These two phrases (together) present difficulties for me. Phrase #2 insinuates that violence may be necessary to achieve revolutionary aims. It is much in the clear manner of Gus Hall, who stated:
The specter of bloodshed is clear when you state: 'I would not stand by...' Now the
problem, for me, is that coupled with W.S.M.'s 'principled stance' to omit
specificity. One wants some details before risking one's neck. Remember, Red, the
W.S.M. are saying things (and not saying things) that many other state socialists
have already said (and not said)...1:We are not specific on what socialism will be, but we are specific on our programme of how to achieve socialism.
2:We wish to see violence and bloodshed kept to a minimum, and will not engage in activity that necessitates violence, nor expects violence. Our programme is to seize the state through electoral means, disable teh armed forces, and disram and neutralise violent opposition. We however do not figure on there being much violentb opposition, because we believe that socialism cannot come about untill the vast majority of workers enact it, and who can use armed force against an entire population.
: I severly doubt that the ruling class will prefer armaggeddon to defeat.
This may not be your best slogan.
No, but I think it is true.
_______________
May I presume this is a variation on the 'Language Acquisition Device,' Chomsky's
famous proposition that grammar is phylogenic? (See my post 'Behaviorism,'
asterisk #2, for a detailed example of Chomsky's sloppy scholarship.)
Seen that, still doesn't dispute chomsky's proposition for a biological propensity towards language (and tehreby sociability), even if this is so it is merely an imperative towards sociability, and not something that dictates its specific form, which is vaiable to teh environment. What is to be avoided is positioning humans as passive reflectors of their environment, rather than as biological entities in dialogue with their environment, and with something which they bring from within themselves to teh equation.
For Lacan human subjectivity is an illusion covering the chaotic and disorganised myirad of biological impulses, our strongest desire is to have a self, an organised coherent one, like teh one we see in a mirror, that obeys our desire and whims and moves when we want it to. this same desire extends to control over our environment, and an attempt to hold chaos at bay. As a theory it provides a good explanation for teh idea/myth of God to hold teh chaos of teh world at bay.
To say that 'most folks have a good understanding of justice, and a strong desire for
self mastery and group belonging' is to ignore the contingencies that foster such
qualities; it is to place behavior within the mysterious recesses of the 'mind' while
minimizing the effect of the (social) environment. This can only assist the status quo.
To deny the importance of environmental contingencies upon behavior (a la
Berkeley/Freud/Rogers) is to prevent a useful analysis---and understanding---of the
very factors that reinforce (or fail to reinforce) 'justice' and 'group belonging.'
I think to ignore teh biological specificity and turn peopel into passive extensions of a structure is just as dangerous. It is more that having an inate desire for sociability, and a biologcal understanding of pain, people must look to adapt to tehir social environment to form their consciousness.
Chomsky, unfortunately, is another pawn in the traditional game of aggrandizing
individual autonomy while masking the very tangible factors that induce people to
act the way that they do...
Chomsky has never done such, he merely defends teh concept of certain principles being a priori part of human biology. I'm not sure how far I follow, but certainly there is something to be said for appeals to common biology.
Both Marx's historical and material determinism and Skinner's reinforcement theory
will suggest that if 'all' one can do is to 'persuade' (verbally) people of the benefits of
socialism, then it will probably not happen. Material conditions will determine
whether or not people adopt socialism, not words.
Wittgenstein: 'Every sign by
itself seems dead. What gives it life?---In use it is alive. Is life breathed into it
there?---Or is it the use its life?'(2)---another way of saying that language is
behavior (as determined by environmental contingencies and mediated by a verbal
community).
Yes, after Searle and Austin langugae is recognised as an action, we do our speaking, we don't merely speak it, and as such words ahve a distinct power in our social environement. hence all our great literature, hence great battles over small words.
This is not to suggest---as Eduard Bernstein did---that one must 'wait' for the
determinism to begin; but it is important to acknowledge that socialism requires
reinforcement, that it cannot live long on a diet of 'principles,' 'conviction,' and
'recognition of its fairness.' One reason why small communities---employing the
science of behavior---have a better chance of succeeding than large-scale attempts
(of what is essentially group behavior modification) is because the (contrived,
immediate) reinforcements can be regulated---and monitored---with greater
accuracy and greater alacrity than reinforcements in huge, diverse populations where
actions 'ricochet' many, many times before consequence.
However a large scale movement has more oportuniy to re-inforce its value system upon subjects, and it has plenty of room for these values to find expression in daily life. When you make socialists you expect teh peoepl to go off and be socialists.
_______________
W.S.M. is, in effect, (and in reticent language) saying that some standards of living
will go up, others will go down. Fine---be direct. You may discover, however, that
people want specifics, details...
