Just one quick breakfast post before going out.
Yamamura says:
"'You can squawk as much as you want about witch hunts, but the fact remains that some Communists do engage in espionage.'" (p. 105)
Hold on there, Yamamura. The word "squawk" expresses open hostility and contempt towards people who might have reason to believe that they are being "witch hunted" and the word "some" is also significant. "Some" is usually left out when "Communists" are being demonized!
There are two issues here. It is the job of the security services to apprehend spies. It is the job of society as a whole to avoid even the appearance of a which hunt. People with radically different ideas should be welcomed. They broaden the parameters of discussion and contribute to possible future developments. The unthinkable can and sometimes does become thinkable within a single generation. Sf writers and readers in particular face the fact of change.
We do not know what future we will (hopefully) build. Theory is grey; life is green.
29 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I agree "It is the job of the security services to apprehend spies. It is the job of society as a whole to avoid even the appearance of a witch hunt." Altho I thought that second sentence too broad, meaning I would have said it was the job of the courts to judge such cases.
I am not sure I can entirely agree with "People with radically different ideas should be welcomed. They broaden the parameters of discussion and contribute to possible future developments." What if some of those "...with radically different ideas" advocate the subversion and downfall of the state and society they live in? No state can tolerate efforts to overthrow it and will believe it self amply justified in defending itself. More, I don't believe all those with "radically different ideas" will be offering GOOD or workable ideas.
I agree that the "unthinkable" can happen. NO one in June 1914 could have possibly imagine what would result from the Sarajevo assassination. First a war that dragged on far longer and more devastatingly than anyone had expected would happen. Second, the rise of fanatical new ideologies imposed by brutal tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler (the rather tragi-farcical Mussolini was nothing like them in sheer brutality).
Sean
Sean,
We need a society in which people do not need to go to court to allege discrimination etc because nothing resembling discrimination occurs.
Every state suppresses those who try to overthrow it by force. That is what a state is and does.
Not every radically different idea will be good or workable but this is determined by argument and practice.
By unthinkable becoming thinkable, I mean changes in social attitudes (not always good, of course). 26 counties of Ireland becoming a Republic is one example. Many people who lived through that change would not have thought that it was possible, then accepted it when it had happened.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I admit I don't quite understand your first sentence. Courts are for arbitrating disputes and penalizing injuries done to others. That will remain true however little discrimination (in the bad sense) there may be.
And I think some kind of state, in whatever form, is necessary and good for mankind. And that to attempt violently overthrowing it will be, in most cases, unjustifiable.
I would argue that a study of history, which is the record of the hard won experience of nations and mankind, will tell us in many cases that certain "radical" simply does not work. And that to obstinately insist on repeating failed ideas over and over is foolish. Bluntly, that includes socialism--after more than a century of trying to make socialism work--and ALL such attempts failing, that is one idea which people should finally discard.
I don't consider the establishment of the Irish Republic "radical." Eire was never gripped by a "revolutionary" ideology it was convinced had to be spread world wide by all possible means, including subversion and war. I consider it a normal state, as I do France, the UK, or the US. That is, Eire accepted the legitimacy and right to exist of other states and forms of gov't.
Sean
Sean,
But if we build a culture in which differences are celebrated instead of being used to divide, then there will no need for courts to arbitrate in cases of real or alleged discrimination.
There has been a century of trying to make mixed economies work, not a century of any radical alternative to the current prevailing economic system but that will only become a reality when enough people are persuaded that it is necessary. Currently, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction but no widely agreed solution and an ecological catastrophe is imminent.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The ideal you described in your first paragraph is good, but not one I think will ever be perfectly realized. A society and state which is not TOO bad is the best we can realistically hope for. And we will still need courts, btw.
But Marxists and various other kinds of "hard" socialists have failed to achieve their stated goal of a socialist state in which the regime controls the means of production and distribution, ALLEGEDLY for the benefit of all. My view remains that only an economy as free enterprise as possible has ACTUALLY worked.
As for environmental problems, my view is that we have to get OFF this rock if we are truly to get a grip on them. Only a space oriented society developing fusion nuclear energy and the technology needed for an off Earth space based solar energy system can truly replace oil, coal, or natural gas. If not, then forget it, we are going to continue using those resources. Again, I recommend Robert Zubrin's new book THE CASE FOR SPACE, for a discussion of what might be possible in space.
Sean
Sean
,
We are not going to keep using those resources if, by doing so, we destroy a humanly habitable environment!
