument, and history clearly shows that Nurture wins out. By a landslide.

Your eugenics philosophy/Social Darwinisim is as dead and discredited as Hitler himself. You have been destroyed countless times in this thread, so I'm done with you. HF.

[Ocean Seal]

Hi there, love social justice, but am bemused by a theory that claims a teleology towards a classless, stateless society is scientific? That's a laugh, the notion that a classless & stateless society can ever exist without genetic engineering is itself an embarrassing ignorance of Darwin.
You can laugh at Marx, but it is quite clear from this paragraph that you have never read either or them. Scientific socialism puts forth a theory that a class stateless society will emerge from class struggle, however, it's inclination is to answer the question of class society, and is therefore based on observation and reasoning. The second bolded part is a horrible perversion of Darwin which he himself fought against.

[Manic Impressive]

Hi sublime, what is it that makes you think that the emancipation of the vast majority of humanity from the bonds of wage slavery is altruistic? If you ask me willingly producing wealth for only a tiny percentage of the value of your labour is altruism. Fighting for or supporting a state because you happened to be born within it's boundaries is altruism.

In class society those who produce wealth give without receiving, how is this explained other than altruism?

[Kenco Smooth]

Yes he does, but gene selfishness manifests as organism selfishness, as he says also. Do you want to debate that Dawkins believes that organisms are fundamentally selfish? Begin quoting, I'm happy to start this debate anywhere.

Before we get too far into it, let me state that I realise that a gene centered view of evolution doesn't mean we are robots who are genetically determined. Both Dawkins and I and every other sentient individual acknowledge that free will has the power to trump biology (as when you masturbate ). This doesn't change the fact that all out instincts are selfish, racist, aggressive and nepotistic, and are responsible for much of the worlds misery.

...Are you really that dense? Like, really, that stupid?

Dawkins in 'the selfish gene' covers the work and theories of Robert Trivers in depth which explains how gene centric evolution can and often does result in individually altruistic behaviour. Dawkins goes to great lengths to express throughout his work that he does not argue that people are essentially selfish. Seriously Ive read some dumb readings of Dawkins but this is something else entirely. One of the main aims of Dawkins work is to explain to a popular audience how 'selfish genes' can produce altruistic organisms. How you got it so ass backwards is beyond me.


You missed my point. Biology is about the body. Cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are about the mind. Mind controls behavior.

Basically, those that call themselves "biologists" are not the best people to ask about human nature. Those that study the brain are.

Of course biologists are much better to ask than social scientists, who only research at the level of statistics.

Seriously just stop. In the same post you say we should consult psychologists and then slag research using statistics. Have you ever read a single psychological paper? Near enough everything in the entirety of the research literature produced since 1900 is statistical. Null hypothesis significance testing is the single most ubiquitous thing in psychology. Hell for all intents and purposes Psychology is statistical. So make up your mind here and, you know, actually try and understand what you're talking about.

Also neither cognitive or evolutionary psychology concerns the brain explicitly. That'd be neuro-psychology.


Nurture done won out against Nature long ago homie. /thread

This dichotomy really needs to stop being trotted out. Also this is just a wrong as sublime's nonense.

[Marxaveli]

This dichotomy really needs to stop being trotted out. Also this is just a wrong as sublime's nonense.

Explain please. Because in a philosophical context, that is what this whole argument is essentially based on, unless I'm missing something.

[Positivist]

Sublime, marxists do not deny that genes play a role in determining conscioussness, to suggest anything other than this would be absurd. Though it would be equally absurd to suggest that genes are the sole determinant of conscioussness. If this was the case then there wouldn't be significant discrepancies in taste, values, interests and ideas amongst people from different material environments. Do you deny that these discrepancies exist? They are easilydemonstrated by differences in consumer and electoral trends, not to mention by spending a day with people from either of these social groups. How do you account for these differences? The people of these groups are hardly genetically dissimiliar as 99.8% of genetic material is identical in all humans, yet you suggest that within the 0.02% of maximal genetic diversity all of the differeneces between these and various other groups is explained.

P.S. you have conveniently chosen not to respond my other reply in case you've forgot.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Biology is about the body. Cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are about the mind. pfffffffffffffhahahahahahaha
Yo you don't need me to tell you what's wrong with this.

[#FF0000]

haha oh wow i was right he literally hasn't read the stuff he name drops

[sublime]

ROFL. Dream on boy, dream on.

It is YOU that is more interested in ideology - which you try to hide with your pseudo-intellectualism and misconstruing science to cover it up. All the while not knowing your history (or denying it). And as others have pointed out, you don't even have the slightest understanding of the people you quote anyways, nor do you have any understanding of Marx or Communism in general. History has already demonstrably proven you wrong countless times, yet you continue to deny it or dodge it. If you really don't think environment and social conditions are the primary factory in determining human behavior, consciousness, and actions - despite them demonstrably being so throughout history - then you are in denial. Read that word carefully: D-E-N-I-A-L. And even the small role that genetics and biology do have, it really doesn't mean shit, since those things themselves can be affected by environment also. The only things I will merit "human nature" are our will to survive and procreate, and even those can still be changed by environment. This all boils down to the Nurture vs. Nature argument, and history clearly shows that Nurture wins out. By a landslide.

Your eugenics philosophy/Social Darwinisim is as dead and discredited as Hitler himself. You have been destroyed countless times in this thread, so I'm done with you. HF.


You keep appealing to "history", but I'm not specifically sure what history? History is a very broad noun, it deserves some kind of definition. It is Marx's prophecy of history that has proven false, as you all seem to admit, so I am not sure what it is that you are getting at. The living standards of the workers under capitalism have risen to the highest levels in the history of the world: the exact opposite of what Marx claimed. Marx was a false prophet of history. The very fact that classical Marxism has been revised so thoroughly by other socialists is itself evidence that he didn't quite get things right. Please define what "history" (i.e empirical evidence ) vindicates you continued faith in socialism.

[sublime]

You can laugh at Marx, but it is quite clear from this paragraph that you have never read either or them. Scientific socialism puts forth a theory that a class stateless society will emerge from class struggle, however, it's inclination is to answer the question of class society, and is therefore based on observation and reasoning. The second bolded part is a horrible perversion of Darwin which he himself fought against.

Darwin VERY MUCH had to fight against radicalization of his theories. He was defensive for the most part because he was being attacked by theists on all sides, and was nervous. As I said before, Darwin writes of the need for an evolution psychology in The Decent of Man, his most mature work. And "scientific socialism", or any kind of teleology, is garbage.

[sublime]

Hi sublime, what is it that makes you think that the emancipation of the vast majority of humanity from the bonds of wage slavery is altruistic? If you ask me willingly producing wealth for only a tiny percentage of the value of your labour is altruism. Fighting for or supporting a state because you happened to be born within it's boundaries is altruism.

In class society those who produce wealth give without receiving, how is this explained other than altruism?

Even altruism is selfish. Genetically, there is no such thing as selflessness. For economics the agenda is routing selfishness towards some utilitarian ends. Thus, no, selling your labor at a fraction of you work is NOT altruism. It's simple game theory - an individual maximizes his opportunities.

[Positivist]

Darwin VERY MUCH had to fight against radicalization of his theories. He was defensive for the most part because he was being attacked by theists on all sides, and was nervous. As I said before, Darwin writes of the need for an evolution psychology in The Decent of Man, his most mature work. And "scientific socialism", or any kind of teleology, is garbage.

I think there is a problem with the concept of an evolutionary psychology as it is represented through the emerging academic discipline bearing its name today. Evolutionary psychology addresses the organismic evolution of the conscioussness of human animals, but neglects the sociality of the human species. I as many of my comrades do, accept the need for an evolutionary psychology which tracks the development of certain neurological changes and the corresponding drives and passions born out of them which have occurred throughout human history. We further recognize that it is necessary to examine the material circumstances in which these changes occur. Yet where we differ from you is that we do not isolate our study to how certain drives and trends develop within the species as a whole, but also in different classes of the species as divided by their relationship to the process of production. The modes of production in which these evolutionary changes are actually observed are too often ignored at the expense of fundamental misunderstandings of human conscioussness developing.

[Positivist]

Darwin VERY MUCH had to fight against radicalization of his theories. He was defensive for the most part because he was being attacked by theists on all sides, and was nervous. As I said before, Darwin writes of the need for an evolution psychology in The Decent of Man, his most mature work. And "scientific socialism", or any kind of teleology, is garbage.

I think there is a problem with the concept of an evolutionary psychology as it is represented through the emerging academic discipline bearing its name today. Evolutionary psychology addresses the organismic evolution of the conscioussness of human animals, but neglects the sociality of the human species. I as many of my comrades do, accept the need for an evolutionary psychology which tracks the development of certain neurological changes and the corresponding drives and passions born out of them which have occurred throughout human history. We further recognize that it is necessary to examine the material circumstances in which these changes occur. Yet where we differ from you is that we do not isolate our study to how certain drives and trends develop within the species as a whole, but also in different classes of the species as divided by their relationship to the process of production. The modes of production in which these evolutionary changes are actually observed are too often ignored at the expense of fundamental misunderstandings of human conscioussness developing.

[Kenco Smooth]

Even altruism is selfish. Genetically, there is no such thing as selflessness. For economics the agenda is routing selfishness towards some utilitarian ends. Thus, no, selling your labor at a fraction of you work is NOT altruism. It's simple game theory - an individual maximizes his opportunities.

No, no, no. READ A BOOK.

Again Dawkins and Pinker make clear in their works the distinction which is needed to make sense of the question of altruism. That is between ultimate and proximal/imediate causes. The ultimate cause of an altruistic act if we follow the chain of causality back far enough is the 'selfish' propogation of genes throughout the gene pool. But the immediate cause of an altruistic act isn't an individual's drive to propagate their genetic code but is often the result of group living over evolutionary time which has made adaptations such as the social emotions useful. The immediate cause of an altruistic act can thus be understood to be driven by love, solidarity and feelings of kinship to other animals whilst the ultimate cause of such emotions in the abstract is evolutionary adaptation.

[Positivist]

Even altruism is selfish. Genetically, there is no such thing as selflessness. For economics the agenda is routing selfishness towards some utilitarian ends. Thus, no, selling your labor at a fraction of you work is NOT altruism. It's simple game theory - an individual maximizes his opportunities.

Altruism is selfish which is exactly what Manic is saying. As I stated in my first post self-interest is not as simple as individual puruist of material accumulation. Seeking to abolish the current system in order to create a new one where we are able to live free of unnecessary labor, the threat or presence of domination, non-community between one another, pollution, etc. is very much selfish and I support it because I'm selfish.

And what the hell do you mean "selling your labor at a fraction of your work is NOT altruism." Yea your right it isn't, its explotiation. We're not saying that us workers are altrusitic so you shoudl give us free healthcare, we're saying that wage-labor sucks and its a shit way to spend the only 60-70 years you get so we advocate a system free of it or any oppression in any form, and we recognize the valuability of cooperating in order to achieve this.

[Kenco Smooth]

Explain please. Because in a philosophical context, that is what this whole argument is essentially based on, unless I'm missing something.

Not got enough time for a proper response.

Basically the whole nature/nurture dichotomy is senseless. Both genetic and non-genetic influences are essential in the development and form of an organism and ignoring one as though it were simply a variable to be controlled for causes you to miss the entire picture.

Even if the enterprise wasn't a doomed one it still wouldn't make sense to say nurture has won. Just off the top of my head psychometric g, general intelligence, is one of the most successful predictors of success across a broad range of endeavors, many being social. g also has a healthily sized genetic contribution estimated at explaining 40-50% of the variance of intelligence throughout the population. Just one example of genetic importance, there are thousands of others.

[Marxaveli]

You keep appealing to "history", but I'm not specifically sure what history? History is a very broad noun, it deserves some kind of definition. It is Marx's prophecy of history that has proven false, as you all seem to admit, so I am not sure what it is that you are getting at. The living standards of the workers under capitalism have risen to the highest levels in the history of the world: the exact opposite of what Marx claimed. Marx was a false prophet of history. The very fact that classical Marxism has been revised so thoroughly by other socialists is itself evidence that he didn't quite get things right. Please define what "history" (i.e empirical evidence ) vindicates you continued faith in socialism.

Oh lets see. We can start with the Scientific Revolution and Newtonian physics, which essentially disproved Geocentric Theory, and people started becoming atheists in droves when it was shown that the Catholic church was full of BS. Before then, it was pretty much unthinkable to be an atheist, and if you were even suspected of being so, you can and usually were executed. Of course, those days are long gone, and atheism has been on the rise ever since, and it still is.

Just 170 years ago, slavery was an accepted practice in this country, until after the Civil War. Now, we (or most of us at least) couldn't ever imagine it returning again.

The Industrial Revolution and French Revolutions marked the triumph of Capitalism over Feudalism, as the new economic mode of production. Not to mention the recent dot com revolution, which has changed social networking and the way we communicate forever.

In all these events, and a billion and one others, changed people's outlook on the world, their behavior, and the way they organized in society. FACT: as the material conditions of society change, so do people. Because people are a product of their environment and the social circumstances in which they live. History is proof of this. I'm really not going to debate this with you anymore, because it is pointless to do so. You have to be one dense person to not see that the material conditions of society are what shape human interaction, thought, and behavior.

As for the working class's living standard being raised under Capitalism, that has everything to do with social movements, Labor Unions, the development of the welfare state (though this was to pacify the proletarian so as to discourage revolution) and progressive policies, and absolutely NOTHING to do with Capitalism as an economic system. It is just as exploitative and contradictory today, as it was in the 19th century. Without these things, the Proletarian would still be working 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, child labor, etc as was the case in Marx's day. Which it should also be noted that Marx didn't really argue that the living standard of the workers declined under Capitalism, but rather that it was just a new form of exploitation of man by man, albeit less volatile than previous modes of production were, but volatile nonetheless.

Where do you get the idea that Socialists have admitted it has failed? Think you are imagining things again. Marx is hardly a false prophet of history - in fact, his writings are more relevant than ever now that Capitalism is in a global crisis. So long as the Capitalist mode of production exists, Marxism WILL remain relevant. And where have the essential and fundamental elements of Marxism been revised? Marxism isn't a material condition, it is a scientific methodology used to critique and analyze material conditions in a given society.

It is the Capitalists that are false prophets - which is why they have to use lies, propaganda, deceit, historical revisionism, and state force/coercion to prop it up, cause without these things, it will not last. Like the feudalists before the French Revolution, they are overly deterministic in thinking the "status quo" marks the end of history.

[Positivist]

You keep appealing to "history", but I'm not specifically sure what history? History is a very broad noun, it deserves some kind of definition. It is Marx's prophecy of history that has proven false, as you all seem to admit, so I am not sure what it is that you are getting at. The living standards of the workers under capitalism have risen to the highest levels in the history of the world: the exact opposite of what Marx claimed. Marx was a false prophet of history. The very fact that classical Marxism has been revised so thoroughly by other socialists is itself evidence that he didn't quite get things right. Please define what "history" (i.e empirical evidence ) vindicates you continued faith in socialism.

The living standards have risen to the highest levels in world history? You go tell that to the workers of the developing world ( which includes the overwhelming majority of the world.) Furthermore the way you measure the quality of life is simplistic. You only consider the amount of goods and services which an individual can consume and ignore the conditions involoved in producing them.

[Marxaveli]

The living standards have risen to the highest levels in world history? You go tell that to the workers of the developing world ( which includes the overwhelming majority of the world.) Furthermore the way you measure the quality of life is simplistic. You only consider the amount of goods and services which an individual can consume and ignore the conditions involoved in producing them.

He looks at wealth in terms of how the average person does (how much money they have in the bank, if they own a house and a car or not, and their yearly salary), and not in the fundamental aspect that Marxism views wealth: who controls the means to production. Which of course, is a all too common error that most capitalist apologists make.

[l'Enfermé]

the living standards of the workers under capitalism have risen to the highest levels in the history of the world: the exact opposite of what Marx claimed.
The working-class, the proletariat, has never existed before capitalism, what are you talking about?

It looks like you base all of your opinions on small excerpts from wikipedia article written by some random people. Why don't we ever get any clever anti-socialists to talk to! Only trolls and idiots...:(

[o well this is ok I guess]

The working-class, the proletariat, has never existed before capitalism, what are you talking about?

Perhaps "the workers" did not exist, but I'm pretty sure day labourers have existed for a pretty long time.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Rosa's~Dream;2497944]Oh lets see. We can start with the Scientific Revolution and Newtonian physics, which essentially disproved Geocentric Theory, and people started becoming atheists in droves when it was shown that the Catholic church was full of BS. Before then, it was pretty much unthinkable to be an atheist, and if you were even suspected of being so, you can and usually were executed. Of course, those days are long gone, and atheism has been on the rise ever since, and it still is.

Just 170 years ago, slavery was an accepted practice in this country, until after the Civil War. Now, we (or most of us at least) couldn't ever imagine it returning again.

The Industrial Revolution and French Revolutions marked the triumph of Capitalism over Feudalism, as the new economic mode of production. Not to mention the recent dot com revolution, which has changed social networking and the way we communicate forever.

