[Daktoria]

In discussing relations of production, Marx emphasizes the need to keep the social distinct from the technical in correlating with the subject-object dichotomy. It isn't until commodity fetishism that the subject-object dichotomy becomes blurred.

However, when discussing abstract versus concrete labor, his perspective seems to invert due to abstract labor correlating with exchange-value whereas concrete labor correlates with use-value.

I'm not sure how social relations of production can be conceived outside of exchange-value. After all, socializing involves an exchange of ideas and experiences. Similarly, the technical means of production only seem to relate to use-value where we consider what we can do with stuff.

Therefore, in order to arrive at similar appreciations for technical means of production, people must share the same feelings. This implies genetic engineering where literally, the objective composition of people is made compatible.

In short, I'm not sure if a dictatorship of the proletariat would really mean anything if that proletariat was still diverse. The more diversity, the more conflict over use value, and the greater need for exchange value in reconciling differences.

This would lead to a resurrection of abstract labor and capital hoarding class at least to intermediate among different groups who feel differently on how to use stuff.

[mikema63]

you could probably get any political ideology to work with enough genetic engineering

[Daktoria]

you could probably get any political ideology to work with enough genetic engineering

You could probably get many ideologies to work without it as well.

For socialism, on the other hand, it seems to be necessary.

[Rei Murasame]

This is actually a great topic. I would love to see some leftists give a response to this question, it really is an interesting one.

[Brother of Karl]

I would imagine that more like-mindedness would be necessary for any global socioeconomic system to work that isn't based on the force of the ruling class. Socialism is probably one such system. However, (as a leftist) I reject the idea that similar genetics is required. I think a more harmonious relationship between people of different groups, if it is possible at all, would be almost completely unaffected by genetic diversity.

[Daktoria]

I would imagine that more like-mindedness would be necessary for any global socioeconomic system to work that isn't based on the force of the ruling class. Socialism is probably one such system. However, (as a leftist) I reject the idea that similar genetics is required. I think a more harmonious relationship between people of different groups, if it is possible at all, would be almost completely unaffected by genetic diversity.

That doesn't explain how everyone comes to terms over use-value though. Different feelings demand different uses.

You basically just said a very long, "No."

[Eauz]

In short, I'm not sure if a dictatorship of the proletariat would really mean anything if that proletariat was still diverse. The more diversity, the more conflict over use value, and the greater need for exchange value in reconciling differences.

This is sort of what the neo-liberal capitalists have been attempting to construct over the past 30 - 50 years. There is this need for a lack of diversity, in order to create a stable economy of free trade and commodity exchange. Just look at all the countries you visit, the majority of cultural differences have been broken down, in relation to economics and a lot of the countries have been developed through a model to create similarities. Of course, the difference in labour/living costs do exist, but the economic structure remains the same. I have lived in Europe, North America and Asia and in each of those cities, the economic ideology remains the same, regardless of the cultural differences.

I don't think it is necessary for a socialist economy to use genetics to engineer people. I think the starting point to developing a socialist culture is to first move away from the concept that capitalism (economic growth) is the only means of developing a society. Socialists must also reject this concept of welfare as a form of economic stability. I think promoting a culture of individual development and collective growth as a population should be the goal of socialists, however, again, it should not be a form of promoting state welfare. However, as it stands, since our current culture has been ingrained in our lives for a number of years, it would be stupid to suggest that we would wake up tomorrow and things would be perfect.

I think a major misunderstanding regarding fetishism is that humans could completely be abstracted from it. This would assume that one would be a zombie or a robot with no feelings or connections. I don't think Marx promoted this idea. In a commodity market, producers and consumers perceive each other via the goods that are bought and sold. Having an absolute knowledge about markets is not a requirement to partake in the activities of the market. It is the distorted perception of markets facilitates or is conducive to their operation, to the extent that it legitimates and justifies the position of participants in them. I think the point remains that we want to promote a better understanding of the market and promote an active participation in the development of goods and services in a society. However, for the most part, we've been completely extracted from the process of economic development that we no longer are connected directly to the goods and services we produce. We now leave it to corporations and elites to control the production, manufacturing and marketing. Our environment helps to promote this concept of acceptance. We want to reclaim ownership over the means of production to encourage collective production (reduce time, labour) and encourage more individual time to develop skills/abilities/hobbies.

