Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?

[LBird]

stuart2112 wrote:

LB: let's try another tack.

Sure! Sorry if my first reply was too technical!

stuart2112 wrote:

Say there's a chap, he's reasonably well educated and intelligent, has his head screwed on, considers himself a left-leaning socialist in a vague way, and, because he has a job, feels very much like the life is being sucked out of him by vampires, and that he's being shafted by thieves. Despite his good general education, he is not well read in economics and has never read Marx, but wants to understand what has gone on in the crisis.

Here you’ve identified this chap’s biggest problem. Despite his allegedly ‘good general education’, he’s not a class conscious Communist. He needs to meet and discuss ‘the world’ with Communists, who’ll initially try to explain the complexities of Marx et al in simpler language. He'll then have an excellent 'general education'!

stuart2112 wrote:

What of vital importance could he get from grappling with "the law of value" and departments 1 and 2 and all that gubbins, that he couldn't have got from reading, say, The Economist (I've switched publications to one I'm more familiar with in case it gets hot in here!)?

One can come to understand Communist ideas without having to ‘grapple’ “with "the law of value" and departments 1 and 2 and all that gubbins”. Personally, I think that an explanation of ‘value’ is very useful, but I’d only recommend that to someone who is already a Communist.The problem with ‘reading, say, The Economist’ is that I don’t think that that publication mentions ‘vampires and victims’, either.So, my recommendation to your ‘chap’ is to become a Communist! After that, well-armed with a decent theory, they can move onto trying to understand economics. If they don’t want to go through the process of reading, discussing and arguing about Communism, they should just continue to have ‘the life sucked out of them’. It’s the only other option.The only options are: being an unconscious victim, or being a conscious victim. The victim bit is not an individual choice, but a socially-given structural position. I very much doubt that The Economist mentions this scientific fact, either.

[stuartw2112]

Communists and communism existed millennia before Marx. So did moral indignation against usurped power – and the ability to turn such indignation into colourful metaphors and stories. Indeed, these things are probably as old as humanity itself.When it comes to Marx's economic science, what is there in it that wasn't already known, or isn't now a part of economic discourse? Very little – and what little there is is of dubious value. I don't say this to disparage Marx. Read my essay, linked to above, and I think you'll find I am second to few in my admiration for him. Who else could pen an agitational pamphlet that is still read 150 years later? And Capital, whatever its scientific value, is a masterpiece of world literature. The danger is in attaching too strongly to Marx's words, even worse to his attitudes and behaviour in debate, and treating them as some kind of 'key to all mythologies'. The result is monstrous, as twc proves every time he gets to the keyboard. As I said before, imagine that kind of aggressiveness with a gun in its hands. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if these troublesome idealists and wooly minded religionists just got out of our way? Why can't they understand our science? Why must they stand in the way of human progress? Wouldn't it be better if we could just sneak the odd bullet into these recalcitrant minds?As is well known round these parts, Lenin leads to Stalin. But Marx leads to Lenin. Or he can do if we're not careful – if we don't keep our moral wits about us. 

[twc]

LBird wrote:

I start from the (1) notion that (2) any owner of (3) socially productive property (4) is a thief, (5) a liar, and (6) doesn’t have a clue about what they are really doing, and (7) know nothing about the history of capitalism. That includes ( the queen, (9) all religious leaders, The War Criminal Tony Blair, and The British, amongst others.As long as you read ‘queen’ as referring to (10) all ‘authorities’ in our society (including (11) scientists and (12) politicians), you will get my gist.He needs to meet and discuss ‘the world’ with (13) Communists, who’ll initially try to explain the complexities of Marx et al (14) in simpler language. (15) He'll then have an excellent 'general education'!The victim bit is (16) not an individual choice, but (17) a socially-given structural position. I very much doubt that The Economist mentions (18) this scientific fact, either.

