[p2p-research] 21st Century Socialism: Eleven Talking Points

Thu May 7 10:26:49 CEST 2009

Copy & Paste of my response to Michel's response on Ox En, which I'd
like to share with this list...

Hi Michel,

"People" can be viewed as one, connected complex dynamic system, with
three different possible states: order, edge of chaos, or chaos.

No one can be in the ordered state all of the time, and most people
are at the edge of chaos when under stress, ready to collapse/break
completely with the slightest additional stress/change.

A minority of us are in the chaotic state (unpredictable) rather than
the edge of chaos (volatile but still predictable) or order.

Having said that, we can't completely think in the abstract and our
feelings can be often reduced to feeling 'good' or feeling 'bad' about
ourselves and/or the other. I don't think we can abstract feelings
away from our body and analyze them in our brain. They're feelings not
thoughts.

I can feel completely bad about someone or something or completely
good or anywhere in between. That has nothing to do with anything I
can reason about. It's a bodily feeling, not a thought, and I need to
sit with it and feel it, not try to subdue it with some rational
instrument, however well that instrument is constructed.

It's easy to say that people are not inherently good or bad but are
complex beings. Obviously that is true, rationally speaking, but if I
feel bad about something or someone then that is a feeling and no
rational thought is going to take it way, nor would I want that to
happen. I prefer to sit with my feeling and let it take its course as
long as I am able to maintain awareness and not be driven by it, which
in most cases I am.

This of course applies to anyone who believe in letting their feelings
flow from a state of awareness.

So I argue against mixing the intellectual and the emotional in any
argument, for the latter is not a thought that can be argued about but
a feeling.

And suppressing our feelings with rational instruments, no matter how
well designed, is not very nice to ourselves, IMO. And that is true as
long as we can maintain awareness while expressing and experiencing
those feelings.

So back to the subject of why can't an rational theory work the answer
I have is because rational theories treat feelings as something that
can be abstracted away and dealt with rationally.

Some of those feelings are driven by fears. I argue that people in
general experience enough feelings that come from fear and they act
those feelings out instead of just let them run their course (from a
state of awareness) and then do something rational instead.

That's the reason, IMO, that capitalism, which harvests those
acted-out fears (e.g. injustice, crime, hate, control, greed, etc),
survives where social theories (that try to unseat those fears) fail.

The solution must be that people become more aware and stop acting out
their fears.

Well, I just ended up constructing another rational theory here but
it's one that recognizes irrationality of acted-out feelings (feelings
that are experienced from a sub-aware state) and thus has a better
chance of working than theories that try to abstract away feelings in
their drive to be completely rational.

In other words, awareness is the only answer, but that is like
explaining water with water.

