Socialism

Friends,

This posting announces the participation of People For a Cooperative Society in the "Rethinking Marxism 2006 International Conference." The event is being held at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, from Thursday, October 26th through Saturday, October 28th, 2006.

For further information about the conference, please visit the PCS website at www.Cooperative-Society.org, Chapters & Events page. Specifically, if you will be attending, or desire information to that end, please contact me via email from the PCS website.

Of course, we also welcome your site visit for information on the PCS program, itself, which differs in certain respects from the De Leonist program, but remains the same, or is similar, in other respects.

Everyone interested in the De Leonist program, or variants, thereof, are urged to attend the conference, as there are few De Leonist-oriented events and panels in the all-important East Coast area. This is a good opportunity for the De Leonist diaspora to assemble, convene, learn, promote unity, and thus advance the movement, especially our sector.

Below are the two promotional advertisements to appear in the conference printed program.

Thanks!

Cordially,

vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
http://www.Cooperative-Society.org

Posted: 16 Oct 2006 10:40 pm Post subject: GREETING AND RESPONSE TO DAVE SEARLES

Hello, Dave,

I hope all is well.

This posting addresses your remarks and questions regarding the PCS program and principles, that you posted under separate forum topic Rethinking Marxism 2006 International Conference. I have responded in this newly-created forum area as it is now the appropriate area for PCS-related questions and discussion.

This posting constitutes my first since re-joining this forum.

You inquired as to what happened to my previous forum postings. When previously a member of this forum, I came to find the forum environment unsatisfactory, and thus canceled my membership, and purged every one of my own postings.

After consultation with Mike Lepore, creator of this website and moderator of this forum, however, I have decided to return to DeLeonism.org, one of the most important political websites on the Internet, in my view, all things considered.

Now, regarding your questions:

It is a fundamental principle of PCS that the present nonoptimal condition of the human race is due to 1.) Production for profit, with everything that implies, and 2.) Human narcissism and ego. The traditional socialist program addresses root cause #1, above, but not #2. Most socialists give little or no thought to cause #2, or presume that addressing cause #1 will concomitantly and automatically resolve #2.

PCS makes no such assumption; thus, the PCS Cooperative program addresses both root causes. If PCS is ultimately proven wrong, our focus on eradicating narcissism will have amounted merely to having "hedged our bet," as it were, regarding attempting to better guarantee the success of the revolution.

More specifically, we're supposing that without a strong, active, and developed feeling of love and connectedness, it is an open question regarding whether, under socialism, Person A will work hard and long, knowing that Person B, who works little and light, or perhaps not at all, will or may receive a greater amount of goods or services from the social store.

Mere "cooperative" effort, to me still implies a degree of impersonality, that will compromise the full and effective implementation of the FETE ("From Each, To Each") principal. Brotherly love, or something akin to it, seems necessary, and indeed implied by the FETE principal.

Cooperation is what we call for in the area of economic activity; brotherly love is what we call for in the area of interpersonal relations, to underscore and inform our mutual cooperative economic activity, and indeed all social relations, in the new society.

(We see brotherly love, also called agape, as the "socio-ethico-behavioral" underpinning, as it were, of the new society).

Indeed, the PCS notion of socialism is essentially along the lines of the long-desired "brotherhood of man," with each and every member seeing themselves as part of our one human family. To me, that is the best and most elevated understanding and conceptualization of socialism we have.

Let us remember that the goal must be sufficiently substantive relative to the present system, capitalism, to justify our advocacy of the potentially-cataclysmic step of revolution.

The volume of charitable giving in a society is a relevant indicator, to be sure, but still does not fully touch on the expanded social consciousness and awareness a FETE society will probably require. As Dr. Fromm states of expressions of love, such as charitable giving, as they occur under capitalism:

"...solidarity...and love...may assert themselves secondarily as private acts of philanthropy or kindness, but they are not part of the basic structure of our social relations."

-- Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, 1955, p.127

The PCS website provides reasonable detail on these and related issues. Interested persons are encouraged to spend time reading through the entire site.

Thanks for your questions, and good to be back in the forum.

Cordially,

vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org

Posted: 17 Oct 2006 11:27 am Post subject:

Thanks Vince.

All is well as can be expected.

Vince had posted a leaflet concerning a conference that he was presenting at. The leaflet contained a blurb that apparently he had written which I quoted and answered:

===============

"Doesn't the principle of From Each, To Each
require the love ethic. given the explicit
disparity between work and remuneration
implied?"

dave searles replies:

Love ethic? Not simply cooperative effort?

"Will a change in ownership, and production for
use, alone, give us the idyllic socialist society
we seek?"

dave searles replies:

I have no idea what you seek. I for one do not seek an idyllic anything.

"Or does the revolution also require formal and
explicit changes in the ethics and psychology
of human relationships and interaction?"

dave searles replies:

ethics

a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values

I look at myself and the people that I know; I look at people who I have interacted with over the last half century. I answer that question with a no. There is nothing wrong with their or our present ethics or psychology - moreover ANY changes that do occur do not seem that they will be brought about in any formal fashion.

In the US, the most or one of the most highly developed capitalist countries on Earth the people of all classes are outstandingly generous at charitable giving. I think that this is more than a bit presumptuous.

===========================

To which Vince answered:

Now, regarding your questions:

It is a fundamental principle of PCS that the present non-optimal condition of the human race is due to 1.) Production for profit, with everything that implies, and 2.) Human narcissism and ego. It is a fundamental principle of PCS that the present non-optimal condition of the human race is due to 1.) Production for profit, with everything that implies, and 2.) Human narcissism and ego. The traditional socialist program addresses root cause #1, above, but not #2. Most socialists give little or no thought to cause #2, or presume that addressing cause #1 will concomitantly and automatically resolve #2.

-------
dave comments:

I respect the fact that PCS states these as fundamental principle that that the present non-optimal condition of the human race is due to 1.) Production for profit, with everything that implies, and 2.) Human narcissism and ego. However these #1 and #2 are not qualities of the same kind or order which leads to a non-logical argument. We just as well could write that war is caused by production for profit and the fact that people get up in the morning.

Vince writes: "Most socialists give little or no thought to cause #2."

dave writes: stating it as a cause does not make it a cause.

Vince wrote: " or presume that addressing cause #1 will concomitantly and automatically resolve #2. "

dave answers: of course your statement presumes that there is something that needs resolving about people's psychological makeup. I for one do not accept the notion at all.

Vince wrote

==========

The traditional socialist program addresses root cause #1, above, but not #2. Most socialists give little or no thought to cause #2, or presume that addressing cause #1 will concomitantly and automatically resolve #2.

PCS makes no such assumption; thus, the PCS Cooperative program addresses both root causes.

dave answers:

No the assumption that you make is that people's psychological makeup is responsible for capitalist decay. This is merely an assumption without any proof whatsoever. Since Galileo on science has depended upon demonstratable proof not assertion. You haven't given that.

Vince wrote:

If PCS is ultimately proven wrong, our focus on eradicating narcissism will have amounted merely to having "hedged our bet," as it were, regarding attempting to better guarantee the success of the revolution.

dave answers:

Again this is a mere assertion based upon nothing. This is why I have gone out of my way to criticize this (no it is not personal) . I don't know who you think think these people with the incorrect egos or people with "narcissism". And these these so called psychological problems are addressable by an injection of love ethic? Write a paper on it and get it published, better yet become a licensed social worker or other trained mental health practitioner and demonstrate this love ethic cure for what supposedly ails people.

I have family members with mental illnesses that has threatened their health to the point of requiring hospitalization. Mental illnesses are real diseases. It seems to me, and this is just me, that you are talking about mental health issues which you have very little education about and trying to use it to advance a political position. I hear the radio preachers doing the same thing. Maybe this is just me, but I dislike the tactic immensely, it seems totally lacking in respect for people with mental illnesses and the people who sincerely work to try to help them.

Hope the confernce goes well.

dave searles

Hi, Dave,

Thanks. I'll post material and hopefully an audio tape of our panel and my presentation.

Sorry to hear there is mental illness in your family. Actually, I'm *very* sensitive to this issue.

(I, myself, had OCD for about twenty years, and even now suffer a pretty significant anxiety problem. Moreover, my sister is a counseling psychologist.)

In asserting that ethico-behavioral change would be helpful, perhaps essential, for the success of the revolution. I'm definitely not referring to issues of mental illness. I don't think anything I've ever written implies this. Best thing is to read through the PCS site.

Regarding your continuing claims for "proof" of the principles and assertions of the PCS program: I think the entire socialist enterprise is subjective. How can we "prove," a priori, that socialism would work better than capitalism?

Having said that, I do intend to present more love-related material at the PCS site of an empirical or research-oriented nature. The PCS site is very much a work-in-progress.

And let us bear in mind that there isn't much of this kind of material in existence yet. "Love-science," so to speak, is an emerging field.

Best,

vince

Posted: 17 Oct 2006 07:21 pm Post subject:

Vince first you wrote in the leaflet:

"Or does the revolution also require formal and
explicit changes in the ethics and psychology
of human relationships and interaction?"

Then you go from "ethics and psychology" to "human narcissism and ego" and now you're at "asserting that ethico-behavioral change would be helpful, perhaps essential, for the success of the revolution."

Ethico-behavioral change"??

Whose current ethics do you question the current validity or sufficiency of?

Please tell me who and what otherwise it seems that you are just spouting out college educated sounding words with no meaning.

Vince wrote:

Regarding your continuing claims for "proof" of the principles and assertions of the PCS program: I think the entire socialist enterprise is subjective.

dave answers: no I didn't challenge the principle which you say your group professes but I did challenge that the assertions implied i.e.
"does the revolution also require formal and
explicit changes in the ethics and psychology
of human relationships and interaction?" were merely assertions.

That you say that the entire socialist enterprise is subjective is an understatement. Needless to say I for one have a hard enough time reconing with my own subjectivities without burndening my thoughts with subjectivities of others.

Vince wrote:

I'm definitely not referring to issues of mental illness. I don't think anything I've ever written implies this. Best thing is to read through the PCS site.

dave writes:

Think again Vince.

We need to change our psychology. We need to not be so narcissistic. Our egos are off.

What you are saying then that becuase of a generalized mental illness society cannot change - and viola that you've got the cure - love ethic!!

And Vince I have read your website.

Vince wrote:

How can we "prove," a priori, that socialism would work better than capitalism?

dave writes:

A perfect example of why such assertions should not be made the basis of proof, especially when Socialism means a million differnt things and "better" is always totally subjective therefore can never be proven in all possible instances.

Vince wrote:

And let us bear in mind that there isn't much of this kind of material in existence yet. "Love-science," so to speak, is an emerging field.

dave writes:

Then if or until then, you will please pardon me from giving any claim to "science" and assertions made thereupon any recogition of validity whatsoever.

dave searles

Posted: 17 Oct 2006 07:25 pm Post subject:

I think we're talking about the feedback loop in historical materialism. Improved thinking induces people to make improved institutions, and improved institutions induce people to have improved thinking. That's my own way of describing it, but do we here agree that this is what happens? If so, I suggest that thoughts and institutions need to be worked on simultaneously. There are times when each seems to lead the other. We can never tell when we are in a year in which one or the other has to lead.

I think the efforts to defeat racism and sexism are an example of thought leading. The working class would never change society's structure if people continued thinking that education and democratic participation is inappropriate for a particular race, a particular sex. The U.S. has the same institutional structure that it had pre-Eisenhower, but there has been some of what I will call some improved thinking. This must come before working class unity is possible, so I cite this as a case of better thinking taking the lead over a better social structure.

I think "initial phase" socialism is an example of structure leading and thought following. Society will move into socialism with some mental poison still unexpurgated, some elements of greed and nationalism and superstition and so forth. The generations born into a socialist world will think more clearly than their grandparents could think.

