I think revolutionaries are neglecting the aspect of explaining the forms of alternatives there are, by presenting blueprints that reinforces the main principles. Being a bit more creative and visionary and informative. In other words they need to be more utopian (horrors!), good utopians. Actually have a clear goal with an appropriate plan. Have stategy and tactics. I say this because the main grievence of people is that they can't visualize what we are for.
I think futurism can be of aid in visualizing things, have an understanding of invetions and the kind of means of production there are. And what kinds of means of production there can be, as with the increase in automation and decrease in labor by the sweat of the brow.
I agree mostly. But I think we can't separate this task from an analysis of the present and the past. We can't just impose any old social order we want on the future. We need to see how society is evolving and what the specific options are. We also need to destroy the myth that one needs to have a fully-conceived alternative to the present in order to critique the present. It actually works the opposite way. The critique of the present opens up the possibility of creating a future.
In any discussion like this questions are naturally raised about alternatives to capitalism. While several have been suggested, I don't hear the panel discussing any of those alternatives. That's a great disappointment, but I would strongly recommend reading Schweickart's "After Capitalism", Howards "Self Management and the Crisis of Socialism", and Albert & Hahnel's works on Participatory Economics. Good lord! People need to start learning about this stuff. Otherwise, why the panel discussion?
I might also suggest people check out Technocracy in this regard (youtube it). It outlines a way in which to do away with money and capitalism (price system) and replace it with energy accounting and production for need. It's sort of a blueprint on how it's possible to manage post-scarcity society, comparable to what in marxist circles is refered to as "the higher phase of communism".
Why does everybody keep thinking in terms of "overthrowing" the existing system instead of "undermining" it? Ever heard of "jerk the rug out" from under them? What is the "rug" that capitalism relies on more than any other factor? As Cooney suggests, capital is nothing without -- labor. Assuming you and I are the masters of our own labor-power, why not reorganize those powers democratically to remove passive ownership (capitalists) from the workplace (and the decision-making process) altogether?
there can't be any alternative while we enjoy the comforts of western industrialism. everyone from the people in the forum to the workers (on whose behalf) they speak for, none of them can claim to know hardship as known to those in the third world. any solution to capitalism must acknowledge the strengths of the system it seeks to overthrow.
If you are implying that a post-capitalist society can't maintain current living standards I disagree. Are you arguing for some iron-law of productivity where productivity can't be enhanced without exploitation?
2ndly I don't understand you point about "claiming to know hardship." Aside from being a baseless assumption, what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that there's an authenticity test that one must undergo before engaging in radical social theory?
@brendan, sorry i didn't mean any offence. it wasn't my intention and i can see my wording leaves alot to be desired, though the premise stands. I'm not argueing in favour in capitalism, i understand it's flaws and believe we can do better. the problem lies in solutions capitalism solves and which other systems of commerce don't. to answer your initial response, coercion is a necessary tool in society. where there's coercion, exploitation will follow.
I would agree that any system of social relations implies some limits to individual action, but I'm not sure this is always coercive, or if it is, we may be defining coercion in a way that takes all usefulness from the term. If productive property were owned collectively how would this be coercive?
Why do you say exploitation always follows from coercion? In a school teachers exercise coercive authority over students but students aren't exploited. If anything, the teacher is exploited.
whose defining exploitation? theres nothing coercive about collective ownership, viewed from the owner's perspective, but for the person(s) who manage the property there will be. all anthropological (and to some degree the wider animal kingdom) social structures are hierarchial. whether from need or some perceived efficiency it has been (barring a few aberrations) the preferred choice of governance. collectives have their own problems. who wants to be part of a non genetic hive mentality.
Why does collective ownership require non-collective "management"? I am deeply suspicious of any argument that says "This is just the way it is." Social structures have very few eternal characteristics. This leads me to question some of your assumptions: is delegating some decision-making to a leader automatically hierarchical? Why do you assume a collective generates conformity more than a hierarchical workplace? How has hierarchy been "preferred" thru history and not imposed?
you assume there won't be any disagree between collective members. in any dispute someone has to arbiter the outcome. let's call this arbiter, management. to have a leader is hierarchical. how else would you define it? hierarchy and collectivism require a general acceptance from the people, just as both ideologies require some level of control over their members in order to maintain the status quo. no anarchist is willing to address this point. force is inherent in everything we do, how is this
No i don't assume a universal will. i assume democratic decision making. This doesn't imply some sort of empowered arbiter that is able to influence the democratic process unequally.
Secondly- anyone can see that a social order implies some sort of consent to the status quo and some sort of rule of law. So what? Are you saying this is no different qualitatively than "social control" in its bourgeois form? Such an argument deprives us of the class content of social organization.
I really disagree with the 'arguments' made by the female speaker at like 4:00.
She basically seem to say that the power of the banks and the free market isnt the real enemy. It is, and it is the main thing socialism has tried to defeat the last 100 years, people not acknowledging this, has lost their touch with the one humane pro-humanity ideology out there.. Socialism.
Thanks for posting this Cooney.
RedJacobin 2 years ago
Thanks a lot for recording and uploading this.
What's the name of the guy between you and Alan Freeman?
tatamtatam1 2 years ago
There was a 4th panelist who asked not to have his talk or his name posted online.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
oh, OK. thanks for uploading, anyway.
