"Virtue of labor" [Archive]

Dimentio

22nd November 2008, 10:19

I must say that I would like us to reach conclusions similar to the Hellenic presumptions in pre-christian times, namely that physical, repetive, forced labor is unworthy of the human being, and that we should strive to create a society were all people are citizens rather than forced to live as workers to support a minority of citizens. We must strive to establish a future were machines are using machines, and the workers are merely programmers and engineers, not hard laborers.

ex_next_worker

22nd November 2008, 11:30

We must strive to establish a future were machines are using machines, and the workers are merely programmers and engineers, not hard laborers.

What prevents programmers/engineers from saying "we run the show" in this technologically-advanced society?

Certainly, there would be a number people who would input their technological knowledge in a way that would benefit society. But what happens about the rest of us who refuse to be programmers and engineers, who see it as nothing else than alienation if we are driven into it?

And who will maintain the machines that will require continous, unpleasant labor?

These aren't "socially necessary evils", but products of a technological domination.

Dimentio

22nd November 2008, 16:15

What prevents programmers/engineers from saying "we run the show" in this technologically-advanced society?

Certainly, there would be a number people who would input their technological knowledge in a way that would benefit society. But what happens about the rest of us who refuse to be programmers and engineers, who see it as nothing else than alienation if we are driven into it?

And who will maintain the machines that will require continous, unpleasant labor?

These aren't "socially necessary evils", but products of a technological domination.

Well, you don't need to work with that. Theoretically, by automatising most service professions, we will in one sweep abolish most of the work-force of any developed nation.

ÑóẊîöŉ

22nd November 2008, 17:50

What prevents programmers/engineers from saying "we run the show" in this technologically-advanced society?

Why would they do that?

Certainly, there would be a number people who would input their technological knowledge in a way that would benefit society. But what happens about the rest of us who refuse to be programmers and engineers, who see it as nothing else than alienation if we are driven into it?Well, I imagine that society would still have a demand for artists, musicians, DJs, athletes, recreational chemists, fashion designers, writers, poets, comedians, playwrights, actors, computer games designers, and so on. What would you want to do?

And who will maintain the machines that will require continous, unpleasant labor? Such as what?

These aren't "socially necessary evils", but products of a technological domination.Completely unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Technological development has lead to a net decrease in the amount of backbreaking labour needed to sustain society. The fact that not all of humanity benefits from this situation is what is deplorable, not technology itself.

bcbm

22nd November 2008, 18:05

I must say that I would like us to reach conclusions similar to the Hellenic presumptions in pre-christian times, namely that physical, repetive, forced labor is unworthy of the human being

Most of Europe was under that impression until the Protestant reformation as well. The idea of toil being noble and good came out of that reformation and was heavily pushed by early industrialists in order to convince lazy, hard drinking peasants that becoming chained to a machine a factory for crumbs was actually better.

Dean

22nd November 2008, 18:20

The false notion here is twofold. First, that there is some reason why programming would be the best or most desired mode of labor (even considering technological hyper-progress). The second fault is in defining labor as a negative force. It simply isn't: toil and health - damaging modes of production are of coruse bad. But such conditions can and should be removed or limited in a social society.

More Fire for the People

22nd November 2008, 18:30

the workers are merely programmers and engineers
Sounds awful. I would never want either of these jobs ... except maybe a civil engineer and that's a big maybe. I would rather teach school, work in the field of a farm, smell the fresh pine air as forestry worker, or maybe the joy of constructing something new out of freshly cut wood.

ÑóẊîöŉ

22nd November 2008, 19:21

The false notion here is twofold. First, that there is some reason why programming would be the best or most desired mode of labor (even considering technological hyper-progress).

Because managing machines is a hell of a lot less unpleasant of a job than doing the work that machines do. A single person with a JCB can dig bigger holes with less effort than a team of people with spades.

Even less effort would be required if you could program a JCB to automatically dig out holes in a specified location to a specified width, length and depth.

The second fault is in defining labor as a negative force. It simply isn't: toil and health - damaging modes of production are of coruse bad. But such conditions can and should be removed or limited in a social society.What do you mean by "labour" in this case? Serpent and I are referring to boring, repetitive shitwork that is physically and mentally exhausting, but not all "labour" is of this nature, which lends itself well to automation as machines can work stronger and for longer at repititive tasks, while the things machines are bad at, such as the careers I mentioned in my last post, require imagination and creativity, which machines are distinctly lacking in.

In other words, some work is unpleasant, boring or dangerous, while other work is enjoyable and stimulating. It's the shitwork we want to automate. If people genuinely enjoy their jobs, they won't feel the need to have a machine do it for them.

Cult of Reason

22nd November 2008, 19:25

Sounds awful. I would never want either of these jobs ... except maybe a civil engineer and that's a big maybe. I would rather teach school, work in the field of a farm, smell the fresh pine air as forestry worker, or maybe the joy of constructing something new out of freshly cut wood.

In a technate, the jobs that will be most effected (i.e. rendered socially unnecessary) would be financial jobs, advertising (aside from public service) and manual labour of all types. Of the ones you listed, there would still be need of civil engineers, teachers of most types, and probably forestry too (correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think there are combine-harvester equivalents for trees). Farms would be mechanised just as much, if not more, than now, so if you wanted to work on a farm in a primitive way (why??) then you would be forced to do extra cultivation as a hobby. The carpentry bit would probably also be a hobby. By hobby, I mean that you would have to some other type of socially necessary work in addition.

When it comes to productive processes, non-human labour is simply superior to human labour, especially in the repetitive or otherwise non-cerebral types of manual labour. It is not difficult to find evidence for this: Capitalists purchase machines to improve productivity, and it works. For that reason, in industrialised societies, of the total energy input into production, only about 2% of it is in the form of human toil. The best use of the resources available to a future society would be to eliminate human labour wherever possible as humans are very inefficient machines for converting energy into useful work. Any other choice would have a negative effect on people's standard of living insofar as their material possessions and working hours go.

As a result of this, the vast majority of all jobs that are directly related to production would be ones of controlling, monitoring and maintaining machines. An example would be programming robots in a factory. There would, however, be other jobs not directly related to production that would still be socially necessary, like the aforementioned teachers.

All this reduction in the amount of work that would be necessary would allow working hours to decline hugely, allowing those strange people who enjoy manual labour to exercise those fantasies. If you want to plow a field by hand (to take an extreme example), then please feel free, but any effect you could expect to have would be miniscule.

Well, I imagine that society would still have a demand for artists, musicians, DJs, athletes, recreational chemists, fashion designers, writers, poets, comedians, playwrights, actors, computer games designers, and so on. What would you want to do?

Well, for most of those things I think that people would be inclined to do those things in their free time. I.e. no one should have the privelege of getting off real work to do those things. Exceptions to this would be, I think, the production of the equivalent of big budget TV series, films and perhaps computer games. For fashion, I believe the technology exists for people to input their own clothing designs into machines, nowadays, and get the garment made by that machine automatically. Other than that... how many different designs of generic t-shirts do you need? Decoration can be added later.

I don't know what a recreational chemist is. Fireworks?

ÑóẊîöŉ

22nd November 2008, 20:28

Well, for most of those things I think that people would be inclined to do those things in their free time. I.e. no one should have the privelege of getting off real work to do those things. Exceptions to this would be, I think, the production of the equivalent of big budget TV series, films and perhaps computer games.

Arguably, it is the current division of labour in reasonably developed societies that enables such lavish artistic and cultural works such as TV series, big-budget films and (especially) modern computer games and the like to be produced. I suppose my point was that if more people were able to spend their time on artistic and cultural activities, then there would be a corresponding increase in such discourse. Think of all those artists and whatnot who can't get the recognition for their skill because they have to work in order to pay for the bills.

And of course, if people have more leisure time then they have more time to enjoy such cultural/artistic artefacts. More time to actually do something other than slump in front of the goggle box every evening.

For fashion, I believe the technology exists for people to input their own clothing designs into machines, nowadays, and get the garment made by that machine automatically. Other than that... how many different designs of generic t-shirts do you need? Decoration can be added later.True, patterns and whatnot can be automated, but someone has to think up those patterns in the first place. Whether they directly design those patterns or program a piece of software to produce those patterns through some kind of meta-mathematical means is simply approaching the problem from different angles in my view (Example: I design a program that produces celtic knot patterns based on mathematical relationships, while someone else designs their patterns individually, perhaps on paper).

