What may not change under socialism

Author

Message

Posted: 18 Jan 2007 09:51 pm Post subject: What May Not Change Under Socialism

I figure that there may be a lot of thing that would not change under socialism. I really believe that religion would continue. People would hunt with guns and/or trap wild game. A police force would be needed to protect citizens against those who would harm or threaten. A political government to make sure liberty and justice is ensured to all citizens which would co-exist with the Socialist Industrial form of government. Some form of property ownership so people can own there own dwellings. Perhaps there are many more things. Any thoughts to why or why not?

John Trimbath

mikelepore

Posted: 19 Jan 2007 08:54 am Post subject:

Much of it isn't yes/no, but that socialism can change things quantitatively. For example, a society that nurtures people and permits them to feel safe, instead of tossing each person into a predicament of sink-or-swim, will have less violence and therefore a smaller need for law enforcement.

Purely cultural issues, like whether most people of the future will be meat-eaters or vegetarians, no one can know. Unfortunately it's common for a person to give a personal opinion and then exaggerate about the certainty of it. Socialists and non-socialists share this fault.

I have grown very impatient of utopian socialists who say with a straight face that all greed and laziness will disappear. They're making several errors there. Since the critic of socialism offers a fuzzy presentation based on guesswork about human nature, the utopian socialist responds with a counterpointed fuzzy presentation based on guesswork about human nature. This is thought by the utopian to make up for the lack of specificity, e.g., the matter of whether socialism should have a written constitution, and, if so, what the speaker or writer believes it should say.

Religion and philosophy and art have always undergone changes with the passage of centuries. That doesn't mean we can foresee the changes. We can expect some sort of changes, and after these changes occur, people will look back and say, "Of course!" We can predict little or none of it. As Soren Kierkegaard wrote, "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

The Greenman

Posted: 20 Jan 2007 04:10 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Quote:

I will agree with you on this that when people feel secure and safe and not having to be competative to work then the need for law enforcement would be minimal. If socialism is done right (not how we may think it should be) then there should be a quanitative change which would improve the quality of life.

Quote:

Purely cultural issues, like whether most people of the future will be meat-eaters or vegetarians, no one can know. Unfortunately it's common for a person to give a personal opinion and then exaggerate about the certainty of it. Socialists and non-socialists share this fault.

I was writing in terms of today if socialism became a reality you would still have guns, bows and arrows, hunters and trappers. I would guess, not knowing for sure, that meat eating will be around for awhile. I even expect an increase in insect eating.

Quote:

I have grown very impatient of utopian socialists who say with a straight face that all greed and laziness will disappear. They're making several errors there. Since the critic of socialism offers a fuzzy presentation based on guesswork about human nature, the utopian socialist repsonds with a counterpointed fuzzy presentation based on guesswork about human nature. This is thought by the utopian to make up for the lack of specificity, e.g., the matter of whether socialism should have a written constitution, and, if so, what the speaker or writer believes it should say.

Well, I read that there is now a denile of human nature among some of the Left but I agree that after countless centuries there has been and, most likely, will be greedy and lazy people in the future. I have no clue where they get the idea that people will become volunteers when it comes to work. Work is not a hobby but art, bird watching, and music are to name a few. Religion goes beyond hobbies to correct what I wrote. Art and music can go beyond being a hobby when some people make their living from them.

Quote:

Religion and philosophy and art have always undergone changes with the passage of centuries. That doesn't mean we can foresee the changes. We can expect some sort of changes, and after these changes occur, people will look back and say, "Of course!" We can predict little or none of it. As Soren Kierkegaard wrote, "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

I do believe that both religion and philosophy have both been around for a very long long time. Neither will pass away but will progress. A few of my Wiccan friends have told me that their religion has progressed through the centuries despite all efforts to stamp out its very existance from both the Roman and Protestant churches. You would think the Left would at least come to accept people who are religious. We know what "freedom from religion means" and it pretty well conjours images of Stalin. The U.S has laws that protect people whose religion are different from others. I would expect this to continue under socialism. Now if the Left is so caring about workers and their plight from the capitalist then they would have to accept the workers for who they are rather than what political ideology they hold.