PS.: I've ordered and am going to read Andrew Kliman's book in a few days time when it arrives! very exciting...
tatamtatam1 2 years ago
Comment removed
hagsmunamadurinn 2 years ago
I think revolutionaries are neglecting the aspect of explaining the forms of alternatives there are, by presenting blueprints that reinforces the main principles. Being a bit more creative and visionary and informative. In other words they need to be more utopian (horrors!), good utopians. Actually have a clear goal with an appropriate plan. Have stategy and tactics. I say this because the main grievence of people is that they can't visualize what we are for.
hagsmunamadurinn 2 years ago
I think futurism can be of aid in visualizing things, have an understanding of invetions and the kind of means of production there are. And what kinds of means of production there can be, as with the increase in automation and decrease in labor by the sweat of the brow.
hagsmunamadurinn 2 years ago
I agree mostly. But I think we can't separate this task from an analysis of the present and the past. We can't just impose any old social order we want on the future. We need to see how society is evolving and what the specific options are. We also need to destroy the myth that one needs to have a fully-conceived alternative to the present in order to critique the present. It actually works the opposite way. The critique of the present opens up the possibility of creating a future.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
This was interesting. If you make a few more videos I might get inspired to actually finish Harvey's book.
dbrockttu 2 years ago
In any discussion like this questions are naturally raised about alternatives to capitalism. While several have been suggested, I don't hear the panel discussing any of those alternatives. That's a great disappointment, but I would strongly recommend reading Schweickart's "After Capitalism", Howards "Self Management and the Crisis of Socialism", and Albert & Hahnel's works on Participatory Economics. Good lord! People need to start learning about this stuff. Otherwise, why the panel discussion?
davidlkendall 2 years ago
I might also suggest people check out Technocracy in this regard (youtube it). It outlines a way in which to do away with money and capitalism (price system) and replace it with energy accounting and production for need. It's sort of a blueprint on how it's possible to manage post-scarcity society, comparable to what in marxist circles is refered to as "the higher phase of communism".
hagsmunamadurinn 2 years ago
Why does everybody keep thinking in terms of "overthrowing" the existing system instead of "undermining" it? Ever heard of "jerk the rug out" from under them? What is the "rug" that capitalism relies on more than any other factor? As Cooney suggests, capital is nothing without -- labor. Assuming you and I are the masters of our own labor-power, why not reorganize those powers democratically to remove passive ownership (capitalists) from the workplace (and the decision-making process) altogether?
davidlkendall 2 years ago
there can't be any alternative while we enjoy the comforts of western industrialism. everyone from the people in the forum to the workers (on whose behalf) they speak for, none of them can claim to know hardship as known to those in the third world. any solution to capitalism must acknowledge the strengths of the system it seeks to overthrow.
hume12345 2 years ago
If you are implying that a post-capitalist society can't maintain current living standards I disagree. Are you arguing for some iron-law of productivity where productivity can't be enhanced without exploitation?
2ndly I don't understand you point about "claiming to know hardship." Aside from being a baseless assumption, what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that there's an authenticity test that one must undergo before engaging in radical social theory?
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
@brendan, sorry i didn't mean any offence. it wasn't my intention and i can see my wording leaves alot to be desired, though the premise stands. I'm not argueing in favour in capitalism, i understand it's flaws and believe we can do better. the problem lies in solutions capitalism solves and which other systems of commerce don't. to answer your initial response, coercion is a necessary tool in society. where there's coercion, exploitation will follow.
hume12345 2 years ago
I would agree that any system of social relations implies some limits to individual action, but I'm not sure this is always coercive, or if it is, we may be defining coercion in a way that takes all usefulness from the term. If productive property were owned collectively how would this be coercive?
Why do you say exploitation always follows from coercion? In a school teachers exercise coercive authority over students but students aren't exploited. If anything, the teacher is exploited.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
whose defining exploitation? theres nothing coercive about collective ownership, viewed from the owner's perspective, but for the person(s) who manage the property there will be. all anthropological (and to some degree the wider animal kingdom) social structures are hierarchial. whether from need or some perceived efficiency it has been (barring a few aberrations) the preferred choice of governance. collectives have their own problems. who wants to be part of a non genetic hive mentality.
hume12345 2 years ago
Why does collective ownership require non-collective "management"? I am deeply suspicious of any argument that says "This is just the way it is." Social structures have very few eternal characteristics. This leads me to question some of your assumptions: is delegating some decision-making to a leader automatically hierarchical? Why do you assume a collective generates conformity more than a hierarchical workplace? How has hierarchy been "preferred" thru history and not imposed?
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
you assume there won't be any disagree between collective members. in any dispute someone has to arbiter the outcome. let's call this arbiter, management. to have a leader is hierarchical. how else would you define it? hierarchy and collectivism require a general acceptance from the people, just as both ideologies require some level of control over their members in order to maintain the status quo. no anarchist is willing to address this point. force is inherent in everything we do, how is this
hume12345 2 years ago
No i don't assume a universal will. i assume democratic decision making. This doesn't imply some sort of empowered arbiter that is able to influence the democratic process unequally.
Secondly- anyone can see that a social order implies some sort of consent to the status quo and some sort of rule of law. So what? Are you saying this is no different qualitatively than "social control" in its bourgeois form? Such an argument deprives us of the class content of social organization.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I really disagree with the 'arguments' made by the female speaker at like 4:00.
She basically seem to say that the power of the banks and the free market isnt the real enemy. It is, and it is the main thing socialism has tried to defeat the last 100 years, people not acknowledging this, has lost their touch with the one humane pro-humanity ideology out there.. Socialism.
Gufberg 2 years ago