NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I need to sort out my understanding of what socialists/communists think about the mind. Basically they like to talk about the democratisation of "productive capacity" - which can mean factories and the like. That's certainly achievable: just replace owner/management structures with whatever sort of council you can come up with.

But really, the factories aren't the productive capacity themselves. They're expressions of such capacity, as conceived by somebody's mind, aren't they? Factories don't pop out of nowhere, and if there's no one in charge with a mind capable of matching their complexity they fall apart.

I suppose it would be too easy and too simple to look at various possible marxist interpretations involving the mind being shaped by the productive capacity, allowing us to ignore or even reverse the cause-effect relationship - so how do you leftists out there see the connection between the human mind (meaning the cognitive capacity, the drive, the self-awareness and generally the will to improve one's lot that makes one start setting up a factory) and "productive capacity"? Would you actually want the mind to be democratised? And if not the mind itself, but just its effects, then isn't that a decidedly unfree state of the world?

Factories don't pop out of nowhere, and if there's no one in charge with a mind capable of matching their complexity they fall apart.


As far as I can tell, the socialist thesis is simply that there is more than one mind capable of running an enterprise running around.

At any rate, this notion of "a mind capable of matching their complexity" smacks of elitism of many varieties. As if human enterprise didn't exist before the MBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBA) was invented. Sufficient for a community college business course pamphlet, perhaps, but probably not a totally accurate reflection of reality.

At any rate, I recommend this film (http://www.thetake.org/). It provides several examples of successful Argentinian business enterprises operated by collectives of inferior minds. Some often fail, but others succeed. Just like any other business.

But the notion that socialism somehow requires me to secure a vote of my peers before I am allowed to have a particular mental thought is kind of absurd.

As far as I can tell, the socialist thesis is simply that there is more than one mind capable of running an enterprise running around.
Well, yes, but there would still be some minds more capable than others. So if democratisation means something approaching "one person, one vote", then the problem I raised is still there.

At any rate, this notion of "a mind capable of matching their complexity" smacks of elitism of many varieties.
No more than it smacks of elitism to say that Michael Schumacher is a better driver than I am, and that if I were put in an F1 car the results would probably be...disappointing. And potentially dangerous.

At any rate, I recommend this film (http://www.thetake.org/). It provides several examples of successful Argentinian business enterprises operated by collectives of inferior minds.
You know, I've seen and read so much about the film, but I've never had the chance of watching it. I would have to order it over the web, I guess, but I don't think I'm keen enough.

But let's not worry about the implications of anything for the moment, I just want to understand what you think about the mind, and its effects on productive capacity and subsequently the democratic control thereof.

I have thoughts on competitiveness/ego/leadership and their effects on society whereby a small percentage of ultra-competitive people dictate to the majority and that this is where all forms of politics, no matter the ideal, fail because we have no system for keeping ultra-competitive, essentially ego-driven, people in check.

No matter the political ideology, its leader is most likely highly competitive and this makes all political leaders essentially the same.

Their view might be right for the times, and we call them successful, or wrong for the times, and thus unsuccessful, but that view is rigid rather than flexible due to their inability to deviate from their own opinion, due to their ultra-competitiveness.

This is not well-expressed but remains a central problem I feel humans are both equipped and required to overcome.

True equality won't be possible until we do, nor will war, environmental damage or other.

I just wrote this on another thread and wonder if it's more relevant here.

At any rate, this notion of "a mind capable of matching their complexity" smacks of elitism of many varieties. As if human enterprise didn't exist before the MBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBA) was invented. Sufficient for a community college business course pamphlet, perhaps, but probably not a totally accurate reflection of reality.

No, but the world today is different; an MBA or similar professional degree (in my case a MAcc*) is becoming the standard for people that want to move in to leadership positions. A modern, competitive business is far more complex than anything that has existed before; the sheer specialization of different occupations, the globalization of markets and the need for all of these to work together seamlessly to deliver the kind of profitability and productivity investors expect requires a lot of education and a lot of skill.

It would be exceptionally difficult for a group of without considerable business education and/or extensive managerial experience to succeed at managing a competitive company and building that company to a level where it will be able to survive under changing business conditions. Now, it's plausible that this kind of model could work, but it's not likely to be able to grow or compete on a large scale simply due to the sheer complexity involved.


*Master of Accounting. I imagine you already knew that.

No, but the world today is different; an MBA or similar professional degree (in my case a MAcc*) is becoming the standard for people that want to move in to leadership positions. A modern, competitive business is far more complex than anything that has existed before; the sheer specialization of different occupations, the globalization of markets and the need for all of these to work together seamlessly to deliver the kind of profitability and productivity investors expect requires a lot of education and a lot of skill.

It would be exceptionally difficult for a group of without considerable business education and/or extensive managerial experience to succeed at managing a competitive company and building that company to a level where it will be able to survive under changing business conditions. Now, it's plausible that this kind of model could work, but it's not likely to be able to grow or compete on a large scale simply due to the sheer complexity involved.


*Master of Accounting. I imagine you already knew that.

Yet, as an example, all we're talking about in terms of communism is owning the means of production.

So, taking an example from the Chinese motorcycle industry, you have a huge amount of small shops forming quite a competitive industry - each makes a certain part, which are put together by a distributor, who slaps a badge on the bike and sells it to the consumer. (this is not exactly a factual account but I'm giving myself leeway to make the example).

Each area is both competitive yet each supplier owns their means of production. Each step along the chain is also small, therefore it does not need complex accounting or structures. You can make very complex structures from very basic building blocks.

This could be applied to any industry from the ground up rather than having conglomerations that own the salary and means of hiring and firing employees.

It would also mean that if I can't compete in motorcycle parts, I would have to find something where I can compete - each to his own, each according to his abilities.

Well, yes, but there would still be some minds more capable than others. So if democratisation means something approaching "one person, one vote", then the problem I raised is still there.


Only if we assume that a "more capable mind" deserves more than "one vote." Of course, we would first need a measure of "more capable mind" that wasn't completely arbitrary. I might not be capable of creating a Fortune 100 company, but then I might be perfectly successful in some other sort or size of business. I might be perfectly successful doing something else entirely.

At any rate, even the biggest and most successful of today's companies are hardly the result of the genius of only one "mind."


No more than it smacks of elitism to say that Michael Schumacher is a better driver than I am, and that if I were put in an F1 car the results would probably be...disappointing. And potentially dangerous.


I don't need to be Michael Schumacher or drive a F1 car in order to be a safe, effective, or "successful" driver. Holding everyone up to a single unnecessary and exceptional standard, and rejecting them when they inevitably fail to meet it, is the essence of elitism.



You know, I've seen and read so much about the film, but I've never had the chance of watching it. I would have to order it over the web, I guess, but I don't think I'm keen enough.


Well, I've noticed that you've made several threads over time asking questions about how social(ist) enterprise would work. I figure the best source for such information is from the mouths of the very people who do it themselves.

I cannot recommend the film (www.thetake.org) more highly. What I appreciated the most about it myself is that the people the documentary follows are simply men looking for work in order to provide for their families. Contrary to one's expectations, ideology of whatever kind actually plays a very small role, if any at all. The humanizing effect is extremely powerful.

an MBA or similar professional degree (in my case a MAcc*) is becoming the standard for people that want to move in to leadership positions.


Inside an extremely specific social paradigm and culture, anyway. In a capitalist society, socialist organization doesn't work. Well, no kidding :D


It would be exceptionally difficult for a group of without considerable business education and/or extensive managerial experience to succeed at managing a competitive company and building that company to a level where it will be able to survive under changing business conditions.


Of course, this specialization and centralization are exactly what produce the class distinctions that encourage people like me to become skeptical about things.

At any rate, the globalized enterprise actually represents very few of the actual number of businesses in operation today, if I understand correctly. The vast majority are small partnerships or sole proprietorships which are perfectly suited to voluntary social enterprise.

It is also my opinion that if the free marketeers actually lived up to their own moral/ethical/political standards, the globe spanning business that requires elitist differentiation wouldn't exist.


Now, it's plausible that this kind of model could work, but it's not likely to be able to grow or compete on a large scale simply due to the sheer complexity involved.


Nobody reasonable claims that freedom is the most economically prosperous choice. I don't, anyway.

Nobody reasonable claims that freedom is the most economically prosperous choice. I don't, anyway.

This is a fundamental bone of contention - what sort of a society are we aspiring to, an efficient one or an equal one - are they exclusive, what's the balance?

No easy answers and any answer needs to be based in the reality of mankind rather than an ideological dream unworkable in life.

-Snip-

Indeed.

One of my "favorite" objections to the social(ist) enterprise is this notion that a worker self-managed business will never be as successful as <insert a globe spanning corporation here>.

But, of course, 99.9% of non-social(ist) enterprises won't ever be as successful as <insert same globe spanning corporation here> either, so I fail to see the point.

Then the occasional enterprise (http://www.gore.com/en_xx/) employing significant social organizational aspects (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/open_gore.html) does make it to the globalized top, across many different industries (http://www.gore.com/en_xx/industries/index.html), and the objection becomes null and void entirely.

And if not the mind itself, but just its effects, then isn't that a decidedly unfree state of the world?Why would disallowing people to affect the world however they see fit and merely because they choose to, for good or bad, cause an unfree state?

Those on the right or libertarians have a very simple-minded and decidedly naive view of freedom, they claim to support personal freedom yet support the right of certain cartels to create elite concentrations of economic power - then making the economic freedom of the rest of the populace decreased. The 'freedom to exploit' should probably be the rallying cry of libertarians, for under their cloak of freedom they are a breeding ground for elitism and oligarchs.

Only if we assume that a "more capable mind" deserves more than "one vote." Of course, we would first need a measure of "more capable mind" that wasn't completely arbitrary. I might not be capable of creating a Fortune 100 company, but then I might be perfectly successful in some other sort or size of business. I might be perfectly successful doing something else entirely.
Sure enough. But that's not the point - if you are able to do something better than someone else, because you put more effort into it, or because you're more motivated, or because you're more focused, or because you're talented or whatever...your mind is some exclusively owned unit of productive capacity in whatever form of production we're talking about.

But if productive capacity must be democratically controlled, then your mind would have to be democratically controlled...wouldn't it?

Holding everyone up to a single unnecessary and exceptional standard, and rejecting them when they inevitably fail to meet it, is the essence of elitism.
Look, racing has some sort of arbitrary standard, because it's a fairly arbitrary thing to do (it's not like you're getting anywhere on a circular track).

But living in the material world has within it a certain requirement to do the best that is possible, because doing anything less would be wasted happiness. It might be unnecessary to have more than a basic shack and gruel if all we want is to survive - but would you really call yourself an elitist for seeking out not some random but someone who can build a nicer house for you, or sell you nicer food?

Contrary to one's expectations, ideology of whatever kind actually plays a very small role, if any at all. The humanizing effect is extremely powerful.
And that's what I'm worried about. I've been in enough meetings, councils, study groups and assignment teams to know that the humanising effect is, for me, almost entirely negative. I achieve great things by myself, working with people who can match me. I get drowned out by idiots and my own ridiculous attempts not to offend anybody I am stuck working with - maybe this is different for you, but in a meeting my target changes from matching the task at hand to managing interpersonal relationships, which I find frustrating and am not very good at.

