Marx and Lenin’s views contrasted
- This topic has 138 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Hegel and Marx are a mystery to me but i somehow think that the answers LBird looks for are hidden there.”
If it works for you, alan, and helps you to understand Marx’s fundamentally social perspective, that’s fine by me.
‘The cognitive process itself‘ is a social product, not the product of an isolated, biological, individual.
LBird
I never said this – by which I mean the development of a particular scientific theory – was the product of an “isolated biological individual”. As I clearly explained scientific theories tend to be developed almost exclusively by scientists or specialists in their field and it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”. The rest of us, myself included, dont contribute anything to the development of these particular scientific theories. I know for a fact I have contributed absolutely nothing to the development of string theory in theoretical physics and am never likely to. I’m OK with that . It doesn’t bother me at all. Each to their own, I say.
Social production must be subject to democratic control. If not, who is to control, and how, ‘the cognitive process itself’
But WHY does the social production of scientific theories by scientists interreacting with each other need to be “democratically controlled”. I dont see the point. Actually, even if it was possible to implement this it would almost certainly result in the destruction of the entire scientific enterprise. Scientists should be left free to formulate and express their theories and not intimidated by the threat of being sanctioned by their colleagues or, as in capitalism, having their funding withdrawn. Of course , other scientists should be equally free to criticise and debate these theories. But this is not really what I would call “democratic control” . Democratic control is about arriving at some kind of collective decision at the end of the day. It is what I call action oriented and concerns practical matters – like the allocation of resources for example It is not really about the development of ideas or theories as such but rather their application in practice – for instance in the development of new technologies
Instructing a scientist to discontinue pursuing a particular line of scientific enquiry because a majority of her colleagues had “democratically decided” it was not worth pursing seems bonkers to me. And against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry
robbo203 wrote: “…it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”” [my bold]
But this ‘them’ is not ‘society’, robbo.
It’s the ‘interaction between humanity’ that creates social products.
All you’re doing, as Marx warned that all ‘materialists’ will do, is ‘separating society into two’, the one (an elite) above the other (the masses).
So, for you, ‘physics’ is an elite activity (thus not requiring democracy), and not a social activity (which would require democracy).
robbo203 wrote: “I dont see the point.”
As I keep emphasising, robbo, it’s a political point. About power.
robbo203 wrote: “Instructing a scientist to discontinue pursuing a particular line of scientific enquiry because a majority of her colleagues had “democratically decided” it was not worth pursing seems bonkers to me. And against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry”
That’s what every political supporter of bourgeois methods says: that ‘democracy’ equals interference in ‘individual freedom’. And they’re correct, it is.
Let’s take a ‘scientist’ – err…. Mengele, for example. Fully trained, academically-qualified, supported by his professors at their university, conducting cutting-edge research. If I was an occupant of his research facility, the least that I’d vote to do is ‘discontinue his line of scientific enquiry’. In fact, I’d probably vote to discontinue him.
I’m afraid Mengele, and every other scientist on this planet, must be subject to the democratic control of the masses.
We get to choose: theories, methods, philosophies, practices, universities, curricula, funds, actions, matters, allocation of resources, ideas, applications, developments, technologies… these are not in the hands of an elite.
That’s democratic socialism, robbo. The democratic control of all social production.
What peoples must do at the present time is to take consciousness and overthrow capitalism and create a new society, to eliminate hunger, unemployment, homeless, and diseases, we are not going anywhere with theoreticians and philosophers
robbo203 wrote: “…it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”” [my bold]
But this ‘them’ is not ‘society’, robbo.
You are missing the point LB . It is not the product of an “isolated, biological, individual” as you falsely claimed I suggested THEREFORE it has to be a social product. You dont have to have the whole of society involved in producing something for it to be a social product. For instance we talk about commodities being “socially produced” today as an expression of the integrated globalised nature of production under capitalism. But vast swathes of the human population are not involved directly or indirectly in the production of these commodities . For example children or elderly. Are they not part of society then?