(1)  How did LBird arrive at his notion (1), except by abstraction from appearance?(2)  “Socially productive” under capitalism means “productive” of value and, crucially, “productive” of surplus value.Our own labour power is directly productive of value, while our own meagre bank accounts and retirement contributions are indirectly productive of surplus value.  So, ipso facto, we are all thieves, liars, clueless about what we do, and ignorant of the history of capitalism.(3)  Not necessarily.LBird ignorantly abstracts away collective possession of socially productive use-values held in common [i.e. socialism];  or hunter–gatherers, who possess portable means of socially productive use-values held individually;  or pre-capitalist group possession of socially productive use-values that are held in common by extended-families, which must first be disposed of their life-sustaining socially productive use-values by capitalist primitive accumulation.(4)–(7)  Stuart, it may surprise you to discover that LBird literally believes in possession of the means of production automatically turning the possessor into a (4) thief, (5) liar, (6) clueless, and (7) ignoramus.Most of us took him figuratively at first, and so tolerated his claims.  But make no mistake, LBird has reiterated for almost a year now that we should understand his claim literally—it is simply beyond the capacity of the possessor of means of production to be other than (4), (5), (6) and (7).This is LBird’s crude, irrefutable, economic determinism in operation.  Crude, because LBird claims the effect is directly dependent upon possession.  Irrefutable because LBird makes it the foundational assumption of his carefully devised ideology.LBird justifies its irrefutability on the grounds of a false attribution to Einstein that he embarrassingly lifted, without bothering to check either provenance or context, from the website of a nutty UFO “scientist”, whom he ignorantly acknowledged as an “authority”, such is LBird’s defective practice.LBird justifies his own prejudiced behaviour on the grounds that all science is ideology.Even more embarrassing is LBird’s direct application of his irrefutable notion (1) without any conditional social mediation.  Consequently, his crude economic-determinism is no more than deliberate, personally adopted, political bigotry, that is analogous to more-familiar varieties of bigotry, such as racist bigotry, nationalist bigotry or religious bigotry.He feeds his voluntarist political ardor on his irrefutable political bigotry.  Just revisit his incoherent attack on David Harvey.  Like all political zealots, LBird fears to qualify his dogma lest qualification succeeds in undermining it, and so weaken his resolve.  He has no sustaining science at all, only a deliberately assumed impervious ideology.His is the worst vulgarization of socialism I’ve ever encountered.  It betrays its Leftist heritage.(–(9)  The irrefutable is here refuted [apologies to Goethe].The queen, like many people, undoubtedly has an excellent knowledge of the history of capitalism [as well as of feudalism], and she is probably better informed than most.  After all she’s shared secret cabinet documents every week for 60 years.  I’d imagine she knows a thing or two about capitalism, and its inner workings.Most intelligent capitalists know pretty well what they are doing, “really” or otherwise, and how best to keep on doing successfully what they are doing.  Some, of the socially curious variety, have read and understood Marx, and acknowledge his insights, unlike some respondents here who condemn him and capitalism as being ultimately inscrutable.Since, for the skeptical dualist LBird, everything is personal ideology, what “really” is going on is relative to one’s adopted ideology.  No-one expects a successful capitalist to inquire of LBird’s personal opinion based on his irrefutable personal assumption within his deliberately constructed ideology to find our what is “really” going on.LBird acknowledges no more than the capitalist “knows” what he is “really” doing in terms of his own personal ideology, while LBird “knows” what the capitalist is “really” doing according to his own personal ideology.  The two of them glide past each other like ships in the night.In other words, LBird’s crude economic-determinist “theory” of ideology creates the perfect dualist stalemate.  That’s why LBird must rely on voluntarism.(10)–(12)  Stuart, in case you didn’t know, we now get to LBird’s real villains, the (10) “authorities”.  Out come the scars of his former Leninist “authoritarian” indoctrination, and the humiliation of his former employment.Stuart, if you have not been closely following LBird’s progress, the chief villains of all are (11) scientists.  They simply can’t be trusted.LBird’s detested scientists possess the intellectual means of production—this claim is essential to his idealist socialism—are so they are also (4) thieves, (5) liars, (6) clueless, and (7) ignoramuses, along with the (6) queen, etc.  They must be kept under control at all times, because they serve no-one’s interest but their own.If we don’t keep a constant eye on them, LBird’s scientists will take over socialism.  I kid you not.  Scientific power is one of LBird’s two “bulwarks of capitalism”, the other being the market.(13)–(15)  Here LBird extols the educator authoritatively indoctrinating the uneducated [Marx’s Thesis III].  His description of becoming a socialist is so vague and indefinite, it could apply to joining any organisation.  As such, it stands at odds with applying for membership of the SPGB, whose Object LBird has confessed he lacks confidence in.(16)–(18)  Please explain, from an “all is ideology” standpoint, why (16) being a victim of capitalism is not an individual choice, i.e. is not ideologically subjective.Please explain, from an “all is ideology” standpoint, why (17) a socially-given structural position can be (18) a scientific fact and not ideologically subjective.Please explain what is meant by scientific fact since, from an “all is ideology” standpoint, all “facts” are only “factual” on the basis of an “ideological” theory, and LBird is decidedly hostile to the “ideological” basis of any ideological theory devised by those detested, untrustworthy (4), (5), (6), (7) scientific “authoritarians”.

