Communists.

asdasd

A change in the social and property relations of society would alter how humans behave towards, and interact with, material objects.

Films or books, for example, would be used for their utilitarian value. Sharing, it would be anticipated, would increase. Things would be held and used 'in common'.

The "change in human consciousness" malarky is clearly charlatan bull****. In fact anybody who uses this kind of rhethoric should be tossed out of universities immediately. The claim is designed to be unfalsifiable, and in fact can be used to justify any kind of society. All unfalsifiable theories are little better than gobbeldy gook.


Lets pretend I want to transform society too.

I think that human beings should exist in a society where everybody eats only green cheese. Those of you who think you would want a more varied diet are deluded. Come the revolution there will be a "change of consciousness" where everybody would eat green cheese and love it.

Prove me wrong. Without reference to your "bourgeois" beliefs in varied diets.

It is even worse than that: the utterly dumb Marxists want us to believe that this transformation can happen without State involvement. One minute we are all capitalist stooges enjoying the suprpus created by our works and others in the form of good food, fine wine, good literature, art and architecture, rock concerts - next minute we only want stuff for only for it's "utilitarian" value (which rules out all of the above) and we create a new society automatically. And what a sick ugly phrase. Utilitarian. What ugle evil people would use that?

Now this is actually falsifiable ( despite it's efforts) by actual science. That is the science which see conciousness as not formed by "social relations" but by thousands of years of evolution, and the brain supplies our thoughts, desires and needs. It is impervious to "social relaitonships" or by the existing society.

If the philosopher kings of Marxism cant understand simple science they need to be kicked out of university.

As fast of possible. By any means necessary.

There's nothing wrong with using force. Connolly had a unique interpretation of the national question, and his 'brand' of Marxism predated lenin's dreadful application of his theories of the vanguard party.

There is nothing wrong with using force against Marxists. Try get this proletarian's life savings and I will use as much force as possible to stop you. And you have F8ck all hope of getting the wealth of people far richer than me, and absolutely none of getting mine. I created it. I own it. You have no claim on it.

asdasd

LOL.

They already are.

LOL. They already are not. If social recognition were all then doctors and teachers - who have relativelt high status - would take a pay cut.

Now why dont they.

I wont accept any answer like " The present system dictates their ideologies" for the reasons I have outlined in my previous post ( though it is your typical response to questions you cant answer).

As for recognition. utter bollocks. Nobody takes a promotion and a pay cut. The employees at Burger King could care less about the "Emplyee of the month" claptrap.

What people want is money. money allows us to choose what we buy, unlik your horrible,ugly, evil and inhuman system where people have no money and what is given to them is decided by their betters, lest it not be "utilitarian"

You dont get my money. And you dont get to decide what I want. That is not up to you.

turgon

Well asdasd, at least were getting a bit of comic relief from the serious election.

Im going to be blunt S-Murph: what your saying is pretty much complete fiction. No matter how many times thou think it in you head you cannot ignore the fact that people work solely for money so as to acquire material possessions. Your probably imagining that once the switch is made peoples thoughts and opinions will change but they wont.

Social recognition & self appreciation factor mainly into hobbys, not work. For example I do a small bit computer as I like having a finished program there. I dont want a job in computer programing though as its only a hobby I enjoy when taken at my pace.

S-Murph wrote: »

I dont know the person. Infact I know next to nothing about them or their lives. Its not possible for me to answer your question.

Why not? The question was where was the social recognition and self-appreciation in the job he had?

S-Murph wrote: »

A change in the social and property relations of society would alter how humans behave towards, and interact with, material objects...
Films or books, for example, would be used for their utilitarian value. Sharing, it would be anticipated, would increase.

Maybe in Middle-Earth, but certainly not on this earth. Peoples mindframes will not change and they will just horde and take all they can get.

Sharing too will not be introduced. A part of my self-appreciation is seeing the amount of books on my bookshelf Ive amassed since I started reading 8 months ago. So which is the priority here: self-appreciation or utilitarianism?

S-Murph wrote: »

What you want now as regards a particular model of car, are a reflection of present social conditions. What you want now you may not want in a socialist society.

I value a car that is reliable, easy to maintain and fuel efficient: as such I am content driving a 1.3 petrol Toyota Corolla. How will this change in socialism?

S-Murph wrote: »

For other things, these would be rationally planned.

Rationality is subjective.

S-Murph wrote: »

As does 'your' system.

Not to the extent socialism does.

S-Murph wrote: »

For other, more scarce resources, rational planning will decide their allocation.

So who gets what?

S-Murph wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with using force.

So you think theres nothing wrong with getting people to do thing they dont want to do just because you think its right, and you think you know whats better for them.Your not the first communist to think this. Stalin and Lenin did: 55 dead million there. Mau: 60 million. Shall we continue with the other historical socialist persona's who have held this view?

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

The "change in human consciousness" malarky is clearly charlatan bull****. In fact anybody who uses this kind of rhethoric should be tossed out of universities immediately.

Great. It wont affect me then.

The claim is designed to be unfalsifiable, and in fact can be used to justify any kind of society. All unfalsifiable theories are little better than gobbeldy gook.

Assertions assertions.

Whatever you do. Dont challenge the theory directly. You might bruise your ego.

I think that human beings should exist in a society where everybody eats only green cheese.Those of you who think you would want a more varied diet are deluded. Come the revolution there will be a "change of consciousness" where everybody would eat green cheese and love it.

I have no doubt that it could be biologically shown that eating 'green cheese' alone would be nutritionally detrimental. It wouldnt be in people's interest to maintain such a diet.

We can prove this.

Also, we have evolved to 'like' the taste of certain types of flavours. This biological urge shapes and directs our consciousness to obtain certain types of food - irrespective of what society thinks.

I could poke holes in your idiocy all day long.

Prove me wrong. Without reference to your "bourgeois" beliefs in varied diets.

Thats scientific.

It is even worse than that: the utterly dumb Marxists want us to believe that this transformation can happen without State involvement.

Eh. No genius. It is by virtue of being a Marxist that one would advocate state involvement.

If not, thats called a-n-a-r-c-h-i-s-m. Spell that like a good lad.