I don't know what a recreational chemist is. Fireworks?I was thinking more along the lines of designing safer, more enjoyable and varied drugs for recreational use. For example, a recreational mycologist might breed different strains of hallucinogenic mushrooms, selecting against those strains which induce nausea and body cramps, while selecting for those strains which give the best visuals and experiences. A recreational chemist would presumably work to synthesise various "artificial" drugs based on improved versions of what we already know of (such as Ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines) as well as totally new chemicals.

More generally, a recreational chemist would work on drugs that enable a greater conscious intervention in the human state of mind. Surely we can come up with a better way of allowing people to stay awake than caffeine, which is a remarkably poor drug for the job if you look into it.

More Fire for the People

22nd November 2008, 23:43

Question. How many technocrats have ever worked on a farm? Ever been to a farm? Ever been to a rural area?

Cult of Reason

22nd November 2008, 23:53

Arguably, it is the current division of labour in reasonably developed societies that enables such lavish artistic and cultural works such as TV series, big-budget films and (especially) modern computer games and the like to be produced. I suppose my point was that if more people were able to spend their time on artistic and cultural activities, then there would be a corresponding increase in such discourse. Think of all those artists and whatnot who can't get the recognition for their skill because they have to work in order to pay for the bills.

And of course, if people have more leisure time then they have more time to enjoy such cultural/artistic artefacts. More time to actually do something other than slump in front of the goggle box every evening.

The thing is, there needs to be some filtration when it comes to these things. Obvious, I suppose, but any old person should not be allowed to get off "real work" unless they are recognised by some body related to films, TV or computer games as someone whose talents would be best distributed in that field. Jobs that are desirable, such that supply of willing workers outstrips the demand for their work, should have higher requirements for entry. If you want to be a game designer, but do not want to spend a few hours of your day programming robots (or whatever), then you should make a good casual game, and then you can do it full time. If people want to work "full time" in a sector, they must be qualified. If there are too many who want to work "full time" in a sector, choose the most qualified.

Nothing stops people from working on those things in their free time, however, which would be copious.

BTW, when you say "artist", I inevitably think of the Tracy Emin types and I am afraid I simply cannot see any justification for that being considered anyone's "job". Making drawings for computer games, or painting murals requested by locals, is a service; it is in no way comparable to the Tracey Emin silliness.

True, patterns and whatnot can be automated, but someone has to think up those patterns in the first place. Whether they directly design those patterns or program a piece of software to produce those patterns through some kind of meta-mathematical means is simply approaching the problem from different angles in my view (Example: I design a program that produces celtic knot patterns based on mathematical relationships, while someone else designs their patterns individually, perhaps on paper).

No, I meant that you could input your own designs for your clothes, and then the machine would produce it for you after a while. You would have designed everything. There may be stock patterns and whatnot available, based upon demand, and those fabrics could be produced in advance, allowing people to get their clothes earlier: an incentive to choose stock patterns rather than inputting your own.

I was thinking more along the lines of designing safer, more enjoyable and varied drugs for recreational use. For example, a recreational mycologist might breed different strains of hallucinogenic mushrooms, selecting against those strains which induce nausea and body cramps, while selecting for those strains which give the best visuals and experiences. A recreational chemist would presumably work to synthesise various "artificial" drugs based on improved versions of what we already know of (such as Ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines) as well as totally new chemicals.

More generally, a recreational chemist would work on drugs that enable a greater conscious intervention in the human state of mind. Surely we can come up with a better way of allowing people to stay awake than caffeine, which is a remarkably poor drug for the job if you look into it.

From the orthodox Technocratic organisational chart: Research Sequence section, attached to the Recreational Department of the Pharmaceuticals Sequence.;)

Also... caffeine is the worst. Two cans of Relentless is worse than a hangover.

Cult of Reason

23rd November 2008, 00:02

Question. How many technocrats have ever worked on a farm? Ever been to a farm? Ever been to a rural area?

What is your point? If you mean that there is some part of farm work where manual human input is not yet replaceable, then you are probably right. However, for all the other parts, machines might as well take over, as they are more efficient.

To take the harvester example, though: the machine is already doing most of the work. Why not replace the driver with an autopilot, if it is feasible?

As for your question: I have been to a farm before, but I have never been involved with any work that went on there. I doubt that this is atypical where I am: a country where the vast majority of the population is urban, and where only a couple of percent of the population is involved with agriculture.

More Fire for the People

23rd November 2008, 00:13

The point isn't that it can be replaced. The question is, why would you want to?

Dimentio

23rd November 2008, 00:35

The point isn't that it can be replaced. The question is, why would you want to?

Why would we want to focus on other things than to work? If you like farm labor, grow your own garden or something.

Cult of Reason

23rd November 2008, 11:36

The point isn't that it can be replaced. The question is, why would you want to? Well, for a start, if we assume current reality, it is less environmentally damaging to use machine labour rather than human labour. Even if we were to assume that humans were as efficient, in themselves, as machines in converting available energy into useful work, this would still be the case.

The most efficient plants in Europe have an efficiency of 2% when converting incident solar radiation into carbohydrates. In the UK, the average harvestable power of sunlight is 100W/m^2. That means that there is a maximum of 2W/m^2, but in the real world you get 0.5W/m^2, due to efficiency dropping at the higher light levels. You get 0.5W/m^2, IF all the plant is eaten and we get all our fertiliser etc. "for free" and if all you eat is the most efficient plant, no other plants, no meat, nothing. We will also ignore the losses inherent in digestion (I don't have the numbers for that).

On the other hand, concentrating solar power in deserts delievers, on average, 15W/m^2. If we assume that you are 3500 km from your power source, a High Voltage Direct Current line would have an efficiency of 85% in transporting that energy to you, including the losses from converting AC to DC and back. That gives 12.75W/m^2. Even if you assume a very inefficient motor in the machine in question, the number cannot go lower than the one for the food.

As a fuel for labour, food is simply not up to standard. In reality, humans are very inefficient machines, as I have said before, which makes machine labour even more attractive. Moreover, growing food requires using up fertile land that otherwise could support wildlife or human recreation, while solar power works best in deserts, the wastelands.

Also, what Serpent said:

Why would we want to focus on other things than to work? If you like farm labor, grow your own garden or something. All numbers from Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air, by David JC MacKay.

Dean

24th November 2008, 18:49

Because managing machines is a hell of a lot less unpleasant of a job than doing the work that machines do. A single person with a JCB can dig bigger holes with less effort than a team of people with spades.

Even less effort would be required if you could program a JCB to automatically dig out holes in a specified location to a specified width, length and depth.
I don't really understand what you're talking about. Seems like you are talking about the difference between toil and labor, which isn't the issue at all. On a side note, playing with computer program (especially programming!) is decidedly worse than physical labor, in my opinion and that of most others I know. You have to understand that your notion of good or easy labor is not going to be the same as everybody else. So mechanizing and homogenizing the labor system would be a disaster.

What do you mean by "labour" in this case? Serpent and I are referring to boring, repetitive shitwork that is physically and mentally exhausting, but not all "labour" is of this nature, which lends itself well to automation as machines can work stronger and for longer at repititive tasks, while the things machines are bad at, such as the careers I mentioned in my last post, require imagination and creativity, which machines are distinctly lacking in.

In other words, some work is unpleasant, boring or dangerous, while other work is enjoyable and stimulating. It's the shitwork we want to automate. If people genuinely enjoy their jobs, they won't feel the need to have a machine do it for them.

"Shitwork" is a value judgement which you are forcing on the human race. Clearly, some of the unproductive or unpopular tasks should be mechanized. But you simply cannot do that to a great portion of the labor industry just because you feel that it is unpopular. A totally mechanized industrial system cannot replace productive human activity without breaking down the entire character of productive human relations. The fact is that human labor isn't just good or productive of commodities - it is a necessary human orientation.

Dimentio

24th November 2008, 19:26

In most countries even in Europe, humans don't hang out with their co-workers, but with friends outside of work. Protestant countries are the exception in that case. But even so, humans will be with each-other whether if they are working or not.

ÑóẊîöŉ

26th November 2008, 01:49

I don't really understand what you're talking about. Seems like you are talking about the difference between toil and labor, which isn't the issue at all. On a side note, playing with computer program (especially programming!) is decidedly worse than physical labor, in my opinion and that of most others I know. You have to understand that your notion of good or easy labor is not going to be the same as everybody else. So mechanizing and homogenizing the labor system would be a disaster.

