The following is a discussion from the World in Common discussion forum on Part I of ‘Vision and Praxis’ by Jim Davis

Oldest first links: 5575, 5577, 5580, 5583, 5584, 5585, 5586, 5587, 5588, 5589, 5590, 5591, 5592, 5593

Most recent first:

5593 From: “arminiush” Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:01 pm Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1

Hi all,

Of course, I mis-spelt Wittfogel’s name, but to redeem myself, here’s the gist of his thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire (I do get the impression it’s somewhat up your alley, Chris)

I also remember a number of in-depth documentaries in the last 10 years or so on the Maya , and what we have now deduced from the archaeological record as to why their societies collapsed - environmentally, economically, politically, socially (in roughly that order). I have no references to hand, but it was the National Geographic sort of popular-but-quality stuff, iirc.

I think it may be worth keeping in mind, as a/c/socialists, that we, as opposed to liberal reformists, not just the degradation of the earth due to the bad behaviour bred by Capitalism, but the dialectical feedback loop of the competition that Capitalism sees as a virtue is where this degradation (and the all too imaginable extinction of life as we know it)is coming from, but in it’s active ‘I’m all right , Jack’ active phase, as well as the ‘No time to worry about that now, somebody’ll take care later’ more passive bit, that makes all this possible , and unreformable.

I have heard in the mainstream press lately that some ‘experts’ (where does one apply for such a job?) are saying that we’ve already passed the ‘tipping point’, the mere possibility should be worrying enough, but undoubtedly won’t be, to get people into some sort of action.

For freesocialism,

arminius

5592 From: “ Chris Marsh” Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:26 pm Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1

Hi there, This discussion is on `my sort of stuff’ so it’s frustrating not to have time to get stuck in properly, due to an essay due imminently – however, on `the environmental consequences of the Roman empire’, I discovered 25 years ago (when I had thought organic farming was the `way to go’) the history of land degradation over 10,000 years – and what Marx called the `metabolic divide’: food into cities, shit into the river, causing major land degradation where food was grown. My first source was an amazing book called Topsoil and Civilisation by Vernon Gill Carter and Tom Dale (Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1974), where it says (p.105): `Plato describes the change in the land of Attica between the time the Greeks first settled it and his age, 427 to 347 B.C., in one of his dialogues, in which Critias says: “… what now remains of the once rich land is like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, only the bare framework is left. Formerly, many of the present mountains were arable hills, the present marshes were plains full of rich soil; hills were once covered with forests, and produced boundless pasturage that now produce only food for bees. Moreover, the land was enriched by yearly rains, which were not lost, as now, by flowing from the bare land into the sea; the soil was deep, it received the water, storing it up in the retentive loamy soil; the water that soaked into the hills provided abundant springs and flowing streams in all districts. Some of the now abandoned shrines, at spots where former fountains existed, testify that our description of the land is true.” (Critias) Marx took issue with the inventor of `NPK’ artificial fertiliser, Justus von Liebig, over the metabolic divide (sorry, no time to look up ref.) The post WWII squandering of fossil fuels has worsened but also disguised the land degradation problem. In my view, part of the justification for a localised, bioregion-based, `culturist’ socialist (anarchist?) future is that, post Peak Oil especially, we’ll need hands-on methods for land /soil / ecosystem regeneration, which is central to permaculture as a radical potential agricultural revolution. In other words, we have to address urban society’s alienation from the land.

When I have time again I’ll trawl through this discussion to get a summary for the WiC web site. love, Chris

5591 From: “robbo203” Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:32 pm Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1

Hi Arms

Regarding the environmental consequences of the Roman empire I recall a quote from somewhere about the fertility of Sicily going down the sewers of Rome. Kind of sums it up quite neatly I think

On the subject of emergent class divisions in society the following is quite interesting: First Class Divisions.

Cheers

Robin

5590 From: “arminius@...” <arminius@...> Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:44 pm Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 arminiush Send IM Send Email

Hi all!

Just wanted to recommend a couple of bits that probably influenced my thinking in these matters, especially with regard to Rob’s comments about Rome, that some may find useful. One is Gustav Bang’s ‘Crises in European History’, http://socialismmarxdeleonforarealunion.org/Crises_In-European_History.html or http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/crises_eh.pdf

and the other is Daniel DeLeon’s ‘Two Pages From Roman History’ http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/two_pages.pdf

As a post-script to my remarks, doesn’t some of this relate to Karl Wittvogel’s work on ‘Oriental Depotism’ and the abilities of societies to change? Or is my memory going , too :-O.