One minute we are all capitalist stooges enjoying the suprpus created by our works and others in the form of good food, fine wine, good literature, art and architecture, rock concerts

I know. Sure its great and so enjoyable for the 400,000 people on the dole.

Thanks capitalism for showing us all a good time. So enjoyable.

- next minute we only want stuff for only for it's "utilitarian" value (which rules out all of the above) and we create a new society automatically. And what a sick ugly phrase. Utilitarian. What ugle evil people would use that?

Oh no. Its the evil reds coming to take all our mansions and luxury mercedes away. No please. Dont take my jewelry. GOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooood.

Now this is actually falsifiable ( despite it's efforts) by actual science. That is the science which see conciousness as not formed by "social relations" but by thousands of years of evolution, and the brain supplies our thoughts, desires and needs. It is impervious to "social relaitonships" or by the existing society.

God created money in the 8th day of creation. And we all lived happily ever after.

If the philosopher kings of Marxism cant understand simple science they need to be kicked out of university.

Get a brain.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

LOL. They already are not. If social recognition were all then doctors and teachers - who have relativelt high status - would take a pay cut.

Now why dont they.

well hu hu, because. Eh. guess what. "The present system dictates their ideologies".

I wont accept any answer like " The present system dictates their ideologies" for the reasons I have outlined in my previous post ( though it is your typical response to questions you cant answer).

As for recognition. utter bollocks. Nobody takes a promotion and a pay cut. The employees at Burger King could care less about the "Emplyee of the month" claptrap.

What people want is money. money allows us to choose what we buy, unlik your horrible,ugly, evil and inhuman system where people have no money and what is given to them is decided by their betters, lest it not be "utilitarian"

You dont get my money. And you dont get to decide what I want. That is not up to you.

Babble on.

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

Im going to be blunt S-Murph: what your saying is pretty much complete fiction.

No its not. friendships and family interactions, oblivious to capitalist markets, are a living reality.

You also have communist societies like hunter gatherer.

All fiction sure.

Oh. Sure the Spanish Revolution was fiction also. George Orwell was a fiction writer after all, eh.

No matter how many times thou think it in you head you cannot ignore the fact that people work solely for money so as to acquire material possessions.

Im not ignoring the fact.

You are misunderstanding the facts.

Your probably imagining that once the switch is made peoples thoughts and opinions will change but they wont.

GOD SPEAKING: 'THEY WONT'.

Social recognition & self appreciation factor mainly into hobbys, not work

Whats the difference between a hobby and work?

For example I do a small bit computer as I like having a finished program there. I dont want a job in computer programing though as its only a hobby I enjoy when taken at my pace.

I know. Sure in communism people are whipped to work at a quicker pace.

Why not? The question was where was the social recognition and self-appreciation in the job he had?

ask him.

Maybe in Middle-Earth, but certainly not on this earth. Peoples mindframes will not change and they will just horde and take all they can get.

I know. Sure thats why people keep stocks of seawater in their shed and fill their pockets with sand. People just horde things for, oh, the sake of it.

Sharing too will not be introduced.

GOD SPEAKING: SHARING WILL NOT BE INTRODUCED

A part of my self-appreciation is seeing the amount of books on my bookshelf Ive amassed since I started reading 8 months ago. So which is the priority here: self-appreciation or utilitarianism?

Good question.

I value a car that is reliable, easy to maintain and fuel efficient: as such I am content driving a 1.3 petrol Toyota Corolla. How will this change in socialism?

Ever hear of a Lada?

Thats what youll get. There will be a waiting list of ten years though.

Rationality is subjective.

Really.

Not to the extent socialism does.

You better believe it.

So who gets what?

The commissars of the party get first pick.

So you think theres nothing wrong with getting people to do thing they dont want to do just because you think its right, and you think you know whats better for them.Your not the first communist to think this. Stalin and Lenin did: 55 dead million there. Mau: 60 million. Shall we continue with the other historical socialist persona's who have held this view?

I know. Sure in capitalism we can do what we want. The gardai and army are just paid ornaments.

smegmar

I think the key of this argument is the subjective thought on the motivations of the human being. S-Murph and I, believe that humans are capable of selfless, kind and society based thought. Where as Turgon and asdasd believe humans are materialistic, greed motivated and self oriented.
Either, Neither or both may be true. In reality the human consciousness is very flexible and will adapt to whatever it's environment. As is now, many of us raised in a capitalistic society may want the entire 1082 Penguin Classics, but no such thought would come to a born Socialist.
This is the fundamental key to the argument; what effect would a Socialist society have on motivators such as material possession and social identity.

The only way to end this is to completely understand the human mind, it's motivators and full capabilities. Sadly this is a far off prospect as modern psychology goes.

As a note I would like to believe reform to a socialist society could happen non violently. No one would have to surrender their stock or home as everyone would still have to be housed. Most people would gain from a redistribution of wealth and strong public favor would encourage selfless acts.

silverharp

smegmar wrote: »

As a note I would like to believe reform to a socialist society could happen non violently. No one would have to surrender their stock or home as everyone would still have to be housed. Most people would gain from a redistribution of wealth and strong public favor would encourage selfless acts.

can you give some examples, are you basically saying that all financial assets and businesses would be stolen by the state? and basically doctors to clearners to shop owners would all receive a basic minimum wage?
given that people would see this coming the obvious reponse would be for those that would lose would be to leave the country.

turgon

S-Murph doesnt appear to be up for a proper discussion anymore, a pity.

Joycey

As for recognition. utter bollocks. Nobody takes a promotion and a pay cut. The employees at Burger King could care less about the "Emplyee of the month" claptrap.

Your misunderstanding whats happening with the Burger King Employee of the Month situation.

The institution of the Employee of the Month is, by and large, a way of pacifying a companies exploited workforce by creating the illusion of recognition, or that they are valued by the company.

Thats why nobody could care less about it. If you go around and ask the (competant) consultant nuerologists in whatever hospital/university happens to be closest to you, whether they are doing their job because of the amount they are remunerated every month, or whether its because it gives them a sense of meaning in their lives, a project to which they can dedicate themselves and discover their identity through, I think youd find that their attatchment to their job cannot be fully accounted for simply by examing their paychecks. I would imagine that they would much rather do their own jobs as they are now then work in Burger King, even if they made equivalent money working less hours and with a whole lot less responsibility.



