| document id: |
author: |
archive link |
publisher id: |
date written: |
| (notes for this file:) this document is part of "Anti-Joseph and the S.O.M.E. Hypothesis" | ||||
But will the trains run on time ?
|
Contents: TIP: Clicking on any of the paragraph numbers
--------- along the left margin
will take you back and forth
between the body of the article
and the table of contents.
paragraph
number chapters sections subheads
--------------------------------------------------------------
212 I. An Interview with Comrade Science
229 II. Returning to Capitalism
235 Competition Amplifies Struggle Against Corruption
238 What is the kind of corruption that the masses
would oppose ?
240 Force "like gravity" would be resisted by actions
of the masses
245 Joseph's Islands
248 Joseph's word games
250 Production units bound together by unitary needs
of the masses
256 III. Leninism and single-point control theory
264 Insight into Corruption
268 Joseph's Alternative: Elections without Politics
282 "The Vote" is only a single tool in a toolbox
285 Joseph opposes discussion
288 IV. Taking Communist Theory to an Expanded
Audience
294 Footnotes:
302 Appendix A: A reply to Joseph on
more specific issues:
304 1. Joseph's Chemical Poisoning
307 2. Joseph's Trade Secrets
309 3. Joseph's Re-education
314 4. Censorship of the Mass Media
335 The truth will out
337 Information wants to be free
340 Information warfare
346 Joseph's charge of censorship
348 Censorship by boycott
351 Censorship by labor action
356 Censorship by false appeals
358 Censorship by secondary boycott
366 Censoring the fat Elvis (the masses and
interactive design)
372 How would the cultural struggle be waged on
Joseph's planet ?
383 Censorship will be impossible
390 A scenario -- the struggle over focus and
attention
393 Joseph's brand of _1984_ censorship
398 Dr. Strangelove salutes the Ministry of Truth
425 5. Ben's program for Joseph and the sectarians
434 Joseph opposes the development of Marxism
437 Let's fight in the daylight
440 1) Let readers decide for themselves what they
want to read
442 2) Give me realistic space to speak for myself
444 3) Let the fight be broadcast live -- let's have
action in real time
446 4) Lighten up on the spam & encourage
participation in discussion
448 5) Can the spam about censorship
450 6) Joseph should get a job
452 Time for the roto-rooter
454 Footnotes for Appendix A
464 Appendix B: A reply to Fred on "The
Tragedy of the Commons"
467 Aluminum Jigs vs. Extra Hours
470 Output must exceed input
474 Capitalism cannot handle externalities
476 Concrete vs. Asphalt Driveways
480 Fred's question: Diamond Drills vs. Hardened
Steel Drills
493 The Tragedy of the Commons
496 Joseph's central planning
501 How a complex adaptive system deals with "the
Tragedy of the Commons"
503 The merger of work with its measurement
511 1) The information indices
515 Perfect is the enemy of good enough
518 Easy access to indices
521 Labor time indices
524 Environmental indices
526 Joseph's binary logic applied to pollution from
hamburgers
532 Joseph's bell curve
535 Who assigns the ratings ?
537 Other kinds of indices
539 Indices which indicate what others are doing
544 2) The self-correcting mechanisms
547 Different kinds of out-of-equilibrium conditions
554 The Congress of Diamond Drill Producers Confronts
the Congress of Diamond Drill Consumers
561 Footnotes for Appendix B
|
| Note by Ben: Recently Joseph replied to my polemic written against him eight months ago. My first thought was "What would Comrade Science think ?" So I conducted a brief interview with "Comrade Science" (ie: Dr. Itzalso Sympul, Professor of Dialectical Materialism and director of the world-famous Institute for the Study of Assumptron Culture). |
| Ben: Dr. Sympul, Joseph has characterized my sketch of future communist society as a "nightmare" in which vigilantes will sabotage and disrupt the smooth functioning of society and threaten workers and dissidents with starvation, imprisonment, "disintegration" and even having their brains "tampered with" for such crimes as selecting the wrong brand of paint. Factories would shut each other down for painting their parts with the wrong stuff. The mass media would be censored, actors and actresses would be blacklisted and even soap operas would be rescripted. Everybody would keep secrets from each other, and in general a climate of fear will prevail and the whole miserable tyranny, even were it ever constructed, would collapse back into capitalism anyhow. What is wrong with this picture ? |
| Comrade Science: Well this just goes to prove that one man's paradise is another man's hell. More seriously, Joseph's main concern is that without an official "formal authority" or "general authority" which would constitute a single directing center (ie: a von Neumann point) for the entire economy and culture -- that people's political and personal freedoms will be crushed -- and that further (to make matters worse) the trains won't run on time. |
| Ben: Well there must be some content to Joseph's concerns. I mean how can a society function if, for example, the trains do not run on time ? |
| Comrade Science: The answer Ben is that society needs trains that run on time but it also has the resilience to tolerate a certain amount of flexibility. The heavens will not collapse if on occasion a train is late. The key issue here that Joseph misses is that the economy and culture of a future communist society would constitute what we in the complexity field call a "complex adaptive system". It is true that the struggles of workers in such a society would occasionally make a train late or result in other types of minor disruptions. But the key thing to see is that the process contains within itself the capacity to self-correct -- or to be adaptive. For example, if the struggle of workers becomes too disruptive of social order, the inconveniences of the disruption register in and become part of public opinion, which in turn impacts the consciousness of the workers involved. Workers who are too disruptive find that they will lose public support (which they will need in order to win their struggles) and so they turn to those forms of struggle which are in just and measured proportion to the seriousness of their grievances as reflected in the consciousness of the public (ie: other workers). |
| Ben: That seems somewhat obvious. Why can't Joseph see that ? |
| Comrade Science: Joseph's thinking is clouded for several reasons. He has a political and emotional need to prove his own indispensability. This constitutes a very powerful lens which functions like the mirror made famous by Lewis Caroll. Therefore it does not occur to Joseph -- what is intuitive to most normal people -- that the social disruptions he envisions would follow a "power curve" just like most other complex phenomena. |
| Ben: What kind of curve ? |
| Comrade Science: Many complex chaotic systems share certain features in common. Consider the phenomena of earthquakes. The vast majority of all earth movements are fairly small. On occasion, a quake which is 100,000 times more powerful occurs, but it occurs 100,000 times less often. The power curve is so named because if you plot frequency (ie: how often something occurs) vs. magnitude (of the occurrence) on a logarithmic chart, you will often get a straight line. |
| Similarly, the social disruptions of which Joseph is so much afraid would also logically be expected to follow something like a power curve. On a great many occasions the train is a few seconds late. On far fewer occasions it is a few minutes late. And on very rare occasions it doesn't come at all. You already made this point completely clear in your paragraph 120 where you say: "Most struggles might be minor and end in simple compromise. More important issues would tend to escalate and on occasion the most important issues might quickly convulse the whole of society." |
| What Joseph cannot see, what his prejudices blind him to, is the role played in all this by the consciousness of the masses. The masses will support the actions of a section of workers if their cause seems worthwhile and the social cost does not seem to be too great. Excessive disruption over inconsequential or trivial matters would result in the rapid evaporation of mass support. And without mass support struggles would tend to go nowhere. And people would see this and learn from this. Judgment enters into the equation from every single mind involved. This is what escapes Joseph. This is the factor that Joseph cannot see because for him all judgment must be channeled through and act via the single "formal" and "general" authority. The role of the masses can only be played when properly filtered and focused through this single point of control . Joseph's instincts, because of their theoretical origin in Stalin's mummification of Lenin's theory, lead Joseph to regard unfiltered mass actions with the same elemental sense of fear that you or I might feel when encountering a great white shark. |
| Ben: What about Joseph's charges that workers would starve each other, put one another into jail, "disintegrate" one another or "tamper with" each others brains ? |