For freesocialism,

arminius

5589 From: “arminiush” <arminius@...> Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 arminiush Send IM Send Email

Hi All!

I, of course , cede Robin’s terminological point about ‘level of *production*’ being inaccurate for the pre-settled communities of hunters/gatherers, who, of course did not ‘produce’. Nevertheless, the basic pooint is that during whatever period of stability, i.e. one devoid of famine, pestilence and war [there was a Fourth Horseman, wasn’t there? I can’t recall...]etc, and for whatever area/population we speak of, there would be no real impetus for private property to develop or classes to emerge *unless and until* such adequately successful equilibrium in the ‘World They Were Aware Of’ was disrupted by one or another of the agents we’ve mentioned in this discusssion, and probably some we haven’t. No thesis can avoid its antithesis forever, I suppose. Which of course why in the long haul, I am dependent on others, and we on still others and groups of us dependent on many (and these days most) other groups of humans, matching the reach of the technology that has been developed and can provide the minimum material basis of which Robin speaks for a more lengthy and widespread stability , updated this time, a society of communism, this time not quite so ‘primitive’, until we manage to screw it up as a species, if we’re collectively stupid enow to deserve it by that point.

But that will depend on the choices that Jim alludes to, also.

For freesocialism,

arminius

5588 From: Julian Prior <debord@...> Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:18 am Subject: Re: [worldincommon] Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 joolsyp Send IM Send Email

There was even some talk (I think in Turnbull’s book?) of dispersing the tribe and re-integrating them into other societies. This ‘solution’ was, of course, criticised.

JP

5587 From: Julian Prior <debord@...> Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:15 am Subject: Re: [worldincommon] Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 joolsyp Send IM Send Email

Turnbull studied the ‘Ik’ Mountain People in Uganda - a tribe that, due to scarce resources (following the taking of their land), left their young to fend for themselves aged 5 or 6. I use it as an example in A-Level Sociology of the fact that the ‘nuclear family is not universal.

JP

5586 From: Shak El <from_alamut@...> Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [worldincommon] Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 from_alamut Offline Send Email

It seems that would be one response to the imposition of sudden scarcity. Others would be immigration/migration, war against others wealthier tribes, adaptation on new technologies or growing new forms of food more suitable to the new situation. They key is that they would have a choice and that their reaction to certain unfavorable turn of events is in their own power (even if they choose wrongly).

jim

5585 From: “robbo203” <RRobincox@...> Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:49 pm Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 robbo203 Send IM Send Email

Hi Alan

Yes, you’re right! Thats the guy, Colin Turnbull and it was “The Mountain People”. Its years since I read the book and the only embarrassment is, ahem, my terrible memory.

Take care

Robin

5584 From: alan johnstone <hotscotscud@...> Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [worldincommon] Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 hotscotscud Offline Send Email

....I think it was somebody called Bailey or Barley - about a particular tribe in central Africa and the complete collapse of social solidarity it experienced following a devastating drought. In a relatively short space of time it transmogrified from a highly supportive network based upon kinship ties into a kind of Hobbesian war of “all against all” with everyone out for themselves. Even within individual families a kind of callous egotism took hold ....

Risking embarrassment by being utterly and completely wrong but it sounds very much more like the work of Colin Turnbull’s “ The Mountain People “ . If not then , its another study of the exact same phenomenon as Turnbull studied

alan johnstone edinburgh br socialist party

5583 From: “robbo203” <RRobincox@...> Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:09 am Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1 robbo203 Send IM Send Email

Hi Arms

Thats a good point you make about social relativity and I can see how it could be that Jim’s perspective and mine might not be mutually exclusive. However, I recall when I was student at London uni having to read a book by an anthropologist - I think it was somebody called Bailey or Barley - about a particular tribe in central Africa and the complete collapse of social solidarity it experienced following a devastating drought. In a relatively short space of time it transmogrified from a highly supportive network based upon kinship ties into a kind of Hobbesian war of “all against all” with everyone out for themselves. Even within individual families a kind of callous egotism took hold . It is examples such as this that make me feel that there may well some kind minimum threshold of material sufficiency for a communist/socialist society to effectively function and I think this is the point you too make when you say “barring drought” etc

That said, this does not mean that societies in the past to which Jim refers did not exceed or could not have exceeded this minimal survival threshold. Marshall Sahlins’ seminal work “Stone Age economics” is a detailed exploration of many of these original “affluent societies” - so called primitive hunter gather tribes - although in these particular cases I dont think “level of production” is a very appropriate term to use since what we are talking about here is primarily hunting and gathering, not “production” as such (unless we are referring to the production of a limited range of artefacts such as hunting tools, pots etc).