[LBird]

stuart2112 wrote:

When it comes to Marx's economic science, what is there in it that wasn't already known, or isn't now a part of economic discourse? Very little – and what little there is is of dubious value.

You haven't replied to my answers to your questions, stuart, to say whether they were helpful or not.I disagree with your assertion that the 'vampire/victim' analogy is "now a part of economic discourse".Where do the FT or The Economist tell their readers that the owners of those papers are 'thieves, liars, etc.'?And you haven't said what your ideological starting point is. Do you regard yourself as a 'blood donor' to the vampires? If so, do you really think that this is at the heart of current 'economic discourse'?Or are you 'an individual', and make that your ideological building block for understanding 'economics'? That, in my opinion, is the real starting point for modern 'economics'. The FT and TE have that at the heart of their economic ideology.And if we have the 'individual', we have to have 'money'.I'm a Communist, and reject both of those ideological starting points.Of course, if one wants to deal with 'the real world', that's fair enough, but of necessity that is a conservative method. Criticism of the world as it exists now is the starting point for Communists. 'Dealing with the real world' is an ideological choice, not just simple empirical 'collecting of facts', as they are.

[LBird]

twc, you've had your chance, several times, to discuss these issues, but haven't done so. I've tried to engage with you, but without success. You won't discuss, and prefer the method of 'haranguing'.I'm not sure what you think that you're achieving, because it's not only me who hasn't a clue what you're talking about.One thing is sure: you're not doing anything to help spread understanding amongst workers about these difficult issues, of Marx, science or socio-economics.

[LBird]

stuart2112 wrote:

The danger is in attaching too strongly to Marx's words, even worse to his attitudes and behaviour in debate, and treating them as some kind of 'key to all mythologies'. The result is monstrous, as twc proves every time he gets to the keyboard. As I said before, imagine that kind of aggressiveness with a gun in its hands.

You probably won't know, stuart, because my views have been expressed on other threads to this, that I'm very critical of Marx, in many ways. Not least, I think that he's a terrible writer, and needs to be constantly interpreted by workers, using their own critical faculties. So, I'm not a 'worshipper' of Marx, but I do think that many of his ideas are very stimulating, and very helpful in helping us to come to an understanding of our present economic condition.As for twc…Let's just say that he's not being very helpful, is he?I root the problem, though, not in him as an individual, but in semi-religious reverence for the 'Scientific Socialism' constructed from Engels' confused writings.As you say, if one has 'Science' (of the positivist kind) on one's side, then the use of 'guns' seems entirely justifiable. Who can argue with 'The Truth', which adherents of 'Science' seem to think that they produce, with their neutral, non-social, non-cultural, non-historic, non-moral, method.Some of us have our doubts about 'Science', and see it as a social product that produces social knowledge, and so must be under the control of humanity, using democratic methods. Just like the economy.At least I'm consistent.