| Comrade Science: Communist society would operate according to the principle: "To each according to his need". Since everyone needs to eat -- a steady supply of food (and all the necessities of life) would be a birthright. Again, Joseph only believes that no one can have these rights because there would be no von Neumann point, no single point of control . You made all this clear Ben when you quoted Engels (paragraph 146) on the elimination of the struggle for individual existence. |
| But Joseph doesn't see this because he has starvation on his mind, Ben, because you called on his supporters to stop paying him a living allowance and suggested that he get a job and work for a living. Joseph would like to spend all his time working for the "anti-revisionist" cause but a job would interfere with his addiction (to writing useless stuff and pretending that he is shaking the world). And if Joseph was not supported by others -- and did not get a job -- he would starve. |
| All of Joseph's arguments boil down to his simple tautology: Without a von Neumann point -- nothing works as it should. Joseph is very attached to the idea of a von Neumann point. A von Neumann point is his sole source of security. Joseph imagines that a von Neumann point is "Leninist" and a protection of communism against revisionism, capitalism and anarchism. |
| Joseph pictures all kinds of abuses taking place because in Joseph's mind -- only the existence of a von Neumann point can prevent the abuses. It is inconceivable to Joseph's brain that basic human rights could be guaranteed by the actions and sensibilities of the masses who supposedly cannot think and cannot act without Joseph's von Neumann point. |
| How about Joseph's charge that the entire complex adaptive system that would constitute a communist economy, culture and political system would, if it ever existed, collapse back into capitalism ? |
| There is a point here that is of theoretical interest. Joseph describes how production units would "own" the products they create and "trade" these products with other units to "get what they need". At this point the products are in fact commodities (ie: they are produced not for consumption but instead for exchange). From this we would have a straightforward development of money, credit, finance, etc. leading rather quickly right back to capitalism. |
| So the point to grasp here is that Joseph would be correct in his description of this course of development -- save for a single factor -- the intervention in this process of the masses. Left "to itself" -- without the factor of the consciousness of the masses and the resultant innumerable small actions of millions of people -- such a scenario as Joseph describes is precisely the course that events would follow. |
| So this is all that Joseph has left out. He has "forgotten" only one tiny detail -- the consciousness and the actions of the masses. And we have shown that Joseph's consistent forgetfulness originates in his fear of the masses and his denial of his objective social basis as a person whose existence requires support by a sect. It is a sad situation for a person to be in - - because it tends to cripple their mind. And Joseph has the ability to serve the workers if he could only escape the prison of denial that he has built for himself. |
| But I am getting diverted. Let's consider how the actions of the masses influence the course of events. Let's consider how innumerable "small" actions add up to a factor large enough to prevent the "inevitable" return to capitalism prophesied by Joseph. |
| The key issue here is the role that competition will play in assisting the masses to fight the kind of corruption that Joseph describes. One of the features of such competition is that it provides a mechanism to magnify or amplify small differences. This is a critical and very important feature. A coyote chasing a hare may find that a tiny extra burst of speed at a critical moment may have a big effect on whether that hare gets away and reproduces or becomes lunch. Similarly in war, sometimes small critical events have an impact all out of proportion to their size. And sometimes similar factors play a role in politics and economics. Of course Joseph has said that there will be no politics under communism (Joseph has even falsely claimed that Engels supports him on this). Hence Joseph cannot see that the masses would take action on a political basis to prevent the kind of corruption that in the near-term undermines the economy and in the long-term would restore capitalism. |
| And the masses would be expected to have a fair amount of passion that motivates their actions in this regard. The struggle to overcome capitalism will require tremendous sacrifices from hundreds of millions of people. The abuses, the hardships, the misery, the extreme wastage of resources under capitalism will remain a bitter memory that will underlay the politics of a period that Joseph has claimed will have no politics. |
that the masses would oppose ? |
| Any step in the direction of production for exchange rather than consumption would represent corruption of the first order. Any production unit that treats its products as "property" would lose mass support and not be able to survive in competition with other units that enjoy mass support. And this would be a fairly sensitive process. Even very small steps in the direction of treating products as property could elicit a huge reaction from the masses. This is the amplification effect that would give the communist economy such steady direction and enormous power . |
by actions of the masses |
| In the early period of classless society there would still exist substantial and powerful remnants of the self-centered ideology and thinking created in previous society. Under these conditions the tendency toward corruption would assert itself as an inevitable force, like gravity, that could only be resisted through the actions of the masses . Any tendency, by a production unit, towards asserting "ownership" over what it produces -- would be exposed and smashed up by the masses -- who would regard this as similar to a parent asserting "ownership" over his adult children. |
| Joseph describes how giant alliances and networks may come into existence as part of the political and economic struggle within a communist economic-political system. And yes, such alliances might come about (but not monopolies -- because this is another form of corruption that the masses would not permit -- because the potential for abuse is extreme -- just like it is with the monopoly of allegedly "non-political" political power that Joseph advocates with his "von Neumann single point control theory"). But such alliances would likely be short-lived in a fast-moving and shifting economy and in any event would be battered into quick disintegration should they engage in the open tit-for-tat exchanges of products rather than to make their products available to all on the basis of "wise use". |
| The masses are capable of grasping the necessity of the principle of production for use . The alliances described by Joseph are different than alliances formed on the basis of political principles such as developing the economy and serving the people. Joseph may not be able to distinguish between healthy and corrupt alliances . Joseph may not be able to distinguish between giving a product to a production unit in exchange for (a) its wise consumption (ie: consumption beneficial to society) and (b) another product. But the masses will . |
| The masses will support (with their labor, with their consumption, with their voice) those production units and production alliances that do the most to serve the people. And vice versa -- those units which do less well at serving the needs of the masses will not inspire the hard work and play that will allow them to expand and reproduce themselves and their hallmark traditions and methods. This sounds like ruthless "social Darwinism" to Joseph but it is actually fairly simple: if the music is not good -- people will not dance to it . |
| The corrupt alliances described by Joseph, should they come about, would be quickly isolated. I propose calling such formations "Joseph's Islands" in honor of Joseph, who has theorized their existence. And what would be the fate of Joseph's islands ? Such islands would end up diminutive within an ocean of economic activity. They would enjoy rapidly dwindling mass support. They would likely evaporate or shrink to insignificance. It is difficult to conceive of self-sufficient islands able to survive in a vast interconnected economy because interaction with and support from the rest of the economy would be a condition of the existence of any production unit of real significance. |
| Consider the matter. Why would anyone want to work for a production unit that is corrupt ? In a communist economy no one needs to work in order to eat and live. It is the other way around. People live in order to work and this means that they would no sooner want to work for an outfit that is corrupt than they would want to sacrifice their children to a pagan god. So if Joseph's island is based on commodity production then the redivision of labor (the cleavage into classes with antagonistic material interests) would eventually assert itself and the workers would have a problem with the way things are done. What is to prevent the workers from saying adios (and taking with them the most important and decisive element of production: their skilled labor) ? There would be plenty of other places where people could work for free and be appreciated and be part of a community based on the principle of serving the people. |
