|
1 |
The Confabulator Has No Clothes:
WHY IS JOSEPH AFRAID OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?
How Joseph Revises Marxism to
Equate the Consciousness and Initiative of the Masses
with the Action of the Capitalist Marketplace
and thus Attempts to Bar the Door Forward
to the Theoretical Development of Communism
for the Sake of the Organizational Stability
of the Detroit-Chicago Sectarian Grouping
|
|
Contents: TIP: Clicking on any of the paragraph numbers
--------- along the left margin
will take you back and forth
between the body of the article
and the table of contents.
paragraph
number chapters sections subheads
--------------------------------------------------------------
3a I. Is Communism Possible ?
5a Agitation with its Heart Cut Out
12a Would-be Thought Police in Action
15a II. Joseph's Red Sweater
19a "Anarchy of Production"
33a "Cooperative Anarchy"
38a How Charlatans Play with Names
47a III. How the Hand and Brain Work Together
49a Joseph -- the Royal Inquisitor
53a Joseph's Questions:
55a Ben's Answers (preface):
59a Ben's Answers (content):
65a Example #1: "Our Children Are Our Future!"
67a The Real Respect Accorded a Tribal Elder
70a Joseph and Mark Declare War On Bottom-up Methods
83a Joseph's Problem is with "Distributed
Intelligence"
92a The Sectarian Struggle Against Revisionism is A
STINKING CORPSE
95a How Would A Communist Economy Actually Work ?
98a Every Thought, Word and Action
104a The Only Good Society is a Dead Society
107a Complex Struggles within the Communist Society
and Economy
130a Who Tells People What to Think ?
135a Concert for Bangladesh
153a Environmental Clean-up
167a The Mother of All Poisons
172a Permission to Go to the Bathroom
176a How Charlatans and Demagogues Select Examples
179a The Mother of the Mother of All Poisons
182a A Mockery of the Struggle Against Anarchism
186a IV. Joseph's Theory in Action: Ray's 1988
Letter
195a A Message to my Opponents
205a Notes:
a1 Appendix: "J. Edgar Hoover" or
"Information Theory" -- You Decide
a3 What is parallelity ?
a6 Parallelity in Nature
a9 Parallelity in Computers
a12 Parallelity in the Party
a14 Von Neumann Party Architecture
a18 Massively Parallel Processing Party Architecture
a21 Which Architecture is Better ?
a25 Parallelity and the conscious activation of the
party's base
a30 Joseph von Neumann
|
|
1b |
|
The epic struggle of Marxism against revisionism has acquired
momentum with the release of Joseph's latest outburst against the
concept that the masses will ever be able to manage their own affairs
and economy without a central directing authority to tell them what to
do.
|
|
2 |
|
Joseph is correct in attaching decisive importance to
understanding and being able to clarify the distinction in theory
between Marxism and revisionism. And Joseph has made a powerful
contribution to this clarification, even if inadvertently. By taking a
stand manifesting such marked fear and hostility to the initiative and
consciousness of the masses, Joseph has actually succeeded in
illuminating this theoretical distinction with startling clarity.
Unfortunately Joseph has cast himself in the role of revisionist as he
attempts to block forward progress on the most important theoretical
issue of our time.
|
|
3a |
|
I. Is Communism Possible ?
|
|
3b |
|
The central theoretical question which will dominate the twenty
first century and around which will revolve all other theoretical
questions of profound social import is whether communism is possible.
There is a profound skepticism on this question among the masses. This
skepticism is not merely the result of the bourgeois world-view as
saturates the mass media -- but is also a product of the failures of the
Soviet and Chinese revolutions.
|
|
4 |
|
Workers who hear our claim that a society better than capitalism,
without all the attendant ills of capitalism, is possible -- would
like to believe us. But they want to hear more than nice words and
fairy tales. They want us to be able to answer their questions and
explain to them how such a society would actually function in practice.
This does not mean that the masses somehow expect us to provide all
sorts of details which no one could possibly predict in advance. Rather
it means that they want some picture of how such a society would be
organized. They want to have some kind of grasp of the organizational
principles that would allow a society to function in the real world and
create more wealth than is created by capitalism and not require a
special class of exploiters.
|
|
5a |
|
Agitation with its Heart Cut Out
|
|
5b |
|
These kinds of issues are indirectly raised in the agitation
produced by the Detroit-Chicago axis. Let's consider two
examples:
|
|
6 |
|
LA # 20 reports that leading chief executives were paid an average
of 139 times the pay of an average worker. This is up from a
ratio of 35 in 1973. Do the folks in LA call for reducing this ratio as
a means of reforming capitalism ? No. This is fine with me. But what
do the LA comrades say ? They say the workers should "organize with
their fellow workers ... FOR WORLD SOCIALIST REVOLUTION!"
|
|
7 |
|
Now I have nothing against calls for a world socialist revolution.
But if we want workers to take our agitation to heart, shouldn't
we be able to give them a clue as to what this world socialist
revolution would consist of ? For example, would this revolution
maintain capitalism but roll back the ratio to 35 ? The LA leaflet
strongly implies that this socialist revolution would eliminate
unemployment. Ok, that's a little better. But many of the leaflet's
readers are likely to wonder: "How would you do it ?" Or they might
wonder whether eliminating unemployment would require a system that
creates less wealth than capitalism. What assurance can we give readers
that a system that can create more wealth than capitalism is possible ?
|
|
8 |
|
Detroit # 71 suggests that if Governor Wilson is worried about
balancing the budget that he should go after the fortunes of the
exploiters and the other wealthy parasites. Now I have nothing against
calls for "making the rich pay" but the fact remains that the rich do
not have enough wealth to solve social problems simply by confiscating
and redistributing it.
|
|
9 |
|
The leaflet notes that "800,000 jobs were eliminated in California
over the last few years and ... Pete Wilson has accompanied this
with severe cuts in social services. ... It's the giant monopolies and
the wealthy who are eliminating jobs and who are profiting off the
misery of workers both inside the U.S. and around the world." Many
readers may wonder what we propose to actually do about this. We may
talk of building a society free of exploitation where 800,000 additional
unemployed would not be created and in fact everyone would have a job.
But how would we do it ?
|
|
10 |
|
Many readers conclude that our talk of a society without
exploitation that can create more wealth than capitalism is --
blowing smoke. And this is why it is important to sort out such
questions. Otherwise our position amounts to: "we will cross that
bridge when we come to it". Otherwise, the workers will conclude, quite
correctly, that we are nothing but idle dreamers. They may support us
on various struggles for partial demands, but all our talk of a
fundamentally better society will correctly be seen as self-deception
and wishful thinking.
|
|
11 |
|
But when any motion towards sorting out these questions arises,
our self-appointed earnest would-be thought police swing into
action to nip such dangers in the bud.
|
|
12a |
|
Would-be Thought Police in Action
|
|
12b |
|
In Seattle # 72 ("How Mark Uses Stalin's Theory ...") I discussed
a number of useful ideas concerning how such a communist society
might function. This was done to refute the titan of tough talk, Mark,
who had put on his reflector sunglasses and little tin badge and laid
down the law: any talk of a communist economy being a complex system of
"independent, conflicting, wealth-creating processes" was equivalent to
worshipping capitalism. In order to advance our theory it is necessary
that we disrespect Mark's authority and to use his cop's hat as a
frisbee.
|
|
13 |
|
And this is precisely what I did. But rather than our Keystone
Cops admitting their blunder and losing face and credibility,
Joseph, the King of Spam, has come out to defend and compound the
blunder by his loyal flunky. Fine Joseph. Demonstrate how erudite you
are. Demonstrate to the world how you will shamelessly distort the
scientific socialism of Marx and Engels in order to defend the
organizational theories codified by Stalin and to maintain the
organization stability of your trend which is kept together by such
sectarian hype-glue.