When we talk about whether there is value in teaching ethics, we had better be as specific as possible, refering to a very particular problem and a particular proposal. We can't argue about the value of "love." Without specification, no statement will be right or wrong.

Posted: 17 Oct 2006 10:19 pm Post subject:

On top of that, what the three of us together know of the formal study of ethics would not fill half a thimble. Has anyone of us for example even taken a college course in formal ethics?

I truly hate it when it is believed that the mantle of socialism confers omniscience in all conceivable topics that are even tangential. I went through that phase in my life and I had a hell of a fall when suddenly it dawned upon me around my 28th birthday that my formal knowledge of anything was almost totally non-existent. Scientists must be disciplined primarily knowing what they don't know and in not pretending to know. Once you get that straight, then picking up a nugget of basic knowledge here and there can occur, but not until.

One might say that the socialist movement would benefit by some of us having some training in formal ethics, then with some knowledge of the subject, a certain specific idea to advocate might come up - but to simply pick up on the Beetles line and throw in a few perfunctory references to Jesus, MLK and Gandhi - that's not worthy of any kind of respect, and it doesn't show any respect for the topic or the intended audience as well.

IMHO
dave searles

Posted: 18 Oct 2006 07:26 pm Post subject: GENESIS OF THE PCS PROGRAM

Greetings,

Dave asserted:

"One might say that the socialist movement would benefit by some of us having some training in formal ethics, then with some knowledge of the subject, a certain specific idea to advocate might come up..."

Obviously, one does need formal training on a subject to posit a good idea revolving around that subject.

Dave asked:

>>>Has anyone of us for example even taken a college course in formal ethics?

As stated clearly right on the home page of the PCS site, I have a BA in philosophy.

Dave, you recently asserted that you had, indeed, read through the PCS site. Perhaps you missed that part.

Dave further declared:

"...to simply pick up on the Beetles [sic] line and throw in a few perfunctory references to Jesus, MLK and Gandhi..."

"simply pick up on a Beatles line"?

"throw in a few perfunctory references"?

I don't believe I've done either of these things, nor do I believe anyone reading through the PCS website would presume that I had.

The genesis of the PCS program, and the ideas underlying it, is 22 years in this movement, and 46 years of life experience, filtered through my intellect, knowledgebase, and value system.

Sincerely,

vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org

Posted: 18 Oct 2006 07:44 pm Post subject:

I don't think merely being a socialist makes a person an expert in tangential fields, but I have enjoyed reading philosophy since I was a kid. Ethics isn't my favorite area - I'm more interested in epistemology, the investigation into how consciousness can have knowledge, but ethics has more practical use.

I think socialism has capitalism beat in just about every theory of ethics. In the utilitarian theory of Bentham and Mill - the good is that which promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people - socialism wins. In Kantian ethics - the good tends to be the behavior that corresponds to the maxim "act as though your behavior were a universal rule" - socialism wins. Socialism even wins in Nietzsche's competitive "will to power" theory, because we know that the capitalists inherited power by dumb luck, and not, as they pretend, by personal attributes. And socialism wins in my own favorite, the psychological theory of ethics -- the theory that I use the words "right" and "wrong" to indicate something in my state of mind, that I strongly desire to live in one kind of world rather than in another.

I think there is only one theory of ethics in which capitalism may win - the theory that right and wrong are arbitrarily given - the theory that the rules don't have to seem to make any sense to us, that the rules are simply given, like the tablets of Moses. It takes that kind of superstitious theory to defend capitalism. The Libertarian Party is in this corner. As one LP member once made the claim to me: if you are starving to death, there is no moral wrong there so far, but if you then prevent yourself from starving to death by stealing an apple from a millionaire, now you have introduced a moral wrong. I like to call this abstract ethics, as opposed to concrete ethics. In other words, the defender of capitalism pulls the rules out of his butt, instead of identifying them inductively from the real world.

Posted: 18 Oct 2006 08:39 pm Post subject:

Posted: 19 Oct 2006 01:01 am Post subject:

I never did get the focus on afterlife, ANALOGY ALERT as if we're sitting at the supper table like we all did did when we were kids, and this magnificent meal that your mother had made for you wasn't even laid on the table yet and you're asking, what's for desert?

This is the day that the lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it! Psalm 118

I follow a pragmatic course because I know I am not moral and if I do anything ethical, it is purely by accident. I see that I am dependent upon society, but my analysis of society is that it cannot endure indefinitely and that the only way that I can make any sense of my life or maintain any semblance of order in it is to adhere to the idea that it is my job to work toward doing at least the smallest part in easing this society into its next formation. Otherwise I would be lost. I cannot explain it any better than that. You know, like Richard Dreyfus and his mound of mashed potatoes.

Posted: 19 Oct 2006 01:46 am Post subject:

Mike had written:

When we talk about whether there is value in teaching ethics, we had better be as specific as possible, refering to a very particular problem and a particular proposal. We can't argue about the value of "love." Without specification, no statement will be right or wrong.

dave wrote along those lines:

On top of that, what the three of us together know of the formal study of ethics would not fill half a thimble. Has anyone of us for example even taken a college course in formal ethics?

---

One might say that the socialist movement would benefit by some of us having some training in formal ethics, then with some knowledge of the subject, a certain specific idea to advocate might come up - but to simply pick up on the Beetles line and throw in a few perfunctory references to Jesus, MLK and Gandhi - that's not worthy of any kind of respect, and it doesn't show any respect for the topic or the intended audience as well.

Vince quoted me and wrote:

As stated clearly right on the home page of the PCS site, I have a BA in philosophy.

Dave, you recently asserted that you had, indeed, read through the PCS site. Perhaps you missed that part.

I don't believe I've done either of these things, nor do I believe anyone reading through the PCS website would presume that I had.

The genesis of the PCS program, and the ideas underlying it, is 22 years in this movement, and 46 years of life experience, filtered through my intellect, knowledgebase, and value system.

dave responds:

If I had read that anyone had obtained a B.A. in Philosphy I definitly would have purposefully ignored that fact. So did you take a course in formal ethics, I have no idea, becuase when I asked for specifics you did not provide an answer:

dave wrote:

Whose current ethics do you question the current validity or sufficiency of? Please tell me who and what otherwise it seems that you are just spouting out college educated sounding words with no meaning.

dave continues:

And as to the genesis of the PSC program, so what? I've been at this now for 36 years and if socialism doesn't come and I'm still breathing I'll be at itr for another 36 years. And hard to believe I have some degree of intellect, a knowledge base, and value system that have served me relatively well. And guess what so does practically every one of our fellow human beings.

Vince wrote:

I don't believe I've done either of these things (copped a Beetles line and gave a few perfunctory refernces to Jesus, gandi and MLK) nor do I believe anyone reading through the PCS website would presume that I had.

dave answers:

Well I read the site Vince, and that's what I got out of it.

So let's get back to the question: Whose current ethics do you question the current validity or sufficiency of? And specifically what application of "love ethic" should the SIU program be supplemented with?

dave

Posted: 19 Oct 2006 08:20 am Post subject:

Dave escribió, "I follow a pragmatic course because I know I am not moral and if I do anything ethical, it is purely by accident."

That's an illusion. The moral compass is always there. If you saw $5 on the ground you'd pick it up, so that means you'd like to find $5. However, review the fact that you don't assault someone to see if you can "find" that $5 somewhere on them. That can only be explained by the presence of morals.

It's not pragmatic. If someone were to say that the choice whether to assault someone for $5 depends on whether there's a cop in sight, or whether there's a security camera on the ceiling, or the consideration of whether that other person might be concealing a weapon or have the superior fighting skill, that would be pragmatic.

But when you find yourself realizing, "If i did it here and now, there would be almost no chance of getting caught, but I still would never do it", this is what it means to have a moral compass.

Maybe you have had an idiosyncratic definition of the word "moral", in place of the meaning that others give to it. Maybe part of the reason you jump all over Vince is that you have a nonstandard understanding of some of the terminology that you encountered.

Try using the word "moral" as I used it above ... now, review the history of the socialist movement in the U.S., with one of it's major activities being members fighting with each other. Socialists will fight with one another even if that means that won't have time for anything else. Sorry, there's no time to educate the working class today, because we're going to be too busy fighting with one another. The movement would have benefitted by a strong sense of morality. Look at the history of racism in the labor unions and in the Hillquit-Berger Socialist Party. Don't you think that a big dose of mushy LOVE would have been a benefit?

Posted: 20 Oct 2006 10:43 am Post subject:

I think that we are all pragmatists in these regards.

My need for a single fin is extremely low compared to the numerous negative consequences associated with lifting it, whether or nor a police officer is present.

May I suggest that those who may be so inclined to lift a fin do not suffer from impaired morals but instead either have a very high need for the immediate fin or an impaired abilty to compare his or her actual need to the negative consequences.

"The movement would have benefitted by a strong sense of morality. Look at the history of racism in the labor unions and in the Hillquit-Berger Socialist Party. Don't you think that a big dose of mushy LOVE would have been a benefit?"

What? These people were just wild with it!

I am filled with such unconditional love for my fellow humans that I feel I must not deprive them of my unwaivering opinions.

dave searles

Posted: 20 Oct 2006 04:59 pm Post subject:

Posted: 20 Oct 2006 07:44 pm Post subject:

I don't know that any of them did.

And white supremacism is easy to resolve with agape, that white supremacism actually benefited the lesser races.

One of my grandfathers was a bigoted as they come, but he truly loved his fellow man, only in the right order.

There is absolutely no absolute when it comes to morality. Our predecessors were wonderful people but in their own time, just as future mankind will one day look upon us with disgust over the rampant destruction of the environment.

At one point just about all socialists were racist toward to "colored" races. We have improved on this particular topic. What specifically do you think that we need to work on, and don't say that we need to be more moral or less narcissistic, they mean nothing.

Posted: 20 Oct 2006 09:45 pm Post subject:

You're really talking about the fact that some mental or emotional state isn't sufficient, that we all know people who talk about brothererly love and simultaneously support oppression. But you shouldn't let that cause you to read an either/or tendency into Vince's web site that isn't really in there. Vince didn't say that certain sentiments are sufficient. He agrees with you and me that the working class needs a revolutionary and effective kind of organization. That principle doesn't fall away just because a person suggests that we also need some more things.

Posted: 21 Oct 2006 11:43 am Post subject:

No, I see it more than a suggestion. Isn't "love ethic" expressed as an imperative?

Moreover, the posited need for love ethic, that it is required to achieve the "Blancian" From each according to his abilities .....

As if that is THE "principle" that we all strive for, and that this ethic of brotherly love must be taught so that this "idyllic" millennium may be achieved.

No thank you.

This is a slavish focus with the expressed possibility of a socialist world given by Blanc also in the Bible, or as one participant of another list described the "free access" idea, as a "free for all".

I think that Vince sees the people of current society as so bereft of the required concern for their fellow humans that it makes any cooperative activity impossible.

When we drive our cars down a two lane highway with another car coming at us at a combined speed of over 100 mph (about 150 ft per second) with the only thing separating being a pair of faint yellow lines painted on the surface of the road - don't we have the requisite "ethical" foundations that already allow us to recognize the benefit cooperative behaviour?

Again, if there is something specific, such as people who drive cars ought to take a three hour class every year stressing the importance of not engaging in distracting activities while driving - I would be all for it. Each point of course would have to stand upon its own. But I would see any generalized approach as at best condecending to the masses (myself included).

dave searles

Posted: 22 Oct 2006 10:50 am Post subject:

Well, I don't believe in the goal "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." And neither did Marx -- that's why he quoted the phrase in the context of saying that a future generation can bring up that idea when automation reaches the point that products flow out by themselves like water from a stream. Marx's context is clearly one of brushing the idea aside.

In case a newcomer reads this, note: the slogan about "From each ... to each ..." means a system with -- the "from each" part -- people volunteering to work without getting paid, because they realize the work is needed, and -- the "to each" part -- people taking anything they want from the store without having to pay for it.

