Socialism v capitalism

[heliocentric]

the story seems to me to have been (...) It's hard to conceive that the outcome of any revolution could be the voluntary dissolution of political power.

As teamsaint says, "we are SO often told things are impossible" - and often this is backed up by something along the lines of "it's always been like this in the past and it will always be like this in the future". Even though human societies HAVE changed fundamentally several times in the last ten thousand years, and even though for most of that time (ie. apart from more recent periods) those societies have been characterised by cooperation rather than competition. None of this will convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced, of course. (It's interesting that scottycelt, as an avowed christian, is so ready to assert that "there will always be a class difference" when the founder of his religion was so explicit in saying such things must come to an end.)

[teamsaint]

As teamsaint says, "we are SO often told things are impossible" - and often this is backed up by something along the lines of "it's always been like this in the past and it will always be like this in the future". Even though human societies HAVE changed fundamentally several times in the last ten thousand years, and even though for most of that time (ie. apart from more recent periods) those societies have been characterised by cooperation rather than competition. None of this will convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced, of course. (It's interesting that scottycelt, as an avowed christian, is so ready to assert that "there will always be a class difference" when the founder of his religion was so explicit in saying such things must come to an end.)

Helio, do you have any suggestions about things to read re your comments about cooperative societies, please?

[heliocentric]

Helio, do you have any suggestions about things to read re your comments about cooperative societies, please?

Here's one useful link:

http://libcom.org/history/hunter-gatherers-mythology-market-john-gowdy

and in general there are many interesting thoughts to be found in contributions to the Radical Anthropology Group's website (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html) - but I should also mention my current bedtime reading which is The Leopard's Tale - Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük by the archaeologist Ian Hodder, which outlines the most recent research on how social life was organised at the Neolithic site of that name in Turkey, a town that existed between about 7400 and 5700 BCE and had a peak population of 10,000. Various pieces of evidence, like the absence of public buildings and indeed the lack of significant distinctions in size between any of the houses, together suggest a society without social classes or social distinctions, including those based on gender, which nevertheless organised agricultural activity and animal domestication on a necessarily large scale (given the population). The author has no political axe to grind and his interpretation of the evidence at Çatalhöyük is in fact quite "conservative" compared to some others cited in the book. Plus it's an absolutely fascinating read and has lots of illustrations! I think it could be quite an eye-opener even for people who might not otherwise take much of an interest in prehistory.

[ahinton]

As teamsaint says, "we are SO often told things are impossible" - and often this is backed up by something along the lines of "it's always been like this in the past and it will always be like this in the future". Even though human societies HAVE changed fundamentally several times in the last ten thousand years, and even though for most of that time (ie. apart from more recent periods) those societies have been characterised by cooperation rather than competition. None of this will convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced, of course. (It's interesting that scottycelt, as an avowed christian, is so ready to assert that "there will always be a class difference" when the founder of his religion was so explicit in saying such things must come to an end.)

Good points all, for one should never say never and likewise should never assume that anything along these lines is somehow immutable and ineffable - and yet and yet - the mere fact that nothing is necessarily destined to last indefinitely on the grounds that it might somehow have become widely regarded as a perfect or near-perfect system of government does little, if anything, to justify or endorse any particular system, however constructed and the principal problem here is that, whatever system anyone might devise and seek to implement anywhere at any time, certain people who are supposed to function within it are likely to do something else if, as and whenever they may so choose. Where does that leave any system?

[teamsaint]

Here's one useful link:

http://libcom.org/history/hunter-gatherers-mythology-market-john-gowdy

and in general there are many interesting thoughts to be found in contributions to the Radical Anthropology Group's website (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html) - but I should also mention my current bedtime reading which is The Leopard's Tale - Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük by the archaeologist Ian Hodder, which outlines the most recent research on how social life was organised at the Neolithic site of that name in Turkey, a town that existed between about 7400 and 5700 BCE and had a peak population of 10,000. Various pieces of evidence, like the absence of public buildings and indeed the lack of significant distinctions in size between any of the houses, together suggest a society without social classes or social distinctions, including those based on gender, which nevertheless organised agricultural activity and animal domestication on a necessarily large scale (given the population). The author has no political axe to grind and his interpretation of the evidence at Çatalhöyük is in fact quite "conservative" compared to some others cited in the book. Plus it's an absolutely fascinating read and has lots of illustrations! I think it could be quite an eye-opener even for people who might not otherwise take much of an interest in prehistory.

