Einstein said something to the effect of "Space and time do not exist
independent of physical objects, rather physical objects are spatially
and temporally extended." What Einstein meant by this, and he said this
specifically to clear up the confusion surrounding his general theory of
relativity, was that there is no structure called space-time. This would
be a lot like the old argument of ether keeping the planets from
falling down. Einstein was arguing, specifically, that time and space are
conceptual systems of measurement. Space is not a physical thing. It is a
thing between our ears (some more than others, perhaps). Space is a
concept. It would not exist if human beings had not thunk it. How anybody
could dispute this is beyond me. The concept "space" is a human
construct. A planet is not a human construct. It is a physical object.
The nature of the planet is an interpretation through socially
constructed epistemic frames. Space is not physical, existing only in the
conceptual realm. It has, obviously, to your mind, been well-objectivated,
however, and this is the popular misconception. Many stand with you, Paul,
regarding the object-facticity of space-time.
I was the one who posted the argument pointing out the tautological
nature of your appeals to human nature vis a visa self-interest, and it
was a very sound critique of your argument. You see, I have run into
this "all behavior is in self-interest" argument time and time again and
I am ready for it. It is absurd. I stand by my critique. Self-sealing
arguments are well know in logic, and your was a classic textbook example
of one. I refer you to page 194 of Bruce N. Waller's Critical Thinking
(1988) for a destruction of a fallacy quite similar to yours. You don't
need to consult Ayn Rand. The point is general.
How is communism freedom? Let me first note that democracy is the
political side of the communist productive mode. A society run by the
people is a democracy. It is also communist. Freedom from exploitation is
the freedom I would hold up as the communist's goal. Some of us, Paul,
still believe in the labor theory of value. I am one of those people. All
wealth (except for some trivial exceptions, like a beautiful view) is
created in labor. I am convinced of this fact. And, because of this fact,
any system that does not allow the people to keep the full value of the
social surplus created by their labor is wrong. Slavery was wrong and so
is capitalism. It is wrong because it stands against human freedom and
creativity. I support a particular form of communism called communist-
anarchism. Other terms used to describe this view are "social
libertarianism," or just "libertarianism, and good old "democracy."
Communism hasn't "failed"; it has never existed in modernity. State
socialist experiments have not worked in the context of the capitalist
world-system. But just because my car runs out of gas 10 miles to New
York doesn't mean that I should throw my hands up in the air and pledge
never to go to New York. Communism is a better world. Human beings
create their worlds. And so we should set about creating a better one.
Capitalism is exploitation. It is wage-slavery. It creates poverty and
suffering. And it is immoral.
That's all I have to say about that.
Andy