John T.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Jan 2007 12:08 am Post subject:

I'm not recommending that socialists be neutral about everything people occasionally do because of their religion. What I'm recommending is that religious and nonreligious people alike organize for socialism. There is a distinction. Various people who support socialism should collaborate on it; some are religious and some are not; leave it alone. But there are some activities of some religious people about which I would not be neutral, and I will call these religion not as religion but as politics. If they try to force my children to listen obediently while the school principal recites prayers over the loudspeaker, I will fight them on that. What I am neutral about is their religion as religion, that is, their belief in any or all of God, heaven, angels, sacraments, etc. When the are practicing religion as politics, for example, when millions of people were protesting because society's most catastrophic problem was that Janet Jackson's breast popped out for one-tenth of a second on TV, then I will denounce them as fanatics.

PowerKord

Posted: 21 Jan 2007 03:37 am Post subject: Greed and Laziness

Greetings,

For the record: PCS does not take an official position that all greed and laziness will disappear in a cooperative system.

We believe, as most socialists do, that we can engineer such behaviors out of the system to an appreciable, probably dramatic, degree.

Regards,

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

questing

Posted: 21 Jan 2007 06:03 pm Post subject:

I take the position that people have to agree on certain basic principles in order to have a socialist society. Too many confuse ignorance with freedom, that is why identity politics was able to take over and destroy the workers' movement.

As for religion, Marx and Engels both drew heavily upon it in an historical/scientific manner. Neither one were believers, and both essentially repudiated it, but they more or less commented on the PROGRESSIVE aspects of it. For example, religion was basically primitive mankind's attempt to explain the world. In that sense it was progressive, no matter how wrong factually.

It would appear that we are more or less back to the days of the International with all the conflicts and sectarianism in the "socialist movement." I see a new dark ages/feudalism which Engels said would happen if there was no socialism, which there is not.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Jan 2007 08:41 pm Post subject:

When I spoke of those who say that all greed and laziness will disappear, I was referring to certain people with whom I debated in the World Socialist Movement forum around the time period December 2004 to January 2005. On that occasion, I took the position, and still believe, that the expected advantages of socialism must come from the way activities will be organized and structured, not from our expectations that the people of the future will have improved states of mind.

I'll take a moment and try to summarize some material from that debate.

I asserted that any social system will discover a distinction between work and play. There will always be some tasks that people will do for the sake of separate ends, desiring to see these activities completed so that we can receive the results that they enable. We can call this work. There will be other activities where we enjoy the process itself, and the completion of end points is not the reason for them. We can call this play.

I argued that motivation to perform work is almost always individual. To get me to to return from vacation and go back to work, I must know that my personal standard of living will depend on it. It can never be sufficient that I realize intellectually that "if no one were to return to work then there wouldn't be any products." The latter realization would always permit me to rationalize that someone else would enjoy mining the ore while I write poems, etc. The ability to rationalize in this area makes it necessary for society to continue using a currency, so that after I return from vacation and go back to work, I get paid by the hour, and then I can take my income and go shopping. WSM members were willing to go just as far as saying that such a system might be needed temporarily as a form of rationing, but that such a system should be transcended as soon as possible, replaced by "free access to all that is produced." They were outraged that I don't care if such a work voucher system is ever transcended, because Free Access isn't a desirable goal to me -- I'm skeptical about whether it's posisble at all, and even if it is possible I don't see the attractiveness of it.