[Daktoria]

Our environment helps to promote this concept of acceptance. We want to reclaim ownership over the means of production to encourage collective production (reduce time, labour) and encourage more individual time to develop skills/abilities/hobbies.

Can you expand on what an ideal socialist environment is? How would socialism ensure that people can agree on appropriate work time:free time ratios?

[Someone5]

In discussing relations of production, Marx emphasizes the need to keep the social distinct from the technical in correlating with the subject-object dichotomy. It isn't until commodity fetishism that the subject-object dichotomy becomes blurred.

However, when discussing abstract versus concrete labor, his perspective seems to invert due to abstract labor correlating with exchange-value whereas concrete labor correlates with use-value.

I'm not sure how social relations of production can be conceived outside of exchange-value. After all, socializing involves an exchange of ideas and experiences. Similarly, the technical means of production only seem to relate to use-value where we consider what we can do with stuff.

Therefore, in order to arrive at similar appreciations for technical means of production, people must share the same feelings. This implies genetic engineering where literally, the objective composition of people is made compatible.

In short, I'm not sure if a dictatorship of the proletariat would really mean anything if that proletariat was still diverse. The more diversity, the more conflict over use value, and the greater need for exchange value in reconciling differences.

This would lead to a resurrection of abstract labor and capital hoarding class at least to intermediate among different groups who feel differently on how to use stuff.

Social engineering is required, genetic engineering is not. Existing biology is entirely suitable for the task.

I would imagine that more like-mindedness would be necessary for any global socioeconomic system to work that isn't based on the force of the ruling class. Socialism is probably one such system. However, (as a leftist) I reject the idea that similar genetics is required. I think a more harmonious relationship between people of different groups, if it is possible at all, would be almost completely unaffected by genetic diversity.

All socioeconomic systems require social engineering to perpetuate themselves; socialism is no different from feudalism or capitalism in this respect. Genetic engineering is not required, however. Different genetic groups can participate in the same culture without problems.

That doesn't explain how everyone comes to terms over use-value though. Different feelings demand different uses.

You basically just said a very long, "No."

I don't understand why you think that this works correctly under capitalism; there is extreme disagreement over use-value in capitalist systems. It's only resolved through force and coercion by elites. Societies apparently have no need to universally agree on use-value.

[Someone5]

Accidental Double Post.

[Daktoria]

Social engineering is required, genetic engineering is not. Existing biology is entirely suitable for the task.

How does social engineering change people's feelings?

I don't understand why you think that this works correctly under capitalism; there is extreme disagreement over use-value in capitalist systems. It's only resolved through force and coercion by elites. Societies apparently have no need to universally agree on use-value.

In capitalism, you have private property. People can't take your stuff just because they feel you're using it wrong.

[Someone5]

How does social engineering change people's feelings?

Your feelings are very heavily influenced by the culture you live in and the culture you grew up in. Social engineering can change everything from how people approach conflict resolution to how they feel about symbols or how they define beauty. Goals are absolutely influenced by society.

In capitalism, you have private property. People can't take your stuff just because they feel you're using it wrong.

How does this resolve differences in opinions about use-value? It just means one party can use force and threats of violence to keep dissent suppressed. Just because it's your private property does not mean I can't disagree with how you use it. All you've done is create a system where I can feel that way and can't do anything about it. The difference of opinion is still there.

[Daktoria]

Your feelings are very heavily influenced by the culture you live in and the culture you grew up in. Social engineering can change everything from how people approach conflict resolution to how they feel about symbols or how they define beauty. Goals are absolutely influenced by society.

Our goals are heavily influenced by our culture, but our feelings are physically driven by genes, hormones, and neurology.

Whether in economics or psychology, emotions define pleasurable versus painful experience. Changing this would require internally modifying people's constitution.

How does this resolve differences in opinions about use-value? It just means one party can use force and threats of violence to keep dissent suppressed. Just because it's your private property does not mean I can't disagree with how you use it. All you've done is create a system where I can feel that way and can't do anything about it. The difference of opinion is still there.

If you steal my stuff, that would prove you don't care about my faculty of judgment. Ergo, there's no reason to believe you identify with civil society.

It isn't just economics at odds here. It's the rule of law. We can have differences of opinion without affecting each other's lifestyles.

In socialism, use-value is everything, so we can't. Those with weird feelings are cast out and abused.

[Someone5]

Our goals are heavily influenced by our culture, but our feelings are physically driven by genes, hormones, and neurology.

