Log in

View Full Version : Where do I fit in?



Thundermind
22nd August 2013, 05:46
Hello,

I just joined this site and I thought that perhaps this was the best place to start. I have long held some very strong beliefs, though admittedly I am not very well read. I would like some suggestions on things to read as well as some advice on affiliations or tendencies where I can find like-minded people. So it is best then if I share what I believe first.

__________________________________________________ ____________

I don't wish to cloud the subject of my political leanings though I think it is important first to point out some philosophical underpinnings in what I believe. First, I am what is known as a subjectivist. Subjectivism is a philosophy popularized by the Matrix movies. I believe that nothing can be known with any certainty, with the exception of my own existence. We cannot know the world around us without relying upon our senses, and science tells us that our senses can deceive us. There are a host of reasons why this is significant but to keep things short I will refrain from going into any great detail here.

Though this is perhaps less significant I should point out that I am an absolute moral relativist. That is, I believe that morality is defined by the individual him/herself, though they may choose to subscribe to the morality proscribed by significant others or groups.

Now to my political leanings. I am a Socialist. I choose to use the term socialist to differentiate myself from the stigmatism of modern day Communism, and the more popular Communist ideologies. I believe that Marx was a brilliant man, but there were many things which he failed to predict. First, the foundation of any civilization is perception. It is the beginning and the end. That being said, it is the perception of the mode of production that impacts so many facets of civilization, and not the mode of production itself.

Second, Marx failed to predict the rise of the middle class and the outsourcing of labor. In the twentieth century, industry in developed countries quickly learned that it was more cost effective to outsource labor to poor developing countries, and to artificially raise the standard of living for the working poor in their own countries. That way they could keep prices low, create a customer base for their products, and encourage a positive public image. Also, it would seem that people are not particularly motivated to change if they have no need to do so. If suffering and hardship are not going on in front of them, people are more likely to ignore it and pretend that it does not exist.

Finally, it is important to note the influence of propaganda in the twentieth century. At no other time in human history has propaganda been so important to the fabric of our society. We, of course, have adopted more acceptable terms such as 'advertising' and 'public relations', but it is essentially the same. However, it is important to understand what propaganda is and how it is so incredibly effective. First, there is no bourgeois conspiracy or at least there is no real evidence to suggest there is. Instead, it is far more insidious. It is a unintended side effect of commercial industry attempting to sell it's products that they also inadvertently reinforce the system in which we live. It also becomes part of our identity. We identify ourselves by the products we choose to buy. And because academic institutions and media rely on revenue, in the form of donations, grants, sales, etc., it is in their best interest to also reinforce this way of life.

There are some other significant points which I disagree with in modern conceptions of Communism. First, I believe that the road to a true socialist state must be through pluralist democracy. I do not agree with a single party state. If we have learned anything it should be that corruption is rife in such a system. Second, I believe that the terms 'proletariat' and 'bourgeoisie' no longer have a place. The terms no longer relate to modern social relations. Also, modern technological advances mean that it is entirely possible for a modern Socialist state to have only a very small labor force. In a capitalist economy there is an enormous amount of redundancy in the labor market. For example, walk into any grocery store and you will find perhaps a hundred different cereals. How many cereals do we really need? Perhaps four or five. In a true Socialist state that redundancy is eliminated. As a result, the excess labor force can be redirected to research and development.

Third, I cannot accept the prohibition on religious institutions. If we are to rally people to our cause I feel it is important that we do not make enemies. I also think it is important that we do not claim to know everything. People should be entitled to believe what they choose to believe.

Furthermore, I think this needs to be the foundation of our movement. It is, I believe, the true nature of a democracy. That all men and women are equal, and as such are entitled to believe what they choose to believe, and that no one person's opinion is more important than anyone else. The only exception to this rule is in political discourse. It seems to me that we should defer to those who are more knowledgeable than ourselves. That is why I believe that government posts should have requirements such as an appropriate educational background and related work and volunteer experience.

One other point that I should point out. I do not think it is likely that Socialism will advance in the way that Marx foresaw, that is through a revolution of the proletariat. I think that Socialism is more likely to arise from an appeal to intellectuals, human rights groups and disenfranchised youth. We need to harness social media to get our message out. We need to put away the past and become more progressive, and it is for that reason I am going to call my approach 'Progressive Socialism'.

So anyone with me on this? Any advice? Comments?

Thundermind
22nd August 2013, 12:52
Sorry, a slight correction.