|
|
14 |
|
But in the meantime, Joseph, other may want to hear about the
organizational principles that might guide such a complex system
of conflicting wealth-creating processes. This question is emerging as
the principal one of our era and it will not go away. And your frantic
antics to frighten off comrades within your grouping from thinking about
this -- by equating (a) the investigation of the likely forms which will
manifest the initiative and consciousness of the masses with (b) the
neo-conservative worship of the capitalist market -- will only show the
utter distrust and fear with which you view the masses.
|
|
15a |
|
II. Joseph's Red Sweater
|
|
15b |
|
In the 1950's and early 60's some of the guardians of bourgeois
morality opposed sex education as a threat to the purity of the
morals of our youth. After all, if you teach them stuff like that --
who knows ? Eventually the youth might grow up to become godless
atheistic communists ! Better to keep the youth ignorant ! A typical
argument of the time was that sex education would lead not only to sex
but to sex crime. This kind of argumentation could only survive in a
very uptight, repressed atmosphere. If someone objected that there was
a distinction between sex education and sex crime the uptight
reactionary would typically respond that showing diagrams of
reproductive organs to youth still amounted to "smut".
|
|
16 |
|
A similar uptight, repressed and unthinking atmosphere exists
amongst comrades of the Detroit-Chicago sectarian grouping.
Comrades in this grouping should give careful consideration to what
Joseph, their unofficial spokesman, is saying in their name. Joseph's
argument that the relations of production popularly described by the
phrase "Cooperative Anarchy" equals the "Anarchy of Production" under
capitalism -- amounts to confabulation. Joseph is telling us stories.
How nice of Joseph to provide our evening's entertainment. Let's
examine Joseph's stories.
|
|
17 |
|
Joseph says that both terms contain the word "anarchy". Joseph
says "What about the concept of anarchy ?" If "cooperative
anarchy" describes the relations among production units, then it must
refer to a kind of "anarchy" amongst "production units" and therefore
must be the same as "anarchy of production". This is precisely what
Joseph says. He finally sums up: "Isn't a red sweater the same as a
sweater that is red ?"
|
|
18 |
|
But we should be careful. Joseph's red sweater is a "red"
straitjacket -- carefully designed to restrict thought. Once
again, it will be necessary to examine what these similar sounding terms
actually mean in the world as they are actually used by real people.
Words refer to concepts, as Joseph says. Such is the nature of
language. So let's consider the concepts involved. I don't know if
this exercise will actually help in any way any of the comrades in the
Detroit-Chicago grouping. I consider these comrades as being either
corrupt or not-too-bright. And I do not have the time or the ability to
help comrades who have decided to let Joseph do their theoretical
thinking for them. But I will endeavor to give them a fighting chance
to grasp the methods used by the word-chopping charlatan in their midst
who imagines he owns all the world's dictionaries and can assign any
meaning he wants to any idea which threatens to bring sunlight into his
dark and gloomy realm.
|
|
19a |
|
"Anarchy of Production"
|
|
19b |
|
The real person I will use to illustrate the meaning of the term
anarchy of production will be Engels. Presumably Joseph will
consider Engels to be a real person.
|
|
20 |
|
In Anti-Duhring, (Section II "Theoretical" of Part III
"Socialism") Engels describes "two phenomenal forms" of
organization immanent in the capitalist mode of production. My
summation here may be a little rough and approximate but I trust that
comrades will be able to follow.
|
|
21 |
|
The first form is the organization of production within (ie:
inside) a factory. Engels considered such organization to be
relatively rational and well-ordered.
|
|
22 |
|
The second form (ie: Adam Smith's "invisible hand") was the
organization of production between factories in society as a
whole. This form of organization had some problems. Factories were
connected by the market. This worked, more or less, except when it
didn't. When it didn't there were problems. Big problems.
|
|
23 |
|
Roughly every ten years (in Engels time) the industrial economy
came to a crashing halt because the productive forces were capable
of expanding far more rapidly than the market for the commodities
created could absorb. Extreme hardship and misery resulted. Side by
side with starvation and poverty existed, unused and idle, both (a)
massive labor power and (b) the means of production to use it. But
these two elements (labor power and the means of production) could not
be combined to create wealth because under capitalism this can only
happen when the means of production and subsistence are first converted
into capital.
|
|
24 |
|
The second form of organization not only resulted in severe crisis
periodically but also suffered a related problem. Because the
means of production could not be converted into capital in the absence
of suitable markets, the creation of wealth was in general severely
restricted. With suitable organization, Engels noted, the elements of
production existed to create "practically unlimited growth of production
itself" (ie: the creation of virtually unlimited wealth).
|
|
25 |
|
It was problems in the second form of organization that were
constraining humanity's ability to create wealth. Engels calls
this form of organization "anarchy of production".
|
|
26 |
|
Now we should sometimes be careful about names because if we are
not we can confuse ourselves. Engels could have called the forms
of organization outside and between factories "xyz". It would still be
the same concept. It would still represent the problem that humanity
would need to overcome in order to truly realize the wealth creating
potential which surrounded it. I do not know if it was actually Marx or
Engels or whomever who choose the phrase "anarchy of production" to
describe this phenomena. I personally believe this name was well
chosen. But it is clear from Engels' description that the phenomena
referenced is to a system of organization whereby the means of
production must be converted into capital before they might be combined
with labor to create wealth.
|
|
27 |
|
If charlatans like Joseph attempt to divorce the meaning of the
phrase "anarchy of production" from its root as a phrase
describing what happens when the means of production must constantly be
converted into capital and can know only the rule of the market -- then
this only shows how Joseph and Mark are attempting to revise the views
of Marx and Engels in order to fit the economic and political
architecture they have inherited from Stalin and are attempting to
defend for their sectarian purposes.
|
|
28 |
|
The essential point to grasp here is that Engels divided the forms
of organization within capitalist society into these two general
categories and Engels contrasted these categories. Engels noted that
the form of organization inside a factory was far more rational and less
wasteful than the form of organization between factories. And Engels
noted that the two forms would eventually coalesce and that the entire
economy would function as efficiently as a single factory and that this
would allow creation of sufficient wealth that no one would ever again
have to struggle merely to survive.
|
|
29 |
|
Now I have doubtlessly oversimplified this somewhat and I do not
have the time to go into various subtleties (of which there are a
few) but I will add a few comments.
|
|
30 |
|
As far as the confusion that can be created by names -- this can
be sometimes humorous. When the Seattle Branch of the COUSML was
organizing in the shipyards in the late 70's some of our comrades for a
while thought that the term "anarchy of production" was a description
that applied to the production process within the shipyard (ie: because
it was an incredibly confused, incredibly chaotic mess and few people
knew what they were doing).
|
|
31 |
|
When we organized at Boeing, we encountered interesting phenomena.
Capitalism has developed from the days of Engels and the neat
division into two categories does not, in every case, seem to be so
simple. Boeing is a reasonable model of state capitalism. Boeing is a
single company. Yet at the same time it is a system of companies. And
the relations between the various companies, and between the departments
of various companies, could in many cases hardly be described as being
very cooperative. Probably everyone who has worked at Boeing has
secretly wondered if the cartoonist who draws "Dilbert" actually works
there. And in fact, many large companies are considering and
experimenting with ways to make their internal sub-units more
"entrepreneurial" in their relations with one another since this would
in many cases be an improvement over the empire-building turf wars which
make anything actually produced seem like a accidental by-product.