[twc]

Stuart, you have just expressed Wheenian tripe.Let’s first stick to rationality—something that can be understood.You claim your precept of “common humanity” is not meant to paper over differences.  Then how useful is it? It has never once proved useful in stopping violence through racial hatred, national hatred, etc. [The parallel situation is anthropogenic global warming. Everyone knows it’s occurring, but so far universal acknowledgement has proved universally powerless, and is only acceptable where capital can make a big buck out of trading in it.  That, by the way, is a materialist explanation, in case you’ve never seen one.]Surely you must recognize that your Wheenian sentimental socialism is for “the poor in spirit" of social democracy.  Socialists are fundamentally pacifists, but not moral cowards.Don’t you dare insinuate without justifiable grounds that I urge a resort to arms.  I have no aggressiveness at all.  I have opposed that at all times, and that’s why you got upset at my critique of your “romantic” voluntarism.I have only come to this forum to defend the party’s case against those who doubt it, or would undermine it from outside.  How do you recommend I should behave?  Encourage or oppose them.So often, I’ve seen good folks suffer at the hands of the unscrupulous.  I comprehend that necessary defensive morality for socialism.  If I tread on toes, it’s only because prejudice is treading on the party’s toes.  I see capitalist prejudice informing much of what you hold, and the socialist case I turn against you consequently hurts.  It is unfortunate that you set yourself up to be a causality, but I’m not letting the party be your wishy–washy casualty.I therefore must imagine that, historically, you are a refugee from the Left, and still view many things through remnant Leftist lenses.If Marx is nonsense to you, and merely an able satirist, you are simply in the wrong party.  The party case was devised largely by Marx as a consequence of his scientific materialist conception of history.If you doubt Marx’s science, you doubt the effacy of our Obj and DOP.  Why on earth did you rejoin when you could have got far more entertainment from a literary society?For me, Marx and Marxian science need reclamation.  My immediate task is to demolish the communist drivel Peter Stillman wrote, and then to turn to Meiskens-whatever her name is.I hope to have made myself clear.

[twc]

So now we are back to you guys dissing science and Marx, by innuendo, but carefully refusing to be specific. That is moral cowardice.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly what scientific results you doubt and why.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly where you disagree with Marx, and how serious your disagreement is for socialism.If you don’t you are only helping anti-socialism by spreading rumours about, and so subtly undermining, science, Marx and socialism.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

So now we are back to you guys dissing science and Marx, by innuendo, but carefully refusing to be specific. That is moral cowardice.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly what scientific results you doubt and why.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly where you disagree with Marx, and how serious your disagreement is for socialism.If you don’t you are only helping anti-socialism by spreading rumours about, and so subtly undermining, science, Marx and socialism.

I've tried pointing out, with quotes, analogies and discussion, twc, why your version of 'science and Marx' is nonsense.But you won't discuss 'science and Marx', but just proffer the 'tablets of stone' of your religion, and demand that we critical thinkers bend the knee to your 'Truth'. stuart has already pointed out where this 'science' leads, in political terms. So have many other thinkers, since the early 20th century. And 'science', since Einstein, has become more like 'Marxism', than 'Marxism' has become a 'Science' (of the 19th century positivist sort). Science can't get away from humans. It doesn't produce a 'copy' of nature. It produces 'social understanding'. I don't know why I'm bothering, again, with you.What a wa……waste of our time, you are.

[stuartw2112]

LB: I can't see that we're disagreeing about all that much, and I can't seem to get you to see the point I'm making. In trying to make it, I'm making myself seem more hostile to socialism, communism, marxism, whatever, than I really am. Marx is and has long been a guiding light for me. Just not the only one. You ask me what my ideological starting point it. I see your point: if I was a scientist or a philosopher writing a paper or book, I would have to bring my ideological starting point, or my theory, to the light of consciousness, and be explicit about it, if I am to have any hope of being genuinely 'scientific'. But I'm not either of those things, I'm just a bloke chatting on a discussion forum. And as a bloke going round my everyday life, my "ideological starting point" is to notice when my mind is caught in ideology, and then just let it go and return to life.twc: Apart from your good self, every SPGBer who has expressed an opinion really liked my essay when they read it, or listened to it as a talk I gave at Head Office. If you find it heretical, you'd better take it up with them. Actually, I'm not a refugee from the left, but from the SPGB – I left for the second time some time ago. Not over any point of Marxist dogma (and I decline your polite offer to go over it all with a fine tooth comb), but because I found the attitude of all party members who expressed an opinion on the Occupy movement and Arab Spring to be intolerable, inhuman and unsocialist (unmarxist too). Having said that, I'm still very fond of the party and its political position. It's why you still find me hanging out in places like this.