| Here is Joseph's problem. Ben uses the word "independent" to describe the production units and Joseph stretches this word till it becomes absolute. (Joseph does this all the time -- it is all that is left to him. If I say that it is a cold day Joseph will argue that if it were really absolute zero then the air would freeze. If I say that The Simpsons is a good TV show Joseph will berate me for failing to denounce Mark Furhman.) In reality everything is interconnected. The production units could never be completely independent from one another. The production units would only have relative independence from one another. They would make decisions at odds with one another. They would compete with one another in a variety of ways. But they could not be completely independent of one another because they are connected via the masses who they must serve as an absolute requirement for their existence as production units, as entities. |
| And because the needs of the masses are unitary in a fundamental sense (ie: dominated by common interests such as the need for a high-synergy, non-capitalist, non-class divided society which provides the conditions of life and happiness for all) -- the various production units are bound together . The difference (from Joseph's conception) is that the production units would be bound together somewhat loosely and with room for flexibility (as opposed to Joseph who would bind everything together very rigidly via his von Neumannist monopoly-of-power single-point-of- control). Hence the production units are independent and compete with one another but at the same time they are connected and cooperate with one another. The two aspects of the contradiction are interconnected. And Joseph cannot rend apart these two fundamental aspects even if he turns a million polemical somersaults (but he may try -- charlatans may not give up as long as there are suckers to support them). |
| So the production units are actually both independent and not independent. This bothers von Neumannist single-point-of-control enthusiast like Joseph because he needs for his security to have tidy little mental conceptual boxes in which everything is neatly categorized. Well maybe a better word to describe the production units than independent is "interdependent" although I am sure that Joseph will have problems with this word also. (If only Joseph's opponents would use only those words and concepts that meet with Joseph's approval -- the world be such a nice and tidy place !) But the point is not the particular word which is used so much as it is the content which the word seeks to represent. And the content of the complex adaptive system that would constitute the communist economy and political system is that it would be neither capitalist nor a command-economy as envisioned by our von Neumannist single-point-of-control-freak. |
| Joseph has made it very clear: either all units march to the single drum beat of a single point of control -- or you have capitalism and anarchism . This is Joseph's actual position if you take the trouble to follow his multitude of twists and turns designed to fool the unwary. Joseph even claims that Engels supports him . But Engels was not a revisionist in theory like our control-freak Joseph and Engels has said nothing nowhere no how that supports Joseph's single-point-of-control theory . |
| So if Joseph cannot make a revisionist out of Engels -- then he tries to make one out of Lenin. And if Ben opposes Joseph's single-point-of-control conception -- why then is not Ben opposing Lenin ? |
| Really ? |
| But if we examine Lenin we find that things are not so cut-and- dried as Joseph would have us believe. Lenin did develop a series of justifications for single-point-of-control theory in the early days of the Soviet Union. But if we examine Lenin's actual arguments we will find that Lenin never asserted that such a single-point-of-control was suited to a modern society . |
| Rather Lenin's argument was very direct: if the Bolsheviks did not institute and maintain a single-point-of-control political system -- the bourgeoisie would be able to return to power. Lenin's reasoning was very clear. Economic conditions were extremely harsh. The peasants were suffering enormously and were politically unsophisticated . If other political parties were allowed to carry out their activity -- these parties would then have made fantastic false promises to the peasants of a better life without the Bolsheviks -- and they would have been believed . And after tossing out the Bolsheviks these other political parties would have served their purpose and been slapped down by the bourgeoisie which would reassert its right to rule society. [1-rc] |
| So what was Lenin's solution ? Lenin felt that the only chance for the victory of the revolution lay in maintaining single-point rule as an emergency measure for a temporary period until better economic conditions could be created. With better conditions -- the popular dissatisfaction against the Bolshevik rule would greatly ease -- and conditions would exist that would permit removal of the emergency single-point-of-control measures. At this point the process of developing a political system compatible with the needs of a modern and stable revolutionary society -- would no longer be a luxury that could not be afforded -- but a necessity required for the development of political and economic life. |
| Now Lenin was very vague as to how long the period of emergency rule would have to be. At one point he estimated 10 to 20 years, at another point much less [2-rc] . Lenin probably was deliberately vague because he understood that it was foolish to make predictions over matters that are inherently difficult-to- impossible to predict. Lenin's hope was that during this period of emergency rule, the energy of the Soviet masses could be harnessed to bail out the economy and restore stability and allow the kinds of political liberty (political rights such as the circulation of parties and literature) that could not be afforded in 1921. |
| Well we all know what happened. After Lenin's death things did not work out. Conditions did not improve. Whether this was the result of the incompetence of the Bolsheviks or was an unavoidable result of the conditions of the times I do not know (nor do I know anyone who knows). And the Bolshevik party , rather than admit defeat and retreat, took on the role of leadership for a new ruling class -- a new bourgeoisie. And Lenin's emergency measures -- introduced as the most bitter necessity for a temporary emergency period designed to permit the more rapid development of a very backward society -- became codified under Stalin as supposedly the correct way for a stable modern society to run its political, cultural and economic life . Stalin appropriated Lenin's emergency measures -- the most bitter necessity of the most bitter imaginable circumstances -- and converted them into a theoretical fortress to justify a permanent system of repression in a modern society. |
| And this is the origin of what I have called "von Neumann social architecture" (single point control theory). And Joseph continues to uphold it to this day . Joseph continues to claim that Engels and Lenin back him up. Joseph continues to claim that anyone who opposes this farce -- is opposing Leninism -- and promoting capitalism and anarchism -- because Joseph has defined matters this way . (If anyone has ever wondered why the MLP's struggle to distinguish Marxism from revisionism became so hopelessly stagnated under Joseph's leadership -- well I think we have the answer here. And along with it we have the answer to why concerns by comrades like Ray {ie: that we were neglecting the theoretical work into the origin of revisionism} could not be brought to the entire party in 1988 without the risk of civil war and the destruction of our organization. And along with that, most importantly, we have the ability to understand why an organization attempting to fulfill a revolutionary destiny was bound to lose its belief in itself .) |
| And Joseph can get away with this nonsense (for a period of time) because his followers are desperate to believe him and a little society of mutual denial has come about. This society was nurtured right in the center of the MLP for most of its life and its most sorry and unfortunate features have revealed themselves most prominently in the last two years -- but they have existed all along and were instrumental in blocking the healthy development of our trend (witness the suppression in 1988 of Ray's concerns that the work on our theoretical foundations was being neglected). |