We get to choose: theories, methods, philosophies, practices, universities, curricula, funds, actions, matters, allocation of resources, ideas, applications, developments, technologies… these are not in the hands of an elite.That’s democratic socialism, robbo. The democratic control of all social production.
See, what you are doing here is mixing up a whole bunch of things some of which quite rightly should be subject to democratic control whereas others should not – and cannot -be
How for example are you going to democratically control “theories” for example?
Take string theory in theoretical physics
So take someone like me who knows precious little about these sort of things. How am I going to exercise my “democratic control” over this theory when I know virtually sod all about . What does it even mean to say I should exercise democratic control over this theory. To do what exactly? To affirm that it is a sound theory or unsound theory (when I know nothing about it)? And why? Or is it to forbid the scientist from developing the theory further . Or what?
You see , this is what I dont understand. You dont explain what is the purpose of “democratic control” with respect to something like a scientific theory. What is it is supposed to achieve? And since the vast majority of us – nearly 8 billion – know little or nothing about string theory (or are even bothered about it frankly) what you are advocating will turn out in practice to be an elitist version of control. Because in the end only an absolutely minuscule minority will actually even bother to vote in this case or know what they are voting about .
I, by contrast, am saying there is simply no need for democratic control to be exercised in this case. It serves no useful purpose
MS wrote: “What peoples must do at the present time is to take consciousness and overthrow capitalism and create a new society, to eliminate hunger, unemployment, homeless, and diseases, we are not going anywhere with theoreticians and philosophers”
But what would you do if Lenin declared that he was employing ‘Scientific Socialism’ (Engels’ term), and following robbo’s recommended ‘scientific method’ (let the ‘scientists’ determine for us, because we’re busy with our individual ‘each to our own’ activities), and he decided to ‘eliminate hunger, etc’ by instituting an undemocratic Party regime?
If we were living in such a system, we’d have no theoretical basis on which to base our reaction. How could we argue with Lenin’s ‘Scientific Socialism’?
Unless we clearly root our politics in ‘democratic social production’, we’re going to come unstuck. This isn’t just a pointless ‘theoretical’ debate. It concerns the whole of humanity.
Unless we clearly root our politics in ‘democratic social production’, we’re going to come unstuck. This isn’t just a pointless ‘theoretical’ debate. It concerns the whole of humanity.
Sure, the democratic control of the production of wealth locally regionally and globally but NOT the democratic control of scientific theorising about the nature of the universe or the sexual reproduction of ants!
That’s pointless and totally impractical
“For example, the shoe-maker [or scientist] is my representative in so far as he fulfils a social need, just as every definite social activity, because it is a species-activity, represents only the species; that is to say, it represents a determination of my own essence the way every man is the representative of the other. Here, he is representative not by virtue of something other than himself which he represents, but by virtue of what he is and does.”
Marx makes the point, i think, that a specialist is a representative because of the nature of his or her actual contribution to society i.e. all fellow citizens. Not because of personal talent or gift. He or she is not an elite above or apart others by possessing any special attribute other than to serve society.
Perhaps we could bring in Bakunin’s boot-maker at this point.
“In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority…”
Neither Marx nor Bakunin encroaches on the expertise of the specialist by imposing any outside agency such as “democracy” or “voting”, do they? Neither talks of actual power arising from social roles. It would be an apt moment for them to say so but the silence is deafening. There is a choice.
For Marx it is reflected in the individual’s function within society, by the way we associate with one another. For Bakunin it is reflected in the voluntary nature of the relationship, which he believes to be democratic control.
And MS is right…without action, without translating ideas into practice, idle chatter leads no-where…mere pub-talk…which brings me back to my earlier message on your political inactivity, LBird… no power…no democratic control…no political point.
robbo203 wrote: “I, by contrast, am saying there is simply no need for democratic control to be exercised in this case. It serves no useful purpose”
Yes, I know your political position.
Marx’s political position is that ‘democratic social production’ does serve a useful purpose.
His whole political output was based upon that premise.
You don’t agree – fine. It’s just pointless arguing that Marx supported elites controlling social production. You’d be better outlining what/who you think should control social production.
