:: Red, you are a pretty arrogant individual---which wouldn't be such a bad thing if you knew it all (but, alas, you don't). Your other post---'We are the real socialists'---shows how absolute the World Socialism Movement's brand of socialism is. Thatıs exactly the sort of thinking that has led Utopia 2000 to abandon Marxism.
See my response to that other posts, I simply have a corner to fight, nothing to do with arrogance...
: I think I understand what it was you were trying to say in the above statement (I include my prompting statement only to show the context---or lack of it---of yours). Certainly Utopia 2000 agrees that humans are social animals. That observation alone, however, will not establish organized cooperation. (Problem of the Commons).
I think that human beings, recognising their need to co-exist, and teh need to keep on living, are perfectly capable of organizing themselves to get teh job done, without me having to tell them how to do it. Gpoing back to teh Janitor, if no-one does it, teh toilets stink, teh floors get muddy, and the cloak room becomes a disaster area- if peopel want that, fine, if not, its up to them to work out how thay do it, not me...
: Free access to some things (or behavior), no access to other things (or behavior)...Here is the issue. Freedom to, freedom from. WHO will be making these determinations? Can you deny that such determinations are necessary?
The people organized for themselves will make the only decisions, democratically. I do not see what things, though, you would wish to deny peopel access to, and because humans are social and cultural, some behaviours will be excluded simply by teh wish to co-exist and remain within society.
:(Your inference that Utopia 2000 wishes to 'play emperor of the known universe' is crude propaganda...)
I never inferred any such thing, that was an example of retrograde reactiuonaries being thorough;lly ignored by a socialist majority. I'm sorry if you thought it was aimed at youse, it wasn't. Again, I appologise, I wish no, ill feelings.
: Without any sort of initial agreement on values? Or are you simply presuming all interested parties share yours?
i cannot dictate the values a future society will hold, as a socialist moevement grows it will develop its own values, means and ways of organising itself, and getting on with otehr people, within specific regional traditions and ways of life. I cannot set a single pattern of behaviour for teh whole world to reach socialism, only a means of practically achiveing thet, teh rest will be down for the people who WANT to make socialism work to find a way of doing it for themselves...
: First of all, 'control,' the Skinnerian term, ALWAYS refers to positive, non-aversive reinforcement.* (Please do not infer that 'control' is meant by behaviorists in the vulgar sense, as propagandists do in order to exploit the word as most people unacquainted with behavioristic terminology understand 'control.'**) Can the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' claim as much? If communitarian socialism is devoted to one idea, it's that NOTHING should be rammed down ANYONE'S throat---please stop inferring otherwise.
I wasn't referring to Skinner, merely teh Vanguardist notion that socialism can be handed down from above by teh party. Thats all. People have to want to have socialism, and do it for themselves. Dict of Proles is simply eh vast majority acting against teh class interest of a tiny minority of owners, nothing more, its democracy.
: We've been over this before. The German Ideology, as all Marxist scholars readily acknowledge, was written by the immature Marx, prior to the Manifesto. It was not published during his (or Engels') lifetime for a reason, and that was because Marx revised his thinking on many topics---division of labor being one of them.
I'm not so sure it can be so utterly ignored as all that though, Marx became a little desperate for a revolutiuon, any revolution, anywhere later in life, so- and did he revise his opinion that Div of Labnour cuased classes?
: It would, however, explain why the USSR, China, Poland, GDR, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Cuba, South Vietnam, etc. never expressed any need to address division of labor as an issue!
There is teh lmild fact that they were capitalist countries, and needed a capitalist production system...: : [S]ince the extract is torn from its context...
: Considering your lack of familiarity with the material, you are pretty bold to allege that I have taken the quote out of context. Space will not permit me to repeat the paragraph that I cited before [see 'Exactly---plus dicvision of labor']. I shall, however, quote Marx's first statement on the subject found in Capital, vol. 1:
I'm not alleging anything, but not seeing it in teh page can make things seem different, given that in capital things come in sections, knowing what section it was from would be of enormous help. I was in fact p[leading my own ignorance...
