Cult of Reason
18th April 2006, 21:31
At the CyberNations forums there is a debate of Communism which I have been inolved with. This is my latest post in that topic:
I cannot be bothered to reply to all the posts since my last, but I will say a few things.
1. I view Anarcho-Syndicalism, which aims to create Anarchy/Communism through revolutionary General Strike by Anarcho-Syndicalist Unions, as a type of Communism.
2. Kropotkin suggested that Mutual Aid was an important factor of evolution (I really must get around to reading that book).
3. Saying that things are against the laws of nature, human nature, evolution etc. is just lazy debating unless this is thoroughly explained why.
4. Claiming to be Communist does not make you so.
5. There is a significant difference between human nature and human behaviour, and they are often confused. Coughing is an example of human nature, an unchangeable involuntary reaction (although it can be forced). For human behaviour, I will give a personal example:
For most of my life I have not worn a watch. However, in January, as a late Christmas present, I was given one (a pretty nice one actually, Swiss Army). I decided to wear it. After two weeks I became aware of some significant changes in my behaviour: I was becoming somewhat dependent on my watch. Every now and then I would check the time for little reason, or fiddle with the catch on the back.
This became apparent once when I was not wearing the watch: I kept looking at my bare patch of wrist every now and then, and feeling stupid, and poking the part of my wrist where that catch would have been. My behaviour had been changed by a change in my apparel.
Human behaviour, as opposed to human nature, is directly affected, and indeed dictated, by the material conditions the individual finds itself in.
I would contend, then, that the following are examples of human behaviour caused by current material conditions:
Greed
theft
fraud
racism
etc..
Let us take the example of greed. This is a concept cappies often use in the debate against commies (and, it seems, is what they often mean by the mysterious term, human nature). What then if it is behaviour, not nature, and so caused by material conditions? What are the universal material conditions under which greed operates?
One condition would be scarcity. In a scarce environment, it is in an individual's interest to be greedy. If there is not enough food to go around, you are compelled to get as much as possible: both to have now and to hoard for later use. Money is scarce, people try to get as much of it as they can (well, some do) and hoard it.
What other conditions? Well, throughout thousands of years of civilisation, greed has existed in any society that actually lasted for a while. These societies have many differences, but share one common factor: scarcity of goods and services.
Are there any conditions that intensify greed? I would say that there is one: the Capitslist system. Why is this? This is because the Capitalist system is inherently unstable. That is, if you make a mistake you can go from being well off to being in great debt etc.. Of course, having lots of money hoarded up might prevent this from happening, and has done so in many cases. So, there is an incentive to hoard money for your own economic protection, therefore greater greed.
What would be the material conditions in true communism as relevant to greed, then? Well, obviously the factor of Capitalism is gone. But what of scarcity? Ah, but a material abundance of goods and services is a feature of a communist society, and greed cannot exist in conditions of abundance. Why would you want more water than anyone else if you were living by a great freshwater stream, with other people, and there is more than enough for everybody? There is obviously no point in hoarding water (assuming there is always enough for everybody), and no point in trying to get water off others. After all, getting it from the stream is probably easier. Therefore, there is no greed for water.
However, is an abundance of goods and services possible on this Earth with its limited resources? Well, in the 1920s a group of scientists at Columbia University in New York, called the Technical Alliance, conducted an energy survey of North America, and found that North America had reached the capability to produce such an abundance in 1910. Using this information, they predicted a Depression in the spring of 1930. The stock market crash happened 6 months before they predicted.
Why, then, do we not now see this abundace everywhere, giving us a cornocopia in all things? This is because it is purposely suppressed. The reason for that is the preservation of Capitalism. Why is that? Well, to fully understand why you should try visiting Egypt and attempt to sell them sand. Or you could sell people air. Or you could sell people tap water in little blue bottles... oh, damn. How did that happen? Oh, yes, the Capitalists managed to convince many people that tap water in a bottle was better than tap water from a tap, so making the water "special" and hence scarce.
Profit is impossible when abundance exists, and that is why abundance is suppressed. After all, the underlying reason for the crash of 1929 was that supply exceeded demand for the first time. Food was piled up in the warehouses in 1930, but many did not have enough money to buy the stuff. However, that is a different matter.
So, how is this artificial scarcity obtained by the establishment? There are many ways, but here are some examples: stockpiling of excess produce to keep prices up (like the milk lakes and grain mountains of the EU), destruction of said produce (through wars (as mentioned in 1984 too!), blatant destruction of goods (like in some cases with those milk lakes and grain mountains)), paying people to produce less produce (like with the CAP, they were talking about, instead of paying farmers based on how much they produced, they would find a way to still pay them, for political reasons, and reduce production) and consumerism. Consumerism stands out as the only one in that list that is not involved with restricting supply, but increasing demand. However, the effect is the same, for now production can be wasted on useless goods. This all has disastrous effects on the environment through needless waste (and is inherent to Capitalism in a high energy society such as ours) and denies us our birthright of an abundance of goods and services that our forefathers toiled so hard to construct the capability for.
Abundance needs Communism, and Communism is probably more stable with abundance.
Now, I would like to know if I ignored something I should not have, and what I should have said. Also, did I get anything wrong? General comments, please.