It should read,



Also, modern technological advances mean that it is entirely possible for a modern Socialist state to have only a very small unskilled labor force in manufacturing. In a capitalist economy there is an enormous amount of redundancy in manufacturing. For example, walk into any grocery store and you will find perhaps a hundred different cereals. How many cereals do we really need? Perhaps four or five. In a true Socialist state that redundancy is eliminated. As a result, the excess labor can be redirected to research and development.


Makes a little more sense.

The Idler
22nd August 2013, 20:30
Welcome, subjectivist socialist.
The foundation is civilization is perception is just postmodernist twaddle.
Marx was not in the business of Nostradamus-like predictions. Most of the third world has not experienced the rise of the middle class or outsourcing of labor, so it is your perception that is lacking here.
You're correct about propaganda, but its not somehow unsocialist to make this observation, the Situationists were making this point about half a century ago. It sounds like you've just watched Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky.

As for modern conceptions of Communism, the SPGB have been arguing for achieving socialism through a pluralist democracy without establishing a one-party or any other kind of state since 1904.

As for your prohibition on the terms proletariat and bourgeoisie, if you're looking to reject the class struggle (or even class consciousness at all) in favour of a technological solution, you might like to try the Zeitgeist Movement.

Nothing wrong with folk believing what they want to believe but you can't be socialist and religious.

Broadly I get and agree with the freedom argument, but not the contradictions inherent in your democratic appeal to intellectuals more knowledgable than ourselves (very Fabian Society). Also your notion of social relations is not what Marx was arguing about class, and more akin to vague pre-Marxian socialism. Ditch the so-called Progressivism and if you're going to criticise everything then don't hold back. What do you think of Anarcho-Communism? In particular its view of the state? You might find An Anarchist FAQ by Iain McKay a good read.http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

Art Vandelay
22nd August 2013, 20:36
Marx was in the business of Nostradamus-like predictions.

This is really an awful parallel to draw. Marx had nothing to do with Nostradamus and certainly didn't make predictions like him. Marx is to social science, what Darwin is to natural science.


Nothing wrong with folk believing what they want to believe but you can't be socialist and religious.

Sure you can, if you had said its impossible to be both a Marxist and religious, you'd have had a point.

The Idler
22nd August 2013, 20:58
Sorry genuine typo, meant to say Marx was **not** in the business of Nostradamus like predictions, now edited.
And yes, Marxist would be more appropriate in the second one.

argeiphontes
22nd August 2013, 21:33
Have you checked out IOPS and/or ParEcon? It seems to be where I'm headed and I have some similar reservations to yours. (I might even be an idealist ;-) ).

Edit: IOPS seems close to an "orthopraxy" rather than an orthodoxy and appeals to me on that basis too.

Thundermind
23rd August 2013, 02:07
Thank you all for your comments. Please provide full names rather than acronyms and links where possible. As I said, I am not particularly well read, though I would like that to change.

kaylee_book
23rd August 2013, 12:20
mention your words which you wants acronyms :)

JPSartre12
23rd August 2013, 14:34
I don't wish to cloud the subject of my political leanings though I think it is important first to point out some philosophical underpinnings in what I believe. First, I am what is known as a subjectivist. Subjectivism is a philosophy popularized by the Matrix movies. I believe that nothing can be known with any certainty, with the exception of my own existence. We cannot know the world around us without relying upon our senses, and science tells us that our senses can deceive us. There are a host of reasons why this is significant but to keep things short I will refrain from going into any great detail here.

Though this is perhaps less significant I should point out that I am an absolute moral relativist. That is, I believe that morality is defined by the individual him/herself, though they may choose to subscribe to the morality proscribed by significant others or groups.

This is interesting. Far too often, there are Leftists (be they Marxists, anarchists, etc) that come across as rampantly determinist, and it's a relief to hear that there are others out there who subscribe to the Cartesian cogito rather than unquestioning economism.

Is there a particular school of subjectivist theory that you follow the most? At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to market my own tendency, I would recommend that you look into existentialist literature. Sartre and Heidegger were both subjectivist in that they were phenomenologists, and I'd argue that they were more influential than Husserl. Both Sartre and Heidegger's existential-subjectivist paradigms leant themselves to radical politics (Sartre being a militant ultra-Leftist, Heidegger being a National Socialist in Germany).

If you're interested in this, message me. I would be happy to discuss it more with you.


Second, Marx failed to predict the rise of the middle class and the outsourcing of labor. In the twentieth century, industry in developed countries quickly learned that it was more cost effective to outsource labor to poor developing countries, and to artificially raise the standard of living for the working poor in their own countries. That way they could keep prices low, create a customer base for their products, and encourage a positive public image. Also, it would seem that people are not particularly motivated to change if they have no need to do so. If suffering and hardship are not going on in front of them, people are more likely to ignore it and pretend that it does not exist.