: Marx's summing statement on the topic concludes the section 'Division of Labor in Manufacture, and Division of Labor in Society' in Capital, vol. 1. (This section, containing the other passage I quoted, is the most complete treatment of Marxıs on the subject.) Remember, Marx does criticize division in the workshop (the detailed specialization); the point I have been making is that he did NOT criticize 'occupation' specialization:
: 'While division of labor in society at large, whether such division be brought about by exchange of commodities, is common to economic formations of society the most diverse, division of labor in the workshop, as practiced by manufacture, is a special creation of the capitalist mode of production alone.'
: (International edition, 1967, chapter XIV, sec. 4, p. 359)
: Meaning: SOCIAL division of labor has been common to all societies, despite economic formations. (It was on this issue that feminists blanched in the early 1970s.)
Up till now, although primative communism seems to lack it somehwhat..
: [C]an one have a system of divission of lavbour, byond the voluntary necessity of getting a task done quickly...?
: What is 'the voluntary necessity of getting a task done quickly'? Obviously, division of labor (both in the workshop and social) is more expedient for producing goods---and, conversely, less satisfying for people desiring intellectual challenges from their work. (Aristotelian Principle). Since you are such an expert on Morris (didn't read the contract link I put in, eh?---the Utopia 2000 preamble mentions Morris as a primary influence...), letıs check in with his essay 'Useful Work Versus Useless Toil':
I was short of time. Yes, I agree pretty much with his principles, but all teh same one person cannot do all teh jobs.
: 'Variety of work is the next point, and a most important one. To compel a man to do day after day the same task, without any hope of escape or change, means nothing short of turning his life into a prison-torment...A man might easily learn learn and practice at least three crafts, varying sedentary occupation with outdoor-occupation calling for the exercise of strong bodily energy for work in which the mind had more to do.'
: (News From Nowhere and Other Writings, Penguin Classics Edition, pp. 299-300)
: Does this abolition of the division of labor infer less abundance?
Not at all...
: A few paragraphs later:
: 'I do admit, as I have said before, that some sacrifice will be necessary in order to make labor attractive. I mean that, if we could be contented in a free community to work in the same hurried, dirty, disorderly, heartless way as we do now, we might shorten our dayıs labor very much more than I suppose we shall do, taking all kinds of labor into account. But if we did, it would mean that our new-won freedom of condition would leave us listless and wretched, if not anxious as we are now, which I hold as simply impossible. We should be contented to make the sacrifices necessary for raising our condition to the standard called out for as desirable by the whole community.'
: (p. 303)
He later made it plain, that he thought teh reason why people would stop using mass machinery, was because there was a super abundance, and poeple wanted to use all tehir spare time to make beautiful things (both in News From Nowhere, and in How we live and how we might live...)
: It is obvious that Morris suggests making MATERIAL sacrifices to raise the LABOR standards called out as desirable, etc. There is a reason that Morris was an opponent of Marx, and there is a reason that Morris also opposed Bellamy's vision of state socialism---and social division of labor delineated his opposition!***
Morris was opposed to Marx, so this is why he was in teh Socialist League with Elenor marx, why he published 'Socialism from teh roots up' using Marx's explanations about money? Further, News from Nowhere does not depict a lowering of quality of life, or some sacrifices but a gerneral raise in them...
: How could a minority withstand the vast , majority simply carrying out their desire to
: establish socialism, espcially if denied access to military or other violent monopolies of teh current ruling class?
: Sounds like violent confrontation to me...All ruling classes are 'minorities.'
Yes, but if the wokers stop helping them to stay ruliong class (includsing the police andarmy) then there ceases to be violent conflict...
: : That [socialism] could work on a gloabal scale is obvious---capitalism is a global thing now, it involves taking teh structures and means of capitalism, and using them for ourselves.
: Iım sorry, Red, but the logic of 'since capitalism is global, socialism has to be, too' doesnıt bear scrutiny. Capitalism is COERCIVE, global capitalism backs everyone into a corner. Again: how can global socialism be voluntary when the world is divided into such disparities of 'class consciousness' as well as material standards of living?