How they're activated and how they're expressed are driven to a very large degree by culture. For example; people are not universally offended or angered by the same things, nor do they react to that offense or anger in the same way. You are overemphasizing biology. Suggesting that a society would need to change its genes to change its behavior is akin to suggesting that one would need to redesign a computer's processor in order to load a different program. Culture plays a much stronger role in this case than biology does.

I think it's probably worth noting that hunter-gatherers practiced a form of non-industrial anarchism--clearly there's no fundamental conflict between human biology and socialism/anarchism.

If you steal my stuff, that would prove you don't care about my faculty of judgment. Ergo, there's no reason to believe you identify with civil society.

It isn't just economics at odds here. It's the rule of law. We can have differences of opinion without affecting each other's lifestyles.

No, you can't. If I am greatly offended by your use of private property (let's say you build a pig farm on the lot next to mine), that most certainly can and will impact my lifestyle.

But even if it did not, how would this constitute a resolution to the use-value disagreement? We're still disagreeing about use-value. The system does nothing to address that, it just entitles you to use force and coercion to protect "your" stuff. That's not a reasonable solution.

In socialism, use-value is everything, so we can't. Those with weird feelings are cast out and abused.

Use-value is no more or less important in a socialist system than it is in a capitalist system. Given that capitalism doesn't solve this particular problem--at all--I'm not sure why that should be considered a reason to maintain it.

[Eauz]

Can you expand on what an ideal socialist environment is? How would socialism ensure that people can agree on appropriate work time:free time ratios?

First, there is no ideal socialist environment. Secondly, the development of a collectivist culture will ultimately determine the required need for work. It is quite possible that social engineering may be part of the development, but history proves that it is possible to use social engineering to restructure the population.

[Daktoria]

How they're activated and how they're expressed are driven to a very large degree by culture. For example; people are not universally offended or angered by the same things, nor do they react to that offense or anger in the same way. You are overemphasizing biology. Suggesting that a society would need to change its genes to change its behavior is akin to suggesting that one would need to redesign a computer's processor in order to load a different program. Culture plays a much stronger role in this case than biology does.

I think it's probably worth noting that hunter-gatherers practiced a form of non-industrial anarchism--clearly there's no fundamental conflict between human biology and socialism/anarchism.

Let me put it this way.

I have a father who is actually an archer. He literally hunts, and he literally runs an outdoorsman shop chain (as his social life, not strictly for profit).

He's a terrible communicator, and the reason is because he's emotionally judgmental. He can't help but be a split thinker, and it doesn't matter how much you try to reason with him. Everything is hierarchy. Either he's on top, or he's being coerced. If he can't opportunize the situation, he simply walks away and ignores any responsibility expected of him.

I don't know where your impression of hunter-gatherer societies comes from, but I literally lived it growing up in the woods. Whatever you think is very wrong.

I'll give you some credit on culture because coming from an Italian Catholic family, we were alienated from the Protestant Work Ethic. In fact, Marx himself identified Protestantism being the key to the rise of capitalism from feudalism in discussing abstract and concrete labor:

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion.

However, like you said, people are not universally offended or angered by the same things. Social engineering is contingent upon emotional status. You can't condition everyone and expect universal success.

No, you can't. If I am greatly offended by your use of private property (let's say you build a pig farm on the lot next to mine), that most certainly can and will impact my lifestyle.

You're talking about externalities, not the use of property itself.

For example, if I build a pig farm, but it's walled off to the point that you can't see it, it won't have any effect.

Your problem seems to be freedom of expression, not free markets.

But even if it did not, how would this constitute a resolution to the use-value disagreement? We're still disagreeing about use-value. The system does nothing to address that, it just entitles you to use force and coercion to protect "your" stuff. That's not a reasonable solution.

It's my stuff because I invested artifice into it. I'm not sure what's coercive about that. Artifice is what defines personhood.

Socialism, in contrast, doesn't have an appreciation for artifice. It only has an appreciation for labor. That is it only cares about magnitude, not direction, of force.

You didn't invest artifice, so your opinion would be irrelevant. If you invest artifice in say creating a horse ranch, it doesn't matter what I think of it. The point is you directed its existence, so that's where your identity exists.

How else can identity be defined?

