Oh, sorry for the confusion.  You guys do have, IMHO, similar posting styles.

So would you have a problem answering, Pseudo?

Of course, BF is certainly still able if he's willing, barring, of course, the first question.  I mean, he could still provide what he sees as the difference between then and certainly the questions about how he sees operation.

In fact, it would be an interesting thing to see both perspectives...

But you certainly don't have to sepnd time on it if you don't feel the need.

Thanks,
jjs

It's important to first understand that despite saying that I am not a socialist, I am not a capitalist either.

I am suspicious of industrialisation and technocracy. I think socialism tends to give rise to industrialisation and technocracy just as capitalism does.

By "industrialisation" here I mean:

1) The centralisation of economic power

2) The specialisation of labour

3) The adaptation of working conditions to the demands of production, especially the demands of capital ("Work faster - the machine can!")

By "technocracy" here I mean:

1) The domination of managers and other "experts" whose "expertise" is the control of other human beings.

2) The submission of the demands of life to inhuman commands - regulation, calibration, efficiency, effectiveness.

3) The view that everything is a tool, or a resource to be used by tools, including other persons.

I see almost all, though not quite all, kinds of socialism as operating either within these parameters, or else idolising a pre-industrial primitive existence. I find both options unacceptable.

I think the only way to overcome these is to change the means of production so that the coordination of specialised labour by experts is no longer the "best" way to produce things, and to change ourselves so that we do not understand our needs and desires in the same way. Those aren't as impossible to do as they probably sound.

There's more to the project than that, of course, but those're the basics.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's important to first understand that despite saying that I am not a socialist, I am not a capitalist either.

I am suspicious of industrialisation and technocracy. I think socialism tends to give rise to industrialisation and technocracy just as capitalism does.

By "industrialisation" here I mean:

1) The centralisation of economic power

2) The specialisation of labour

3) The adaptation of working conditions to the demands of production, especially the demands of capital ("Work faster - the machine can!")

By "technocracy" here I mean:

1) The domination of managers and other "experts" whose "expertise" is the control of other human beings.

2) The submission of the demands of life to inhuman commands - regulation, calibration, efficiency, effectiveness.

3) The view that everything is a tool, or a resource to be used by tools, including other persons.

I see almost all, though not quite all, kinds of socialism as operating either within these parameters, or else idolising a pre-industrial primitive existence. I find both options unacceptable.

I think the only way to overcome these is to change the means of production so that the coordination of specialised labour by experts is no longer the "best" way to produce things, and to change ourselves so that we do not understand our needs and desires in the same way. Those aren't as impossible to do as they probably sound.

There's more to the project than that, of course, but those're the basics.

I'll probably have other questions about the specifics, but your last comment was amusing because it was a response to something I was thinking - "how?"

What, in your view, would be the best way to produce things? What changes would be required to bring about that way? In what ways would we hav to change ourselves? How do you foresee that taking place?

And I might be saying this alot, but we've had our disagreements in the past so I'm trying to makre sure - none of it meant in hostility; I'm really just interested in understanding your persepective.

Then I'll rip it apart :haw:

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think the only way to overcome these is to change the means of production so that the coordination of specialised labour by experts is no longer the "best" way to produce things, and to change ourselves so that we do not understand our needs and desires in the same way. Those aren't as impossible to do as they probably sound.

I see that as Marxist, myself.

Quote from: droogI see that as Marxist, myself.

It is from Marx. I'm influenced by Marx, but not a Marxist. I'm more Burkean and Aristotelian than most folks in the socialist tradition.

Skach> I don't think there is a single "best" way to produce things. I think some modes of production are superior to others, according to two criteria:

1) The mode of production leads to freer human association
2) The mode of production is superior to other modes of production in the ordinary way we judge such matters - more efficient, that it allows us to produce new kinds of goods we couldn't before, etc.

I don't like making predictions and saying "This is the way it will go." I think there are many ways possible to achieve both of those goals. It depends upon the situation we find ourselves in, and that we strive to create.

For example, nanotechnology would be tremendously liberating, but it's not a great candidate to stake your hopes on right now. Similarly, local, organic cooperative farming isn't currently more productive than monocultural mass farming, but that will turn around when scarcity drives petroleum prices through the roof.

The "how" is in a similar situation. I think we'll become anarchists through preparing to become anarchists (as opposed to through a violent revolution which catalyses class consciousness). My model here is the gradual evolution of democratic tendencies in England and America (which culminated in, rather than originating in, revolutions).

There are many aspects of this. What I'm talking about is, after all, a total transformation of society. There are intellectual, economic, and political sides, but it's not simply a matter of say, strangling the last priest with the entrails of the last king.

I personally currently work on the philosophical aspects. I spend a lot of time critiquing the idea of innate, subjective and private tastes and of a "human nature" in the strong sense of that word. I also spend a great deal of time on ethics and paedogogy to understand how best to encourage others to be good, and how to be good myself.

I am also currently saving up money to go to law school and study law so that I may assist others against the state (I want to go into international human rights law, specifically, piracy, hijacking, and terrorism).

Finally, I am also writing a novel and some short stories that I hope to eventually get published that, while not directly political, show possible ways of being in the world that are not our own.

If you're looking for some grand project here, you're not going to find it from me. I am suspicious of grand projects that leave the particulars behind in order to push one abstraction or another. I am an anarchist, I work to bring about anarchy one person and one conversation at a time, by pointing out how we are capable of being free and autonomous, how we can realise these capabilities if only we try, and by assisting others to be so.