Several of the WSM personnel were very either/or, very dichotomous, decribing me as one who says that laziness will continue with socialism, and describing themselves as whose who say that laziness will not continue with socialism. I tried to persuade them not to encapsulate the debate in those terms. Rather than summarize me as "Lepore claims that human nature is basically lazy," summarize my argument as: It is in the inherent nature of productive work that there are some activities that people want to "get over with", mere means to other ends, and an optimum accounting system will materially compensate each individual for each increment of his or her personal sacrifice.

On the occasion of the debate in the WSM forum, those who disagreed with me cited numerous examples of volunteerism. Several writers mentioned examples in small-scale communal living. One writer reported on the workers in a department store who volunteered to hang up holiday decorations. I countered their argument with the fact that there are several kinds of tasks which no one ever identifies as their hobbies. If someone takes a poll, the public will report on a great variety of hobbies, but one type of activity is noticably lacking. Literally no one ever says that their choice of a hobby is to operate a steel mill, a paper mill, a mine, etc. Such activities are strictly in the category of things that people do for separate ends, namely, to get paid for doing them. A socialist society might acquire voluntary labor from some astronomers, musicians, playwrights, horticulturalists, but literally never in the more materially foundational industries, the mines, refineries and mills.

I remain convinced that the kind of system the WSM proposes, will all labor being voluntary and all goods being free, cannot be established. If it were, production would freeze up almost immediately because of the absense of workers. The working class, knowing in advance that such a result would freeze up, would not adopt such a conception of socialism in the first place. Worse yet, if the working class doesn't get the message that Free Access isn't the only conception of socialism, if most people aren't aware that there are alternative proposals available, then the working class wouldn't consider the the idea of socialism itself. In this way, offering a notion of socialism that's structurally unworkable has the effect of making the working class conservative.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Jan 2007 09:23 pm Post subject:

The Greenman wrote:

You would think the Left would at least come to accept people who are religious. We know what "freedom from religion means" and it pretty well conjours images of Stalin.

I agree with the first sentence there, but I'm stumbling with the second.

I see a proper role for "freedom from religion", because religion has been an attractor for the habit of imposing one's views on others.

The law-makers who put "In God we trust" on the paper money knew full well that atheists would be required to handle that money. Why did they have to do the stick-it-in-your-face thing?

Those who want to bring back formal prayer in public schools know that nothing could ever stop an individual from praying silently. The demand that it has to be done aloud is another stick-it-in-your-face.

The last I heard, atheists are between 6 and 11 percent of the U.S. population, depending on how the poll is worded ("Are you an atheist? Answer - Yes" - 6 percent; "Indicate your religious view: Answer - None" - 11 percent.) This is the only minority group that politicians are allowed to insult as frequently as they choose. This is the only minority group that television scriptwriters are forbidden to portray in drama.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Jan 2007 09:29 pm Post subject:

questing wrote:

I take the position that people have to agree on certain basic principles in order to have a socialist society.

Perhaps it would be a fruitful exercise to see how we might list some of them.

questing

Posted: 22 Jan 2007 05:23 pm Post subject:

mikelepore wrote:

questing wrote:

I take the position that people have to agree on certain basic principles in order to have a socialist society.

Perhaps it would be a fruitful exercise to see how we might list some of them.

I was commenting more on the agreement part, not so much laying out a list of "rules." I do say that people have to have an agreement on what is important in society.

I would say that people would have to agree on basic cooperative principles. Would people agree on methods of distribution? They'd have to in order to have a functioning society.

The Greenman

Posted: 23 Jan 2007 09:58 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Quote:

Sorry I was a bit vauge. Christianity concepts and practices does indeed seek converts and I feel they have a right to do so. I know it is imposing one's views on another but people have different views which are not religious. Does that mean those people's view cannot be tolerated as well?However, I do believe strongly that religion should not be politically mandated as the evangelicals want prayer in school to be. Of course they feel that the enforcement of Biblical principles/prayer would somehow save the U.S. from terrorism and bring back vast prosperity. I agree with Engles (I think he wrote it) that religion cannot prop-up a tottering society. I also believe atheist have a right to be left alone and live in peace. There has to be some sort of compromise with both parties because socialism should not favor one group over another. If socialism is promoted as an ending of human suffering and want then it has to be fair and balanced in treating all groups of people with cultural and religious differences. We have to realise that socialism will have a lot of grey areas that will have to be looked over and discussed before any action is taken by anyone. Like the principles questing was writing on.