Why would disallowing people to affect the world however they see fit and merely because they choose to, for good or bad, cause an unfree state?
I think the clue is in the word "disallowing".

This isn't like murdering someone, where you're clearly affecting someone else intentionally and negatively. Building a factory that makes sports cars is (setting aside a few environmental externalities) is a rather different matter.

I think the clue is in the word "disallowing".

This isn't like murdering someone, where you're clearly affecting someone else intentionally and negatively. Building a factory that makes sports cars is (setting aside a few environmental externalities) is a rather different matter.That factory consumes resources that could be used for something else. You are correct in that the harm, if it exists, is not clear, but simply because it isn't clear doesn't mean there is no harm.

Actually, the fundamental problem is not to democratize the mind, it is to socialize it: that is, rather than idealizing the human mind as strictly concerned with the interests of the self, the socialist conceives of human minds that are inherently social.

This means two things:

First, to the extent that the representation of the mind is bound up with the actual experience of mind, socialism maintains that it is realistic to believe that under the right circumstances human beings would be pre-disposed to think about "us" and "we" rather than "me" and "I."

Secondly, participation in the public "we" is so fundamental to what it means to be a free person that such participation is a right of each individual. Indeed, the public conscience itself would be corrupted by refusing to include some group from participation.

Thus, the democratization of the mind follows from the socialization of the mind. But more importantly, democratization of the mind does not mean the dumbing down of the mind. Quite the contrary: a socialized mind, one which serves "us," rather than "me," opens up vast new territory for cooperation rather than cutthroat competition. Rather than dividing our best minds against each other, we all work for common goals. Rather than tossing about from necessity to necessity, we could actually make something of ourselves that will be worthy of history's long memory.

The Athenians had the right idea about freedom--that ultimately it's about the dignity and advancement of human creative expression--but they contradicted their fundamental insight by basing freedom on a false foundation of sex and class. We make many of the same mistakes today.

None of us is free until all of us are free.

I think I need to sort out my understanding of what socialists/communists think about the mind...
I don't think one can be so brash as to suggest there is only one epistemological/philosophy of mind theory, and its relation to 'productive capacity', that all Marxists, socialists, et al subscribe to.

I don't quite see what point you're trying to make, outside of 'Marxists suck'.

productivity, beyond the absolute minimum neccessary for mutually assured universal survival, is highly overrated.

beyond that point of survival neccessity, creativity is worth twice as much, if not many times that. both in terms of personal gratification to the individual, AND to the rest of human society as a whole. especially such portions of human, i should say and mean, scientient and crative, society more or less local, at least cognatively, to each of our individual selves.

each of us have, our own unique proclivities toward developing the diversity of tallents neccessary for a peaceful and gratifying world. with or without the illusions of symbolic value.

=^^=
.../\...

Sure enough. But that's not the point - if you are able to do something better than someone else, because you put more effort into it, or because you're more motivated, or because you're more focused, or because you're talented or whatever...your mind is some exclusively owned unit of productive capacity in whatever form of production we're talking about.Non sequitur.

You drum up a really good case for including principles of desert in a distributive model, but it does not follow that your mind is (or rather should be) "some exclusively owned unit of productive capacity."

Are you exclusively responsible for your achievements? What about the society that educated you, educated your parents? What about the society that structures a world in which your efforts matter? Would you do just as well any old place we plopped you down?

But if productive capacity must be democratically controlled, then your mind would have to be democratically controlled...wouldn't it?No. It's the other way around. If productive capacity is democratically controlled, then you (to the extent you choose to participate) take part in the decision-making "mind." You are permitted input into means and ends. You are the doer rather than the done-to.

Life under capitalism is all about responding to circumstance. We respond to the market by buying or selling; we respond to punishments and incentives.

The socialist conception of mind holds that this is mind-control... and what's worse, there's no one actually steering the ship at all. This is unfreedom because we cannot choose, we can only respond.

How many people under capitalism go to work, or to school, because they really want to?

Socialism is about a different conception of freedom: one in which we do what we will for ourselves. But such a freedom is only compatible with a mind that is not limited to a consideration of its own interest. The self-interest assumption, as any economist will tell you, is nice because it produces formulas precisely prescribing behavior: assuming interests can be ranked, I can (and should) adopt maximizing behavior. But this is precisely why the theory denies mind: a formula for behavior is anything but a "mind." It is a program.

Socialism wants to open up the realm of human freedom in which actual choice is possible.

But living in the material world has within it a certain requirement to do the best that is possible, because doing anything less would be wasted happiness.See, this is the fundamental difference between the individualist mind and the socialist mind.

You see anything less than maximizing behavior as irrational because it "wastes" happiness.

A socialist who cooperates rather than competing, so that others have a greater share of happiness, does not consider it "wasted." The socialist takes an individual pride in what we accomplish together, and the socialist recognizes the social aspects of everything he does for himself: who taught him to read, to appreciate music, to organize and to work? His mind is social in the sense that his enjoyment encompasses both his own pride in his own work and his own sense of connection to the human community--he appreciates in his work, that is, the realization of his humanity.

But would you really call yourself an elitist for seeking out not some random but someone who can build a nicer house for you, or sell you nicer food?Perhaps not, but what is sick about capitalist competition is it causes us to neglect use-value in favor of exchange-value. Our children don't open their toys because "they might be worth something someday." We don't buy things because we enjoy them, we buy things because other people don't have them. We can't even enjoy our vacations anymore because it is more important to create the record with a video camera: we are hostages to the delusion that we can own an experience.

Is this freedom? I think not.

I get drowned out by idiots and my own ridiculous attempts not to offend anybody I am stuck working with - maybe this is different for you, but in a meeting my target changes from matching the task at hand to managing interpersonal relationships, which I find frustrating and am not very good at.No one ever said everyone is born to be a socialist. ;)

Social situations entail risks and hardships in any society. Depending on the society, some people may find it harder than others: no doubt there are people who do not "adjust well" to the work/school routines of capitalist life. It seems absurd to suppose that no one will struggle under socialism, though I think there is a strong argument to be made that a socialist society that does not isolate the self but offers a psychic safety net of inclusion and dignity offers a rather more healthy environment for psychosocial development than a capitalist society that invariably blames the victim.

It might be unnecessary to have more than a basic shack and gruel if all we want is to survive - but would you really call yourself an elitist for seeking out not some random but someone who can build a nicer house for you, or sell you nicer food?


Perhaps contrary to popular opinion, the image of "socialism" as consisting of nothing but dark and rainy days where everyone works in a smelting factory while wearing the same drab overalls and eating the same mush (unsweetened!!!!!) is mostly propagandistic nonsense. And the result of totalitarian bullshit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union). Both, really.

But the whole point of the social(ist) enterprise is to better one's life. Again, please buy, rent, steal, or otherwise acquire and then watch this film (http://www.thetake.org/). The men depicted sought ownership and control of their factory not simply because they wanted to implement some socialist utopia. They did it because it was necessary to get their jobs and paychecks back. They did it exactly so they could give their wives and children something better than shacks and gruel.

At any rate, "bettering one's life" and "some minds are more fit to command" are two different questions and issues.


And that's what I'm worried about. I've been in enough meetings, councils, study groups and assignment teams to know that the humanising effect is, for me, almost entirely negative.


This isn't what I meant by "humanizing." Instead, I meant that the film (http://www.thetake.org) goes a long way toward eliminating the "drab olive uniform" notion of collective ownership and control that I mentioned above. When one looks eye to eye with the actual people, one finds that they are people. They strive for exactly what you do: a better life. The only difference is that their circumstances and personal beliefs lead them to pursue a different path.


I get drowned out by idiots and my own ridiculous attempts not to offend anybody I am stuck working with...


Again, this utopian hive mind where nobody ever gets offended is largely the product of the popular imagination (of both the left and the right) rather than an honest assessment and acceptance of reality.


...maybe this is different for you, but in a meeting my target changes from matching the task at hand to managing interpersonal relationships, which I find frustrating and am not very good at.


Actually, this sounds like an accurate description of many organizations and associations headed by "enlightened" "superior" minds that I have since left and never looked back at. "Skilled and well educated leaders needed to maximize success" turns into "who can kiss the bosses' ass the hardest?" If anything, having a limited or exclusive leadership position creates the cloak-and-dagger competition that makes interpersonal "relationship" nonsense happen. Self-interest drives everyone into backstabbing in order to get one of the very few keys to the executive toilet. But if you change the vertical hierarchy into a horizontal one, where everyone has a key from the start, there is no need for any backstabbing.


Edit: Also, concerning these points and other points I didn't respond to myself: What AnarchyeL said.

Those on the right or libertarians have a very simple-minded and decidedly naive view of freedom, they claim to support personal freedom yet support the right of certain cartels to create elite concentrations of economic power - then making the economic freedom of the rest of the populace decreased. The 'freedom to exploit' should probably be the rallying cry of libertarians, for under their cloak of freedom they are a breeding ground for elitism and oligarchs.


A truly free society is a breeding ground for every political ideology.


BTW: Interesting topic Neu.

Socialism is about a different conception of freedom: one in which we do what we will for ourselves. But such a freedom is only compatible with a mind that is not limited to a consideration of its own interest. The self-interest assumption, as any economist will tell you, is nice because it produces formulas precisely prescribing behavior: assuming interests can be ranked, I can (and should) adopt maximizing behavior. But this is precisely why the theory denies mind: a formula for behavior is anything but a "mind." It is a program.


Quoted For Ultimate-Answer-To-The-Universe-Level of Truth.

That's really the only claim that socialism makes: "I am not a pareto optimum, I am a human being damnit!"

That's really the only claim that socialism makes: "I am not a pareto optimum, I am a human being damnit!"
http://www.space.com/images/rotundus-rover.jpg

http://www.space.com/images/rotundus-rover.jpg

Or socialism is just about giant roving security snowballs from Sweden. Or Mars. Either way.

First, to the extent that the representation of the mind is bound up with the actual experience of mind, socialism maintains that it is realistic to believe that under the right circumstances human beings would be pre-disposed to think about "us" and "we" rather than "me" and "I."
Aren't there any branches of socialism that just work with the people that actually exist? I mean, you're basically telling me that my question is silly because real socialist minds are unlike any human being I can even conceive of - what am I meant to do with that little gem? It doesn't help me understand anything!

Secondly, participation in the public "we" is so fundamental to what it means to be a free person that such participation is a right of each individual. Indeed, the public conscience itself would be corrupted by refusing to include some group from participation.
What's a public conscience?

Thus, the democratization of the mind follows from the socialization of the mind. But more importantly, democratization of the mind does not mean the dumbing down of the mind. Quite the contrary: a socialized mind, one which serves "us," rather than "me," opens up vast new territory for cooperation rather than cutthroat competition. Rather than dividing our best minds against each other, we all work for common goals.
Yeah, but how would that actually look like in reality? If it's going to include votes on stuff, then it does involve the dumbing down, because the dumb get the same vote as the smart on how to build a moon rocket, don't they?

Rather than tossing about from necessity to necessity, we could actually make something of ourselves that will be worthy of history's long memory.
Someone will still have to worry about the necessities. Am I to assume it's not going to be "our" (I do note the use of the posessive there...), otherwise occupied, best minds?