I think "From each ... to each ..." is a disasterous formula which would have consumption approaching infinity at the same time that productivity approaches zero -- a system that would break as soon as the inventory is depleted -- no, sooner -- it would break as soon as all the electric lights go out, five minutes after such a system is implemented. And, knowing that this is what would happen, the working class would never implement it in the first place, so the slogan is harmful in that it perpetuates the stereotype that "socialism is a beautiful dream that could never work."

I don't know Vince's position on the idea because I did read his web site but it was about two years ago.

Posted: 22 Oct 2006 10:50 am Post subject:

Cooperative practices are certainly possible because they can be selected formally, written into the charters of things -- assuming that the whole structure of society is reorganized. Under capitalism, however, anything cooperative activity seems to collapse. Even under capitalism, at least in theory, five million people could each contribute twenty dollars, pool the funds, and start a nonprofit oil company, sell gasoline for 25 cents per gallon, and put Exxon out of business. Once that makes Exxon's stock price collapse to a fraction of a penny on the dollar, this group could buy that one up too. Why hasn't anyone done it? Probably because it would require people to concentrate on cooperating for more than a couple days. Capitalism makes people have a short attention span for cooperating.

Posted: 22 Oct 2006 11:09 am Post subject:

Posted: 22 Oct 2006 08:31 pm Post subject:

Mike quoted dave:

I think that Vince sees the people of current society as so bereft of the required concern for their fellow humans that it makes any cooperative activity impossible.

And then Mike stated:

It would be more fair if that kind of point were in the form of a question, and Vince can answer it and speak for himself.

dave responds:

I have a course interpersonal style so I would have a hard time seeing that, but let's say that you are correct Mike: O.K. Vince. I am sorry for the inference if it did not apply, but do you see the people of current society as so bereft of the required concern for their fellow humans that it makes any cooperative activity impossible.

Mike quoted dave:

When we drive our cars down a two lane highway with another car coming at us at a combined speed of over 100 mph (about 150 ft per second) with the only thing separating being a pair of faint yellow lines painted on the surface of the road - don't we have the requisite "ethical" foundations that already allow us to recognize the benefit cooperative behaviour?

And Mike commented:

That example, the lines on the road, doesn't have the feature of operating against a behavioral impulse. The myopic "me, here, now" impulse, the human inability to defer gratification, doesn't feel it as a sacrifice to stay on one side of the road. But if people could get a dollar somehow for slaloming around the yellow line, they'd be crashing into each other constantly.

Under capitalism, cheating in economic matters is rewarded. Misleading advertising, misleading product labelling, toxic waste dumping, bribing a politician -- just about anything we can think of -- if it's a form of cheating, then it boost profits. The principle that crime pays is built into capitalism. Even folk lingo recognizes this, for example, the use of "used car salesman" as the archetype for dishonesty.

dave comments:

Let me pull it apart a bit.

"The myopic "me, here, now" impulse, the human inability to defer gratification ..."

... if people could get a dollar somehow for slaloming around the yellow line, they'd be crashing into each other constantly"

The second point has truth to it, but whether it persuasive to point is another question. One of the pizza company had a monetary bonus and demerit system as to how fast drivers could get pizza delivered. It resulted in a lot of blood. But for the most part in the US of A we drive a hell of a lot of miles for the number of casualties that we do have on the road. Of course it could be way better. OK then this is a specific area. Assume that we have the revolution and there is a general feeling that something ought to be done about poor driving habits. Up a hand goes, "we ought to have a 3 hour class once a year going over the ethics of driving." Now that is something that could be discussed. And the specifics of such a program could be worked out in such a way that people's behaviors are actually changed. This way ethics and morality isn't being used as a be all and end all, and we don't get a preacher class developing and behind the scenes struggles to see who can out do who in the ethics department.

" "The myopic "me, here, now" impulse, the human inability to defer gratification ..."

dave writes: Where do you get such stuff? I see humanity and I just don't see what you are writing about. Maybe I've just got that Louie Armstrong song in my head too much.

If there is one instance of a human being deferring gratification then it is not a human inability. And if there isn't, then all of the ethics in the world is not going to change it. It's funny, that me now here idea is what people use to meditate with. OMMMMMM

I'm floating away.

"Even folk lingo recognizes this, for example, the use of "used car salesman" as the archetype for dishonesty. "

When the car does break down it is certainly convenient to blame the used car salesperson as if he or she know that the car had the problem. It can happen, but it also can happen that the person who sold the car to the car lot didn't fully disclose either.

dave

[/quote]

Posted: 22 Oct 2006 09:05 pm Post subject:

But I wanted to comment again on Vince's website. It gives the impression that the vauge concept of "From each according to their ability to each according to their need, is somehow universally accept or agreed upon as that is what socilaism must be, or must be right away.

I have a sick lawyerite mind so I read things as a legal document would be. The aphorism has the implication that if everyone produces according to their ability that all needs will be met. Well this can go way off in two ways. First, no matter where we are technologically, there will always be unmet needs. A heartbreaking example is our ability to keep people alive who a decade ago would have died, this plays itself out in geriatric situations, accident situations and in neo-natal care. We will always be at the point that people will die or live in a vegatative state becuase more couild have been done becuase science and technology hasn't progressed fast enough.

And who determines need? Each? Ethics can help analyize problems but it don't provide solutions, it an only help expose the trade offs.

and then on the other hand - there are some things that can be produced way more than people can use them. Does everyone ahve to work at peak productive capacity?

So from each to each when you look at the words is illogical as a concrete goal.

I do not think that the idea of socialism is done justice when it is pushed as if it is something that of course everyione knows what it is and everyone agrees with it.

"A republic if we can keep it" said Franklin. Not the idllyic but a real democracy of sweaty, foul mouthed, beer breathed, fornicating, louts. How dare they be considered as anything less than the personification en mass of the entire congregation of heaven.

dave

Posted: 23 Oct 2006 04:49 am Post subject:

To Vince:

Did you really use the word idyllic? If so, what was the intended meaning?

How would you answer my assertion that cooperative and compassionate behavior arises easily -- when it's written into the structure of social institutions -- but not when retention of the idea is relied on?

To Dave:

He hated being called Louie Armstrong. He always pronounced his own name as Louis with the "s" ... "So I said to myself, ', Louis...." ... hoping that others would take the hint, and yet everyone called him Louie.

Posted: 23 Oct 2006 05:24 pm Post subject:

I read back a few post and I see that my take on the from each to each was about the same as Mike's although i hadn't read his post when I wrote mine. Great minds think alike and sometimes not at all.

I did not know that he preferred Louis with an s. I do not appreciate how he is considered primo de lux in 20th century music but I certainly could never doubt it.

Mike wrote

Everything about behavior is a bell curve. Typically we don't x, but some people x. Mean and standard deviation. Capitalism moves the peak so far into the sociopathic range that any decent behavior appears as the three-sigma.

dave comments:

No for each of those sigmas. I simply do not buy it. The kindness of strangers. I know Tennessee Williams was probably referring to something else but cooperative behavior none-the-less abounds. Of course capitalism makes a sham out of it. So what, it exists. How many people do not give money to charity?? Of course, more could and should but it is still a well entrenched practice even encouraged by the US tax code.

Mike wrote to Vince:

Did you really use the word idyllic? If so, what was the intended meaning?

Vince's leaflet asked:

"Will a change in ownership and production for use alone give us the idyllic socialist society we seek? "

Mike wrote to Vince:

How would you answer my assertion that cooperative and compassionate behavior arises easily -- when it's written into the structure of social institutions -- but not when retention of the idea is relied on?

dave answers:

Cooperatin and compassion are merely tools that do not have to be used all of the time. Behaviours are behaviours, individual and group. That is what should be looked at, not whether a certain behaviour is necessarily cooperative or comes from a feeling of compassion.

Posted: 23 Oct 2006 06:14 pm Post subject: Socialist Education

Greetings,

I'm not ignoring recent discussion or questions, but since the conference is fast approaching my time is constrained.

What I can say for now is this:

- Some of the discussion, debate, and questions here are already answered at the site. Mike, the site has expanded greatly over the past two years. You might want to read through, again.

- The Cooperative program and the principles therein, is no different than any other idea: it must continually justify its own existence. I actually very much want to better flesh out in my own mind some of the issues and questions broached here, especially, for example, this question of labor vouchers vs. free access. I've actually been thinking for some time of having a chat one evening in the PCS chat room, focusing on this question. Mike, if willing, you would be one of the principal chat presenters.

(Indeed, I have changed the PCS set of core principles to reflect the fact that in the revolutionary transition we may decide on vouchers and not free access. This issue is no longer central to PCS membership.)

- The larger point, however, is that there is a real dearth of knowledgeable socialists with whom one can converse in real-time, to really facilitate understanding and insight into these many critical issues.

• PARAGRAPH HERE DELETED BY SITE ADMINISTRATOR. PLEASE DON'T USE THE FORUM TO DISPARAGE THE ACTIONS OF OTHER FORUM MEMBERS. PLEASE USE PRIVATE EMAIL.

The NUP is gone; the SLP is inactive in this area. I publicized the first meeting of PCS last year, and few people attended. Now we have a conference in MA, and I don't see a group of DeLeonists beating a path to the door to attend.

Who does one confer with, then, to dialogue and to learn? This forum is a great resource, but tapping out questions on a computer keyboard is, for me, an arduous process that is anything but dynamic and is generally inferior in many ways to live conversation and dialogue.

Years ago the SLP and related groups such as the I.U.P. had a presence in the New York/New Jersey area and meetings--real live meetings--were frequent. We no longer have this, unfortunately, and as hard as people may want to argue that online activity can supplant live activity, I consider it prima facie that it cannot.

My knowledge level is reasonable, but by no means comprehensive. I need and want further education in these matters.

What I'm obviously saying is, there is no substantive DeLeonist organizational presence here in the tri-state area (aside from PCS), and this makes intellectual and theoretical development for people like me, difficult.

. . . . . . .

I'll respond to selected discussion and questions when I can, likely after the conference. I will probably not respond to items already clearly addressed at the site, unless they are approached or enquired about in a new way.

Cordially,

vince

Posted: 24 Oct 2006 01:14 am Post subject:

To me the subject of labor vouchers versus free access isn't about transition phase. I think free access is undesirable in the sense that I don't see anything attractive about such a system - it's basiclaly unjust, and I think it's not viable, in the sense that such a system would be inherently unstable and would probably collapse almost immediately.

As for "idyllic" -- from literature, this word conveys connotations about herding goats and other pre-industrial settings. To me it conjures images of the age of Pericles.

Posted: 25 Oct 2006 10:16 pm Post subject:

I would think that a (analogy alert) far piece down the road that eventually everything will have so little labor time embodied in them that people will do enough labor just out of boredom to accomplish everything that will be needed. But I think that's far enough into the future that it's not anything but a topic of idle speculation.

Posted: 25 Oct 2006 10:21 pm Post subject:

But plugging this back into the topic, improved design and technology will account for a great deal of labor saving. We are not going to have to have much of an improved ethics or morals system for people to want to design how things could be done easier than now.

Posted: 26 Oct 2006 08:42 am Post subject:

In order for technology to be labor saving, people must first insist that it have the purpose of labor saving. Many people today think the purpose of technology is to have a workweek as long as that of their great-grandparents but also to have more "things", like cable TV with 200 movie channels. It's rare to hear anyone except for socialists demand that technology should be used to give people more leisure time. When people grudgingly drag themselves out of bed at five o'clock in the morning to go to work, they fear that it would be considered irresponsible or immature of them if they were to be heard to complain publicly that the world doesn't have to be put together this way. My guess is that even the one act of abolishing the advertising "industry", which is pure waste and has no social usefulness, would probably knock about fifteen hours off of the length of the workweek. That's another fifteen hours per week for a parent to play with the baby, or any other form of interpersonal activity.