Thankyou for your time.
I cannot be bothered to reply to all the posts since my last, but I will say a few things.
1. I view Anarcho-Syndicalism, which aims to create Anarchy/Communism through revolutionary General Strike by Anarcho-Syndicalist Unions, as a type of Communism.
2. Kropotkin suggested that Mutual Aid was an important factor of evolution (I really must get around to reading that book).
3. Saying that things are against the laws of nature, human nature, evolution etc. is just lazy debating unless this is thoroughly explained why.
4. Claiming to be Communist does not make you so.
5. There is a significant difference between human nature and human behaviour, and they are often confused. Coughing is an example of human nature, an unchangeable involuntary reaction (although it can be forced). For human behaviour, I will give a personal example:
For most of my life I have not worn a watch. However, in January, as a late Christmas present, I was given one (a pretty nice one actually, Swiss Army). I decided to wear it. After two weeks I became aware of some significant changes in my behaviour: I was becoming somewhat dependent on my watch. Every now and then I would check the time for little reason, or fiddle with the catch on the back.
This became apparent once when I was not wearing the watch: I kept looking at my bare patch of wrist every now and then, and feeling stupid, and poking the part of my wrist where that catch would have been. My behaviour had been changed by a change in my apparel.
Human behaviour, as opposed to human nature, is directly affected, and indeed dictated, by the material conditions the individual finds itself in.
I would contend, then, that the following are examples of human behaviour caused by current material conditions:
Greed
theft
fraud
racism
etc..
Let us take the example of greed. This is a concept cappies often use in the debate against commies (and, it seems, is what they often mean by the mysterious term, human nature). What then if it is behaviour, not nature, and so caused by material conditions? What are the universal material conditions under which greed operates?
One condition would be scarcity. In a scarce environment, it is in an individual's interest to be greedy. If there is not enough food to go around, you are compelled to get as much as possible: both to have now and to hoard for later use. Money is scarce, people try to get as much of it as they can (well, some do) and hoard it.
What other conditions? Well, throughout thousands of years of civilisation, greed has existed in any society that actually lasted for a while. These societies have many differences, but share one common factor: scarcity of goods and services.
Are there any conditions that intensify greed? I would say that there is one: the Capitslist system. Why is this? This is because the Capitalist system is inherently unstable. That is, if you make a mistake you can go from being well off to being in great debt etc.. Of course, having lots of money hoarded up might prevent this from happening, and has done so in many cases. So, there is an incentive to hoard money for your own economic protection, therefore greater greed.
What would be the material conditions in true communism as relevant to greed, then? Well, obviously the factor of Capitalism is gone. But what of scarcity? Ah, but a material abundance of goods and services is a feature of a communist society, and greed cannot exist in conditions of abundance. Why would you want more water than anyone else if you were living by a great freshwater stream, with other people, and there is more than enough for everybody? There is obviously no point in hoarding water (assuming there is always enough for everybody), and no point in trying to get water off others. After all, getting it from the stream is probably easier. Therefore, there is no greed for water.
However, is an abundance of goods and services possible on this Earth with its limited resources? Well, in the 1920s a group of scientists at Columbia University in New York, called the Technical Alliance, conducted an energy survey of North America, and found that North America had reached the capability to produce such an abundance in 1910. Using this information, they predicted a Depression in the spring of 1930. The stock market crash happened 6 months before they predicted.
Why, then, do we not now see this abundace everywhere, giving us a cornocopia in all things? This is because it is purposely suppressed. The reason for that is the preservation of Capitalism. Why is that? Well, to fully understand why you should try visiting Egypt and attempt to sell them sand. Or you could sell people air. Or you could sell people tap water in little blue bottles... oh, damn. How did that happen? Oh, yes, the Capitalists managed to convince many people that tap water in a bottle was better than tap water from a tap, so making the water "special" and hence scarce.
Profit is impossible when abundance exists, and that is why abundance is suppressed. After all, the underlying reason for the crash of 1929 was that supply exceeded demand for the first time. Food was piled up in the warehouses in 1930, but many did not have enough money to buy the stuff. However, that is a different matter.
So, how is this artificial scarcity obtained by the establishment? There are many ways, but here are some examples: stockpiling of excess produce to keep prices up (like the milk lakes and grain mountains of the EU), destruction of said produce (through wars (as mentioned in 1984 too!), blatant destruction of goods (like in some cases with those milk lakes and grain mountains)), paying people to produce less produce (like with the CAP, they were talking about, instead of paying farmers based on how much they produced, they would find a way to still pay them, for political reasons, and reduce production) and consumerism. Consumerism stands out as the only one in that list that is not involved with restricting supply, but increasing demand. However, the effect is the same, for now production can be wasted on useless goods. This all has disastrous effects on the environment through needless waste (and is inherent to Capitalism in a high energy society such as ours) and denies us our birthright of an abundance of goods and services that our forefathers toiled so hard to construct the capability for.
Abundance needs Communism, and Communism is probably more stable with abundance.
Now, I would like to know if I ignored something I should not have, and what I should have said. Also, did I get anything wrong? General comments, please.
Thankyou for your time.