In all these events, and a billion and one others, changed people's outlook on the world, their behavior, and the way they organized in society. FACT: as the material conditions of society change, so do people. Because people are a product of their environment and the social circumstances in which they live. History is proof of this. I'm really not going to debate this with you anymore, because it is pointless to do so. You have to be one dense person to not see that the material conditions of society are what shape human interaction, thought, and behavior.

And the new folks laid out arguments not just in crticism of the established orders, but in justification as to why their proposals are/were better. You socialists simply do the former and say there is no need to do the latter. But there is no "historical" basis for such self-limitation.


As for the working class's living standard being raised under Capitalism, that has everything to do with social movements, Labor Unions, the development of the welfare state (though this was to pacify the proletarian so as to discourage revolution) and progressive policies, and absolutely NOTHING to do with Capitalism as an economic system.

Historically, Karl Marx would disagree.

[Positivist]

[QUOTE]

And the new folks laid out arguments not just in crticism of the established orders, but in justification as to why their proposals are/were better. You socialists simply do the former and say there is no need to do the latter. But there is no "historical" basis for such self-limitation.



Historically, Karl Marx would disagree.

How come all of you reactionaries only reply to the posts that you can? There have literally been three pages of posts since your last post, and you have only responded to one. Too afraid to take on the others?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2498883]

How come all of you reactionaries only reply to the posts that you can? There have literally been three pages of posts since your last post, and you have only responded to one. Too afraid to take on the others?

Because the socialists have to be able to prove a socialist system can function. They have to be able to argue how it works.
Oherwise, those three other pages are refuted.

[Positivist]

[QUOTE=Positivist;2498894]

Because the socialists have to be able to prove a socialist system can function. They have to be able to argue how it works.
Oherwise, those three other pages are refuted.

First of all, this discussion was not about the functioning of socialism, it is about historical materialism. Second of all, while Marx didn't go in depth into how socialism would work, many subsequent marxists have. Check out the users ckaihatsu and Paul cockshott, they both dedicate a lot of time to explaining how a socialist system would function.

Also what do you mean by "work"? What does it mean to "work"? I'm assuming you mean that it means to efficiently achieve something. You say capitalism works. So what you are really saying is "capitalism efficiently achieves." Capitalism efficiently achieves what? The word "works" is meaningless unless you specify what it works at doing. Capitalism efficiently achieves the domination of a minority over the immense majority.

[sublime]

Problems with your arguments:
1. "Full socialism" has never been implemented anywhere. In the USSR and people's democracies compensation was still deeply stratified, money was still used, workers had little to no say in production, etc. These features cannot possibly exist within socialism because socialism is by its very definition a society free of those things. There was incentive to work in the previous attempts at socialism so the collapse of these societies does not prove, or even support your human nature argument.

I know full socialism has never existed, at least not in the way socialists desire. There are socialist units all over the place - a family is a good example of socialism. Most organizations (whether biological or political or social ) are combinations of collective input and top-down decision making.

A purely collective organization is very unlikely to have any jeopardy at all, which is why it has never been achieved, and why I said that socialists are hoping for reality to catch up to their theories. Did I say "full socialism" has existed? Did I give you the impression that I thought it had? If that's the case I firmly apologize.


2. As another poster mentioned, classless hunter-gatherer tribes haven constituted the most common form of social organization throughout human history. In these societies there was no incentive to perform labor other than to meet the needs of the community as a whole. This anthropological fact is itself enough to dispute your claim that such a society is impossible. How could it be impossible if it has existed?Classlessness is not possible. I didn't exist anywhere, at any time. Primitive societies don't divide themselves along class lines like people in more advanced economies do, but they have their own internal hierarchies, they are mammals bound to Darwinian urges.

This "classless society" myth has been imposed on primitive tribes by cultural anthropologists, who don't even have a language to communicate with them, out of wishful thinking. If you would like to give me some examples of supposed "classless" tribes, historical or present, I will be happy to show you how things are not so simple.


3. Marx did not "support capitalism in a weird way" he supported that it advanced the means of production and opposed that it impoverished the masses and destroyed their communities. Support is not so simple a phenomenon that you either fully support something or not.Marx supported it because it was the best system so far. And this is still true.


4. Communists do not promote a society where peoples only basic needs are met. Communists promote a society where conscientouss management of resources and automation of production allow people to pursue fulfilling activities and which can supply the necessary materials for every person to accomplish this.I know.


5. Self-interest is not as simple as the blind pursuit of accumulating more and more wealth. Living for the accumulation of wealth (either to double your mutli-million dollar stock portfolio, or most commonly just to make a living) intereferes with the pursuit of fulfilling activities, with the establishment of meaningful relationships and community, and with preserving the very existence of our species.It's about "conspitious consumption", which even socialists have supported. Homo-sapian males have an innate desire to distinguish themselves from their social rivals (all other males ). This is how we impress females. this is why acquisitiveness and pugnaciousness cannot be engineered out of the human condition via political engineering. All basic evolutionary psychology.


6. Those who suffer under capitalism aren't just people who "cant trope with capitalism" because they are inferior to the gods of industry or somethign like that. The class relations between capitalists and wage-laborers were historically founded over 500 years ago as feudalism waned and at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The feudal lords and vassals who were losing property and declining in status forcibly evicted peasants from their land in order to rebuild themselves as the elite of society. The first example of this was the enclosure movement in England. After the sharp decline in population following the famines and plagues of the fourteenth century, feudal lords began to fight over the flailing base of serfs. In order to fund this they levied more harsh collections on their serfs, inspiring many of them to leave the lords they were previously attached to for lords who charged much less rent, or simply revolted. In time the majority of the population was made up of free peasants who produced enough to sustain their families. The lords, unhappy with living on declined or non-existent rent, they launched massive military campaigns aimed at driving peasants from their property and divorcing them from their means of subsistence. In order to survive the peasants had to seek out the repropertied ruling class, and sell their labour power (time and energy) for significantly less than it was worth. You see capitalism is just a restructuring of feudalism, just as feudalism is just a restructuring of slavery. All societies built upon the domination of a single class of owners over an immense majority is only possible through coercion. This feature is what unites all class society.You seem to be arguing against social darwinism. I don't subscribe to a theory of social Darwinism as an explanation of existing inequalities. Did I give you the impression that I did? Darwin didn't proscribe to "social darwinis" either, and I don't think many people do. It's a particulary American abuse of evolutionary psychology, that has about the same purchase as an explanation of existing inequality as a Marxist interpretation - it's a big simplification. All species subject to natural selections will divide into hierarchy because "birds of a feather flock together", but many other factors are involved.


6. Ludwig Von Mises' "refutation" of socialism is very cute. Its based off of tremendous abstraction, and a limited mindset, and there are quite a few socialist refutations of his critique. Oh and by the way he didn't claim that money was impossible in a socialist society, he claimed that money is necessary for exchange (which is disproved by both early hunter gatherer societies and later barter communities) and that since socialism rejects money, it could never function. He didn't claim that "money couldn't work in socialism" as you have asserted. You either didn't read the piece or are too stupid to understand what he was saying.I didn't bring up Mises did I? Nevertheless I find it tremendously ironic that a socialist would accuse somebody else of "tremendous abstraction". Do socialists have anything to offer the world besides tremendous abstraction? God help socialists and their arguments if they were deprived of abstractions.

[sublime]

Perhaps "the workers" did not exist, but I'm pretty sure day labourers have existed for a pretty long time.

Haha, Yes they were initially called slaves.

[sublime]

No, no, no. READ A BOOK.

Again Dawkins and Pinker make clear in their works the distinction which is needed to make sense of the question of altruism. That is between ultimate and proximal/imediate causes. The ultimate cause of an altruistic act if we follow the chain of causality back far enough is the 'selfish' propogation of genes throughout the gene pool. But the immediate cause of an altruistic act isn't an individual's drive to propagate their genetic code but is often the result of group living over evolutionary time which has made adaptations such as the social emotions useful. The immediate cause of an altruistic act can thus be understood to be driven by love, solidarity and feelings of kinship to other animals whilst the ultimate cause of such emotions in the abstract is evolutionary adaptation.

This is just paraphrasing what I said, so I'm not sure why you are telling me to read a book. We seem to both be clear in our understand that altruism is "ultimately" caused by the "desire" (if we can ascribe desires to robots ) of genes to replicate. The instincts towards community are selfish, which is why they are called "reciprocal altruism".

From your framing of the issues, despite misunderstanding me, it seems to me that you have a fairly firm grasp on the principles of evolutionary psychology. Given that, what I'd be really interested in knowing is how you reconcile these with communism? Have you ever wondered why none of your comrades subscribe to the principles of evolutionary psychology? Why have Eward O Wilson, Pinker and Dawkins been attacked by Marxist academics since for all their careers? Why do so many of your comrades (like the on in this thread ) still feel the impulse to put forth tabula rasa theories of mind? The fact is that you are quite out of step with your comrades, which you acknowledge. If you want to tell me how you reconcile evolutionary psychology with your Marxism, I'd be really interested in hearing it. Because as I said, I like the idea of a classless society too. As far as I am concerned, Edward O Wilson was right about communism - "nice theory, wrong species".

[Rafiq]

Hi there, love social justice, but am bemused by a theory that claims a teleology towards a classless, stateless society is scientific? That's a laugh, the notion that a classless & stateless society can ever exist without genetic engineering is itself an embarrassing ignorance of Darwin.

Historical materialism is devoid of any teleology, and no, a "stateless, classless" society is not an end goal of sorts. Fucking idiot.


I suppose there is nothing wrong with gene tampering in itself, other than you all have such a bitter defeated attitude towards all forms of "fascism". We could engineer a future human race that would have the instincts that Marx built his theory of human nature on,

Wait, what? What kind of instincts? What is this "theory"? The concept of human nature itself is a current of Idealist thought. Are you a troll?


but I'm not sure if engineering a race of people that only care about food, shelter and clothing is a good idea. Don't rule out the idea, though, as communists have been in bed with all the worst aspects of fascism since Marx and his racism towards Jews and Slavs and Mexicans.


Are you a moron? The point Engels was making during his speech at Marx's funeral is that humans must have food, shelter, etc. Before they can pursue the arts, etc.


The problem with straight socialism is that there is no evidence it works. It's purely hypothetical.

I agree, and so did Marx. The point of socialism wasn't this grand theory, this grand blueprint of which we have to actualize in the future. Both Socialism and Communism as movements and ideologies existed long before Marx, and as concepts Marx receives little credibility and his name is not renowned globally because of them. The point of Marx was to crush this notion of Socialism and Communism as an Idea, which we express based on our will. The point Marx was trying to make was that Socialism adn Communism are the ideological embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class, the same way Liberalism is to the Bourgeois class, and since he was an expert in regards to the capitalist mode of production (Which is partially what he's famous for), he supported the movements in that he came to understand capitalism's intrinsic systemic contradictions, one of which being class contradiction.


It depends on a bunch of philosophical assertions about human nature and "dialectics", that have no empirical weight behind them. So you guys are stuck in some theoretical fantasy land waiting for reality to catch up to your theories.


This Liberalist concept of "human nature" was denounced by Marxists over the past hundred years as Idealist, this concept that there already exist intristic ideas in humans, of which our societies are products of. It was Marx who said that it is not Conciousness that determines social being, but on the contrary, it is our social being that determines our consciousness.

Are you 12?


Don't get me wrong, I support communism in spirit as well. It sounds wonderful to me. I rate it right up there with the tooth fairy and Santa clause. I will support all of them gleefully when there is evidence demonstrating that they work.

What do you mean "they work"? As a future society? Who the fuck knows?
That's not the point of communism though! The point of communism is simple: Communism is a weapon the proletarian utilizes (or utilized) to crush the class enemy. Class struggle existed long before Marx, you know.

Marx (along the lines of): Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things

I mean, what the fuck do you think the point of Materialism was? TO devise this grand theory that all of human history leads up to glorious communism? That's a bastardization of what makes Marx great, again, I'll quote him:

"History is not (some being) which uses man to achieve it's own ends, history is men and women achieving their own ends"

Do you have the slightest conception of what this means? It means that teleology (Which Marx abandoned) is crap, it means that if we were to go back in time thousands of years, without altering anything, the world today would be very different, as any thing could happen.


Yes, I know I know, capitalism "doesn't work" either; After all, there are is still misery in the world, there are still inequalities, class divisions, racism, selfishness, deviations from perfection, and other such atrocities.

Again, that criticism of capitalism existed long before Marx. It's a cheap, and useless criticism at that. Again, the point of Capital was to point out that, without making any sort of moral criticism, capitalism carries the seeds of it's own destruction, systemically. It "Works" but for who? And for how long? Where are you getting this bizarre conception of Marx as some sort of cheap, moralist Utopian from? God dammit, you're a fucking mess.


Capitalism is very, very flawed. The issue you guys have failed to deal with is that Capitalism has produced all the wealth that humans have heretofore enjoyed. This forum is a testament to capitalism. Marx was well aware of this, which is why he gave a weird approval of capitalism, as the most productive system so far.

Again, Marx was fascinated by capitalism, and his criticism didn't amount to some kind of desire for a new society.


But his crystal-balling about the next phase didn't work out as he prophesied, because he did not understand Freud and Darwin. Marx didn't realize that humans don't merely want "food, shelter, and clothing", because he is an irrational animal that wants to acquire goods and dominate his fellow man in the midst of any security and comfort.

Are you literally talking out of your ass? Let me get this straight. To you, Marx was this grand Utopian who devised a new society devoid of "selfishness" because he thought that humans only want food, shelter and clothing?

That's it. I'm done. I'll just kill myself. I don't want to live in a world where such stupidity has a basis for existence.

Again, Marx, scientifically recognized the class contradiction within capitalism and that's why he supported communism, he didn't predict what it would "look like", he didn't even predict that everything would work out smoothly. He merely predicted that the interests of the proletariat are antithetical to that of the bourgeoisie, without intellectual interference (Though Lenin, Kautsky furtherly stated that the intelligentsia is necessary for the highest level of class consciousness, which is true as well). It's funny, because Marx stated that Darwin formulated the materialist conception of natural history, and that later, Freudo Marxists would point out Freud's psychology exists in accordance with materialism, i.e. And then you had Lacan who furtherly strengthened this bond with parallels to commodity fetishism, etc.


This is the consensus of all modern, non-idealist biology and evolutionary psychology. If you don't believe this, read Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett E. O. Wilson or Robert Wright

What? That Men don't only want food shelter and clothing? Who ever argued against that? Engels said that Men would only want food shelter and clothing, before anything else. It's awfully hard to divulge into the scientists when you're starving, homeless and naked, you know. But it's not like that was the pinnacle or a major tenet of Historical materialism. And Oh, the irony. Do you even know what Idealism is? You're not only an Idealist, you're one of the most pathetic manifestation of Idealism.


It's all pretty straight forward really, which is why why most of us grew out of left-wing utopianism as we exited adolescence.


Which most serious Marxists attribute to the Idealist foolishness of contemporary Communists, when our movement was hijacked by spiritualist, moralist, hippie scum.


I look forward to any any arguments that communism can work that appeal to data rather than hypothesis. I would like to believe in classlessness and Santa Clause too.

Hur dur hur! Shut the fuck up. I'd be surprised if you still have the courage to come back to this fucking thread, after I destroyed you like this.

[Rafiq]

This is just paraphrasing what I said, so I'm not sure why you are telling me to read a book. We seem to both be clear in our understand that altruism is "ultimately" caused by the "desire" (if we can ascribe desires to robots ) of genes to replicate. The instincts towards community are selfish, which is why they are called "reciprocal altruism".

From your framing of the issues, despite misunderstanding me, it seems to me that you have a fairly firm grasp on the principles of evolutionary psychology. Given that, what I'd be really interested in knowing is how you reconcile these with communism? Have you ever wondered why none of your comrades subscribe to the principles of evolutionary psychology? Why have Eward O Wilson, Pinker and Dawkins been attacked by Marxist academics since for all their careers? Why do so many of your comrades (like the on in this thread ) still feel the impulse to put forth tabula rasa theories of mind? The fact is that you are quite out of step with your comrades, which you acknowledge. If you want to tell me how you reconcile evolutionary psychology with your Marxism, I'd be really interested in hearing it. Because as I said, I like the idea of a classless society too. As far as I am concerned, Edward O Wilson was right about communism - "nice theory, wrong species".

Listen you fucking piece of shit, if capitalism is the greatest manifestaitno of our human nature, how come humans have been around for 1 million years, and capitalism is relatively new? Oh wait, it's not! "Nice theory, Wrong Species" (?) What kind of strawman is that? What? Communism is a "theory" now? Since when?

[Rafiq]

Yes he does, but gene selfishness manifests as organism selfishness, as he says also. Do you want to debate that Dawkins believes that organisms are fundamentally selfish? Begin quoting, I'm happy to start this debate anywhere.