On the other hand, the idea of freedom from religion as practiced in the Soviet Union had no tolerance of any religion. It was, at first, said that it was a private affair until Stalin came into power and had religious leaders/non-leaders arrested, tortured and killed and places of worship blown up or torn down. A lot of suffering under his leadership was done to many people whether they were religious or not--end of rant!

Quote:

I agree that both religious and non religious people organise for socialsim. People do organise on various issues and are focused on what to do. But winning religious people over to socialism is going to be hard for a long time to come since the very concept of socialism still conjours oppession which we all should thank the Leninist for their social engineering.

questing wrote:

Quote:

As for religion, Marx and Engels both drew heavily upon it in an historical/scientific manner. Neither one were believers, and both essentially repudiated it, but they more or less commented on the PROGRESSIVE aspects of it. For example, religion was basically primitive mankind's attempt to explain the world. In that sense it was progressive, no matter how wrong factually.

I know they repudiated religion but they are correct that it progressed/adapted. However, I don't see their opinion as being politically mandated as the Leninist have done. Socialism is about work on the one hand, and how we all interact on the other. There is still a lot of unknown territory in how we interact in a socialist society. Perhaps, like religion, it will progress and adapt in ways we cannot imagine.

qesting also wrote:

Quote:

It would appear that we are more or less back to the days of the International with all the conflicts and sectarianism in the "socialist movement." I see a new dark ages/feudalism which Engels said would happen if there was no socialism, which there is not.

There is still a lot of sectarianism, divisions and conflicts within the socialist movement today. There is already signs of a new dark ages emerging. I heard Donald Trump state on Regis and Kelly that there will be two groups in the United Stated...The rich and poor with no in between.

John T.

mikelepore

Posted: 24 Jan 2007 01:41 am Post subject:

I would like to see a political system put it in writing that people have the right to do anything with their personal lives as long as their actions don't infringe on the rights of others. This simple test seems to clarify things suffciently. Does assaulting someone infringe on the rights of others? Yes, therefore it must be a prohibited act, not a protected one. Does religious activity infringe on the rights of others? No, therefore it must be a protected action. This test method seems quite straightforward to me. I don't factor in any such issues as "do I like or dislike this", "does this outrage me", "does this shock me." I don't resort to a projection of expected future effects, or any slippery-slope estimations, or any notion of broader implications for civilization, or any of that. It's very simple. Religious activity does not infringe on anyone else's rights, therefore it must be a protected activity; case closed.

davesearles

Posted: 24 Jan 2007 09:45 pm Post subject:

mike wrote:

I get paid by the hour, and then I can take my income and go shopping. WSM members were willing to go just as far as saying that such a system might be needed temporarily as a form of rationing, but that such a system should be transcended as soon as possible, replaced by "free access to all that is produced." They were outraged that I don't care if such a work voucher system is ever transcended, because Free Access isn't a desirable goal to me -- I'm skeptical about whether it's possible at all, and even if it is possible I don't see the attractiveness of it.

dave comments:

Of course I am biased, and I have said this before - that all of their holdings are a form of religion. beliefs that one is to put their faith in, and if you are not willing to, to them you are simply of another religion and no they don't want to discuss it. If you don't agree as a matter of faith #1 that free access is a requirement and #2 (incredibly) that there is no deity - they simply will not allow you to join - they do not want even the possibility of ever being outvoted by people who do not agree with them on these tangential questions. How well Mike and I are familiar with this type.

mikelepore

Posted: 25 Jan 2007 05:44 am Post subject:

Which means vanguardism. Here's why.