Posted: 26 Oct 2006 10:33 am Post subject:

Production for profit does imply that capitalists are going to need expanding markets and if a market does not sufficiently exist then they do what ever they can to convince people that they need something that they don't, and if the adults, they try to convince the kids.

But capitalists already in order to more intensely exploit labor are always on the lookout for ways to save the exspendature of labor if they can get a mavchine to do it with less labor. That is one of the internal contradictions of capitalism. Fewer and fewer workers fill up the markets with commodities faster and faster.

Posted: 27 Oct 2006 09:30 am Post subject:

Vince - when you want to steer this topic back specifically to a discussion of PCS, just tell me to move all of this digression to a new topic. I easily push button.

--

My main gripe is that capitalism is a waste of capacity.

I have often seen this quoted online: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the houses of its children." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

What Ike was talking about was that, at each moment, industry has some finite output capacity. Now, how do we want to use that capacity? Everything unnecessary adds up to more uncompensated labor. Want a system with competitive speculation, a system with competitive marketing, a system with militarism? Okay, then, for each of these things add another hour or so to the length of the unpaid workday.

How can we be ethical in the way we live with each other if we don't first have some respect for the way we consume lifetime? As Ben Franklin wrote: Time is the stuff that life is made of.

Posted: 27 Oct 2006 11:11 am Post subject:

I do not disagree with you but what is the connection?

Posted: 28 Oct 2006 03:19 am Post subject:

Posted: 21 Feb 2007 09:35 pm Post subject: OFFICIAL PCS DISCUSSION FORUM

Greetings, All,

I'm pleased to report that I've decided to implement a PCS Discussion Forum at the official PCS website, at http://www.Cooperative-Society.org.

The target date for the grand opening of the new Forum is April 23, 2007, the day of PCS's 2nd anniversary.

The PCS site, and its satellite at http://www.TouchingWisdom.net, undergoes fairly continual expansion, so for those who have not visited in some time, a new visit and fresh read is recommended.

Prepare to spend some time if you can, as the PCS website has grown large and is now rather expansive.

. . . . .

On an unrelated matter, I report that thus far two separate CP members have sought PCS membership. Both were declined, however, as membership in a vanguard organization, especially the CP, precludes PCS membership.

Such individuals may work with PCS, but under a sympathizer status only.

Details of this policy can be found in various areas at the site, especially on our Become a Member, and For Young People pages.

Thanks!

Cordially,

vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org

Posted: 21 Feb 2007 11:32 pm Post subject:

Vince wrote:

Posted: 22 Feb 2007 05:15 am Post subject:

John wrote:

I wonder if moral and ethics developed along side the material conditions?

dave writes:

Not to the extent that they would get in the way of profits.

Posted: 22 Feb 2007 01:04 pm Post subject:

Both of us wrote:

Posted: 21 Mar 2007 05:40 am Post subject: REVERSAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSITION

Greetings,

This posting originally announced the successor organization to People For a Cooperative Society, embodying a refinement and strong conceptual evolutionary step in the PCS program.

However, development of this new conceptual framework has proven complicated and time-consuming; thus, the new organization will remain in development.

PCS continues at present as the proud and sole organizational delivery vehicle for the message of a classless, moneyless, love-centered cooperative society, calling for both economic and personal change.

I recommend and welcome a visit to the PCS website at any time.

Warmly,

vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org

Posted: 21 Mar 2007 12:35 pm Post subject:

Vince, regarding your website www.HumanFamily.cc I didn't see any emphasis that the workers have to take hold and operate the means of production - without that, istm, it's all fluff.

Also, you have a hard time shaking away from the Blanc (New Testament) description. You do know that not everyone agrees with the formulation "from each according to his abilities .... "?

And what is a family? Believe it or not there are people who are also turned off by this usage. My fellow workers are not my family, nor do I want to regard them as such and I do not want them to regard me as such. Except for the schmaltz value, why does it have to be family? Under Roman law if you were a slave you were a part of the master's "familia." And let us not even go into the fact that simply being in a "family" is not guarantee that you will not be sexually battered, robbed or even murdered by another family member.

the lyrics of the ira glazier song:
++++++++
© 1948, Songs Music, Inc., Scarborough, N.Y.
Because all men are brothers, wherever men may be,
The world shall be one union forever proud and free.
No tyrant shall defeat us, no nation strike us down,
All men who toil shall greet us, the whole wide world around.
My brothers are all others, forever hand in hand,
Where chimes the bell of freedom, there is my native land.
My brothers' fears are my fears, yellow, white or brown.
My brothers tears are my tears, the whole wide world around.

Let every voice be thunder, let every heart be strong
Until all tyrants perish our work will not be done.
Let every pain be token, the lost years shall be found.
Let slavery's chains be broken, the whole wide world around.
++++++++
have even been adopted into Lutheran and Unitarian hymnals.

so what? without the key that it is the workers who have to take hold and operate the industries for themselves, it ain't nothing.

Also, Erich Fromm died 27 years ago, is his death still being grieved?

???????????
Our social analysis and Human Family program for social change are partially rooted in the thought of social psychologist Erich Fromm (1900-1980). We note with respect and grief, as of 2005, the 25th anniversary of the passing of Dr. Fromm.
???????????

And what in heck does this have to do with anything?

?????????????
Interestingly, PCS, the predecessor entity to HF, was founded on April 23 -- and Dr. Fromm was born on March 23!
?????????????

And tell me what new thing did he bring to the table, except to show that at least some psychologists were familiar with the materialist conception of history? Even assuming that Fromm was one of the first psychologists to recognize this, why is this any more important than the first plumber or the first butcher recognizing the same Marxian idea? And I don't anywhere recall having read that Fromm ever called for the workers to take hold and operate the means of production.

For some strange reason I always hold that as being the standard, or that it ought to be held as the standard., that those who can't come right out and say that in plain old 2x4 language are not to be admired or emulated.

Fromm recognized that "family" is a relative term - that one of the functions of family under capitalism is to transfer to the child notions of the propriety of capitalist rule:

...family is the medium through which the society or the social class stamps its specific structure on the child....

The family is the essential medium through which the economic situation exerts its formative influence on the individuals psyche.

(see http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell9.htm )

So if it is a relative term (under capitalism it supports capitalism, under fascism it supports fascism) how is it looked to be inherently a beneficial thing that we should all look upon one another as members of the same family.

I came from a mildly abusive family (I know that I have written about this before) I literally hated my father and hated the family structure, and have avoided it in much of my life. I am not looking for sympathy, but that is reality for a lot of people. You cannot schmaltz over it. I do not want to be your brother. I do not want to be Mike's brother. I do not want to be John's brother. I do not want to be questing's brother. If you want to advocate that the workers take hold and and operate the means of production I'm with you, BUT I DO NOT WANT TO PLAY HOUSE.

dave searles

Posted: 27 Mar 2007 07:13 am Post subject:

Posted: 27 Mar 2007 07:37 am Post subject:

As a science nerd myself, I like the way Vince mentions the asteroids to illustrate the need for global industrial planning. Shortly afterwards, mention of medical crises. Good approach. This fits well the present degree of working class education. There is probably a substantial overlap between the people who will be open to hearing about these issues and the people who will be open to hearing about socialism.

Vince also mentions the disturbance of the seasonal and day-night cycles as the moon's orbital radius further increases. I doubt that this example is helpful there. It won't even be a problem in 100,000 years, unlike the asteroids (comets too) which could kill this biosphere at any moment.

Posted: 27 Mar 2007 07:57 am Post subject:

Erich Fromm did a good thing. He was the first person ever to publish Marx's 'Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts' in the U.S. He did this in his 1961 book _Marx's Concept of Man", of which one-half was his own writing and one-half was Marx's E.P.M. I saw an edition of the Marxist journal _Science & Society_ which came out shortly after his book. Several contributors to S&S bashed Fromm pretty hard for leaving out the discussion of the class struggle. Maybe so, but it wasn't really the topic of the book, and it's not necessary for every presentation to cover everything. For what the book was intended to do, he did a fabulous job of it.

Fromm's 1955 book _The Sane Society_ is also very explicitly anti-capitalist. We SIU guys may tend to make the criticism that book doesn't offer a systematic goal or a program of transition, but, here too, there's no rule that every presentation should cover everything. It's sufficient that what he wrote is correct, although it would have been even better if what he wrote had also been complete.

Posted: 27 Mar 2007 10:29 am Post subject:

I am not saying that it had to, nor am I saying the Fromm did not do a good thing. But you have done a few good things, I think that I may have. But so what?

Posted: 28 Mar 2007 04:40 am Post subject:

I mean that Fromm's books, and the approach used in them, are instructive for the working class. Socialist organizations that sell literature should include such books.

Posted: 29 Mar 2007 11:51 am Post subject:

And since the name of the topic (which apparently vince named) has to do with the program and principles voiced at his website - I assume that he wanted and expected people here to pick it apart here. Admittedly I am biased because the concept gives me the creeps, but then again maybe it gives me the creeps for a reason.

dave

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 03:12 am Post subject: OHF & ERICH FROMM

Comrades,

Alright, at this point I'll step in.

>...I didn't see any emphasis that the workers have to take hold and operate the means of production...

This revolutionary requirement is both explicit and implicit throughout the entire OHF site (and the PCS site, before that), as well as in many of the postings I've created at this website, including and especially here, in the OHF Forum. For example, contained in my posting directly preceding Dave's posting where he makes the above observation, is stated:

"This new form of society and social organization, and its economy, would be controlled by all the people, together..."

(With all due respect, Dave, I tend not to readily respond to your observations and remarks, because they frequently indicate that you have not carefully, completely, or thoughtfully read my existing material, especially the material at the website. I write this without enmity, but simply as a factual matter.)

>…tell me what new thing did he bring to the table…

As newly-added to the OHF site:

“Part of the great contribution of Dr. Fromm was his understanding that meaningful social change requires a dual transition: toward a cooperative social system (i.e. democratic socialism), and an ethic of brotherly love.”

Moreover, I consider Fromm important as a theoretician standing squarely in, and advocating, libertarian socialism and its sector. God knows the vanguardist sector has their imposing panel of theorists (Lenin, Mao, et al).

>Fromm's 1955 book _The Sane Society_ is also very explicitly anti-capitalist. We SIU guys may tend to make the criticism that book doesn't offer a systematic goal or a program of transition...

In that work Dr. Fromm presents a system for democratic socialist social management consisting of Athenian-style local citizen bodies of about 500 people each, small enough to allow for meaningful acquaintance with local issues and intra-group discussion and debate. In the Internet age OHF calls for a broader paradigm, but Dr. Fromm's idea should be discussed, and could well be a part of the solution.

>...some elements of a socialist program are there. See his section entitled "Why?"

I would argue that, in fact, every element of a democratic socialist program is present in the One Human Family program for social change. I would further argue, in fact, that the OHF program comprises a more complete program for socialism than is usual, since it treats the “material” (i.e. ownership and production), and the other essential revolutionary component, the “ideal“ (i.e. ego and attitude).

Thus do I consider the OHF progam deeper and richer than the typical socialist program, at least in terms of the way these programs are usually presented. Hence, in part, the power of the OHF program relative to others, and even as a stand-alone program for social change. An unofficial tagline for the OHF program is: "Beyond Socialism."

>you have a hard time shaking away from the Blanc (New Testament) description. You do know that not everyone agrees with the formulation "from each according to his abilities .... "?

The site states explictly that if this paradigm of resource distribution proved infeasible, we would implement labor vouchers. You must read the site.

>And what is a family?

That's an excellent question. As you suggest, a family can be many things, but the conception of family manifest in OHF and its program is a unit of persons who, at the most fundamental:

1. Feel a connection with their other family members. This connection is usually, though not always, ground in a blood relationship.

