You have said you do not like hierarchies and managers form part of a hierarchical structure. Who defines smaller firms. How does someone get the resource to invest in buildings palnt and machinery etc etc. None of these questions seem to have solutions outside our current system
I have already said that I have no problem with short term hierarchies which are arranged towards a specific goal if they do not extend beyond that goal. There is a world of difference between a manager who is also an employee/owner as myself, and a person who 'owns' my labour. Smaller firms are defined as those which produce products which are not necessary to the nation. As for investments, they are paid for out of the firms profits, and are decided on by decisions made by the workforce (which includes the management). The only difference is that I have placed the management as part of the working class. In the 19th Century, and in smaller firms today, the owner was on site and was also the manager. In later days Capitalists created an intermediate class - hired managers and paid them sufficiently for them to believe they were a cut above the workers.
You implied East Germany was OK - for the majority. If you accept it was generally inferior with one or two advantages then I can accept that. The ironic thing is you told me off for personal knowledge of statistics - on which I have a lot of expertise but throw in a personal knowledge of a few Germans as if that proved anything. History is written by the winners is a quote whose origin is unknown - being attributed to Napoleon, Goering and Churchill - nothing suggests it had a communist connexion. I am not going to get drawn into either an attack on or defence of Germany - any more than you would on Korea.
I find it hard to really understand what you do and do not like. I sense a huge amount of confusion in your arguments whether about management, ownership, hierarchies, Marx, communism or most things. That sounds rude but is not meant to be. It is just that you throw something out there and when I come back with a specific question or challenge I am told that is not really what you said /thought. I think you deal in ideologies -which is fine theoretically and maybe for a discussion on "ideal societies" but you will not tell us any society that you want to emulate. You just tell us what this one or that one was not - not communist or not Marxist etc. You laud Spanish cooperatives yet they appear so similar to the likes of our own John Lewis and operate in a capitalist environment so that I cannot see what exactly you are approving. You want to stop environmental pollution - I do get that - but the cost of that is you would force others to give up what they want - on the argument they either do not really want it and have been hoodwinked into thinking they do - or they are greedy. You give miniscule credit to the one policy which would resolve just about every other issue but point out correctly that it would be impossible to achieve anyway. I am not going to argue against 19th century philosophers who proposed theories that have never been put into practice and most of whom would probably propose very different solutions were they alive today.
I am finding it rather difficult to understand your post as well. It is clear what I want - decentralization, collective ownership of most of the means of production (either community owned, worker owned or nationally owned, where the first two are not possible). My manager is a co worker, as myself but paid more to cover his responsibilities - I can defer to his judgement on the case in hand but not to other things. Democracy is a living, breathing thing which, wherever possible, runs through the whole society. Combine the decentralization of Switzerland (minus the banking) with the cooperatives of the Basque and Catalan areas and you're on the way to my utopia. Is it clear now ?
To me giving to charity - or simply spending a bit of time, effort or money helping your fellow man is just what "nice" people do. In a kind society where there is a national government you would hope that same principle is applied as the resources are of course much greater. The problem is that at "national" level there is often a political agenda running alongside. I seem to have a different view of most politicians than you Frenchie. I do not believe either Left or Right set out to only benefit "their own" I believe they have opposing views on how to improve life for everyone. You pick a side and say which one you think is more "correct" in their policy and then vote for that one. What I loathe - and I mean loathe - is the argument that more than a very few politicians seek to benefit "their own" exclusively. Cartoons and snide videos (probably mostly fake as they are often the product of political pressure groups) adopt a hit and run style. Cowardly in the extreme - make a snide point and then do not stay to argue its merits but disappear until you dream up the next. The Conservatives genuinely believe that if you build a strong economy it will produce the wealth for society and then that can be shared. They believe in lower taxation for companies and rich people who they see as the ones who will produce the wealth for all. You may disagree with this (Cologne in particular hates "trickle down" theory) but if you are a kind person you will at least accept that the likes of Cameron, Osbourne and Rees-Mogg whilst being wealthy and having wealthy friends may still have a vision of a better country - for all. Labour similarly believe that you create a better society by putting the ownership of production into the hands of the state and that people are better off if they are given a higher share of the public purse whether or not the economy can afford it. Corbyn and others look first at what they see as injustice and poverty and genuinely believe their policies will help in the long term - even if many others do not. I created this thread to look at society rather than politics in order to try to focus discussion on what types of society are admired or not and so onto what policies may or may not work and what is helpful or not - and am keen to leave party politics and affiliation out of it. A policy itself should be able to be supported and defended rather than just attacked or defended on party lines.