| And this society of mutual denial that has congealed around Joseph even gives us some insight into the intellectual corruption that came up in the Soviet Union and was flourishing by the 1920's and 30's. The Bolshevik leadership was doubtlessly influenced in their thinking by the knowledge that if they failed to follow the course that they did -- they could or would lose power and possibly their lives as well. Hence the material conditions of their existence influenced and corrupted their intellectual ability which had originally been at the service of the proletariat . Joseph's thinking appears to be influenced by concerns over maintaining the current basis of his physical existence -- as supported full-time leader of a political sect. Now Joseph is hardly living high off the hog (if he saves his pennies he can afford to have a hot dog with his beans on Saturday nights) -- but for Joseph to get a job would involve a major change in his lifestyle and a fair amount of discomfort. |
| Similarly for Joseph's supporters (who have compared me to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini because I call a spade a spade -- I am still awaiting comparisons to Attila the Hun -- I will not rest until I am compared to Attila) to wake up and smell the coffee would involve their giving up illusions that they have become very comfortable with. So we have at close hand a little miniature "living laboratory" in which we can study at our leisure the process of denial within the hearts and minds of activists within society's left-wing movement. |
| Yes the developing denial and corruption of the Bolshevik leadership in the Soviet Union was a major event in human history -- while the denial and intellectual corruption of Joseph's society is only a particle in a footnote. There is a quote somewhere by Marx, maybe in "The 18th Brumaire" (Joseph can find the quote for us -- he has all these quotes underlined and memorized like a preacher who has memorized the bible -- Joseph's only problem is that he cannot understand what the quotes mean) that in history all events occur, as it were, twice, the first time as tragedy , the second time as farce . And I believe that that is what we have here. |
| Joseph denounces as capitalism and anarchism anything that opposes the von Neumann single-point-of-control theory that he has inherited from Stalin. The idea that future communist society would constitute an environment in which political, economic and cultural trends would flourish and would enjoy independence from -- as well as interdependence with -- each other -- is for Joseph the height of anarchism . That such trends would oppose and compete with one another for influence -- as part of their cooperation and participation in a complex adaptive system -- is for Joseph the definition of capitalism. That these trends would result from the "bottom-up" activity of the masses - - is for Joseph anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist. |
| And what is Joseph's alternative ? |
| Apart from his innumerable empty and meaningless phrases for motherhood, apple pie and classless society -- HOW IN PARTICULAR does Joseph propose that his classless society would handle its affairs ? |
| We know that Joseph believes that a single central organization of some sort would run everything. To be more precise, Joseph would allow a multitude of organizations provided only that they were under the control of a single organization at the top of the pyramid which would mediate and arbitrate all conflicts between the separate organizations. We know this because Joseph has denounced the idea that many planning organizations would exist that enjoyed any degree of real independence from one another. |
| We know that Joseph has denounced the idea that even under communism society would contain political contradictions and struggles . Joseph decries this as a war of one against all . What Joseph cannot see is that such "warfare" under communism is not like warfare under capitalism. This is why I did not call it war but said it would be "kind of like a war". By this I meant that it remains the supreme mobilizer of human passion and energy . But I also emphasized that no one has to be killed, no one has to be hurt (except sometimes I suppose people will suffer hurt feelings) and there will be little real destruction. Under communism "warfare" becomes so civilized that it no longer is war. Rather it becomes "war to create" rather than "war to destroy" , a series of contests to mobilize the masses and prove the superiority of one or another set of principles . And even children can participate in this kind of warfare because it becomes, despite its seriousness, a form of play and a path to the development of their abilities, character and personality . |
| Of course Joseph pictures a more "peaceful" society with no conflicts and no politics . What do we know of his single-point- of-control organization ? Well we know that Joseph considers it to be a "formal authority" because in part I of his "Neo- conservative" series he argues that a "formal authority" is needed in order for public opinion to manifest itself [3-r] . In part II, Joseph retreats slightly and tells us that his single- point-of-control will be a "general authority" [4-r] . Further he tells us that it will be a "non-governmental authority" [5-r] and will be "elected by all". So Joseph's authority will not be a government but it will be elected . OK -- makes sense I suppose if we enter the other side of Joseph's magic mirror. Let's just go along and see how far we can take this. |
| What else do we know about Joseph's elections? We know that these elections will not be for a government and that they will contain no politics because Joseph berates me for believing that politics will exist under communism and claims that Engels backs him up [6-r] . Further it appears unlikely that opposing political parties would exist under Joseph's conception because Joseph and Mark have made a point (a very significant point -- and if you actually follow their tortured reasoning -- it is their main point) of denouncing the idea of "independent, conflicting entities" as "capitalism" and "anarchism". But if there are not opposing political parties then the election would consist of a plebiscite in which the population simply approves and ratifies by large margins whatever it is that Joseph's authority does. Of course there could be different political parties on Joseph's planet if they are not "independent from" or "conflict with" one another and are not involved in "politics" . |
| And what would Joseph's formal (but non-governmental) general authority do besides manifest public opinion ? Well we find out from Joseph that it would be responsible for banning products like lead paint which harm the environment and poison people. But its main function would be to plan and direct the entire economy. Following the quote by Engels that Joseph repeatedly cites in the belief that it somehow supports him -- Joseph's authority would not be a government of persons but would administer things and direct the process of production. And also, let's not forget, Joseph has informed us that while his authority would not govern people -- it would manufacture and insure compliance with the "rules of behavior which must be obeyed by all" [7-r] although it could, thankfully, manage to accomplish all this without "a special coercive apparatus". |
| Joseph's authority is indeed very amazing. In fact it is completely indispensable. In addition to everything else we find out that Joseph's authority is all that stands between the masses and their being poisoned, starved, imprisoned, disintegrated, having their brains tampered with and even (to add insult to injury) their soap operas rescripted. |
| So according to Joseph the entire economy of future communist society and all the rules which everyone must obey would be run by a government that was not a government in elections that are not elections and with political parties that neither oppose one another nor get involved in politics. |
| And unlike Joseph (who constantly distorts, exaggerates and twists my positions so that half the time he reports my actual views and the other half assigns to me the views of straw men -- kind of like the popular columnist Dave Barry -- who makes up half his stuff -- but makes the reader guess which half) I am reporting on Joseph's actual public statements and authentic views. |
| To be perfectly honest I do not see how I (or anyone) can make heads or tails of Joseph's non-political politics and absent further clarification from either Joseph or his loyal supporters (who seem to have no trouble lapping up this spam) I am not sure I can really make much of an intelligent comment here. |
| But I will nonetheless try. |
| I believe that in future society the masses will employ a very wide range of means to effect and impact the direction of growth and development of politics, culture and the economy. The "vote", as it were, would play a role in some particular situations but would represent a single tool in a toolbox , a single weapon in an arsenal -- and we should not make a fetish over it or any single method by which the masses convert their convictions and passions into support for or against various principles, parties, or economic units that will shape the direction of future development. The "vote" by itself is no more applicable in all situations than a hammer works for all jobs. Sometimes you need a screwdriver or a wrench . |