2. Generally view, or are disposed to, other family members with love or a similar close and positive sentiment, different than the way non-family members are viewed. There is usually and generally a concern, whether active or passive, with the affairs and welfare of other family members. Family members are generally viewed in non-economic terms (at least in societies where the general distributed resource base is sufficient to allow for such a view).

3. It is the behavioral implications of these elements that are important. Family members will generally extend themselves to other family members, no matter the area of life, in ways they would not normally do for non-family members.

Writ large, why can't I care actively for my brother or sister in Senegal, or Taipei, or Milan, or Des Moines, or Tikrit, in a manner approximating my care for my brother or sister sleeping in the next room?

Answer: I can.

When the above three elements are present in sufficient measure, we speak positively and affirmatively of "family." OHF asserts that there in no reason this socio-conceptual overlay cannot be applied to our global population, i.e. our species, forming a key part of the socialist restructure of the human race.

Regards,

vince
ONE HUMAN FAMILY
www.HumanFamily.cc

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 09:03 am Post subject:

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 11:26 am Post subject:

Vince defined family.

Family are those one feels a "connection" with.

Family are those one will generally "extend" themselves to in ways they would not normally do for non-family members.

The definition is cylic then.

dave

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 12:11 pm Post subject:

Vince wrote:

“Part of the great contribution of Dr. Fromm was his understanding that meaningful social change requires a dual transition: toward a cooperative social system (i.e. democratic socialism), and an ethic of brotherly love.”

dave writes:

I always love it when one person will write about second as if they know what the second person understood. This you can never be shown to be wrong unless the second person is there to refute it.

I read a short description of Fromms last book:

********************
To Have or To Be (1976) was Erich Fromm's last major work. In it he argues that two ways of existence were competing for 'the spirit of mankind' - having and being. The having mode looks to things and material possessions and is based on aggression and greed. The being mode is rooted in love and is concerned with shared experience and productive activity. The dominance of the having mode (as he argued in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness) was bringing the world to the edge of disaster (ecological, social and psychological). Erich Fromm argued that only a fundamental change in human character 'from a preponderance of the having mode to a preponderance of the being mode of existence can save us from a psychological and economic catastrophe' and set out some ways forward.

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/fromm.htm
**************************

dave continues: If this is an accurate description Fromms thesis doesn't actually prove anything does it. If you start off the anlaysis that there is a division between the impulse to HAVE and the impulse to BE, then of course you can't have social progress without both going in the same direction.

It is meaningless.

dave

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 12:58 pm Post subject:

#############

I (dave s.) had written:

you have a hard time shaking away from the Blanc (New Testament) description. You do know that not everyone agrees with the formulation "from each according to his abilities .... "?

vince then responded:

"The site states explictly that if this paradigm of resource distribution proved infeasible, we would implement labor vouchers. You must read the site. "

dave reponds:

The site stated:

http://www.humanfamily.cc/

Organized as one human family, the proposed model for production, social relations, and life itself, would be based on the famed principle of Louis Blanc: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The program is partly predicated on the socio-existential assertion that all people are brothers and sisters in one human family, and should treat each other accordingly in all areas of human existence, including what we now understand as the "economic" sphere. The one human family program is one of "revolution," not reform.

dave s. continues:

If the site explicity, but somehwere else, talked about labor vouchers is beside the point. And if it did, you certainly point out where.

dave

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 01:02 pm Post subject:

So let me ask you Vince. Do the workers need to take hold and operate the means of production and operate them as they see fit??

Can you say yes to that without any qualifying bullshit??

dave

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 06:15 pm Post subject: STATING THE OBVIOUS

...Alright, if you insist...

>Do the workers need to take hold and operate the means of production and operate them as they see fit??

The PCS program encourages everyone in a given society to vote in the new system, not just workers. We advocate the democratic process in societies that admit of it, rather than a knee-jerk "take and hold." OHF strongly eschews violence.

Societies without democratic mechanisms will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. PCS eschews violence but recognizes that in some cases it might ultimately be necessary in some countries under the strangehold of an intractible ruling class.

And the entire point of social reconstruction is to operate industry the way society newly "sees fit," isn't it?

Forgive me, but honestly, your questions are too-often beyond stupid, and even more frequently antagonistic and needlessly contrarian.

As far as I'm concerned, Dave, you're either an FBI/right-wing disruptor—or a wonderful proxy.

In any case, continuing... From more of the already-existing material at the site:

*****************************************************

Q. How will the transition to a Cooperative Society actually occur?

A. Are you aware that Article V of the United States Constitution provides the means for a peaceful, legal change of government? In the United States, Article V would be the actual legal instrument by which we would effect the change to a Human Family society. The means might be different in other countries, but we would always seek the peaceful, democratic method.

The best way to embody the complete set of social changes in the United States would be in the form of a brand-new constitution; this document would retain, and build on, the strengths of our nation, while correcting the weaknesses we have been discussing.

Here is the specific 5-step process:

1. We will initiate a national (if not international) discussion of the idea of social reorganization predicated on PCS program and principles.

2. Eventually, if and when increasing numbers of people are persuaded in favor of this idea, we will naturally find an increasing number of people running for political office who advocate the idea. We will vote those people into office!

3. At this time, we can begin, or continue, writing a new United States (or global) constitution, to specify the structures and framework of the new society, and how everything would work.

This is where, for example, the new Cooperative Industrial Framework, the heart of the new cooperative economy, would be spelled out.

4. Once we have a sufficient number of advocates in office in our federal and state legislatures, the idea will transition to a legislative form; in other words, the United States Congress will effect the desired changes, in concert with state legislatures, in accord with the voting provisions of Article V. The new constitution would be completed by now, and it would be voted on. We presume this vote would result in its adoption.

5. We would then begin the exciting task of reorganizing our economy and institutions, in accord with the new founding document! Exciting!

Once the reorganization is complete, the human race will have achieved our crowning achievement as a species! We can begin to enjoy the benefits of a world as we've never seen before!

*****************************************************

That is how it would work in societies with democratic mechanisms.

Regarding labor vouchers, I have just added the following paragraph directly after the paragraph you quoted, above. The new paragraph links to the already-existing more full discussion of this topic.

"Please note that if the Blancian principle just mentioned proved infeasible, or initially infeasible, as a method of distribution and access to goods and services, there is an alternate, second-tier method available. However, the notion of human need, and a heightened sensitivity by all toward all regarding need, would remain the general foundational principal of the new society."

>...bullshit...

If my ideas and method of discourse and colloquy disturb and agitate you so much, as you have indicated, why don't you simply refrain from engaging me in discussion? Simply ignore me.

I think it's probably clear to the discerning intellect which remarks, by which forum members, tend to represent bullsh*t, and which don't.

vince, PCS

Posted: 30 Mar 2007 09:18 pm Post subject:

Vince wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++
Forgive me, but honestly, your questions are too-often beyond stupid, and even more frequently antagonistic and needlessly contrarian.

dave writes:

don't you just love it?

The rest of your remarks out of respects to our host I will politely ignor.

dave searles

Posted: 31 Mar 2007 05:09 am Post subject:

To "have" versus to "be" is directly from Marx journal from 1844. Just about the only Marx that Fromm ever talked about was the one year that Marx stayed in Paris and kept this journal.

Marx described capitalism:

"Self-denial, the denial of life and of all human needs, is its principal doctrine. The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre, go dancing, go drinking, think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save and the greater will become that treasure which neither moths nor maggots can consume -- your capital. The less you are, the less you give expression to your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life and the more you store up of your estranged life. Everything which the political economist takes from you in terms of life and humanity, he restores to you in the form of money and wealth, and everything which you are unable to do, your money can do for you: it can eat, drink, go dancing, go to the theatre, it can appropriate art, learning, historical curiosities, political power, it can travel, it is capable of doing all those thing for you; it can buy everything it is genuine wealth, genuine ability. But for all that, it only likes to create itself, to buy itself, for after all everything else is its servant. And when I have the master I have the servant, and I have no need of his servant. So all passions and all activity are lost in greed. The worker is only permitted to have enough for him to live, and he is only permitted to live in order to have."

Posted: 31 Mar 2007 05:59 am Post subject:

I have gone through phases when I doubted that "take and hold" was a reasonable expression. I don't know how many more times I may vascillate on this. For the past few years I have increasingly suspected that socialism must necessarily repress the deposed ruling class with physical force. I hope it won't be too violent;, which is to say: I hope that most of the deposed ruling class won't choose to bring such violence onto themselves. But a socialist revolution is quite literally a slave revolt, and just as the troops of Spartacus had to take up weapons against the troops of Crassus, a socialist revolution will do whatever it must, and it will be justified in doing it.

Posted: 31 Mar 2007 11:31 am Post subject:

In the same work by marx that you quoted Mike their is one directly on brotherhood of workers:
%%%%%%%%%%%%
When communist workmen gather together, their immediate aim is
instruction, propaganda, etc. But at the same time, they acquire a new
need -- the need for society -- and what appears as a means had become
an end. This practical development can be most strikingly observed in
the gatherings of French socialist workers. Smoking, eating, and
drinking, etc., are no longer means of creating links between people.
Company, association, conversation, which in turn has society as its
goal, is enough for them. The brotherhood of man is not a hollow
phrase, it is a reality, and the nobility of man shines forth upon us
from their work-worn figures.
http://marx.eserver.org/1844-ep.manuscripts/3rd.manuscript/3-div.labor.txt
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I did not see where Marx stated anything like that there needed to be a
"fundamental change in human character" to bring about socialism.

If he thought that wouldn't he have come right out and said it??

In the Communist Manifesto is there any such idea expressed? Anywhere else?

And to whose standards must the character of working people be raised? To vinces? To Fromms? To yours or to mine??

I say how dare anyone question the character of a single person who tries to put food on their table and a roof over their head.

Is there any evidence that Fromm ever addressed a single body of workers?

dave

(this is Saturday so I get to bill the F.B.I. at time and a half for this)

Posted: 31 Mar 2007 06:04 pm Post subject:

Vince, I am glad that you fixed that concerning the Balnc prescription. However, isn't the question of advocating labor vouchers or the blanc prescriotion realy a matter of tactics that should be hashed out instead of being detrmined out of the blue. It seems that way anyway. This is just me, but I think that probably the overwhelming majority of DeLenists agree that the labor voucher methed ought to be the advocated for system, and then to the extent that it is not necesary in practice that that system should be backed off of on a graduated basis. Doesn't that seem to be the approach with the least possibity of society going catastophically wrong in a hurry?

dave searles

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 12:41 am Post subject: MORE ON THE ACCESS ISSUE

Dave,

Alright, now that is a good question, posed intelligently and courteously.

(Almost makes me interested in conversing with you...hehheh...)

The answer is rooted, I think, in the fact that there are different ways to conceptualize this radical restructure of society we speak of:

- democratic socialism
- the family of man (/humankind)
- the brotherhood of man (/brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind)
- a cooperative society
- etc.

One of the reasons I will eventually discard the "Cooperative" model, ala' People For a Cooperative society, is that somehow mere cooperation seems lacking to me: it still admits of impersonality, or worse. I mean, hell, even enemies can "cooperate." Merely "cooperating" doesn't necessarily imply anything about the nature or character of the relationship between the cooperators.

Thus, I realized, as socialists if we advocate and project a society where there is actually a bond of love, brotherhood, or an even remotely similar value between people, we're going to have to do better than "cooperation" and "cooperating."

Thus is the genesis and raison d' etre for an organization articulating a program that calls explicitly for a value greater than "cooperation" between people in the new society. For an explicitly closer, rather than more distant, bond between people. The question then becomes which access paradigm best corresponds and is most congruent with this relationship or human relations model. Obviously, the "free access," or "sharing," model is--thus is that our distribution desideratum, and thus is that our starting point for access.

It's the access model that best conveys the fundamental character of the society PCS advocates. Only if this model proves infeasible, in practice or formulation, would we advocate use of LTVs.