Suppose that the majority of the working class, x in number, are prepared to establish socialism, that they are ready and organized. By 'socialism' they mean something relatively uncomplicated: collective ownership and democratic control, and maybe just a few more basics. But suppose a much smaller proportion of the working class, numbering only 0.01 x, are members of the socialist political party, because that's how many can get admittance into the party after the applicants are subjected to grilling examinations of their historical theory, their economic theory, their viewpoints about a hundred different current issues, and perhaps even their views about something as tangential as their spirituality. Now, are we to believe that 0.99 x are supposed to vote for the party composed of 0.01 x , and to look upon that party as their own working class instrument? Sorry, folks, that is vanguardism, a follow-the-leader concept of transforming society. In some ways the best socialist party can also make itself into the worst in another way, so concerned about having the proper views of everything that they make membership too restrictive.

A severe irony is evident. We are so concerned about avoiding the phony socialism that takes the form of elitism or minority rule, that we won't allow just anyone to join the group. You see, that common rabble of people just aren't smart enough to understand our wise philosophy about the need to avoid phony socialism, which features elitism. But such a position itself _is_ elitism. It's probably a _worse_ form, because only one person in a million is deemed to be good enough for this supposely non-elitist party.

davesearles

Posted: 25 Jan 2007 01:11 pm Post subject:

These qulifications wrongly give the workers the impression that socialsm is some essoteric club - with arbitry qualifications of who and who cannot get in. Is the purpose to encourage the workers to take over the meansd of production or is it to assert some kind of stange superiority over the poor creatures who have a professed belief in a deity. This second part seems almost Fruedian - you beive in a god OH NO THAT SHOWS THAT YOU CANNOT APPRECIATE THE MATERIALST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY - but you must then also profess TOTAL FAITH that directly after the revolution society may only live on that which is produced by a system where it makes no real difference to each individual whether he or she works or not - that everyone who does work must put in extra time to make up for those who will not work.

Materialist conception of history?

dave

The Greenman

Posted: 25 Jan 2007 09:16 pm Post subject:

Welcome back Dave and hello Vince.

Mike wrote:

Quote:

I do see politics and law making (actual law making) being something that will continue under socialism. For how long is speculation. I would expect it to be quite more simplified than what is seen today. I been reading some American historical documents. I can plainly see who the freemen and gentlemen were. In a sense it was vanguarded system of things. One would have to hold certain beliefs and have a certain social standing (land and money) to be considered a freeman and gentleman.
At any rate, I would hope that under socialism the established system would be uncomplicated as Mike wrote.

Vince wrote:

Quote:

We believe, as most socialists do, that we can engineer such behaviors out of the system to an appreciable, probably dramatic, degree.

Greed and laziness has been around thousands of years. I don't agree with most socialist. How often has the issue of laziness and greed been addressed in history to change these behaviors with various methods and actions? Both are still around including violence, murder, theft and various other behaviors that is (as Dr. Phil would say) toxic. Are all people lazy, greedy, alcoholic drug using thiefing wife and children beaters who would assualt and murder anyone whom they laid eyes on? No.

We do hope, having faith, that a socialist society would actually reduce toxic behaviors without anyone liberties being violated. The future society has to have a good foundation in which to build on being the collective ownership of the means of production which includes a new currency being the Labor Time Units.

Now I did mention that there would be land ownership (non-production) for people to raise a family on or just to have some space for themselves. How would this be done? Perhaps land distribution would have to be implemented. Maybe there would be some sort of real estate sales based on the labor a house was built on which, of course, the land being x amount of square yardage as an allotment. I know we conversed on this before but, hey, it has to be addressed as part of the overall picture.

John T.

davesearles

Posted: 25 Jan 2007 10:53 pm Post subject:

Greed and laziness are things that people have to deal with themselves. Worryng about emotional motivations is childish. With a sensible work and reward system people can deal with this or not deal with it on their own.

I think that the term "engineering" of behaviours is a bit too much though.

dave

mikelepore

Posted: 26 Jan 2007 08:46 am Post subject:

Reminds me of an old joke. A socialist was standing on a soapbox in the park, and a crowd had gathered around. The socialist declared, "After we get socialism, we will all eat strawberries and cream!" From the back of the crowd a voice grumbled, "I don't even like strawberries and cream." The socialist replied, "No, you don't understand, my friend -- after we get socialism, you will eat strawberries and cream, and you will like it!"

davesearles

Posted: 26 Jan 2007 04:33 pm Post subject:

Or of the one where someone was being asked:

Q. Does your brother like chesse?

A. I don't have a brother.

Q. If you had a brother would he like cheese?

The Greenman

Posted: 27 Jan 2007 06:38 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Quote:

You would not believe how many working people worry about people who are lazy on the shop floor and put them down in a negative fashion. I look at them and say, "Well, they are here and I give them credit for it but our super fast worker(s) tend to be absent a lot and so and so is not here again on our line". On the other hand, are not greedy people praised in our society and looked upon as god like? I tend to think that both are societal issues as much as exploitation on the shop floor and other inequalities in society all being learn't behavior.

I do agree with a sensible work and rewards system which is why we speak of SIU and the Time Labor Units. In many ways both would promote a positive progression of behaviors because people in society at large would be in the drivers seat rather than the capitalist or vanguardist. Having wrote this we can see that it would be people who deal or not deal with laziness and greed on a collective front along with all other social ills. Would laziness and greed disappear along with other social ills? I don't know.

John T.

davesearles

Posted: 28 Jan 2007 03:25 am Post subject:

While we are getting rid of things, how about paper cuts and jock itch?

dave

mikelepore

Posted: 28 Jan 2007 04:10 am Post subject:

There may even be a genetic component to greed and laziness, but so what? There's also a genetic component to getting angry with a neighbor and therefore murdering the neighbor with a rock, but we find ways to arrange our lives in a better manner. We make social rules and procedures. We don't have to do something even if it's in our genes. Instead, we can adopt protocols, enact laws, adopt customs. This is something that the "socialism is against human nature" corner overlooks, and then the "oh, no, socialism isn't against human nature at all" corner overlooks it as well. The truth is: it doesn't matter. Regardless of what our genes say, we can have the society that we want. That's the whole point of not being an ape.

davesearles

Posted: 28 Jan 2007 03:56 pm Post subject:

mike:

There's also a genetic component to getting angry with a neighbor and therefore murdering the neighbor with a rock

----------------------

Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And Jehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it. And Cain told Abel his brother. And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

-------------------------------

mike:

Regardless of what our genes say, we can have the society that we want.

dave:

That is not demonstrable.

To me SIU is the next logical step for society if it is to survive. ISTM there isn't a whole lot of option as to what we want and what we don't want as to the basics.

But if people genetically could not cooperate in production there would be no capitalism, and probably nothing beyond base savagery.

It would be quite preposterous to assume that humans had the genetic capacity for social production but not the gentic ability to order who should benefit from that production.

dave

mikelepore

Posted: 28 Jan 2007 05:56 pm Post subject:

"Duke University Medical Center researchers have discovered that activation of a particular brain region predicts whether people tend to be selfish or altruistic."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070121162756.htm

____________________________________

davesearles wrote:

And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Cain must have been corrupted by having been raised in a class-divided society :o)

Quote:

mike:
Regardless of what our genes say, we can have the society that we want.
dave:
That is not demonstrable.

I meant to limit my assertion to those features which can be adopted by formality. I wasn't referring to removing our baser instincts.

History is made up of doing what was previously unheard of. Imagine the crazy idea of settling into a permanent city instead of being nomadic. Imagine the crazy idea carving the laws into stone so they won't easily be forgotten.