| In fact the vote functions simply as a subset of the voice, as a means of registering public opinion (and sometimes as a very imperfect means). And in future communist society the masses will support or oppose economic, cultural and political policies, principles and personalities with their labor , their patterns of consumption and their influence on the currents of public opinion . In short the masses will impact the direction of social development with their every thought, word and action . And this is what takes place even under capitalism, except that under capitalism, in class-divided society, this process takes place to an infinitesimally smaller degree and is generally extremely inefficient because -- until the class struggle is resolved in the only way that it can be -- by the elimination of classes -- the energy and potential of the masses must work a thousand or a million times harder to impact social development. |
| I will make a further point. None of us really do (or could) know a lot about how future communist society will really look and function. And yet, in the current period -- where the predominant view of communism is that it is and will forever be impossible -- a large part of our responsibility is to develop theory about how society can govern its economic, cultural and political affairs without recourse to the market. And to fulfill our responsibility -- we need to openly think about and discuss these kinds of issues . We must share our thoughts . And this is what Joseph opposes -- because the result would inevitably lead to him having to change his lifestyle and (for a while) have to adjust to new circumstances and be uncomfortable . |
| Joseph does not really support discussion of such topics as these. This is why Joseph calls my views capitalism and anarchism . This is why he waits eight months and requires the prod of public humiliation to notify the readers of his journal that I had replied to him 5 days later. This is why Joseph refused without explanation my request that he print my address so that his readers could contact me and receive versions of my work other than the 10% that Joseph decides to reprint. And this is why none of Joseph's supporters (other than Mark, who has said that the use of "bottom-up" methods equal capitalism) have had anything to say about future communist society and why the general atmosphere in Joseph's society of mutual denial is that the issue is not to develop discussion but to "defend anti- revisionism" (ie: by supporting revisionist single-point-control theories). And Joseph's contradictions are piled so high at this point that it becomes very difficult for Joseph's supporters to address any of the myriad issues on which I have shown Joseph to be a charlatan -- without making themselves or Joseph look foolish. |
to an Expanded Audience |
| As for myself -- I have ideas on how to take things forward. I do not believe it is appropriate to vilify Joseph (although his supporters believe this is my aim) or absolutize anything. Joseph has created a sorry spectacle of himself and his followers -- and this should be clarified. But this is not necessarily a big deal. Rather the issue is to sort out how to develop the discussion on the nature of a future communist society . |
| Frankly there is a limit to how useful discussion can be with sectarians like Joseph. It has been useful to a degree, not just to settle accounts, but because real theory can only develop in an atmosphere in which it is challenged and stimulated . But there are other means to do this also. I have been postponing a letter to Joe in Boston on these kinds of topics for nine months now. Joe asks me -- how come I have time to respond to the people who act like jerks but not those who are more thoughtful ? |
| And guess what ? I do not have a good answer for Joe. I go a bit by instinct and my instincts have told me that the stimulus of Joseph's clumsy attacks could be useful to me. And they have been. The most developed sketch of my views to date is in "Why is Joseph Afraid of Consciousness ?" and I would like to thank Joseph for helping to inspire me. But at this point it looks like Joseph has thrown everything he can think of at me and there is nothing more to respond to. Joseph's bag of tricks is empty and the audience of his supporters appears to be either too passive or sleepy on this issue, too trusting of Joseph to actually read and consider the full (ie: unexcerpted by Joseph) exchange between myself and Joseph/Mark or too corrupt or pathetic in reasoning ability -- to be worth focus. Absent some comment from them -- to indicate that they are following the debate and have actual living thoughts or ideas -- it would appear that they are all asleep at the switch. |
| The real issue is to take the discussion on the nature of future communist society to a larger audience . This is what we have been discussing locally. And the issue here is that to do this (and to do it right) requires a lot of work and I need to get off my butt and do it . And as much as I would like to find some way to blame Joseph for the torpid pace of my work on this front -- in all fairness -- the responsibility is mine. |
| So for now -- instead of writing polemics, I will try to focus my energies on something more worthwhile -- and try to report back to readers on my progress. ----//-// |
| [1-rc] The best discussion of this I have seen is in Lenin's speeches to the Tenth Congress in 1921 and in Lenin's pamphlet " The Tax in Kind " in the same year where, half a dozen pages from the end, he describes how, after any kind of shift in power from the Bolsheviks to any of the petty bourgeois parties, the capitalists and landowners would " slap down the anarchist pygmies ". (LCW 32). |
| [2-rc] See Lenin's " Plan of the Pamphlet The Tax in Kind ", section II, where he says " Ten or twenty years of regular relations with the peasantry and victory is assured on a world scale (even if there is a delay in the proletarian revolutions, which are maturing) ... ". See also his " Report on Party Unity and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Deviation " given at the 10th Congress. There he says: " It will take us at least 10 years to organize large-scale industry to produce a reserve and secure control of agriculture. This is the shortest period even if the technical conditions are exceptionally favorable. But we know that our conditions are terribly unfavorable. " And later: " A year or two of relief from famine, with regular supplies of fuel to keep the factories running, and we shall receive a hundred times more assistance from the working class and far more talent will arise from its ranks than we now have. " (LCW 32) |
| [3-r] "formal authority" (CV #4, 9-15-95, page 51, top of 1st column) |
| [4-r] "A general authority, elected by all" (CV #4, page 54, middle of 2nd column) |
| [5-r] "non-governmental authority" (CV #4, page 56, top of 1st column) |
| [6-r] See footnote 17 of Part I. (CV #4, page 51, bottom of 1st column) |
| [7-r] See Part 2 under the sub-head "Coercion" (CV #4, page 55, middle of 2nd column) |
Contents for Appendix A:
|
| This is the same issue Joseph raises in relation to the question of a chemical plant that supposedly "can't be compelled" to disclose the chemical contents of its products without a von Neumann point. Really ? Joseph would be correct if the masses did not give a shit or were impotent to act against chemical poisoning. But this is the flaw in Joseph's reasoning. This is the blockage that prevents the smoke from going up his chimney. |
| When I describe how factories could be shut down if they poison people or if they do not disclose the chemicals in their products -- Joseph imagines that ALL factories would be shut down. Again, Joseph would be correct -- IF THE MASSES LACKED BRAINS. But the masses do have brains. In fact they have considerably more brains that Joseph. The issue of making sure that all chemical ingredients that could move into the environment be disclosed to all and subject to public approval -- would be accomplished because this is a reasonable demand that would win vast public support . Even under capitalism, the struggle of the masses for similar demands has achieved a fair amount of progress considering the extremely adverse conditions. With the elimination of the rule of the marketplace and the defeat of all powerful vested interests does Joseph imagine that the struggle of the masses would accomplish less ? |