As for Turgon's point about the people he knows in his town who just piss their lives away taking drugs, or who leave school and go straight on the dole; I would argue that this is exactly an example of something which is a byproduct of the capitalist mentality which is forcibly instilled in us by the culture of consumerism/selfishness from which there is no possible means of extricating oneself in today's world.

Similarly, I would suggest that alcohol or other drug abuse is an expression of damage which an individual has suffered, resulting from positive or negative influences.

The positive are trauma, such as abuse suffered as a child or adult, desensitisation to drug use through exposure in a community, physical symptoms of addiction which develop slowly through more moderate use etc. While its virtually impossible to eliminate many of these influences due to their (apparently) non-systemic nature, I feel that too much of the discourse surrounding problematic drug usage (insofar as it even attempts to discover the root causes), is based on these positive influences, which I would characterise as non-sytemic and non-preventable, except on an individual basis.

The negative influences I find to be much more interesting, yet they rarely get explicit attention in the media. I would characterise this type of influence as being constituted by a lack of something in an individual. Every human being has certain basic needs. Discourse surrounding the issue of human "rights" is an attempt to imagine, and legislate on the basis of, the existence of a certain positive responsibility which accords to all of us to not bring about a state in another individual whereby one of their basic needs is not being met.

While I disagree with the whole notion of abstract, universal "rights", I do recognise that there are certain needs which need to be met for an individual to live a life 'worthy of a human'*. However I think the list of basic needs extends beyond simply having enough material sustenance and protection from damaging forces. Locking someone in a box (shelter) and giving them food and water to survive does not result in them leading a life which I would consider 'worthy of a human'. Why is this? What is it that we find deplorable about such an existence?

I would suggest that it is because a basic need is not being met, namely: the basic human need to create beyond ourselves. Human beings are creative by nature. We deny part of our existence if we do not allow this drive to be realised, or expressed. Or, as is more often the case, a part of our existence is denied to us if this drive is not allowed to express itself, or be realised.

To assert that there is no such drive, based on an examination which goes no deeper then the absolute surface level of society and which throws up plenty of empirical evidence which seems to exemplify the inherent laziness in human beings is a mistaken enterprise.

Nietzsche equates this drive to create beyond ourselves with the "will to power" something essential to life, and that the human creation of systems of valuation (philosophy/religion/art) is "the most spiritual will to power". This is what Marx identifies as the defining distinction between the human and the animal, that where animals produce in order to gain access to what has been produced, human beings produce for productions sake (i actually disagree with the whole animals not creating thing...). Blake argues that the expression and development of what he terms the "poetic imagination" is an instance of the utmost which it is humanly possible to achieve.

I see the type of behaviour which is blindly and simplistically attributed to human laziness or as a failure of the individual which Turgon describes, as being the result of a direct violation of the fulfillment of this basic human need. We have institutions which are engaged in the creation of a populous which has had it imbibed in them from as young as they are able to read to endure monotonous, tedious, repetitive conditions on a daily basis. Is it any wonder that it is only those who are most privelidged or exceptionally talented manage to escape the fate of being reduced to nothing more then a machine, where one of the most fundamental aspects of their humanity is denied to them by the reduction of their available or perceived options to a choice between mindnumbing, repetitive, disempowering labour for the benefit of another, or a life of "leisure", or crime?

It is not a result of a drive to do nothing, inherent in humanity, that people take drugs, or piss away their lives on the dole, doing nothing more then sleeping, eating, drinking and watching TV. It is because this is the only means they perceive themselves as having available to them to escape from the bottom rung of the dehumanising ladder one must either attempt to climb or entirely reject under a capitalist system.

This is my primary criticism of capitalism. I am not critiquing our current system because of some desire to gain power over others, or because I am invested in some alternative ideology, or because I like starting arguments. But because I see that a fundamental aspect of our humanity is denied to us under capitalism. To say, "I have to work too, but I dont complain", is the worst type of response. You should be trying to figure out some alternate way in which we can exist in the type of numbers as we do now in such a way as is sustainable in the long term and which does not rely on a reduction of humanity to machine. If pre-existing alternatives such as Marxism violate other beliefs you may have about fundamental human needs (im thinking of DF and his belief in the vital importance of private property), then try to conceive of possible ways of altering our current sytem for the better, which also keeps intact these other considerations.

(sorry for the very long post)

* or something. dont ask me to define this because I struggled to find another way to say it and failed.

Joycey

smegmar wrote: »

As a note I would like to believe reform to a socialist society could happen non violently.

I would go so far as to say that any movement which uses violence except as a means of defence is absolutely antithetical to my vision of a society to which I would join a movement to make a reality. Violence is equivalent to heirarchy is my view (in terms of their presence in my movement). It is impossible to create a non-heirarchical society through a movement which is heirarchically structured. Similarly, any movement which gains power through violence will necessarily lead to the maintanence of that power through acts of violence.

I am here on out no longer using the word socialism because it alienates too many people on even speaking the word.

asdasd

Thats why nobody could care less about it. If you go around and ask the (competant) consultant nuerologists in whatever hospital/university happens to be closest to you, whether they are doing their job because of the amount they are remunerated every month, or whether its because it gives them a sense of meaning in their lives, a project to which they can dedicate themselves and discover their identity through, I think youd find that their attatchment to their job cannot be fully accounted for simply by examing their paychecks.

That would be the consultants who think that 230K is mickey mouse money? If it is all about status lets get consultants to work for the average industrial wage. Of course the job is interesting, but it is easy enough to see if status is all there is. Let them have burger king wages. Try that. Try that campaign.

By the way, a story about "consultants" is an anecdote not a statistic and a deliberately biased one as well. Consultants obviously have status. Most jobs do not, and are not interesting, and most people will not work for anything other than money. Even consultants who have high status regardless of their earnings. They wont work for a burger king wage - suggest it and see.

The statistic against your anecdote is the points system: smart kids earn the most points and their choice of course in university maps to the wages earned by professions when they apply. So after the bust in IT, the points in IT declined. Thats a statistic, not an anecdote. Sociology students should get to used to that kind of argument, as rare as it might be in your courses.

Burger King...exploited workforce by creating the illusion of recognition, or that they are valued by the company.

Of course it is. As would be recognition in a communist state without material reward.

