Socialism v capitalism

[Serial_Apologist]

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...

Then how, to cite a pretty incontrovertible instance, am I now completely rid of the homophobia strongly instilled into me by my upbringing? Through a combination of experience informing understanding, in turn occasioned by changeing circumstances. We are all endowed with intelligence, no?

[ahinton]

Ummm... I still don't understand that post, but never mind.

No, I don't mind - keep trying, or not, as you choose and if you must; as a rocket scientist once said (albeit in a quite different context), "it's not climate change, you know!"......

[amateur51]

Then how, to cite a pretty incontrovertible instance, am I now completely rid of the homophobia strongly instilled into me by my upbringing? Through a combination of experience informing understanding, in turn occasioned by changeing circumstances. We are all endowed with intelligence, no?

[ahinton]

Then how, to cite a pretty incontrovertible instance, am I now completely rid of the homophobia strongly instilled into me by my upbringing? Through a combination of experience informing understanding, in turn occasioned by changeing circumstances. We are all endowed with intelligence, no?

Yes, of course! - but perhaps your experience and change in attitude of mind represents one of the more welcome of examples of the constant state of flux in all manner of things to which I referred obliquely above in a different context...

Er, by the way, whatever happened to those Plebs and Toffs of which the thread title suggests that the former supposedly won at home to the latter by one (own?) goal to nil?...

[heliocentric]

a combination of experience informing understanding, in turn occasioned by changeing circumstances.

Yes, or as Marx put it (Theses on Feuerbach) "the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." The idea that "human nature" is greedy, or ambitious, or violent, is one which certainly the ruling class and its ideology would like us to hold, because it benefits from that idea being held, which might at least raise the suspicion that it isn't the whole truth.

[amateur51]

Yes, or as Marx put it (Theses on Feuerbach) "the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." The idea that "human nature" is greedy, or ambitious, or violent, is one which certainly the ruling class and its ideology would like us to hold, because it benefits from that idea being held, which might at least raise the suspicion that it isn't the whole truth.

Wouldn't it just

[heliocentric]

No, I don't mind - keep trying, or not, as you choose and if you must; as a rocket scientist once said (albeit in a quite different context), "it's not climate change, you know!"......

I see, OK.

Can I ask whoever's reading this if they understand the following:

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?

and if so could they perhaps explain it to me? because its author apparently can't be bothered.

[ahinton]

Yes, or as Marx put it (Theses on Feuerbach) "the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." The idea that "human nature" is greedy, or ambitious, or violent, is one which certainly the ruling class and its ideology would like us to hold, because it benefits from that idea being held, which might at least raise the suspicion that it isn't the whole truth.

Let's just examine the latter part of this. Leaving aside the fact that whilst there is such a thing as society there is not such a thing as a "ruling class" as it was once understood (the term now seeming to serve as a mere euphemism for "the "wealthy class"), are we really supposed to believe that human nature does not embrace greed, ambition or violence when all of these were well in evidence among humanity long before there were such things as "ruling classes"?

[ahinton]

I see, OK.

Can I ask whoever's reading this if they understand the following:

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?

and if so could they perhaps explain it to me? because its author apparently can't be bothered.

OK. Its author didn't perceive the need to be bothered to do this but, since you appear to remain perplexed by that quote, let's have a go anyway.

First off, please bear in mind that it was in response to
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.)

So - here we go.

"One should never say never"; a phrase in relatively common parlance that it widely accepted and understood to mean that to say that something will "never" occur is in fact no guarantee that it won't.

"and likewise should never assume that anything along these lines is somehow immutable and ineffable" - these "lines" being the ones in the previous quote, namely the notion that "it's always been like this in the past and it will always be like this in the future".

"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" - OK, so given that no system of government (because that's what we're discussing here) is destined to last indefinitely, however perfect it might seem whilst it is in place,
it cannot be self-endorsing; human desires, needs and ideas change, so systems of government change accordingly.

"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"; again, we're talking governmental systems here and, whatever kind of system might be in place at any given time, there will always be those on the inside of it who are opposed to it and who will accordingly seek to overthrow it or to undermine it - in other words, "we don't all go the same way home", despite Harry Castling & C.W. Murphy's penny-dreadful music-hall song of a century or so ago (see http://monologues.co.uk/musichall/So...e-Way-Home.htm and try not to throw up before you get to the end) that would appear to try to persuade us otherwise.

"Where does that leave any system?" - in the state of permanent flux to which I have drawn attention elsewhere.

Nothing ever stands still for long. Human desires, aspirations, needs, ideas and the rest are in a constantly morphing state; yes, there are indeed certain immutabilities but they nevertheless take their place and function in an environment of constant change. The 21st century Western world is a very different one to that in which Marx lived which, in turn, was a very different one to that in which Christ lived; that is not, of course, to imply that we can therefore ignore or dismiss the ideas of Marx or the teachings of Christ - far from it, indeed - but the practical application of each today is inevitably bound to have to take account of the immense differences in society, technology et al that have come about since they were alive in order for those ideas and those teachings to continue to make their mark upon contemporary society.