Of course, this is all somewhat speculative and theoretical. As a practical matter, we will make preliminary decisions on this issue at the time the new constitution is being formulated. The founding document may, indeed, call for LTVs, or perhaps a combination of methods. But it's important to advocate for the ideal, to raise the general bar in what society shoots for.

vince, PCS

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 06:58 am Post subject:

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 07:26 am Post subject: Re: MORE ON THE ACCESS ISSUE

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 07:41 am Post subject: Re: MORE ON THE ACCESS ISSUE

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 11:44 am Post subject:

I (dave) had written:

I did not see where Marx stated anything like that there needed to be a "fundamental change in human character" to bring about socialism.

Mike replied:

The phrase "fundamental change in human character" is the choice of words made by the author of the article about Fromm at infed.org. There no need to be serious about third-party paraphrases of an author's views.

dave answers: that's why I prefaced the quotation with "anything like".

Now taking that into account is there anything at all on this??

dave

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 12:13 pm Post subject:

dave asked Vince:

This is just me, but I think that probably the overwhelming majority of DeLeonists agree that the labor voucher method ought to be the advocated for system, and then to the extent that it is not necessary in practice that that system should be backed off of on a graduated basis. Doesn't that seem to be the approach with the least possibility of society going catastrophically wrong in a hurry?

Vince answered:

Obviously, the "free access," or "sharing," model is--thus is that our distribution desideratum, and thus is that our starting point for access.

It's the access model that best conveys the fundamental character of the society OHF advocates. Only if this model proves infeasible, in practice or formulation, would we advocate use of LTVs.

dave replies:

I know that the idea of free access distribution method must at some level be appealing to you. For some products I would agree that right off there ought to be access to health care, and education and basic nutrition, clothing and shelter. It would be counter productive for society to not provide these things.

But do you think that the industrial workers would be obliged to build a Mercedes Benz for every person who wished to have one?

I don't care how close of a human bond was between me and the person wanting that car (even if it was my own mother, as the saying goes) I would not build it, nor would I countenance a system that allows resources to be squandered in the vein attempt to fulfill such "need".

At some point society is going t have to determine at what point need ends and at what point personal gratification begins.

The labor voucher system allows each person to make that choice for him or herself. If that person contributes the additional labor needed to replenish the resources utilized in building that car, that seems infinity preferable system to make the determination. (I imagine even then the workers still could have a veto over it - hell no - we don't care how many hours you work, it will require too much energy to build, e.g.

(analogy alert)
What we are looking for is the next step. You are looking at the step beyond. That's nice when you are walking on a predictable surface to think about the steps beyond the next one. That seems not to be prudent when the next step includes the elimination of class rule.

(working at double time)
dave

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 07:02 pm Post subject:

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 09:37 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:
*************
And it's interesting that his suggestion for labor vouchers appears in the immediately following sentences, separated from the above comment only by a paragraph indentation.

I offer that for whatever it might be worth, although I'm the one who keeps crowing that this pamphlet isn't "an official release" of Marxism, because it was a private correspondence, not intended for publication, and in fact it was merely a written form of brainstorming session.
***********

I didn't read that part, I'll go back to it. But Marx in Capital (which I assume is an official release:) did speak favorability, it seems of a system of labor shares. I'll come up with a cite. I know I have cited before.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: PRACTICING ACTIVE LOVE

Posted: 02 Apr 2007 04:45 am Post subject:

Vince - Setting such priorities seems like a choice. A person might promote the idea of a new administrative system for industry, or a person might go to Asia to help the orphans, or both. These seem independent to me, orthogonal activities. When a person helps the orphans, the person isn't doing it in the capacity of a socialist, but as a person who happens to be a socialist. A Kennedy liberal or Jimmy Carter liberal can also promote compassionate works, but there are some things that only a socialist does. Does the mixture of compassionate work and socialist work on the same web site clarify matters for the reader, or confuse the reader?

Posted: 02 Apr 2007 05:52 am Post subject:

I've had phases in my life during which I could have been more open-minded about love for people outside of my intimate circle. At this point in my life, being imbued mainly with two emotional states, these being anger and depression, I don't have much capacity for loving strangers. I can't evaluate your principles very well while I know what conditions within myself are keeping me from being open-minded about those principles.

Posted: 02 Apr 2007 09:51 am Post subject:

Vince writes:

The first step is the active caring; the basic orientation of love. If that exists, steps can be taken to manifest that posture in the world in action and behavior. I write steps can be taken--whether they will or not depends in part on the character of the existing society. If people possess reasonable personal resources they'll be able to act on their caring impulse.

dave writes:

It's all about comfortable words
which translate into nada, nada, nada.

Why isn't there socialism, becuase people do not actively care enough?

People do care deeply.

Especially in this country people do care deeply.

The level of philantropic giving in this country, even by people who defintely cannot afford it is simply phenomonal.

But that don't pay the rent, does it?

This is all the more suspicious, at least to me, when you cannot come right uot and say that the workers need to take hold and operate the means of production without hiding your light under a bushel. This is what you say:

"This new form of society and social organization, and its economy, would be controlled by all the people, together..."

Yeah right, let's not commit ourselves here.

Don't the proponents of capitalism say the same damned thing about the capitalist system?

Shilly shallying, merely dabbling with revolutionary sounding concepts, does not show love (respect) for the workers, imho.

dave

Posted: 04 May 2007 06:34 am Post subject: NEW PROGRAM SUSPENDED

Greetings,

This posting originally announced the initial theoretical formulation of a successor program to that of PCS. However, that project has been suspended pending further program development. Thus, PCS remains in existence.

Thanks much for your input.

vince, PCS

Posted: 04 May 2007 08:32 am Post subject:

Posted: 04 May 2007 08:47 am Post subject:

"The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." -- Marx, preface to 'Critique of Politicl Economy'

I think that Marx asserted there that a new economic system has to come first, presumably with a prerequisite of some minimum of change in our thinking, and then our thinking will likely change in a major way afterwards. If you disagree with the assertion, it might be a good idea to tackle it directly. Come right out and tell your readers that you don't agree with it, and explain why.

Posted: 04 May 2007 07:21 pm Post subject: Speciel

Hello,

No misspelling, but an apparent coinage of mine.

From the coinages page at my site:

"speciel adj. pertaining to the species of any creature that is usually or generally categorized or grouped into or by species. Published 05-04-07, here.

Submission added under my name to Merriam-Webster's Open Dictionary on 05-04-07."

vince

Posted: 04 May 2007 09:07 pm Post subject:

Vince, sorry to say that speciel is a misspelling of the word special.

Perhaps you are the first in this century to use special with this meaning but the 1913 edition of Websters dictionary for "special" gave as the first sense of the word:

"Of or pertaining to a species; constituting a species or sort."

I'm no great bug on spelling but your spelling speciel seems just a bit out of whack with the rest of the language. "ial" is often used as a suffix to a form of a noun to make an adjective such as bestial, mercurial, ethereal, serial, material . I can't think of a single adjective with the suffix "iel" can you?

-ial
(Latin: a suffix that forms English adjectives from Latin adjectives ending with -is or-ius with meanings that include "pertaining to" or "relating to", or "characterized by")
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1024/?letter=I&spage=1

dave

Posted: 04 May 2007 10:12 pm Post subject:

For "species" in biology, I thought "specific" was the adjective. In the ivory-billed woodpecker, the red head and bone-colored beak are among the specific traits.

Posted: 05 May 2007 01:38 am Post subject:

or "special traits" of cats
www.britannica.com/eb/article-59419/domestic-cat

Posted: 05 May 2007 05:31 pm Post subject: Coinage - Speciel, Discussion

Hello,

Thanks for all the relevant and fascinating input.

However, consider the following sentence:

"Our new method of speciel organization would be structured and operated in a manner that finds its roots in, and acknowledges, the status and role of all people on this planet as brothers and sisters in the one human family."

Were I to substitute either special or specific, I daresay the intended meaning of "speciel organization," which is to say the way we organize our species, would be radically altered in terms of present-day language, even amongst reasonably educated people.

To wit: "special" already has a very defined and specific meaning in English, as does "specific," and neither of them suggest "species."

Whereas speciel seems to possess the virtue of suggesting its own meaning. Not a bad characteristic in a word. Indeed, I have found others on the Web using it, and in the same way I have defined it, perhaps supporting the notion that it does possess strength as a word and in its intended meaning, in that it suggests its own meaning.

Regarding consistency with the language, ala' Dave's point, I actually do value consistency very much, but allow for exceptions that seem especially helpful, relevant, or important. It has been said of English many times that it's something of a hodgepodge, and its grammar and other rules are not fully consistent.

In this particular case, then, I say, let's be consistent in our inconsistency, shall we?

(Lol)

vince

Posted: 05 May 2007 08:19 pm Post subject:

Oh, gee what fun!!

Posted: 06 May 2007 02:05 am Post subject: Re: Coinage - Speciel, Discussion

Posted: 06 May 2007 02:22 am Post subject: Re: Coinage - Speciel, Discussion

Posted: 06 May 2007 02:40 am Post subject:

Vince, I think an important and positive observation about your concept of love or agape is that it's the one trait I can think of that society can never misuse, and can never overdose on. It may not always sound revolutionary, but, then again, it's possible to be revolutionary at the wrong time or in the wrong place. It's possible to be too rebellious for some particular occasion. While being radical today is good, it's also possible in some circumstances to be inappropriately radical. Not so with love. Human society can't possibly have too much love. In a crisis, love can never hurt. Although I have previously described love as insufficient today for historical transformation, I also note that no social revolution will ever discover that too much love has been one of its problems. I wish that some of you philosophy had been "in" Lenin; then much suffering might have been prevented. And what if not? Then certainly it couldn't have done harm in any way. That's a good basis for a gamble: possible gain -- considerable, possible loss -- none.

(Sorry about likely invoking the memory of a mushy old Burt Bacharach song.)

Posted: 06 May 2007 02:50 am Post subject:

That term "cooperative society" -- we will surely hear the objections by those who claim that it's capitalism that's really the cooperative society. They will point to the worker and the capitalist being voluntary parties to an agreement, enacted only if it's inthe direction of mutual benefite. They will say that the worker is presented with the option of making the deal with the capitalist, not forced to do so, invited to do so if it would improve one's condition, and invited to walk away from the deal if it wouldn't. The critic will reply sarcastically, "Oh, it's so cruel of the capitalist -- to offer the worker one more option to choose from!" A socialist is just a big sourpuss, you know? :-)

Posted: 06 May 2007 02:48 pm Post subject:

Vince wrote:

"special" already has a very defined and specific meaning in English, as does "specific," and neither of them suggest "species."

Mike wrote:

Because of those connotations, a new term is needed.

Dave writes:

"Very defined"?? The first recognized sense of the word special is precisely that what you now claim to have invented in the word speciel. This is simply a gimmick used quite often in marketing as in flxible flier.

Yours for sociELism,

Dave Searles

Posted: 07 May 2007 01:14 am Post subject:

I think Vince is right there. Use the word "special" in the middle of a paragraph, and no one would think that the meaning you intend is "species-related." It's in the dictionary, but it's not how the public uses their language.

Posted: 07 May 2007 01:41 am Post subject:

With lover and cooperation on the agenda, I wonder how Vince would handle problem people in the socialist movement. I have been thinking of writing something about the disruption in the SLP that occurred around 1886-1901, led by Morris Hillquit. His faction was angry at the De Leon administration because De Leon urged support for the industrial union structured Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance instead of Samuel Gompers' craft union structured American Federation of Labor. The Hillquit faction claimed to be the real SLP, printed a counterfeit version of the party's newspaper, held a separate 1900 national convention, and applied to have a separate ste of "SLP" candidates on the ballot for the presidential election. The genuine SLP eventually regained control and expelled them all, but only after the SLP went to court and obtained an injunction prohibiting the Hillquit group from using the name of the party and its publications. Unfortunately, the whole thing made the SLP hypersensitive about disruption, real or imagined, and it spent the remainder of the 20th century with one of its principal activities being the behavioral control of its own members instead of exerting that energy to spread the socialist message. How would compassionate people use assertiveness when its necessary while avoiding it when it's unnecessary (and, as the alcoholic motto goes, God grant me "the wisdom to know the difference"!)