| It is similar with "trade secrets". Joseph imagines that without a von Neumann point to compel disclosure over all production processes -- that all important information will be kept secret. But let's consider the matter. To the extent that keeping "trade secrets" interferes with the process of production or slows down development -- the masses would not tolerate it. Of course I did say that production units might negotiate restrictions on the use of information. But these restriction would only be tolerated by the masses if they were fairly minor and assisted, rather than retarded, the creation of wealth. What this means is that the concrete specifics have to be considered. Consider one kind of example: should football teams be compelled to reveal their strategies and tactics to their opponents before a big game ? To do so would be absurd. Keeping such details secret for a period of time adds to the excitement and enthusiasm of the competition . Or consider another example: Suppose workers at a "cartoon factory" come up with a particular animated character or avatar and request that other such factories not use their character so that they may have exclusive influence on the development of the public persona of this character. Would other factories respect the request of the originating factory ? They probably would if such requests were reasonable and not excessive. It is only under capitalism that 17-year patents can ensure monopolies and stifle production and day-care centers can be closed down because an unauthorized drawing of Mickey Mouse is painted on an outside wall. |
| Similarly it is fear of the actions of the masses (and likely an attempt to deflect the embarrassment of supporting the "von Neumann" conceptions torn out of context by Stalin and developed into a system of reinforced permanent single-point control over all of society) that impels Joseph's near hysteria over "re- education". The simple truth is that we all re-educate ourselves and others constantly in our daily activity. There are innumerable collisions between dysfunctional attitudes (ie: attitudes which are not effective, which do not work) and the external world. As materialists, we grasp that we must change our consciousness as part of the process of changing the world. |
| We all know that all of us carry blemishes of one sort or another in our consciousness. These blemishes diminish our opportunities for fulfillment in life and happiness. Does Joseph deny that for a considerable period of time there will be a need for a struggle against the residue of the ideologies shaped during thousands of years of class society ? Or does Joseph think that with some quick revolution or even the triumph of the communist over the capitalist economy -- that all dysfunctional thinking, all the ignorance and anti-people attitudes left to us by previous society will suddenly evaporate and everyone will be completely happy all of the time ? |
| Joseph is simply engaging in more charlatanism. He is trying to blur the distinction between coercion and measures agreed between and undertaken by people voluntarily because of their convictions that this will lead them to a happier life. |
| Re-education takes place every time a woman struggles to get a boyfriend or husband to understand the harm caused by attitudes of male superiority. Does Joseph oppose such re-education ? Or does Joseph deny that such issues are a big part of the life of society and part of any progressive social agenda and will not disappear overnight ? |
| I was saving the best for last. |
| Joseph has made the very serious charge that I advocate censoring the mass media in a modern society. In particular he seems to be concerned that I would kick the Erica Kane character off of All My Children . |
| Seriously, however, Joseph appears to be confusing two distinct but important and related questions. |
| The first question is the subject of censorship itself, and includes consideration of what censorship really is. |
| The second question concerns measures to step by step raise the level of mass culture in a communist society. |
| If we are really communist theoreticians we will be able to distinguish these two questions from one another. The masses can certainly distinguish between these two questions. And if they can do this -- then should we not be able to do so also ? And if Joseph cannot distinguish between these two questions -- I think this only shows that his thinking is clouded -- is not characterized by a great deal of clarity . |
| The approach I will take is to discuss both questions and then compare Joseph's approach to my own. |
| To begin with, in a modern society there are a variety of types of media. For example some types of media represent the work of individuals or small groups . This polemic is an example of media of this type. These kinds of media are not very labor intensive in the sense that the ratio between the time the author spends writing and time the reader spends reading is fairly low. Maybe it is 10 to 1 (obviously we can only estimate such things very crudely). Another type of media production might be a modern movie. Here a 90 minute movie may involve more than a quarter million man-hours of human labor. So the ratio between the labor time congealed in the movie and the time the viewer spends watching would be relatively high, well over 100,000 to 1. |
| Hence, we can visualize a spectrum of media in which low-ratio media are at one end and high-ratio media are at the other, and various other types are in between. |
| In a modern society we generally find that most people, most of the time spend their time with medium-ratio or high-ratio media. This is just to say that people in a country like the U.S. watch a lot of TV for entertainment. Of course many other people read newspapers and books and the ratios here tend to be lower. |
| So how does this bear on the distinction between censorship and the question of raising the level of culture in a modern society ? Well, to try to put matters simply, and as best as I can -- people watch a lot of "crap" because "there is nothing else on". This is not to say that "good" material is not available at all - - if you are sufficiently determined to hunt it out and find it. If you care to read selected books and articles, or if you have a VCR and a nearby video store you have more choices. But it is a reality of life for many people that their choices are whatever is "on" at the moment. |
| And this highlights the fact that the issue of raising the level of mass culture tends to focus mainly on giving people more and better choices in the high-ratio media where most people spend most of their time . |
| And this casts some light on the distinction between the question of censorship and the question of raising the level of culture. Censorship, in particular in some of its most reprehensible forms, is often concerned with low-ratio media. This is because it is low-ratio media that tends to be most available to those who oppose the existing order (dissidents, as Joseph so correctly calls them). In Guatemala, for example, to be caught distributing a clandestine newsletter is to suffer a painful death. Now this is an important distinction although it should not be absolutized. When news coverage of some mass action refuses to show the masses and instead focuses on a person on a street corner -- this might be considered to be similar to censorship, although it is really more of a sister phenomena of politically selective news coverage. When CBS canceled without explanation the very popular Smothers' Brothers TV show in 1968 because they allowed Pete Seeger to sing Knee-deep in the Big Muddy (an allegorical anti-Vietnam war song) -- this was unquestionably censorship of high-ratio media. |
| But I think that from the point of view of the masses -- the aspect of censorship that most concerns them -- involves the censorship of low-ratio media. I believe that this is because they understand that there is a fundamental difference between: (a) preventing people from communicating their views to others, and (b) questions concerning the allocation of limited social resources (and massive amounts of labor) to media projects. |
| And this distinction, although not necessarily clear in every case, can help to guide us as we consider the mass media in an advanced society. In a communist society, there would be no way to completely censor the views of Joseph's dissidents. Everyone would have access to the net . Individual people or groups could upload their views in the forms of text, voice, video or multimedia (ie: all three) and everyone on the planet would have access to these views. The equipment needed for this would be available to all because it is being developed (and will become increasingly cheap) under capitalism (for example: video- recorders are currently being worked on that may be the size of a sugar cube and manufactured for about five dollars ). |
| Now this is not to say that Joseph's dissidents would have an easy time getting everyone's attention . Cyberspace is essentially infinitely large but people's attention will always continue to be a scarce resource . The most popular sections of cyberspace (or, to use a more general term: the mediasphere ) will likely be moderated forums or channels in which there will be selection criteria that might be hostile to Joseph's dissidents. Now this may seem unfair to Joseph's dissidents -- but we should also keep in mind that the reason that these areas would be so popular in the first place -- would be largely related to the fact that a selection principle is employed "to keep out the spam" . |
| How about if Joseph's dissidents truly have something to say that people consider worth listening to ? If they do -- then Joseph's dissidents would find bountiful opportunities to get people's attention and to gradually build an audience . Even if only a few people listened to them at first, these few people could each tell a few more (and post their opinions on the net) and (if Joseph's dissidents were really saying something worthwhile) new people could each notify others and post their opinions and so on --- and there would be something of a chain reaction or at least somewhat steady exponential growth . |