(note: I on wrote a bit on this in Seattle # 7, paragraphs 84 - 92 "How
Our Lack of Theory Acts to Limit Our Boeing Agitation")
|
|
32 |
|
But without trying to solve all the theoretical problems of the
universe, including what names to attach to what particular
phenomena, I think we can generalize to one important conclusion of
Engels. It is the system of organization of economic activity that is
holding humanity back and before we can release the vast potential of
the immense productive forces that surround us -- we must solve the
organizational problem. And this requires that we find a way to create
wealth by combining labor and the means of production without the
necessity of first transforming them into capital. Or, in simpler
terms, we need to investigate and discover how an economy can function
without capital, without money and without production for the sake of
the market.
|
|
33a |
|
"Cooperative Anarchy"
|
|
33b |
|
Now, does the term "cooperative anarchy" refer to a system whereby
the means of production must be converted into capital in order to
be used ? No. Not at all. It describes a system of people working
together without a formal central authority. This is clear to anyone
who looks at the matter and who does not have his head up his artificial
stupidity system. Consider the example that I gave. A number of
interested parties, largely unpaid volunteers, met and ironed out the
next generation of protocols for the internet. Was the action of these
people mediated by the market ? No, it was not.
|
|
34 |
|
This is not to say that the market, or economic considerations
played no role whatever, or that the internet is totally divorced
from the market or from economic considerations. It means that those
who acted did so from a standpoint that was larger than private economic
interest.
|
|
35 |
|
In general, the parties who worked on the next generation
protocols acted as representatives of all internet users, present
and future (and note: in the future this means all humanity). The
methods under which they worked were contrasted to the methods used to
create another set of protocols, OSI, which involved negotiations
between individuals who were paid employees and who represented specific
economic interests of various corporations. The people who worked on
the next generation protocols and who described their work methods
placed particular stress on the fact that they believed their methods
were superior to the methods used in creating OSI and would create
standards that were more truly functional in the real world.
|
|
36 |
|
The term "cooperative anarchy" would also well describe the work
methods that created a free unix operating system known as Linux.
This is described in my TCE documents. People from all over the world
worked to create a powerful commercial quality product. People worked
for nothing and the product is distributed free. There was never a
central authority that made everything happen and was indispensable in
coordinating it all. Was money exchanged ? Well, one of the people
involved most heavily was using very outdated equipment and a fund was
set up so he could buy a less antiquated PC. So there you have it: from
each according to his ability, to each according to his need. A
successful implementation in miniature of the communist method of
production. What made this possible ? A very powerful factor here was
the internet itself. People coordinated the project by advertising
their abilities and needs to one another on the net and spontaneously
forming small temporary "production units". But to Joseph this is the
capitalist marketplace in action.
|
|
37 |
|
One more point on the issue of names. This term "cooperative
anarchy" could have been called "abc" by the people who used it
and it would still be the same concept. It is not a bad name. The
problem is not a bad name but bad charlatans who use good names to fool
comrades who want to be fooled. A biologist, for example, could study
an ecosystem and call it an "anarchy of plants and animals" but only to
Joseph would this mean that the interactions of the many plants and
animals were all mediated via conversion into capital.
|
|
38a |
|
How Charlatans Play with Names
|
|
38b |
|
It is instructive to note that charlatans have always played with
names. And this means that it is our responsibility to think
matters like this over carefully and not simply make assumptions about
what something means. Shortly after the turn of the century, idealist
critics of materialism attempted to refute materialism by taking
advantage of the recent discovery in physics that matter was a form of
energy. "Haw!" they said, "Marxism holds that everything in the
universe is made up of matter -- but we now know that matter is only a
form of energy." Lenin corrected these simpletons in Materialism and
Empirio-Criticism. It is irrelevant whether the stuff is called matter
or energy, Lenin noted, the point is that materialism holds that this
stuff existed independently of the mind, that mind could only exist on
the basis of this stuff and not the other way around. Joseph's cheap
parlor trick in equating "Cooperative Anarchy" with "Anarchy of
Production" is of a similar level of stupidity as the critics that Lenin
corrected.
|
|
39 |
|
Similarly, in "Joseph in Wonderland", I showed how Joseph played
with the names of concepts like "trends" and "factions" and other
similar tricks. Comrades who fall for these charlatan maneuvers do so
for the same fundamental reason that an alcoholic drinks -- to relieve
their pain and sense of shame. They are addicted to Joseph's spam.
They can believe Joseph's confabulations and feel better about
themselves and what they do for a while. They can believe they are
being effective in building a working class political organization that
will assist in overthrowing the capitalist economic order. Have another
dose of spam and wash it down with a drink. It feels great ! Don't
worry about a hangover. Joseph can always supply you with more spam !
|
|
40 |
|
Comrades believe Joseph because they want to believe Joseph.
Reality is too harsh for them and they seek refuge in a system of
mutual addiction and denial. Such a system has evolved over time
because of objective material phenomena. But comrades should consider
that this path involves the corruption of their revolutionary courage
and integrity.
|
|
41 |
|
Comrades act this way because they are demoralized and are afraid
to face their internal contradictions. They do not see any way
out. They are trying to persist in their present trajectory, even if
blindfolded, because they are afraid of what they might see if they open
their eyes.
|
|
42 |
|
There is an alternative. Comrades should consider their
responsibilities to the workers and peoples of the work and
attempt to sober up and stay clean. We can do it together. There is no
shame in admitting that we have been addicted to spam. And in fact,
once we admit it, the feelings of shame lose their power over us.
|
|
43 |
|
In the meantime I wish to make a comment directed to those
comrades who believe that I and not Joseph is the real charlatan.
You know who you are. I love you guys. I believe that you have real
potential to serve the proletariat. If I didn't think so I wouldn't be
wasting my time trying to help you to help yourselves. I love you guys
so much that I nurture fond hopes that one fine day I will suddenly hear
a "pop" sound and I will see that your heads are popping out of your
Artificial Stupidity Systems. But ultimately it is up to you. You can
bring a sectarian to proletarian politics, but you can't make him put
aside his addiction to spam for the sake of the proletarian interest.
That is up to him.
|
|
44 |
|
But I have done my best. I have written and explained things to
you pathetic losers to the point where I have diverted desperately
needed time from my own life affairs and from other political
priorities. I have stretched my life to the point of personal
catastrophe. Why ? Because I believe in you more than you believe in
yourselves. And I have also diverted time from the creation of a data
base for media abstracts that would serve us all far better than these
silly polemics. I have gotten no respect from you guys for my efforts
and I don't expect to get respect and I don't even need it. But I want
it and I believe I will get it eventually and the better of you will one
day thank me for my efforts. But in the meantime, this poem's for you.
|
|
45 |
|
Comrades who write sectarian scrawls,
roll their shit in little balls.
Comrades who believe their words of wit,
eat those little balls of shit ! |
|
|
46 |
|
Bon appetit comrades !
|
|
47a |
|
III. How the Hand and Brain Work Together
|
|
47b |
|
"If man was meant to fly,
the good lord would have given him wings"
- the "common wisdom" of the late 19th century
|
|
48 |
|
In any era there is always a section which sees the shape of
emerging future events before others. Similarly, there are always
sections which cling fearfully to the past. Joseph looks at the future
and he becomes afraid. What is he afraid of ? He is afraid of
communism. Joseph is afraid of the unfettered energy, initiative and
consciousness of the masses. And why is this ? Because Joseph is the
ideological heir of Leninism -- as it evolved under the guidance of its
enemies.
|
|
49a |
|
Joseph -- the Royal Inquisitor
|
|
49b |
|
Joseph reads a brief description of how the masses will exercise
their initiative and consciousness in the future and he becomes
the voice of eternal reason. How can the masses possibly "do the right
thing" without some centralized formal authority telling them what to
do? Why it must be impossible. "Where is your proof ?", he thunders.