Before we get too far into it, let me state that I realise that a gene centered view of evolution doesn't mean we are robots who are genetically determined. Both Dawkins and I and every other sentient individual acknowledge that free will has the power to trump biology (as when you masturbate ). This doesn't change the fact that all out instincts are selfish, racist, aggressive and nepotistic, and are responsible for much of the worlds misery.

So yeah, now that we've got our terms defined, lets get into an analysis of how Dawkins' proofs are compatible with socialism. You can start.

Free will? So you're a religious scum now? Free Will as a concept was destroyed you know, like, hundreds of years ago.

Yes, Humans are selfish. So? Self interest can translate into collective interest. Hell, that was one of the major sociological breakthroughs of Marxism, that collective interests really do exist (Class interests). Communism is not some kind of moral benevolence, it is a manifestation of the self interest of a proletarian, whose self interest can only be for filled if the interests of all proletarians are for filled.

[Rafiq]

Darwin VERY MUCH had to fight against radicalization of his theories. He was defensive for the most part because he was being attacked by theists on all sides, and was nervous. As I said before, Darwin writes of the need for an evolution psychology in The Decent of Man, his most mature work. And "scientific socialism", or any kind of teleology, is garbage.

Yes, teleology is garbage. Now stop attributing it to Scientific socialism and historical materialism. You know that there is a major difference between Young, Naive Marx, and old, Materialist, Marx, right? What do you think the point of historical materialism was?

[Rafiq]

There is nothing that infuriates me more than people who talk out of their ass. You know, people who attribute bizarre theoretical accusations to concepts, and thinkers, which do not exist, and then trot around in arrogance because they proved that, for example, "HA! Take that! Humans want more than food, shelter and clothing! MARXISM IS DEAD! LOL! COMMUNISM IZ STUPID AND SO IZ MARX, MARX HAD GOOD IDEAZ (he is the FOUNDER of Communizm, right?) but he just got the wrong species, LOLOLOL!!!1111

It's almost blasphemous. How can such stupidity exist? I knew there were criticisms of Marx that were unfounded and ridiculous, but not to this extent.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hi there, love social justice, but am bemused by a theory that claims a teleology towards a classless, stateless society is scientific? That's a laugh, the notion that a classless & stateless society can ever exist without genetic engineering is itself an embarrassing ignorance of Darwin.What is really ironic is that you operate with a telological view of natural history and at the same time bash a supposedly teleological view of the history of human socialization, social life and social production.

Why do I say yours is a teleological view? Becasue you assume that there exists an inexorable goal to evolution, and that is supposedly to perpetuate the genes for laziness, violence and whatnot (sorry for this bit of caricature, but I doubt that your argument is far from this presentation). The most important mistake here is that you nonchalantly invoke an authority without even offering a shabby argument as to how exactly does the theory of evolution posit the necessity of class society.
Apart from that, the actual history of humanity testifies to the great extent of possibilites for change in almost fundamental forms of human behaviour and interaction. This leaves very little room for naive and crude genetic determinism.
Another point is that human instincts are socially mediated and thus in the first place take the form of behaviour. What is obvious here are the patterns of this mediation, and again, here there is much room for change.

The second point is that Marxism need not be in some of its variants teleological, and indeed is not. But you haven't explained what you actually mean by teleological (you'd be surprised how many people hold different conceptions of teleology) so I can't really comment, apart from pointing out that Marxism does not need to posit that a classless society is inevitable and the product of the movement of history.


I suppose there is nothing wrong with gene tampering in itself, other than you all have such a bitter defeated attitude towards all forms of "fascism". We could engineer a future human race that would have the instincts that Marx built his theory of human nature on, but I'm not sure if engineering a race of people that only care about food, shelter and clothing is a good idea. Don't rule out the idea, though, as communists have been in bed with all the worst aspects of fascism since Marx and his racism towards Jews and Slavs and Mexicans.

What I see here is the continuation of the same genetic determinist naivete, spinning-off to wild assumptions about genetic engineering and most of all, the dishonest guilt by association debating tactic. Really, that's how you want to proceed? That's beyond the pale.

But to answer, first, you're wrong on Marx's racism towards Slavs. That is, you're wrong if somehow Poles are not Slavs, the same poles whom Marx supported wholeheartedly in their struggle for independence from Tzarist Russia. And that's the point here, that you fail to account for the political basis of Marx's comments on South Slavs (Croats very much included, thanks to participation in the suppression of the Hungarian revolution) and Russia, both of which he viewed as a bulwark against revolution. I won't comment on Jews and Mexicans since I'm not that familiar with his writings. Would you like to offer an analysis of relevant works of Marx's on this issue?


The problem with straight socialism is that there is no evidence it works. It's purely hypothetical. It depends on a bunch of philosophical assertions about human nature and "dialectics", that have no empirical weight behind them. So you guys are stuck in some theoretical fantasy land waiting for reality to catch up to your theories.That's absurd to say the least.
Of course that there is no evidence that socialism works since it doesn't function like an empirically verifiable proposition, but rather as a political movement and a possible mode of production superseeding capitalism. There is no way to test this proposition without an actual establishement of that kind of a social order since, you know, society isn't a laboratory run by a congregation of scientists.

On your second part, no, socialism doesn't rest on "philosophical assumptions" about human nature since Marxists don't usually claim that altruism constitutes the "real" human nature. In fact, Marxists have related very critically to the very concept, and again, it is you who holds significant philosophical assumptions about human nature (nevermind the casual reference to Darwin; you've demonstrated no actual knowledge on evolution via natural selection and how does this invalidate socialism; you merely asserted it, backed with your own assumptions about human nature).

Another thing, communism most of all depends on concrete class struggle, not on some wishy-washy ideas and, hell forbid, dialectics. This is what Marxists have been harping on about for a good century and it seems its detractors simply don't want to listen. Fine, but then don't pretend you're listening and that you "support communism in spirit" since that would make you a fool given the fact that you actually don't know what you're supporting.



It's almost blasphemous. How can such stupidity exist? I knew there were criticisms of Marx that were unfounded and ridiculous, but not to this extent.Now now, don't sanctify mere mortals :P

But yeah, the degree of arrogant posturing combined with almost total ignorance is astounding. Invoking both Dawkins and Freud in the same sentence while bashing teleology. Priceless.


Free will? So you're a religious scum now? Free Will as a concept was destroyed you know, like, hundreds of years ago.

Not in its rational use of denoting the possibility of choice. Don't fall into the trap of asserting the ueber-determinism of sub-atomic particles which predetermined everything that was going to happen to me today.

[Le Socialiste]

Yo, Sublime, why don't you take the time to answer my posts? I'm feeling excluded. :crying:

[Thirsty Crow]

Yo, Sublime, why don't you take the time to answer my posts? I'm feeling excluded. :crying:
Can you really expect a person to take on a horde of commie idealists-utopians in a constructive way? :D

Nevertheless, I'm second in the waiting line :D

[Rafiq]

Not in its rational use of denoting the possibility of choice. Don't fall into the trap of asserting the ueber-determinism of sub-atomic particles which predetermined everything that was going to happen to me today.

That's (That our actions are predetermined) simply antimarxist nonsense, of course choice exists. The problem with Free will is this concept of a will devoid of material conditions withstanding which furtherly spill into this moralist framework. The problem with Free choice is it assumes we are born with the same capacity to make choices, and our choices "shape us", while Marxists seek to analyse and root out what necessitates us to make choices, or what social mechanisms influenced our choices, etc. (For example, instead of criticizing the big bad CEO, we ask what conditions allow them to exist, what necessitated their actions, etc.). Of course this isn't some kind of obscure determinism, i.e. That our choices are predetermined. That's nonsense.

[Rafiq]

Well, I think I wouldn't do much harm in saying that the bastard is gone. Good riddance.

[Positivist]

Yo, Sublime, why don't you take the time to answer my posts? I'm feeling excluded. :crying:

I had to ask him about mine several times for him to respond to posts that weren't directed at him (to which he responded "I don't advocate this" or "I never said this.")

[Le Socialiste]

Well, I think I wouldn't do much harm in saying that the bastard is gone. Good riddance.

Nah, he'll be back. He comes and goes as he pleases, spouting nonsensical accusations with little to no bearing in his "sources".

Don't scare him off, I wanna toy with him a little more. :cool:

[Positivist]

@Sublime, most of the points of mine which you resoponded to where directed at what other posters who were defending your position. As for the ones that were directed at you, your responses were quite unsatisfying.

First, you denied that early hunter-gatherer and agricultural subsistence societies weren't classless, citing that they included oppressive social structures. Though, you offer no account of what this structure was, or even where you have read of it. You seem to be offering your assertion "classlessness is impossible" as evidence that classlessness has never happened, while refuting that classlessness is possible because it did happen. You are using your argument to support your argument. You see the absurdity in this, no?

Next you argue against my claim that self-interest extends beyond excessive material accumulation, by saying that males will attempt to distinguish themselves to attract females. What? So do you think then that the only way to distinguish oneself is through excess material accumulation? Well you clearly have never been in a relationship. Males would have numerous opportunities to distinguish themselves to females in the communist society I described, through excellence in craft, success in competition, enhancement of physical properties, or adaptation of behavior. In fact most relationships rest more on this these things than monetary interest already. This argument was not built on "basic evolutionary psychology" it was built on a lack of relationship experience.

[Baseball]

First of all, this discussion was not about the functioning of socialism, it is about historical materialism

Yes. My comment still stands-- if the socialists are unable to create a functioning socialist community, then their theories are refuted, including "historical materialism."




Also what do you mean by "work"? What does it mean to "work"? I'm assuming you mean that it means to efficiently achieve something.

Efficiently producing goods and services, yes.

[Positivist]

Yes. My comment still stands-- if the socialists are unable to create a functioning socialist community, then their theories are refuted, including "historical materialism."

Efficiently producing goods and services, yes.

Efficiently producing goods and services for whom? The bourgiose in vast amounts and the proletariat in near miniscule quantities. Also I'm curious why you don't think a society based on the democratic planning of production wouldn't be able to accomplish this task more equitably as socialists claim. How will it not be able to do this? Planned production has been responsible for the greatest advances that have occurred under capitalism while a lack of planning has provoked its worst crises.

[Baseball]

Efficiently producing goods and services for whom?

For people who need and want those goods and services.


Also I'm curious why you don't think a society based on the democratic planning of production wouldn't be able to accomplish this task more equitably as socialists claim. How will it not be able to do this?

Because simply saying "democratic planning" says nothing. What is the CONTENT upon which people are making their "democratic" decisions?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Classlessness is not possible. I didn't exist anywhere, at any time. Primitive societies don't divide themselves along class lines like people in more advanced economies do, but they have their own internal hierarchies, they are mammals bound to Darwinian urges.

In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the human species no longer lives in small family bands of hunter-gatherers. Just because conditions have not been previously favourable to the existence of a technologically advanced classless society, doesn't rule out future conditions that are favourable.


It's about "conspitious consumption", which even socialists have supported. Homo-sapian males have an innate desire to distinguish themselves from their social rivals (all other males ). This is how we impress females. this is why acquisitiveness and pugnaciousness cannot be engineered out of the human condition via political engineering. All basic evolutionary psychology.

You're fucking trolling, right? This isn't science, this is "alpha male" bullshit wrapped up in pseudo-scientific language. Conspicuous consumption is cultural trait, and a particularly odious one at that.

Oh yeah, if it's such a central plank of human nature, does that make me some kind of evolutionary mutant? I fucking hate that bullshit.


All species subject to natural selections will divide into hierarchy because "birds of a feather flock together", but many other factors are involved.

[citation needed]

[Positivist]

For people who need and want those goods and services.

Because simply saying "democratic planning" says nothing. What is the CONTENT upon which people are making their "democratic" decisions?

What the fuck? The content? People will decide what to produce based on well idk maybe what they want produced?! God are you joking? Workers will determine what they want to consume and in what quantities prior to production, and then will act on those desires. Now before you take the proto-typical capitalist out of "so you just let the majority oppress the minority" maybe take into consideration that different producers will just produce different things! Just because 52% of the population wants bananas and no apples and 48% of the population wants apples and no bananas it doesn't mean that they can only produce bananas. The democracy of production does not mean that only whatever the majority wants is produced, it is simply an efficient method of determining what quantity is produced.

[Baseball]

What the fuck? The content? People will decide what to produce based on well idk maybe what they want produced?! God are you joking? Workers will determine what they want to consume and in what quantities prior to production, and then will act on those desires.

Its not simply a question of what people want to produce and in what quantity, it's also a question of what people want to produce and in what quantity as compared against other goods they want in the quantity they want those goods.

[Positivist]

Its not simply a question of what people want to produce and in what quantity, it's also a question of what people want to produce and in what quantity as compared against other goods they want in the quantity they want those goods.

This isn't even a real response is it. The hypothetical example I presented dealt with this specifically. It is impossible to determine what people want produced and in what's quantity except by comparison to other things that could potentially be produced.

[Baseball]

This isn't even a real response is it. The hypothetical example I presented dealt with this specifically. It is impossible to determine what people want produced and in what's quantity except by comparison to other things that could potentially be produced.

The hypothetical simply suggested both apples and bananas would produced, in proportion to their demand.
But that is not want I stated. That 48% want bananas produced ahead of apples is irrelevent in that sense, because those people don't just want bananas produced ahead of apples, they want other goods and services as well (like maybe a home, a school, a jobsite (unless, of course they choose not to work in the banana industry)). Ahead of bananas?? Probably.

[Rafiq]

Baseball has quite a point. The abstract Utopia that is "socialism" is garbage. No one can know what the product of a proletarian dictatorship will be, exactly, none the less "predict" the mode of production!

Socialism isn't an expression of Ideas. You cannot articulate it as you are constrained by capitalist social relations.

[Baseball]

Baseball has quite a point. The abstract Utopia that is "socialism" is garbage. No one can know what the product of a proletarian dictatorship will be, exactly, none the less "predict" the mode of production!

Socialism isn't an expression of Ideas. You cannot articulate it as you are constrained by capitalist social relations.

Which is a strike against socialism, not a comment in favor of it.

[Rafiq]

Which is a strike against socialism, not a comment in favor of it.

It's a strike against Utopian Socialism, not Socialism itself. Again, abstract socialism is garbage since it is formulated presupposing capitalist social relations one way or another. Hence, why Marx did not comment regarding a future society and said: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be 'acheived', but a process of which bourgeois society is destroyed", etc.
Modes of production cannot be predicted because they aren't a product of Ideas. "Men enter into definite social relations...." yeah, we all know the quote.

The point of socialism is that like Liberalism, it is the embodiment of the interests of a class, not a blueprint.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Positivist]

It's a strike against Utopian Socialism, not Socialism itself. Again, abstract socialism is garbage since it is formulated presupposing capitalist social relations one way or another. Hence, why Marx did not comment regarding a future society and said: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be 'acheived', but a process of which bourgeois society is destroyed", etc.
Modes of production cannot be predicted because they aren't a product of Ideas. "Men enter into definite social relations...." yeah, we all know the quote.

The point of socialism is that like Liberalism, it is the embodiment of the interests of a class, not a blueprint.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Rafiq lets not go back to the debate about approximating how a socialist society would function, and please stop using as justification for your argument "well since the specific forms in which capitalism has functioned wasn't planned why would socialism" as capitalism's development was guided by the self-adjustment mechanism of the market while socialism is a consciously planned economy.

Also funny that you'd make a reference to utopian socialism considering in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" Engels references socialism as the first social relation which is consciously planned rather than subjected to material determination.

[Positivist]

The hypothetical simply suggested both apples and bananas would produced, in proportion to their demand.
But that is not want I stated. That 48% want bananas produced ahead of apples is irrelevent in that sense, because those people don't just want bananas produced ahead of apples, they want other goods and services as well (like maybe a home, a school, a jobsite (unless, of course they choose not to work in the banana industry)). Ahead of bananas?? Probably.

Right so obviously you add more options into the prioritization process and determine proportions based on the results that yields. This should be pretty easy to understand, for you and rafiq, I merely simplified the process in order to convey the message without elliciting too much confusion. But since you seem to have taken it too literally, I'll expand a little. Say someone works 35 hours a week, which is the standard amount of working time, and the labor they perform is not particularly difficult or hazardous. They are distributed 100 credits. These credits are like votes which can be directed to a number of options. Someone would then distribute their credits according to which options they wanted the most.

[Positivist]

Baseball has quite a point. The abstract Utopia that is "socialism" is garbage. No one can know what the product of a proletarian dictatorship will be, exactly, none the less "predict" the mode of production!

Socialism isn't an expression of Ideas. You cannot articulate it as you are constrained by capitalist social relations.

Oh and just to alleviate any confusion, Baseball wasn't originally critiscizing any specific models of functioning in a socialist society, but the notion that one shouldn't be offered at all (i.e your position.)

[Rafiq]

Rafiq lets not go back to the debate about approximating how a socialist society would function, and please stop using as justification for your argument "well since the specific forms in which capitalism has functioned wasn't planned why would socialism" as capitalism's development was guided by the self-adjustment mechanism of the market while socialism is a consciously planned economy.

Also funny that you'd make a reference to utopian socialism considering in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" Engels references socialism as the first social relation which is consciously planned rather than subjected to material determination.