| And it becomes very difficult to conceive of how Joseph's dissidents could be prevented from speaking out because everyone would have the right to communicate to others and to read or listen to or watch anything they want in the mediasphere . Such a right would not require Joseph's "general authority" to support it -- but would instead simply be a "norm" or a "principle" that would be supported by the entire society because the historical experience of struggle would demonstrate that such rights benefit everyone and are a necessary condition for society's accelerated development. |
| Now it is possible that Joseph's dissidents would have to struggle against people having "closed minds". This can be something of an uphill struggle at times. After all there will be no guarantee that all people in a communist society will be free of prejudices. And trends which oppose Joseph might be doing their best to stir up these prejudices against Joseph and might be attacking Joseph from positions in which they have many resources that Joseph's group does not (ie: audience attention and the labor hours of volunteers). |
| But Joseph's group might have something else on its side that would be more powerful : it might have the truth on its side. And I will argue that in such conditions, in a future communist society, the trend with truth on its side will inevitably win . |
| And as materialists we can understand why. People tend to follow their material interests. If Joseph's group really has truth on its side then it represents the interests of the majority of society. And in a struggle for audience share and attention -- the truth will ultimately win . It becomes too difficult in a modern society for any oppressive force, be it a government, a pseudo-non-governmental "general authority" as Joseph describes, an oppressing class or even any social or political trend -- to suppress or bottle up the truth indefinitely because as the economy grows complex -- its development requires the circulation of a constant flow of information from all quarters and the truth comes out, whether gradually or breaking forth like a mighty river which finally bursts through a dam. |
| The medium of the truth is information. And information cannot, over time, be restrained. We can see how this works in the modern world. The Soviet economy failed to compete with the free-market capitalist economies because it could not harness the economic forces latent in "parallelity" that required the free flow of information. In both China and Singapore today, economic forces are pushing against the restrictions on information flow that the governments believe are necessary for their survival. Singapore is currently experimenting with a "filtered" version of the internet and the Chinese government is allowing and, to an extent, encouraging the linking of the internet to restricted sites in the universities and industry. |
| The governments of both China and Singapore are clearly not comfortable with such arrangements because the free flow of information will eventually undermine their stability -- but economic forces are forcing a compromise. And the same economic forces that have forced the present compromises will force others. How long can China and Singapore resist allowing their populations unrestricted access to the internet ? Ten years ? Twenty years ? It is difficult to see how they could hold out much longer than that. |
| So we return to Joseph's group of dissidents. I will argue that if they have truth on their side (and they take a scientific attitude and are willing to learn from their mistakes) -- that they will win. They will develop a set of tactics that will achieve victory -- audience share and attention at first, and, following from this (because once they have attention -- the masses will recognize that they speak the truth) -- political support from the masses. |
| But before going any further, I am going to rename the group. I am going to exercise my right as an author to censor Joseph's name from the group. Because I do not believe that Joseph has truth on his side. So I will refer to the group as the proletarian group because the assumption we are making is that the group does have truth on its side and represents the interests of the majority of society. |
| So how does our proletarian group win attention and audience share in the mediasphere ? I will argue that it does this via waging what I call "information war" against its opponents. Now the term "information war" at present refers to something else. It refers to such things as nations (or sometimes companies or other groups) sabotaging the computer systems of their opponents via information over the net -- spreading things like viruses and so forth. But I believe that the use of the term will eventually change its meaning and refer to the open political warfare of one trend against another in the mediasphere . And the object of this warfare will not be computer systems but something more powerful: human minds . And the weapons in this warfare will not be computer viruses but a different and more powerful kind of virus: ideas . |
| The communications revolution promises, in the next several decades, to very rapidly erode the barriers to the participation of the masses in political life. We will, in the period ahead, be entering an era where polemical warfare will begin its maturation from an ART practiced by a few, to a SCIENCE practiced by millions. |
| Now it is not my purpose or intention to prove to readers here that the trends which represent the truth and the genuine interests of the masses will inevitably win the information war waged in the mediasphere. The proof of the pudding , as the phrase goes, is in the eating . The value of information war will, I believe, be proven in the period ahead, and my agenda is not so much to talk about it here, with the present rather sleepy audience, as to conduct it within a wider arena. All I will say here is that I hope that those would-be proletarian activists who really wish to serve their class -- strive to keep their eyes and their minds open. |
| Now Joseph has charged that I am in favor of a most onerous, busybody censorship. I believe that we should examine his charge. I have said that if a production unit is producing toxic culture -- that it would be subject to boycott and labor actions by the masses. Let's consider what this amounts to in the context of information war in the mediasphere. |
| What does "boycott" mean in the mediasphere ? It means that people refuse to read, listen to or watch what they consider to be spam . We have an example of this at present. The majority of the xmlp will not look at Joseph's writings. Joseph blames this on various bad people. But there is another interpretation: spam does not earn respect . When Joseph equates an audience boycott with censorship -- it demonstrates that he is in a state of mind where the clarity of his reasoning ability is degraded . |
| In a future communist society, no one will have the power to impose a boycott on bad politics or bad culture except the individual members of the potential audience itself -- because the right of the individual to have unrestricted access to the mediasphere will be a norm of society upheld by all . |
| Well how about censorship by "labor action" ? Joseph has said that this will be used against dissidents. Let's consider this. Primarily this means an appeal to the workers of the production unit involved -- which says to them in effect: "your work on such and such project runs counter to the interest of the majority of society -- and we want you to know this because we do not believe you will want to devote your life energies to such a cause" . Now let's consider the effect such appeals might have in practice. |
| The proletarian group referenced above would be relatively immune from such an appeal. This is because they believe in what they are doing . In fact any production unit that creates anything in communist society would be based on the labor of workers who believe in what they are creating -- because they would have little other reason to be supporting it with their labor (after all, they are not getting paid for their work, they are not working in order to have the means to live -- and there would be no shortage of other interesting projects competing for their assistance). |
| Now what are the circumstances under which such appeals would be successful ? Primarily when the appeals were based on the truth and the power of the truth affected the motivation and consciousness of the workers involved. So what we have described so far should not actually raise too much a concern, at least among thinking people, about censorship. |
| But let's go a little further. All methods of doing things contain some potential for abuse and so let's explore the possibilities. |