It is all around you Joseph. Just open your eyes.
|
|
50 |
|
Joseph asks a series of questions. He then, in the self-same
document, accuses me of evading his questions which I have never
had an opportunity to answer. I hope our spam addicts note Joseph's
method. He uses this all the time. This is an extremely corrupt
method. If this method is not corrupt then what is ? Joseph raises a
host of questions and accuses his opponents of not answering every
question. Presumably I should have simply anticipated every one of the
questions that Joseph might possibly ask and answered them ALL before I
dared say anything that might annoy his royal highness the King of Spam.
Further, Joseph has made clear that I must not only answer in advance
all his questions but must do so in the particular paragraphs that suit
his fancy (see folks, our most high Great Confabulator has a short
attention span).
|
|
51 |
|
If Joseph's supporters can't see how corrupt this method is they
are beyond all hope and are worthless to the working class.
Furthermore, by swallowing Joseph's royal spam with such delight they
are encouraging Joseph to produce more. Hey -- as long as you consume
it with such glee he will produce it ! What do I have to say to these
comrades ? Well I sure hope you enjoy eating those little balls of shit
-- because you are going to be doing so for a very long time. Yum, yum!
|
|
52 |
|
On the other hand when I ask Joseph a question he is content to
ignore it forever. Before everyone at the MLP's final congress I
asked Joseph about the suppression of the concerns that comrade Ray
raised in 1988. I raised this question innumerable times between then
and now. Only now, and only as a result of considerable pressure and
embarrassment does Joseph even mention this letter -- and then only to
deny that the suppression of this letter was in any way related to
Joseph's conception, inherited from Stalin, of a super-centralized party
architecture. Meanwhile, when I publicly call on Joseph to explain to
all the nature of the supposed "outrageous lies" he claimed were
contained in "Joseph in Wonderland" -- he is silent for eleven months
and counting.
|
|
53a |
|
Joseph's Questions:
|
|
53b |
|
However one thing that stands out in considering Joseph's
questions is that they really are most excellent questions. It is
only Joseph's demogogical and opportunist methods of presenting them for
sectarian purposes that is a problem. This shows that Joseph actually
has theoretical abilities that could serve the proletariat should we
help him to wake up and take a stand against his own internal corruption
and decay.
|
|
54 |
|
1) How can society ever hope to run production as a whole
without any formal authority
or central administrative apparatus ?
2) If central planning bodies are compatible
with mass initiative and to some extent promote it,
then why not use them to run the economy as a whole ?
3) Is Ben relying on Adam Smith's invisible hand or not ?
4) How does the consciousness of the masses express itself
or manifest itself in the running of society ?
5) What happens when different ways
of making economic decisions clash ?
a) What if public opinion wants a factory run one way
but the workers at the factory insist on another way ?
b) Suppose workers at two different factories disagree.
Who decides what happens ?
c) Who decides when planning bodies disagree ?
d) If a planning body is divided
or in a state of civil war, which side wins ?
6) How exactly does public opinion manifest itself
if there is no body with formal authority ?
7) What prevents the masses as consumers
from making decisions that would result
in hundreds of thousands of people
in Bangladesh being poisoned and dying ? |
|
|
55a |
|
Ben's Answers (preface):
|
|
55b |
|
Because Joseph's questions may provoke some interest in the
subject, I will touch on some of them. It would, of course, be
foolish for me to attempt to answer everything in detail. Rather, I
will simply try to sketch out some ideas. I have opted for speed rather
than thoroughness because by striking while Joseph is still in the midst
of his neo-conservative series, there is a better chance that some of
this may actually be read. Should any readers be curious about my
opinions or would like me to sketch out my ideas in more detail, they
should write to me and I will try to respond. In this regard I should
note, however, that my time is not "mine" to waste. I am quite busy and
want to make my time, which belongs to the peoples of the world,
productive.
|
|
56 |
|
What this means in practice as far as my answering letters is that
EVERYONE gets priority over Joseph and Mark, who, until they
publicly renounce their ugly and corrupt practices, are convicted
charlatans and spam slingers in my book. They have zero interest in
sorting out any of these questions and look at every exchange in terms
of shoring up their sectarian grouping and their wallowing in the mud of
denial.
|
|
57 |
|
Furthermore, I reserve the right to only reply to letters that are
serious and show respect for the scientific process. This more or
less excludes LA, since the comrades there are confused on the
distinction between political discussion and mutual masturbation.
Finally, I would hope that anyone who writes might show at least a tinge
of firmness against spam slinging, which undermines the unity of our
"information community" and degrades the quality of the scientific
process by which we sort out questions that are of vital interest to the
proletariat. It is hoped that comrades who consider themselves
communists might show a flicker of recognition of the necessity to fight
the corruption that is eating at the soul of the Detroit-Chicago
sectarian axis.
|
|
58 |
|
And finally, I will note that I deal with a number of these
questions in somewhat greater depth in both TCE and DIPR and
comrades who would genuinely like to see these documents distributed are
most welcome to assist me in getting a campaign underway to get at least
two comrades from each city to send in a reply to a poll. I think that
passivity as regards using our e-mail system is one of the things that
has hurt us the most deeply. Such passivity shows a very low level of
culture, hurts everyone, and we should strive to overcome it so that we
can have an e-mail system with greater participation by all.
|
|
59a |
|
Ben's Answers (content):
|
|
59b |
|
I should start by pointing out that several of Joseph's questions
are based on mistaken assumptions. Maybe I can clear some of
these up.
|
|
60 |
|
Joseph assumes that social planning requires a centralized and
formal administrative apparatus. Let's explore some of the
differences. These definitions are approximate but comrades can
probably get a sense of the basic ideas here.
|
|
61 |
|
Central planning, involves decisions being made by a small group
of people who act, in a formal sense, as representatives of the
masses. Hence on complex questions, under Joseph's world-view, there is
little need for the masses to actually have their pretty little heads
bothered with knowing too much of the details of the complex issues
involved. There is little actual need for the information that is
involved in sorting out the issues to travel into the masses'
consciousness.
|
|
62 |
|
Formal planning involves a group which makes a set of rules that
are binding on all. There is inherently little room for
deviation, much less defiance, of these rules by groups or parties which
may believe they may know better.
|
|
63 |
|
Social Planning involves methods by which the masses affect and
control the overall direction and thrust of economic development.
This may include approximate (sometimes fuzzy) agreements negotiated by
various involved parties or groups. Such groups may be acting out of
their differing (and sometimes distorted) conceptions of the general
interest.
|
|
64 |
|
Only to Joseph and those with similar prejudices does social
planning require central or formal planning. Let's consider a
hypothetical situation:
|
|
65a |
|
Example #1: "Our Children Are Our Future!"
|
|
65b |
|
There might be a number of organizations of different types which
revolve around analysis of the economy and the making of
recommendations. The majority of these groups may reach a loose
consensus on some issue. Such a consensus as might be reached might
even include agreement on a slogan and the general outline of a popular
campaign. For example there might be general agreement that the
priorities of economic development and society's resources need to be
shifted in the direction of greater emphasize on the education of the
very young. This would include a variety of types of projects that
would focus on developing the abilities and all-round consciousness of
very young children. Such a shift in priorities might take place as a
form of long-term investment since the return to society might take 30
or more years to mature.
|
|
66 |
|
Now how would such a consensus be implemented ? The economy would
be made up of a large number of groups or units, independent or
semi-independent from one another. Each group would follow the economic
and social debates and make a decision as to whether, and to what
degree, to align its own activity with the various recommendations which
are making the headlines (or whatever form of media replaces "the
headlines"). In such a situation, when the general consensus in society
is for a shift in a certain direction, such a shift might be
implemented, in a very complex way, without the need for a single,
authoritative, formal center.