Haven't you ever heard of a Graphical User Interface? It only takes one genius (or a small team of enthusiasts) to make a complex program that doesn't require anything more than the most basic computer literacy to use. Plus math skills that you would need anyway if your digging holes for a living, like a construction worker. The gruntwork is done mostly by machines now anyway - humans have been using increasingly complicated labour-saving tools anyway, so there's been this increasing trend that has transcended all cultures, and has been extremely successful, especially recently, enabling us to support an unprecedented population increase.

It's been a winning formula, and I don't believe it rules out the possiblity of an egalitarian society, on the contrary. Capitalism however interferes with the possibility of achieving this, however.

"Shitwork" is a value judgement which you are forcing on the human race. No, I'm not forcing it on anyone. If enough people actually like a job enough to do it themselves, then it won't get automated. I have no power as an individual to force people to do anything. I'm merely attempting to convince people it is their interest to automate what they consider "shitwork".

Clearly, some of the unproductive or unpopular tasks should be mechanized. But you simply cannot do that to a great portion of the labor industry just because you feel that it is unpopular.Again, that is not for me to decide.

A totally mechanized industrial system cannot replace productive human activity without breaking down the entire character of productive human relations. The fact is that human labor isn't just good or productive of commodities - it is a necessary human orientation.What on Earth are you talking about?

Dimentio

27th November 2008, 09:56

ZeroNowhere

27th November 2008, 11:34

So people would stop talking to each-other if they weren't working? I don't know, but I have never really "hanged out" with any work mates on any work I have ever done. I usually hangs out with people I have met in other situations.
You have obviously not negated the negation enough, and must proceed to contradict the synthesis, and realize that the labour relations of production are directly in opposition to the relations of humans, and things invariably tend towards their opposites, and under your system we would not be able to reach the unity of opposites. Therefore, we would not be able to reach the transformation of opposites, and thus would be unable to approach social relations through opposites and unity. This would mean that rather than the social self-abolition of the proletariat, we would have the anti-social self-abolition of the proletariat, which contradicts the basic tenets of social proletocracy. This would lead to the transformation of quantity to the interpenetration of dinosaurs.

All of that made more sense than the statement about mechanization of shitwork leading to a breakdown in 'productive human relations'. Some clarification on that would be nice.

butterfly

27th November 2008, 12:15

Cult of Reason

27th November 2008, 17:59

On a side note, playing with computer program (especially programming!) is decidedly worse than physical labor, in my opinion and that of most others I know. You have to understand that your notion of good or easy labor is not going to be the same as everybody else. So mechanizing and homogenizing the labor system would be a disaster.

This is a good point. Some people find it fullfilling and enjoyable to dig a hole or paint a house...other's find it excruciating to stare at a screen for hours on end. In a technocracy would the former activities be reserved soley for leisure time?

Most physical production will be done by machines, and those machines will have to be programmed. However, this is not an indication of the number of jobs that would involved programming*. Machines increase the efficiency and volume of production, and so reduce the necessary human labour time. It is still possible that most people will be working in the service sector (doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters etc.--jobs that are a lot more difficult to automate or mechanise), as it is difficult to decrease the total amount of human labour needed to fulfill those needs.

Those who do not want to be programmers would have plenty of other choices, such as being scientists, teachers, civil engineers, architects and so on. Apart from a few things, like firefighting, these do not include much manual labour, though. Again, the reason for this is simple: when it comes to repetitive manual labour, machines are simply better at it than humans. For the time being, at least, the opposite is the case for everything else.

Regarding hole digging and house painting, the former would probably not be available as a job. After all, it is hardly ever available as a job in today's economy AFAIK: the closest to it is to operate a mechanical digger. If that is what you mean, then that would be available, though probably only as a subtask in the job description of a "builder". Construction is a job that requires more flexibility than machines can easily provide ATM. However, it is likely that most buildings will be prefabricated, as the prefabricated parts can be made with repetitive manual labour.

For house painting, or more accurately the painting of any and all buildings, it would probably still exist as a task that would have to be done by humans, at least until all buildings were designed to coexist with specific models of building-painting machines. Again, human flexibility is probably still important here.

*Though, as a side note, I think that it would be advantageous, in the future, to teach programming in school as a compulsory subject, alongside English(/<insert your language here>) and Mathematics, as computers are now a very important part of everyday life. Knowledge of programming makes even more sense if all software is open source, as it allows the use of the freedom that provides.

Dean

29th November 2008, 16:38

*Though, as a side note, I think that it would be advantageous, in the future, to teach programming in school as a compulsory subject, alongside English(/<insert your language here>) and Mathematics, as computers are now a very important part of everyday life. Knowledge of programming makes even more sense if all software is open source, as it allows the use of the freedom that provides.

You do realize what a narrow attitude this is, right? Things like sociology, psychology, economics and law are all 10 times as important as programming. Humans should be encouraged to be immersed in human sciences, not tool science.

That's not to say that programming can't help teach problem-solving and logic skills. But none of those skills are half as important as our skills to productively relate to other human beings. This disparity in focus is the crux of our disagreement.

ZeroNowhere

29th November 2008, 16:50

Dimentio

29th November 2008, 17:09

I think it's up to the people themselves if they want to be asocial or social, not to us revolutionaries to dictate to them how they should live their lives.

As long as they are not rebuilding exploitative social relationships.

Jazzratt

5th December 2008, 11:35

You do realize what a narrow attitude this is, right? Things like sociology, psychology, economics and law are all 10 times as important as programming. Humans should be encouraged to be immersed in human sciences, not tool science.

What a stupid value judgement. You scream at us for having the temerity to judge arduos physical labour "shitwork" but then turn around and make the, frankly, ridiculous assertion that unproductive sciences are more useful than technlogical advance. Not only that but you do so sitting in front of a machine made by "tool science" across a communicative medium designed, again, by "tool science" - the hypocrisy is stark.

Not one sociologists has ever built a machine to make my life easier, why should I respect them?

That's not to say that programming can't help teach problem-solving and logic skills. But none of those skills are half as important as our skills to productively relate to other human beings. This disparity in focus is the crux of our disagreement.

Being able to program, think logically or apply principles of engineering does not preculde being able to relate to fellow human beings. It's not like every single technically skilled worker is autistic.

What I worry about with theories like yours and more fire's is that, while well intentioned, they could be disasterous for productive capacity. Working on such a basis would be inefficient and reduce our capacity to process raw materials or provide services.

ÑóẊîöŉ

7th December 2008, 11:45

You do realize what a narrow attitude this is, right? Things like sociology, psychology, economics and law are all 10 times as important as programming.

They're also 10 times more coloured by class society and it's associated assumptions.

Sociology, psychology, economics and law are all formulated within the framework of class society - classless societies are completely unknown territory for these disciplines.

On the other hand, the "tool sciences" function no matter what social system is in place.

Humans should be encouraged to be immersed in human sciences, not tool science.They're constructs of a class system. It's supremely arrogant on your part to assume they're valid for all humans at all times.

That's not to say that programming can't help teach problem-solving and logic skills. But none of those skills are half as important as our skills to productively relate to other human beings. This disparity in focus is the crux of our disagreement.Most people get on fine in life without knowing a thing about sociology, psychology, economics or law.

Lack of knowledge about the real physical world, on the other hand, can have and has had disasterous consequences.

Dean

10th December 2008, 04:35

They're also 10 times more coloured by class society and it's associated assumptions.

Sociology, psychology, economics and law are all formulated within the framework of class society - classless societies are completely unknown territory for these disciplines.

On the other hand, the "tool sciences" function no matter what social system is in place.

They're constructs of a class system. It's supremely arrogant on your part to assume they're valid for all humans at all times.

Most people get on fine in life without knowing a thing about sociology, psychology, economics or law.

Lack of knowledge about the real physical world, on the other hand, can have and has had disasterous consequences.

As I see it, there are two notions you are bringing to the table here:

A. Studies in technology / physical sciences are more progressive more relevant to human life than studies of the human mind and society.
1. I was talking about programming specifically. But, for your sake, I will assume that you meant before what you are saying now: that physical sciences are more important.

2. As I said before, law, psychology and sociology (herein included economics and the like) all have very specific qualities which make them necessary for social life. A person untrained in law, for instance, nevertheless must understand at least the very basics of what is allowed in social life.