It's not just capitalism, it's any mode of production in general. One of the sociological breakthroughs Marxism gave us was this notion that modes of production cannot be "planned" before they even come into existence, or, to be more precise, can never exist as a product of someone's will, i.e. That Socialism and Communism are not systems which are modelled by intellectuals in which the proletariat, as a means, actualizes because "it's a better system". Both Marx and Engels vaguely inferred that socialism or a " planned economy" would logically follow what they believed was an inevitable proletarian revolution (Not in the name of teleology, but because the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were and are diametrically opposed). How do you explain this quote, which went somewhere along the lines of: Communism for us is not a state of affairs which is to be achieved, but a process, a process of which Bourgeois society is destroyed ?

What any sane Marxist would call these accusations, that Socialism would exist devoid of being subjugated by material domination is an Ideological vulgarization of Marxism. Ridiculous. Marx realized that no matter what existing mode of production is in place, Humans cannot exist devoid of material domination. Idealism cannot magically become an objective fact after some mythical proletarian revolution, which apparently not only destroys capitalist relations, but destroys sociological laws that have been consistent throughout all of human history. That's pure ideological arrogance and naivety.

A classless society is ideological rhetoric, in Socialism, Utopian or Scientific, Engels appealed to using just that, ideological rhetoric. At the dawn of Feudalism's destruction, the Bourgeois classes did the same, with their Liberalism, that now, there was a new dawn, of freedom for all man kind, blah blah blah. It was just as much ideological rhetoric as socialism's. We cannot know what the result of a proletarian dictatorship or revolution would be, the reason Marx and Engels (Engels, usually, the person who everyone thought was the cold materialist of the two) inferred in regards was because both were living in an era in which a proletarian revolution was dangerously close to coming into existence. It wasn't about a blueprint, it was about immediate strategy. Had they lived to see today, their conception of both Socialism and Communism would be entirely different, perhaps, maybe even non existent.

But no, let us put this nonsense about whether Socialism is conscisly planned, of whether "Man will be the lord over nature" aside, let us pretend that is true. What of it? You are still constrained by capitalism, and planning a fucking mode of production that doesn't even exist yet, and already drawing to conclusions and specifying details as to what it would look like is nothing short of ludicrous, perhaps even laughable. Marx, even Engels, would not dare do such a thing, especially when we're living in a time where class struggle is at an all time low compared to the rest of capitalism's history. Young Marx is dead, both dead literally and intellectually. If we were to allow the Idealist-Vulgarists bastardize Marxism, it would sit aside 20th century communism in the garbage. It's really ridiculous. Looking at a thread like this, everyone inputting these proclamations as to what socialism would look like. How fucking conveiniant, you can bullshit and make any excuse as to how X would exist, since it hasn't "existed yet". "NO, BUT IN SOCIALISM WE DON'T NEED CARS, EVERYONE HAS HOVERBOARDS LOLOLOL". Look, you want to be an Idealist? That's fine. That isn't a problem. Just stop identifying with Marxism and stop, when criticizing capitalism, pressuposing materialism.

And, finally, regarding capitalism's market mechanisms, they do exist, but it was Marx who snatched this from Adam Smith and used it to conceive historical materialism in the first place. Commodity fetishism may be exclusive to capitalism, but this dynamic process of material (basis) > idea (superstructure), or Material over (precede, determine, however you like) Idea, is not exclusive to capitalism at all. Adam smith was the one who devised this conception of a "hidden hand" and a "self regulating market mechanism". It was only Marx who attributed both of these to the productive forces, material conditions, etc.

Is a planned society possible? Of course it is. A lot of the times, capitalism is "planned" in certain ways. Does that mean it is possible that Consciousness can dominate our material surroundings? Of course not. As a living organism, we cannot change what we are in that regards. We are, of course, no more "miraculous" than any artificial AI, (Robot, Computer, etc.).

[Rafiq]

Oh and just to alleviate any confusion, Baseball wasn't originally critiscizing any specific models of functioning in a socialist society, but the notion that one shouldn't be offered at all (i.e your position.)

Or more prescisely, that one cannot be offered without being dismissed as ideological rhetoric. We can infer and predict, but at the very least, to divulge into such specified detail? It's absurd.

[Luís Henrique]

it is like you only read half of of what any of the people you name-dropped ever said hahahah

I think he got Dawkins pretty correctly.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think he got Dawkins pretty correctly.

Luís Henrique

Er, how exactly? Nothing I've read of Dawkins pertains to the kind of pseudoscientific evo-psych dribble that flops out of the mouths of people like the OP.

[Positivist]

@Rafiq, while you are indisputably correct that an exact model of how a socialist society would function is correct, you make your assumption that no approximate outline of how socialism would function is based on a false premise. This false premise is that we cant anticipate any of the problems that will face people living in a worker-controlled society.

Since every society has grappled with the question of what to produce and in what amount, it can be reasonably assumed that a socialist society will face the same dilemma, and it is therefore appropriate to outline how this dilemma will he faced. In another example, every society has faced devastation by natural disaster, so it is therefore logical to outline a procedure for dealing with this event. Now this latter example is a good one because it is impossible to anticipate where natural disasters will devastate and by what means but we can be sure that they will.

Socialism is a planned economy. This is perhaps its most distinctive characteristic. Planning is the act of determing what actions should be taken in order to deal with certain situations in advance of acting. If we can anticipate certain situations (even if we can't anticipate the specific form they'll take) why wouldn't we start planning for them?

[Paul Cockshott]

And, finally, regarding capitalism's market mechanisms, they do exist, but it was Marx who snatched this from Adam Smith and used it to conceive historical materialism in the first place. Commodity fetishism may be exclusive to capitalism, but this dynamic process of material (basis) > idea (superstructure), or Material over (precede, determine, however you like) Idea, is not exclusive to capitalism at all. Adam smith was the one who devised this conception of a "hidden hand" and a "self regulating market mechanism". It was only Marx who attributed both of these to the productive forces, material conditions, etc.

This interpretation of the hidden hand is a much more recent interpellation into his writing. He did not use the term in that way. It is also arguable that Smith was a historical materialist well before Marx. To my knowlege Marx did not claim to have invented historical materialism, but took it as an already established approach.

[ckaihatsu]

The hypothetical simply suggested both apples and bananas would produced, in proportion to their demand.
But that is not want I stated. That 48% want bananas produced ahead of apples is irrelevent in that sense, because those people don't just want bananas produced ahead of apples, they want other goods and services as well (like maybe a home, a school, a jobsite (unless, of course they choose not to work in the banana industry)). Ahead of bananas?? Probably.


I'll note that the nature of politics, and political discussions, is of a very broad-based, *distributed* kind, one in which we can describe *overall* dynamics and trends in fairly decisive ways, but which also contain a myriad of ongoing dynamics as well that may or may not be encompassed and properly described by an asserted description.

In describing ongoing reality or using a hypothetical it's entirely valid to recognize that there would be a *complexity* of dynamics at play, as with a constellation of goods and services both produced and consumed (or not-consumed).





Baseball has quite a point. The abstract Utopia that is "socialism" is garbage. No one can know what the product of a proletarian dictatorship will be, exactly, none the less "predict" the mode of production!

Socialism isn't an expression of Ideas. You cannot articulate it as you are constrained by capitalist social relations.


I respectfully have *minor* differences with comrades on this point of whether a society of proletarian dictatorship can be "outlined" in advance, or not.

While employing potential frameworks for the sake of illustration and explanation can be readily dismissed as 'abstract' -- and they are -- the purpose is *not* one of *prediction*, but rather for a material-based, reasoning-based *summation* of what would be *possible*, given consistent material societal realities that would continue to exist into the indefinite future. It may be thought-of as a 'futurist political anthropology', if you like, for lack of a better term.





Right so obviously you add more options into the prioritization process and determine proportions based on the results that yields. This should be pretty easy to understand, for you and rafiq, I merely simplified the process in order to convey the message without elliciting too much confusion. But since you seem to have taken it too literally, I'll expand a little. Say someone works 35 hours a week, which is the standard amount of working time, and the labor they perform is not particularly difficult or hazardous. They are distributed 100 credits. These credits are like votes which can be directed to a number of options. Someone would then distribute their credits according to which options they wanted the most.


This, for example, would be one abstract model that posits a 'threshold' of common liberated labor on the part of roughly everyone -- given no controversies erupting over this policy regarding liberated labor, the consumption side of things could be considered, and possibly addressed, with a system of egalitarian pre-planned prioritization over an open-access productivity.

(A variant of this approach is also at my blog entries.)

[Baseball]

Or more prescisely, that one cannot be offered without being dismissed as ideological rhetoric. We can infer and predict, but at the very least, to divulge into such specified detail? It's absurd.

Nobody is asking whether in a socialist the work day should be 35 hrs or 30hrs, or whether renumeration should be 100 credits or 90 credits.

But what is being asked is to describe the actions and mechanisms which need to occur to support the claims that say socialism is indeed the "embodiment of the best interests of a class." Socialists have no problem describing how and what liberalism does so as to represents the best interests of class of the capitalist.
The socialists should have the same expectation.

[Baseball]

Right so obviously you add more options into the prioritization process and determine proportions based on the results that yields. This should be pretty easy to understand, for you and rafiq, I merely simplified the process in order to convey the message without elliciting too much confusion. But since you seem to have taken it too literally, I'll expand a little. Say someone works 35 hours a week, which is the standard amount of working time, and the labor they perform is not particularly difficult or hazardous. They are distributed 100 credits. These credits are like votes which can be directed to a number of options. Someone would then distribute their credits according to which options they wanted the most.

That isn't enough. can apples and bananas be grown at the same place and time? Of course not (A piece of land in which grows an apple tree cannot at the same time grow a banana tree. And please don't talk about environment since what is to stop someone from building greenhouses? Again, simply examples). That what is in greater value by the people has to take precedence in production.

[Positivist]

That isn't enough. can apples and bananas be grown at the same place and time? Of course not (A piece of land in which grows an apple tree cannot at the same time grow a banana tree. And please don't talk about environment since what is to stop someone from building greenhouses? Again, simply examples). That what is in greater value by the people has to take precedence in production.

They can't be grown on the same patch of soil but they can be grown at the same time, its just a matter of how much soil (and overall resources) should be allocated to the growing of bananas vs apples, or the assembly of boats, or turn study of the effects of desalination, etc. If you compiled the votes of all the members of a community, you could then add them together and divide them by the total number of votes to get percentages. These 'priority percentages' could determine what percentage of resources were expended for what purposes.

[ckaihatsu]

One of the axioms, so to speak, of revolutionary political culture is that capitalism materially paves the way to enable mass revolution.

What *I'm* finding contradictory about the current state of things is that we now have a fully mature e-commerce method of placing consumer orders, and all of the back-end logistics that go with it, yet we're *still* using a provisioning system based on capital, money, and all of the financial overhead that goes with it. It would make much more sense to use the existing technological infrastructure to simply tally daily surveys on what people's individual requirements and wants are, and to go from there.

On the *productive* side of things we, likewise, have an informational infrastructure that stays current on every aspect of cultural developments -- Wikipedia -- yet is not used in the same way for *productive* purposes. It's *another* contradiction that the public (or local workers, more specifically) are not permitted to use wiki pages for the administration of productive industrial assets in a collective way. Instead the economic system remains fettered to a very outmoded method of material accounting -- one which is decidedly propping itself up in an authoritarian way by leeching public funds on a vast scale.

Workers, if allowed to co-administrate the machinery and workplaces that they are in direct contact with, and know best, would be able to be more materially cohesive and effective than they are now, crippled within the context of a needlessly abstract and increasingly meaningless system of valuations based on capital.

[Baseball]

Workers, if allowed to co-administrate the machinery and workplaces that they are in direct contact with, and know best, would be able to be more materially cohesive and effective than they are now, crippled within the context of a needlessly abstract and increasingly meaningless system of valuations based on capital.

But this misses the point. the workers in such a scenario have to do
-something-. That they can simply point and say "we are the co-administrators" truly says nothing. There is no content to it.
How are they making it more "materially conducive"? What do they do to make it more "effective (and how does one define what is, and what is not "effective." Will what is "effective" in a socialist community be defined the same way as being "effective" is defined in a capitalist community? What is the impact of answering this "yes" or "no" to that question on the functioning of a socialist community?)? Those are the types of questions which need to be addressed.

[Baseball]

They can't be grown on the same patch of soil but they can be grown at the same time, its just a matter of how much soil (and overall resources) should be allocated to the growing of bananas vs apples, or the assembly of boats, or turn study of the effects of desalination, etc. If you compiled the votes of all the members of a community, you could then add them together and divide them by the total number of votes to get percentages. These 'priority percentages' could determine what percentage of resources were expended for what purposes.

Ok. So your vision is that people vote in some fashion on how many boats (and remember there are many different kinds of boats) they need versus bananas (should that land be used for boat building or banana growing?). Of course, this principle would have to be true for all aspects of productions, not merely bananas vs boats. How about a tool factory producing nails (how many of one size nails vs other size nails). We are all going to sit around and vote how many toothpicks over the next six months vs how many matches? The absurdity of such a concept boggles the mind. Just imagine the bureaucracies that would need to be established to tally the votes and transmit the information.
And that still leaves out HOW people are going to make there determinations- what information are they using? Can everyone get a new car every year? Of course not. So how are votes allocated versus abilities of the community to provide what is voted upon? You can't produce boats, no matter what the results of the vote, if you are also voting to grow bananas, which need the same land the boatbuilders need.

[ckaihatsu]

But this misses the point. the workers in such a scenario have to do
-something-. That they can simply point and say "we are the co-administrators" truly says nothing. There is no content to it.


You sketched an outline of what administration is in your subsequent post:





Ok. So your vision is that people vote in some fashion on how many boats (and remember there are many different kinds of boats) they need versus bananas (should that land be used for boat building or banana growing?). Of course, this principle would have to be true for all aspects of productions, not merely bananas vs boats. How about a tool factory producing nails (how many of one size nails vs other size nails). We are all going to sit around and vote how many toothpicks over the next six months vs how many matches? The absurdity of such a concept boggles the mind. Just imagine the bureaucracies that would need to be established to tally the votes and transmit the information.
And that still leaves out HOW people are going to make there determinations- what information are they using? Can everyone get a new car every year? Of course not. So how are votes allocated versus abilities of the community to provide what is voted upon? You can't produce boats, no matter what the results of the vote, if you are also voting to grow bananas, which need the same land the boatbuilders need.




Just imagine the bureaucracies that would need to be established to tally the votes and transmit the information.


We already see today that existing technology makes a snap of the information logistics required for bureaucratic-type functions -- this happens in both governmental and private-sector contexts.





How are they making it more "materially conducive"? What do they do to make it more "effective (and how does one define what is, and what is not "effective." Will what is "effective" in a socialist community be defined the same way as being "effective" is defined in a capitalist community? What is the impact of answering this "yes" or "no" to that question on the functioning of a socialist community?)? Those are the types of questions which need to be addressed.


'Effective', by the standards of a revolutionary leftist politics, is the fulfilling of all human need, for every individual on the planet.

Once off of the market basis of valuing, a post-capitalist political economy would be *most* capable at dealing with the *least*-controversial needs expressed by the world's population, since those human needs would, by definition, also be the most *common* ones.

Less-needed, less-common, and more-discretionary desires could be prioritized, as Positivist has outlined.

[Positivist]

Ok. So your vision is that people vote in some fashion on how many boats (and remember there are many different kinds of boats) they need versus bananas (should that land be used for boat building or banana growing?). Of course, this principle would have to be true for all aspects of productions, not merely bananas vs boats. How about a tool factory producing nails (how many of one size nails vs other size nails). We are all going to sit around and vote how many toothpicks over the next six months vs how many matches? The absurdity of such a concept boggles the mind. Just imagine the bureaucracies that would need to be established to tally the votes and transmit the information.
And that still leaves out HOW people are going to make there determinations- what information are they using? Can everyone get a new car every year? Of course not. So how are votes allocated versus abilities of the community to provide what is voted upon? You can't produce boats, no matter what the results of the vote, if you are also voting to grow bananas, which need the same land the boatbuilders need.

Your criticism rests on the assumption that everyone has an unlimited number of votes, or on that there will be a direct vote on every issue. This is not what I described. In the model I described, each individual is distributed a particular number of votes to which they can distribute to any potential product. Its not apples vs bananas, or apples vs boats, its everything in comparison at once.

Furthermore, unlike in contemporary commercial capitalism where decisions are largely moulded by marketing, intricate, reliable information would be provided for the consumers to base their decision off of. Once this is in place, different consumer choices will he reudced to a matter of personal taste.

[Baseball]

Your criticism rests on the assumption that everyone has an unlimited number of votes, or on that there will be a direct vote on every issue. This is not what I described. In the model I described, each individual is distributed a particular number of votes to which they can distribute to any potential product.

OK- people get, say, 100 votes during a particular time frame. But wouldn't people use more votes for goods and services for which they have a greater need, than votes for goods and services of which they have a lesser? A bidding process, in other words.