Thanks Helio..that is a terrific article. I shall try to follow up Radical Anthropology and the Hodder book.

interesting to read a view that suggests that economics is flawed from its first sentence !

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, it took a lot of people to get there in the end and sadly some still haven't ...

Even in a 'workers' state' you need boss workers to control and organise the worker workers.

There will always be a 'class' difference in any society however much some pretend otherwise.

The alternative is anarchy.

The point would be that were community and producers to elect said bosses, salaried commensurate with the amount of time their induction took to such skilled positions of authority, this would remove the overweening kinds of power relationships expressed under capitalism and the bureaucratised forms of post-capitalism epitomised by the Soviet Union.

[heliocentric]

Please...please...oh, please ...can you split your sentences up into bite-size chunks so us lesser mortals can understand what you're saying ?

I don't understand that one either. It seems to be saying that there is no objective way of choosing between the merits or otherwise of different political "systems". (I hope it isn't saying that.)

Returning to the old chestnut of "communism has never worked". Attempts to build communist societies, that is to say societies "in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" began in earnest in the early 20th century. We can argue about why they developed as they did, but I want to focus on the tendency to write the whole thing off, after a few decades, as an aberration, succeeded by a return to business as usual. What would capitalism have looked like in its early days? a smooth transition from feudal societies to the ahem finely-tuned and perfectly-functioning machine which we see before us now? Not really. Take the French Revolution for example, a big step forward for the bourgeois class in taking power from the aristocracy. Within a few years a general had crowned himself emperor and it was back to royalty as usual. No doubt there were many around at the time who said see, I told you so, kings are the way things are meant to be, it's no use trying to imagine anything else, it has never worked in the past and could never work in the future. And they would of course be wrong. So it is at least possible that people who say the same sort of thing now about a radically egalitarian society will also be proved wrong sooner or later, I'd prefer sooner but at this moment it doesn't look too promising.

[ahinton]

I don't understand that one either. It seems to be saying that there is no objective way of choosing between the merits or otherwise of different political "systems". (I hope it isn't saying that.)

Then your hope is fulfilled. What I do say, however, is that, whatever the situation and howsoever it might come about, it is most unlikely that there will ever be any guarantee that this or that system - even if it works and can be shown to work for a reasonable period of time - will not get undermined either by a desire for something different or by corruption of and within any such system or both.

Returning to the old chestnut of "communism has never worked". Attempts to build communist societies, that is to say societies "in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" began in earnest in the early 20th century. We can argue about why they developed as they did, but I want to focus on the tendency to write the whole thing off, after a few decades, as an aberration, succeeded by a return to business as usual. What would capitalism have looked like in its early days? a smooth transition from feudal societies to the ahem finely-tuned and perfectly-functioning machine which we see before us now? Not really. Take the French Revolution for example, a big step forward for the bourgeois class in taking power from the aristocracy. Within a few years a general had crowned himself emperor and it was back to royalty as usual. No doubt there were many around at the time who said see, I told you so, kings are the way things are meant to be, it's no use trying to imagine anything else, it has never worked in the past and could never work in the future. And they would of course be wrong. So it is at least possible that people who say the same sort of thing now about a radically egalitarian society will also be proved wrong sooner or later, I'd prefer sooner but at this moment it doesn't look too promising.

That rather proves the point that I was making and to which my above response seeks to refer; "communism" indeed hasn't worked - but then nor has "capitalism" - at least in terms of either being, or being regarded as, fundamental tenets of a purported and intended government structure and principle, for there are and will almost certainly always be sufficient numbers of members of society determined to undermine at least some parts of whatever happens to be in place at the time, for whatever reasons or none.

[aeolium]

As teamsaint says, "we are SO often told things are impossible" - and often this is backed up by something along the lines of "it's always been like this in the past and it will always be like this in the future". Even though human societies HAVE changed fundamentally several times in the last ten thousand years, and even though for most of that time (ie. apart from more recent periods) those societies have been characterised by cooperation rather than competition.

It's not impossible, just extremely unlikely given that political power - and conflict - appears to have been present for most of recorded history and particularly the history of civilisation since the development of agriculture. Marx seems to have believed this as well at the time of the writing of The Communist Manifesto as evidenced in its first line: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." (in a much later edition published after Marx's death qualified by Engels as "written history" and not prehistory). I'm not sure that the kind of cooperative existence of hunter-gatherer societies would be easily replicable in dense, agriculture-dependent civilisations.