-Law must be understood for a person to be a good citizen. A rudimentary knowledge of law envigorates social efficacy, civil political action and social behavior. An amateur or professional understanding would maximize these functions.

-Psychology is indispensible for a society of healthy human beings. The social organization you propose is a drastic departure from our historical systems. Not only is it paramount for a fundamentally free people to know the personal consequences for an action or lifestyle choice, but also the social consequences. What I am proposing is that we give people tools to personally analyse themselves and their actions, something which is absolutely and fundamentally necessary for a free existance.

-Sociology is of course necessary is society is to be composed of interested, active individuals who productively relate to society. Just as it matters to marxists what society is possible and why, so too should it matter to those who exist in a classless society. We don't make gains and "happen to" keep them. We have to work towards a conscious, human-generated stability. As I've said in the past, society is an issue of human interaction, and as such it must always refer to the human being as the starting point and the catalyst.

B. Studies in technology / physical sciences are unspoiled by capitalist society, whereas sociology et. al. are basically bourgeois.

1. This isn't really the point, at all. The fact that sociology and psycholgoy today contain bourgeois notions is neither relevant to the character of psychology in a classless society, nor the relevance of psycholgoy as a discipline or matter of focus in general.

2. Simply put, all disciplines suffer from the focus of bourgeois society. Do you really think that all of psychology is tainted with the evils of bourgeois propaganda, whereas the direction of physical sciences - funded and operated by corporations - is somehow devoid of that character?

3. The study of physical science is only remotely relevant to the issue of social revolution. I know you think that technological advances are the catalyst for social progress, but even if that is the case, the discipline only acts as a static benchmark for revolutionary theory.

It is only the (generalized) studies of psychology and sociology which are intimately relevant to marxist or revolution theory. If you think that the study of human progress and individual human activity is somehow less relevant than the study of tools, you have some serious deficiences that cannot be addressed here.

Alienation theory
The fact is that what I am proposing is the encouragement for our children to take on an associative "looking-in" to ourselves and society. This is diametrically opposed to the culture of privation that capitalism deals with. That you feel that the funtamental diversion between social and anti-social politics is not relevant is worrying, to say the least.

Furthermore, I would like to discuss the notion of freedom. Your notion here is that physical logic is of paramount concern, and I would agree with you to an extent. Our physical world is of course very important, to analyze some of the basic laws is to undetrstand how our bodies and our environment work on a basic, physical level. Further, the analysis of human activity is important because it helps us understand more directly how we work, how to be healthy and how to be a good member of society.

Again, the attitude in capitalism is that such focus is unnecessary as it is a social compulsion. But the idea of freedom is intrinsically related to how a human exists in relation to society; this is how leftists diverge from capitalist thought, and this is how you diverge from me - that is, back toward the capitalist attitude. Freedom is not now, nor will it ever be a disassociation from society. Contrarily, freedom is an active, focused interest in the existence and workings of society. To be free is to first understand the meaning and consequences of your activity, which is what psychology is.

Programming
I still have to address the "programming" remark. The fact is that the ability to program is narrow, specialized and generally detached from human social life. It effectually the human being learning the language of a computer program. This is simply not as important as understandign your relation to other human beings, the general system of economics and politics, etc..

ÑóẊîöŉ

10th December 2008, 12:21

As I see it, there are two notions you are bringing to the table here:

A. Studies in technology / physical sciences are more progressive more relevant to human life than studies of the human mind and society.
1. I was talking about programming specifically. But, for your sake, I will assume that you meant before what you are saying now: that physical sciences are more important.

Because they are more useful. A discovery in bourgeois psychology, law etc is only relevant in bourgeois society, while a discovery in the physical sciences has applications beyond that possible in bourgeois society.

2. As I said before, law, psychology and sociology (herein included economics and the like) all have very specific qualities which make them necessary for social life. A person untrained in law, for instance, nevertheless must understand at least the very basics of what is allowed in social life.

-Law must be understood for a person to be a good citizen. A rudimentary knowledge of law envigorates social efficacy, civil political action and social behavior. An amateur or professional understanding would maximize these functions.It's not in the worker's interests to be "good citizens". That is a fundamentally bourgeois outlook. Laws are made by the bourgeoisie for their own purposes - knowledge of it is only useful insofar as it works to combat it.

-Psychology is indispensible for a society of healthy human beings. The social organization you propose is a drastic departure from our historical systems. Not only is it paramount for a fundamentally free people to know the personal consequences for an action or lifestyle choice, but also the social consequences. What I am proposing is that we give people tools to personally analyse themselves and their actions, something which is absolutely and fundamentally necessary for a free existance. Human psychology is dependant on the material conditions in which it resides. A different kind of society as I propose would require a different psychology to go with it.

-Sociology is of course necessary is society is to be composed of interested, active individuals who productively relate to society. Just as it matters to marxists what society is possible and why, so too should it matter to those who exist in a classless society. We don't make gains and "happen to" keep them. We have to work towards a conscious, human-generated stability. As I've said in the past, society is an issue of human interaction, and as such it must always refer to the human being as the starting point and the catalyst."The human being" is not some static, timeless quality that rigidly adheres to unbending rules. All the nobility's bellyaching over "masterless men" came to naught, as will current sociological meanderings will, if the time comes.

B. Studies in technology / physical sciences are unspoiled by capitalist society, whereas sociology et. al. are basically bourgeois.

1. This isn't really the point, at all. The fact that sociology and psycholgoy today contain bourgeois notions is neither relevant to the character of psychology in a classless society, nor the relevance of psycholgoy as a discipline or matter of focus in general.Then what is your point? People in classless society are going to study psychology et al regardless, I don't see any point or purpose in stopping them. I can only argue that the physical sciences bring more immediate and tangible benefits.

2. Simply put, all disciplines suffer from the focus of bourgeois society. Do you really think that all of psychology is tainted with the evils of bourgeois propaganda, whereas the direction of physical sciences - funded and operated by corporations - is somehow devoid of that character?The manifest variability of individual human psychology, as well as the vague results from such studies that can be massaged to fit pretty much any worldview, means that these "soft" subjects are a crapshoot at the best of times.

On the other hand, other people in the physical sciences can repeat one's experiments, and due to the static nature of physical laws, one can either confirm or deny the other's findings.

This means that it's easier for other scientists in a given field to tell when somebody is bullshitting to support their views.

Also, applications of technology with a class bias are more easily used for other purposes - inter-imperialist struggles catalysed the creation of nuclear weapons, which lead to a more peaceable application, nuclear energy.

Can the same be said of the reams of paper produced to "support" bourgeois psychology?

3. The study of physical science is only remotely relevant to the issue of social revolution. I know you think that technological advances are the catalyst for social progress, but even if that is the case, the discipline only acts as a static benchmark for revolutionary theory.Technology isn't static either. I guess that's why they call them technological "advances".

It is only the (generalized) studies of psychology and sociology which are intimately relevant to marxist or revolution theory. If you think that the study of human progress and individual human activity is somehow less relevant than the study of tools, you have some serious deficiences that cannot be addressed here.Human progress/activity and technology are inextricably linked. Different human societies and cultures, disparate in both time and space, have overwhelmingly been tool users. This situation has rapidly deepened and expanded, to the point where the human technosphere is essential to the survival of billions.

Human technology and technological artefacts are common in human society to the point of ubiquity - it's easy to forget just how important it all is when one has been born and raised in such an environment. But we neglect it at our peril.

Alienation theory
The fact is that what I am proposing is the encouragement for our children to take on an associative "looking-in" to ourselves and society. This is diametrically opposed to the culture of privation that capitalism deals with. That you feel that the funtamental diversion between social and anti-social politics is not relevant is worrying, to say the least.People don't need a familiarity with psychology in order to be happy or fulfilled. They need the freedom to pursue their life's goals (whatever they may be) without having to worry about feeding their kids or paying their rent, something which bourgeois capitalist society manifestly fails to give.

The way to provide that much-needed freedom, in my view, is to develop the technosphere to the point where it is largely self-maintaining, with a minimum of human input. The less we as a species are distracted by the day-to-day running of things, the more time, resources and mental and physical energy we'll have to concentrate on grander things, as well as time for ourselves.

Furthermore, I would like to discuss the notion of freedom. Your notion here is that physical logic is of paramount concern, and I would agree with you to an extent. Our physical world is of course very important, to analyze some of the basic laws is to undetrstand how our bodies and our environment work on a basic, physical level. Further, the analysis of human activity is important because it helps us understand more directly how we work, how to be healthy and how to be a good member of society.