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

S-Murph doesnt appear to be up for a proper discussion anymore, a pity.

Im not up for it. Especially when your calling what i am saying fiction without understanding it.

Its a theory. And I can point to countless real life examples of its explanitive ability. Just look at the history of aluminium, a metal once rarer than Gold and at one time very prized. Is it now? No. People pay to dispose of it. Its social value has reduced. So people dont 'hoard' things for nothing. There are reasons beyond a mere desire for "material wealth".

But you want to ignore that.

So I wont continue repeating myself.

And apologies for my previous two or three posts, they were out of order.

S-Murph

silverharp wrote: »

can you give some examples, are you basically saying that all financial assets and businesses would be stolen by the state? and basically doctors to clearners to shop owners would all receive a basic minimum wage?
given that people would see this coming the obvious reponse would be for those that would lose would be to leave the country.

Its not possible for something to be stolen by a state. It is the state which defines whether something is legal or not.

Joycey

asdasd wrote: »

That would be the consultants who think that 230K is mickey mouse money? If it is all about status lets get consultants to work for the average industrial wage. Of course the job is interesting, but it is easy enough to see if status is all there is. Let them have burger king wages. Try that. Try that campaign.

Or a teacher who enjoys teaching kids but is more qualified to do other things and earn more money. Or a professional lawyer who no longer practises but instead DJs for a living, though it means he earns fcuk all money. It really isnt all that hard to find examples of people who have the option to earn loads of money but choose to do more enjoyable work/work that allows the expression/fulfillment of their identity as humans.

By the way, a story about "consultants" is an anecdote not a statistic and a deliberately biased one as well. Consultants obviously have status. Most jobs do not, and are not interesting, and most people will not work for anything other than money. Even consultants who have high status regardless of their earnings. They wont work for a burger king wage - suggest it and see.

Choice of profession off the top of my head. See above for more examples. "Deliberately biased"? Why do you assume I felt the need to be biased in my above post? Its not like I profit in any way from "deluding" you about something with my trickery in giving examples. Im trying to deconstruct the ideological barriers which are preventing any kind of dialogue from occuring in this thread but you seem determined to believe that im part of some kind of communist conspiracy or something. Im not even a Marxist.

The statistic against your anecdote is the points system: smart kids earn the most points and their choice of course in university maps to the wages earned by professions when they apply. So after the bust in IT, the points in IT declined. Thats a statistic, not an anecdote. Sociology students should get to used to that kind of argument, as rare as it might be in your courses.

Im not a sociology student.

Though its hard to know exactly what part of my post you are referring to in passing, Il assume its the bit at the end about only talented/priveliged children escaping from a prolonging of monotony/tedium which they experience at school.

The points system is supposed to extract, entirely based on talent and hard work, the "best" kids from school and place them in the jobs/colleges which are seen as "best". However, just as you could find a corelation between IQ (or any other means of testing academic intelligence) and points scored, there is an equally apparent corelation between parents' means and childrens' score in the leaving cert.

The belief that money=happiness is the flip side of the coin of conditioning kids to endure boredom and monotony. Where you want the most intelligent/most priviledged kids to go into the "best" jobs, which are most desirable anyway, but also most highly remunerated, you want the least intelligent or most expendible(poorest) kids to learn to accept that repetitive/boring/disempowering labour is their lot and to be happy with it. I cant see how pointing out that this is the case is a refutation of my argument.



OK, would you care to respond to the more significant part of my original post? About a fundamental human need not being allowed expression under a capitalist system, except for those who are doing the empowering, meaningful jobs such as nuerology, teaching (if you enjoy it), flying planes, being architects, most trades etc. And how about saying something constructive rather then just picking holes with my post?

asdasd

Or a teacher who enjoys teaching kids but is more qualified to do other things and earn more money. Or a professional lawyer who no longer practises but instead DJs for a living, though it means he earns fcuk all money. It really isnt all that hard to find examples of people who have the option to earn loads of money but choose to do more enjoyable work/work that allows the expression/fulfillment of their identity as humans.

All anecdotes. A few people may give up the rat race. But all of these professions protect their earnings. They are not earning the average industrial wage. They go on strike, or threaten to, if asked for a minor correction. Like the totally justified pension levy.

A lawyer who does not practice law is an anecdote the fact that lawyers earn massively more pay than the average industrial wage, and maintain their privileges using what is effectively a cartel is a statistic. The fact that teachers strike for pay is the general law.

Both those groups refute your points absolutely. ( And I think both are overpaid - law is a cartel, and Teachers hold the State to ransom).

OK, would you care to respond to the more significant part of my original post? About a fundamental human need not being allowed expression under a capitalist system, except for those who are doing the empowering, meaningful jobs such as nuerology, teaching (if you enjoy it), flying planes, being architects, most trades etc. And how about saying something constructive rather then just picking holes with my post?

I really have no idea where to start with the argument that come the revolution we all will have "empowering jobs" like architects.

Most jobs will be crap, as most are. The best we can do for people is give them financial rewards to spend as they wish - rather than a State deciding for them - and that they spend it on hobbies, fun, beer . for which money is necessary - and play will define their lives.

Or give them a system where they can forge their own destiny: buy a restaurant, run that pub, start that hairdressing salon after time spent as an employee - and the system which rewards that entrepreneurial talent is capitalism.

The Moneyless system where we are all equal and can hope for nothing is hell.

Joycey

asdasd wrote: »

All anecdotes. A few people may give up the rat race. But all of these professions protect their earnings. They are not earning the average industrial wage. They go on strike, or threaten to, if asked for a minor correction. Like the totally justified pension levy.

Sorry but do you not realise what a statistic is? Its an arbitrary number derived from a quantity of real "anecdotes". If you wont allow examples which contradict your simplistic view of human motivation then doesnt that make your theory "unfalsifiable"? Something which, I recall, you were denouncing as "rubbish" just a few posts ago...

A lawyer who does not practice law is an anecdote the fact that lawyers earn massively more pay than the average industrial wage, and maintain their privileges using what is effectively a cartel is a statistic. The fact that teachers strike for pay is the general law.p

Both those groups refute your points absolutely. ( And I think both are overpaid - law is a cartel, and Teachers hold the State to ransom).