| One method of abuse is false appeals -- appeals that are not based on the truth, that do not reflect the interests of the masses. The problem here is that the members of the production unit being falsely accused of producing toxic culture might be gullible and doubt themselves and believe untrue appeals. Or, similarly they might be vulnerable to the lack of respect from friends, neighbors, or the public at large -- which results from prejudices in society. And to some extent such things will undoubtedly happen. Sometimes people should stick to their guns but they don't [8-c] . But however unfortunate such events would be -- it is a bit of a stretch to call this censorship. This kind of phenomena is more analogous to incorrect or unjust peer pressure -- and is not the kind of censorship that most people are most concerned about -- because in the long run it tends to be self-correcting . That is to say that a group's belief in their mission is likely to be related to the justness of their cause -- and if their cause is really just -- they are less likely to doubt themselves and submit to the pressure of unjust and unfair accusations. Mao put it thusly: "A just cause enjoys abundant support" -- and I think that in this case Mao's grasp of the issue is deeper than Joseph's. |
| I have said that in the future, as part of the "warfare" between economic, cultural and political trends and alliances, there would be boycotts and secondary boycotts. Joseph's concern appears to be that prejudiced and ignorant masses will bring excessive pressure on progressive production units which challenge their (ie: the masses) prejudices and this would be able to shut the progressive production units down. |
| Now the first point here is that it would be difficult to prove that such things would never happen. On the contrary it is possible to imagine such a thing. Maybe in an area or country that has very strong religious prejudices, some political or cultural production which attacks religion could be stopped. |
| But what about this ? Consideration of the matter will suggest that such an event would only be a setback in the short term and would pave the way for victory in the long term . The very act of mobilizing the masses against some cultural work by a production unit would tend to raise interest and curiosity in the work of the unit. If the work represents the truth and serves the interest of the majority -- will not this interest and curiosity tend to accelerate the development of the thinking and consciousness of the masses in the long term ? Is it or is it not a good thing to be attacked by the enemy ? And maybe the defeat of the progressive production might actually help those who worked on it to consider whether they were shortcomings in their approach ? Maybe they need to better understand the terrain ? In real life everyone makes mistakes and must learn from them. It can be one thing to attack a popular prejudice and something else entirely to do so skillfully . |
| Further, let's consider what kinds of productions would be vulnerable to being stopped by such actions. Low-ratio media would be fairly immune to such tactics. Why ? Because low-ratio media can be created by very small groups and do not require resources that are vulnerable. In a future communist society, everyone would have unrestricted access to the essential technology to upload or download from the net . The needed computers and infrastructure will be omnipresent and as much available to anyone as their own voice (I think I have mentioned that even under capitalism we may end up with digital video cameras as cheap as many three-ring binders). How can a small highly dedicated group producing low-ratio media be silenced ? They cannot. Their conditions of production make them a "hardened target" that can resist indefinitely nearly any amount of pressure. |
| So what kind of media productions would be vulnerable to the kind of censorship that Joseph has described ? Well -- a media production unit that was creating something that required a lot of workers would be vulnerable if the workers were not very consolidated ideologically on the merits of the product or the principles which underlay it. High-ratio media units would be more vulnerable both because they might be using less committed or consolidated workers and also -- because they were using much larger amounts of social resources that were vulnerable to pressure and might be cut off. |
| But even in this case -- what happens ? The high-ratio media project suffers some defections and a cut-off of some resources. However the workers who remain on the project would tend to be the more committed and consolidated ones and so the project would achieve stability at a lower ratio. Instead of being a high- ratio product -- it would retreat somewhat and be a medium-ratio project. And instead of having a large audience share it would likely have a medium audience share. So in the short run the good guys would lose a battle or a skirmish. And Joseph is correct that from time to time such things might happen. But is this the end of the world ? I think that in a future communist society -- that for every battle in which there is a victory for incorrect ideas (ie: that go against the mass interest) that there will be a hundred or a thousand victories for ideas that are correct. And even in those cases where correct ideas suffer a setback and decreased audience share -- even here the setback is only temporary -- because the struggle of ideas and ideologies in society works in the long run to constantly raise the consciousness of the masses and the battle which is lost today will be won tomorrow . |
| And if we consider the matter -- I think we can see that the incorrect ideas will not suddenly disappear -- that instead they will have a certain amount of resilience . This is the way such things work. And interestingly, when I spoke in "Why is Joseph Afraid of Consciousness ?" about the struggle against incorrect ideas which go against the mass interest -- Joseph got upset and claimed that I was in favor of imprisoning and tampering with the minds of dissidents. I guess Joseph is afraid of prison. And he should be. He has built the walls of his own prison with his acts of charlatanism. |
(the masses and interactive design) |
| Joseph makes a particular point that the masses will intervene in productions as minor as soap operas. To Joseph this is something sinister. I'm not actually all that worried myself. I don't actually watch soap operas. I do not have the time because I work for a living (not to mention that these shows are generally a desert containing few human feelings other than despair and a cynical manipulation of women's insecurities designed to make them buy cosmetics). But if some section of the masses do want to watch soap operas -- why shouldn't they have an opportunity to influence the development of something that they consider (for some reason) to be important ? I doubt that the soap operas could be much worse than they are now. Most of the characters in these productions are generally white, rich, thin with standard model-like interchangeable features -- and so insincere that they would not know how to be sincere if their life depended on it. |
| Furthermore, for the masses to take a role in the evolution of this form of entertainment would only be consistent with the masses taking a role in the design and evolution in all the other types of items which they consume. As the economy becomes more complex and interactive this kind of thing will become quite common . Why make such a fuss about this ? Are the instincts of the masses really so bad that the resulting shows would be worse than what scriptwriters come up with to sell soap ? |
| And why shouldn't the viewers of some production be able to influence the selection of actors or actresses for some part ? I am sure that they would do at least as well in their selection as Joseph's "general authority" -- which if it can be a non- governmental government -- would undoubtedly select actors and actresses who can't act . |
| The role of the masses in directly influencing the appearance of some form of mass media is very limited today. I could think of no good examples that were not trivial . But Joseph finds something deeply disturbing in even a trivial role for the masses and so I thought maybe I should mention the one example I could think of. A year or two ago the post office offered to the public a chance to participate in the selection of a stamp honoring Elvis. The public got to pick a fat, old Elvis or a thin, young one. Not surprisingly they rejected the fat one. From Joseph's perspective this must be a terrible act of censorship against the fat Elvis and things like this in the future will be a "nightmare". Somehow I believe that humanity can survive the loss. |
| Joseph says that if workers understood these issues they would tell me to "Get a life!" Somehow I doubt it. I think they would tell Joseph to "Get a job!" |
be waged on Joseph's planet ? |
| But what is Joseph's own attitude on these topics ? What is his conception of what forces will shape the evolution of the media in communist society ? Does Joseph believe that there will continue to be a struggle against incorrect ideas and the remnants and dregs of thousands of years of class-based culture an |