Its not apples vs bananas, or apples vs boats, its everything in comparison at once.

But how can this be? All what is needed at once cannot be produced simultaneously.


Furthermore, unlike in contemporary commercial capitalism where decisions are largely moulded by marketing, intricate, reliable information would be provided for the consumers to base their decision off of. Once this is in place, different consumer choices will he reudced to a matter of personal taste

How does this function in the realm of, say, component parts? You may choose to use 30 votes for the new computer. But that computer company itself needs parts to build that computer. Is that computer company itself given X number of votes? But can't the parts for a computer be used for other products, who in turn would have their own votes assigned. How does the community determine the value of using those parts in a computer versus another product? Assigned votes seem rather arbitrary.

[Baseball]

We already see today that existing technology makes a snap of the information logistics required for bureaucratic-type functions -- this happens in both governmental and private-sector contexts.

Right. But those functions are designed to serve in a capitalist environment. They are useless in a socialist system.





'
Effective', by the standards of a revolutionary leftist politics, is the fulfilling of all human need, for every individual on the planet.

That would seem to be an inadequate definition. I mean, if the community requires 10,000 shoeworkers to provide footwear to all, why wouldn't the community be better off if the same result is achieved by utilized using 7,000 workers? Isn't that more "effective"? Those 3,000 workers can work in other endeavors. The standards of the rev left definition of "effective" would result in fewer workers available for elsewhere. That cannot be considered a success.


Once off of the market basis of valuing, a post-capitalist political economy would be *most* capable at dealing with the *least*-controversial needs expressed by the world's population, since those human needs would, by definition, also be the most *common* ones.


How is that?


Less-needed, less-common, and more-discretionary desires could be prioritized, as Positivist has outlined.

If the socialist community prioritized lesser needed goods and services, wouldn't this mean the problems of providing greater needed goods and services are not being addressed? How is this an advantage?

[Positivist]

Well obviously people would use more votes for things they needed more as doing the reverse would be totally illogical. Why does this shock you? How else would you expect consumption to proceed? Also the most basic needs would be met autonomously from the prioritization system, alleviating the problem of people only having enough votes to use for their needs.

As for component parts, the answer couldn't be more obvious. In what devices component parts are used as opposed to others will be determined according to what comparitive quantities of finished products people decide to produce. This should be quite obvious. As for the voting ability of companies, this is a non-issue as companies won't exist and what percentage of total resources are committed to the production of particular items is based on the aggregate results of the individual prioritization process.

[ckaihatsu]

Right. But those functions are designed to serve in a capitalist environment. They are useless in a socialist system.


The function in question is this:





Just imagine the bureaucracies that would need to be established to tally the votes and transmit the information.


So it's about whether one thinks that present-day technologies are capable enough to tally distributed-vote preferences from all individuals, daily, over a range of consumer choices.





That would seem to be an inadequate definition. I mean, if the community requires 10,000 shoeworkers to provide footwear to all, why wouldn't the community be better off if the same result is achieved by utilized using 7,000 workers? Isn't that more "effective"? Those 3,000 workers can work in other endeavors. The standards of the rev left definition of "effective" would result in fewer workers available for elsewhere. That cannot be considered a success.


Yeah, material realities are / would be what they are -- as with any endeavor, there would always be improvements that could be made, depending on other conditions, etc.

Of course there's no need to become anxiety-ridden over achieving perfection -- the watchword, currently, is whether *existing* material conditions, like the technology for informational logistics, is sufficient for what would be required -- then mass support for revolution can bring it to reality.





How is that?


I don't understand your question -- you may want to be more specific.





If the socialist community prioritized lesser needed goods and services, wouldn't this mean the problems of providing greater needed goods and services are not being addressed? How is this an advantage?


The very *definition* of 'prioritized' means that more-mass-prioritized goods and services, per the information compiled, would be attended-to and produced, with lesser-priority goods and services left to the attentions of whoever else might be remaining, if any.

[Rafiq]

Nobody is asking whether in a socialist the work day should be 35 hrs or 30hrs, or whether renumeration should be 100 credits or 90 credits.

But what is being asked is to describe the actions and mechanisms which need to occur to support the claims that say socialism is indeed the "embodiment of the best interests of a class." Socialists have no problem describing how and what liberalism does so as to represents the best interests of class of the capitalist.
The socialists should have the same expectation.

Trouble is, it may not be any more. But we're talking in it's historical context. Do I stand here and claim that this blueprint of a future society is the "embodiment of the interests" of the proletarian class? Of course not. That's cheap ideological rhetoric. But Socialism, which was formulated by the proletariat itself, as an ideology (like Liberalism, i.e. it's rhetoric, it's moral framework, etc.) is the ideological embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class, the rhetorical vanguard of the proletarian movement. It is a language of it's own, external from the language established by the Bourgeoisie, external from the terms layed forth by the bourgeois class.

[Rafiq]

This interpretation of the hidden hand is a much more recent interpellation into his writing. He did not use the term in that way. It is also arguable that Smith was a historical materialist well before Marx. To my knowlege Marx did not claim to have invented historical materialism, but took it as an already established approach.

No, Marx *took* materialism as an already established approach, historical materialism was indeed formulated by Marx and his clique (Marxists who came afterwards) alike.

[Baseball]

It is a language of it's own, external from the language established by the Bourgeoisie, external from the terms layed forth by the bourgeois class.

This is nothing more than a sleight of hand: a way out of dealing with the hard questions.

[Baseball]

Well obviously people would use more votes for things they needed more as doing the reverse would be totally illogical. Why does this shock you?

It doesn't shock me. It is quite logical. People will pay more for that which they value more. As such, logical production would be geared in that direction ie. production geared in the direction for what people are willing to spend upon.
What is "shocking" is that you are not seeing the logical result of such production, and the manner by which it needs to be organised.


Also the most basic needs would be met autonomously from the prioritization system, alleviating the problem of people only having enough votes to use for their needs.

Oh... so everyone's "needs" are met outside this voting systems. Votes I guess are to be used for the consumption of yachts and automobiles. Fine.
So then how does the community determine between the production of bananas and apples, if not on votes (the question is moot, though if you wish to declare such specific food items may not constitute a "need.")?


As for component parts, the answer couldn't be more obvious. In what devices component parts are used as opposed to others will be determined according to what comparitive quantities of finished products people decide to produce.

Quantities? And what about qualities?

A
s for the voting ability of companies, this is a non-issue as companies won't exist and what percentage of total resources are committed to the production of particular items is based on the aggregate results of the individual prioritization process.

Ok-- so when the people's priorities are both new computer and a new car, where glass is allocated is based upon that percentage.
But somebody has to produce that glass. Are you saying the workers of that glass foundry have NO say as to where that glass goes?

[Baseball]

So it's about whether one thinks that present-day technologies are capable enough to tally distributed-vote preferences from all individuals, daily, over a range of consumer choices.

Compared with other choices for other items, has been left out.




Yeah, material realities are / would be what they are -- as with any endeavor, there would always be improvements that could be made, depending on other conditions, etc.

What I asked is that since the definition of "effective" would be that all people who want shoes, have shoes. If that objective is met, then the socialist system (according to you) is "effective." So then what is the basis of being worried about whether this effective production is achieved using 10,000 or 7,000 people? What is the advantage for the socialist system to make this effort?


Of course there's no need to become anxiety-ridden over achieving perfection

People are not perfect; there is no perfection in either a capitalist or socialist community.


-- the watchword, currently, is whether *existing* material conditions, like the technology for informational logistics, is sufficient for what would be required -- then mass support for revolution can bring it to reality.

The general will in action. 1+1=3 if there is mass support for the proposition.






I don't understand your question -- you may want to be more specific.

It is difficult to be more specific in response to a very broad and general comment.






The very *definition* of 'prioritized' means that more-mass-prioritized goods and services, per the information compiled, would be attended-to and produced, with lesser-priority goods and services left to the attentions of whoever else might be remaining, if any.

That is not what was stated. But there may have been a grammatical error.

[ckaihatsu]

Compared with other choices for other items, has been left out.


This is unclear as well -- you may want to rephrase.





What I asked is that since the definition of "effective" would be that all people who want shoes, have shoes. If that objective is met, then the socialist system (according to you) is "effective." So then what is the basis of being worried about whether this effective production is achieved using 10,000 or 7,000 people? What is the advantage for the socialist system to make this effort?


I actually appreciate this critique -- it points to the *subjective* factor that's inherent to the project of a mass-conscious political economy instead of the present-day 'automatic'-type hands-off market-mechanism method for resolving inputs with outputs.

The answer, then, is that it would be *subjective* -- if 10,000 would rather be "lazy" (according to the stereotype) and commit their lives to slower-paced, less-necessary work roles instead of a faster-paced, more-speculative group endeavor (maybe planning for mining minerals on Mars), then that's just the way the world would be, in that kind of world.





The general will in action. 1+1=3 if there is mass support for the proposition.


Cute, though there's no reason to get snide. Yes, an alternative politics requires a mass-subjective syncing of political mindsets, but that doesn't mean that objective realities have to be *ignored*, as you're indicating with your Stalinistic political slur.





The very *definition* of 'prioritized' means that more-mass-prioritized goods and services, per the information compiled, would be attended-to and produced, with lesser-priority goods and services left to the attentions of whoever else might be remaining, if any.





That is not what was stated. But there may have been a grammatical error.


I'll add to this by including excerpts of a model I developed almost three years ago for just such an occasion as this one:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/





Associated material values

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily





Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination





Material function

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]


A further explanation and sample scenario can be found here:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev


'Hours as a measure of labor’

tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x

[Rafiq]

This is nothing more than a sleight of hand: a way out of dealing with the hard questions.

Excuse me? How are changes constrained by the Bourgeois-legalist framework "hard questions"?

[James Connolly]

There is such a thing as human nature, as its nonexistence would be contradictory to Materialism. What is true about human nature, and all nature for that matter, is that it is relative and evolving to match material conditions.

Nature is an intrinsic part of Marxism.

[Rafiq]

There is such a thing as human nature, as its nonexistence would be contradictory to Materialism. What is true about human nature, and all nature for that matter, is that it is relative and evolving to match material conditions.

Nature is an intrinsic part of Marxism.

This is a bit problematic. What do you mean? If by a harmonious, balanced state of affairs, it certainly is not.

[James Connolly]

This is a bit problematic. What do you mean? If by a harmonious, balanced state of affairs, it certainly is not.
Stalin better said what I was trying to say.

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other. The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena."

-Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other. The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena."

-Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

Stalin here seems to be attacking a strawman. I don't think anyone worth their intellectual salt says that the elements of material existence are "isolated from surrounding phenomena" (except possibly for extreme cases, like objects residing within the event horizon of a black hole).

It also sounds suspiciously like a Marxist re-wording of New Age "holistic" nonsense. That's the trouble with dialectics, it seems - you can make it mean pretty much anything you want to. No wonder oligarchs like Stalin promoted it.

[l'Enfermé]

Stalin and his dialectical voodoo :laugh:

[ckaihatsu]

The authorship aside, all it's saying is that examinations of *anything* need to be contextualized since no one / nothing operates in a vacuum.


Worldview Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/axvyymiy5/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The authorship aside, all it's saying is that examinations of *anything* need to be contextualized since no one / nothing operates in a vacuum.

Put it like that (i.e. stripped of all "dialectical" cant) and it becomes a trivial observation, surely?

[Amir_2591]

OP has never met an anthropologist or read anything by Darwin(of whom Marx and Engels were great admirers). It's rather amusing that you insist that it's human nature for man to dominate others and that a stateless and classless society can't possible exist. For the vast majority of their existence, homo sapiens have lived in stateless and classless societies. In reality, there's no such thing as human nature, humans are born as mostly empty vessels and are shaped and filled by their environment.

And how could Marx "understand" Freud if Freud published his first major work 12 years after Marx died? You're a moron.
I don't agree with the falsehood advertised by right-wingers about human nature, but you're wrong.Homo sapiens lived most of their existence as hunter-gatherers, and when they discovered agriculture(and were able to form societies), it was indeed an unjust society.

But that doesn't mean anything, we don't have to act like our ancestors and keep something which isn't working. Ever since we stopped diabetics from dying we've been defying "our nature".

[ckaihatsu]

Put it like that (i.e. stripped of all "dialectical" cant) and it becomes a trivial observation, surely?


Well, what dialectics and complexity theory are good for is to cut against bourgeois idealism. The powers-that-be -- or anyone in a privileged position -- have a vested interest in things-as-they-are, which, going into the future, necessitates a 'freezing of time', so to speak -- conservatism.

This conservatism against any change in the status quo is aided by a terminology of descriptions that uses 'frozen' concepts, for a desired 'frozen' state of conditions -- idealism. If, for example, a *person* is described in terms of a fixed 'character' that exists separately from broader conditions and doesn't change over the years, then that is effectively a *commodification* (political and/or economic) of that person, depending on broader social power relations.

The reality, of course, is that people and their personalities change over time, and are also subject to less-than-controllable external conditions -- social reality. Those who have an interest in expressing and describing that change over time, for anything, will benefit from using a dialectical or complexity-based process. Those who have a vested interest in stasis will favor idealism and its overly-abstracted, fixed labels.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, what dialectics and complexity theory are good for is to cut against bourgeois idealism. The powers-that-be -- or anyone in a privileged position -- have a vested interest in things-as-they-are, which, going into the future, necessitates a 'freezing of time', so to speak -- conservatism.

Historical materialism is sufficient for that purpose, though.


This conservatism against any change in the status quo is aided by a terminology of descriptions that uses 'frozen' concepts, for a desired 'frozen' state of conditions -- idealism. If, for example, a *person* is described in terms of a fixed 'character' that exists separately from broader conditions and doesn't change over the years, then that is effectively a *commodification* (political and/or economic) of that person, depending on broader social power relations.

The thing is, even the merest familiarity with the actual science involved in such things as character and personality will refute the notion that a person has characteristics that are fixed for life. Dialectics or complexity theory is superfluous.


The reality, of course, is that people and their personalities change over time, and are also subject to less-than-controllable external conditions -- social reality. Those who have an interest in expressing and describing that change over time, for anything, will benefit from using a dialectical or complexity-based process. Those who have a vested interest in stasis will favor idealism and its overly-abstracted, fixed labels.

A label is just a marker. It doesn't have to denote a permanent or fixed quality, although obviously it can be used as such. Labels can be extremely specific or they can be extremely broad ("My left foot" [specific label], "Objects that are round" [broad label]). They are multi-functional tools capable of being used or abused, which why I get more than a little irritated at hardcore "anti-labels" types.

[ckaihatsu]

The thing is, even the merest familiarity with the actual science involved in such things as character and personality will refute the notion that a person has characteristics that are fixed for life. Dialectics or complexity theory is superfluous.


Maybe part of the problematic is that the conventional scientific method is presented as a *linear* function -- one hypothesis at a time is put under the microscope, etc., and there's nothing *wrong* with that, of course, but for less-clinical, more-real-world matters that presentation doesn't serve well *conceptually*.

For matters of society, history, politics, etc., it's better to conceptualize a number of material *factors* that are related and relevant to the issue at hand. Journalism uses the 'who, what, where, when, why, and how' to pinpoint the particulars of a given event, and it's for good reason -- that would be equivalent to "six microscopes" of the linear, clinical setting.

Based on this I think it's easier to see why anything strictly linear may all-too-readily lend itself to an overly simplified, *idealism*-based construction and labelling.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe part of the problematic is that the conventional scientific method is presented as a *linear* function -- one hypothesis at a time is put under the microscope, etc., and there's nothing *wrong* with that, of course, but for less-clinical, more-real-world matters that presentation doesn't serve well *conceptually*.

For matters of society, history, politics, etc., it's better to conceptualize a number of material *factors* that are related and relevant to the issue at hand. Journalism uses the 'who, what, where, when, why, and how' to pinpoint the particulars of a given event, and it's for good reason -- that would be equivalent to "six microscopes" of the linear, clinical setting.

Based on this I think it's easier to see why anything strictly linear may all-too-readily lend itself to an overly simplified, *idealism*-based construction and labelling.

I see what you mean. But since as far as I can see you did not use "dialectical language" in your post that I quote, doesn't that basically prove my point that dialectics is superfluous?

[ckaihatsu]

I see what you mean. But since as far as I can see you did not use "dialectical language" in your post that I quote, doesn't that basically prove my point that dialectics is superfluous?


My own *opinion* is that people should use whatever methods they find to be effective (and efficient) for their purposes -- I'm 'tool-neutral'.

On whether dialectics can be *not*-used, sure -- I've mentioned complexity theory, which I happen to favor.





Historical materialism is sufficient [...]




I don't think anyone worth their intellectual salt says that the elements of material existence are "isolated from surrounding phenomena" [...]


I'll note, however, that the dynamics of nature are different -- though comparable -- to those of society and historical development, so one cannot use historical materialism -- the history of class struggle -- to explain nature itself.