As Marxists, when we talk about class, we don't simply reduce everything to either proletariat or bourgeoisie. That's too crude and far too reductionist for a complex industrial society. There are gradations of classes (haute-bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, lumpenproletariat, and so on). What Marx speaks of classes, he explicitly states that "society, as a whole, is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat" (Manifesto, section one, Bourgeois and Proletarians). It's not that society is already broken up into an "upper" and "lower" class, but rather that there is a distinct historical trend towards the splitting of a populace into one of these two classes. Marx wrote the Manifesto in 1848, and we're currently discussing this in 2013, so it's both safe to assume and logical to say that class distinctions have become much more sharply defined since then. The "splitting up" has progressed very significantly since his time, and class distinctions are more acute.

I have bolded two sections of your quote because they are of critical importance. The "middle class", as we colloquially understand it in American discourse, is but another manifestation of an modernist proletariat. In reality, there is nothing "middle" about this "class": it does not have ownership (let alone discrete control!) of the means of production, and it consistently has to sell its labour-power to those that do own them in order to earn their wages. The American "middle class" is an illusion, a veil of sentimental consumerism held over the eyes of a proletarian mass in order to prevent it from realizing that it is proletarian. Many of the things that characterize "middle class" finance (credit, debt, loans, payment-plans, installments, annuities, etc) are elaborate financial schemes that allow American workers to "stretch out" their wages and creates an illusion of them being "richer" than they actually are. It's a false simulacrum of a personal wealth that doesn't actually exist. The American proletariat does not generally think of itself as proletarian because of the way that the economy is structured; the complex, wily format of American capitalism has produced a multi-layered façade that simulates the proletarian's being petit-bourgeois, despite the fact that, in terms of Marxian classism, its still very much a proletariat. There may be a fabricated perception of a "middle class", but economically, it is still very proletarian.

Also, on the "outsourcing of labor", I would recommend that you look at Lenin's theory of imperialism. The neo-colonial globalization that the West (primarily the United States, but also Europe, etc) engages in to utilize cheap labor in under-industrialized countries has helped stave of several internal contradictions that are inherent to its capitalist system (both in the social superstructure and the economic base). Of course, Marx couldn't properly imagine all the things we have today in an advanced global society, but you can't blame him for that either, as he was writing during a European industrial revolution. I'm sure that if he was alive he would have tweaked a theory or two.


Finally, it is important to note the influence of propaganda in the twentieth century. At no other time in human history has propaganda been so important to the fabric of our society. We, of course, have adopted more acceptable terms such as 'advertising' and 'public relations', but it is essentially the same. However, it is important to understand what propaganda is and how it is so incredibly effective. First, there is no bourgeois conspiracy or at least there is no real evidence to suggest there is. Instead, it is far more insidious. It is a unintended side effect of commercial industry attempting to sell it's products that they also inadvertently reinforce the system in which we live. It also becomes part of our identity. We identify ourselves by the products we choose to buy. And because academic institutions and media rely on revenue, in the form of donations, grants, sales, etc., it is in their best interest to also reinforce this way of life.

I would recommend looking into Chomsky's Manufactured Consent, if you're interested in politicized consumerism and contemporary propaganda.


Furthermore, I think this needs to be the foundation of our movement. It is, I believe, the true nature of a democracy. That all men and women are equal, and as such are entitled to believe what they choose to believe, and that no one person's opinion is more important than anyone else. The only exception to this rule is in political discourse. It seems to me that we should defer to those who are more knowledgeable than ourselves. That is why I believe that government posts should have requirements such as an appropriate educational background and related work and volunteer experience.

At the risk of sounding nit-picky, it's important to remember that "men" and "women" as we traditionally understand them are politicized concepts that enforce a domestic division of labor; as the State withers away, so too will domestic and gender-sexual differentiations, and "men" and "women" will lose the politico-sociologic context that they have today. Also, saying that people are "equal" supposes a dialectic "inequality". Rather than push for "gender equality", we should push for "gender abolition".

argeiphontes
24th August 2013, 06:40
I can't post links because I have <25 posts to my name, but these can be googled and/or have a presence on this board:

IOPS = International Organization for a Participatory Society
ParEcon = Participatory Economics, which is a nicely fleshed-out proposal for a marketless economy involving an iterative planning algorithm.

(Also, what comrade JPSartre12 mentioned is attractive. Heidegger, Heidegger \ was a boozy beggar \ who could think you under the table. ;)1)

Peace.