I think this is the first time you have set down so clearly what you want - with no mention of 'isms and philosophers.
It is a shame that for whatever reason this board has so few people prepared to debate their views on society. You and I Cologne, with a little help from Theo and OFH, seem to have run our course though. Unless there are others with views that we have not covered post I think all that will happen here is for us to repeat ourselves. Thanks for a lively and polite discussion.
Problems have arisen because the scope of the thread is very large. It was unclear what size of society we were talking about - whether local, national or for the entire World. My 'model' was a local one, yet I was immediately forced into trying to make it Worldwide. The other point is that if we can choose our ideal society then are we also free to choose who will inhabit it ?
There are no rules on this thread. Your local model was fine if that is all it was - makes sense. I don't think you were forced into making it worldwide. If you are saying you did not intend it to have a bearing on the world at large I get it. Personally I had imagined the discussion to be more on a national level as you could have any number of tiny "models" of society. I had assumed anyone wanting to live in their ideal of society would not want to leave it if they travelled a short distance. Unless that society were self contained it would need to interact with others that might or might not conflict. I am also not sure that a local society would have any bearing on the environment as a whole. Of course you can choose who in habits Cologneville - provided those who do not wish to live there are not forced to - you can guess whether or not I will apply for a passport . Still - as I say thanks for the discussion we did have.
I think that possibly my argument is a little confusing at times - how could it be anything else, because I am talking about an imaginary state which has never existed, at least not in modern times. What is my starting point ? The state, my region, my village, or is it, initially only myself and a few others ? How big can such a society be - again I can't really say. I want to be surrounded by people who are not reduced to being 'economic animals' who do not view the World in terms of what others can do for them and who are not only ruled by the uninhibited pursuit of self interest, where people are more than their 'market value'. How such a state as mine would interact with others depends on them - could a society such as mine really exist and abide by the laws of a greater surrounding state ? Again I don't know - we could not legally stop the HGV's from driving through our community, but at the same time I don't want to build walls. Could the idea spread to other communities, and eventually start a network of such communities, all supporting each other ? Is the nation state big enough to tolerate the idea of such a 'state within a state' ? Would my community have any effect on the environment - this is the easiest to answer, yes. Because it would be big enough to giving living space to some endangered species such as bumble bees.
Perhaps one of the differences between large and small societies is a perceived need for legislation. Yet it's probably easier to say what we'd all like than what we'd all want to forbid. Once we go beyond friendly agreement between friends and acquaintances, there's a greater distance between rule makers and those expected to abide by them. I imagine most states emerged as compromises...physical protection from danger in return for food and labour. It doesn't take long for that to become an unequal equation!
Sorry i have been away and also very busy... too busy.... But I really like what this thread sets out to do..... and hope to be able to contribute my ideas. But will most likely not be for a few days
The problem is that when we describe a society we are 'making plans for other people'. As a great philosopher once said, 'Football is a wonderfull plan spoiled only by the opposition'. Arturo has said that he wants us to stick to our own ideas and avoid 'isms'. Fine as far as it goes, but where do our ideas come from ? they are a result if everything we have read, heard and internalized over many years. Marx was no different - in the end he had read so much that the only thing he could do with it was to plough it all out in yet another book. Yet the way we interpret all of those influences may be a little unique, it is still 'second hand' though the 'mix' may be our own. In a way the major political philosophies have had certain underlying beliefs - and mine and Arturo's are clearly different. They have a different social image of man. Just as the Marxist ideology presumed that man was a cooperative animal, so the free marketeers of today presume that every man wants to be better off materially, and will sacrifice everything to that end. The Fascist presumed that every man wanted to be more powerfull than his neighbour (Macchiavelli) - and built his ideal society to make sure that the 'natural rulers' always came to the top - so, war was socially hygienic for them. Darwin (that old bearded botanist) also had a role to play in reflecting the idea of competition so strongly. Free marketeers use this to champion a free, dog eat dog society with no economic restraints whatsoever. Marxists emphasized class competition as being the motor which drove history forwards - the Nazis combined class with race. Yet still the emphasis was on competition. I do not want a society based on competition - whether individual, or group based. Kropotkin was simply a botanist - a kind of counterpoint to Darwin. He has been one of my infuences in believing that the first resource any community has is it's population. Further I would like to see us accept that every single person is unique, on the one hand, but also codependent on the other. Uniqueness means that no comparison is possible. For me to express my uniqueness means that I must give others the free room to express theirs. The idea of community of ownership is not meant to stifle all individualism - rather to cover the basic essentials of 'making a living' so that this individualism is free to express itself outside of this context. For this last reason i would be in favour of an unconditional living wage for each individual - this would replace all other benefits.
Not really - we are only saying what society we personally prefer. Unless we impose that on others then it remains a free choice. What I intended in the opener was not to avoid 'isms but to avoid posting articles and clips from papers. Too many threads get ruined by the easy "post an article" or tell someone they read a certain paper. I hoped - and so far it has been observed - that we would all post our own thoughts and ideas and criticise them with our own arguments. Everyone has done that. I accept that every idea we have is a combination of everything we have learned and it would be hard for us to come up with an original thought that had not been expressed before. At least here though the discussion smacks of personality. The main difference I see between you and me Cologne are that you work on ideologies and I am more of a pragmatist. I have in the past described myself as a Communist, a Hippy, a Green but whatever 'ology there was I only accepted half of it. So I no longer believe that Marx or Kropotkin have much relevance. They lived in a time and had ideas. I think many of your descriptions of Marx, Darwin and Machiavelli are incomplete and to a large extent incorrect. Because you naturally try to fit people into 'ologies you take their ideas and amplify them. Darwin simply pointed out that creatures evolve to survive thus competition - and cooperation were part of their "strategies". Fascism does not assume every man wants to be more powerful than his neighbour - it is the actions of those who themselves want to rule. Machiavelli simply pointed out that a "Prince" need to be artful to achieve what he wanted - even if there was not always "honour" in doing so - hence Machiavellian. And so forth. But we learn nothing by putting labels and descriptions on dead people. There are dozens of people alive today with equivalent or better ideas than those of the past - ideas - like society evolves. I hate to think of someone who saw human beings as the "first resource". People may get used in circumstances as a resource but they are first and foremost the central point. No other entity moulds the planet to its desires as does man. Of course every person is unique and of course every person is dependent on others - I have never seen anyone seriously challenge those facts. Therefore they are a given and can be put aside. You may not want a society based on competition but Canute said he did not want the tide to come in - it did anyway. Competition exists in every society. It has to. That does not mean it does not co-exist with cooperation so that the two work together but in a world of finite resources then if two people want the same thing only one can have it. The one who gets it competed successfully - most successfully if he persuaded the other that he only got it through cooperating. I think you have to put aside prejudices and accept that society will be the product of cooperation and competition and ensure through rules and the like that people can agree with any outcome. Uniqueness does NOT mean that no comparison is possible. In fact comparison can only be made if there are differences. We compare the factors that we do not share. Both of your quotes that I have shown in blue are false. Many people - not just free marketers - believe man wants to be better off materially - but "will sacrifice everything to that end" is nonsense - just your prejudice speaking. Also your "dog eat dog with no economic restraints whatsoever" is nonsense - free marketers believe in rules and regulations where necessary. I will leave discussion of community ownership till later as it takes more to discuss.