|
|
67a |
|
The Real Respect Accorded a Tribal Elder
|
|
67b |
|
There are a number of theoretical issues that might be related to
this but the one that most strikes me involves a passage from
Engels (probably in Origin of the Family) relating how the most lowly
cop, in a modern society, possessed more formal authority than the
respected elder in the primitive communal society -- while at the same
time the wise elder in such a primitive society might command far more
real respect than the most fearsome dictator in a modern society. I
only remember this quote approximately but I have always found it very
thought-provoking.
|
|
68 |
|
The issue, as I see it, as we consider, theorize and speculate
about forms and relations of production in a communist society, is
to grasp that there would be no formal authority, no binding laws, no
regulations that could not be disregarded by anyone who felt it was
better and "made more sense" to disagree with such regulations.
|
|
69 |
|
Such formal authority corresponds, more or less, with what I
described in Seattle # 69 as "top down" organizational methods. I
said that while top-down methods are sometimes necessary, that we should
consider ways of accomplishing as much as possible without resort to
top-down methods. Where possible, we should place greater reliance, I
said, on "bottom-up" methods. Bottom-up methods are inherently more
democratic and involve the masses to a greater degree than top-down
methods in a wide variety of situations. Bottom-up methods are
inherently "more parallel". By this I mean that greater brainpower is
applied to a problem, more knowledge and experience are gained, etc.
|
|
70a |
|
Joseph and Mark Declare War On Bottom-up Methods
|
|
70b |
|
Mark and now Joseph are reacting to this as if I had spit in their
soup. They think it a theoretical abomination to rely on bottom-
up methods. But the theoretical abomination, rooted in the theories of
J.V. Stalin, is theirs. Excuuuuse me most esteemed would-be thought
cops but your heads are up your artificial stupidity systems and I am
not the least bit impressed.
|
|
71 |
|
Communist society will be based on bottom-up methods. Hence how
bottom-up methods come into the world and function must be taken
seriously.
|
|
72 |
|
Hence we can answer the first three questions from his most
esteemed highness of the Kingdom of Spam.
|
|
73 |
|
1) How can society ever hope to run production as a whole
without any formal authority
or central administrative apparatus ? |
|
|
74 |
|
By relying on conscious social planning, consensus, persuasion and
the kind of respect attained by a tribal elder in primitive
communal society. By relying on the individual and group decisions of
the masses who would be highly educated and informed and would figure
out "the right thing to do" without need for a special class of
administrators.
|
|
75 |
|
2) If central planning bodies are compatible
with mass initiative and to some extent promote it,
then why not use them to run the economy as a whole ? |
|
|
76 |
|
Actually centralized planning bodies may play a useful role. How
much they are used might depend on their track record and
competence. There is no reason to rule out the possibility that a
central planning body might emerge to play a powerful and useful role in
the direction of the overall economy. In fact there are reasons to
expect this. But even then, its authority would not need to be formal.
And the situation would likely be far more fluid than Joseph seems to
imagine. For example, if the central planning body made serious errors,
this might lead to its breaking up, or being replacing by a competing
body or system of bodies. Or there might be a period in which competing
bodies operate independently or semi-independently from one another. Or
the competing bodies might resolve their contradictions and unite. Or
the contradictions in such a united central body might lead it to break
up again.
|
|
77 |
|
In general, we should be careful here about making too many
assumptions. If comrades believe that I am making too many
assumptions, then they should write and state what they are. That's
what e-mail is for. I am not adverse to being corrected. But I hope
that comrades who write can make an effort to put on the shelf their
sectarian passions because these obstruct their ability to reason
clearly.
|
|
78 |
|
Are there reasons to believe that central planning bodies would
NOT play a leading role in directing the economy or major portions
of it ? Yes. Because other methods might do far better at promoting
mass initiative. Joseph reveals his prejudice here. Joseph says that
the central planning bodies are "either compatible with mass initiative
and promote it ... or they aren't." Note Joseph's formulation: "either
... or". Joseph sees the question of promoting mass initiative as a
binary flag, up or down, yes or no, black or white. This is the stand
of a bureaucrat who is being asked if he has "promoted mass initiative".
"Yes comrade!" he replies, "We have accomplished zee task efficiently!"
But, we may ask, what is Joseph's conception of "promoting mass
initiative" ? Well we have an example drawn from real life. We all
know how well the central planning body of the MLP (ie: the CC) promoted
the initiative of the comrades at the base of the party to take an
active role in sorting out the concerns that Ray raised in his 1988
letter which warned that we were heading into the rocks. The CC did
nothing to share Ray's accurate and timely concerns with the base of the
party. And this was "business as usual". And Joseph still sees nothing
wrong with this.
|
|
79 |
|
Joseph does not have a clue that by relying on the direct actions
of the masses -- vastly greater amounts of initiative may be
released. More on this below.
|
|
80 |
|
3) Is Ben relying on Adam Smith's "invisible hand" or not ? |
|
|
81 |
|
No. I am not. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" referred precisely
to a system by which actions were coordinated via turning the
means of production into capital. This is the most elementary Marxism.
The production of goods in a communist society will be for direct
distribution. There will be no capital. And the "intelligence" that
guides the actions of all will be "distributed" without there
necessarily being a need of a central authority and certainly not of a
market. If Joseph has a problem with the most elementary Marxism then
maybe someone else can either try to explain it to him or explain to me
the nature of Joseph's problem (note: Mark does not count as "someone
else").
|
|
82 |
|
Joseph has a very simple way of looking at things. Society is
either run via a centralized formal command-and-control center or
it is run by Adam Smith's "invisible hand". Joseph's fevered brain has
ruled out all other options. It appears impossible to Joseph that
something as complex as the economy of a communist world could "run
itself" without the command-and-control center telling it what to do. I
think Joseph should give himself a break. Joseph has worked hard and I
think he should allow himself a day's break from politics and go visit a
zoo or maybe rent some videos from "National Geographic" or "Nature"
which describe the workings of a complex ecosystem. In fact I think
that Joseph should consider doing this once a month for a year. I think
it will assist Joseph in understanding how complex systems "run
themselves". Just think of it: something as complex as an ecosystem
running without the help of a centralized formal command-and-control
center. Why according to Joseph the ecosystem must govern itself via
the intervention of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and all the little
birds and fishes must be either capitalists or representatives of the
petty bourgeois who "believe that the special conditions of their
emancipation are the general conditions within the frame of which alone
modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided".
|
|
83a |
|
Joseph's Problem is with "Distributed Intelligence"
|
|
83b |
|
There is a profound theoretical issue here and Joseph is not only
wrong -- he is refusing to treat the theoretical issue involved
with respect -- he is refusing to take the stand of a scientist who
attempts to study phenomena objectively. This is why Joseph ends up
looking silly and is surrounded by little singing capitalist birds and
little swimming petty bourgeois fish.
|
|
84 |
|
I have been raising these issues for more than a year now. The
issues I raise are real and will not go away. Joseph says that
Ben is engaging in J. Edgar Hoover-style "Stalin-baiting". But to my
knowledge J. Edgar Hoover never approached any question from the point
of view of information theory. In "Joseph in Wonderland" I not only
showed that Joseph's organizational views were inherited from Stalin --
I looked at the issue from the point of view of information science and
discussed the differences between "von Neumann" and "massively parallel"
architectures. I said that Joseph is wedded to "von Neumann" methods
and that what we need is "massively parallel". What was Joseph's
response ? Joseph never bothered to respond. Like W. C. Fields, Joseph
simply said "Go away kid, you're bothering me". Both Joseph and the
Chicago Workers' Voice took the position that there was nothing in
"Wonderland" other than lies -- that no response was necessary -- and
that comrades would be wasting their time to even read it.
|
|
85 |
|
So here we see how sectarianism works in action. In order to
defend their interests the sectarians discourage comrades from
reading "Wonderland". They tell themselves that it contains nothing of
value. This is called the "What you don't know can't hurt you" style of
investigating the world. But who loses as a result ? In order to gain
temporary advantage in a debate they urge their followers to keep their
eyes shut. But by keeping their eyes closed, the sectarians are hurting
themselves. The world is moving around them and they are giving up the
very real opportunity to play a role of real value to the working class.
|
|
86 |
|
Joseph's problem, on the level of theory, is with a phenomena
known as "distributed intelligence". What would be an example of
"distributed intelligence" ? Let's start with the brain. The brain
contains a very large number of relatively "dumb" elements. The "dumb"
elements are called neurons, or brain cells. These "dumb" elements
"talk" to one another (hopefully it is not necessary to be any more
technical than this). What "emerges" from the process is an
intelligence of vastly higher order. Where is the central formalized
command-and-control-center that tells the brain cells what to do ?