Marc

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:46 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> But still, despite Michel's much appreciated view on the human psyche
> (the layers and all that), the theories that we construct need to work
> with the fact that people are inclined to do very irrational things. I
> feel that idealistic, good meaning theories, including socialism, and
> the commons, don't achieve that.
>
> So we need to work with that irrationality, which sometimes leads to
> things like profit, scarcity enforcing currency, etc, but a good
> model/theory should not amplify our flawed tendencies, just recognize
> them and work with them. That's the point I wanted to make, not the
> human psyche itself, however it may be constructed, and no one really
> knows, even though some views are more enlightened than others.
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:54 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's really enlightening.
>>
>> I'll repost your response on Ox-En (cut & paste into thread)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> This is a very complex subject, but I think your dichotomy is too
>>> simplistic, i.e. irrational natural behaviour vs. rational human
>>> civilizational behaviour ...
>>>
>>> Indeed much that is 'evil' in us, does not come from the animal part, but
>>> from the human, and how it activily represses some 'naturality' (of course
>>> talking like this is in itself misleading, since the human is of course also
>>> natural).
>>>
>>> So the best ways of seeing it is are for me still the integrative
>>> approaches, seeing how different levels of psychic complexitity develop on
>>> top of the other, each with a potential to repress in pathological ways,
>>> remnants of the earlier layers.
>>>
>>> This is why any human that wishes to grow, must at some point undertake a
>>> regression in the service of the ego in order to become more fully aware of
>>> these archaic sediments, and how they influence us.
>>>
>>> I think  your 'rational' model also fails to see the transrational
>>> requirements, which are better developed in the East, i.e. not just to
>>> master the irrational with the so-called rational mind (the western
>>> enligthenment), but also also to master the so-called rational mind, from a
>>> trans-rational, trans-mental (i.e. it looks at the mind itself, from the
>>> wordless  'witness' position) (i.e. the eastern enligthenment)
>>>
>>> I'm not in favour of radical eastern enlightenment per se (in fact, I'm
>>> opposed to it), but rather for a balanced 'householder' spirituality that is
>>> embodied in real life and social engagement, and recognizes both archaic,
>>> rational, and transrational aspects of our selves.
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:42 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This starts out in a different context than the one being discussed
>>>> here but the conclusion is applicable to the context of this debate...
>>>>
>>>> ~~Reposted from Ox-En~~
>>>>
>>>> I happen to believe that there are two parts to our psyche: the
>>>> rational part and the ancient animal or irrational part (greed,
>>>> irrational pleasures, temptation, and most importantly 'fear', all
>>>> reside there, i.e. our weaknesses)
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, the purpose of civilization is to tame or minimize or even
>>>> eliminate irrational behavior but the irrational part in us is not as
>>>> conditionable as the rational part, which is why war, crime and
>>>> injustice continue to this day.
>>>>
>>>> According to latest game theory research, rational behavior in nature
>>>> demands both egalitarian type cooperation as well as competition, not
>>>> just competition or cooperation in the context of competition.
>>>>
>>>> However, when it comes to the irrational part, where fear reigns
>>>> supreme (and is the root cause of our weakness), we don't really
>>>> follow evolutionary game theory as much as we should. We do follow it
>>>> when we are feeling courage and when we are resourced (psychologically
>>>> and physically) but when weakness creeps up (due to irrational fear of
>>>> something including some of the deepest existential issues) we enter
>>>> into a state of temporary irrationality, out of weakness, and with
>>>> some people it becomes a homeostasis, i.e. stuck in fear.
>>>>
>>>> That is why the capitalist system works (whereas socialist systems
>>>> have failed thus far) even when it promotes war, crime and injustice.
>>>> It feeds on our weakness. We must resist it, but we cannot defeat it
>>>> unless we rise above our weakness. At this time seeing how people are
>>>> today the hope I have in my own work is to understand fear and the
>>>> process of gaining strength and enable a system that allows people to
>>>> gain courage and abandon fear, but that is akin to asking someone to
>>>> change their homeostasis to a new one. It's an incredibly difficult
>>>> process and there are entire libraries of books written about the
>>>> subject (e.g. spiritual books, religions, psychology books, self help
>>>> books, etc)
>>>>
>>>> There has to be a better way, but it can be overlooking the fact that
>>>> we are, as a civilization, still predominantly driven by fear.
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > I may have posted this before?
>>>> >
>>>> > but anyway, it's relevant between possible linkages between socialist
>>>> > movements and p2p:
>>>> >
>>>> > Magnus Marsdal on Socialist Individualism
>>>> >
>>>> > Socialist Individualism. Essay by Magnus Marsdal.
>>>> >
>>>> > URL = http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/marxind2.html
>>>> >
>>>> > "socialism is defined as the democratic management of society’s vital
>>>> > resources (“the economy‿). Under Stalinism, undeniably the economy was
>>>> > subject to explicitly political governance, but no-one would ever label
>>>> > that
>>>> > political economy “democratic‿. It belongs at the far end of our axis,
>>>> > with
>>>> > meagre individual liberties. Now, notice how the nearest challenger of
>>>> > the
>>>> > Evil Empire in this respect is unrestrained capitalism! Market
>>>> > liberalism
>>>> > weakens the position of the working individual on the labour market as
>>>> > far
>>>> > as it can, and does pretty much the same with the political bodies of
>>>> > democracy. Under the welfare state there are substantial “socialist
>>>> > inroads‿
>>>> > in the capitalist system. This partial protection from “the tyranny of
>>>> > the
>>>> > rich‿ strengthens the position of the individual.
>>>> >
>>>> > When the historical advancement of democracy is seen like this, the
>>>> > current
>>>> > position of “the new movements‿—arguing that “another world is possible‿
>>>> > and
>>>> > at the same time fiercely defending the existing welfare state
>>>> > arrangements—becomes less paradoxical. Neoliberalism is perceived as
>>>> > reactionary. The foes of the welfare state are truly “winding the clock
>>>> > backwards‿. Therefore we fight to defend what already exists. But there
>>>> > is
>>>> > something to fight for beyond the instable truce of the so-called mixed
>>>> > economy of Keynesian times. Therefore, we also fight for what does not
>>>> > yet
>>>> > exist."
>>>> >
>>>> > Bruno Theret, on the tradition of 'civil socialism'
>>>> >
>>>> > The peer to peer movement differs from the traditional socialist
>>>> > movement in
>>>> > that it does not rely on the state, but on autonomous developments
>>>> > within
>>>> > civil society. Such a movement was prefigured by what Bruno Theret calls
>>>> > the
>>>> > tradition of civil socialism. Very interesting French-language essay.
>>>> >
>>>> > The essay by Bruno Theret is at
>>>> > http://fr.pekea-fr.org/?p=11&c=2-3-Theret.html
>>>> >
>>>> > Theret also refers to three historical traditions necessary to develop
>>>> > these
>>>> > ideas further: 1) the pre-marxist socialism of Pierre Leroux, very
>>>> > strong in
>>>> > the revolutions of 1848; 2) the federal or guild socialism of Karl
>>>> > Polanly,
>>>> > author of the landmark book The Great Transformation; 3) the
>>>> > contemporary
>>>> > neo-communautarian theory of Michael Walzer.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Kevin Carson
>>>> > <free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 5/3/09, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > Hi Sam,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I face similar difficulties,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > socialism can mean many many different things, but it is essentially
>>>> >> > a
>>>> >> > 19 cy social ideology that has been deeply discredited by 20th
>>>> >> > century
>>>> >> > failings ...
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > this is one of the reasons that I use the peer to peer narrative and
>>>> >> > steer away from any language in that tradition
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think the recovered understanding of "socialism" as it existed in
>>>> >> the early 19th century, subsequently buried by a late 19th century
>>>> >> shift in meaning that became dominant in the 20th, is quite relevant
>>>> >> to the p2p movement.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It seems to me that both the state capitalists and the state
>>>> >> socialists have an interest in suppressing this recovered meaning,
>>>> >> because it's in their shared interest to pretend that our only
>>>> >> alternatives are a world run by Gosplan and a world owned by
>>>> >> Halliburton.  It amounts to a cartel in which they can divide up their
>>>> >> market shares between people who see
>>>> >> Gosplan or Halliburton, respectively, as more threatening than the
>>>> >> alternative.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Kevin Carson
>>>> >> Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
>>>> >> Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
>>>> >> http://mutualist.blogspot.com
>>>> >> Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
>>>> >> http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
>>>> >> Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>>> > http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>>> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>> >
>>>> > Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>>> > http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>>> > http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>> >
>>>> > Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>> >
>>>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>>> > http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > p2presearch mailing list
>>>> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Marc Fawzi
>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>
>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>
>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>
>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Marc Fawzi
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>

-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi