 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)DADONCK belb dariusgriffin ...and 256 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613452 Today 5 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and so - as one doesn't have to worry about basic needs such as "making a living" and such .. you can devote your time to creativity and socialising .. this way social interaction would also be quite different - ie. in a sense it would be socially equal, or it removes a layer of social distinction - ie. where abouts in the capitalist food chain you are .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i guess i am .. but it seems to make more sense to me - if only in theory - because this way the human need doesn't have to be restricted - or planned for .. ie. to eliminate material scarcity - and if you want to get HUME in on this - you could well argue that justice would be achieved .. as material scarecity is the root of this. Tho i don't necessarily agree with this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As I've explained before: moral is a useful thing when you need it to preserve a society from falling apart/ degenerating, so it's just a tool for me. We agree on it and go on as long as the results are satisfactory. That's my ideal idea of moral. But in reality it comes from a "higher instance". Jonesy: if moral does not stem from God, where are it's origins? nature? C'm on. I don't believe in anything. Not permanently. Not profoundly. I Question everything all the time. Korben: read the topic you gave us. Well, not enough space here (or time, for I'm trying to work as well), but this was my problem with marxist/ communist theory even in highschool: marxist idea sees community as a dialectic body-always changing according to social powers and communism is supposed to be the final outcome. How come? Why does dialectic stop there? Why there is'nt allowed even a thought of further movement (I'll avoid saying evolution as it implies ideological stance), of new social changes? Such arrogance. Moreover, as revolutionary thought considers social movements to be healthy for the society, communusim would soon degenerate, as it leaves no room for further movement/ development. It's a utopia in a sense that it's not ever reachable in reality as it opposes its fundamental principles (dialectic movement and revolutionary development). And so on... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't recall anyone saying that society would remain static in a communally driven society. Its about releasing human potential, not creating a utopia. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Meho - agreed - i'm not actually a marxist at heart - more closely to what you describe yourself as: "undescribable" [tho even this undermines the point - but thats an entirely different matter]. even if the utopia - which i guess isn't really that marxist anymore (as jonesy correctly pointed out) - my utopia was achieved .. it still has a lot of problems .. as i think were mentioned in that thread .. such as the education etc. ofcourse it is unusual, and naive as far as i'm concerned to think that once one reaches communism thats it. end station. although - i guess it could be argued that social interaction, and cultural development would still continue to change, only now having got rid of the "unecessary" alienation and such .. ??? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
tho - releasing the human potential = utopia no? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's just as I said: you base your whole ideology/ theory on inevitable change but your desired target is STATIC SOCIETY. In a dialectic sense. Admit it goddamit, I have a meeting in 20 minutes and will have no time to discuss it with you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Look, who knows what could happen after a fundamental change to the way production in society is organised. You can't lay down any blueprints and can speculate til the cows come home but its meaningless. The point is society as it is is wasteful, hinders human development and causes bloody misery. why not try and change it? Beats sitting in fron of your computer. Lets fuck shit up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
meho: don't know .. just stream of consciousing here - but couldn't it be argued that what "they" try to achieve is to eliminate politics ? - this doesn't necessarily have to = a static society .. although it then carries a certain 'undermining feature' ... mmmhhh i prefer to delve into epistemology and such - believe in the paradox - ?? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jonesy: true - but what is the point of maximising human development? i mean this may sound stupid .. but i don't see how this in itself could be so desirable. it is all as meaningless as the other .. i mean, don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that we are essentially socially equal now! .. but the reason human development/creativity is so desirable now, is because we DO have this ugly backdrop of wastefulness .. i have my doubts whether such release of creativity - realisation of development would be as rewarding without such an ugly backdrop ... what would be the incentive to develop if your essential needs were looked after - |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just short now as i have to go: jonesy: now you're being nihilistic as you seem to believe in random energy venting rather than in constructive development. But I like you that way, he, he. Korben: it is one of fundamental mistakes, trying to eliminate politics. Politics is just ways of organising a community. It comes with living in a community and is inseparable. This word has gained a dirty meaning for us, but that's the same as if you'd try to eliminate weather because you hate that it rains all the time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
People's capacities are not developed now, with this ugly backdrop. When do people who work long hours for shitty wages get to be creative or realise their true potential? Your ability to do so is directly linked to your social class. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
meho: true true .. perhaps a more apt description would have been to eliminate economics - and so as this seems to be a large driving force for the proposed dialectic change .. and so - the elimination of economics eliminates the force that would cause another dialectic shift - tho, this doesn't have to exclude that it can change? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jonesy - yes. but. why is being creative good in and of itself? [apart from it infering that there would now be a lack of work/long hours]. i guess it just stems down to the view that humans are essentially creative beings, whereas i have doubts about the whole concept of human nature. ?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
eliminating economics is impossible. They come with existance. HOWEVER, recognising that capital economy IS NOT "natural" economy and recognising that there are other economies available is what marxism failed to do and thus it remains just another variation on capital ideology. However critical it may be. I rambled about this a lot but reading Stirner, Battaile and Baudrillard will do you more good than reading me... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Humans are creative. That's what distinguishes us from animals. Take bees; they haven't changed the methods of honey production for thousands of years. Then look at human history. This is why Marx celebrated the ahcievments of Capitalism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
meho :) noted. interesting enough argument tho. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ok, what would your response be to a grwoing anti-capitalist movement? Would you support it if a government was to topple? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but don't you in some paradoxical twist of fate eliminate all reason to be creative - ie. in utopia (tho i don't know if i should use this term) there is no NEED to be creative anymore ? dunno - guess it sort of depend what your definition of creative is! how do you know when someone is being creative, and when some one is not? do you have to MAKE or DO something to be creative? Dolphins for example have brains that are more complex than ours .. more convoluted and larger. I'm not claiming that dolphins are a more advanced than humans ... but it might be a case of human chauvenism to exclude the possibility that animals can exert some creativity ??? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Dolphins and animals don't produce anything, they just feed and reproduce. Humans have produced the most amazing things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm leaving you for the time being, but with yet another sting: why the fuck does production equal progress to you? As long as you think that way, you are stuck with capital. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jonesy. i don't know? the idea of communism (marxian) that appeals to me is that the productive forces are more productive under communism .. it is a step FORWARD - so to speak .. ie we wouldn't be losing anything as such .. in light of which, a growing anti-capitalist movement is essential to gain a critical mass to cause the dialectic shift if you like. however there are some problems with all this .. that is why i think technology could actually be a reasonably viable option .. ie. the people with a LOT of money and POWER might see it in their interests to oppose such an anti-capitalist movement.. not because they would be worse off (which i according to my neo-marxian offshoot i don't think they should be) in the sense of losing their belongins - but losing their power .. or HOBBES' glory seekers if you like .. and i'm somewhat sceptical that with our current productive forces/technological capabilities of actually managing such a system?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Without production we don't eat, have somewhere to live etc and we die. Changes in production, which have been vast over the past few hundred years, frees humans (or has the potential to in a communal society) to do other things e.g. create art. This to me is progress. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jonesy - exactly my point .. so you think one has to MAKE something - PRODUCE something for it to be creative .. what about a creative hunting strategy - or something abstract as such .. i'm not trying to advocate that dolphins or animals are creative .. but you might have to render humans that can not PRODUCE anything as non-human??? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm referring to human society as a whole. We aren't talking about individuals. People don't exist in isolation from one another. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm going to the lovely bank. Speak to you in a bit. And don't call me naughty names while I'm away! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so production is societal based - but surely creativity has to be individually based - at least to a certain degree .. mmhh.. lil confused with yer comment - but i think thats me off to bed now :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