Again, the attitude in capitalism is that such focus is unnecessary as it is a social compulsion. But the idea of freedom is intrinsically related to how a human exists in relation to society; this is how leftists diverge from capitalist thought, and this is how you diverge from me - that is, back toward the capitalist attitude. Freedom is not now, nor will it ever be a disassociation from society.I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I believe. I've taken freedom to mean the ability to do as much as one can without treading on the toes of others. This includes the freedom to associate with others. Humans show a marked tendency to be social creatures, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

Contrarily, freedom is an active, focused interest in the existence and workings of society. To be free is to first understand the meaning and consequences of your activity, which is what psychology is.Bullshit! I don't need to know any psychology to know that if I insult Frank, he is likely to be upset. Nor do I need to know anything about sociology to realise that a society that treats women like property is likely to be a shitty one.

Programming
I still have to address the "programming" remark. The fact is that the ability to program is narrow, specialized and generally detached from human social life.Actually, programming is becoming increasingly important, as more and more machinery is computerised. But this process can only go so far under capitalism - as it stands now, it is still cheaper to pay someone halfway across the globe a pittance to work for 12 hours a day every day.

As for detachment from social life, what the fuck are you talking about? Any "detachment" that goes on is through personal choice or temperament. What do you think programmers do when their code is compiling, stare at the wall?

I'd much rather code for 6-8 hours a day and have the chance to talk to friends while working, and be able to socialise face to face afterwards, rather than being too shattered to do so after spending 12 hours sewing footballs for shitty pay.

Of course, if some masochists want to do that they can, but I don't think we should base our means of production on such a model.

It effectually the human being learning the language of a computer program. This is simply not as important as understandign your relation to other human beings, the general system of economics and politics, etc..Such things are learned through participation, such socialising with friends, engaging in political discussions, taking part in the political system, and so on and so forth.

Automating the means of production will enable more people more time to do such participation and learning.

People aren't going to be learning much psychology if they're spending 12 hours a day hoeing weeds.

Dimentio

10th December 2008, 13:11

Both technical fields and humanitarian fields are very important in society. In a crisis though, it is more important that electricity, heating and infrastructure is working than that scientists publish analyses of how to make humans "feel together".

As for that "feel together"-type society. The Swedish public school system has tested out to create a system after those principles (in the 70;s and the early 80;s), and I must say that the result was almost as authoritarian as the earlier system of conservative education.

You cannot force people to feel integrated with each-other. Human relationships cannot be dictated by psychologists, a party or a state, but must be ruled by the human beings themselves. Otherwise, we will just get the kind of robotic, forced togetherness present in totalitarian systems.

That is why I believe that a technate is more humanitarian than a system which focuses on "human social relationships". We technocrats believe that human beings themselves should forge their social relationships, since the meaning social relationships might not be the same for everyone.

I get a sense that the kind of system which Dean would propose would be quite bad for neurological minorities, or for people who needs some time on their own.

I think the disappearance of class society itself will change human relationships and make them more authentic without some kind of "community organiser" at the top saying how we should behave.

Dean

10th December 2008, 15:35

As usual, Serpent offers nothing relevant to my points. NoXion, you've also missed a number of them, but I'll try to address what you've responded with.

Techno vs. Psycho

You're right to say that technical and humanitarian fields are necessary. And you're right that in a wide-scale economic collapse or disaster, technical experience is necessary. But then you go on to belittle humanist fields, by saying that "feeling good" isn't important. If you consider psychiatry as it exists today you are profoundly wrong - what of all the people who may lose relatives or experience trauma? Mental health is intimately relevant to the quality of human life. Technical knowledge has its place just as psychology, so to say that one matters while the other doesn't is ignorant, to say the least.

"Forcing" people to be free

I have not once inferred that human beings should be compelled to follow any specific psychological theory, or to be forced into certain human relations. The fact is that I have constantly encouraged human analysis, the notion of which is that people should be free to make their own judgments. In fact, if you read my posts, you will note that I said people should be able to judge their own actions by a focus on psychology.

Every time I explain how relevant social theory is to marxism, you both try to pull the card that I'm "forcing" some values or attitudes. Which is kinda funny, because this goes back to every single point made in this thread. Serpent, don't try to say "labor is or isn't good" if you are to have this assumption, because that is just as much a psychological chauvinism as any other social theory. In fact, since revolutionary theory is intrinsically relative to human psychology and social theory, you simply shouldn't be here. If you think it is "anti-free" to postulate what social conditions should exist in revolutionary society, you should not be interested in revolutionizing social relations. I really want to make this clear right now, because this argument of yours is profoundly ignorant and immaterial to all the questions at hand here.

I'd also like to address these quotes:

Both technical fields and humanitarian fields are very important in society. In a crisis though, it is more important that electricity, heating and infrastructure is working than that scientists publish analyses of how to make humans "feel together".

As for that "feel together"-type society. The Swedish public school system has tested out to create a system after those principles (in the 70;s and the early 80;s), and I must say that the result was almost as authoritarian as the earlier system of conservative education.
It isn't about "feeling good" but thanks for your chauvinism. Clearly, you think it is acceptable to insult entire swaths of human sciences because you think they "aren't important."

I get a sense that the kind of system which Dean would propose would be quite bad for neurological minorities, or for people who needs some time on their own.
Interesting that you say that. Only a system which fundamentally ignores human psychology as "unnecessary" would cause such problems, however. If a system doesn't make concessions for those with psychological pathologies, it will exist as a damaging antagonist to those individuals. A social organization which opposes recognition of social relations is deficient in this way for obvious reasons.

That is why I believe that a technate is more humanitarian than a system which focuses on "human social relationships".
I simply don't know how to respond to such a quote. If social relations don't exist in your system, and you think that revolutionizing social relations is "authoritarian" you have no place at this site.

I think the disappearance of class society itself will change human relationships and make them more authentic without some kind of "community organiser" at the top saying how we should behave.
Your deficiency is very evident. Throughout the entire thread, I have not once posited that individuals should be telling "the masses" what to think of themselves. Rather, I have consistently argued for a wide-scale, self-actuated analysis.

Serpent, your notion of science is that it is an individual phenomenon. Your notion of psychology expresses this individualist attitude. This is simply not collectivist and not leftist. I would truly appreciate if you stopped applying your chauvinist attitudes to my arguments.

"Bourgeois Psychology"
NoXion, it is insulting for you to tell me that psychology is basically "bourgeois." You should know that I don't adhere to the present character of psychology, just as I assume that you don't adhere to the present application of the physical sciences. I have shown you this respect, please do the same for me.

Bullshit! I don't need to know any psychology to know that if I insult Frank, he is likely to be upset. Nor do I need to know anything about sociology to realise that a society that treats women like property is likely to be a shitty one.
As usual, you take a reactive tone and refuse to even consider what I am saying. Contrarily, it does take knowledge of the human mind to know that you might anger frank. In the same vein, it takes a deeper understanding of psychology to more comprehensively associate with your own social actions.

Actually, programming is becoming increasingly important, as more and more machinery is computerised. But this process can only go so far under capitalism - as it stands now, it is still cheaper to pay someone halfway across the globe a pittance to work for 12 hours a day every day.

And at the same time, a single programmer should be able to do the work which would otherwise require a factory of people working their whole lives. This isn't even a correct ratio, because a single program can permanently tune a factory; the number of jobs simply won't be proportional.

People aren't going to be learning much psychology if they're spending 12 hours a day hoeing weeds.
This is something present throughout the whole thread. In your post particularly, you are trying to draw a distinction between technical and social sciences, the latter of which you have a clear contempt for.

In regards to the human being, you have an extremely nihilist attitude. You posit various presumptions about the human - that this or that social organization will be better, that the relation to the means of production has this or that relevance. Ultimately, however, you fundamentally oppose any attempt to create a focus on that, or to analyze the nuances that surround
human existence. I don't know if maybe you assume that social change only comes about through force, and that is why you can't stomach what I am saying. But you really need to get over this biophobia.

Dimentio

10th December 2008, 17:13

Dimentio

10th December 2008, 17:23

Question. How many technocrats have ever worked on a farm? Ever been to a farm? Ever been to a rural area?

I grew up in a rural area and often helped out in the forest when I was a kid.

Did not like it, but it had to be done.

ÑóẊîöŉ

10th December 2008, 18:44

As usual, Serpent offers nothing relevant to my points. NoXion, you've also missed a number of them, but I'll try to address what you've responded with.

Techno vs. Psycho

You're right to say that technical and humanitarian fields are necessary. And you're right that in a wide-scale economic collapse or disaster, technical experience is necessary. But then you go on to belittle humanist fields, by saying that "feeling good" isn't important. If you consider psychiatry as it exists today you are profoundly wrong - what of all the people who may lose relatives or experience trauma? Mental health is intimately relevant to the quality of human life. Technical knowledge has its place just as psychology, so to say that one matters while the other doesn't is ignorant, to say the least.

People don't need the artificial impositions of psychology in order to feel good. People need to be well-fed, have decent homes, and the opportunity to interact with others as they please. Science and engineering provide these - humans supply all the rest, that is, the "social stuff" for themselves, given the opportunity.

"Forcing" people to be free

I have not once inferred that human beings should be compelled to follow any specific psychological theory, or to be forced into certain human relations. The fact is that I have constantly encouraged human analysis, the notion of which is that people should be free to make their own judgments. In fact, if you read my posts, you will note that I said people should be able to judge their own actions by a focus on psychology.What does that even mean?

People judge their own actions using their own social experience and knowledge of the consequences. People learn about social interaction by actually doing it, not through poring over psychology textbooks.

People aren't going to get much experience in social interaction, and thus get better at it, if they're slaving over a workbench for twelve hours a day and coming home dog-tired.

That's why automation is important. It leaves more time for people to do what they really want to do.

"Bourgeois Psychology"
NoXion, it is insulting for you to tell me that psychology is basically "bourgeois." You should know that I don't adhere to the present character of psychology, just as I assume that you don't adhere to the present application of the physical sciences. I have shown you this respect, please do the same for me.Let me clear something up; psychology as a science has been around since about the middle of the 19th century, therefore, subjects for psychology have only existed in societies that were extant from then until now.

This is far, far from the totality of human psychological experience, and I think it is supremely arrogant to think that such discoveries from such a comparitively limited sample is applicable to all humans at all times. At best, it is jumping to conclusions.

The vast majority of societies since the middle of the 19th century have been bourgeois, therefore I have no qualms calling psychology inherently bourgeois in nature.

Sure, one can develop "radical" psychology and no doubt someone has, but the fact remains that the subjects of psychology, human beings, have been born and raised in bourgeois society. This will colour the results of even self-declared "radical", "revolutionary" or "non-bourgeois" psychology.

Societies, and the humans within them, are in a state of rapid flux. On the other hand, the unfolding of physical processes is unmistakeable. If you lie about physical processes for ideological reasons, it is very easy for other scientists to check your work - there is an independant standard, namely physical reality, against which theories and hypotheses can be tested.

These physical processes are subject to physical laws, which operate regardless of what human social system in place.

As usual, you take a reactive tone and refuse to even consider what I am saying. Contrarily, it does take knowledge of the human mind to know that you might anger frank. Yes, but that is learned through experience, typically early on as a child.

And at the same time, a single programmer should be able to do the work which would otherwise require a factory of people working their whole lives.This is a good thing, surely? In an egalitarian society, if more people can produce more goods, everyone benefits.

This isn't even a correct ratio, because a single program can permanently tune a factory; the number of jobs simply won't be proportional.Does it have to be? Why?

This is something present throughout the whole thread. In your post particularly, you are trying to draw a distinction between technical and social sciences, the latter of which you have a clear contempt for.Try "caution in the face of unsatisfactory results". The physical sciences and their discoveries and applications have transformed society and provided immense benefits, but unfortunately only for a select few.

My contention is that everyone should be able to enjoy the benefits of an advanced technological society, rather than the "birth lottery" we have now where it's a matter of luck.

In regards to the human being, you have an extremely nihilist attitude. You posit various presumptions about the human - that this or that social organization will be better, that the relation to the means of production has this or that relevance. Ultimately, however, you fundamentally oppose any attempt to create a focus on that, or to analyze the nuances that surround human existence. I don't know if maybe you assume that social change only comes about through force, and that is why you can't stomach what I am saying. But you really need to get over this biophobia.More nonsense.

If you had paid any attention whatsoever, you would note that I am far from biophobic - on the contrary, humans and biological life are the essential lynchpin upon which science and technology reside. The first known sapient species, to whit, the human race, is purely biological as of the present moment.

But this should change. If we ever venture out into the Great Dark, we will need to adapt, just as Earthly life adapted when it expanded from the sea to the land and the air. It is not enough to conquer space and other worlds, to reshape them into something more fitting for Earth-descended life. To truly take advantage of this magnificent opportunity the existance of the universe has granted us, we must become as comfortable and accustomed to it as fish in water.

We should follow in our ancestor's footsteps, and yet tread new ground. Evolution, for the longest time a thoughtless natural process, now has the chance to have purpose behind it. We should embrace this happy accident, for the evolution of life on Earth has been a success of planetary proportions.

Let us emulate that success on a grander scale!

Dean

10th December 2008, 23:04

I have never tried to institute any form of ban of labour or of things which people love to do. In fact, I want people to enjoy so much what they love to do, that I want to give them access to a maximum amount of free time.

I did not say that humanitarian subjects are not important. I am merely pointing out that the basis of civilisation and of the fact that we could sit here and have this discussion is technical fields. Au contraire, it was you who brought up the idea that technical fields are somewhat inferior to humanitarian fields.

"I'm not saying that my idea is better. It's just that my idea is the basis for civilization etc. while yours is apparently meaningless."

If you would look, however, this distinction came about because NoXion said programming should be required, and I countered that that is a very narrow technical field, and Law &c. had more immediate relevance. People simply need to understand how society works to live in society in a productive, social way. I have repeatedly stressed the importance of both technical and social fields, I've only belittled the notion of encouraging a very narrow field.

I guess you two don't understand that, which is fine, but I can't sit here and try to return to this premise in every post. Clearly, you both have contempt for socially - interested sciences, avoiding the point that people must be aware of social regulation and social devices.

You even go so far as to say that I am "forcing" people into some attitude by my saying that I want to encourage such fields. Well, if I can't say that, why don't you criticise NoXion for wanting to encourage programming? See, you'll note that I never told him that his was "forcing people." I recognized, rightly, that he wanted to encourage it and I criticised it from that vantage point. Contrarily, you have both disrespected me in this way, resorting to misrepresentation in order to weaken my apparent position.

About that with social relations and a technate? Where is it implied that social relations won't exist in a technate? Of course, people will always have social relations. What won't exist in a technate, is people who demand others to take part in public events (public events would of course exist), or invent mandatory labour "to make people feel together" (like Mao). The technate exist to provide everyone with everything they need in order to live fulfilling lives, but my belief is that humans themselves are capable of organising their own social relations?

But if you think that human beings are not capable of doing that without the help of the society, then it is clearly you who has problems.

...

The problem with your wide-scale analysis is that it sounds like someone will inject it (Chairman Mao, Great leader Stalin, the Party, or the flying-pig-in-a-quite-convincing-whig). Since you bring this up in a thread which is about values, you seem to want to state that the ideals of letting the people themselves decide what to do with their time, instead of idealising labour, is somewhat bad, and will affect people in a way which does'nt correspond to your ideals.

The technate is not here to give people any ideals at all, but to simply administrate the infrastructure. Most people like to do something with their life - gardening, travelling, arts, fishing, hunting, cultuiral work. They will not be discouraged from doing that, and they will have the resources to do what they please.
I haven't criticised you from this point (Technocracy).

In fact, In the last two posts I have not based a single argument on your or NoXion's technocracy, except in one case where the characterization also applies to marxists.

What you have done here is to, again, claim that I am making suggestions that I am not. This has characterized almost all of your critical points, and I simply can't sit here responding to unfounded criticisms. It's emotionally taxing and I really don't like the disrespect, especially when I put time into these posts.

If you do not like that idea, it then does'nt make it too far-fetched to assume that you want to have an ideal imposed on the population how they should live their lives and what values they should hold. That stinks of idealism rather than of marxism.

No, your idea is not simply an affirmation of negativism. I am not arguing against the notion that "people shouldn't have ideals imposed on them." In fact, this paragraph makes your tactics very clear - you attempt to reform the opposing viewpoint to something easier to attack.