It's also worth pointing out that much of religion, especially organized religion, is pure idealism, with assertions like 'nature was made for man'. The use of dialectics, or any comprehensive analysis, would show that the natural world is not limited to human usage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My own *opinion* is that people should use whatever methods they find to be effective (and efficient) for their purposes -- I'm 'tool-neutral'.

On whether dialectics can be *not*-used, sure -- I've mentioned complexity theory, which I happen to favor.

Fair enough. I'm not familiar with complexity theory so I won't comment on that for now, but it strikes me that a mathematical approach would be the most rigorous, assuming we could check the sums.

But mathematical models always contain assumptions, so how rigorous would they be really... ?


I'll note, however, that the dynamics of nature are different -- though comparable -- to those of society and historical development, so one cannot use historical materialism -- the history of class struggle -- to explain nature itself.

I don't recall suggesting such... ? Historical materialism pertains to that part of nature involving human agents on a social scale, right?


It's also worth pointing out that much of religion, especially organized religion, is pure idealism, with assertions like 'nature was made for man'. The use of dialectics, or any comprehensive analysis, would show that the natural world is not limited to human usage.

I'd have thought the complete and utter lack of any evidence of a teleological nature would have done that.

[Rafiq]

Stalin here seems to be attacking a strawman. I don't think anyone worth their intellectual salt says that the elements of material existence are "isolated from surrounding phenomena" (except possibly for extreme cases, like objects residing within the event horizon of a black hole).

It also sounds suspiciously like a Marxist re-wording of New Age "holistic" nonsense. That's the trouble with dialectics, it seems - you can make it mean pretty much anything you want to. No wonder oligarchs like Stalin promoted it.

While I do indeed agree that it is on par with New Age garbage (or, Ontological romanticism), I don't think it's exactly fair to dismiss Dialectics as a whole with such nonsense. Indeed, there are criticisms I hold against Dialectics, or mo rover, the specific form in which Marxists utilize Dialectics. However, what many forget is the fact that it is not only Dialectics which was succumbed into transforming into New Age horse shit, virtually all other ideologies did as well, after the destruction of the proletarian movement in the 1990's. There are crucial characteristics of Dialectics we must all come to accept, for one, existence as spiral, rather than the movement of matter "going in a circle" ("circle of life", if you will). In other words, it's a strike against garbage teleology and Idealist determinism. This concept of change being eternal and everlasting is important as well, that a static state of affairs does not exist. The problem, for most, resides with the assertion that everything exists in a unity of opposites, however, many miss the point. It was Engels who indeed said Dialectics should not be superimposed onto nature, but dialectical conclusions must come about from scientific analyzation of nature. Marx's application of Dialectics to his understanding of Bourgeois society was nothing short of ironic, for him. Dialectics did not precede his conception of the capitalist mode of production, rather, it is the opposite.

[ckaihatsu]

Fair enough. I'm not familiar with complexity theory so I won't comment on that for now, but it strikes me that a mathematical approach would be the most rigorous, assuming we could check the sums.

But mathematical models always contain assumptions, so how rigorous would they be really... ?


*Any* approach involves using a tool of some kind, including math, so of course it depends on how the problem and approach is interpreted and structured.


Complexity Pages

A non-technical introduction to the new
science of Chaos and Complexity

http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/intro.html





I don't recall suggesting such... ? Historical materialism pertains to that part of nature involving human agents on a social scale, right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

[ckaihatsu]

Also, here are frameworks for nature, society, and politics, respectively:


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

http://postimage.org/image/35rsjgh0k/


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Baseball]

Excuse me? How are changes constrained by the Bourgeois-legalist framework "hard questions"?

That isn't what was said.

What was stated was that those arguments made by those who defend the "bourgeois-legaist framework" by- in part- critiquing the proposals of those critics, or demanding the critics make their own proposals for examination and consideration, cannot do so. This is because the "language" of the 'revolutionaries' (I that term is ok with you) bears no relationship to the current "bourgeois" environment.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2505747]This is unclear as well -- you may want to rephrase.

That it isn't enough to tabulate what people are requesting today via internet ect. One also has to determine the abilities of the community to provide those needs, at that time, compared with whether others may have a greater need for that god or service





I
actually appreciate this critique -- it points to the *subjective* factor that's inherent to the project of a mass-conscious political economy instead of the present-day 'automatic'-type hands-off market-mechanism method for resolving inputs with outputs.

The answer, then, is that it would be *subjective* -- if 10,000 would rather be "lazy" (according to the stereotype) and commit their lives to slower-paced, less-necessary work roles instead of a faster-paced, more-speculative group endeavor (maybe planning for mining minerals on Mars), then that's just the way the world would be, in that kind of world.

Its not a question of being "lazy." Its a question of whether it is better for the community to have 3000 unneeded workers making shoes, as opposed to making other needed items. Yo have stated that it can be better for the community for such a situation. I do not see how that can be true.




Cute, though there's no reason to get snide. Yes, an alternative politics requires a mass-subjective syncing of political mindsets, but that doesn't mean that objective realities have to be *ignored*, as you're indicating with your Stalinistic political slur.

That's fine, then. Even if EVERYONE agrees, the revolutionaries and the people can still be wrong. So now you are left with explaining what the revolutionaries will do and why it is the correct course of action. Thus far, as above, you have explained it is better to run the risk of fewer available goods, if that is what the "people" want.

So defend that proposition. Especially in light of the claim often made by socialists (though I am not sure if you yourself have made it) that socialism will result in an EXPANSION of available goods and services, once freed from the constraints of capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That it isn't enough to tabulate what people are requesting today via internet ect. One also has to determine the abilities of the community to provide those needs, at that time, compared with whether others may have a greater need for that god or service.

Seems like maintaining a stock & inventory database that is managed in real time would be enough to determine ability to provide. If something is short, then one can take steps to remedy that. If something is overstocked, then one can hold off on resupplying for however long the surplus lasts.

As for determining need, have you never heard of triage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage)? A system based on similar principles can be developed for the provision of good and services. There are likely better systems.

[ckaihatsu]

That it isn't enough to tabulate what people are requesting today via internet ect. One also has to determine the abilities of the community to provide those needs, at that time, compared with whether others may have a greater need for that god or service


Yes, absolutely. This is where the aforementioned 'prioritization' process comes into play.

The disclaimer is that I can't *promise* anything, of course, since I'm only one person and we're talking *structurally* here -- but, sheer ideology aside, I can posit a different *framework*, one no longer tied to private accumulations, that would be an *alternative* for society's production and humane needs. My blog entry is a good intro, and I'll post additional excerpts from my model that pertain to your points.

I'll note, though, that you keep attempting to posit a hypothetical juxtaposition of 'more demand' with 'not enough production from the community' -- if you insist on repeating this kind of scenario over and over it's just another Stalinistic stereotype and political slur. It reveals that you're ideologically motivated and not asking questions or proposing situations with an attitude towards finding solutions, or for the sake of rational debate.





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/





Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property





Its not a question of being "lazy." Its a question of whether it is better for the community to have 3000 unneeded workers making shoes, as opposed to making other needed items. Yo have stated that it can be better for the community for such a situation. I do not see how that can be true.


The principle at work here is the liberated laborers' collective self-administration -- this would cut against the Stalinistic boogeyman of a corrupt mismanaging bureaucratic elite that you're invoking.

There *could* be material conditions of unwavering abundance, everywhere, so that the question of what 3,000 workers doing *anywhere* would not even be a material issue whatsoever. Or, those 3,000 workers may decide their efforts are better placed elsewhere, and they could reposition themselves.

Notice that you're positing certain hypothetical *specifics* for a possible-future *framework* -- it's impossible to discuss hypothetical *specifics* because they're necessarily based on sheer fiction. What *can* be discussed with some degree of reasoning are the large-scale, *structural* elements since those are *societal*, and are based on certain givens, like that a post-capitalist society would be able to produce a material surplus.





That's fine, then. Even if EVERYONE agrees, the revolutionaries and the people can still be wrong.


Or, they could be *correct* -- see how that works...?





So now you are left with explaining what the revolutionaries will do and why it is the correct course of action. Thus far, as above, you have explained it is better to run the risk of fewer available goods, if that is what the "people" want.

So defend that proposition. Especially in light of the claim often made by socialists (though I am not sure if you yourself have made it) that socialism will result in an EXPANSION of available goods and services, once freed from the constraints of capitalism.


All you're doing is asserting that socialism *wouldn't* produce an expansion of available goods and services.

At the purely ideological level we're just butting heads here -- I have no interest in accepting your hypotheticals at face-value and defending my politics against strawman constructions. If you like we can discuss certain *structural elements* not based on private accumulations, and the reasoning involved, but otherwise there's no common ground here.

[Baseball]

Seems like maintaining a stock & inventory database that is managed in real time would be enough to determine ability to provide.

... more needed goods and services ahead of less needed goods and services. And no, maintaining that database of yours doesn't, on its own, do this.


If something is short, then one can take steps to remedy that.

Which is sort of the question, isn't it?




As for determining need, have you never heard of triage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage)? A system based on similar principles can be developed for the provision of good and services.

The goods folks in a triage DO something; there is a process, a knowledge which is utilized.
What is that knowledge in a socialist system?


There are likely better systems.

There are indeed...

[Baseball]

Yes, absolutely. This is where the aforementioned 'prioritization' process comes into play.

And thus far, no answer given.


The disclaimer is that I can't *promise* anything, of course, since I'm only one person and we're talking *structurally* here -- but, sheer ideology aside, I can posit a different *framework*, one no longer tied to private accumulations, that would be an *alternative* for society's production and humane needs.

So demonstrate such an alternate...


My blog entry is a good intro, and I'll post additional excerpts from my model that pertain to your points.

I saw it. It didn't say anything. I am asking to describe how it functions.


I'll note, though, that you keep attempting to posit a hypothetical juxtaposition of 'more demand' with 'not enough production from the community'

I was not the one who defined "effective" and used the footwear example. I simply questioned the claims made further. Its called dialogue and debate.




The principle at work here is the liberated laborers' collective self-administration

The principle I am invoking is one that assumes that "liberated laborers' collective self-administration" has to mean something. It assumes that they would need to do certain things to be "effective" and asking what those things might be.



There *could* be material conditions of unwavering abundance, everywhere, so that the question of what 3,000 workers doing *anywhere* would not even be a material issue whatsoever.

So demonstrate it. Thus far you are insisting that the labor of those 3000 unneeded workers have no impact upon the community. But since that is a general principle, its difficult to conceive that such situations would not occur elsewhere. What is that impact ie workers doing work they are not needed to do? it would seem to be a negative impact.


Or, those 3,000 workers may decide their efforts are better placed elsewhere, and they could reposition themselves.

Or maybe they would not, and prefer to do less work making shoes. What is the impact of those decisions upon the community? Would the "self-administration" have any say in those decisions of those 3000 workers to stay, or go?


Notice that you're positing certain hypothetical *specifics* for a possible-future *framework* -- it's impossible to discuss hypothetical *specifics* because they're necessarily based on sheer fiction. What *can* be discussed with some degree of reasoning are the large-scale, *structural* elements since those are *societal*, and are based on certain givens, like that a post-capitalist society would be able to produce a material surplus.

I am not a socialist. Why should I accept that a "post-capitalist society would be able to produce a material surplus" as a given? Particularly since you yourself has said if the workers choose to have too much labor in one particular line of production, a drop-off elsewhere is the ways the world will have to be?



Or, they could be *correct* -- see how that works...?

Of course. But the clam you were making is based upon the ability of the workers to get it all done once they are all unified in support behind it.



All you're doing is asserting that socialism *wouldn't* produce an expansion of available goods and services.

I am asking that your assertion that it would, be shown.


At the purely ideological level we're just butting heads here -- I have no interest in accepting your hypotheticals

They were your hypotheticals, not mine.


If you like we can discuss certain *structural elements* not based on private accumulations, and the reasoning involved,

Go right ahead.

[ckaihatsu]

And thus far, no answer given.



So demonstrate such an alternate...



I saw it. It didn't say anything. I am asking to describe how it functions.



I was not the one who defined "effective" and used the footwear example. I simply questioned the claims made further. Its called dialogue and debate.





The principle I am invoking is one that assumes that "liberated laborers' collective self-administration" has to mean something. It assumes that they would need to do certain things to be "effective" and asking what those things might be.




So demonstrate it. Thus far you are insisting that the labor of those 3000 unneeded workers have no impact upon the community. But since that is a general principle, its difficult to conceive that such situations would not occur elsewhere. What is that impact ie workers doing work they are not needed to do? it would seem to be a negative impact.



Or maybe they would not, and prefer to do less work making shoes. What is the impact of those decisions upon the community? Would the "self-administration" have any say in those decisions of those 3000 workers to stay, or go?



I am not a socialist. Why should I accept that a "post-capitalist society would be able to produce a material surplus" as a given? Particularly since you yourself has said if the workers choose to have too much labor in one particular line of production, a drop-off elsewhere is the ways the world will have to be?




Of course. But the clam you were making is based upon the ability of the workers to get it all done once they are all unified in support behind it.




I am asking that your assertion that it would, be shown.



They were your hypotheticals, not mine.



Go right ahead.


All you're doing is questioning my definitions -- that's simply being contrarian. If you'd like to receive clarification on any specifics of what I've put forth, then you need to ask specific questions.

Specifics within hypothetical scenarios, however, *aren't* helpful since the overall conditions there can just be arbitrarily posited.

[Rafiq]

That isn't what was said.

What was stated was that those arguments made by those who defend the "bourgeois-legaist framework" by- in part- critiquing the proposals of those critics, or demanding the critics make their own proposals for examination and consideration, cannot do so. This is because the "language" of the 'revolutionaries' (I that term is ok with you) bears no relationship to the current "bourgeois" environment.

You're misinterperating my post, again. The Language of revolutionaries exists external from the Bourgeois-ideological constraint, of which is for the most part existent unconsciously in many, as a language.

[Baseball]

All you're doing is questioning my definitions -- that's simply being contrarian. If you'd like to receive clarification on any specifics of what I've put forth, then you need to ask specific questions.

Specifics within hypothetical scenarios, however, *aren't* helpful since the overall conditions there can just be arbitrarily posited.

No. I am asking for further elaboration as to your definitions.

Hypothetical scenarios which are established- the ability to support the claims made about socialism-- tend to prove, or not, the answers given.

[Baseball]

You're misinterperating my post, again. The Language of revolutionaries exists external from the Bourgeois-ideological constraint, of which is for the most part existent unconsciously in many, as a language.

So prove it. Right now, all I see is a dodge to get around dealing with the types of issues any community would have to face.

[ckaihatsu]

No. I am asking for further elaboration as to your definitions.


I am not going to elaborate in an open-ended way at your prompting. If you have questions about anything I've already put forth then go ahead and make specific inquiries about that material.





Hypothetical scenarios which are established- the ability to support the claims made about socialism-- tend to prove, or not, the answers given.


I disagree -- hypotheticals can only serve to *illustrate*, but cannot prove, since there is a lack of real-world *or* clinical conditions available.

That said, there's much that's *valuable* about certain extrapolations of reasoning, like the model I've provided, since they can be based on certain givens, especially that a post-capitalist productivity would be able to produce a surplus.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2507169]I am not going to elaborate in an open-ended way at your prompting. If you have questions about anything I've already put forth then go ahead and make specific inquiries about that material.

I have: You defined "effective" (in note 100) as all human needs being met. I asked, specifically, would using more labor than what is needed to provide a particular good, also be considered "effective."




I disagree -- hypotheticals can only serve to *illustrate*, but cannot prove, since there is a lack of real-world *or* clinical conditions available.

But certainly one can speculate upon the impact, in a socialist community, of deploying 3000 unneeded laborers in a shoe factory, upon the rest of the community? Specifically, upon the impact of those 3000 workers therefore NOT being deployed to work elsewhere?


That said, there's much that's *valuable* about certain extrapolations of reasoning, like the model I've provided, since they can be based on certain givens, especially that a post-capitalist productivity would be able to produce a surplus.

I'm sorry, but the model said nothing.

[ckaihatsu]

I have: You defined "effective" (in note 100) as all human needs being met. I asked, specifically, would using more labor than what is needed to provide a particular good, also be considered "effective."





But certainly one can speculate upon the impact, in a socialist community, of deploying 3000 unneeded laborers in a shoe factory, upon the rest of the community? Specifically, upon the impact of those 3000 workers therefore NOT being deployed to work elsewhere?



I'm sorry, but the model said nothing.


I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by nit-picking on a hypothetical claim of 3,000 workers in a shoe factory that could be more useful elsewhere.

Are you trying to fault the hypothetical administration that placed them there, or are you trying to fault the workers themselves for not intelligently relocating, or maybe the community's group awareness for not bringing attention to it -- ?

If you're going to go ahead and define the terms of your hypothetical scenario then you can arrange the toy blocks however you like and also demolish them with a swipe of your hand -- it makes no difference and it's certainly not a conversation grounded in any mutual understanding.

Besides this scenario being decidedly too-abstract and oversimplified, it's worth noting that many variables would come into play: How good should the shoes be? Are there really more-urgent needs for the laborers elsewhere? Would their additional labor cause the production to be accomplished more quickly? (Etc.)