Modern socialist theories were developed less than 200 years ago. That is nothing! We have a whole planetary and extra-planetary future ahead of us (we hope). The continually changing impact of technology on society and nature will necessitate different ways of organizing society and every idea that has been propounded is going to have to be seriously considered, not dismissed because it hasn't been made to work yet. (Especially since one reason why some ideas haven't worked yet is that so many people, including powerful people, are very determined to make sure that they don't work!) I haven't got any easy answers - but immediate answers include opposing racism and austerity economics. Poverty and use of food banks is growing in Britain at present.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first comment: all the MORE reason, therefore, for getting off this rock!
I still disagree, re socialism. Too many MILLIONS of people have died at the hands of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Castros, the Kims, Pol Pot, etc., for me to ever take socialism seriously in economics. Besides bloodshed, I have seen nothing from socialism except poverty, deprivation, tyranny, corruption, etc. Quite simply, socialism has never worked. And we DO have plenty of evidence for free enterprise economics working, when they are allowed to work.
My view is the UK need to leave the EU and return to a more truly free enterprise system in economics. Am island nation like the UK has to depend on trade, commerce, manufacturing, etc., to obtain the means needed for feeding its people.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But free enterprise will become redundant with production of abundance. I do feel some frustration in these discussions. We have to move on - not only ad astra but also away from what should become out-moded social issues.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And if that is to have any chance of happening, we need to get OFF this rock. I think we agree on that much.
As for "social issues," I still advocate the LIMITED state, under whatever form. And with as little control over the economy as possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Also, there is nothing in the voluminous works of Marx and Engels other than ideas leading to the likes of Pol Pot? I can say quite a bit more on that if this discussion continues.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am not so confident of the peacefulness of Marx and Engels. I can see the menacing talk in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as being translated by their Bolshevik/Communist disciples as justifying setting up a tyrannical regime. Also, I simply don't believe any state trying to completely control an economy can be anything but a heavy handed, bureaucratic despotism.
Sean
Sean,
They address conflict because it exists but they do not prescribe a bureaucratic dictatorship which is an aberration. Free enterprise economics can coexist with military dictatorship but cooperative economics cannot.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies, there is again much here I have to disagree with. First, every self avowed Marxist regime HAS ended up becoming a bureaucratic dictatorship. And they all seemed to have justified that by claiming they merely executed what Marx/Engels said about the "dictatorship of the proletariat." You simply cannot have any kind of IDEOLOGICAL dictatorship without a top heavy bureaucracy.
Yes, free enterprise economics can co-exist with a military dictatorship if the regime does not try to rigidly control the economy. I would also argue that free enterprise economics IS cooperative, far more so than the vaguely "cooperative economics" you advocate.
It is also possible for a military dictatorship to change, evolve, or be succeeded by a legitimate regime. The examples I'm thinking being how Francisco Franco's deliberately arranged for a restoration of a constitutional monarchy and Gen. Pinochet consented to resigning as dictator and allowing a democratic regime be restored. But Marxist regimes can't be ousted or replaced so simply!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Pinochet overthrew a democratic government in the first place!
I do not support any "self avowed Marxist regime." I find Marx's ideas helpful in understanding how society changes and can be changed further and not by setting up a bureaucratic dictatorship.
Free enterprise is competitive. My ideas on cooperation are far from vague although, of course, I try to be brief in a combox.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The issue is, to me, that I don't believe Marxism has ever been genuinely useful in helping to understand how societies change. Human societies are far more complex than a thesis clashing with an antithesis to produce a synthesis.
I've tried to understand what you mean by "cooperative economics" and critiquing it by asking HOW it could work in real life. How would a "cooperative economy" know how much wheat, for example, would need to be grown and for what price? How would "cooperative economics" determine replacing demand and supply for determining how much to pay for a bushel of wheat? My view, and one I believe borne out by actual experience is that a "cooperative" system would very soon fail unless it accepted the methods in "demand and supply."
Sean
Sean,
I do not know how it would (hopefully will) work but I think that the present economic system causes poverty, wars and pollution so either it will destroy us or we will replace it, unfortunately with a lot of struggle and suffering involved.
Paul.
Sean,
Marxist analysis does indeed address complexities and does not just apply an abstract dialectic. Tony Cliff's STATE CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA analyses the Russian economy of the time before drawing political conclusions. Cliff's analysis has to be part of any understanding of what happened in Russia.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't agree that free enterprise economics, per se, produces war, poverty, pollution, etc. Rather, such things spring from how flawed and fallible human beings are.