I further think its laughable that you try to discredit supposedly "unmarxist" attitudes when you have fully ignored every reference to Marxism in my posts.

You have both done this and its very dirty and dishonest. I'm really quite tired of reading this, as I said I don't have the inclination to continue to "debate" with people who wont even be decent to me.

ckaihatsu

11th December 2008, 00:13

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th December 2008, 10:11

If you would look, however, this distinction came about because NoXion said programming should be required, and I countered that that is a very narrow technical field, and Law &c. had more immediate relevance. People simply need to understand how society works to live in society in a productive, social way. I have repeatedly stressed the importance of both technical and social fields, I've only belittled the notion of encouraging a very narrow field.

That's because I think you're wrong. Except in the event of a civilisation-threatening disaster, computers are going to be more important in the future than they are now.

And assuming a classless society, what on Earth makes you think we're going to need anything at all like the bloated, clumsy legal apparatus we have now?

And not just computers and programming - a wide range of technical skills would be required for an advanced technological classless society that is to be self-sufficient in all sectors.

I guess you two don't understand that, which is fine, but I can't sit here and try to return to this premise in every post. Clearly, you both have contempt for socially - interested sciences, avoiding the point that people must be aware of social regulation and social devices.You haven't made a convincing case for your position. You've simply assumed that current social sciences would be applicable to classless society.

On the other hand, it is obvious why technical fields are important even in classless society.

You even go so far as to say that I am "forcing" people into some attitude by my saying that I want to encourage such fields. Well, if I can't say that, why don't you criticise NoXion for wanting to encourage programming?Possibly because he agrees with me?

See, you'll note that I never told him that his was "forcing people." I recognized, rightly, that he wanted to encourage it and I criticised it from that vantage point. Contrarily, you have both disrespected me in this way, resorting to misrepresentation in order to weaken my apparent position.If I have misrepresented you, it is because of a failure on your part to yourself across clearly.

I haven't criticised you from this point (Technocracy).

In fact, In the last two posts I have not based a single argument on your or NoXion's technocracy, except in one case where the characterization also applies to marxists.Maybe your mistake is in assuming I'm a pure-bred Marxist.

What you have done here is to, again, claim that I am making suggestions that I am not. This has characterized almost all of your critical points, and I simply can't sit here responding to unfounded criticisms. It's emotionally taxing and I really don't like the disrespect, especially when I put time into these posts.Yet you have failed to point out why my alternative your recommendations - that healthy people in classless society are capable of learning essential social skills and making the right decisions without studying psychology, law et al - is invalid.

No, your idea is not simply an affirmation of negativism. I am not arguing against the notion that "people shouldn't have ideals imposed on them." In fact, this paragraph makes your tactics very clear - you attempt to reform the opposing viewpoint to something easier to attack.What makes you believe the "soft sciences" are so important, considering their provenance and poor track record in comparison to physical sciences and technical skills, which have produced concrete results that are ubiquitous? With measurable benefits?

I further think its laughable that you try to discredit supposedly "unmarxist" attitudes when you have fully ignored every reference to Marxism in my posts.

You have both done this and its very dirty and dishonest.I can't speak for Serpent, but not once have I called you "unMarxist" in this thread.

I'm really quite tired of reading this, as I said I don't have the inclination to continue to "debate" with people who wont even be decent to me.I'll take this style-over-substance fallacy as a concession, shall I?

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

14th December 2008, 00:08

A similar rift developed among various Soviet schools of Marxism over whether or not the devision of labour was in and of itself an evil. The majority deviated from old school Marxism in that they thought that specialised labour was not necisarily evil and frquently pointed to the Marxian tenet that production was a means by which humans could realise and experiance themselves. In situations where a specific task is not forced on the worker the act of creation is a wonderous form of self-experiance. This however punges one into the deep ideological web where one wonders if the preformace of a specific task as one's sole occupation is forced or not forced upon the worker under such and such a circumstance. The Technocratic argument is highly compelling: such aspects of specialization (lets say gardening or carpentry) could be hobbies and/or leisure activities and by creating a situation in which the would soley be for one's personel leisure THEN AND ONLY THEN would the task be completely self-willed and not mandatory and therefore a means by which to experiance one's self as Marx had originaly envisioned.

ckaihatsu

14th December 2008, 07:52

A similar rift developed among various Soviet schools of Marxism over whether or not the devision of labour was in and of itself an evil.

The division of labor -- meaning both: [1] as distinct between capital and labor, and [2] the various, differentiated / specialized tasks that laborers perform -- is unavoidable within capitalism. Specialized labor is its very strength since that's what's required to enable the assembly line of production. It's inhumane in that it forces workers into unnatural, undesired, endlessly repetitive tasks, even if the tasks are relatively high-level, like professional work.

I think it's safe to say that the human being ("human nature") is *very* good at being general, and at dealing with a wide variety of socially mediated responsibilities -- unlike the rest of the animal world. Certainly we are also creatures of habit, but our capacity for learning from the environment and using that knowledge is boundless. The demands of specialized routines in an industrial (or post-industrial, service-) society can be stultifying and causes burnout, especially if the workload is too much.

The majority deviated from old school Marxism in that they thought that specialised labour was not necisarily evil and frquently pointed to the Marxian tenet that production was a means by which humans could realise and experiance themselves.

People, especially youth, do need to know that they are connected to the larger society, and part of forming one's identity is based on this fitting-into the societal context of the working world. One also learns from one's environment, and much of that environment in modern times is in the workplace.

Furthermore, if people happen to fit in well with their work then they will have opportunities -- maybe not *all* the time, though -- to realize and experience themselves in a fuller capacity than if they didn't have that particular job.

I made a diagram that is relevant to this line of discussion -- please check it out if you like:

G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______

http://tinyurl.com/2c252w

In situations where a specific task is not forced on the worker the act of creation is a wonderous form of self-experiance.

Some jobs certainly invite more creativity and self-direction than others. The very act of mapping out one's sub-tasks and routines in a position can be a creative practice itself.

This however punges one into the deep ideological web where one wonders if the preformace of a specific task as one's sole occupation is forced or not forced upon the worker under such and such a circumstance.

One simply needs to figure out the bounds of their professional discretion. Obviously a given position entails certain overall responsibilities and objectives -- *all* work routines are in response to this overarching definition of the job position itself. In this way *all* tasks are "forced" by the demands of the occupation. In different circumstances the specific tasks required may be more clear-cut or less clear-cut.

The Technocratic argument is highly compelling: such aspects of specialization (lets say gardening or carpentry) could be hobbies and/or leisure activities and by creating a situation in which the would soley be for one's personel leisure THEN AND ONLY THEN would the task be completely self-willed and not mandatory and therefore a means by which to experiance one's self as Marx had originaly envisioned.

Leisure activities can certainly be rewarding, but the flipside to them is the question as to whether they're socially useful or not. Participation on this board is a *very* good example of this -- are we actually being political in some regard, and rendering useful work, or is this more like a hobby in which we're just conversing to ourselves as an in-group, with minimal impact on the larger world? (I actually don't know.)

It's for precisely this reason -- among plenty of others, of course -- that we *need* a worldwide workers revolution. Too much labor, including that of hobbies, is compartmentalized away from review by the larger society. In an era of unprecedented transportation and communication abilities our laboring infrastructure is woefully outdated, with people working at tasks that may not even be completed or, if completed, may never see the light of day, much less have a constructive impact on business, or industry, or society. This is because of the anarchic / chaotic nature of the market-based connections that make up the roadways of the economy -- routes are constantly changing, or going out of service, as funding dries up, businesses go bankrupt, are acquired, employees laid-off, etc.

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

15th December 2008, 06:56

First of all, this is the first line by line response i've received on this board so thank you, it's nice to see that somebody's paid some goddamn attention to me at last!

Leisure activities can certainly be rewarding, but the flipside to them is the question as to whether they're socially useful or not. Participation on this board is a *very* good example of this -- are we actually being political in some regard, and rendering useful work, or is this more like a hobby in which we're just conversing to ourselves as an in-group, with minimal impact on the larger world? (I actually don't know.)