None of us is free until all of us are free.
I don't know, I think I'm tolerably free right now. I'm more worried about having to get everything I do with my brain approved by some sort of council or a democratic verdict.

beyond that point of survival neccessity, creativity is worth twice as much, if not many times that.
Let's say you're right - my point still stands. If creativity is "worth" something, it follows that a very creative person is somehow "more" than an uncreative one.

But that would imply some sort of fundamental inequality which must be prevented from existing, or barring that, from having any material consequences (even to the point of being personally gratifying?). So you're still stuck with the question: will my thoughts and ideas be up for a vote?

You drum up a really good case for including principles of desert in a distributive model, but it does not follow that your mind is (or rather should be) "some exclusively owned unit of productive capacity."
Well, my mind is sorta connected to my body, isn't it? If my mind is not exlusively mine, but also someone else's, then by rights the same would go for my arms or legs, right? I mean, I can hardly claim to have created those.

Are you exclusively responsible for your achievements? What about the society that educated you, educated your parents? What about the society that structures a world in which your efforts matter? Would you do just as well any old place we plopped you down?
When I'm born, that is any old place. And if I do well there, there is no reason to expect that I wouldn't have done the same in any other old place. And besides, we can't actually prove it either way, so thinking about it doesn't lead anywhere.

But if we want to talk about me being owned by others by virtue of them having had something to do with the fact that I am me, ie them having created me, then why would we start talking about society? Can't we trace the individual people who had something to do with it fairly accurately? My parents, my teachers, their parents and their teachers and so on? Just how abstract do you want to get?

As for the structures, I'd say that my efforts are directed in such a way that they matter, given the structures in place. In a cave I wouldn't devote my time to learning economics (at least not as a science), here I wouldn't devote them to building rabbit traps.

Life under capitalism is all about responding to circumstance. We respond to the market by buying or selling; we respond to punishments and incentives.
No, that's life in general. We respond to incentives (like honey being tasty) and punishments (like bee stings hurting us). Responding to stuff that happens is what living in our physical (and indeed any other) environment is all about.

Just because we all sit in a council meeting to decide what to do next doesn't absolve us of that fact. The circumstances don't go away and neither do punishments and incentives - they just change. And besides, you already hinted about "the extent to which I choose to participate" - am I do interpret that as a threat of sorts?

The socialist conception of mind holds that this is mind-control... and what's worse, there's no one actually steering the ship at all. This is unfreedom because we cannot choose, we can only respond.
And anything else is utopianism in its purest form. As long as you have a body, you will have needs. Even if you don't have a body, you will still have needs. And you will forever be unfree because you will respond to those needs.

The self-interest assumption, as any economist will tell you, is nice because it produces formulas precisely prescribing behavior: assuming interests can be ranked, I can (and should) adopt maximizing behavior. But this is precisely why the theory denies mind: a formula for behavior is anything but a "mind." It is a program.
Come on, you know better than that. Maximising behaviour doesn't depend on an individualist mind. Say we had your socialised person, and he or she had the chance to vote for everyone building a new wheat farm that will feed everyone, or for everyone trying to dig a hole to China.

Even if that "person" was entirely selfless, it would still be obvious that more food is superior to a hole to China in pretty much all situations. He or she can still rank the choices, even without considering individual preferences (or rather, by replacing them with social ones).

You see anything less than maximizing behavior as irrational because it "wastes" happiness.
And if that person votes for the hole, and people start starving, you'd consider that rational?

His mind is social in the sense that his enjoyment encompasses both his own pride in his own work and his own sense of connection to the human community--he appreciates in his work, that is, the realization of his humanity.
Why is that not possible in capitalism? Afterall, the connection with your work is infinitely more powerful because it is yours, the connection with other people is infinitely more powerful because it is based on the exchange of goods rather than obligations to the needy, or indeed the not-so-needy.

Perhaps not, but what is sick about capitalist competition is it causes us to neglect use-value in favor of exchange-value.
It doesn't cause anything of the sort. Exchange value and use value are the same thing, because if we sell something we get money with which we can buy stuff we want to use.

We can't even enjoy our vacations anymore because it is more important to create the record with a video camera: we are hostages to the delusion that we can own an experience.
I don't know how anyone could delude themselves that way, or indeed what that has to do with capitalism. If you own something, you can sell it or destroy it - try doing that with an experience.

No one ever said everyone is born to be a socialist. ;)
So far I'm getting the impression from you that right now, no one is.

It seems absurd to suppose that no one will struggle under socialism, though I think there is a strong argument to be made that a socialist society that does not isolate the self but offers a psychic safety net of inclusion and dignity offers a rather more healthy environment for psychosocial development than a capitalist society that invariably blames the victim.
Tell me, have you ever been assigned to a group that didn't want you to be part of it voluntarily? Say, been picked last for a sports team? Or assigned a study group in school with complete strangers?

Yeah, I can tell you, it's great. I'd love to spend my entire life feeling that way - especially if it's not because I am bad at sports or new to the place, but because I'm too smart for this worker's council.

Perhaps contrary to popular opinion, the image of "socialism" as consisting of nothing but dark and rainy days where everyone works in a smelting factory while wearing the same drab overalls and eating the same mush (unsweetened!!!!!) is mostly propagandistic nonsense.
Do you really think I imagine socialism like that? To me, these days it conjures up images of a "student representative body" I was part of in high school, or my latest group assignment.

Real humans, real human interaction. Just no results, because people cancel each other out. Or rather, they cancel me out and apparently I'm the only one there capable of being focused on results.

The men depicted sought ownership and control of their factory not simply because they wanted to implement some socialist utopia. They did it because it was necessary to get their jobs and paychecks back. They did it exactly so they could give their wives and children something better than shacks and gruel.
How selfish of them.

At any rate, "bettering one's life" and "some minds are more fit to command" are two different questions and issues.
Well, maybe they're not as far apart from each other as you think.

But if you change the vertical hierarchy into a horizontal one, where everyone has a key from the start, there is no need for any backstabbing.
No. But then, there is no need to do anything else either.

I think I need to sort out my understanding of what socialists/communists think about the mind. Basically they like to talk about the democratisation of "productive capacity" - which can mean factories and the like. That's certainly achievable: just replace owner/management structures with whatever sort of council you can come up with.

But really, the factories aren't the productive capacity themselves. They're expressions of such capacity, as conceived by somebody's mind, aren't they? Factories don't pop out of nowhere, and if there's no one in charge with a mind capable of matching their complexity they fall apart.

I suppose it would be too easy and too simple to look at various possible marxist interpretations involving the mind being shaped by the productive capacity, allowing us to ignore or even reverse the cause-effect relationship - so how do you leftists out there see the connection between the human mind (meaning the cognitive capacity, the drive, the self-awareness and generally the will to improve one's lot that makes one start setting up a factory) and "productive capacity"? Would you actually want the mind to be democratised? And if not the mind itself, but just its effects, then isn't that a decidedly unfree state of the world?Yeah, well, that's why the GDR had "Arbeiter der Faust" and "Arbeiter der Stirn"...

Aren't there any branches of socialism that just work with the people that actually exist?I just described one to you.
I mean, you're basically telling me that my question is silly because real socialist minds are unlike any human being I can even conceive of - what am I meant to do with that little gem? It doesn't help me understand anything!I can't speak to your own conceptual abilities, but theories of mind emphasizing the social element are well-supported empirically. They compete vigorously with more individualist theories, to be sure, but I have trouble believing you cannot conceive of such a perspective on the mind.

Is it really so hard to imagine people being unlike you? Is it so hard to recognize that there are circumstances, even entire cultures, in which different aspects of mind dominate both representationally and experientially?

What's a public conscience?A socialized sense of right.

Yeah, but how would that actually look like in reality? If it's going to include votes on stuff, then it does involve the dumbing down, because the dumb get the same vote as the smart on how to build a moon rocket, don't they?No.

They get the same vote on whether to build a moon rocket, and they get the same vote on what to do with a moon rocket. They certainly get a vote as to how much money to spend on the moon rocket.

But do they vote every time an engineer needs to decide whether to go with two cables or three? No. If they want to participate in these kinds of decisions, they should qualify in engineering.

The distinction between means and ends is very significant here. Everyone has a right to participate in determining the ends of society--what we should do. Some people, however, will naturally be better qualified to decide how exactly that should get done.

Someone will still have to worry about the necessities.Like what? Am I to assume it's not going to be "our" (I do note the use of the posessive there...), otherwise occupied, best minds?What, you don't think doctors should be taking out the garbage or cleaning up after themselves in the toilet?

If that's your question, the answer is: everyone participates in the necessities, the grudge work of existence. No one is too important to clean up after himself.

I'm more worried about having to get everything I do with my brain approved by some sort of council or a democratic verdict.A socialist society, less concerned with the pressing necessities of competition, would offer you plenty of opportunities for free play and experimentation.

Under capitalism, I have to apply to ten different sources if I hope to get research funding, and in each case I have to explain why my research relates to the profits/interests of the funder. I'm only allowed to do things with my brain if someone considers those things profitable.

Yes, under socialism you may have to appeal to some public standard, but there are several advantages: first, the standard is public, which means you don't have to resort to double-speak while you second-guess the intentions of a grant sponsor (a common problem for me); second, it is often easier to appeal to a public sentiment favoring pure art or pure research than it is to a private interest looking for immediate pay-outs; and finally, the public standard is something you can hope to affect directly, democratically.

Let's say you're right - my point still stands. If creativity is "worth" something, it follows that a very creative person is somehow "more" than an uncreative one.How much more? Would he be as much more in other circumstances, in a different society?

My point is not that talent and creativity count for nothing, but rather that in most cases it is too difficult to untangle the mess of social variables making anything out of them that it is senseless to base anything other than token inequalities on anything resembling "merit." You simply cannot defend massive inequality on the basis of individual differences.

So you're still stuck with the question: will my thoughts and ideas be up for a vote?They are already, you just don't recognize it.

Democratization makes the vote explicit. It turns it into something you can influence, something you can reason with.

But if we want to talk about me being owned by others by virtue of them having had something to do with the fact that I am me, ie them having created me, then why would we start talking about society?The problem is that you insist on thinking in terms of the capitalist notion of "ownership."

I never said society "owns" you, your mind, or your body. But I don't think you "own" them either.

You are your body and your mind. In being what you are, you realize aspects of your society that think and act through you; and remember also that you in turn affect the social world around you.

This is an ontological relationship, not a legal one.

Responding to stuff that happens is what living in our physical (and indeed any other) environment is all about.It's about that, yes. I just refuse to believe that's what it's all about, as you say.

And besides, you already hinted about "the extent to which I choose to participate" - am I do interpret that as a threat of sorts?Rather the opposite. No one is going to force you to go to meetings. No one is going to force you to take an interest in public affairs. Indeed, I'm not particularly fond of meetings and I prefer to imagine a socialist society that would, most of the time, pretty much leave me alone.

The point is that if you want to participate, if something bothers you and you think action must be taken, opportunities for effective participation exist.

So, no... not a threat at all.

And you will forever be unfree because you will respond to those needs.Agreed. Striving for freedom is not about eliminating necessity, it is about coming to terms with and minimizing it.