It is with settled agriculture that the expression “level of production” really becomes pertinent. But of course with settled agriculture we also see the material basis for the emergence of class society and the appropriation of economic surpluses which militated against the emergence - or re-emergence - of local communisms however feasible the latter might have been in technical terms - in terms of their ability to sustain themselves at the prevailing “level of production”.

But then the civilisations of the ancient world did not last forever and it was not always the case of one civilisation simply over- running another by military conquest. Some civilisations just imploded having becoming too unwieldy to manage, with supply lines transporting economic surpluses, taxes and tributes from the periphery to the core becoming more and more difficult to shore up. Environmental overexploitation also played a role. Look what happened in North Africa under the Roman empire.

It is possibly at these junctures in history when the long arm of the ancient - or indeed , feudal - state was at its weakest, or where it was insuffiently long enough to reach, that the prospects of localised communism would have been most ripe...

Cheers

Robin

5580 From: “arminiush” Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:13 am Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1

Hi Robin and Jim!

Rob says:

Jim, I endorse your critique of “would-be Marxists who have all > sacrificed human liberation upon an altar stone of increased > production for the sake of increased production.” However, I am not > too sure that I would go so far as to say as you do that “socialism > is possible regardless of the level of the means of production” but > I would be interested in hearing what you have to say on this.

***I think (or at least this is the way I read [past tense]it, that since society, ie our horizons, are limited - in olden times (obviously) much more limited than today, that if there were sufficient food, primitive crafts, etc, that *as far as we would have known at the time*, barring severe drought, flood, pestilence brought by outsiders, etc [admittedly a *lot* of ‘but’s], socialism, or maybe more understandably ‘primitive commmunism’ [I know, I know, don’t yell at me, I’m trying to be clear]*would * be established in that area, because their relative ‘world’ wouldn’t in practice or any conceivable conceptual reality be much bigger than their valley and what their adventurous souls had explored ‘beyond’. > > I do feel that while socialism may depend upon a level of material > adequacy what is “adequate” is a cultural construct, and would be > conditioned by a socialist morality that recognises we all all > depend upon each other and are affected by each others decisions

***Here you’re shifting from an analysis of the past to a particular vision of the future, and , while i am at this time disputing neither, they are *two* different things to discuss. In other words, both jim’s and your points may be correct, and even moreso, NOT mutually exclusive. In other words, Socialism is dependent on the mode of production which determines the horizons of the particular society in question, and its relation (or not) to other societies outside it. It has become a global question today only because we have the capacity that it be so. And as some areas always were (and are) survival hellholes, that it’s only our modern age that permits the survival of all ‘the villages in all the valleys’, and, personally, I only hope we’re smart enow to not impose the degenerate ways of higher capitalism on them while we share the technological advantages that we take with us as ours into socialism.

*** In many ways, I’m reminded of Gustav Landauer’s words,”Socialism need not come....But socialism can come and should come, when we wish it.”

For freesocialism,

arminius

5577 From: Shak El Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:18 am Subject: Re: [worldincommon] Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1

Greetings,

There have been revolutions for things in common before the capitalist epoch and I would hate to belive that those people died for something they could not have created. It doesnt seem to hard to imagine that some form of common ownership could not have been undertaken as a breakway from the slave and feudal economies. The early Christians of Jerusalem held all things in common, tho they did not produce in common. The Essenes and early Chrisian monastics produced and shared in common, tho one a small scale much like modern communes like East Wind in the USA. The Quarmathians of Bahrain (sevener-shia) maintained for about two centuries a “communist” state based on slave labor. That is, all non-slaves shared equally in what was produced. Mazdak of Iran in the 6th century preached and practiced “communism” when he converted the Shah who empty the storehouses for the poor, redistributed land and even redistributed women from the aristocrats harems (an echo of which is heard in Marx’s Communist Manifesto). So there is evidence that something could have been done and attempts were made (not all agreeable to modern sensibilities or P.C.). This is why I feel socialism could have been always possible, tho not based on industrialism or information technolgies like modern socialism would have to be based.

jim

5575 From: “robbo203” Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:42 pm Subject: Re: Vision and Praxis - Part 1

Hi Arms & Jim

Yes this is a very interesting peice which I overlooked (or it could be when my computer was on the blink).