Um, sorry to tell you, but I think youv fallen into the trap of giving me an instance of the capitalist system in work and (somehow) mistaking it for a refutation of my critique of said system. Why do you think pointing out the fact that lawyers are overpaid goes against what Im saying?

To recapitulate: I dont believe that people who do already empowering work, work which allows for the expression of our drive to create, which allows innovation and initiative and is neither hugely monotonous nor overly repetitive (lawyer) should be renumerated so disproportionately in comparison to work which depends on the creative drive to be supressed in order to be completed (Burger King).

I really have no idea where to start with the argument that come the revolution we all will have "empowering jobs" like architects.

Most jobs will be crap, as most are. The best we can do for people is give them financial rewards to spend as they wish - rather than a State deciding for them - and that they spend it on hobbies, fun, beer . for which money is necessary - and play will define their lives.

Or give them a system where they can forge their own destiny: buy a restaurant, run that pub, start that hairdressing salon after time spent as an employee - and the system which rewards that entrepreneurial talent is capitalism.

The Moneyless system where we are all equal and can hope for nothing is hell.

OK well we finally get to a disjunction between my vision of how society should be and the means by which it can be implimented.

Your idea of renumerating based on the arduousness of the labour is a good one, although it is slightly misdirected. The person is still forced to subject themselves to the same monotonous work etc as before, they are just given money in return for the supression of an essential part of their humanity, something which is analgous to prostitution if you think about it.

I see this as the dilemma: how can we create a situation where even monotonous, repetitive etc, work can be made fulfilling, and which will allow the expression of creativity? My answer is to put the control over the product being created (burgers in Burger King, cars in a car factory) in the hands of those whos labour produces the goods, and who put a part of themselves, by means of their creative expression, into the product.

However a problem arises when this goal meets the resistence of the people who stand to loose materially by this process of worker empowerment. The easy answer is to say that the workers should take their share by force, however I dont believe that the use of violence (except in defence), in pursuit of any goal, no matter how admirable it may be, is justified.

If anyone agrees with my thinking so far then we should be trying to discover ways in which these two conflicting desires can be reconciled in a practical manner.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

I see this as the dilemma: how can we create a situation where even monotonous, repetitive etc, work can be made fulfilling, and which will allow the expression of creativity? My answer is to put the control over the product being created (burgers in Burger King, cars in a car factory) in the hands of those whos labour produces the goods, and who put a part of themselves, by means of their creative expression, into the product.

However a problem arises when this goal meets the resistence of the people who stand to loose materially by this process of worker empowerment. The easy answer is to say that the workers should take their share by force, however I dont believe that the use of violence (except in defence), in pursuit of any goal, no matter how admirable it may be, is justified.

If anyone agrees with my thinking so far then we should be trying to discover ways in which these two conflicting desires can be reconciled in a practical manner.

I cant see any way except by force, all businesses from corner shops to Intel factories are owned by individuals , companies and shareholders. Even parking all that for the greater good what does the newly liberated car company do? when they need investment to develop the next model. In the absence of a capital market things would revert to politics, subsisdies, the creation of protected monopolies etc.
It seems romantic but had what you are suggesting happened 50 years ago, everywhere would look like Eastern Europe in the 70's, good assets would be run into the ground even if you didnt end up with a police state.



Btw you will probably like this about JohnLewis
http://www.socialeconomynetwork.org/PDFs/CaseStudies/JohnLewis.pdf

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

I cant see any way except by force, all businesses from corner shops to Intel factories are owned by individuals , companies and shareholders. Even parking all that for the greater good what does the newly liberated car company do? when they need investment to develop the next model. In the absence of a capital market things would revert to politics, subsisdies, the creation of protected monopolies etc.
It seems romantic but had what you are suggesting happened 50 years ago, everywhere would look like Eastern Europe in the 70's, good assets would be run into the ground even if you didnt end up with a police state.



Btw you will probably like this about JohnLewis
http://www.socialeconomynetwork.org/PDFs/CaseStudies/JohnLewis.pdf

What you are arguing against here are the practicalities of the implimentation of policies which produce a better society to live in rather then any ideological point. Should I take this as an agreement that we have the same goal in mind, and its simply a matter of discovering a path which will allow us to get there which is ammenable to all concerned?

I dont see why the only option has to be through violent means. The Venezuelan route, which I gave several links to earlier in the thread, is one where the state either buys, or subsidises the purchase of, businesses/industries which were formerly owned in the typical model of todays Western economic model; shareholders not necessarily affiliated in any way (other then abstractly) with the business, a heirarchical chain of command, non-democratic decision making, etc. Once the state has control it then gives back the business to the people who actually work there, under loan conditions, whereby eventually the money that was subsidised/used to purchase it is repaid.

Now I know the Right are going to be massively opposed to the state intervening in "private" affairs, but to me, this is the best and most painless method of reapropriating what should rightfully be the workers' anyway. By all means, suggest other methods which you think might be more effective. A Democratically organised workplace alleviates much of the monotony/repetitiveness and perceived pointlessness of what is otherwise massively alienating work, it usually results in some degree of division of labour, whereby some of the empowering work is done by the people who tend to do the most tedious and vice versa. The model works, its simply a matter of finding ways to implement it on a large scale by non-violent means which I see as the principle obstacle.

asdasd

What you are arguing against here are the practicalities of the implimentation of policies which produce a better society to live in rather then any ideological point.

The "better society" is your definition. It has failed utterly. Everywhere.

A Democratically organised workplaces alleviates much of the monotony/repetitiveness and perceived pointlessness of what is otherwise massively alienating work, it usually results in some degree of division of labour, whereby some of the empowering work is done by the people who tend to do the most tedious and vice versa.

Useless terms like "empowering" and "alienating" which mean nothing, remain unproven, and unused outside of some sociology hall. The employees of Apple computer are probably far less alienated from their work than some muppet working for the local council - since it is more interesting. They are also shareholders.

As I am in the company of 15 people I work for. Stealing ( or "compensating") the shareholder is not in my interests, nor do I want to work for a State, or a shagging commune. If I wanted to be a hippy, I'd be a hippy. If I wanted a State job, I'd take a State job.