Come on, you know better than that. Maximising behaviour doesn't depend on an individualist mind.Yes, it does. As long as I'm only dealing with one variable (my happiness), it is theoretically possible always to find a maximizing solution to my expenditure problems.

As soon as I introduce conflicting variables such as public duty or social concern, it becomes mathematically impossible to maximize all of them at the same time, at least in general. I have to choose.

Exchange value and use value are the same thing, because if we sell something we get money with which we can buy stuff we want to use.This is a fundamental error.

Exchange value and use value are NOT the same just because I can make exchanges for things I enjoy. This states a relationship between the two, not an identity. Otherwise, how would we make sense of Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out the good." How would we even make sense of the notion of "bad money"?

Today we have fiat money, the use-value of which is effectively zero (discounting the enjoyment we get from turning George Washington into a mushroom cloud).

Anyway, it should be even more obvious that a toy in a plastic case has higher exchange value than a toy removed from the case, while a toy removed from the case has higher use-value than a toy protected by plastic.

Tell me, have you ever been assigned to a group that didn't want you to be part of it voluntarily? Say, been picked last for a sports team? Or assigned a study group in school with complete strangers?Story of my life. I find it's the competitive kids, or those warped by their own vanity, who behave this way.

I've never known socialists who do.

Yeah, I can tell you, it's great. I'd love to spend my entire life feeling that way - especially if it's not because I am bad at sports or new to the place, but because I'm too smart for this worker's council.Why would you be too smart? What workers' council in its right mind would turn away an intelligent member?

See, this is the difference. You are worried that members in the group might think, "Oh no, he'll show me up! This is bad for me!" But a socialist would think, "Ah-ha! He's brilliant! This will be great for us!!"

Do you really think I imagine socialism like that? To me, these days it conjures up images of a "student representative body" I was part of in high school, or my latest group assignment.Gross.

Real humans, real human interaction.Or warped humans, capitalist human interaction? Are you sure?

Is it really so hard to imagine people being unlike you? Is it so hard to recognize that there are circumstances, even entire cultures, in which different aspects of mind dominate both representationally and experientially?
It's one thing to imagine people who also consider an aspect of "we" and who feel for each other. It's quite another to imagine people who are actually selfless, who only consider the community as a whole and who care no more whether they die than if Mr. Smith from the neighbouring suburb dies.

A socialized sense of right.
Like brainwashing? And would this socialised sense of right be completely arbitrary? Would someone come up with it and then spread it into the community?

The distinction between means and ends is very significant here. Everyone has a right to participate in determining the ends of society--what we should do. Some people, however, will naturally be better qualified to decide how exactly that should get done.
So if we decided to build a moon rocket, you'd be okay with the rocket factory being run by engineers without worker councils dictating what's happening inside?

Like what? What, you don't think doctors should be taking out the garbage or cleaning up after themselves in the toilet?
I think every minute spent on doing that is a minute not spent on saving people's lives. You're creating inefficiencies in the distribution of resources and the outcomes that stem from that - you're digging a hole to China.

Regardless of how you think distribution should be handled, efficiency is a value-free criterion for judging it. Every unit of value wasted could have been used to make everyone better off.

A socialist society, less concerned with the pressing necessities of competition, would offer you plenty of opportunities for free play and experimentation.
Except if it involves the use of resources. What if I want to build myself a race car? It's no longer a matter of going and buying raw materials to get started, it's a question of applying to some council who will not only consider the raw materials themselves, but also whether or not they consider the race car a worthwhile use of resources. And my opinion will be disregarded in the whole matter, since even though it affects me the most of all, I get one vote and will be in the minority.

Under capitalism, I have to apply to ten different sources if I hope to get research funding, and in each case I have to explain why my research relates to the profits/interests of the funder. I'm only allowed to do things with my brain if someone considers those things profitable.
Or you use your own money.

Yes, under socialism you may have to appeal to some public standard, but there are several advantages: first, the standard is public, which means you don't have to resort to double-speak while you second-guess the intentions of a grant sponsor (a common problem for me); second, it is often easier to appeal to a public sentiment favoring pure art or pure research than it is to a private interest looking for immediate pay-outs; and finally, the public standard is something you can hope to affect directly, democratically.
I disagree with the former - I've been part of enough groups to know that double-speak is precisely the rule of the day. You can never ever say what you think because you'll just offend these unreliable and envious things that human beings are.

As for the second, I'm not sure that's a good thing. I don't want to appeal to people's irrationalities and flaws. I don't even want anything to do with people who make decisions based on that.

The third is a myth. I have never in my life made a difference to anything by voting, and in all likelihood neither have you.

My point is not that talent and creativity count for nothing, but rather that in most cases it is too difficult to untangle the mess of social variables making anything out of them that it is senseless to base anything other than token inequalities on anything resembling "merit." You simply cannot defend massive inequality on the basis of individual differences.
I'm not defending anything. I'm saying that capitalism offers you a way of improving your situation without requiring the consent of anyone but your trading partner, who you can deal with on an honest and rational basis - and it offers the opportunity to change trading partners virtually instantaneously if you want to.

Your socialism only offers one employer - the faceless council. And besides, even if it was impossible to untangle the mess of relationships, that still wouldn't be enough of a reason to take merit out of the equation. What's the risk of letting unmerited reward occur? Someone will have a few more resources, there'll be a little bit of waste at this one moment in time. What's the risk of letting meritous deeds go unrewarded? The elimination of meritous deeds.

They are already, you just don't recognize it.

Democratization makes the vote explicit. It turns it into something you can influence, something you can reason with.
They're not up to a vote. That's the vital thing - they're up to the appraisal of another person. I know the motives of that person, and his and mine are the same - a successful completion of the interaction that creates value which then can be shared between us.

The standards are clear, the rules are clear and no one has to bother appealing to anything other than rational fact.

Go into a council meeting, and there is no rational fact. It's been wiped out - there are no more causal relationships, no more laws of physics, economics or any other sort of law. The only thing that counts is, as you put it, people's "will" - unjustified and unreasonable. You lie, cheat and steal to make someone vote for you on the day and not for the next guy. You may make the community billions, but if they don't like you they'll vote for the big-breasted chick who wants to bake cookies nonetheless.

You are your body and your mind. In being what you are, you realize aspects of your society that think and act through you; and remember also that you in turn affect the social world around you.
I realise society/the Holy Spirit through my actions? Sounds rather religious, wouldn't you agree?

Basically you're saying that I'm not me, that I'm a manifestation of society. You're denying my existence in favour of a word that we came up simply to avoid having to mention every individual within a given area. I don't know, you're taking things a bit too far for my liking. I need a reason for living, and it's not to be the tool of society. If what you're saying is true, I could commit suicide right here and right now and it wouldn't change a thing. I wouldn't lose anything, since I'm just society and society keeps going. In fact, that would be a rather selfless act, wouldn't it? The sort of thing the socialist you're talking about might actually consider, if you think about it.

Rather the opposite. No one is going to force you to go to meetings. No one is going to force you to take an interest in public affairs. Indeed, I'm not particularly fond of meetings and I prefer to imagine a socialist society that would, most of the time, pretty much leave me alone.
How in hell's name can a socialist society leave you alone? You're theirs to use as they see fit!

The point is that if you want to participate, if something bothers you and you think action must be taken, opportunities for effective participation exist.
In the form of a vote. 1 against 100 with their little established lobby groups and political pull, busy blackmailing each other to keep everything under control.

---Now I've gotta get to work, so I'll answer the rest later---

Do you really think I imagine socialism like that?


The "vision" is common enough among detractors and supports that it is relevant and important to discuss.


To me, these days it conjures up images of a "student representative body" I was part of in high school


I abandoned any hope for "student government" in second grade (at about age 6) when I decided that "principle makes arbitrary decisions and student representatives are simply the messengers" is not a way a "government" should operate. In retrospect, this was my first baby step towards the socialist mindset.


...or my latest group assignment.


Contrary to the insistence of many an "advocate," arbitrary assignment hardly makes for socialism.


Just no results, because people cancel each other out.


Once again: http://www.thetake.org

Pay special attention to Zanon Ceramics. One of the biggest of the worker owned and controlled businesses featured, it is considered the flagship of the Argentinian movement. Not only is it highly successful with hundreds of employees, but it also funds or otherwise supports all sorts of social/community organizations and endeavors, including health care.

Seems like results to me.

Edit: Also, one could go to the local university/public library and borrow a copy of From mutual aid to the welfare state : fraternal societies and social services, 1890-1967 by David Beito (Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 2000). American fraternal societies, organized along voluntary mutual aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_%28politics%29) and thus (I think) arguably socialist lines, were so successful in providing low cost health care to their members that commercial insurance and health care businesses and associations played a critical role in the creation of the New Deal and contemporary welfare state. Eliminate the competition and prices go back up again.


Or rather, they cancel me out and apparently I'm the only one there capable of being focused on results.


"Neu Leonstein has control" == "results?"


How selfish of them.


And your point is? Self-interest drives the social(ist) enterprise?

No shit? ;)

The "selfless utopia" is, again, part of that "drab olive uniform" image of socialism. Do you really imagine socialism like that?


Well, maybe they're not as far apart from each other as you think.


They better be, if "free" market or "libert"arian are going to have any meaning. Or at least the meaning that free market libertarians intend.


No. But then, there is no need to do anything else either.

I would assume that the success of the enterprise, which in turn increases one's personal share of wages/profit, would be a powerful motivator. Even better, not having to deal with Darwinian struggles for top bureaucratic office, the vertical hierarchy which fuels such having been disbanded, would keep attention focused on that proper goal.

I'm astounded by free market libertarians (a description you have applied to yourself, if I recall correctly) who criticize public government as a bureaucratic morass that creates inefficiency because all politicians are worried about is winning higher office, instead of doing what is right. Of course, the hierarchy of the contemporary corporate enterprise is exactly the same, but for some reason the criticism no longer applies because it is "private" or some such nonsense.

I become less and less convinced that there is any struggle between "free market" vs. "centralized planning," or "private" vs. "public," or "free" vs. "unfree," and become more and more convinced that the struggle is simply between "private oligarchs" vs. "public oligarchs."

The aspirants to oligarchy merely fight over which of their schemes is the most "efficient," and meanwhile the rest of us will do what we are told like good little boys and girls.

None of us is free until all of us are free.

I would like to see a definition of freedom that would make that statement true.

productivity, beyond the absolute minimum neccessary for mutually assured universal survival, is highly overrated.

beyond that point of survival neccessity, creativity is worth twice as much, if not many times that. both in terms of personal gratification to the individual, AND to the rest of human society as a whole. especially such portions of human, i should say and mean, scientient and crative, society more or less local, at least cognatively, to each of our individual selves.

each of us have, our own unique proclivities toward developing the diversity of tallents neccessary for a peaceful and gratifying world. with or without the illusions of symbolic value.

=^^=
.../\...

I disagree with every single statement in this post. Prove me wrong.

No. It's the other way around. If productive capacity is democratically controlled, then you (to the extent you choose to participate) take part in the decision-making "mind." You are permitted input into means and ends. You are the doer rather than the done-to

One is still "done-to" by the democracy. If one is not operating of one's own volition one is done to, the only one who can do is "I". As you have said this democratization of mind is a matter of "us" and because of that, even if one has input, it is still external volition.