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2507192]I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by nit-picking on a hypothetical claim of 3,000 workers in a shoe factory that could be more useful elsewhere.

Are you trying to fault the hypothetical administration that placed them there, or are you trying to fault the workers themselves for not intelligently relocating, or maybe the community's group awareness for not bringing attention to it -- ?

I am asking for the basis of for the "workers themselves" either doing, or not doing the above.



Besides this scenario being decidedly too-abstract and oversimplified, it's worth noting that many variables would come into play: How good should the shoes be? Are there really more-urgent needs for the laborers elsewhere? Would their additional labor cause the production to be accomplished more quickly? (Etc.)

Yep. Absolutely fair questions to be asked. And the type of problems and questions which need to be dealt on a daily basis by any system.
So how do the socialists answer such questions? How do they deal with such problems?

[ckaihatsu]

I am asking for the basis of for the "workers themselves" either doing, or not doing the above.


Oh, okay.

Well, in a nutshell the answer is that a worldwide proletarian revolution would provide the basis for workers' self-activity, using all of the world's (industrial) implements according to their best collective judgment.

While many comrades would take me to task for saying anything more than that -- since no one can predict how a revolution would play-out, exactly, or how the workers would arrange the details of their productive activity -- I tend to go out-on-a-limb a little, using the certainty that such a society would be able to produce a surplus, and using the sociological material constants of (liberated) labor, mass administration, and consumption.

In other words, we know that, by the definition of 'liberation', no one could be *coerced* into working for others simply to satisfy their own requirements for life and living. This, then, leads into the reality that such liberated laborers would have a consistent, common interest in making productivity as *effective* as possible, with as little *effort* as possible -- automation would be the answer, then, and it would be unfettered by present-day *private* interests in keeping labor commodified, *in competition* with automation.

Likewise, with the world's technological prowess at their collective disposal, the liberated laborers would have to administrate all assets and resources, and their own labor, in an egalitarian way, but also one that takes material realities, efficiencies of scale, and mass consumption needs into account as well.

The proposed economics for this have been an ongoing question for many, but I devised the model at post #111 specifically to address this situation of needing to balance those several components in a feasible, dynamic way.





Yep. Absolutely fair questions to be asked. And the type of problems and questions which need to be dealt on a daily basis by any system.
So how do the socialists answer such questions? How do they deal with such problems?


Without meaning to be curt I'll mention 'prioritization' again -- meaning recursively -- and point you to my model at post #111.

[Baseball]

Well, in a nutshell the answer is that a worldwide proletarian revolution would provide the basis for workers' self-activity, using all of the world's (industrial) implements according to their best collective judgment.

Still needs to explain what that judgement might be.

After all, the objective is not to build a capitalist community...


While many comrades would take me to task for saying anything more than that -- since no one can predict how a revolution would play-out, exactly, or how the workers would arrange the details of their productive activity

As above, it can be assumed they would not arrange it capitalistically.




In other words, we know that, by the definition of 'liberation', no one could be *coerced* into working for others simply to satisfy their own requirements for life and living.

OK. The community would still need to have systems to ensure that labor is deployed where it can best be used to provide "prioritization" of production.


This, then, leads into the reality that such liberated laborers would have a consistent, common interest in making productivity as *effective* as possible, with as little *effort* as possible

Yes. An objective would be to produce as much as possible while costs are kept to a minimum.
But this is an objective of a capitalist community as well.
Also, if we are to use your definition of "effective", you have not dealt with the problem of assuring that labor is properly deployed, resources are properly being used ect.


-- automation would be the answer, then, and it would be unfettered by present-day *private* interests in keeping labor commodified, *in competition* with automation.

When the revolution occurs, they will have to deal with the world as is, not as they wish. Automation is fine- capitalists are all for it-- but it doesn't deal with the here and now.


Likewise, with the world's technological prowess at their collective disposal, the liberated laborers would have to administrate all assets and resources, and their own labor, in an egalitarian way, but also one that takes material realities, efficiencies of scale, and mass consumption needs into account as well.

Yep-- a capitalist community faces the same issues. They have answers and solutions to reach their objective. What are they for the socialist.

But thank you for going out on a limb.

[fug]

What does RevL consider the most reliable historians when it comes to the history of the USSR?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Without meaning to be curt I'll mention 'prioritization' again -- meaning recursively -- and point you to my model at post #111.

If you haven't worked it out by now, Baseball has already made his mind up - only capitalism "works" and anything remotely socialist is inherently flawed and doomed to failure. Literally anything you can say will not convince him otherwise.

[ckaihatsu]

Still needs to explain what that judgement might be.


You're asking me to mix time-frames here, and I can't speak for what the self-liberated workers of the possible future would do, exactly.





After all, the objective is not to build a capitalist community...


Correct.





As above, it can be assumed they would not arrange it capitalistically.


Correct.





OK. The community would still need to have systems to ensure that labor is deployed where it can best be used to provide "prioritization" of production.


Yes, and one possible model for consideration is the one I developed, at post #111.

I don't know what more I can do to explain this aspect that you're most interested in. Most socialists wouldn't even attempt to explain *this* much, because the rest is just mechanics / logistics that would more-or-less sort themselves out once the proper *political* basis was in place.

I'll add the diagrams below, for the sake of illustration, to show what the mechanics *could* be -- the idea is that if every issue within a group (workplace of workers, administrative policy point, or consumer demand) is formally noted as an item, then it can be tracked and referenced by ID number.

Prioritization can be done with 100 points to be distributed by every person across a range of available options in common, per issue, per decision, or it can be done almost identically by just having each participant *rank* the order of their preferences from #1, through infinity, as in my model -- each ranking number (#1, #2, #3, ...) can just be divided into 100 to get a point-value by magnitude (100 divided by 1 is 100, 100 divided by 2 is 50, 100 divided by 3 is 33.3, etc.), and then sorted with all others that are in the same context.





Yes. An objective would be to produce as much as possible while costs are kept to a minimum.
But this is an objective of a capitalist community as well.
Also, if we are to use your definition of "effective", you have not dealt with the problem of assuring that labor is properly deployed, resources are properly being used ect.


Again, such future details are not "my" problem -- they would be dealt with by those in *that* time period.





When the revolution occurs, they will have to deal with the world as is, not as they wish. Automation is fine- capitalists are all for it-- but it doesn't deal with the here and now.


Right -- first a revolution is required to get to "there".





Yep-- a capitalist community faces the same issues. They have answers and solutions to reach their objective. What are they for the socialist.

But thank you for going out on a limb.


No prob.


[16] Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://postimage.org/image/1cqt82ps4/


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://postimage.org/image/35hop84dg/

[Baseball]

You're asking me to mix time-frames here,

That is a fair enough complaint. I will try tighten things up a bit.




I'll add the diagrams below, for the sake of illustration, to show what the mechanics *could* be -- the idea is that if every issue within a group (workplace of workers, administrative policy point, or consumer demand) is formally noted as an item, then it can be tracked and referenced by ID number.

Prioritization can be done with 100 points to be distributed by every person across a range of available options in common, per issue, per decision, or it can be done almost identically by just having each participant *rank* the order of their preferences from #1, through infinity, as in my model -- each ranking number (#1, #2, #3, ...) can just be divided into 100 to get a point-value by magnitude (100 divided by 1 is 100, 100 divided by 2 is 50, 100 divided by 3 is 33.3, etc.), and then sorted with all others that are in the same context.

Such a proposal would seem to work in a stationary environment, where things stay the same day after day. But such a state does not exist.






Again, such future details are not "my" problem -- they would be dealt with by those in *that* time period.

Fair enough. But it should be pointed out that the "details" tend to support the "proper political basis."

[ckaihatsu]

Fair enough. But it should be pointed out that the "details" tend to support the "proper political basis."


No, I disagree, because, again, you're asking me to mix time-frames -- I cannot even *pretend* to speak for a workforce of the future, or for one that is purely hypothetical.

We *can* address the *principles* and *generalities* of any given politics, but you've already made clear that you're not sympathetic to socialism.





Notice that you're positing certain hypothetical *specifics* for a possible-future *framework* -- it's impossible to discuss hypothetical *specifics* because they're necessarily based on sheer fiction. What *can* be discussed with some degree of reasoning are the large-scale, *structural* elements since those are *societal*, and are based on certain givens, like that a post-capitalist society would be able to produce a material surplus.





Such a proposal would seem to work in a stationary environment, where things stay the same day after day. But such a state does not exist.


No, you're not understanding.

I mentioned that the prioritization process would be *recursive* -- to elaborate, that means that for any active issue, there would be a 'live snapshot' of prioritized items from all relevant parties. The 'live snapshot' from everyone would be compiled, cumulatively, and would be published as part of the news of the day and/or in realtime. Everyone who's relevant to that context would be able to see the collective feedback and could discuss and adjust accordingly for the next iteration of tallying, towards decision-making.

So, for instance, if the issue was of how many workers to make active for the purpose of producing shoes, a reasonable, basic method would be to start at the end and work backwards:

- How many shoes are being requested by the locality and further-out localities?

- Of that demand how much should be supplied from local production *only*?

- Would other, nearby localities' production sites contribute at all to fulfilling strictly *local* demand?

- Conversely, would the local production site be part of fulfilling demand from *beyond* its own local environs?


Once the distribution destinations have been finalized the planning for production can begin, with more-detailed production schedules and supply-chain requirements drawn up. At the same time there would be a better sense of how many labor hours would be required, and from what work roles and tasks, specifically.

So the issue could arise that there are 3,000 more workers available for the production of requested shoes than what standard production parameters require -- this issue could be made public, directed at the locality's population, the area's typical shoe-producing liberated laborers, and those who are involved in the administration of all of it, particularly the production site(s).

Several proposals could arise from all relevant parties, perhaps with one from within the ranks of the 3,000 saying that they could go ahead and put in the work with the additional output being made available further afield, to outlying localities or further -- obviously this proposal would require prerequisite research to be done, such as contacting those possible localities to see how much potential production of shoes they could actually make use of.

Another proposal might come from the locality's public, saying that they would welcome an improvement, or "upgrade" in the *type* of shoes being made, and that the 3,000 workers could be most useful with their efforts directed towards the additional labor required for a more-elaborate production process for a correspondingly higher-quality shoe, in the already-requested quantity. This proposal, too, would require its own process for communicating with the core workforce, the group of 3,000 workers, the plan's administration, and possibly others.

A third proposal might originate from the locality's existing shoe-producing administration -- a subgroup of the regular, typical liberated laborers, who take on the additional tasks and responsibilities of fulfilling one or another given plan for shoe production. Based on their past oversight and experience the administration's proposal states that, for a regular production run, the 3,000 workers would *not* be needed, and that they would prefer not to have to deal with any logistics that are outside of the norm.

Finally, a wholly unique grouping of workers from the regulars and from the group of 3,000 coalesces and emerges to issue a *novel* proposal: They will, themselves, take on all of the administrative duties required for making use of the 3,000 workers in *whatever* capacity would be possible, including beyond just the production of only shoes. They are willing to go ahead and do the footwork to see to what extents the factory can be pushed, and to where the total production could go, in all possible variety and geographical scope -- but they would need some kind of general approval from the locality and its regular workers before they initiate any efforts in that direction.

So -- you can see where this is going. There are at least *four* proposals that could be put in front of the locality's residents, the local shoe-producing factory's area's laborers, and the current administration of that facility. For the sake of process the locality might have a *general* political-type administration that would facilitate the process of discussion around the four proposals, the timetable for the same, the recordkeeping, the compiling, the publishing, the communications with outlying localities, and so on.

At certain points in the discussion the political administration might facilitate by pointing out that a plurality has prioritized the *first* proposal, for example, and that perhaps this leaning should be formalized with a follow-up, *procedural* prioritization -- though, maybe this time around, also including a prioritization for some additional, more-detailed *sub-proposals* on logistical *specifics* of it, such as *how quickly* the production could be done, and maybe *which outlying localities* should be the recipients for the expanded quantity of output.

This more-logistical set of sub-proposals might be more-directed or more-weighted towards the locality's liberated-laborer population, since it would be likewise more-empowered and more-responsible for actual work production and its details.

At the same time, though, the main deciding process could continue, and further proposals may continue to be submitted, with further, continous rounds of prioritization and mass feedback. Many things could be under active consideration and discussion, sorted and re-sorted in an ongoing way until more-process-oriented proposals over the issue came to the fore to press for a finalization of it all in the interests of time and effectiveness.


Also:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe
http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/

[Rafiq]

So prove it. Right now, all I see is a dodge to get around dealing with the types of issues any community would have to face.

Any types of issues a community would have to face? Like.... Electing a member of the bourgeois state? Pressuposing bourgeois ideology?

[Baseball]

I mentioned that the prioritization process would be *recursive* -- to elaborate, that means that for any active issue, there would be a 'live snapshot' of prioritized items from all relevant parties. The 'live snapshot' from everyone would be compiled, cumulatively, and would be published as part of the news of the day and/or in realtime. Everyone who's relevant to that context would be able to see the collective feedback and could discuss and adjust accordingly for the next iteration of tallying, towards decision-making.

Well, yes. Production given present circumstances.


So, for instance, if the issue was of how many workers to make active for the purpose of producing shoes, a reasonable, basic method would be to start at the end and work backwards:

- How many shoes are being requested by the locality and further-out localities?

- Of that demand how much should be supplied from local production *only*?

- Would other, nearby localities' production sites contribute at all to fulfilling strictly *local* demand?

- Conversely, would the local production site be part of fulfilling demand from *beyond* its own local environs?

This is not the end all of it. There will be other demands for other goods and services. The solution you are proposing is incredibly cumbersome.



Once the distribution destinations have been finalized the planning for production can begin, with more-detailed production schedules and supply-chain requirements drawn up.

All of which requires prioritization, deployment of labor ect.
Cumbersome.


At the same time there would be a better sense of how many labor hours would be required, and from what work roles and tasks, specifically.

Measured against what?




Several proposals could arise from all relevant parties, perhaps with one from within the ranks of the 3,000 saying that they could go ahead and put in the work with the additional output being made available further afield, to outlying localities or further -- obviously this proposal would require prerequisite research to be done, such as contacting those possible localities to see how much potential production of shoes they could actually make use of.

Oh.. imperialism.


Another proposal might come from the locality's public, saying that they would welcome an improvement, or "upgrade" in the *type* of shoes being made, and that the 3,000 workers could be most useful with their efforts directed towards the additional labor required for a more-elaborate production process for a correspondingly higher-quality shoe, in the already-requested quantity. This proposal, too, would require its own process for communicating with the core workforce, the group of 3,000 workers, the plan's administration, and possibly others.

Who wouldn't want want higher quality shoes? But again, measured aganst what? Compared against what? Would people want higher quality shoes at the cost of less socks (those 3000 workers not available in the sock factory after all)? Maybe-- but how is all that measued? the political authority?


A third proposal might originate from the locality's existing shoe-producing administration -- a subgroup of the regular, typical liberated laborers, who take on the additional tasks and responsibilities of fulfilling one or another given plan for shoe production. Based on their past oversight and experience the administration's proposal states that, for a regular production run, the 3,000 workers would *not* be needed, and that they would prefer not to have to deal with any logistics that are outside of the norm.

Lay-offs of those 3000 workers. Spoken like a true capitalist...


Finally, a wholly unique grouping of workers from the regulars and from the group of 3,000 coalesces and emerges to issue a *novel* proposal: They will, themselves, take on all of the administrative duties required for making use of the 3,000 workers in *whatever* capacity would be possible, including beyond just the production of only shoes. They are willing to go ahead and do the footwork to see to what extents the factory can be pushed, and to where the total production could go, in all possible variety and geographical scope -- but they would need some kind of general approval from the locality and its regular workers before they initiate any efforts in that direction.

OK, so those 3000 workers would become.. capitalists perhaps? deciding where to send their shoes (and what about the people already employed doing this during pre-planning phases? What is their labor now used for?) that would best benefit the factory and the workers.


So -- you can see where this is going.

Yes.

"Sub-proposals"?

[ckaihatsu]

Well, yes. Production given present circumstances.


Or better. Pessimist.





This is not the end all of it. There will be other demands for other goods and services. The solution you are proposing is incredibly cumbersome.




All of which requires prioritization, deployment of labor ect.
Cumbersome.


You're blithely asserting a characterization here -- how about elaborating so that I / we can know your *reasoning* for calling it "cumbersome" -- ?

Keep in mind that information logistics can easily handle all of this, just as it does for the vast financial information of today.





Measured against what?


Measured against the type and quantity of compiled mass-requested production that has won out by being mass-prioritized.





Oh.. imperialism.


Imperialism results from ownership's need for conquest for new markets. A post-capitalist economics *displaces* private control, so if the (3,000) workers decided *not* to work at mass production there would be nothing anyone could do to coerce them, since no one could deny them their own self-sufficiency from nature (or better) -- nothing could be corralled-off by private interests.