None of this will convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced, of course.

I don't think it's a question of "wanting to be convinced" but of evaluating probabilities based on the historical evidence.

[Serial_Apologist]

there are and will almost certainly always be sufficient numbers of members of society determined to undermine at least some parts of whatever happens to be in place at the time, for whatever reasons or none.

Yes but there are always given reasons why such is the case, and they're always specific to the society and its system of operation in question. Changes take place within a given order until a critical mass emerges for change and then either proceeds because the balance of forces is favourable or it is suppressed or repressed: the fight for equal rights regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation being examples undder our existing system. In the process of transition new values emerge that would have been considered unthinkable by many if not most people at an earlier stage. Attitudes and motivations change accordingly so that those once considered "normal" and "commonsense" come to be seen as anachronisms, like the "inevitability" of the major/minor diatonic system of tonal relations. The need to belong is a psychological and physical given in common with all species, the motivation for antisocial or destructive behaviour largely a symptom of exclusion.

[heliocentric]

I don't think it's a question of "wanting to be convinced" but of evaluating probabilities based on the historical evidence.

Clearly you don't. But it does depend on what you are and aren't willing to accept as historical evidence. Capitalism is obviously an advance on the social organisations which preceded it, in many ways I presume I don't need to list, and was a necessary stage in social evolution. The historical evidence also points, for example, to (a) the preponderance of cooperative types of social organisation (whatever their size) over probably the majority of human (pre)history, and (b) periodic fundamental changes in the way people conceived of social relations (and indeed themselves as human beings also).

I'm reminded somewhat obliquely of Stravinsky (not at all a communist!) who said he composed the music he wanted to hear, not the music he heard.

[heliocentric]

In the process of transition new values emerge that would have been considered unthinkable by many if not most people at an earlier stage.

Yes, exactly.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, exactly.

Just now thinking of another example. Consider if one will the difference in attitudes between probably the majority of British people towards our NHS and that of possibly a majority of US citizens, some of whom I have recently seen in footage from the forthcoming presidential election plainly stating that we're all crazy over here! Those advocating privatisation undoubtedly represent a resuscitated residue from the pre-NHS era who want to get their hands on the NHS in order to make money, while almost anyone approached with a view on this, regardless of political affiliation, sees the NHS as beyond any such consideration. One might regard this as a pointer towards what we are trying to say.

[ahinton]

Yes but there are always given reasons why such is the case, and they're always specific to the society and its system of operation in question. Changes take place within a given order until a critical mass emerges for change and then either proceeds because the balance of forces is favourable or it is suppressed or repressed: the fight for equal rights regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation being examples under our existing system. In the process of transition new values emerge that would have been considered unthinkable by many if not most people at an earlier stage. Attitudes and motivations change accordingly so that those once considered "normal" and "commonsense" come to be seen as anachronisms, like the "inevitability" of the major/minor diatonic system of tonal relations. The need to belong is a psychological and physical given in common with all species, the motivation for antisocial or destructive behaviour largely a symptom of exclusion.

This is all very true - and most interestingly expressed, too - except that, I think, the last part of what you write sets out two supposed incompatibilities which in reality actually - and perhaps almost inevitably, given human nature - coexist...

[ahinton]

Clearly you don't. But it does depend on what you are and aren't willing to accept as historical evidence. Capitalism is obviously an advance on the social organisations which preceded it, in many ways I presume I don't need to list, and was a necessary stage in social evolution. The historical evidence also points, for example, to (a) the preponderance of cooperative types of social organisation (whatever their size) over probably the majority of human (pre)history, and (b) periodic fundamental changes in the way people conceived of social relations (and indeed themselves as human beings also).

I'm reminded somewhat obliquely of Stravinsky (not at all a communist!) who said he composed the music he wanted to hear, not the music he heard.

As indeed he should have done (albeit I'm no more of a fan of Stravinsky - a handful of seminal works notwithstanding - than he was himself a communist, as you rightly observe!); that said, he is also credited with having said not only that music that doesn't either sing or dance is of no use (rather as Boulez once rather more bizarrely and notoriously said of those who did not at least try to embrace dodecaphony) but also that he wished that people would love music more and admire it less - so he can be forgiven for much else, methinks!