Jim, I endorse your critique of “would-be Marxists who have all sacrificed human liberation upon an altar stone of increased production for the sake of increased production.” However, I am not too sure that I would go so far as to say as you do that “socialism is possible regardless of the level of the means of production” but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say on this.

I do feel that while socialism may depend upon a level of material adequacy what is “adequate” is a cultural construct, and would be conditioned by a socialist morality that recognises we all all depend upon each other and are affected by each others decisions

regards

Robin

5574 From: “arminius@...” Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:53 pm Subject: Vision and Praxis - Part 1

Hi all!

This is the first segment of a much longer piece that you no doubt skipped by because of its length when the author posted it to this list a while ago (post 5545). I know I didn’t read it for a while because of that, but it is worth discussing and reading in its entirety, so I’m re-posting the first part, with Jim’s permission, to get the ball of discussion rolling, bit by bit. Read and comment in the manner to which we are trying to become accustomed, please...

For freesocialism, arminius

Vision and Praxis:

A manifesto of Non-State & Non-Market Socialism

Jim Davis

I

For over a century the revolutionary movement has been plagued by a monist model of socialism based upon a vulgar understanding Marx’s writings. This monism grounded everything within an economic materialist worldview in which human beings were held prisoner to the determining power of the mode of production. And as a consequence, socialism has suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of these would-be Marxists who have all sacrificed human liberation upon an altar stone of increased production for the sake of increased production. In short, the liberation of humanity had been reduced to the liberation of the means of production from the chaos of the marketplace. Such an industrialist and monist way of thinking and acting is utterly alien to the authentic spirit of socialism. It is also alien to the rising spirit of ecological justice whose vision must, of necessity, be integrated into any revolutionary socialist vision. Thus I feel that the liberation of the productive forces would lead, not to increased freedom, but to the further enslavement of humankind to the Planetary Work Machine. Revolutionary socialism rejects the traditional industrial vision of socialism and insists upon the realization of human-centered non-state, non-market socialism.

Look, even after a century of defeats, I feel that socialism is still possible, because as long as any of us still alive anything is possible. The socialist option is always possible for the simple reason that it was always possible. At any time since the collapse of primitive communism, thru the rise of private property and the state, socialism could have been organized. The slave and peasant uprisings of history could have resulted is some form of socialism, if they had only been victorious. Though, of course, not of the same type we would create today. The main point I wish to make is this: that socialism is possible regardless of the level of the means of production (therefore the ex-USSR has no excuse for its state-capitalist dictatorship because of its supposed backwardness of Russian capitalism in 1917). In fact, higher levels of technology instead of making socialism more likely, may make it less likely. And then there is always the added danger that left to itself and the “free market”, unrestrained technology would only lead into an ever increasing ecological nightmare and with it, the possible extinction of human life on this planet.

I feel that socialism is always possible as it is an authentic expression of the innate human desire for freedom. No matter how much a ruling class tries to repress this instinct, it remains ever there. There waiting for the opportunity to explode and that opportunity is never too long in arriving. The social revolution is the result of this instinctive freedom bursting its bonds and challenging the right of the old order to oppress and exploit any longer. Success or failure of this revolution depends upon its self-organization and in its determination to abolish all obsolete social structures and its oppressive ideologies.

As I see it, there two roads before us: one that leads through social revolution into socialism and the other that leads thru an ecological collapse into the possible universal extinction of human life. The road leading to extinction is clear; the world is already racing along this road to nowhere. The alternative road towards socialism is not so clear, because of the ideologies of capitalist class society, which have clouded our vision. Ruling class ideologies have perverted just about everything they have touched, so that socialism in their hands becomes mere state control of the economy (nationalization) and the political dictatorship of bureaucrats ruling the working class in the name of the working class. It is sad that all too many socialists also believe this same falsehood. Lets us get this straight: socialism is not state control of the economy or dictatorship. Rather socialism is a complete break with the ways of the past and with the present, wherein these oppressive power structures dominate. Above all else, socialism is a new way of life; a new hope for a human future.

top