Who wouldn't want want higher quality shoes? But again, measured aganst what? Compared against what? Would people want higher quality shoes at the cost of less socks (those 3000 workers not available in the sock factory after all)? Maybe-- but how is all that measued? the political authority?


If the people would want better shoes produced they should organize and make a focused political point of it.

Quality can be measured by making comparisons to what has come before.

You persist in arbitrarily positing a scenario of either-or, and resulting scarcity -- it's not necessarily a sound formulation.





Lay-offs of those 3000 workers. Spoken like a true capitalist...


Well, not necessarily -- that's merely the current mass administration saying that. If their line is not well-received they can be readily replaced, through mass-prioritized political demands, by any grouping that has better mass support and would be able to fulfill whatever other political-productive line they commit to.





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/





Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions





OK, so those 3000 workers would become.. capitalists perhaps? deciding where to send their shoes (and what about the people already employed doing this during pre-planning phases? What is their labor now used for?) that would best benefit the factory and the workers.


Well, in this scenario the default is the administration's line that uses the regular workforce, and not the additional 3,000, for a pre-requested quantity of shoes for specific recipients.

If the 3,000 wind up not being used here to produce shoes then they would not be working for the moment. Since they would be liberated laborers they could either work elsewhere, depending on conditions, or else not work. Their personal basic needs for life and living would not be affected by their work status, whatever it would be.

The point of such a political economy wouldn't be "[to] best benefit the factory and the workers", exactly, it would be to benefit *humanity*, without bias. The liberated laborers (workers) would hold a certain 'veto' power over liberated mass production since it could not function without their efforts, in some configuration.





Yes.

"Sub-proposals"?


Right -- the idea is that as mass preferences for direction become more pronounced, that overall sentiment -- expressed in clear mass-prioritization of bulk policies -- could be *refined*, as into defined policy packages, according to their respective advocates. (See excerpt above.)

The 'sub-proposals' could then be mass-prioritized themselves in successive iterations, with more and more refinement possible, time permitting.

[Positivist]

Baseball, you are yet to provide a serious critique of any of the models presented here. Your questions have been clearly answered, and you have retorted to the same cliche responses. Fine. Your so ideologically ingrained to worship capitalism, so be it. Just acknowledge that it is a sentimental attachment and not a rational position.

The necessity of allocating resources in a particular manner has been a constant of every society.
-What is to be produced and for whom? (Demand)
-How is this to be supplied and at what quality?
-How much effort are the suppliers willing to exert to supply the product?

Socialism approaches these questions in a qualitatively different manner than any class society has. A socialist society is, by definition, is a society where those who supply the product are the same people who consume it. Demand takes into account the consequences of supply and is adjusted to minimize effort while maximising satisfaction, and avoiding any detraction from well-being that today is typically involved in the production process.

Capitalism is a society where supply is divorced from demand. Mechanisms are not in place for those making the demands to anticipate the full costs of supply because it is not the suppliers making the demands (59% of consumption in the United States is performed by the top 16% of the income bracket), and where the suppliers (workers) are the demanding force, there demands are disconnected from the demands of others workers in different industries (a massage therapist will have no aversion to purchasing a cosmetic product which is arduously produced because they have no concept of the effort exerted to perform that labor.) In socialism, all producers are connected in their demands because they are organized to be associated in its supply.

[ckaihatsu]

Just saw this at another thread...





What we won't have under socialism is unemployment


...And it got me thinking about this:





Lay-offs of those 3000 workers. Spoken like a true capitalist...


I'll add that employment wouldn't have the passive and volatile quality that it does today. In other words people wouldn't be so much 'employed', as from above, but rather that political-civil planning and the carrying out of the duties for it would be one and the same thing, for everyone.

So if the production of shoes for the time being was already well-covered, there'd be nothing preventing those 3,000 workers from taking full initiative in a pro-active way to address another, totally different aspect of society in some regard. Maybe in their unretained attentions some within their ranks might fall upon the idea that there would probably be an imminent surge in requests for *socks*, because of the new-shoe production, that is currently overlooked. They could direct their activities towards coordinating the procurement of a sufficient supply of socks, based on available statistical information for that kind of thing.

Or the 3,000 might wind up in open discussions because of the event and subsequently form a task group to find out and address other outstanding needs for production in the area, etc.

[Positivist]

And in the case that there are three thousand (or however many) workers who are not needed in the production process than there position of alleviation from responsibility can be rotated throughout the entire community.

[ckaihatsu]

And in the case that there are three thousand (or however many) workers who are not needed in the production process than there position of alleviation from responsibility can be rotated throughout the entire community.


Well, with that you're getting into more of the logistical dynamics of social productive organization in such a society -- I'd be interested to know what you have in mind about how that could conceivably work, in the interests of streamlining that process and making it as *de*-politicized as possible (since it's only logistical).

I have my own ideas, of course....

[Baseball]

-
What is to be produced and for whom? (Demand)

yep


-How is this to be supplied and at what quality?
And quality


-How much effort are the suppliers willing to exert to supply the product?


Yes. The benefits of production should exceed its costs.


A socialist society is, by definition, is a society where those who supply the product are the same people who consume it.

How many cars does the auto worker consume? I would think, statistically 0%.


Demand takes into account the consequences of supply and is adjusted to minimize effort while maximising satisfaction,

Yes, the aim of production is that benefits of producing that product exceed its costs.
You must realize at this point that you are already doomed.


and avoiding any detraction from well-being that today is typically involved in the production process.

Whatever that means.

Positivist, you keep referring to the principles of socialism. I am asking what needs to be done so these principles can be realized.


(a massage therapist will have no aversion to purchasing a cosmetic product which is arduously produced because they have no concept of the effort exerted to perform that labor.)

A customer wants what he wants.
That is the origin for the "lack of aversion" of the massage therapist to purchasing a particular product.
Why, in a socialist community, would a massage therapist interpose himself between that product and the customer? What if that product "maximizes satisfaction" while "minimizing effort"?

[Baseball]

Just saw this at another thread...





...And it got me thinking about this:





I'll add that employment wouldn't have the passive and volatile quality that it does today. In other words people wouldn't be so much 'employed', as from above, but rather that political-civil planning and the carrying out of the duties for it would be one and the same thing, for everyone.

So if the production of shoes for the time being was already well-covered, there'd be nothing preventing those 3,000 workers from taking full initiative in a pro-active way to address another, totally different aspect of society in some regard. Maybe in their unretained attentions some within their ranks might fall upon the idea that there would probably be an imminent surge in requests for *socks*, because of the new-shoe production, that is currently overlooked. They could direct their activities towards coordinating the procurement of a sufficient supply of socks, based on available statistical information for that kind of thing.

Or the 3,000 might wind up in open discussions because of the event and subsequently form a task group to find out and address other outstanding needs for production in the area, etc.

OK. So the unemployed shoe workers can decide to... become ... capitalists.. and start producing socks, in the expectation that there will be an increase in demand for socks, an expectation which may, or may not be, true.

Or they can form a think tank and go on TV and explain why somebody else should leave their job so as to make socks.

You are not really describing anything all that spectacularly different than what might happen in a capitalist community (btw- in your scenario of the socialist community, UNEMPLOYMENT is considered important in effective allocation of resources for the community). The details of course, need to go deeper...

[Dean]

Yes, the aim of production is that benefits of producing that product exceed its costs.

Bullshit. Your model only works if it refers exclusively to the costs to the producer. Most producers are good at externalizing costs, which is how they stay in business.

Any business that doesn't have some kind of significant public subsidy or another significant externalization of constituent costs isn't just practicing a bad business model. Its doomed.

But yet:


You must realize at this point that you are already doomed.

Nah. Critiquing a fundamentally illegitimate economic model is enough to make one more relevant than most of academic and social commentators on the issue.


Whatever that means.
That's those costs I'm talking about, that someone else pays for to make the production process profitable for whoever owns it.


Positivist, you keep referring to the principles of socialism. I am asking what needs to be done so these principles can be realized.
Asking over and over again only drowns the answers out to you.


A customer wants what he wants.
That is the origin for the "lack of aversion" of the massage therapist to purchasing a particular product.
Why, in a socialist community, would a massage therapist interpose himself between that product and the customer? What if that product "maximizes satisfaction" while "minimizing effort"?
I'm glad that you acknowledge that the costs involved in production are paid by as many people besides the "producer" as possible in order to expand potential profit.

[Baseball]

Bullshit. Your model only works if it refers exclusively to the costs to the producer. Most producers are good at externalizing costs, which is how they stay in business.

My "model" agrees with Positivist-- production should be geared to maximize happiness (benefit, profit) while minimizing effort (cost).




That's those costs I'm talking about, that someone else pays for to make the production process profitable for whoever owns it.

[Dean]

My "model" agrees with Positivist-- production should be geared to maximize happiness (benefit, profit) while minimizing effort (cost).

That's fine as an ideal. But markets do not create this outcome. The costs are determined on an individual basis for the investor. If there were some kind of democratic control over the production process, this wouldn't be the case. But the same would be true of positivists' "arduous conditions" and in general the externalities of the production process which are today only assumed to be a cost in this model under the duress of state intervention.

[ckaihatsu]

OK. So the unemployed shoe workers can decide to... become ... capitalists..


This is, repeatedly, only your contention -- my model presupposes and *requires* a global proletarian revolution, so all forms of private ownership would be swept aside, for the proper context.

A post-capitalist society would allow anyone to potentially *politically* co-administrate any means of mass production, according to a *political* process, as through a mass-prioritization of unmet humane needs, firstly. Note that for such a mode of production it would be very odd to imagine any kind of administration or control imposed onto the production process from *without*, because those doing the actual work of material production would not have to answer to *anyone* directly -- they could simply co-administrate their own work efforts, and the functioning of the machinery, in common, while directing their productivity to fulfill general mass demand.





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/





Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property





and start producing socks, in the expectation that there will be an increase in demand for socks, an expectation which may, or may not be, true.

Or they can form a think tank and go on TV and explain why somebody else should leave their job so as to make socks.


Sure, assuming that *any* kind of one-to-many broadcast-type communications would continue to be in existence.





You are not really describing anything all that spectacularly different than what might happen in a capitalist community


Yes, I am -- please note the utter absence of any abstracted monetary valuations -- capital -- in use as a material exchange medium.





(btw- in your scenario of the socialist community, UNEMPLOYMENT is considered important in effective allocation of resources for the community). The details of course, need to go deeper...


Certainly.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/

[Baseball]

This is, repeatedly, only your contention -- my model presupposes and *requires* a global proletarian revolution, so all forms of private ownership would be swept aside, for the proper context.

I would suggest the contention describes the situation fairly accurately-- even if you would disagree with the words.


A post-capitalist society would allow anyone to potentially *politically* co-administrate any means of mass production, according to a *political* process, as through a mass-prioritization of unmet humane needs, firstly. Note that for such a mode of production it would be very odd to imagine any kind of administration or control imposed onto the production process from *without*, because those doing the actual work of material production would not have to answer to *anyone* directly -- they could simply co-administrate their own work efforts, and the functioning of the machinery, in common, while directing their productivity to fulfill general mass demand.

The people running the particular factory would not have to answer to anyone except themselves? Truly?
What about other factories- you know, those other factories from which they receive THEIR parts in order produce?
What about the community in large- why should the community provide labor to a particular factory as opposed to another?
And what about the consumer- isn't what he or she wants really the entire purpose of production-- why production is geared in the ways they are so geared?
Aren't these all outside controls on a particular factory?



There is a lot of words like "allowed" and "reverted" and "may be used" in your sketch.
Words which are not commonly associated with the word "freedom."

[Positivist]

Baseball that last response to me you provided was your worst yet. You repeated things I had already said with quality, you supported my point with your hypothetical automakers situation, and then you said I had to demonstrate how it would work even though I and many others have consistently explained how it would work, to which you still are yet to respond with anything deeper "than no but you have to prove it." I'm not sure if it is a problem with neural wiring, or if you are just shutting yourself out to everyones responses but you clearly are incapable of conducting a debate.

[Baseball]

Baseball that last response to me you provided was your worst yet. You repeated things I had already said with quality,

I agreed with your comment about what an economy must do.



you supported my point with your hypothetical automakers situation, and then you said I had to demonstrate how it would work even though I and many others have consistently explained how it would work,

No. Only Ckaihatsu (and that Gacky fellow who seems to have vanished) have done so. All you have done is offer up some very general summaries of how a socialist community might look and function, and what its aims are. I questioned some of these general summaries and have wondered if it can reach its aims using its principles.

[Positivist]

The people running the particular factory would not have to answer to anyone except themselves? Truly?
What about other factories- you know, those other factories from which they receive THEIR parts in order produce?
What about the community in large- why should the community provide labor to a particular factory as opposed to another?
And what about the consumer- isn't what he or she wants really the entire purpose of production-- why production is geared in the ways they are so geared?
Aren't these all outside controls on a particular factory?

What? He has clearly, and repeatedly explained that productive planning will be performed by an association of all producers (meaning all factories) and that this planning will be set to satisfy the wants of those same producers. You seem incapable of realizing that consumer and producer aren't mutually exclusive and in a socialist society would be mutually dependent.

All producers would come together as a community and determine what it is that they wanted to produce and what they were willing to do to supply these items. Now, please make an actual objective to this form of economic organization rather than simply remarking that socialists never provide an alternative.

To summarize the potential organizational model that could proceed capitalism which we label socialism;
-Association of everyone who has ever worked is formed (workers, retirees, disabled individuals.)
-Members of association will discuss potential overall productive platforms.
-Topics of discussion will include how potential platforms benefit the population, detract from social health, the amount of resources they necessitate (including labor), and what the long-term consequences of they are.
-Competing platforms are put to a popular vote.
*"Weight" of vote could be determined by amount of labor committed to project and/or previous projects.

[ckaihatsu]

I would suggest the contention describes the situation fairly accurately-- even if you would disagree with the words.


"The situation" is either that of today's current world, or that of a possible, feasible proletarian control, worldwide.

You can attempt to bicker if you like, but there's nothing to bicker about.





The people running the particular factory would not have to answer to anyone except themselves? Truly?


Yes, I'll stand by the statement in the sense that there would / could be no *permanent* overarching authority, as we're used to having from the historical precedent of sovereigns, nation-states, and fixed institutions.

With bourgeois practice utterly annihilated the world would finally be our own, with no claims to trans-historical right and privilege.

Yes, of course in practice there's be everyday concerns and realities, as you're noting, but they would be purely practical, for the overall sake of providing for human need, and nothing else.





What about other factories- you know, those other factories from which they receive THEIR parts in order produce?
What about the community in large- why should the community provide labor to a particular factory as opposed to another?
And what about the consumer- isn't what he or she wants really the entire purpose of production-- why production is geared in the ways they are so geared?
Aren't these all outside controls on a particular factory?


Yes, and I've already covered the methods for facilitating these dynamics.





There is a lot of words like "allowed" and "reverted" and "may be used" in your sketch.
Words which are not commonly associated with the word "freedom."


The idea is to provide a framework of societal practice that is congruent with socialist political culture -- it's meant to just be a formalization, on paper.





[...]

-Competing platforms are put to a popular vote.
*"Weight" of vote could be determined by amount of labor committed to project and/or previous projects.


I'm in agreement with your post, but will note that the decision-making process could be far more detailed -- for those who want to participate at that level of specificity -- all the way down to the nitty-gritty details of where what part comes from and how it would be supplied.

So common participation could be a process of prioritization at *any* of these political levels -- over macro-scale political factions and their general philosophies of societal directions, and/or over their more-specific platforms covering a number of major policy issues, and/or over a range of various policies, including a number of proposed policy packages for any or all of them.

Since such participation could be seen as a possible free-for-all, it would be important to just keep in mind that the prevailing *material* context would inherently assert itself -- sure, a mass-prioritization could overwhelmingly call for a mining of diamonds and rubies for everyone, but in practice the liberated laborers themselves could just say, "Find someone who'll do that, then."

I'll mention for the record that my model uses a system of circulating labor credits, to accommodate more-peripheral economic dynamics that can't be solved with flat-out administrative-type politics. These labor credits are meant to acknowledge that all production comes from the *service* of liberated labor provided on all-public-domain equipment, machinery, and productive facilities.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269




To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

[Positivist]

@ckaihatsu, overall great analysis and description but you still seem to be divorcing the consumers from the workers. It is pivotal that in any properly democratic economy the producers are the consumers albeit it not directly. Of course children, elders and the disabled will still have demand which must be accounted for but the primary power will rest with the producers fulfilling their dual role as the supplier and consumer of value.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, overall great analysis and description but you still seem to be divorcing the consumers from the workers.


Only for the sake of formality, for description and discussion.

From a purely operational standpoint I don't see anything wrong with this, especially if the benefits of a truly global, complex productivity and economics are to be realized.

Others -- perhaps yourself -- have a more localized and parochial conception of collectivist production, but it doesn't necessarily have to be constrained to a village-like patchwork.





It is pivotal that in any properly democratic economy the producers are the consumers albeit it not directly. Of course children, elders and the disabled will still have demand which must be accounted for but the primary power will rest with the producers fulfilling their dual role as the supplier and consumer of value.