Use-value is no more or less important in a socialist system than it is in a capitalist system. Given that capitalism doesn't solve this particular problem--at all--I'm not sure why that should be considered a reason to maintain it.

In capitalism, exchange-value defines who owns what. One person's opinion on functionality doesn't dominate another's.

Again, your problem seems to be freedom of expression, not free markets. Your concerned about the externalities (such as the stink or appearance of a pig farm) of private property, not private property (such as a pig farm) itself.

____________________

First, there is no ideal socialist environment. Secondly, the development of a collectivist culture will ultimately determine the required need for work. It is quite possible that social engineering may be part of the development, but history proves that it is possible to use social engineering to restructure the population.

If there's no ideal, then I don't know why socialism should be considered as an ideology.

I don't deny that social engineering is possible either, but the question is whether or not it's respectful. You're also referring to capitalist history as a failure. I don't see you referring to any successful history.

The problem is you can't engineer use-value. You can engineer exchange-value by establishing a system of customs, but use-value is founded on pleasure and pain. This literally means you have to tinker with the inner workings of humanity.

The only alternative I see to that is you anti-socially whipping people who don't work to your satisfaction whether it's not enough or in the wrong way. Even then, you're not guaranteed results, and who's to say you're actually creating "relations" of production if you have to be anti-social to get your way?

In short, socialism has no remedy for dealing with wise guys. It also has no way of distinguishing innocents from wise guys.

[Someone5]

Let me put it this way.

I have a father who is actually an archer. He literally hunts, and he literally runs an outdoorsman shop chain (as his social life, not strictly for profit).

He's a terrible communicator, and the reason is because he's emotionally judgmental. He can't help but be a split thinker, and it doesn't matter how much you try to reason with him. Everything is hierarchy. Either he's on top, or he's being coerced. If he can't opportunize the situation, he simply walks away and ignores any responsibility expected of him.

I don't know where your impression of hunter-gatherer societies comes from, but I literally lived it growing up in the woods.

Studies of societies of hunter-gatherers, not small family groups in subsistence situations. As in the contemporary hunter-gatherers, as few as there are remaining. They do still exist beyond small family units. In other words, a few people living off the land in the woods does not constitute a meaningful society--that the societies of hunter-gatherers that have been observed operate according to a decision-making structure that could easily be characterized as non-industrial anarchism.

Large groups of hunter-gatherers operating together are a society, and require social organization that smaller family groups do not. Anarchism is without a doubt the least complex sort of social organization.

However, like you said, people are not universally offended or angered by the same things. Social engineering is contingent upon emotional status. You can't condition everyone and expect universal success.

Capitalists have managed to attain mostly universal success, and they aren't even self-conscious about their social engineering. Universal applicability isn't required anyway. 70% would be way more than sufficient.

You're talking about externalities, not the use of property itself.

The use of property cannot be separated from the problem of externalities. Property itself imposes an externality by creating scarcity (through the denial of access to others).

For example, if I build a pig farm, but it's walled off to the point that you can't see it, it won't have any effect.

Except the smell. And the trucks. And the noise. And by looking at estimates of the value of my own property. What your neighbors do directly effects the value of your own property. If the neighbor turns their house into a crack den, your own property value is going to plummit. Even if he builds a fence.

Your problem seems to be freedom of expression, not free markets.

Free markets don't exist, so I don't give them much consideration.

It's my stuff because I invested artifice into it. I'm not sure what's coercive about that. Artifice is what defines personhood.

It's coercive because you deny it to others, and in doing so create a situation of artificial scarcity. Of land, even if nothing else.

Socialism, in contrast, doesn't have an appreciation for artifice. It only has an appreciation for labor. That is it only cares about magnitude, not direction, of force.

Meaningless distinction.

You didn't invest artifice, so your opinion would be irrelevant. If you invest artifice in say creating a horse ranch, it doesn't matter what I think of it. The point is you directed its existence, so that's where your identity exists.

Through illegitimate theft from public resources. If you claim exclusive dominion over something because you invested a portion of yourself into it, you have in effect stolen from everyone around you who might otherwise have done something else. If you eliminate the property claim, you eliminate the theft component.

In capitalism, exchange-value defines who owns what. One person's opinion on functionality doesn't dominate another's.

Actually, it does dominate exactly that; the owner's opinion is dominant, and protected by threats and force.

Again, your problem seems to be freedom of expression, not free markets. Your concerned about the externalities (such as the stink or appearance of a pig farm) of private property, not private property (such as a pig farm) itself.