Life under capitalism is all about responding to circumstance. We respond to the market by buying or selling; we respond to punishments and incentives.

All behavior is a response to circumstance, any other idea of behavior is absurd. No one can act without circumstance or consequence, no one would act without circumstance or consequence. Any workable understanding of freedom is based in giving someone the freedom to apply their own values (what really constitutes the "I") to their circumstances. Free people don't "choose", the simply respond in their own way.

How many people under capitalism go to work, or to school, because they really want to?

I don't know, how many?

Socialism is about a different conception of freedom: one in which we do what we will for ourselves. But such a freedom is only compatible with a mind that is not limited to a consideration of its own interest. The self-interest assumption, as any economist will tell you, is nice because it produces formulas precisely prescribing behavior: assuming interests can be ranked, I can (and should) adopt maximizing behavior. But this is precisely why the theory denies mind: a formula for behavior is anything but a "mind." It is a program.

The self-interest assumption is useful because it is axiomatic. No one can act by another's will. Your values can never motivate me to act.

You see anything less than maximizing behavior as irrational because it "wastes" happiness.

Non-maximizing behavior is nonsensical. All behavior is born out of dissatisfaction, and the idea that one would choose an option that alleviates less dissatisfaction than another is ludicrous.

Perhaps not, but what is sick about capitalist competition is it causes us to neglect use-value in favor of exchange-value. Our children don't open their toys because "they might be worth something someday." We don't buy things because we enjoy them, we buy things because other people don't have them. We can't even enjoy our vacations anymore because it is more important to create the record with a video camera: we are hostages to the delusion that we can own an experience.

First off, exchange-value is only generated through use-value. The first sentence in this quote is self-refuting as a neglect of utility implies a neglect of exchange-value as well.

But more importantly, what about an individualist understanding of mind, economics, and ethics implies either competition in general or a focus on speculation specifically.

It's one thing to imagine people who also consider an aspect of "we" and who feel for each other. It's quite another to imagine people who are actually selfless, who only consider the community as a whole and who care no more whether they die than if Mr. Smith from the neighbouring suburb dies.Indeed. That's why we call such a conception a "straw man" and don't bother with it in serious discussion, no?

Like brainwashing? And would this socialised sense of right be completely arbitrary? Would someone come up with it and then spread it into the community?Umm... honestly, what makes you think such things? Can you point me to some source from which you are deriving your misconceptions?

When my roommates and I get together to discuss what to do about the obnoxious people down the hall, do you think the only way we can come to a consensus is if some of us brainwash the others? Do you think that our decision must be arbitrary because it is not the decision of some one individual? Do you think that one of us decides and then "spreads the decision into the community"?

So if we decided to build a moon rocket, you'd be okay with the rocket factory being run by engineers without worker councils dictating what's happening inside?Which worker councils? Obviously anyone actually working on the project should have some say. This doesn't necessarily mean they should determine design elements, but they should have some influence on working conditions and hours, hence time-tables and, indirectly, feasible technologies or components.

I think every minute spent on doing that is a minute not spent on saving people's lives.That may be.

But being a political economist, I know that the important consideration is marginal cost, and I suspect that the number of lives lost due to time doctors spend cleaning up after themselves would be relatively small.

If we insist upon saving every last life we possibly can, the world will be a very different place indeed. I can think of any number of measures that would all but eliminate highway deaths, including a ban on cars that drive over 40 miles per hour... but would you argue for such a ban on the grounds that it would save lives? Somehow I doubt it.

If it could be shown that thousands or millions of lives are spared by the fact that doctors do not clean, then I am confident that a socialist enterprise would find members of other job functions volunteering to pay the cost of saving those lives. But I am certainly not convinced that so many lives are saved for this reason that it justifies an entire class of people being assigned the undignified role of shit-picker-upper.

You're creating inefficiencies in the distribution of resources and the outcomes that stem from that.Of course I am! Efficiency is important, but it's not the only value worth considering.

Regardless of how you think distribution should be handled, efficiency is a value-free criterion for judging it.No, it's not. If it were value-free, it would follow that it never conflicts with any values. But obviously it conflicts with certain conceptions of equality as well as certain conceptions of freedom and dignity. When we judge that efficiency is "more important" or "less important" or "as important" as any of these other values, we cannot deny that we are making a value judgment, choosing one value over others.

Except if it involves the use of resources. What if I want to build myself a race car? It's no longer a matter of going and buying raw materials to get started,Why not? Are you not being paid for your work?

I thought we were talking about socialism broadly speaking, not some narrow-minded conception of communism as currency-free.

And my opinion will be disregarded in the whole matter, since even though it affects me the most of all, I get one vote and will be in the minority.As far as I'm concerned, you can do pretty much whatever you want with your personal resources, within the constraints of the harm principle. Now, a race car is not an entirely easy case: we may have decided in advance that the pollution caused by such vehicles must be limited, and this may put restrictions on the sort of materials, processes, and mechanics involved; it may restrict the speeds you may attain or the places you may drive.

But all of this lies within the domain of dealing with externalities (which actually represent an inefficiency). Within the allowable range of activities, no one is going to take your personal choices to some specific vote. Who would have the time? Or the interest?

I have never in my life made a difference to anything by voting, and in all likelihood neither have you.First, why do you always come back to voting as the key activity? Whatever happened to discussion, debate?

Second, while it is true that an individual vote rarely matters in itself, if everyone followed through on a maximization strategy then no one would vote. Yet clearly those who vote, as groups, affect political outcomes.

The fact that you can't see past your own eyebrows does not entail that your vote doesn't matter.

Your socialism only offers one employer - the faceless council.Not my socialism, surely.

And besides, even if it was impossible to untangle the mess of relationships, that still wouldn't be enough of a reason to take merit out of the equation.I already commented, more than once, on the fact that merit should play a role in any reasonable society. Why do you insist on shoving words into my mouth that are not mine?

It makes this conversation rather incoherent. If you want to tangle with some other socialist, have at it. If you're interested in my perspective in particular, try reading it.

Yes, it does. As long as I'm only dealing with one variable (my happiness), it is theoretically possible always to find a maximizing solution to my expenditure problems.

As soon as I introduce conflicting variables such as public duty or social concern, it becomes mathematically impossible to maximize all of them at the same time, at least in general. I have to choose.
But food and shelter may be mutually exclusive as much as my wealth and another's wealth is. The very idea of a maximising solution is to make a choice that makes you happiest by trading off - I don't see how this principle is changed if you add another good (say Mr. Smith's wealth) which "costs" you something to "buy".

I don't see the conceptual difference, really.

Exchange value and use value are NOT the same just because I can make exchanges for things I enjoy. This states a relationship between the two, not an identity.
But how can the relationship be anything other than unitary? Is there anything to stop me to from using dollar I receive in exchange to get some satisfaction out of using something?

How would we even make sense of the notion of "bad money"?
To be honest, I can't.

Today we have fiat money, the use-value of which is effectively zero (discounting the enjoyment we get from turning George Washington into a mushroom cloud).
But it can be exchanged for virtually any use that you desire. So in so far as the money itself is used as an intermediate step to some goal (much like a shovel is used for the journey to China) it has something that isn't far removed from a use value.

And then Vittos has a point too, namely that the exchange value is derived in a market place through the interaction of various agents and the use values they think they can get out of the traded good.

Story of my life. I find it's the competitive kids, or those warped by their own vanity, who behave this way.

I've never known socialists who do.
Maybe I've never met a socialist, maybe that's my problem. I just find that sometimes people just don't get along, and making one deal with the other against their will is a) not particularly socialist and b) unlikely to actually make either party any happier. So the idea that socialism offers some sort of in-built social support that prevents you from being lonely or depressed seems hard to imagine.

Why would you be too smart? What workers' council in its right mind would turn away an intelligent member?
One that likes to have a good time, have a drink and make sure no one rocks the boat? Don't tell me you've never seen it.

Or warped humans, capitalist human interaction? Are you sure?
Warped humans, certainly. I wouldn't blame capitalism for it, I just think that the very things which can make a person act like that (eg LO's aforementioned corporate bureaucracy, social pressures to conform with the ultimately unknowable standard of being liked by another and so on) would be even more pronounced in socialism.

I suppose one question that asks itself is...if we don't have these socialist people around right now, where do we get them from if they're necessary for the system not to be like what I'm describing?

I abandoned any hope for "student government" in second grade (at about age 6) when I decided that "principle makes arbitrary decisions and student representatives are simply the messengers" is not a way a "government" should operate. In retrospect, this was my first baby step towards the socialist mindset.
Well, I don't know whether ours ever decided anything. I just know I never got a word in.

"Neu Leonstein has control" == "results?"
I'd like to think so. I mean, my average for individual assignments is somewhere north of 85%, my average for group assignments is less than 75%. I realise that uni assignments aren't necessarily representative of everything, but they nonetheless are a task that needs performing by everyone putting in their bit, sticking to appointments and plans and producing something that lives up to a standard.

The "selfless utopia" is, again, part of that "drab olive uniform" image of socialism. Do you really imagine socialism like that?
I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding AnarchyeL, but he seems to be talking about some socialist person who thinks of a "we" before an "I".

They better be, if "free" market or "libert"arian are going to have any meaning. Or at least the meaning that free market libertarians intend.
All I'm saying is that one can voluntarily decide to submit to the judgement of someone else. If I end up on a desert island and some indiginous Navy SEAL is with me, I'd probably put my faith in him rather than my limited survival skills. He'd know what needs to be done and he'd know what I have to contribute. I don't think that's any different than choosing to have a brain surgeon do the operation rather than my car mechanic, or have an architect design my house rather than a pre-schooler.

Of course, the hierarchy of the contemporary corporate enterprise is exactly the same, but for some reason the criticism no longer applies because it is "private" or some such nonsense.
I am reserving my judgement at this point because I've never worked for a private corporation. I have worked for Brisbane City Council, and it basically confirmed all my worst nightmares.

Let's speak again about this once I'm out of uni and have some experience in the matter.

Indeed. That's why we call such a conception a "straw man" and don't bother with it in serious discussion, no?
Yeah, but if it's not a complete selflessness, then the person is ultimately torn between securing resources for himself and voting in the interest of the community. So at least some of the time this person will participate in whatever decisionmaking process happens to be the one in order to get the best deal for himself, and screw the rest of the world.

When my roommates and I get together to discuss what to do about the obnoxious people down the hall, do you think the only way we can come to a consensus is if some of us brainwash the others? Do you think that our decision must be arbitrary because it is not the decision of some one individual? Do you think that one of us decides and then "spreads the decision into the community"?
I don't know, "socialised" always sounds like "someone told me this as a kid and so now I believe it". I have difficulties in believing that everyone in the community sat down together and worked out some sort of conscience through open discussion.

Which worker councils? Obviously anyone actually working on the project should have some say. This doesn't necessarily mean they should determine design elements, but they should have some influence on working conditions and hours, hence time-tables and, indirectly, feasible technologies or components.
So what if the worker council really doesn't want to do 40-hour weeks but the rocket won't be finished in time for the launch window otherwise? Will the engineer then be able to say "you know, I'll make you work even if you don't want to"?

I mean, the workers can have one interest, and the engineers another. The workers might want to minimise the work they do, the engineers want to shoot a rocket to the moon. Many of the workers might not have wanted the factory to be used to build a rocket but were outvoted. The engineer might be much more committed personally to the rocket than the guy operating the metal-cutting machine. How are these differences resolved?

If it could be shown that thousands or millions of lives are spared by the fact that doctors do not clean, then I am confident that a socialist enterprise would find members of other job functions volunteering to pay the cost of saving those lives. But I am certainly not convinced that so many lives are saved for this reason that it justifies an entire class of people being assigned the undignified role of shit-picker-upper.
You know it's an extreme example, picked because it's obvious. But it's not just doctors - it's every other job and every other skill. To spend any work time on anything else than your specialisation is a waste of resources, whether it manifests itself in the form of people dying for lack of doctors or just a generally lower material standard of living. It adds up.

No, it's not. If it were value-free, it would follow that it never conflicts with any values. But obviously it conflicts with certain conceptions of equality as well as certain conceptions of freedom and dignity. When we judge that efficiency is "more important" or "less important" or "as important" as any of these other values, we cannot deny that we are making a value judgment, choosing one value over others.
I suppose. But still, to take the obviously physically real issue of efficiency, something that people will actually die about and setting it equal to the indignation of someone who refused to learn a skill picking up trash seems extreme to me.

It might be better to say that ceteris paribus, a more efficient system is better. Equality is not affected, because you could just redistribute the extra resources equally, but I accept that some ideas of freedom and dignity can conflict with it.

Why not? Are you not being paid for your work?
That depends on what your socialism looks like. But if I am, I'd still be putting society's resources to some exclusive use, that is withholding them from someone else. I was under the impression that this makes it a public issue.

First, why do you always come back to voting as the key activity? Whatever happened to discussion, debate?
I don't think I've ever had the (eery?) pleasure of witnessing a unanimous decision by any group larger than, say, five people on any issues worth deciding something about.

The fact that you can't see past your own eyebrows does not entail that your vote doesn't matter.
So I have some desired outcome, regardless of why I desire it. Then I vote and my outcome is not achieved.

Why did my vote matter? Soheran made the same point a few days ago, and I just don't see how the fact that I voted did anything but legitimise something I disagree with.

Not my socialism, surely.
Well, you started off acknowledging that I had made a point for including merit in a distribution, and then said that justifying any inequalities on the basis of merit is basically impossible.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but aren't you contradicting yourself? I mean, if you include merit in deciding how to distribute resources, then meritous individuals would have more resources, which would be an inequality.

Now, you can say that it depends on the extent, which asks the question of where the cut-off is, given that we concluded that it's impossible to untangle the mess and isolate merit - thus making it impossible to reject the hypothesis that 99.999% would be due to merit.

And if someone is consistently meritous, he or she would consistently get a greater share of resources, which over time would translate into greater and greater inequality, wouldn't it?

Well, I don't know whether ours ever decided anything. I just know I never got a word in.


Fine. But I still don't follow how an obviously dysfunctional example of "government" proves anything in particular about "socialism."


I'd like to think so. I mean, my average for individual assignments is somewhere north of 85%, my average for group assignments is less than 75%. I realise that uni assignments aren't necessarily representative of everything, but they nonetheless are a task that needs performing by everyone putting in their bit, sticking to appointments and plans and producing something that lives up to a standard.


Were you able to choose with whom you associated in these group assignments? If not, I would exclude them from representative of anything "socialist." If you did choose, well, you chose poorly. :)


I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding AnarchyeL, but he seems to be talking about some socialist person who thinks of a "we" before an "I".


My opinion is that "before" should be changed to "and." I would think that social dysfunction is inevitable where we automatically think of "I" and not "we," as well as where we automatically think of "we" and not "I."


All I'm saying is that one can voluntarily decide to submit to the judgement of someone else.


Of course. Why, then, the hesitation to the idea of voluntarily submitting to the judgment of a group? And I don't expect a worker owned and operated construction company to rely on the opinion of a 2 year old when it comes to building a house. I expect such a company to associate itself with skilled design and construction professionals.

Collective control does not automatically mean "we must submit to whatever unskilled pissant happens by." (Edit: this is one of the many things that advocates of involuntary or statist socialism didn't, and still don't, get)


I am reserving my judgement at this point because I've never worked for a private corporation.


Ah, well, if we're going to pursue proper empirical standards, this entire thread should not exist in the first place. ;)

While I haven't personally worked in a private corporation myself, I do live with a person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father) who does and have heard the stories. I also occasionally read the news (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_crime).

At any rate, I wouldn't find it unreasonable to derive general principles from specific observations (Brisbane City Council) in order to form hypotheses concerning organizations with vertical hierarchies.

The very idea of a maximising solution is to make a choice that makes you happiest by trading off - I don't see how this principle is changed if you add another good (say Mr. Smith's wealth) which "costs" you something to "buy".

I don't see the conceptual difference, really.It is the conceptual difference between desire and duty. It is the difference between "want to" and "obliged to."

I've had that debate far too many times on this forum.

Is there anything to stop me to from using dollar I receive in exchange to get some satisfaction out of using something?No. But then you would find use-value in the thing that you procure, not in the thing that you exchange.

Exchange doesn't make sense without the difference. If use-value always equals exchange value, then every exchange is a wash: I always get a use-value exactly equal to what I just gave up. But in fact I will only exchange when the exchange value (what I can get for it) is greater than the use-value (how much it is worth to me). On the other hand, when its exchange value is less than its use-value, I will not exchange.

This is pretty basic stuff.

And then Vittos has a point too, namely that the exchange value is derived in a market place through the interaction of various agents and the use values they think they can get out of the traded good.That's right. Everything tends to become a commodity.

That doesn't change the fact that use-value and exchange value are different things.

So the idea that socialism offers some sort of in-built social support that prevents you from being lonely or depressed seems hard to imagine.Again, not what I said. I merely suggested that the availability of such support is more likely to help people than not.

I suppose one question that asks itself is...if we don't have these socialist people around right now, where do we get them from if they're necessary for the system not to be like what I'm describing?You do "have" us. We just tend to get trampled and damaged by a world that doesn't appreciate us. Some cultures have more of us than ours, for obvious reasons. If our culture changes, it would have more of us.

I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding AnarchyeL, but he seems to be talking about some socialist person who thinks of a "we" before an "I".Not before. At the same time. But more importantly, not so alienated and antagonistic.

I have difficulties in believing that everyone in the community sat down together and worked out some sort of conscience through open discussion.


The human species spent approximately 90% of its history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer) doing exactly that. It wasn't until after the invention of agriculture, and the attendant population concentration into increasingly unwieldy masses, that this approach to collective decision-making became extremely difficult or impossible. Thus, the practical extinction of community consensus is not a product of innate human nature so much as it is a product of a radically changed sociopolitical condition.

This historical reality is the reason why the ideas behind decentralization, anarchism, and socialism all went hand in hand until the state collided with an industrial revolution out of control. That's when Marx and other "visionaries" of the "drab olive uniform" monstrosity stole the reins.

(EDIT: I've been studying the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic. They've essentially been going through the radical sociopolitical change I describe above, only all within the last century or so)

There are other posts and other parts of posts that deserve a response, but I have less time than usual to give one. If I ignore something, it is not because I think it unimportant or because I have no response. Rather it is usually because I judge that an adequate response would take greater resources than I have available to me at the moment. Either that, or I focus on the issues I perceive to be most fundamental, if not the most immediately interesting.

Consider this an apology if you feel neglected. ;)

(I just want to preempt the inevitable, "but you didn't even respond to half my post" complaint. I know I did. I just don't have the time.)

The libertarian concept of absolute free-will is at best a naive and totally contradicted by social forces which are innately deterministic. Besides, libertarian "philosophy" is a joke. "I am a self-centered jerk and it is good", is a philosophical "argument" that most of us outgrew around 4-5. Considering the philosophy's main underpinning was people acting rationally, I fail to see how anyone can take libertarianism seriously for anything other than an excuse for not bothering to use social skills.

The libertarian concept of absolute free-will is at best a naive and totally contradicted by social forces which are innately deterministic.

The libertarian stance on free will is silly, but this has nothing to do with libertarian political philosophy.

Besides, libertarian "philosophy" is a joke. "I am a self-centered jerk and it is good", is a philosophical "argument" that most of us outgrew around 4-5.

It is a small portion of libertarians who believe that selfishness is good. Furthermore, if such an idea is something that we outgrow from when we are children is just as much an argument for selfishness as it is for selflessness, if not more.

Considering the philosophy's main underpinning was people acting rationally, I fail to see how anyone can take libertarianism seriously for anything other than an excuse for not bothering to use social skills.

This is an asinine non-sequitor.

Why did my vote matter? Soheran made the same point a few days ago, and I just don't see how the fact that I voted did anything but legitimise something I disagree with.

Part of the problem here is the weirdness of collective action: on the individual level, no vote appears to make a difference, but on the social level, all those "useless" votes put together end up deciding the election.

But perhaps more fundamental to the dispute is a different conception of the nature of democratic freedom. You insist that your vote did not matter because you did not get your way. But the point is not for you, personally, to get your way: it is for the population as a whole (which includes you) to get its way. Your freedom, then, is simply this: you are given equal participatory power, as a member of the population, and thus insofar as you are one of those tasked with deciding the laws and policies of the society in which you live, insofar as that power should make a difference, it actually does.

When the government decides against you in a dictatorship, or in a society where a large portion of the population is denied suffrage, you have no reason to accept its legitimacy. You had no share in the decision; your right to freedom has not been acknowledged. But when the people decide against you in a democracy, you have a reason to accept its legitimacy in that your opponents have simply used the same right you have: they have participated in the collective decision-making process. So did (or could have) you, and if it were in fact the case that the people with the right to freely decide upon their government, the population that government rules, wished to decide differently, they could have.

In a democracy, you accept your loss as legitimate because you accept the freedom of the people to decide. Your vote "matters" because if you lacked an equal share of that freedom, it would no longer be "the people" at all: it would be everyone else (at best). Your vote truly would not matter, because even if it were able to make a difference as to the best approximation of "what the people want", it wouldn't.

We can consider this point from another angle: if your political freedom necessitates you getting your "desired outcome", then it leads necessarily to dictatorship. What, then, of everyone else's political freedom? Do they not as well have the right to participate in decisions about the society in which they live?

There are other posts and other parts of posts that deserve a response, but I have less time than usual to give one. If I ignore something, it is not because I think it unimportant or because I have no response. Rather it is usually because I judge that an adequate response would take greater resources than I have available to me at the moment. Either that, or I focus on the issues I perceive to be most fundamental, if not the most immediately interesting.

Consider this an apology if you feel neglected. ;)

(I just want to preempt the inevitable, "but you didn't even respond to half my post" complaint. I know I did. I just don't have the time.)

Don't give me that. I know you are on Christmas vacation, otherwise you wouldn't be posting.

Democracy—Three wolves and six goats are discussing what to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the wolves take three of the goats aside. “Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,” they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.”

The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of the election: a majority, including their comrades, has voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the vote rebukes them: “Be thankful you live in a democracy! At least we got to have a say in this!”