Happ(ier) now?...

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" (as Polonius urges Lærtes in Hamlet); perhaps in the context of the present thread, one might also commend "neither a pleb nor a toff be" and, although it sounds a good deal less persuasive than the Bard's text and scans less neatly, I am pleased and relieved to feel able to consider myself to be neither...

[Resurrection Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala

Well, leaving aside the fact that it is a state and not a country and therefore not exactly apples and oranges, digging a little deeper beneath the surface of this alleged Utopian society reveals that perhaps things are not quite as hunky-dory as you and Helio would have us believe...

http://kg-randomwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/women-in-kerala-engendered-or.html

[heliocentric]

Happ(ier) now?...

Ecstatic. So in other words you didn't really say anything at all.

RM, I think you'll find that I didn't present Kerala as a "Utopian society", something that doesn't and can't exist, but merely pointed out a couple of facts about it.

[scottycelt]

so that's it then? two choices? blimey.

Why do you "need " boss workers? No chance that this is a fallacy perpetrated by the top people to justify their own position then?
Cooperation can work. Other models are available. we are SO often told that things are impossible, when in fact they are just undesirable from a certain perspective.

No, team, I've never claimed anything is impossible, simply that a system without 'bosses' equals anarchy. Most humans are sheep and need leaders. Football teams have managers and team captains. A classroom needs a teacher. Even communists accept that though our forum anarchists might beg to differ.

I'm all for 'cooperation' between bosses and workers and adopt a 'centrist' approach to most things, whether it concerns politics or business.

The 'cooperative' structure in business is my favoured sytem, but it has to be a genuine cooperative with the workers electing the management (bosses) and being able to replace them if they fall short. In turn, the worker should let the boss get on and manage within agreed guidelines. There should be proper dispute procedures for the inevitable 'grey areas' which are bound to crop up from time to time.

I once worked for 12 years with possibly the most famous so-called 'cooperative' in the land. For all the undoubted company benefits and the general pleasantness of the management approach towards the workforce, the whole thing was (is) largely a sham. Management had rigid control from the start with the workforce having no say in the management appointments. Series of minor proposals at ground-floor lever were put to work councils to 'decide'. The decision whether to debate these or not was actually decided by, er, management and often weren't debated at all. Council meetings were regular and numerous and could last a day-and-a-half and the more opportunistic of the workforce often put themselves up for election to the councils simply to avoid their normal duties. Staff were invited to these meetings as 'observers of democracy in action' leaving an often negligible rump of the workforce left to perform the daily tasks. Frankly, it was the worst of all systems, and it was the genuine, conscientious worker who suffered and was often the least paid into the bargain. I remember at one time yearning for the old 'hands-off' approach of the management of my former company which I once considered far too remote!

There are however genuine cooperatives which seem to exist and prosper and I agree entirely that it should not be beyond the wit of capable individuals to set up more such desirable companies.

For already established companies, cooperation and mutual respect between boss and worker is surely the answer, not doing away with the boss completely which, in any case, will probably result in a far worse boss in the end.

Much of the problem is not really the boss itself, it is the boss him or herself!

[amateur51]

There are however genuine cooperatives which seem to exist and prosper and I agree entirely that it should not be beyond the wit of capable individuals to set up more such desirable companies.

For already established companies, cooperation and mutual respect between boss and worker is surely the answer, not doing away with the boss completely which, in any case, will probably result in a far worse boss in the end.

Much of the problem is not really the boss itself, it is the boss him or herself!

All power corrupts, so use it sparingly & wisely is the way forward in my humble opinion. I've set up & worked in co-operatives and they do work but require people of a very particular mind-set to do so

[teamsaint]

Just in case anybody out there unhappily missed Scotty's last post, I'll just quote one line...perhaps its hopelessly out of context..
"Most humans are sheep and need leaders." What, like cameron, the royals, alan sugar....(add your own)

As others have pointed out, the old "Envy" accusation that RM uses is an easy and powerful trick...but of course completely inadequate as an argument.

I don't want to be famous...I find lots of famous people very annoying...therefore I must be envious of them.





Perhaps all of us are just fooling ourselves about all the things we don't want.
Personally speaking, going back to consumer goods...if I want to remind myself about the utter hoax that most of it is, i just walk past the apple store in Southampton at any time its open....it is scary what they have done to us....

[heliocentric]

Alas I gave up the will to live half-way through the requested authorial 'elucidation'...

Don't jump, Caliban, you have so much to live for.

Generally communists and anarchists are in agreement about the desirability of a society of equals, but disagree about how to achieve it. The idea that what anarchists want is "chaos" is quite silly, but scottycelt probably doesn't know any anarchists or doesn't listen to the ones he does know.

Conservatives so often invoke the idea of "envy". Is this because they judge everyone by their own standards (son, I didn't get where I am today without being jealous of people better off than me) as MrGG suggests? Perhaps RM could enlighten us on this.