This is an interesting and relevent topic to adress, I think I'll try to answer it: reflections on obscure topics like whether or not Hegelian dialectics directly influenced Maoist Thirdworldism won't help the local union solve it's strike and get adequit benefits; so, to some extant, this is a bit of conversational hobbyism with minimal impact on the larger world. However, at the same time participation on this board is a good way for those of us in the political left to becom selfaware of ourselves as a group of like minded individuals with common goals, we can learn from one another about different ideologies and theories and how they work in real life, it can sharpen our wits. Board participation can be a form of mental excercise that might help us somewhere down the line in real life. On a more obvious level Revleft is used as a communication tool for spreading the word about strikes,rallies,protests,and things like that so we can spread the word. Both possibilities are true depending on the person, i use the message board as an example, in some cases the individual might use his or her hobby to the benefit of those around them, in others, it might just be a method of self-experiance. History is the linear narrative of class struggle ultimately culminating in man fully realising his own humanity with communism(this concept is especially expanded on by Marx in his earlier works such as the 1844 Manuscript when he was still very much steeped in Young Hegelianism). Therefore, methods of self-experiance are part of the goals of a communist society, I would say that even if it wasn't socially usefull a non-compulsory labour hobby such as gardening would be positive and condusive to the atmosphere anticipated by revolutionary leftist politics. The only problem with that notion is that it might stir up unhealthy levels of individualism or say, using the gardening example, require some form of private property. My personal solution? To continue with the above mentioned example, some sort of communial gardening project one could voluntere for if one enjoyed gardening, or a community carpentry workshop. The proceeds would be dealt with charitably; this way one could actively experiance themselves and it could be socially helpfull to those around at the same time. What do you think?

It's for precisely this reason -- among plenty of others, of course -- that we *need* a worldwide workers revolution. Too much labor, including that of hobbies, is compartmentalized away from review by the larger society. In an era of unprecedented transportation and communication abilities our laboring infrastructure is woefully outdated, with people working at tasks that may not even be completed or, if completed, may never see the light of day, much less have a constructive impact on business, or industry, or society. This is because of the anarchic / chaotic nature of the market-based connections that make up the roadways of the economy -- routes are constantly changing, or going out of service, as funding dries up, businesses go bankrupt, are acquired, employees laid-off, etc.[/quote]

Exactly Comrade! With global communication and travel the old bourgeosis division of labour has been proven outdated.

ckaihatsu

15th December 2008, 07:20

Yeah to everything you've said, and,

Therefore, methods of self-experiance are part of the goals of a communist society, I would say that even if it wasn't socially usefull a non-compulsory labour hobby such as gardening would be positive and condusive to the atmosphere anticipated by revolutionary leftist politics. The only problem with that notion is that it might stir up unhealthy levels of individualism or say, using the gardening example, require some form of private property. My personal solution? To continue with the above mentioned example, some sort of communial gardening project one could voluntere for if one enjoyed gardening, or a community carpentry workshop. The proceeds would be dealt with charitably; this way one could actively experiance themselves and it could be socially helpfull to those around at the same time. What do you think?

I'd say that methods of self-experience are part of the goals of * life * -- a communist society, or *any* society, if possible, are just means to facilitate that goal. Unfortunately, many types of societies, including capitalist ones, have been exploitative and oppressive for the vast majority of humanity. It's only fairly recently in human history that a "middle-class" has arisen which has had the material means and leisure time to greatly expand their own self-experience and awareness, thereby enriching modern culture as a whole.

People should be able to garden, by themselves, or with others, or live alone in the woods if that's what they want to do with themselves -- certainly others can't *tell* a person how to live, but a more-enlightened society can provide access to culture for those who want to see how others have done it.

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

15th December 2008, 20:38

[quote=ckaihatsu;1310196]Yeah to everything you've said,

thanks man

I'd say that methods of self-experience are part of the goals of * life * -- a communist society, or *any* society, if possible, are just means to facilitate that goal.

I agree, put simply:man is a productive entity, that is his nature.Societies arise when people establish relationships with one another conerning the means of production, in other words, social hierarchies develop as fellow human beings begin working together in order to create, like early humans hunting in groups to provide food. I might not be explaining it the best way but i think you know what i mean. People have a common goal that they can't acheive in isolation and must team up, no man is an island. As a response to your statement I'd say that communism is the type of society best suited to facillitate the general "goals of life".

It's only fairly recently in human history that a "middle-class" has arisen which has had the material means and leisure time to greatly expand their own self-experience and awareness, thereby enriching modern culture as a whole.

Much as it does enrich us the creation of a middle class keeps the proletariat a docile and obediant mass and much more easy to manipulate via the symptoms of false class conciousness. Especially in America laziness has given people a sense of satisfaction in the face of injustice.

ckaihatsu

15th December 2008, 23:05

I agree, put simply:man is a productive entity, that is his nature.

I really can't agree with this statement in a categorical way. We've seen plenty of people from the ruling classes throughout history who have lived from cradle to grave without being productive at all -- if one has access to the unlimited fruits of others' labor one would not have to produce or perform for anyone else, given the right circumstances of birth.

Others on this board have expressed some reservations about a full-blown communist society for this reason, wondering aloud if multitudes of people would just shirk work altogether in favor of consumptive lifestyles, if given access to abundance. (I personally wouldn't see this as a problem, given near-total automation to do all of the labor that society requires -- the politics and administration for such a society wouldn't *require* that many people to be involved, anyway.)

Societies arise when people establish relationships with one another conerning the means of production, in other words, social hierarchies develop as fellow human beings begin working together in order to create, like early humans hunting in groups to provide food.

Social hierarchy -- like productive activity -- is not a given, either, for human nature -- it's entirely a societal construct that varies with the mode of production that a society employs. You mention early human societies of gatherer-hunters, which is termed 'primitive communism' as a description of their mode of production. Since the groups would get their sustenance from the immediate environment, in a hand-to-mouth kind of way, with negligible surplus, the social hierarchies would be minimal, and *very* subject to the ongoing consensus of the rest of the group.

As agriculture developed and societies began to see surpluses social hierarchies would develop around the management of that surplus of grain -- the material surplus freed up members of the administrating class to develop mathematics (for accounting for the surpluses), literacy, science, crafts, and so on.

I might not be explaining it the best way but i think you know what i mean. People have a common goal that they can't acheive in isolation and must team up, no man is an island.

This too, is an overgeneralization about human nature -- people, like some species of animals, can be extremely hardy on their own and there is no definition of human nature that prescribes social contact as a *must* for survival. > On the whole < the human species *is* a social species, and that is our strength over all other species, but that doesn't automatically tell us anything about this-or-that individual person.

As a response to your statement I'd say that communism is the type of society best suited to facillitate the general "goals of life".

Well, I agree, but only because a communist society would free up the productive capacity of our current state of knowledge and technology to its fullest potential, by eliminating class exploitation and oppression.

[QUOTE=AngelCity Neo-Stalinist;1310593]Much as it does enrich us the creation of a middle class keeps the proletariat a docile and obediant mass and much more easy to manipulate via the symptoms of false class conciousness.

I agree -- it's tricky, because the "middle class", depending on where you draw the line, is basically parasitic on the labor of the working class, and employs its entire dominant culture and control of the means of mass production to perpetuate this condition.

Technically speaking, class society as a whole is obsolete and should have been superseded by working-class forms of organization by the end of the 19th century (at the latest), but here we still are with it....

At the same time, though -- just as I described above -- the existence of a layer of people who are freed from mind-numbing, soul-crushing gruntwork means that modern civilization is enabled. Yes, the parasites build the civilization in their own interests, with workers only receiving crumbs from the table, but it is a modern civilization nonetheless. Since the advent of industrialization there are no more excuses, and it is up to the working class of the world to wrest control of these productive forces away from the bourgeoisie to end its rule once and for all.

Especially in America laziness has given people a sense of satisfaction in the face of injustice.

This, too, is a gray area -- is the working class of advanced, industrialized countries "bought off"? Relative to the living standards of their co-workers in less advanced, less industrialized countries, we could say "yes", especially if the workers in question are not radicalized and are not politically active in their own interests.

This is because the workers in Third World-type economies must work much, much harder for far less compensation, while the fruits of that labor are made available to consumers (workers) in the First World. Therefore First World consumers (workers) are indirect beneficiaries of the conquests of empire.

*However*, workers are exploited no matter where they are, so they continue to have more in common with each other, no matter where they are, than they do with the managers of empire. It is more in our interests to fight for international solidarity than to fight in an imperialist world war on the side of "our" country.

AngelCity Neo-Stalinist

Hey, I gotta ask you, what's with the "Neo-Stalinist" thing in your name? It's pretty offensive.