[twc]

Stuart,I unreservedly withdraw my Leftist charge.  Please accept my apologies.  I understand your conscientious action.You must be aware that I wasn’t addressing your article, but your posts. Your article seemed fine to me on a quick read, which doubtless didn’t do it justice, and I’ll immediately reread it to do justice to your effort.

[LBird]

stuart2112 wrote:

LB: I can't see that we're disagreeing about all that much, and I can't seem to get you to see the point I'm making.

Perhaps we don't disagree that much, stuart! I'm just happy to be having a conversation, for a change, on this site!But you're right, I don't seem to be able to 'see the point that you're making'.

stuart2112 wrote:

In trying to make it, I'm making myself seem more hostile to socialism, communism, marxism, whatever, than I really am. Marx is and has long been a guiding light for me. Just not the only one. You ask me what my ideological starting point it. I see your point: if I was a scientist or a philosopher writing a paper or book, I would have to bring my ideological starting point, or my theory, to the light of consciousness, and be explicit about it, if I am to have any hope of being genuinely 'scientific'.

This all seems to make sense to me, stuart, and is much the same as my views, I think, so far. But, you continue…

stuart2112 wrote:

But I'm not either of those things, I'm just a bloke chatting on a discussion forum. And as a bloke going round my everyday life, my "ideological starting point" is to notice when my mind is caught in ideology, and then just let it go and return to life.

So, your ‘method’ (and that’s what it is) is to pretend that you’ve ‘let go of ideology and returned to [implied ‘real’] life’.This, to me, is a mistaken method. If you are not conscious of which ideology you’re employing, society helpfully provides you with one! ‘Using an ideology’ is not a choice (by ‘individuals’), but part of the human condition. So, this bourgeois society has spent all your life providing you with a ‘back-up’ ideology for you to use, when you’re ‘unconscious’. This is inescapable in any society: human society socialises (‘brainwashes’?) its members into a default unconsciousness.This, I think stuart, is perhaps where we differ.I’m a Communist, and I’m conscious that I have to be ‘conscious’ 24/7 of the ‘program’ that I’m running in my head. I know that if I switch off my chosen ‘program’, that my default, factory-setting, program will kick-in, once again. My chosen program is ‘Communism’.So, that’s where we ‘disagree’, comrade!You revert to the ‘factory-setting’ of “blokey, everyday life, chatting amiably, not being too conscious of ‘ideologies’ ”. A human unconscious, an 'individual'.I remain a class conscious Communist in ‘everyday life’. Ideological to the core! A human conscious, a social product.

[stuartw2112]

twc: No apology necessary!LB: Yes, OK, that's where we disagree. I think that, actually, with training, it is possible to turn off the ideology in your head, and that, when you do, the result is peace and happiness. Sometimes, you turn it back on again, that's fine. But the ability to turn it off and not be ruled by it – that's freedom.

[twc]

Stuart,I just reread your pleasant article.  You know my quibbles over Lao Tzu, but I respect that you want his poem to be interpreted in its ancient context. I always consider that commentators overplay the seriousness of Marx’s critical-critic fisher scenario, forgetting that it’s also an intellectual joke at the expense of his young hegelian opponents.But, as a defence of the moral integrity of Marx and Engels, your article is first rate.  Those two men are the most moral that society has ever produced.  I won’t argue this here, but you have gone a long way towards proving it. Their activity and thought is our exemplary standard.

[stuartw2112]

Thanks very much twc, I'm delighted you liked it. Glad we could see eye to eye over this, if over nothing else! All the best

[Author]

Posts