Posted: 07 May 2007 10:39 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Use the word "special" in the middle of a paragraph, and no one would think that the meaning you intend is "species-related."

Dave writes:

Swap speciel for special and that clarifies the whole thing, right?

In a case where the meaning of a word may be ambiguous per se experienced writers will give context clues or define the word right out. (In legal writing this is done all of the time.) "Some species related or special characteristics of dogs are:" or "The special (as in species related) characterististics ..." and then after that in the paper the word doesn't usually have to be clarified again.

But going back to the "family" or "brotherhood" stuff - It's a meaningless standard of conduct.

"To be or not to be..." what was Hamlet talking about?

dave

Posted: 07 May 2007 05:01 pm Post subject:

New word or old word, it remains unclear. "method of speciel organization" -- even if you can get the reader to notice that you have a glossary on the site and refer to it, then they come back knowing that it something of or pertaining to the species. Okay, a method of organization that is somehow related to the species. A writer has to assume the perspective of the reader. A writer of persuasive ("we need to change the world") material should never try to be clever and cute instead of plain and communicative. The reader likely says: isn't anything that people might do a thing of the species? Aren't the Republican and Democratic parties endeavors performed by and for the human species? Weren't Hitler's thugs a human species association? Or, do you mean to say worldwide or global? if so, why not say worldwide or global? Or, do you mean the fact that, as readers of Marx already know, human association isn't the same thing as poitical institutions or power institutions? Marx used terms like species-being (gattungswesen) and the social or community essence (gameinwesen) and the human essence or nature (menschliche wesen), but on an audience who already spoke the language of Hegelian philosophy. For us, here and now, we will need entire essays to explain to people what we mean by social or species-mode association which is distinct from hierarchical or state institutions. Even so, after I realize that "speciel" organization is something new, and not the class hierarchy or state, I still don't know what it is instead of that. In the era of the Broadway musical "Hair", people spoke of "tribal" activities in some sort of modern sense. The yippies spoke of "the woodstock nation." Did anyone have any idea what exactly, or even vaguely, we were supposed to be getting instead of class rule and its political state? No, because the users of those terms were trying to be clever instead of direct.

Posted: 08 May 2007 12:12 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

after I realize that "speciel" organization is something new, and not the class hierarchy or state, I still don't know what it is instead of that. In the era of the Broadway musical "Hair", people spoke of "tribal" activities in some sort of modern sense. The yippies spoke of "the woodstock nation." Did anyone have any idea what exactly, or even vaguely, we were supposed to be getting instead of class rule and its political state?

Mike also wrote:

I think that Marx asserted there that a new economic system has to come first, presumably with a prerequisite of some minimum of change in our thinking, and then our thinking will likely change in a major way afterwards. If you disagree with the assertion, it might be a good idea to tackle it directly. Come right out and tell your readers that you don't agree with it, and explain why.

dave writes:

I came across this in the intro to KARL MARX his life and environment" by Isaiah Berlin (Oxford University Press, New York).
*****************
All that is important during the actual (class) war is accurate
knowledge of one's own resources and of those of the
adversary, and knowledge of the previous history of
society, and the laws which govern it, is indispensable to
this end. Das Kapital is an attempt to provide such an
analysis. The almost complete absence from it of
explicit moral argument, of appeals to conscience or to
principle, and the equally striking absence of detailed
prediction of what will or should happen after the
victory, follow from the concentration of attention on
the practical problems of action. The conceptions of
natural rights, and of conscience, as belonging to every
man irrespective of his position in the class struggle, are
rejected as liberal illusions. Socialism does not appeal, it
demands; it speaks not of rights, but of the new form of
life before whose inexorable approach the old social
structure has visibly begun to disintegrate. Moral,
political, economic conceptions and ideals alter with
the social conditions from which they spring: to
regard any one of them as universal and immutable is
tantamount to believing that the order to which they
belong-in this case the bourgeois order-is eternal.
***************

Posted: 08 May 2007 04:40 pm Post subject:

Quoting Isaiah Berlin describing Marx:

"All that is important..."

Important, yes. "All" that is important -- no.

"... during the actual (class) war is accurate knowledge of one's own resources and of those of the adversary, and knowledge of the previous history of society, and the laws which govern it, is indispensable to this end. The almost complete absence from it of explicit moral argument, of appeals to conscience or to principle...."

In other words, Marx and Engels never escaped the influence of Hegel. That means, whatever you advocate, you don't admit that it's what you advocate. Instead, you say it's the way the universe is inevitably unfolding, and all you are is a scientific observer.

But, regardless of Marx's desire to speak directly for unfolding universe, the truth is that Marx was driven by a theory of right and wrong to advocate certain things and not others.

"... and the equally striking absence of detailed prediction of what will or should happen after the victory, follow from the concentration of attention on the practical problems of action."

We can see how well that policy turned out since the 1840s. Total organizational achievements to date: none.

"The conceptions of natural rights, and of conscience, as belonging to every man irrespective of his position in the class struggle, are
rejected as liberal illusions."

That's a funny way to spell 'Stalinist extermination camps in Siberia'.

"Socialism does not appeal, it demands; it speaks not of rights, but of the new form of life before whose inexorable approach the old social
structure has visibly begun to disintegrate."

Gibberish. If there are no "rights", then there is no reason to "demand." Why bother?

"Moral, political, economic conceptions and ideals alter with the social conditions from which they spring: to regard any one of them as universal and immutable is tantamount to believing that the order to which they
belong-in this case the bourgeois order-is eternal."

Everyone knows that moral _conceptions_ alter. Is there anyone who says that its the _conceptions_ are "universal and immutable"? The author has made a trivial point.

Then he adds to his error by saying the conceptions are those of "the bourgeois order." That's not true at all. Supposing that, not that I claimed that moral _conceptions_ are eternal, which no one at all has ever claimed, but that I said instead that certain moral principles themselves, whether or not they are realized by anyone in the form of _conceptions_, are eternal, which some people actually do say. Then it still doesn't follow that they are "bourgeois" principles. For all he knows, my views of right and wrong might have come directly from Plato or Zoroaster or any past source, not necessarily from "bourgeois" influence.

To bad I can't tell Professor Berlin about his mistakes because he's dead. Nuisance little details :-)

Posted: 08 May 2007 05:29 pm Post subject:

It was from the introduction, not the whole of it. I had to start the quote somewhere and end it somewhere, so you were not getting the whole of it. When I get a chance I'll go back and paste the whole into, becuase he was talking about a certain period that it didn't seem necessary that I go into at the time.

Mike wrote:

"But, regardless of Marx's desire to speak directly for unfolding universe, the truth is that Marx was driven by a theory of right and wrong to advocate certain things and not others."

dave asks:

theory of right and wrong? What is materially indicated was right and what is materially contradicted was wrong?

"... and the equally striking absence of detailed prediction of what will or should happen after the victory, follow from the concentration of attention on the practical problems of action."

Mike wrote:

We can see how well that policy turned out since the 1840s. Total organizational achievements to date: none.

dave writes:

And over 100 years of various parties giving out prescriptives often contradictory as to what the workers should and shouldn't do, and precisely how they are to organize prior to the revolution has worked??

maybe we ought to go back to simply providing education as to the condition of the working class vis a vis capitalism and leave it to workers to figure it out when the time comes. Our organizationsal goal perhaps ought to simply be more workers convinced of the idea that workers need to take over the means of production.

"The conceptions of natural rights, and of conscience, as belonging to every man irrespective of his position in the class struggle, are
rejected as liberal illusions."

Mike wrote:

That's a funny way to spell 'Stalinist extermination camps in Siberia'.

dave writies:

amoral ism no doubt is is unnerving, and in reaction we should pretend that there is such a thing as universal morality? Over half of deaths of children worldwide (15 million) is due to malnutrition. What is our response, more morality?

"Socialism does not appeal, it demands; it speaks not of rights, but of the new form of life before whose inexorable approach the old social
structure has visibly begun to disintegrate."

Mike wrote:

Gibberish. If there are no "rights", then there is no reason to "demand." Why bother?

dave writes:

not so. only a force.

An armed robber demands your money.

Capitalism demands surplus value.

Class conscious workers demand all that they produce including the industries in which that all is produced.

I guess you could think of demand in this context as a force. As appiled to the workers, that force will always be insufficient until enough in numbers apply the force.

Mike wrote:

Everyone knows that moral _conceptions_ alter. Is there anyone who says that its the _conceptions_ are "universal and immutable"? The author has made a trivial point.

dave writes:

As is demostrated by the very existence of this topic "PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY - Program & Principles" it seems that it can never be stated enough no matter how trival it may seem.

Mike wrote:

For all he knows, my views of right and wrong might have come directly from Plato or Zoroaster or any past source, not necessarily from "bourgeois" influence.

dave writes:

still seems like a bourgeios notion to me no matter what the ultimate source was or the path that it may take to get to a person.

Posted: 08 May 2007 06:45 pm Post subject:

Posted: 08 May 2007 06:52 pm Post subject:

Posted: 08 May 2007 11:30 pm Post subject:

Mike quoted dave:

Class conscious workers demand all that they produce including the industries in which that all is produced.

And Mike added:

Which they don't demand at all.

Dave answers, but we class conscious workers do demand that.

As I

It was Marx's (and it is my and your) wish that they soon will, because they should. So we appear to practice that same abstract moralizing that we have condemned in others.

Posted: 09 May 2007 12:01 am Post subject:

Mike quoted dave:

Class conscious workers demand all that they produce including the industries in which that all is produced.

And Mike added:

Which they don't demand at all.

Dave answers, but we class conscious workers do demand that. As I stated:

"As appiled to the workers, that force will always be insufficient until enough in numbers apply the force."

It was Marx's (and it is my and your) wish that they soon will, because they should. So we appear to practice that same abstract moralizing that we have condemned in others.

Perhaps we do get a bit whiney and start wishing about what THEY should do, but just how is that moralizing? "If the rest of the people in world wouldn't be so stupid and agree with me" is a statement advancing morality?

Mike quoted Marx in Capital:

"If money, According to Augier, 'comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,' capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." -- Marx, _Capital_, chapter 31

And Mike commented:

That clearly expresses moral indignation. It's not a "scientific" comment.

dave responds:

You are going to have to better than that, Marx was using a literary device.

How about Einstein's "God doesn't play dice ..." Was that a statement of religion?

Mike wrote:

"Would cure it" is science. "Should cure it" is morals.

dave writes:

Not in #2 below.

aux.v. Past tense of shall

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved May 08, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

dave

Posted: 09 May 2007 03:36 am Post subject:

I'm refering to a similarity of all advocacy itself. Advocacy of anything. People for a Cooperative Society and One Human Family express advocacy. "Workers of the world, unite!" is advocacy. "Thou shalt not kill" is advocacy. 'I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia...." is advocacy. These are all similar in that they consist of advising other people about what they ought to do. For Marx or anyone else to assert something like "When I do it, it's just common sense, but when you do it, it's moralistic platitude" is a kind of double standard. We all do it, so we have to tolerate everyone else doing it.

(Einstein's comment is different. That was about his belief that nature, being law-based, has pseudo-randomness but not randomness. It wasn't a "you ought to...." directed to God or anyone else.)

Science never arrives at an "ought". If Marxism were literally a science it couldn't recommend this and condemn that. It _uses_ the scientific method -- to the best of the practiitoner's ability. Then this use of the scientific method is mingled with the various "you ought to" values.

