Re: [PEN-L] slime mold socialism
I agree we should be talking about communism as well as socialism. Where the repressive powers of the state to stop street demonstrations are increasingly weak (in practice) and where the market network is quite sophisticated, values other than that of commodity exchange value can be incorporated into the matrix of the social communication. EG concepts that are at first quite woolly, like work-life balance, which was discussed last year in the UK. Walking a bit more rather than using transport because you feel better after a bit of mild exercise, and you relate better to other people afterwards. The irony is that as finance capitalism matures to the eve of the socialist revolution, there may be a blurring of the first (socialist) and the higher phase of communist society. Could we dare to reframe the debate this way, after decades in which there was just one model of socialist camp starkly counterposed to capitalism, and communism was assumed to be a distant utopia? It might just not be Chris Burford - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:34 PM Subject: [PEN-L] slime mold socialism [Was: RE: [PEN-L] in which the professoriate is linked to a slime mold] I wrote: Shouldn't socialism be organized somewhat like a slime mold? David Shemano writes: Impossible. No central authority? Looks like the invisible hand in action and socialists know that could never work. I was somewhat kidding, of course. More importantly, in standard Marxian terminology it's not socialism that would be organized like a slime mold, but communism (the second stage of socialism, in which the distinction between the state and civil society fades and goes away, with the latter swallowing the former). Unlike communism, socialism needs a centralized state to allow democratic rule of society and to defend the workers against internal and external attacks. Only when democracy is perfected and threats go away can their be a move toward communism and the withering away of the state. It's a mistake to conflate decentralized organization with the invisible hand of the market. Among other things, a key basis for markets is the centralized and coercive power of the state, which enforces, defines, and even creates individual[*] property rights. The protection of individual property rights is especially important in a market-oriented society -- such as capitalism -- that's divided by class antagonisms. The forced separation between the direct producers and society's means of production and subsistence -- and thus the class power of the minority capitalists -- must be maintained. Second, there are other decentralized mechanisms besides markets. To some extent, academia fits this bill (though there are important elements of hierarchy/bureaucracy, tradition, and democracy). The classic model for decentralized communism appears in William Morris' NEWS FROM NOWHERE, 1890, found at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1890/nowhere/nowhere.htm). [*] I avoid the word private here, since few property rights are truly private (in terms of impact on society, etc.) The more private they are, typically the less important they are. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
Re: [PEN-L] slime mold socialism
For a largely decentralized vision of socialism -- as opposed to the distant utopia of communism -- I recommend Charlie Andrews' labor republic in his FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY. It's not market socialism (though some might quibble about definitions). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine From: PEN-L list on behalf of Chris Burford Sent: Fri 3/11/2005 12:04 AM To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [PEN-L] slime mold socialism I agree we should be talking about communism as well as socialism. Where the repressive powers of the state to stop street demonstrations are increasingly weak (in practice) and where the market network is quite sophisticated, values other than that of commodity exchange value can be incorporated into the matrix of the social communication. EG concepts that are at first quite woolly, like work-life balance, which was discussed last year in the UK. Walking a bit more rather than using transport because you feel better after a bit of mild exercise, and you relate better to other people afterwards. The irony is that as finance capitalism matures to the eve of the socialist revolution, there may be a blurring of the first (socialist) and the higher phase of communist society. Could we dare to reframe the debate this way, after decades in which there was just one model of socialist camp starkly counterposed to capitalism, and communism was assumed to be a distant utopia? It might just not be Chris Burford - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:34 PM Subject: [PEN-L] slime mold socialism [Was: RE: [PEN-L] in which the professoriate is linked to a slime mold] I wrote: Shouldn't socialism be organized somewhat like a slime mold? David Shemano writes: Impossible. No central authority? Looks like the invisible hand in action and socialists know that could never work. I was somewhat kidding, of course. More importantly, in standard Marxian terminology it's not socialism that would be organized like a slime mold, but communism (the second stage of socialism, in which the distinction between the state and civil society fades and goes away, with the latter swallowing the former). Unlike communism, socialism needs a centralized state to allow democratic rule of society and to defend the workers against internal and external attacks. Only when democracy is perfected and threats go away can their be a move toward communism and the withering away of the state. It's a mistake to conflate decentralized organization with the invisible hand of the market. Among other things, a key basis for markets is the centralized and coercive power of the state, which enforces, defines, and even creates individual[*] property rights. The protection of individual property rights is especially important in a market-oriented society -- such as capitalism -- that's divided by class antagonisms. The forced separation between the direct producers and society's means of production and subsistence -- and thus the class power of the minority capitalists -- must be maintained. Second, there are other decentralized mechanisms besides markets. To some extent, academia fits this bill (though there are important elements of hierarchy/bureaucracy, tradition, and democracy). The classic model for decentralized communism appears in William Morris' NEWS FROM NOWHERE, 1890, found at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1890/nowhere/nowhere.htm). [*] I avoid the word private here, since few property rights are truly private (in terms of impact on society, etc.) The more private they are, typically the less important they are. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
[PEN-L] slime mold socialism
[Was: RE: [PEN-L] in which the professoriate is linked to a slime mold] I wrote: Shouldn't socialism be organized somewhat like a slime mold? David Shemano writes: Impossible. No central authority? Looks like the invisible hand in action and socialists know that could never work. I was somewhat kidding, of course. More importantly, in standard Marxian terminology it's not socialism that would be organized like a slime mold, but communism (the second stage of socialism, in which the distinction between the state and civil society fades and goes away, with the latter swallowing the former). Unlike communism, socialism needs a centralized state to allow democratic rule of society and to defend the workers against internal and external attacks. Only when democracy is perfected and threats go away can their be a move toward communism and the withering away of the state. It's a mistake to conflate decentralized organization with the invisible hand of the market. Among other things, a key basis for markets is the centralized and coercive power of the state, which enforces, defines, and even creates individual[*] property rights. The protection of individual property rights is especially important in a market-oriented society -- such as capitalism -- that's divided by class antagonisms. The forced separation between the direct producers and society's means of production and subsistence -- and thus the class power of the minority capitalists -- must be maintained. Second, there are other decentralized mechanisms besides markets. To some extent, academia fits this bill (though there are important elements of hierarchy/bureaucracy, tradition, and democracy). The classic model for decentralized communism appears in William Morris' NEWS FROM NOWHERE, 1890, found at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1890/nowhere/nowhere.htm). [*] I avoid the word private here, since few property rights are truly private (in terms of impact on society, etc.) The more private they are, typically the less important they are. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