Just a, point in the expression 'human beings as the first resource' - all this means is that everybody has something to offer, the goal of any good society is to find that 'something' and enable it to be expressed. I do not go along with the 'human wastage' which is so often accepted, particularly in larger nations. Smaller countries like Finland and Denmark need the abilities of everyone, and this reflects itself in their school systems. Just another point of order - you believe my quotes to be false not 'they are false'. As regards competition vs cooperation, to a certain extent I accept what you say - otherwise there would be no football taking place. But my goal is to leave my opponent still in a condition to compete on future occasions. Would Celtic have become the great club they are without Rangers ? I doubt it, they hate each other but they need each other as well. Would it benefit Liverpool if Everton got relegated ? Again I doubt it. If I have a business in a small town is it of benefit to me if my competitor goes bankrupt ? Again not because the town will be poorer as a result.
Just another point in 'defence of the ancients' (meaning Marx, Kropotkin and co.). Sometimes what they wrote is fresher, and newer, than that of present writers. For example Jean Jacques Rousseau and 'The Social Contract'. He was closer in time to the formation of the nation state - and could see it as something new and could analyse it more clearly then we, who are in the middle of it, and take it's benefits for granted. Without the state we would be paying protection money to someone in oreder to call our property our own. Whilst on the subject of Rousseau it is no surprise that he was Swiss, really a country which has not had the misfortune to live under an aristocracy or a monarch. Competiton vs cooperation can take on different aspects depending on geographical location. In Alpine or Pyrenean villages there are no big land owners - how could there be surrounded by mountains in all directions. Being surrounded by mountains day in and day out is a reminder of how small we are, and how we need each other. I have noticed that the differences between rich and poor are much less pronounced in such areas, and cooperation is the order of the day. Whether in the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Andes or the Himalayas - all have developed different types of class system which are much more based on cooperation - everybody needs everybody else.
Just another point in 'defence of the ancients' (meaning Marx, Kropotkin and co.). Sometimes what they wrote is fresher, and newer, than that of present writers. For example Jean Jacques Rousseau and 'The Social Contract'. He was closer in time to the formation of the nation state - and could see it as something new and could analyse it more clearly then we, who are in the middle of it, and take it's benefits for granted. Without the state we would be paying protection money to someone in oreder to call our property our own. Whilst on the subject of Rousseau it is no surprise that he was Swiss, really a country which has not had the misfortune to live under an aristocracy or a monarch. Competiton vs cooperation can take on different aspects depending on geographical location. In Alpine or Pyrenean villages there are no big land owners - how could there be surrounded by mountains in all directions. Being surrounded by mountains day in and day out is a reminder of how small we are, and how we need each other. I have noticed that the differences between rich and poor are much less pronounced in such areas, and cooperation is the order of the day. Whether in the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Andes or the Himalayas - all have developed different types of class system which are much more based on cooperation - everybody needs everybody else.
Another foible of mine. In business I hated the term Human Resources instead of Personnel. We are people not resources. I accept your real intent. I do not believe there is much "acceptance of human wastage" Where is your evidence for that? How is it "reflected in their school systems" We have free education for all and give additional help to "Special Educational Needs" pupils. I do not claim our system is perfect but see no reason to suggest anyone thinks of others as human wastage. On your point of order: if you amend your claim to "some" free marketers then I can accept that it cannot be said to be false without qualification. However to lay a blanket description on all free marketers means you only have to find one that it does not apply to for it to be false. I am perhaps a free marketer and do not fit your quotes - therefore they are false - even if they only fail by one. If you use a blanket condemnation of others then it is easy for it to be shown to be false. It is as wrong to lump all free marketers together as it is to make a claim against all of a religious or ethnic or sexual minority. You said yourself - people are individuals - so do not treat them collectively. We seem closer now on competition - it has its place but is not good if unfettered.
Some "ancients" have good and valid and maybe even relevant ideas. Using those ideas individually may achieve some purpose but to think any "ancient" has ideas completely relevant to a society which they would not remotely recognise is a bit of a stretch. Not all countries are sparcely populated nor have significant mountainous or other regions. Difference between rich and poor may be smaller if there is not "room" to move much to the extremes. However I suspect Switzerland has vast differentials in wealth not least due to their banking and tax laws. I know little about the Swiss though so am not very interested in their society which is pretty uncommon. I live in a democracy where the Queen has no power at all to speak of. Certainly I do not "live under an aristocracy". Some live alongside me - but so what - so do people of all shapes, sizes, religions, colours, gender and sexuality. I welcome diversity.