There is none. Hence, according to Joseph-logic, the neurons must be
governed by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and all of us are walking
around with capitalist brains. And then Joseph has the nerve to say
that it is Ben who is the neo-conservative !
|
|
87 |
|
Poor Joseph. He goes to sleep at night and because his brain,
like all human brains, lacks a formal, centralized command-and-
control-center -- Joseph knows that it will be Adam Smith who controls
his dreams.
|
|
88 |
|
Of course there does appear to be a section of the brain that is
somewhat specialized in certain command-and-control functions.
Many researchers believe that the pre-frontal cortex (more or less the
area under your forehead) plays a special role in areas like will,
volition, determination and other attributes that are typically
associated with a person's "character". But even in the pre-frontal
cortex, the same principle of distributed intelligence applies because
this area of the cortex is itself made up of hundreds of millions or
billions of "dumb" elements and the intelligence emerges from the
complex collective interworkings of these elements. Joseph may not
understand this process and it is unlikely that anyone actually
understands this very well -- but the point is that this phenomena
actually exists in the world, has been created by the processes of
nature and is responsible for you, the reader, being able to understand
these words. If the processes of nature, which are not conscious, can
create such systems as the brain and the mind from the workings of
simpler and dumber elements, how can Joseph assert that it is impossible
for humanity, which is conscious, to create a communist economy that
will function beautifully without the intervention of a formal
centralized command-and-control-center ?
|
|
89 |
|
These kinds of questions are being widely discussed in a great
many spheres of activity in society. The concepts of "distributed
intelligence" and "emergent phenomena" (ie: the complex behavior of a
system emerging out of the interaction of the simpler units or sub-
systems from which it is made) are increasingly being recognized as
profound and important to the study of all systems, whether in nature or
created by man.
|
|
90 |
|
A flock of birds or a school of fish can be observed to arc from
right to left almost simultaneously and with such precision and
grace that it would appear to be choreographed. Is there a "leader" in
this flock or school that communicates to all the others what they must
do ? No. There is not. The phenomena emerges from the collective and
parallel action of the participants. We have all been part of such
phenomena. When an audience claps in appreciation for a performance,
the clapping is at first random and chaotic. But within a few seconds
the clapping has become synchronized, without appreciable effort. Each
member of the audience, consciously or not, slightly speeds up or slows
down the tempo of his clapping to adjust to the perceived average
rhythm. And this process, which has a degree of complexity, feels so
simple and natural that we generally never give it a second thought. Of
course Joseph has another explanation: the audience is clapping to the
rhythm of Adam Smith's invisible hands !
|
|
91 |
|
Is it any wonder that Joseph, and his loyal flunky Mark, accuse
me of believing that capitalism will be eternal ?
|
|
92a |
|
The Sectarian Struggle Against Revisionism
is A STINKING CORPSE
|
|
92b |
|
In the absence of active intervention it can be safely predicted
that Joseph now and until the end of time will prostitute the
struggle against revisionism and sacrifice it for his own sectarian
ends. Can it be seen now how the struggle of Marxism against revisionism is
dead in the water as long as the revisionist Joseph is allowed to set
the limits of legitimate discussion and debate ?
|
|
93 |
|
I would like to hope that among the supporters of the Detroit
Chicago grouping, there are at least some who still possess enough
of their integrity as revolutionaries to consider this and to recognize
that the very real possibilities of serving the proletariat and the
oppressed of this country and the world will be forever blocked off
unless a clear, open and PUBLIC stand is taken against this corruption
and self-deception. The theoretical issues involved are not actually so
complicated. What complicates matters is the corrupt sectarianism that
hides itself behind the theoretical blunders which are actually
necessary to provide the hype-glue to hold together your mutual system
of denial. I must say that there are extremely few signs of intelligent
life on the Detroit-Chicago sectarian planet.
|
|
94 |
|
I am not one who believes that it was the objective factor which
destroyed our party. Consistently and from the very beginning I
have made clear my stand that the main issue for us is the subjective
factor -- that our main enemy is: ourselves. But to really carry out
our class mission, to really avoid recoiling from our historic
responsibilities requires both intelligence and courage. A public stand
against the corruption and filth that is eating at the heart of the
Detroit-Chicago sectarian grouping is called for. I must say that I
have not seen anyone from this grouping exhibit this necessary
intelligence and courage. I am unpopular amongst this grouping for the
same reason that an alarm is unpopular. You folks would rather sleep.
But your house is on fire. Your house is burning. I am an alarm but I
can't ring any louder than this. I ring to communicate to you the
interests of the struggle of the proletariat and peoples that you
believe yourself to be serving. I know that you hear me. If you
continue to sleep then this proves that you are demoralized and that
your commitment to the struggling peoples of the world is only a shadow
of what it used to be -- is no longer powerful and real -- that you
would rather sleep with visions of dancing sugar-plums in your head.
|
|
95a |
|
How Would A Communist Economy Actually Work ?
|
|
95b |
|
In "How Mark Attempts to Extinguish the Living Flame of Marxism" I
outlined four features which would be characteristic of the role
of the masses in a communist economy:
|
|
96 |
|
1) The role of the masses as producers
2) The role of the masses as consumers
3) The struggle for public opinion
4) The consciousness of the masses |
|
|
97 |
|
How would these four elements work together on a mass basis ?
|
|
98a |
|
Every Thought, Word and Action
|
|
98b |
|
If we combine the first two elements together so that we have
three elements, then the elements correspond, roughly, to (a) what
people do, (b) what people say, and (c) what people think. There are,
of course, various complications. One is that many of these actions
would likely be mediated either by mass organizations or the activity of
groups of people, political parties and cultural trends which can
overcome the isolation of the individual. Another complication is that
there would be no clear dividing line between what people say and what
they do. A production unit that deals with media, for example, creates
a product that consists, essentially, of what people say. When people
read, watch or listen to such a product, there are consuming the
product. Finally, we all know that what people think influences
everything else, just as everything else influences what people think.
|
|
99 |
|
Let's consider an analogy. All analogies are, of course,
imperfect -- but if readers bear with me we may be able to form a
crude picture. Let's consider the masses as if they were a single
entity.
|
|
100 |
|
The first two elements above are somewhat like muscles. They are
effectors. Let's consider them to be like a pair of hands.
Joseph sneers, by the way, at the role that the masses might play as
consumers. Why is this ? Well Engels notes (same section of Anti-
Duhring as above) that appropriation (ie: consumption) is predominantly
"the acts of individuals" under capitalism. This is not necessarily
true, however, under communism. Under communism, consumption will have
much more of a mass or social character than it does under capitalism.
Unfortunately our far-sighted anti-revisionist fighter Joseph seems to
have his head stuck in capitalism.
|
|
101 |
|
Continuing our analogy: The third element in our list is somewhat
like the nervous system and brain. Via this vehicle, the masses
are mobilized and become conscious.
|
|
102 |
|
And finally, the fourth element is analogous to the mind.
|
|
103 |
|
So we can form a crude picture of how these four highly
interactive elements might work together on a mass basis. Just as
the mind is a product of the functioning of the brain (and, for that
matter, the rest of the body) so will the consciousness of the masses be
a product of the functioning of the first three elements. Just as the
mind and brain propel into action the hands, so will the consciousness
of the masses and the struggle for public opinion motivate the masses to
make their production and consumption decisions on the basis of
politics.
|
|
104a |
|
The Only Good Society is a Dead Society
|
|
104b |
|
Whoops ! I just said a forbidden word ! Joseph assures us that
economic decisions under communism will NOT have a political
character. Joseph assures us that under communism, politics will cease
to exist. How does Joseph know this ? Joseph says that Engels told him
so. Well if Engels said such a thing -- then Engels would be wrong.
But guess what folks ? Engels never said anything of the sort. Joseph
is confabulating once again. Joseph is equating politics with the need
for repression [1 (comment)].
|
|
105 |
|
This last point is very central. Politics will continue to exist
under communism and will play an increasing role in all the
actions of the masses. Differing views will continue to exist as to
what the priorities should be for social resources and in what
directions society and the economy should be developed.
|
|
106 |
|
Politics will lose its character as an expression of the political
clash of antagonistic classes. The struggle for class domination
and the struggle for individual existence will be unknown. Politics
will be different than we know them at present. But clashes, rooted not
in the battle of classes with conflicting material interests but in
differing views on "what should be done", will continue. Politics is
the social manifestation of the struggle to resolve social
contradictions. As long as there are contradictions, there will be
politics. Joseph and Mark, the self-styled experts in dialectical
materialism, are haunted by Stalin's fear of political life amongst the
Soviet peoples -- and they have accordingly presenting us a picture of a
future world and society that has no contradictions -- that is DEAD.
|
|
107a |
|
Complex Struggles within
the Communist Society and Economy
|
|
107b |
|
Of interest then, is how the four elements in the above analogy
would work together to give shape to the very complex economic-
political struggles in a communist society/economy that would be more
complex than any of us can imagine -- like an ecosystem of ecosystems.
|
|
108 |
|
Keeping all this in mind, let's examine two more of our Grand
Inquisitor's questions:
|
|
109 |
|
4) How does the consciousness of the masses express itself
or manifest itself in the running of society ?
5) What happens when different ways
of making economic decisions clash ?
a) What if public opinion wants a factory run one way
but the workers at the factory insist on another way ?
b) Suppose workers at two different factories disagree.
Who decides what happens ?
c) Who decides when planning bodies disagree ?
d) If a planning body is divided
or in a state of civil war, which side wins ? |
|
|
110 |
|
We can begin with question # 4. The consciousness of the masses
expresses itself thru the actions of the masses. The actions of
the masses include their activity as it relates to: (a) the production
of wealth, (b) the consumption of wealth, and (c) the struggle for
public opinion. This would seem somewhat straightforward, although this
kind of thing apparently confuses Joseph.
|
|
111 |
|
It can also be seen that the struggle for public opinion, in its
turn, affects: (a) the activity of the masses in the production of
wealth, (b) the masses' activity in the consumption of wealth, and (c)
the consciousness of the masses. In addition, the first two elements
(ie: the role of the masses in production and consumption) also affect
the struggle for public opinion and the consciousness of the masses. So
everything affects everything else. It can be seen here that we have a
system that is highly recursive. This means that everything affects
everything else and does so along a near infinite number of pathways in
a way that becomes extremely complex. So at this point, not only is
Joseph confused, but we have a system that might confuse the rest of us
also.
|
|
112 |
|
And this brings us to Joseph's fifth question: What happens when
there is a clash ?
|
|
113 |
|
Actually the answer is kind of simple: the various sides fight it
out. This would kind of be like a war except that, generally
speaking, there is little real destruction, no real causalities and, in
the long run, everybody wins. Everybody wins because all sides are
fighting for the general interest, not their own private interests.
Everybody wins because the main weapons in this war are public support
and the support, consciousness and passion of workers and consumers --
and this creates an environment and a dynamic where the side which has
positions most closely corresponding to the general interest has the
ultimate advantage.
|
|
114 |
|
Let's see if we can get a clearer picture:
|
|
115 |
|
a) What if public opinion wants a factory run one way
but the workers at the factory insist on another way ? |
|
|
116 |
|
There are many possibilities, many scenarios. Let's consider:
|
|
117 |
|
Another factory could be set up to do things the way that the
majority public opinion wants. If there is enough support it
might not be difficult to set up a competing factory that better serves
the public interest. In a communist economy a factory would NOT be set
up on the basis of capital from the capital markets which would then be
used to purchase means of production. Rather, the means of production
would simply be supplied from production units sympathetic to the cause.
Similarly a labor force might simply volunteer to help out. Maybe the
workers would work a little less at their other job (or jobs) in order
to have the time to support the new factory.
|
|
118 |
|
Another possibility is that long-term work could be done to win
over the workers at the iconoclast factory. Or -- to persuade
some portion of the workers to stage a labor action (possibly similar to
a strike or a slowdown or at the least a dampening of enthusiasm) in
order to put pressure on the rest of the workers to rethink their
positions. Naturally this might involve mobilizing other workers, not
in the factory, to refrain from supporting the iconoclast factory.
|
|
119 |
|
Now suppose the iconoclast factory were producing in a way that
was harmful to the public ? Suppose, for example, the factory was
a polluter, either polluting the natural environment with chemical
poisons or the social-mental environment with bad culture ? Then
stronger action could be taken. A boycott of the factory's products
could be organized. This would certainly tend to demoralize the
factory's workers and make them think twice about their position. After
all, they are only working there in the first place because they get
satisfaction from serving the general interest.
|
|
120 |
|
Or, more severely, the factory's suppliers could refuse to supply
the factory with the goods it needs to produce. It should be kept
in mind that in a communist economy there are no commodities nor money
to buy them with. Hence the renegade factory would have to find other
production units that would freely supply it with what it needs. If it
can't -- the renegade factory loses the struggle. Game over. It is
shut down. But what if the renegade factory does find a supplier ?
Then the factory's opponents could initiate action against the factory
ally that is supplying it with goods -- attempt to target it via the
organization of producer or consumer actions (strikes, slowdowns,
boycotts). And on and on it goes. Most struggles might be minor and
end in simple compromise. More important issues would tend to escalate
and on occasion the most important issues might quickly convulse the
whole of society.
|
|
121 |
|
It can be seen that all these action are highly dependent on the
consciousness of the public -- who are all producers and consumers
and who all will interact with the struggle based on the strength of
their consciousness, convictions and passion about the rightness of the
cause and their confidence in the various combatants.
|
|
122 |
|
b) Suppose workers at two different factories disagree.