Private property is indistinguishable from the consequences it imposes on others. In the same sense that you are indistinguishable from the products of your labor.

[Daktoria]

Studies of societies of hunter-gatherers, not small family groups in subsistence situations. As in the contemporary hunter-gatherers, as few as there are remaining. They do still exist beyond small family units. In other words, a few people living off the land in the woods does not constitute a meaningful society--that the societies of hunter-gatherers that have been observed operate according to a decision-making structure that could easily be characterized as non-industrial anarchism.

Large groups of hunter-gatherers operating together are a society, and require social organization that smaller family groups do not. Anarchism is without a doubt the least complex sort of social organization.

I don't think you read the part of my father managing a store chain.

Capitalists have managed to attain mostly universal success, and they aren't even self-conscious about their social engineering. Universal applicability isn't required anyway. 70% would be way more than sufficient.

This is despicable. Where do you get this 70% privileged status from?

Furthermore, how do you establish this 70% privileged status without dealing with genetic engineering? It sounds like you're suggesting divine right. Only those with previously and externally endowed compatible utility preferences would be entitled to respect.

The use of property cannot be separated from the problem of externalities. Property itself imposes an externality by creating scarcity (through the denial of access to others).

No, scarcity is natural. Every inch of space in the universe is not filled with matter, and disequilibrium exists both in matter and energy.

Except the smell. And the trucks. And the noise. And by looking at estimates of the value of my own property. What your neighbors do directly effects the value of your own property. If the neighbor turns their house into a crack den, your own property value is going to plummit. Even if he builds a fence.

Then your problem is reputation. You're not entitled to another person's title.

It's coercive because you deny it to others, and in doing so create a situation of artificial scarcity. Of land, even if nothing else.

No, coercion deals with initiative, not lack thereof.

Furthermore, multiple people can't use the same matter, energy, or space at the same time. We need a method to determine who gets to use what when. Otherwise, everything will be constantly vulnerable to a tug-of-war.

Those with popular feelings win, those with unpopular feelings lose. We're right back to genetic engineering again.

Through illegitimate theft from public resources.

Where do you get this identity of public resources?

Meaningless distinction.

Without artifice, how are you identifying people?

Actually, it does dominate exactly that; the owner's opinion is dominant, and protected by threats and force.

How is that dominant? If you own a piece of property, that doesn't mean you own another person.

Do you believe people should be allowed to use other people's bodies?!?! I mean you really don't make sense here. Going back to the pig farm, it sounds like you would be offended if someone simply dressed in a way you didn't like, no differently from an Islamist.

Private property is indistinguishable from the consequences it imposes on others. In the same sense that you are indistinguishable from the products of your labor.

I feel like you don't have a sense of time...

[Eauz]

The problem is you can't engineer use-value. You can engineer exchange-value by establishing a system of customs, but use-value is founded on pleasure and pain. This literally means you have to tinker with the inner workings of humanity.

How is that so? Humans have moved from a hunter living meal to meal to one that has lived in cities and have more food than one can ever want. The goals, desire & interests have constantly changed throughout history. If not, then we'd all still be wanting to hit each other over the head and eat raw meat. Our socioeconomic environments dictate a major portion of our cultural desires. Did children in the 1700's want iPhones? I am not going to suggest what people under socialism/communism would want, because that would be like me living in the 1400's, wondering what people will want to have in 2012.

[Daktoria]

How is that so? Humans have moved from a hunter living meal to meal to one that has lived in cities and have more food than one can ever want. The goals, desire & interests have constantly changed throughout history. If not, then we'd all still be wanting to hit each other over the head and eat raw meat. Our socioeconomic environments dictate a major portion of our cultural desires. Did children in the 1700's want iPhones? I am not going to suggest what people under socialism/communism would want, because that would be like me living in the 1400's, wondering what people will want to have in 2012.

The use-value people want over time stays the same. We're tired, cold, hungry, lonely, bored, excited, confused, ambitious, etc.

The only difference is how we satisfy it. No, people didn't always want iPhones. Did people always want to talk?

You cannot socially engineer desire itself. You can only engineer how desire is satisfied, and even the satisfaction of desire has fixed emotions. What is painful is painful. What is pleasurable is pleasurable. Pain and pleasure are experiences only realized on the inside. They cannot be externally modified.