The way to survive our human frailties can be stated simply: just adopt a method under which the individual can't do anything about them. If people are "inherently greedy", the solution may be to swing a demolition ball at the stock exchange headquarters. If people are "inherently lazy", we may need to adopt the rule suggested in 2 Thessaloneans -- He who will not work, neither shall he eat. We may need to, or we may not need to. It's available. Pick any goal, and there are always methods.

Quote:

To me SIU is the next logical step for society if it is to survive. ISTM there isn't a whole lot of option as to what we want and what we don't want as to the basics.

There's no natural law that the system is to be democratic. We want it to be democratic.

Quote:

It would be quite preposterous to assume that humans had the genetic capacity for social production but not the gentic ability to order who should benefit from that production.

Of course we know what people who are faithful to capitalism would say about that -- that the workers don't do anything significant, they merely sell their labor, then a few geniuses like Carnegie and Edison realize that they can buy that raw material of labor and do something creative with it.

So it always gets back to the property owners being alleged to be the Master Race.

The Greenman

Posted: 29 Jan 2007 05:43 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Quote:

While we are getting rid of things, how about paper cuts and jock itch?

I never wrote about "getting rid of things". I was inquirering on how the new society would deal with issues that keep getting thrown around a lot in our present society. I know the new society would be far different but we just cannot brush issues aside thinking that it is not our problem. I admit we don't know what exactly would be done in the future but discussing them now could have an impact someday. Then it may not but we will never know.

Also:

Quote:

But if people genetically could not cooperate in production there would be no capitalism, and probably nothing beyond base savagery.

It would be quite preposterous to assume that humans had the genetic capacity for social production but not the gentic ability to order who should benefit from that production.

I work production and I can agree with you that workers cooperate in production but they have no choice when it is a bread and butter issue. Top that off with propaganda, pro-capitalist workers, and other negative views about each other and fear of losing employment then you have little chance of communicating socialist constructs. Lets not forget the Soviet fiasco which is still fresh in peoples minds. It will take a long time for SIU to be considered among workers.

The Greenman

Posted: 01 Feb 2007 10:18 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Quote:

To me SIU is the next logical step for society if it is to survive. ISTM there isn't a whole lot of option as to what we want and what we don't want as to the basics.

But if people genetically could not cooperate in production there would be no capitalism, and probably nothing beyond base savagery.

I know we who work production work in a cooperative manner. I thought about that and I figure that the carrot and the stick is used often to keep workers in line. Women seem more coopertaive because, just an opinion, they feel they have more to lose. Perhaps this is why women are dominate in number in production. Men worry a little less but seem to draw their identity from the work they do. I look at people's behaviors and wonder if we had missed something as to why workers don't organize. Part of it, as I wrote before, is the carrot and the stick. We have all grown up hearing that we have to prepare ourselves to sell our labor to gain employment. Perhaps a clear blueprint, beyond the basics, would help. There has to be more than just saying that the SIU would be under worker control with departments and elected administrators. People would have to be told that there is no re-distribution of wealth but their labor being the source of wealth to themselves and others. There has to be accounting and administration of things along with the Labor Time Units; otherwise, people won't have the basic things in life.

I had a terrible thought...What if workers actually consider that the master/slave relationship is being normal. I never considered anything out of the ordinary until I got older and started reading on socialism. Unfortunatly, there was Leninism with its dictatorship over the workers and hostile to anyone that would not agree with them. I think that socialist failed in separating themselves from them realizing that state capitalism is not socialism. Look how the capitalist has separated themselves from Nazism. We know that despite of its use, as a mask, socialism, the Nazi's were capitalist which even got them the support of Henry Ford and Bush's grand dad. If you look at it from another angle...both Russian and Germany had bad times before the dictators came into power. If things got real bad in the U.S....could we end up under dictatorship? Kinda on the road toward it right now.