Who decides what happens ?
c) Who decides when planning bodies disagree ?
d) If a planning body is divided
or in a state of civil war, which side wins ? |
|
|
123 |
|
Similar to the case of the renegade factory, the answer, most
esteemed Joseph, is that the various sides may fight it out. Or
they may negotiate a compromise. Or, as in other kinds of war, they may
do a little of both, engaging in skirmishes of various kinds in order to
gauge their own strength and support and the strength and support of
their adversaries. The outcome would depend on the strength of the
convictions of the combatants, the correlation of forces and their
ability to mobilize "troops" (ie: producers, consumers and the mass
consciousness) for their "war".
|
|
124 |
|
A further complication is that the production units are not
"fixed" as are factories, but would likely come into being and
pass out of existence frequently, as needs develop and dissipate. It
would be a very fluid situation and human labor and the physical means
of production might very frequently be recycled from one project to
another. Furthermore, production units would contain and be made up of
other production units, which in turn would contain others, and so on
and the various production units would exist in a variety of
relationships, or negotiated agreements, with one another. Engels'
prediction that the organization of production within a unit would
approach and eventually meet the organization of production between
units would be fulfilled. All the earth (we won't talk about other
planets since these speculations doubtlessly sound enough like science
fiction already) and all humanity would constitute, in this sense, a
single production unit.
|
|
125 |
|
So what do we have ? Producers and consumers organizing work
actions and boycotts, for and against various types of production
and consumption units, targeting or aiding their allies and enemies.
Meanwhile all sides endeavoring to raise the public consciousness as
part of an effort to mobilize larger and larger numbers of people into
the support of their cause. And all of this taking place in a world
without money, without wages, without capital and without a market. Yes
this can be confusing.
|
|
126 |
|
But it is ok to get confused. We will sort matters out gradually
if we can come up with one or two good examples of how things
might interact. We should keep in mind that in any ecosystem everything
affects everything. And this means that the effects of human
intervention can be quite difficult to calculate.
|
|
127 |
|
I will give one example, from the "Tuesday Science Section" of
yesterday's New York Times (1-31-95). Wildlife research
biologists are scheduled to soon release into Yellowstone National Park
a group of wolves. The aim is to restore the ecosystem. What would the
result be? One scientist interviewed sketched out a single hypothetical
chain of cause and effect:
|
|
128 |
|
(1) carcasses of large prey, like elk, slaughtered by wolves
will add nutrients and humas to the soil,
(2) the more fertilized soil will support lush vegetation,
probably attracting showshoe hares,
(3) the presence of hares will likely prove a lure for foxes
and other predators,
(4) the foxes will also prey on rodents like mice,
(5) a displaced mouse predator, like a weasel, is likely
to fall prey to an owl. |
|
|
129 |
|
It should be noted that there are likely innumerable other chains
of cause and effect. All the same, biologists appear to have a
consensus that the net result will be a stronger and more interesting
ecosystem in Yellowstone.
|
|
130a |
|
Who Tells People What to Think ?
|
|
130b |
|
6) How exactly does public opinion manifest itself
if there is no body with formal authority ? |
|
|
131 |
|
The short answer here is that people will talk to each other and
after a while it becomes relatively clear who thinks what and what
views predominate.
|
|
132 |
|
Embedded within Joseph's question is the view that the media will
need to be controlled by some authority. I guess Joseph is hoping
that the authority will be him and not me.
|
|
133 |
|
Actually, however, the media will not be controlled by anyone.
Whatever cyberspace equivalent of newspapers, magazines or BBS's
will evolve -- these outlets will be production units. Media workers
(writers, movie makers, programmers) will write what they want, make
films about what they think is important, and report on public opinion
as they see fit. Similarly consumers of media will read, listen to and
participate in whatever they want. There will be no "intellectual
property" in information protected by law but restrictions on the use of
information might be negotiated among production units and there will be
protection of personal privacy.
|
|
134 |
|
Two points are of interest here: (1) in an age of highly
interactive computer-mediated communications the distinction
between "active" producer and "passive" consumer will tend to rapidly
erode, (2) despite the volume and complexity of material to read, watch
or listen to, information consumers will find what they want when they
want it.
|
|
135a |
|
Concert for Bangladesh
|
|
135b |
|
7) What prevents the masses as consumers
from making decisions that
would result in hundreds of thousands of people
in Bangladesh being poisoned and dying ? |
|
|
136 |
|
I was saving this one for last.
|
|
137 |
|
For a supposed communist, Joseph sure doesn't seem to have much
confidence in the masses.
|
|
138 |
|
Joseph argues that an administrative apparatus will always be
necessary because there will always be some portion of the
population that is too selfish and too stubborn and too close-minded to
be persuaded to do the right thing.
|
|
139 |
|
Consider the example Joseph gives. Some factory makes a product
that poisons and kills hundreds of thousands of people in
Bangladesh. But what happens if nobody cares ? What happens if only
10% of the consumers of the product can be persuaded to boycott it or to
choose another competing product ? What happens if not enough people
really give a shit or have the political consciousness and maturity to
make the various remedies described above effective in shutting the
factory down or making it change its methods of production ? Doesn't
this prove, argues Joseph, that you will always need an administrative
apparatus with the authority to shut down the poisoners ?
|
|
140 |
|
Can anyone figure out what is wrong with Joseph's logic ?
|
|
141 |
|
Joseph's first error is that he appears to be confusing a lower
form of economic development and social order with communism.
|
|
142 |
|
Yes Joseph, in the scenario you sketch out, an administrative
apparatus with coercive power would clearly be required. And to
make this coercement tangible (ie: something more than an idle threat) a
military or police force to provide enforcement would also be required.
And to manage it all would be required an apparatus to manage the
police. And so on. Joseph is describing a situation where a government
is required. By convention, we usually talk of the period where a
government, a state and a state apparatus are required as being not
communism, but either capitalism or the dictatorship of the proletariat.
|
|
143 |
|
So during the period that a government is required ... Joseph has
proven that a government is required.
|
|
144 |
|
But a question of greater interest to us (and, probably, to many
others) is whether such an administrative apparatus, formal or
informal, will always be required. Will there always be some portion of
the population that is too selfish and too stubborn and too close-minded
to be persuaded to "do the right thing" ?
|
|
145 |
|
Engels' views may be of interest here. What did he say ?
|
|
146 |
|
"As soon as there is no social class
to be held in subjection ...
as soon as class domination and
the struggle for individual existence ...
are eliminated together with
the collisions and excesses
arising from them
there is nothing more to repress,
nothing necessitating a
special repressive force, a state...
"The interference of the state power
in social relations becomes
superfluous in one sphere after another
and then dies away of itself.
"The government of persons is replaced by
the administration of things and the
direction of the process of production." [2] |
|
|
147 |
|
Now Engels' comments can be interpreted in various ways and in any
event he was only a man and statements by him do not necessarily
prove anything. After all, we are more than Talmudic scholars. But
Engels' comments suggest something to me and perhaps readers will follow
this logic.
|
|
148 |
|
I will argue that the need for coercion of any sort, the need for
a special body with powers above that of ordinary individuals, a
special body that makes rules, laws and regulations that others must
obey, even when they disagree, will eventually become superfluous in one
sphere after another.
|
|
149 |
|
Joseph raises the question of what is to be done with recalcitrant
individuals. Here, for purposes of discussion, I use the term
"recalcitrant" to indicate those people who can not be persuaded not to
take actions that would result in the poisoning of others. Hence we are
talking about those who may have various problems in their thinking and
who as a result are selfish, self-centered, ignorant and don't give a
shit about others. Such people are typically suckers for every trend
that holds society back and their actions will need to be fought
constantly.
|
|
150 |
|
Capitalist culture and society will leave us with a fair number of
such people and such attitudes. What will be done with these
people ? We should not simply say that such people and attitudes will
die out quickly because these attitudes may persist for a while and to a
certain extent reproduce themselves (ie: when people treat other people
like shit, sometimes the social dysfunction spreads to the victim who
goes on to become an abuser -- we experience this today on a major scale
as a "kick-the-dog society").
|
|
151 |
|
Will the recalcitrant poisoners and abusers need to be suppressed
until the end of time ? Or if such people and attitudes are
destined to die out -- what proof is there of this ? Or would society
be able to expedite the disintegration and disp |