1:We need to share resources from all over the world, we cannot maintaion abundance in one area.
2:Because capitalism is increasingly global class consciousness will become more and more global.
Your response has been:
: : [W]e offer teh vast majority a chance to get living conditions that they are denied, we offer security, a control over ones life, and end to poverty, a sense of belonging and society....
: Again, I ask: Without any sort of initial agreement on values? Or are you simply presuming all interested parties share yours? What if everyone in China wanted the cooperative global socialism they have just fought for to produce enough automobiles so that everyone in China has a car, but everyone in Europe wants to reduce their work-week because they already have all the luxuries they need? Who decides this, Red, and by what process? (Finicking about numbers...)
If they want more cars, they can go ahead and make them, its up to them in teh end, but workers can get together and co-operate over such matters, placing orders through to the groups that make specific things. the basis of values for production would be need, and that would be the value upon which most things would be decided...: Well, people recognize that the building needs to be kept clean, and so someone will have to do it, its up to them to define how that happens. try reading William Morris's 'News From nowhere'--- he certainly wasn't a blend of marxism and anarchism.
: OK, letıs return to Morris. Ever notice how the narrator of that novel (and his companions) never actually got around to doing any work? As much praise as Utopia 2000 has for his insights into division of labor, we do not retain the 19th century notion of 'instinctive' cooperation. (Free-Rider Problem). Organization of labor is just as crucial as organization of distribution. We advocate job rotation (by age). Most Marxists hedge on the issue---and your concluding statement is, unfortunately, a fine example of such prevarication:
As I recall they are on their way to join in with the harvest, although guest never works himself, his job is to observe. If people do not co-operate their lives will be shit. If they do, they may have a nice time. SImply equation. Its up to them to decide, and co-orindate accordingly..
: : [A] body, that collects data and gives out advice is certainly very different from a state, lacking teh co-ercive measures, teh repressive measures to inflict its will, merely to advise and help. The central bodies are only tehre to co-ordinate,a nd provide a place for different communities to come together, and co-operate and plan. no quasi legalistic contract will help them do that. No one can set up a plan for socialism now, it can only form throuhg the practical implementation of socialism. you do not need contracts, merely the will for each person to want to live in that sort of society, and co-operate with otehrs over achieving their desires, democratically...
: Compare that statement with this:
: 'The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," i.e. when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois right," which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than somebody else, whether one is not getting less pay than somebody else---this narrow horizon will be crossed. There will then be no need for society, in distributing products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs."'
: Isn't this what the W.S.M. promises?
We avoid teh phrase 'whithers away' partly because it is so vague, and partly because Lenin used it as a mantra to Justify buliding a stateĦ!!. We believe that there need now be no tranistory stage, because peopel now are readilly able already to adopt such measures.
I regret that we, both socialists, have differences.
Thats always been the way, but in the end its the goal that matters, not teh specifics of dogma...
: As I understand it, W.S.M. sees socialism as an spontaneous mass movement, a flowering (if you will) of collective class consciousness and organic cooperation resulting in the 'higher phase of communism' on a global scale. Utopia 2000, on the other hand, sees socialism as an effort to change human behavior (conditioned by capitalist institutions and ideology) requiring the democratic determination of collective values in order to know what aspects of the social environment should be altered in order to produce the implementation of said agreed-upon collective values for a small community united by a common behavioral program (contract).
I deny 'sponteineous' we rather see it as teh working class consciously building a movement, deliberately and knowingly wanting socialism (we have been accused of educationalism). Its a long slow process of an awakened desire or consciousness to build socialism, rather than a group of leaders dragging half-blind peopel (as far as the leaders see it) to teh promised land.
: Differing on issues of implementation, we both hold similar wishes for a socialist future where all people are empowered to run their own economies, societies, and individual lives. We wish your efforts success. Our support is unconditional---but critical.
Likewise from us to youse, lets hope one of us at least is proved right, and we reach socialism in our lifetimes- I'll look you up after teh revolution, be here, on this board! :)
thanks Man...zs
None.