And of course, that system, albeit possibly non-violent, is not communism either. Barcelona ( the football team) follows the criteria of a socialised industry, since it is owned by the city. This does not stop the division of labour ( some footballers, some cleaners) nor the division of spoils within the organisation - which would be the same were Barcelona owned by the workers ( in effect it would be owned by the players not the cleaners). That could happen now. A player buyout. They would still be rich. You would not.

That is far from giving people equal wages, which needs State intervention, and the most supported "moneyless" system mentioned by other Marxists on this thread ( Marxism has no actual defined system, it is clear).

Nor would any more capital be available, so if a "commune" is in trouble it either has to go to the State to get Capital, and become a State owned enterprise, or go to a private investor and back to the capitalist system. Or one commune would make money and buy the other, as capitalists.

So, no dice.

And you havent mentioned the plethora of owner owned businesses, particularly small farms etc. It isn't communist if one farmer is better than t'other. So they too must go and that seizure cant be achieved any other way than by force.

And just give up. The biggest crisis in Capitalism for 50 years and the entire left - the far left in particular - is devasted across Europe.

Nobody wants your "better" society. Cornish Nationalists are doing better than the Centre Left. The Far left loses it's deposits.

Your ideology is dead. It is an relevant to the 21st century as Protestant revolutionary fanaticism in the age of Enlightenment.

Your ideologies are not just wrong, but dated and forgotten.

turgon

I dont doubt that many people here fully believe in the theory behind it all. But I see it as utterly unpragmatic.

For example four system will disincentivize ambition. The people wasting their lives that I talk about are only there because of the socialistic policies of Ireland. They can only waste their lives because the government pays them social welfare. In your system people who put in zero work get as much as those who dont.

Ye cannot come to admit that most people work for money primarily, and other reasons as a secondary. Ye have conceived this idea that somehow with the introduction of socialism people will suddenly wake up the next morning and will be motivated by social recognition and not money. That is just not true. People do not change like that.

The failure of your ideology is that ye cannot design a pragmatic communistic system. Ye are still stuck in the theory part about how workers own everything and everyone is motivated by love etc. But ye cannot apply this to the real world. Look at all the doging that happened when I dared ask how spatulas are made in communism. Spatulas ffs, and I couldn't even be told.


People say there are two types of communism: Big State and Tiny/No State. It took 130 million people dead to debunk the former. And now ye (like WSM) think ye can change peoples outlooks, and everything will be free, and everyone will think of the society and never themselves. This wont happen.

I can actually see a black currency arising within months of socialist anarchism being introduced, and a whole black capitalist market being under the state. Because fundamentally people will be motivated by self-benefit - which means that they can convert the work they do into comfortable beds and nice food.

Joycey

After trying to decide whether I should reply to yet another one of these posts, I came to the conclusion that Il give you the benefit of the doubt one last time...

asdasd wrote: »

The "better society" is your definition. It has failed utterly. Everywhere.

Yes, the better society is my definition. "Better" being reliant on a value judgement it couldnt be otherwise. The way I would define this society which is other then the one we live in today is that the fundamental human drive to create beyond oneself is encouraged by our societal institutions (workplaces, by and large) rather then repressed.

The one and only example I gave of a model which reflects something which I want to put in place is Venezuelan worker-owned businesses. It will take more to convince me that the model has "failed utterly, everywhere", then a blanket assertion from you.

Useless terms like "empowering" and "alienating" which mean nothing, remain unproven, and unused outside of some sociology hall.

Saying that they are "useless" and "unproven" shows the depth of your ignorance and your mysterious desire to redicule beliefs which challenge your worldview. They refer to abstract, subjective phenomena, how could they be proven? Thats like trying to "prove" happiness. Or private property. And for the second time, Im not a sociology student :rolleyes:.

The employees of Apple computer are probably far less alienated from their work than some muppet working for the local council - since it is more interesting. They are also shareholders.

So having proved what you said in the previous sentence regarding the "uselessness" of the word alienation to be absurd, you then proceed to agree with a point I have been making since my first post: that having control over the produce of your labour leads to a reduction in alienation and an increase in happiness.

You have also identified another influence in relative levels of worker empowerment: the level of informational access/control which is necessary/possible for a worker to maintain in the carrying out of their job. Having access to information leads to empowerment (a greater degree of control over the factors which govern the leading of your life, such as workplace policies, being able to vote on the State's constitution etc). This is one of the obstacles to the institution of true workplace democracy, because under the old division of labour you still have about 20% of the workplace doing the empowering work: namely the work which requires them to have a certain degree of information which entails knowledge of all the disparate departments or sections of the overall workplace and related workplaces. The people who are in possession of this knowledge will be the ones who control (not forcibly) the discourse surrounding the way the workplace should be run, if the other 80% are not involved and are not in a position to decide their own fate due to a lack of information then it cannot be called true democracy. This is unfortunately the way most Western Democracies operate, with about 50% of the people or less actually in a position to choose in their own best interest, supposedly the ideal of the institution of democracy.

As I am in the company of 15 people I work for. Stealing ( or "compensating") the shareholder is not in my interests, nor do I want to work for a State, or a shagging commune. If I wanted to be a hippy, I'd be a hippy. If I wanted a State job, I'd take a State job.

Equating stealing with compensating is facile, and (I hope) you know it.

As far as im concerned, gaining access to the profits which emerge from the labour of another having contributed nothing except abstract "funds" which do not even exist except for the fact that we recognise them as existing is more stealing then is reapropriating the produce of that labour.

But I really really dont want to get into the same well walked arguments that
this thread has already fully covered.

And of course, that system, albeit possibly non-violent, is not communism either. Barcelona ( the football team) follows the criteria of a socialised industry, since it is owned by the city.

No because as you immediately point out after this sentence, the cleaners dont have a share in the club. Im not sure exactly how the football club example would work out because it is so far detatched from the type of thing that I was thinking of. I dont claim to have all the answers. Thats the point of dialogue. Although you will probably sieze on this admission of fallibility as "proof" that my Evil Communist Plot will never come to fruition.

But This does not stop the division of labour ( some footballers, some cleaners) nor the division of spoils within the organisation - which would be the same were Barcelona owned by the workers ( in effect it would be owned by the players not the cleaners). That could happen now. A player buyout. They would still be rich. You would not.

