In Reply to: people not profits posted by Ashley Lavelle on January 31, 1997 at 04:35:16:
Ashley, on the whole I agree with the broad sweep of what you're saying. A few views
of mine could do with explaining though...> There are several case studies which support socialists' view that society can be
> organised for the needs of people rather than profits. Paris 1871, Russian 1917
> and Spain 1936 are not small case studies, but actually world-changing events.Yes and no. I would agree that they had beneficial effects, but I would argue
that they failed in their objectives (i.e. they didn't "survive and propagate").
At no point am I suggesting that society should be organized any other way...> Marxism is, as I think you mean by "rule-based", theoretical. However it is not
> complex. Moreover it is not vulnerable to the "personality cult", because as
> Marxists would say, such a cult does not exist. Saying such a cult does exist
> is an example of what Marx would call idealist as opposed to materialist.
> Materialism attempts to explain people's ideas, actions and nature in totality,
> that is seeking to view them not as isolated and separate from the society that
> they live in.Speaking from an anthropological viewpoint, if two alpha heirarch primates differ
in opinion, then factions tend to get formed. I would contend that most of the
attempts at Marxist society that have been formed have fallen victim to this, in
that a charismatic spokesperson takes more power than they should. I have
absolutely nothing against Marxism as an idea. I just feel that the best way to
eliminate heirarchical splitting is to abolish the heirarchy altogether. I'm
not against organization or collectivism. By "rule-based" I meant "prone to try
and use a standard code without weighing up the situation"> Society is not made up of "human sheep", the bewildered herd who need a little
> prodding here and there in order to keep them in line. Capitalism does require
> ardent supporters. Institutions such as the mass media, the law courts, the
> eductation system, the police etc. all operate in more or less unison, some more
> or less violently (the police) than others to gain the support which is needed
> to maintain the status quo. So there are significant barriers to people
> developing alternative views, but this is not to say that they don't or that
> they can't. An example would be a worker who is taught the view that the police
> exists to protect the safety of the public. When the demonstration/strike/picket
> line he/she attends is heavily policed and is prevented from having any meaningful
> impact on the political process - he/she may even if cop a beating if the demo
> becomes too unruly or riotous - he/she's view of an altruistic, independent and
> impartial police is likely to change.I didn't say that society is. I said that capitalist society is. Look around you at
the wage slaves. Would you say that any of them were actively supporting capitalism
as an idea (O.K., some of the pro-McD's lot seem proud of their overconsumption,
but...). It's one of the great tragedies that our present society takes healthy
human beings and moulds them into stressed-out slaves who don't think any further
than their pay packets - and they think this is normal and healthy. Police who man
barricades at demos aren't actively "fighting the forces of evil" (not in the UK,
anyway). They're just doing their job - it's what they do to get paid. They support
the state not by active, independent action and thought, but just by doing what they
are told. If you question them directly about this, they tend to get all sheepish,
as they don't like to admit it. I'm not saying they are sheep, but that they might
as well be under capitalism. It's one of the most bracing things about going to
demos - you get this collective rush from the fact that you all got off your
backsides and protested.> The first priority of any society ought to be meeting the needs of its participants.
> This means finding adequate food, shelter and harmonious conditions for all. In the
> short-term, the needs of the environment (the earth) must be subordinate. It would
> seem pointless everyone living in utter misery with a nice, stable and unaffected
> environment in the background. A combination in such form is unlikely, but
> illustrative nevertheless.The first priority of any society should be survival. Anything else is subordinate.
With the present number of people in the world, society is only going to be saved by
bringing forth a viable sustainable system that does not damage the environment any
further. Living in utter misery is, after all, still living. Which separates it from
dying in comfort. Current estimates predict the world's population to double before
2050, global warming is set to swamp a lot of low-lying (fertile grain-producing)
countries, and the level of atmospheric pollutants is set to rise for a long time
before it falls. I think misery is going to become more common all over the world.
Maybe we can yet preserve humanity and the planet.