This participation justification is the most dangerous thing about democracy, as it implies that one need accept violence, intrusion, and subjugation just because one voted (this is especially ludicrous when one considers just how often votes must be cast in self-defense against a violent democracy).

This separation of "I" from mind, or at least the dwindling the claim "I" has to his own mind and will to 1/population is probably the most insidious example I have yet seen.

Democracy—Three wolves and six goats are discussing what to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the wolves take three of the goats aside. “Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,” they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.”

The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of the election: a majority, including their comrades, has voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the vote rebukes them: “Be thankful you live in a democracy! At least we got to have a say in this!”

You describe a situation where the wolves have all the power anyway. So what's it matter if the process appears legitimate or not?

It might matter to the goats, but the wolves know the truth!

(Now I go try to work out what this thread is about ...)

“Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.”

This is "democracy" in what world?

As NH notes, it's just rule by the wolves with utterly meaningless electoral forms thrown in. Obviously you can't have democracy if democratic institutions don't actually have any power.

This is "democracy" in what world?

As NH notes, it's just rule by the wolves with utterly meaningless electoral forms thrown in. Obviously you can't have democracy if democratic institutions don't actually have any power.

well, it does bear a striking resemblance to any number of 'democracies' currently in existence. but that's neither here nor there. i think the distinction might be best expressed as that between 'formally' and 'actually' democratic systems. mere formalism never cuts it, and nobody really believes it should.

This is "democracy" in what world?


Democracy in the real world.

Power inequities are a fact of nature, not society, and any social institution will be subject to them. Democracy is dangerous because it legitimizes the power inequity when it manifests between individuals.

No person has an obligation to accept their subjugation, and this is exactly what democracy requires.

Power inequities are a fact of nature, not society

Maybe some power inequities.

Not the significant power inequities today.

Maybe some power inequities.

Not the significant power inequities today.

Of course not, but as far as I can see we have two routes out of it, with democracy not being one of them.

Of course not

Then forget "wolves" and "goats."

Then forget "wolves" and "goats."

Modern power inequity is far greater than the inequity of wolves and goats.

A wolf may render a goat to its own ends, but no wolf has ever made a goat a slave.

Modern power inequity is far greater than the inequity of wolves and goats.

Agreed, but so what? Modern power inequity is founded in social institutions, and thus is not beyond democracy.

Agreed, but so what? Modern power inequity is founded in social institutions, and thus is not beyond democracy.

What are you saying?

What are you saying?

Your argument rests on the presupposition that the power inequity is beyond the democracy, and the democratic forms merely serve to legitimize it.

Recognize that the power inequity is instead bound up with policies within the range of democratic politics, and the picture changes. Why should any of the goats align with the wolves? They can stop the wolves from attacking them anyway.

Don't give me that. I know you are on Christmas vacation, otherwise you wouldn't be posting."Christmas vacation" is a very different thing when you are teaching three college classes.

I have about 48 hours between the dates finals are due and the time that grades are due. If I were to comment on student papers, I would never finish: hence I read them, assign grades, and put off commentary until later.

But I believe I owe my students explanations for their grades as well as constructive criticism they can use in other classes. Thus, I spend winter break grading... 156 seven-page papers for my intro class, 21 fifteen-page papers for my gender class, 22 twelve-page papers for my political economy class, and then 8 twenty-page papers from the graduate students in political economy.

And I'm STILL not even mentioning conference papers, dissertation chapters, book reviews, and everything else that simply cannot wait. Because I'm perpetually behind.

Recognize that the power inequity is instead bound up with policies within the range of democratic politics, and the picture changes.

Why should I recognize that? There are wolves and goats regardless of how we organize our social institutions, and to say that the goats are obligated to a democratic system which they were coerced to participate in (as a vote is always a defense of one's own values, voting is always in self-defense) is nonsense.

You can narrow power inequities by either scaling back the amount of power there exists within human relations, and this is primitivism.

Or you can narrow power inequities by eliminating the respect for traditions and norms that only serve to exacerbate the inequities, and this is nihilism.

Power inequities are a fact of nature, not society,

Modern power inequity is far greater than the inequity of wolves and goats.Are these power inequities facts of nature or facts of society?

Of course not, but as far as I can see we have two routes out of it, with democracy not being one of them.And those two routes would be...?

Fine. But I still don't follow how an obviously dysfunctional example of "government" proves anything in particular about "socialism."
It's just that people like to use buzzwords without really taking into account the human side of things. I'm really, really not sold on extending the use and power of council, discussion groups and collective decisionmaking in general - and it seems that this sort of thing is quite central to libertarian socialism of pretty much any sort.

Were you able to choose with whom you associated in these group assignments? If not, I would exclude them from representative of anything "socialist."
Well, wouldn't it then follow that the smart people pick other smart people to be in a group with? What happens to the rest? Isn't inequality pre-programmed?

I would think that social dysfunction is inevitable where we automatically think of "I" and not "we," as well as where we automatically think of "we" and not "I."
The fact of the matter is that if I eat a sandwich, you can't eat it. I can care about you as much as I care about myself, but that doesn't change the exclusive nature of the use of this particular resource. You can call it social dysfunction, but everyone has to deal with it nonetheless, and either I eat it or you do.

Why, then, the hesitation to the idea of voluntarily submitting to the judgment of a group?
Because groups don't make judgements. People do, and then they try to convince each other of it - and whatever ends up coming out isn't so much a judgement as a compromise. And to make matters worse, the standards by which this compromise is ultimately determined is influenced by group dynamics, which is just about as unreliable and unpredictable a thing as you can imagine. I mean, you know the saying that one person is rational, but a crowd is a pack of animals - it's the same thing.

Collective control does not automatically mean "we must submit to whatever unskilled pissant happens by." (Edit: this is one of the many things that advocates of involuntary or statist socialism didn't, and still don't, get)
But if it doesn't, that means the unskilled pissant is ignored and shut out of the process, right?

At any rate, I wouldn't find it unreasonable to derive general principles from specific observations (Brisbane City Council) in order to form hypotheses concerning organizations with vertical hierarchies.
Everyone I spoke to said that there was a significant difference in the way government works and private employers work. The latter have more stress and more pressure to produce results, while the former have a lot of meetings and delegating responsibility. So I wouldn't disregard that for the time being.

Suffice to say, if I ever end up employed at a place like the Council, I'll be out of there so fast...

It is the conceptual difference between desire and duty. It is the difference between "want to" and "obliged to."

I've had that debate far too many times on this forum.
Hmm, any links?

Anyways, it's clear that if there is a duty to do something that I wouldn't want to be doing, it wouldn't be particularly libertarian.

No. But then you would find use-value in the thing that you procure, not in the thing that you exchange.
And the other party will find use-value in the thing I sold. Exchange value ends up sitting somewhere in between.

But regardless, I don't see how exchange value somehow makes people disregard use value. It clearly doesn't, because exchange value in itself isn't actually worth anything to a person - they're still seeking some sort of use value, it's just that they're able to taking an intermediate step.

You do "have" us. We just tend to get trampled and damaged by a world that doesn't appreciate us. Some cultures have more of us than ours, for obvious reasons. If our culture changes, it would have more of us.
Hmm, I don't know, but I guess it's not something you can tell easily. What I'm really afraid of is that those non-competitive people don't just refuse to compete with other people, but also refuse to compete with nature, as it were. People without ambition is what can bring mankind down.

The human species spent approximately 90% of its history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer) doing exactly that.
Well, that's decisionmaking - I'm not so sure about about "conscience".

But the point is not for you, personally, to get your way: it is for the population as a whole (which includes you) to get its way.
But the population has no way, if there are internal contradictions. I mean, if 51% want a hole to China and 49% want a wheat farm, then what does the population want? Why is it what the simple majority wants? Or a two-thirds majority? Or only a unanimous decision? Or maybe not what people want right now, but what would actually be good for them in the long run?

But when the people decide against you in a democracy, you have a reason to accept its legitimacy in that your opponents have simply used the same right you have: they have participated in the collective decision-making process.
From here on in what you say makes a lot of sense. But the question is how people choose to participate in a certain kind of collective decisionmaking process. There are lots of options, and even majority voting can come in lots of shapes and colours. So someone must first have decided upon some mechanism, and then the population must have agreed to it - which brings us back to square one: how?

We can consider this point from another angle: if your political freedom necessitates you getting your "desired outcome", then it leads necessarily to dictatorship. What, then, of everyone else's political freedom? Do they not as well have the right to participate in decisions about the society in which they live?
Well, that presumes that there actually is a difference between being ruled over after losing an election, and being ruled over without there having been one. If there is no difference, then they're no worse off than I was before.

There are wolves and goats regardless of how we organize our social institutions,

Not in the sense you have used them, no.

and to say that the goats are obligated to a democratic system which they were coerced to participate in (as a vote is always a defense of one's own values, voting is always in self-defense) is nonsense.

By the same reasoning, all action, period, is in self-defense.

Does it follow that we have no social obligations because we did not choose to be born into the world?

But the population has no way, if there are internal contradictions. I mean, if 51% want a hole to China and 49% want a wheat farm, then what does the population want?

Which is the better approximation?

Thankfully, matters of policy don't actually tend to be split this way... and even if they were, the small margin would ensure that some measure would be implemented to placate the minority. There's a ton of potential votes there, and a good possibility that the changes in popular opinion might shift the majority vote from one to the other.

but what would actually be good for them in the long run?

Who decides that? And since when has paternalism been legitimate in your framework?

But the question is how people choose to participate in a certain kind of collective decisionmaking process. There are lots of options, and even majority voting can come in lots of shapes and colours. So someone must first have decided upon some mechanism, and then the population must have agreed to it - which brings us back to square one: how?

How, legitimately? Any reasonable democratic method should suffice, preferably one that requires some kind of supermajority, and whatever system adopted should contain the possibility of amendment.

Well, that presumes that there actually is a difference between being ruled over after losing an election, and being ruled over without there having been one.

Of course there is, even ignoring the whole issue of legitimacy and just considering immediate practical elements. Unless you believe that a ruling government's behavior has nothing to do with the strength of the opposition?

Anyways, it's clear that if there is a duty to do something that I wouldn't want to be doing, it wouldn't be particularly libertarian.Why? Do you really think it is impossible to will something because you should, whether you want to or not?

But regardless, I don't see how exchange value somehow makes people disregard use value.It devolves into accumulation for the sake of accumulation. People want to have more, whether they enjoy it or not.

It devolves into people buying something because it is more expensive regardless of whether it is actually better--a perversion of market reason itself, but a very real one nevertheless.

Are these power inequities facts of nature or facts of society?

Modern society amplifies the natural power inequities because of the dependencies it brings with it.

And those two routes would be...?

As I said in the prior post, primitivism for an absolute, nihilism for a practical solution.

Not in the sense you have used them, no.

How is that?

By the same reasoning, all action, period, is in self-defense.


Not at all, there is plenty of action that is not taken in response to something that wished to subject one's values to an external will.

Does it follow that we have no social obligations because we did not choose to be born into the world?

Simply being born does not obligate us to do anything.

How is that?

People capable of using force to coerce certain decisions in democratic elections? No, that's not a necessary truth about societies.