For teh very rich it may go down and up, everyone benefits from socialism, through a broader quality of life. For teh most part it will be upwards. We cannot be specific, becaue we can't know- could (following morris's example) Bacon know at teh dawn of mercantilism how it would transform society, and thus we can't. For the most part it means that everyon's living standard will improve, but I can't say how- or rather, won't.
Obviously, Utopia 2000 does not make traditional revolutionary appeals to
abundance, either. Our aim is to abolish the division of labor and make skilled (as
well as unskilled) work equally accessible. The main attraction is a non-competitive,
non-hierarchal culture. The Utopia 2000 'plan,' however is not for global
multitudes! We do not expect to attract doctors and lawyers (who would lose their
current privileged positions). We also do not expect to attract those young workers
who are, say, presently bagging groceries, but expecting bourgeois ascension. We
are seeking only those already attracted to communitarian values...
Which is teh problem, your plan does not offer help to people living in council sink estates, who have niether the emans nor teh opportunity (and perhaps given it would mean losing their friends and famillies, neither teh desire) to go off and live in a commune. the WSM believes the only way to help such peopel is to change teh whole of society, and get them to realise that they can change what they have NOW, not need to go off to try and build a commune.
What I am suggesting to you---and W.S.M.---is that those who already have
privileges and, perhaps more importantly, those who expect to gain them will
assuredly assist the ruling class in preventing global socialism---perhaps to the last
tooth and claw.
And it is our task to show how they actually cannot benefit from capitalism, and how even if they are well offf, it is ruining their lives,a nd teh lives of millions.
What they will defend will be (positional) ascension, not profits
(although they will also protect profits in the process of defending primitive private
property).Utopia 2000 does not take for granted that all workers---by virtue of
being workers---wish to live in a non-competitive, non-hierarchal world...
Niether do we, but we think that it is a thing to everyones advantage, and wish they would see that advantage and come and join us.
Obviously Shaw was more a reformist than a socialist---but his radical stance on
wage equality has been useful for Utopia 2000. I respect Shaw's logic as he argued
for standardized wages:
Shaw's reasoning, of course, has provided a standard principle for many
income-sharing communities.
I tend to prefer 'from each according to teh abilities, to each according to their needs' which kind of precicates a differentiation in income.
That sounds like a politician's speech, Red. You omit the specifics, the details.
There are finite environmental resources, and I feel that you hedge on that issue. Not
everyone can receive the standards of living that they want. (The solution, as Utopia
2000 sees it, is to find ways to reinforce behavior by using less material resources.)
Like other communist groups, W.S.M. relies on the 'productive forces' of
technology and rationalization to be able to provide everyone with 'whatever they
think they need to have a nice life.' (SDF's postwas informative.)
Yes resources are finite, though they are scandalously misapplied at present, and after an initial burst of production it could very well slow down again. It would be for the workers of teh world to decide how to divide up their resources. However, there are many renewable resources that are not properly managed or deployed, because of teh profit system, plus there is teh wastefullness of teh entire profit system that lets peopels labour go to waste. the resources are tehre to build homes for everyone, to feed everyone on teh planaet, and heat everyone. IMHO that woudl be the priority, ending squallor and poverty in teh worlds great cities, ensuring evryone had enough food. According to teh UN using third world methods, we could gorow enough food to feed the worlds population seven times over.
_______________
This, even by Marxian standards, is untrue. Consider Lenin's observation that
'[i]mperialism...makes it economically possible to bribe the upper strata of the
proletariat, and thereby fosters, gives shape to, and strengthens opportunism.'(4)
Lenin talks shite. The extra wealth of richer nations comes from their greater productivity, not through the exploitation of one working class over another. Noweher do workers exploit workers, except on teh behalf of capitalists.
Consider Marx's detailed expositions concerning unequal trade between
differentially-developed nations.* Reiterated simply, a nation with obsolete or
underdeveloped technology must sell goods at the same average price of countries
with sophisticated technology; because 'socially-necessary labor time' is averaged
by the market, every minute that the poorer country fails to 'keep up' with the
developed nation on the production line is a minute 'surrendered' in
exchange-value---even concerning different products. Does all the surplus go to
capitalists exclusively? If those Pakistan-made shoes were made by workers who
received as much, commensurately, as English workers, the English worker would
not have as much money left over (after buying shoes) as he or she does when
'exploiting' under-paid workers in other countries.
No, the surplus does go to the capitalist. Remeber wages are set always at the cost of maintaining the labour power of a workforce (including its willingness to work), thus they can pay third world workers less because they'll accept it and stay alive on less. The capitalist cannot sell the shoes above the market price in the west (and its usually a western corp), and so if teh wages of teh worker were higher, then teh price would be no diffferent for a western worker. Third world wages are lower because it means more surplus for profits.
_______________
: Class is not about happiness, or wealth, or perspective, it is about objective
relations to teh means of production.
I would suggest that class divisions have more to do with schedules of
reinforcement...
Perhaps, but even then they would be tied to a position in teh productive base of society.
_______________