So clearly its not a workplace which adheres to the modeal I have been outlining... If the cleaners dont have a share in the club and dont have access to empowering information and have no say in how their workplace in managed then it fails at the first hurdle doesnt it? And why should I get rich from the work done by others??? I dont see your point.

That is far from giving people equal wages, which needs State intervention, and the most supported "moneyless" system mentioned by other Marxists on this thread ( Marxism has no actual defined system, it is clear).

Are you not able to read or something? How many times do you need me to say im not a Marxist??? And surely not having any rigid ideology should be a point in its favour. I, for one, am fully in support of continuous questioning and revaluation of my beliefs, if I didnt change my mind or engage in dialogue with others in the hope that they will change my mind then I would be as bad as... well.... you.

Nor would any more capital be available, so if a "commune" is in trouble it either has to go to the State to get Capital, and become a State owned enterprise, or go to a private investor and back to the capitalist system. Or one commune would make money and buy the other, as capitalists.

In what way shape or form is what Im suggesting a "commune"??? Its a workplace democracy where the workers own a proportional share of the workplace in relation to the amount of work they do (or something like that).

Well how do businesses operate now? If they fail they go out of business. Why would it be any different? And the initial subsidisation/purchase is a loan, not a grant.

And you havent mentioned the plethora of owner owned businesses, particularly small farms etc. It isn't communist if one farmer is better than t'other. So they too must go and that seizure cant be achieved any other way than by force.

IM NOT F***ING COMMUNIST YOU TOOL

Nobody wants your "better" society. Cornish Nationalists are doing better than the Centre Left. The Far left loses it's deposits.

Yeah, nobody. Why would someone who works 12 hours for $1 a day in some sweatshop in East Asia want to work somewhere where they arent exploited so you can buy runners which have a tick on the side of them and the 100 or so people in the upper echelons of the company can have about 10 massive houses and unreal cars?

Your ideology is dead. It is an relevant to the 21st century as Protestant revolutionary fanaticism in the age of Enlightenment.

Please, enlighten me. What is my ideology? Id say I must have written about 5000 words since yesterday trying to work it out in the clearest way I can think of, but Im sure you can sum it up for me succinctly in a paragraph or so. Bestow your glorious wisdom upon me.

Your ideologies are not just wrong, but dated and forgotten.

The falacies which you so much enjoy propounding with regard to my "ideologies" are not just wrong, but pigheaded, and ignorant of any attempt to clarify your false assumptions.







Can someone else please step in and attempt to set up some kind of constructive conversation? Either side of the discussion will do.

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

I dont doubt that many people here fully believe in the theory behind it all. But I see it as utterly unpragmatic.

But thats my point... Whats unpragmatic? Ive just proposed one possibility of remedying the wrong which is done to people under our current manifestation of capitalism. If you agree with the theory of the current system violating a basic human need then instead of saying that you find it unpragmatic try to come up with alternate solutions to the problem. Dont just pick holes with any that someone else suggests.

I know you are doing it in a less confrontational manner then that other... but try to suggest an alternative if you dont agree with mine, otherwise im forced to just defend my view for the 10000th time and we dont get anywhere.

[For example four system will disincentivize ambition.

I disagree, surely someone working behind the counter in Burger King couldnt have their ambition disincentivised much more? Giving them access to information and the power to affect change would make them more likely to actually put in the effort to affect that change wouldnt it?

Ye cannot come to admit that most people work for money primarily, and other reasons as a secondary.

Of course people need to survive and that takes precedence over expressing your creative drive. I dont deny that. But to say that people only work for money is to deny that people have this drive and that it needs to be expressed. Its not a simple either or. We should be attempting to create workplaces which foster this creative capacity but also provide sustenance for people, of course.

Ye have conceived this idea that somehow with the introduction of socialism people will suddenly wake up the next morning and will be motivated by social recognition and not money. That is just not true. People do not change like that.

But the model I proposed is actually not really all that radical. Instances exist in such capitalist countries as Italy right now. No massive shift in public opinion is needed for individual cases to come into being, obviously it would to happen on a large scale but thats what im trying to do here isnt it? Change public opinion. I would love if someone who was a lot more radical then I am came on here so I could pick their brains but seeing as the level of political leaning in the thread seems to be so far to the right Im forced into the position of looking like some communist lunatic (in your eyes), when its not the case.

The failure of your ideology is that ye cannot design a pragmatic communistic system. Ye are still stuck in the theory part about how workers own everything and everyone is motivated by love etc. But ye cannot apply this to the real world.

For gods sake Turgon, I pointed out examples earlier in Italy and Venezuela of real instances. Im not an economist and ive never so much as stepped foot in a factory. For me to come on here and blow a load of sh1te pretending I know the mechanics of spatula making would be rediculous. What I do know/have an interest in is being a human. I know that the current system (NOTE: NOT NECESSARILY ALL CAPITALISM) is a gross violation of too many people's humanity for me to just sit down and do nothing, or support the status quo as you and asdasdsadsa are doing.

Have to go do something so not gonna reply to the rest.

If you agree with the sentiment behind my opposition but not the implimentation then mayube try to work out alternate methods of implimentation instead of just arguing with the one that I have proposed.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

What you are arguing against here are the practicalities of the implimentation of policies which produce a better society to live in rather then any ideological point. Should I take this as an agreement that we have the same goal in mind, and its simply a matter of discovering a path which will allow us to get there which is ammenable to all concerned?

No I am saying you cant use the end justifying the means, which I'm guessing would involve theft of private property. and went on to say you'd end up with an inefficient system

Joycey wrote: »

I dont see why the only option has to be through violent means. The Venezuelan route, which I gave several links to earlier in the thread, is one where the state either buys, or subsidises the purchase of, businesses/industries which were formerly owned in the typical model of todays Western economic model; shareholders not necessarily affiliated in

The Chavez route seems to be a mess to me , artificial shortages, inefficient development of their oil reserves, and theft of assets by the state without compensation

S-Murph

Joycey wrote: »

Can someone else please step in and attempt to set up some kind of constructive conversation? Either side of the discussion will do.

You wont get a constructive conversation from asdasd. System justification comes to mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification .

Turgon is more worth while speaking to.

asdasd

ou wont get a constructive conversation from asdasd. System justification comes to mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification .

More Jargoneering. False consciousness type "unfalisfiable" cant. Go back and read my EveryBody Wants to Eat Green Cheese post.



As far as Capitalism is concerned, I am (actually) not it's biggest fan. Let there be bank nationalisation. Let there be a large State. Lets have an inheritance tax. No skin of my nose. I have merely pointed out that your system ( and S-Murph and others are definitively communists, although they cant agree on a system) is not workable.

DF is a libertarian ( and I have attacked libertarians on these fora). I am not.

I have taken on, in this thread, what we scientists call the scientific method.

If my house is leaky, it does not mean I want you to architect my new house if your theories, and previous practices are rubbish, or have resulted in failure. It is not enough to condemn a system you need to provide a valid alternative.

Being scientifically trained, I dont do Jargon. Take Joyceys claim on alienation

Saying that they [alientation and empowerment] are "useless" and "unproven" shows the depth of your ignorance and your mysterious desire to redicule beliefs which challenge your worldview. They refer to abstract, subjective phenomena, how could they be proven?

i would have thought that since they affect humans we could easily prove them. by testing whether a consultant ( say in IT) is happier than a worker. He might be. He might not be. He might be more alienated working on his own. It depends on personality and situation. And in fact the "communist system" of which we find there are two kinds - the communes and the State owning everything - gives nobody "ownership" over their works in the sense that a capitalist system does; small traders, businessmen, independent artists and workers operate in the entrepreneurial environment of self ownership. In fact all farmers clearly lose ownership of the means of production. To either the State, or a commune. From owning it themselves. Thats an increase in alienation using the Marxist definition

ou wont get a constructive conversation from asdasd.

What you get from me is clear questioning of your ideologies which you accept wholesale with limited analytic thought. What you claim in response is that I am "controlled by the system" when ever the argument goes against you. That too is Marxist theology, but it is also the ideology of UFO enthusiasts.

It is designed to be unfalisfiable, I may be contolled by the system ( how would I know): but then I may be unable to see the Aliens running around controlling people's minds because they control peoples minds to not see them. Maybe the Alien deniers are suffering from System Justification. Maybe just false consciousness.

Anyway, these things could be true. Or I could be a brain in a box. Whatever. As a scientist I reject unfalisifability.

Try, for once, a different argument.

Joycey

asdasd wrote: »

Being scientifically trained, I dont do Jargon. Take Joyceys claim on alienation

Although this is an entirely different argument I have no problem whatsoever engaging you in it. We might however, take it to the following thread:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055536276

I come in around post #17

I attempt to show in that thread that coming to knowledge of a priori knowledge which relates to the external world is impossible, and I would direct you to the works of David Hume in order to find an easily accessible explanation of why it is that empirical questioning regarding the world can never lead to certainty regarding the future occurances of previously observed phenomena, thus leading to the impossibility of "proving" anything empirically except in non-absolute terms.

i would have thought that since they affect humans we could easily prove them. by testing whether a consultant ( say in IT) is happier than a worker. He might be. He might not be.

OK, prove, or point me towards the existence of proof of, the phenomenon of human happiness. You can point me towards relative increases or decreases of dopamine or seratonin in my brain, and based on a corelation between reported subjective changes in the mood of the individual assert that you have "proven" the existence of happiness, but all you have discovered is the physiological mechanism by which the subjective awareness of a positive mood is induced in the individual. This is not proof of happiness, it is the observation of a corelation which may or may not be coincidence.

I would have thought that a sense of well-being, or joy in a subject, is somewhere near the top of the list of things which "affect humans", however I dont believe you can "prove" it to me objectively, which is what you are asking me to do with a far more subtle and complex configuration of feelings of and influences on an individual such as the concept of alienation.

And in fact the "communist system" of which we find there are two kinds - the communes and the State owning everything - gives nobody "ownership" over their works in the sense that a capitalist system does; small traders, businessmen, independent artists and workers operate in the entrepreneurial environment of self ownership. In fact all farmers clearly lose ownership of the means of production. To either the State, or a commune. From owning it themselves. Thats an increase in alienation using the Marxist definition

Actually the concept of "private ownership" is much more abstract and theoretically dubious then is the notion of being alienated from a part of oneself.

Whereas alienation refers to a state within one entity, an entity which is able to report subjective changes in psychology, or in which can be recognised changes in behaviour or even in physiology as a result of being in a state of alienation, the concept of private ownership, which refers to a supposed relationship between an entity and some external object, exhibits no such influence over the physiology of the subject who is supposedly one of the related elements. Likewise, there is most certainly no change which occurs in whatever material object is claimed as result of the assertion/belief of ownership, so what basis do we possibly have for the belief in this phenomena?

Social convention? But surely this is not something which a scientifically trained individual as yourself should take to be evidence of reality. Otherwise Christianity would be recognised as a scientifically valid theory.

What you get from me is clear questioning of your ideologies which you accept wholesale with limited analytic thought. What you claim in response is that I am "controlled by the system" when ever the argument goes against you. That too is Marxist theology, but it is also the ideology of UFO enthusiasts.

No, I find what ive got from you has been a confrontational opposition on every front, with no attempt at any kind of reconciliation or a single admission of possible fallibility, or interest in an alternative viewpoint from your own. In fact, I have absolutely no belief in the integrity of your claim to be a proponent of the "scientific method", given your absolute refusal to question your own beliefs, at least in the public view. I have welcomed opposing lines of thought and practically begged for some kind of constructive alternative to be produced by you through which some kind of dialogue may arise but have been met with outright dismissal based on unquestioning bias and misdirected assumptions you have made about my motives and position.

Anyway, these things could be true. Or I could be a brain in a box. Whatever. As a scientist I reject unfalisifability.

Try, for once, a different argument.

I challenge you to find a single claim which isnt "unfalsifiable"

Joycey

Interesting discussion of schools killing creativity.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Jokes around a bit too much but the second two thirds is good

Joycey

Interesting discussion of schools killing creativity.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Second two thirds is v good

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

Interesting discussion of schools killing creativity.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Second two thirds is v good

I agree with the sentiments. A free market would let us have a more diverse educational system. We were all in a class where at least 5 or more out of the 30 had no place being there. Had the parents a choice they would have sent them to a school with a completely different focus.