Not at all, there is plenty of action that is not taken in response to something that wished to subject one's values to an external will.

But all voting in a democracy is? Really?

Anyway, the point nevertheless holds: having to take action to defend one's freedom is a necessary truth about at least social living.

Simply being born does not obligate us to do anything.

No, but that's not the point: the fact that we were born without consent does not free us from obligation.

Similarly, the fact that we live without consent in societies where democratic collective decision-making processes are necessary to preserve freedom does not mean that we have no obligation to abide by those decision-making processes.

People capable of using force to coerce certain decisions in democratic elections? No, that's not a necessary truth about societies.

This isn't about force, it is about power. And democracy will be manipulated by power in the same way that all social institutions, be it education, property, language, or art, are manipulated by power.

But all voting in a democracy is? Really?

Yes. It is the nature of democracy to subject one's subjective value and will to an objective, external set of values and wills. If one wins, all one retains is what one had before. If one loses, one loses one's volition, or in the context we are referring to here, one loses one's mind.

Anyway, the point nevertheless holds: having to take action to defend one's freedom is a necessary truth about at least social living.

Certainly. But the advocate of democracy wishes to say that one should give the fight up because he participated in the process that is attempting to take it.

Similarly, the fact that we live without consent in societies where democratic collective decision-making processes are necessary to preserve freedom does not mean that we have no obligation to abide by those decision-making processes.

I disagree that they are necessary or that an obligation exists.

Does the slave with a vote have an obligation to be a slave?

Why? Do you really think it is impossible to will something because you should, whether you want to or not?I think NL believes that all actions are selfish actions, or at least all actions are what make the actor happiest, which essentially amounts to the same thing.

Modern society amplifies the natural power inequities because of the dependencies it brings with it.Could you give a specific example of this?

As I said in the prior post, primitivism for an absolute, nihilism for a practical solution.Oh, I recall that, I didn't think you were serious...lol.

This isn't about force, it is about power. And democracy will be manipulated by power in the same way that all social institutions, be it education, property, language, or art, are manipulated by power.

That may be. Similarly, democracies may make mistakes due to ignorance, or stupidity, or whatever.

But does that give me (or anyone else) the right to become dictator? Have any of us been gifted with such wisdom and intelligence that we can transcend the manipulations of power and truly lead people to freedom?

If one wins, all one retains is what one had before.

Nonsense. The person gains what he or she never had: influence over society as a whole, protection from external wills that before he or she had no control over.

Genuine individual freedom is impossible in any modern society: we are dependent on each other, we are highly vulnerable to the depredations of others. Democracy allows for us the next best thing: if we cannot rule ourselves individually, we can at least rule ourselves collectively.

Certainly. But the advocate of democracy wishes to say that one should give the fight up because he participated in the process that is attempting to take it.

Freedom is not extinguished when you lose a vote. Freedom is extinguished when you are deprived, formally or substantively, of the opportunity to participate in the process.

When that happens, you absolutely should continue the fight to defend it by other means.

I disagree that they are necessary

How else do you intend to preserve freedom?

Primitivism is a possibility, but I have never claimed to speak of all societies, merely of ours... and however difficult the struggle to bring about and maintain democracy might sometimes be, the struggle to bring about primitivism would be infinitely more difficult.

Nihilism is just abandoning the struggle.

Does the slave with a vote have an obligation to be a slave?

No. But then, if the vote is so meaningless as to render the person who casts it a slave, we are not speaking of democracy.

Could you give a specific example of this?

Just look at how much more the modern individual with a system of divided labor is dependent on others than the hunter-gatherer was.

Oh, I recall that, I didn't think you were serious...lol.

I don't reject primitivism, I just don't think it will happen.

I am, however, very sympathetic to the man I quoted in my signature. If you read him (or even the introduction to the Ego and His Own, All Things Are Nothing To Me (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego1.html#pp3) click), you might get a better idea where I am coming from.

Although you may never think anything I post is serious again.

But does that give me (or anyone else) the right to become dictator? Have any of us been gifted with such wisdom and intelligence that we can transcend the manipulations of power and truly lead people to freedom?

It doesn't, and I never said it did.

Nonsense. The person gains what he or she never had: influence over society as a whole, protection from external wills that before he or she had no control over.

Well perhaps a vote can be split into an act of self-defense or aggression. Either way, I don't like it.

Genuine individual freedom is impossible in any modern society: we are dependent on each other, we are highly vulnerable to the depredations of others. Democracy allows for us the next best thing: if we cannot rule ourselves individually, we can at least rule ourselves collectively.

Genuine freedom is not possible period, but to cast that as the only meaningful form of individual freedom is dishonest.

Nihilism is just abandoning the struggle.

Nihilism is not abandoning the struggle, it is abandoning the things that help make you the weaker combatant.

Just look at how much more the modern individual with a system of divided labor is dependent on others than the hunter-gatherer was.True. I, at least, have advocated blurring the lines of divided labor, however there would still be some dependency there.

I don't reject primitivism, I just don't think it will happen.

I am, however, very sympathetic to the man I quoted in my signature. If you read him (or even the introduction to the Ego and His Own, All Things Are Nothing To Me (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego1.html#pp3) click), you might get a better idea where I am coming from.

Although you may never think anything I post is serious again.Ah, I see.

Why should anyone else be concerned with 'your' cause? Or mine?

True. I, at least, have advocated blurring the lines of divided labor, however there would still be some dependency there.

There is nothing likely to be done with dependency. The key is to preserve what meaningful freedom we can have by transforming dependency into interdependency.

It doesn't, and I never said it did.

What alternative do you propose? If not democracy, then there is either dictatorial or oligarchical rule, or an absence of political organization altogether--which is simply chaos, and dictatorial in that there is nothing to prevent the rule of the stronger.

Well perhaps a vote can be split into an act of self-defense or aggression.

It is not "aggression", it is an enhanced capacity to exercise one's freedom.

Genuine freedom is not possible period, but to cast that as the only meaningful form of individual freedom is dishonest.

There is an alternative? You have already granted that severe power inequities are part and parcel of modern society.

Nihilism is not abandoning the struggle, it is abandoning the things that help make you the weaker combatant.

You'll have to better explain what you mean by "nihilism", then.

This is an asinine non-sequitor.
You know, I am planning on writing an essay on the infiltration of inane and vague Latin phrases into NSG, and how increasingly simply mentioning them is reason enough not to have any valid accompanying argument. It's like the poster using 'ratio decidendi' as a kind of pompas way of saying 'I am a law grad', come on guys aren't we all above these kind of childish antics already? ...

You know, I am planning on writing an essay on the infiltration of inane and vague Latin phrases into NSG, and how increasingly simply mentioning them is reason enough not to have any valid accompanying argument. It's like the poster using 'ratio decidendi' as a kind of pompas way of saying 'I am a law grad', come on guys aren't we all above these kind of childish antics already? ...

Non sequitur is vague and inane Latin? What rubbish.

Perhaps you can show me that the common underpinning of libertarian philosophy is that people act rationally, or how that inexorably leads to one advocating the shirking of social skills or responsibility?

I am a libertarian who holds little concern for reason, and Soheran is a non-libertarian who features the rationality of man prominently in his arguments. Add to that the fact that neither of us deny the need or the importance of social skills, and you find your statement hitting a little lightly.

In the end, though, I guess when one displays an ignorance of the basis for a political philosophy and the typical beliefs of its adherents, tries to prove the misconceptions by inexplicably linking them, and then gets called on it, it is probably just easier to attack the terms used by the opposition, rather than actually defend the nonsense one had uttered in the prior instance.

snip

At this point it does seem that I need to explain my ideas on nihilism, unfortunately it is not something that lends itself to 1:00 on Christmas morning, as my thoughts on the issue are jumbled as it is.

It is not that modern society inherently amplifies power inequities, it is more that it amplifies power itself, in that one may gain exponentially more power now than in prior times. It is in the dependencies that one has on other people and has in other people that amplifies the inequities.

When we look at power in terms of dependencies, we see that the solution to power is to allay these dependencies, and you know this as well. Certainly primitivism is a method for destroying the dependencies, but then I don't think that sort of social organization necessarily or even likely follows from human values.

So then what? We balance the sheet.

Instead of doing away with these dependencies that we are likely to accept simply to achieve other ends that we value, we counter them by creating value in ourselves, by creating dependencies in others. It is at this point that nihilism comes in: all of these social norms, be it gender roles, property, democracy, even the idea of guilt itself, must be cast off, as they are all matters of placing one into a role of dependence.

This is a horrible place to leave off, but I know I am getting muddled in my own thoughts, so Merry Christmas.

Instead of doing away with these dependencies that we are likely to accept simply to achieve other ends that we value, we counter them by creating value in ourselves, by creating dependencies in others. It is at this point that nihilism comes in: all of these social norms, be it gender roles, property, democracy, even the idea of guilt itself, must be cast off, as they are all matters of placing one into a role of dependence.

This is still no solution. You offer a society of neither freedom nor equality, where everyone is determined to take advantage of everyone else... and as in most human endeavors, there will be winners and losers. Ultimately, of course, everyone loses, for even the winners must live in fear and continually strive to maintain their gains.

Any way of actually dealing with dependence--other than primitivism--must involve restraint; it must involve a moral discourse that moves beyond material considerations of power and utility. It is precisely this that nihilism rejects.

This is still no solution. You offer a society of neither freedom nor equality, where everyone is determined to take advantage of everyone else... and as in most human endeavors, there will be winners and losers. Ultimately, of course, everyone loses, for even the winners must live in fear and continually strive to maintain their gains.

I have never wished for equality.

This is a meaningful freedom where individuals can accomplish their own ends.

It doesn't follow that everyone will take advantage of everyone else, at least to the point that the force everyone else to respect their own worth.

There are winners and losers in all human endeavors, you cannot do away with that, you just want to choose who wins and loses.

Any way of actually dealing with dependence--other than primitivism--must involve restraint; it must involve a moral discourse that moves beyond material considerations of power and utility. It is precisely this that nihilism rejects.

Any way of dealing with dependence by creating a system of restraint only substitutes dependence upon the system. Dependence can only be dealt with by the individual by fulfilling the values of others and placing the impetus upon them to restrain themselves.

In the end, anything greater than material considerations is bound to fail as they deal with the material world that they wish to contain.

This is a meaningful freedom where individuals can accomplish their own ends.

But they cannot "accomplish their own ends"; they can only participate in an endless struggle to have any freedom at all.

There is no true freedom in that.

It doesn't follow that everyone will take advantage of everyone else

Not everyone, not always. But make people's freedom and happiness contingent on other people being dependent on them, and deny any principle of restraint, and you will get that from most people, most of the time.

There are winners and losers in all human endeavors,

Perhaps, but there are degrees.

Any way of dealing with dependence by creating a system of restraint only substitutes dependence upon the system.

But as you have always insisted, dependence is no problem as long as it is mutual.

Dependence can only be dealt with by the individual by fulfilling the values of others and placing the impetus upon them to restrain themselves.

This is where equality comes in. Adopt this path in a society like ours, and you will get massive inequalities of dependence, and therefore of power and freedom.

Democracy replaces the individual inequality of a modern society with a social political equality that enables true freedom for all.