Again I return to the example of medical research. When medical research or medical practice are establishing purpose for themselves, which is the assumption that pain and injury are considered "bad", at that moment they are not being scientific. Only insofar as they are noting what does what, what causes what, but not imposing a "care" about it, in that they are being scientific. So, now, what of Marxian socialism? It's all about caring strongly about outcomes. It's in the same category as moral codes.

Posted: 09 May 2007 03:47 am Post subject:

We're running around in circles now so I'm going to quit this and go back to Isaiah Berlin and see if I can find anything else to piss you off.

dave

Posted: 09 May 2007 04:47 pm Post subject:

What we both seemed forget in the previous discussion is that as much as a scientist tries to preseve amorality in the search for truth - the scientist is a product of his or her own times including "moral" influences and reactions thereto.

Posted: 09 May 2007 07:13 pm Post subject:

Now I don't remember what topic we were talking about. I think we were talking about whether Vince's projects may be belittled because they are moralistic, making them meaningless. I was saying no, because anytime someone produces public advice it's moralistic. It's science to say that you would get killed if you fall into the volcano, but it's morality to say hey be careful that you don't fall into the volcano. It's science to say that surplus value is extracted from labor, but it's morality to say that people should get themselves motivated to change such a system.

In _The German Ideology_ Marx and Engels wrote: ""Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Marx and Engelss were fooling themselves. Their actual mission was advocacy -- the opposite of their first sentence. Their goal is exactly "a state of affairs which is to be established", or "an ideal". What they said -- except for the word "not" that they inserted in front of it.

-----

(Please start a new forum topic for posts that aren't about Vince's web site.)

Posted: 09 May 2007 09:57 pm Post subject:

And let you have the last word?

Posted: 03 Aug 2007 08:33 pm Post subject: REVIEW OF PCS PROGRAM & WEBSITE

Friends,

I am pleased to announce the first formal, 3rd-party published review of PCS, its program, and website. The review was unequivocally favorable!

The reviewer, Matthew Farhat, based his remarks on a partial examination of our extensive site content, and a live chat with me in the PCS chatroom.

Pending Mr. Farhat's permission, I will soon publish said chat.

The examination is presented in the form of an entry in Mr. Farhat's philosophy blog, and is entitled "Cooperative Society. The Moral Community."

Please note that the review does contain several misstatements of fact regarding the PCS analysis or program. All-in-all, however, we are indebted to the reviewer for his interest and publicity.

The review is located here:

http://360.yahoo.com/activeopenprogramming

Cordially,

vince de benedeto
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org

Posted: 04 Aug 2007 02:58 pm Post subject:

When does this supposed "morality" apply?

Is it "moral" for a landlord to have a working class family evicted if they can't pay the rent?

Does it make it any less or any more moral if the landlord ifs fully compassionate in his or her dealings with the tenant family?

And isn't it in the end, not an issue of personal morality but whether the society is suited to allow individuals access to the means of production and to be able to personally utilize the portion of that which is socially produced to apply it to his or her own family and to the good of the whole community?

I just don't get where any of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not I love or hate my neighbor or whether anyone loves or hates their neighbor - isn't there totally sufficient basis for a "moral" society simply on the basis of total individual non-moral selfishness as far as motivation goes upon which to provide motivation to build a perfectly acceptable co-operative society?

dave

Greetings,

Mike Lepore stated:

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 08:03 am Post subject:

I doubt that your correspondent correctly paraphrases the WSM position about this part:

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 01:11 pm Post subject:

Moreover - where do they come up with the notion that the materialist conception of history must be belived in in order for material conditions to operate on history? The materailst conception of history is a religion then according the the WSM.

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 04:39 pm Post subject: Two Kinds of Socialism

Greetings,

Mike wrote:

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 04:54 pm Post subject: Necessity of Love Ethic

Greetings,

John wrote:

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 07:22 pm Post subject:

Perhaps it would be easier to simply not advocate socialism at all since in agreeing to socialism or talking about socialism there is always a possibility that someone is talking about one thing and not another. To hell with it all.

I am not even advocating a "cooperative society" just a society where at least the means of production are democratically owned and controlled by the workers and natural resources are held in common under the control of democratically controlled government.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 12:38 am Post subject:

That's where I differ from Vince, and where I also differ from the WSM, the 19th century utopian socialists, and the 1960s hippie movement. I believe that the lesson is: if you try to change the world by persuading people to think better thoughts (love, peace, brotherhood) you tend to produce the kind of changes that get soon reversed and forgotten, about three years being a typical duration of any achievement. For long term success, the repository for the brotherhood has to be the formal structure of the democratic institutions, not the minds and habits of the human beings. Get all the brotherhood into the formality of the written constitution, and to hell with teaching people to feel it. If the people are going to feel it, that will occur later. Most people have to live by it before they begin to feel it. What I said has a name. It's called accepting the materialist conception of history rather than the idealist conception of history.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 01:50 am Post subject:

Many moons ago I readof a study that concluded just that regarding civil rights laws. That changing the law in fact result in changes to people's attitudes.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 04:09 am Post subject: Formal Mechanism to Promulgate Agape

Hello,

Mike wrote:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 08:25 am Post subject:

Vince, By "taught and reinforced" did you mean school curricula? I'm all in favor of planned studies in comparitive belief systems, alongside reading and arithmetic. If school goes further tells students which beliefs are the right ones (presumably, caring and sharing), I think it will backfire, as adolescents automatically say the opposite of thatever they have been taught. If it doesn't backfire, it could be that the "what to think" studies have zombiefied them, as in North Korea today.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 08:37 am Post subject:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 09:57 am Post subject:

Vince wrote:

I've asserted the necessity for agape in the new society, and stated that it must be taught and reinforced womb-to-tomb. Thus, there would be, and obviously would have to be, formal and official mechanisms for the inculcation and reinforcement of this behavioral principle (I would certainly have no problem with writing it into the new constitution). I've never said the relevant mechanism or methodology for promulgation or inculcation of agape would be "persuasion," as such, or simply getting people "to feel it." That would be ridiculous.

dave writes:

Suppose that one does not believe in the necessity of agape being taught and is opposed to it being taught, and makes him puke at the thought of a bunch of institutionalized moralizers officially having anything to do with him or his children? Is that person to be an outlaw?

And you are actually talking about a "love centered" society and not centered on the workers democratically owning and operating the means of production?

Agape is definitely not a behaviour. If you had given an (analogy alert) ounce of thought to this subject you would have known that.

Vince:

"a serious and considered political program by a dedicated revolutionary"

dave: In Vince world perhaps, but only there as demonstrated to me.

dave: an emotion "written into the constitution" and "taught and reinforced"!! 600 years of slowly emerging philosophy of religious toleration and respect for the individual down the fucking drain.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 05:17 pm Post subject:

It's not in a literal sense that certain feelings get written into the constitution, but's that's a short notation for what I mean to say. When the wirtten canon goes beyond the procedural (such as two senators per state) and gets into the issue of right (such as no unreasonable searches), some predominating feelings are being encoded there. The law becomes a fossilized record of someone felt when they wrote it. In this way, if "workers have the right democratically to control the means of production" were added, the urge to add that must be attained once, and afterwards it's a fossil of the urge. Afterwards, when people see how great it is (to have eocnomic democracy, or no unreasonable searches, or whatever), subsequent preservation of the good law may be based on reasoned recognition, not the initial impulse.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 05:35 pm Post subject:

Mike writes:

"gets into the issue of right (such as no unreasonable searches), some predominating feelings are being encoded there. "

dave writes:

What the fuck have you been smoking down in Standfordville Mr. Science?

Hell no. That's not a feeling but the implementation of a directive that says no unreasonable searches. Something like that is stated usually becuase of the experience that once unreasonable searches are allowed they will always be used to excess and make acceptance of legitimate authority wither. To me that's simply a reasoned measure of the people toward the acceptance and preservation of the republic.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 06:51 pm Post subject:

Such terms, "used to excess", "legitimate authority" ... all of these can have any meanings only in reference to human emotions. To change the meanings is to feel differently.

Likewise, labels for political systems. You said "acceptance and preservation of the republic." But Crassus called Rome a republic as he was crucifying 6,000 followers of Spartacus. Apparently he felt differently than we do about how to treat human beings, and therefore he internalized a different definition for "republic."

The prohibition of unreasonable searches isn't even a directive. "Fry one pound of bacala for 12 minutes with 3 tablespoons of capers" is a directive. It means nearly the same thing to everyone. But "excess", "legitimate", "unreasonable", "cruel and inhuman" mean something different to everyone who reads them. We can only _hope_ there's a repository for actual meaning in people's emotional states, because if it isn't there then it isn't anywhere at all.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 07:17 pm Post subject: The Right Way

Greetings,

Some of the above remarks and questions deserve a response, while other of them have been proffered and responded to by me, here, already, or are answered very readily, and often, at the PCS site.

The legitimate questions, above, require a bit of conversational fleshing out; more than this rigid form of communication or my increasingly tired fingers can handle. So I invite genuinely interested persons to email me for my phone number, and we'll discuss these vital topics the right way.

In the new society, the love ethic should be taught formally in school and reinforced everywhere. Call me for more.

Best,

vince

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 10:14 pm Post subject:

No thinks Vince. text suits me fine. I suspect the same for Mr. Lepore. But anyway Mike - My fingers don't even want to type this, but you are right but only to an extent.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
(you see it is a directive)

Why was this put in? Why was any of the items in the bill of rights put in? To fulfill a promise given during ratification of the main body of the constitution that there would be a bill of rights.

I know that there are different meaning ascribed to republic. But that is the stated reason , of course I can't come up with a quote off the top of my head but it was to insure acceptance of the republic. That was the term in use then.

Volumes have been written as to why the didn't go into more precise meaning. I have one on my nightstand. (The Rise of Modern Judicial Review by Christopher Wolfe) But no one that I have read ever suggested that the issue should be determined by emotion or feeling.

Most of it goes "what has been accepted" and are there any new ideas out there that require our old thinking to be changed..

It's funny how long it takes ideas to grow into rights. For example. There is nothing written in the constitution that says that you can represent yourself in court, but it has long been the holdings of courts that you can. Well, once that is in place, then other things follow along but slowly. If you have a right to represent yourself then you must have a right to access to law books if you are a prisoner, otherwise how could you exercise your right? A case that I have is where the judge made a ruling that would not be unfamiliar to any lawyer, it's based on Vermont practice rather than written down rule. Well a layman can't be responsible to know what is typical practice in Vermont - the rule can't apply unless the litigant has actual notice of it. Things like this.

Posted: 11 Oct 2007 05:42 am Post subject: Hello?

I notice that no one has posted in this forum for a week or so.

What's going on?

vince

Posted: 11 Oct 2007 12:33 pm Post subject:

gathering nuts for winter. Fuek oil is supposed to be about 30% higher than last year. We're digging out the foundation of the house to insulate the baseent walls from the outside,. Also going to add more insualtion to the attic. Great fun. I am going to see if we can cut oil consumptin by half from last year throgh weatherizatrion and insulation. I would go to wood or coal but indie they create too much dust. Makes everyone sick. Thos eoutside furnaceds look enticing but they make a lot of smoke, or themselves use too much electrity to run the draft induceers and pumps.

Looking at radient floor heat. It cuts way down on drafts so THEY SAY that you can keep your thromost 10 degrees lower with it. I'll believe it when I see it. But also with RFH you can do away with the regular boiler and hear the house with a regular hor water heater. We shall see. But that's where my head has been at in the last couple of weeks anyway.

Posted: 08 Dec 2007 12:53 am Post subject: Note to John

Hello, John,

Might you give me your current email address?

I attempted some months ago to send you a letter to try and reconcile a recent conflict we had, but apparently your jtrim@cecomet.net address is no longer valid.

If you please, post it here, or simply send me a piece of email at vince1 @ fastmail.us and I'll respond.

Peace,

vince