I did know that even Tsarist Russia, from Peter the Great's time onward, had the state intervening in the economy more than was customary in the West. Because the state wanted to more quickly move Russia into catching up with the West. And that the Soviets drastically expanded or extended such a system. But "state capitalism" is still not TRUE free enterprise economics.
Sean
Sean,
I think that what some of us call "state capitalism" is indeed a form of "capitalism" for the reasons given but it is obviously a different form from free enterprise.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then "capitalism" should no longer be used for "free enterprise economics." Not if doing so leads to confusion.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
A few additional thoughts. If some use "capitalism" to mean what I prefer to call "free enterprise economics," then "state capitalism" is an oxymoron. If a gov't is controlling an economy, then it simply can't be "capitalism," because it is not private persons or organizations which is driving it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Some of us argue for exploitation and competition as defining capitalism. Stalin and his successors exploited workers in order to accumulate surplus value for the purpose of competition against Western powers, the competition taking the form of stockpiling military hardware. Thus, by this argument, they had the two features of capitalism.
Paul.
"Capital" means (something like) accumulated wealth/products of labor. In this sense, it can be owned/controlled by individuals, corporations or groups of bureaucrats.
(I remember thinking, when still at school, "Communism is bad; the opposite of communism, I gather, is called 'capitalism"; therefore, capitalism must be good - but I don't know what capitalism is!")
Or it could be democratically controlled by the entire class of laborers but then it would cease to be an alien force apparently existing independently of labor.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I find "capitalism" being used in unsatisfactory ways. Lenin, Stalin, and their successors were using the coercive powers held by the state, any state, to amass the wealth needed for that "competition." But that was not free enterprise economics. E.g., a baking company can't force me to buy its products if other companies exist whose products pleases me better. I can buy cheaper or more costly forms of bread, but none of their makers can force me to do so. That is not exploitation: I'm using my power in the market, however minuscule, to make my own choices.
And I don't believe in wealth as being somehow of labor. Wealth is best defined as products other people will find valuable (summarized in monetary terms). Yes, we can have different kinds of wealth: in land, gold, silver, stock investments, cash credited to us in savings/checking accounts, and so on.
And ordinary workers can do precisely the same thing: invest, save, even buy some gold and silver as an emergency hedge, etc. That is far more realistic than all wealth somehow being "...democratically controlled by the entire of laborers. Who is a laborer? Isn't a skilled physician or surgeon just as much a laborer as a man who digs ditches? How can this "...class of laborers" run such very different things as running a farm or an automobile factory? How can this "class" know how much wheat to grow or how many cars to make? That inevitably calls for specialization and the division of labor. Some workers will have to focus not on directly farming or making cars but in market analyses, accounting, advertising, and so on. And, there you are, straight back into free enterprise economics!
Also, it's my view you can't have wealth "...democratically controlled by the entire class of laborers" unless some kind of congress or parliament decree who gets what, how many pairs of shoes are made, how much wheat is to be grown, etc. Iow, you have to use coercion by the state, which strikes me as undemocratic and inevitably failing.
As astra! Sean
Sean,
Just a few points. Of course, state capitalism as I call it is not free enterprise but it is bureaucratic accumulation of capital. Exploitation is paying workers less than the value of what they produce so you are not being exploited when you buy a product.
A worker/laborer is anyone who at present works in return for a wage or salary so it includes physicians, surgeons and ditch-diggers. And I really don't know how the working class will control the wealth that it produces but then I would not have been able to predict banks or stock exchanges either. A lot of the details of future society we, collectively, will learn in the process of building that society but I hope that that society will be a lot more democratic than at present and also a lot more focused on developing each individual instead of accumulating wealth for a small minority.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would call the "state capitalism" of the USSR as being the politically motivated accumulation and use/misuse of wealth and resources in ways decreed by the Politburo and Central Committee. The Soviet bureaucrats were merely the clumsy and often brutal instruments for executing those decrees and "five year plans."
And I still advocate the WIDE private ownership and distribution of wealth. And that still logically means wealth and property being in private, not gov't hands. Frankly, I don't want most wealth being controlled by political means, which is how I interpret that "entirety of the class of laborers" will inevitably mean. I think what you would desire or want will be possible only in a post scarcity society, where advanced technology has created so much wealth that most people won't feel the need to be so competitive. But that first requires mankind getting off this rock to explore and develop the resources of the Solar System!
As astra! Sean
Sean,
We do need to move towards both post-scarcity and also a Solar System-wide economy.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe the first will be possible only after achieving the second. And that both will need to be based on or develop from free enterprise economics.
Sean
Post a Comment