To some extent, you already have – and it’s not ‘humanity’, but sections of it. If you honestly believe that, argue for ‘sectional political control’, in contrast to my ‘democratic political control’.
We have a political disagreement, robbo. No amount of debate is going to change our contrasting opinions. We’d be better arguing openly about what our politics are. We don’t share the same politics.
So just to clarify, L Bird, for those of us who haven’t been following this thread particularly closely, your view is that Marxist theory states that all science is social produced and that it therefore follows that as it is socially produced it, alongside all theoretical approaches, should be subject to democracy, and not to follow the outcome of that democratic decision would not only be anti democratic it would be anti socialist?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “And MS is right…without action, without translating ideas into practice…”
But MS, like robbo, doesn’t argue for ‘translating ideas into practice’, but for ‘practice’. That is, supposedly ‘theoryless’ practice.
Because, if they did argue for that, they’d have to explain their ‘ideas’ to us – which is just what they refuse to do.
Marx’s point is that ‘theory’ precedes ‘practice’. And the proletariat has to consciously produce its own ‘theory’, before it ‘practices’.
Or, we could leave the ‘theory’ to The Party, and just do what they say. I’m not convinced, and I don’t think history aids your case, alan.
Bijou Drains wrote: “So just to clarify, L Bird, for those of us who haven’t been following this thread particularly closely, your view is that Marxist theory states that all science is social produced and that it therefore follows that as it is socially produced it, alongside all theoretical approaches, should be subject to democracy, and not to follow the outcome of that democratic decision would not only be anti democratic it would be anti socialist?”
If you don’t agree with ‘democracy’ in all social production, BD, you’ll have to tell us all what you do propose for ‘democratic socialism’.
Are you going to propose that, for example, Mengele should be the arbiter of his own science?
So, if ‘anti-democratic’ is not ‘anti-socialist’, who are the ‘anti-democrats’ that you support?
Alan,
“If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers’ cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil.”
I don’t think we are saying that theory must be thrown away, what we are saying is that your empty theory can not be taken into practice. If we are not part of a movement we can not take our theory into practice, it is just philosophizing, that is what Marx meant about contemplating the world instead of trying to change it. Robbo has asked you many times to demonstrate, to answer and to prove what you are saying and you have never answered or proven them, therefore, they are empty theories. We have not said that we are practicians only, we have said that we must be thinkers and doers, or vice-versa. I have never seen you talking about the problems that the working class is facing around the world, you only show up when we are talking about Engels or philosophy, to lay down your idealist theory about idealism/materialism, or vice-versa or the SPGBer are materialists as Engels. We just published three articles about Engels which contradict everything that you have said about Engels and we have published the proper critiques about him, we are not children, we are matured peoples with matured ideas
lBird’s Thought Policing Regime
lBird aims to destroy the despicable ‘social class’ of the elite — i.e., anyone possessed of intellectual achievement, practical skill or physical endowment that exceeds the recommended ‘democratic socialist’ dose.
Let the ‘democratic socialist’ nonconformists tremble at the thought of lBird’s mandatory policing of everyone’s thoughts, activities and achievements, for he aims to cut you down to the recommended ‘democratic socialist’ size.
lBird’s Levelling Manifesto
We, the lBird ‘democratic socialists’, hold these truths to be self-evident by proclamation of Karl Marx.
1. Constant Surveillance
That the truth of all human thought and activity, whether
- scientific (multidimensional physics, obfuscatory mathematics, …),
- creative (literary, musical, plastic, cinematic, digital, …),
- upbringing (educational, training, research, …)
- mundane (you name it)
must be continuously monitored, established and re-established by universal ballot of the whole of ‘democratic socialist’ society,
2. Constant Recalibration
That the results of all our multifarious interlocking ‘democratic socialist’ ballots on all social truth be binding, without exception, upon the whole of ‘democratic socialist’ society,
3. Continual Policing
That the universally decided ‘democratic socialist’ truth be enforced by control of every member of ‘democratic socialist’ society over every other member of ‘democratic socialist’ society.
The control of each over each by each
We hereby proclaim these TRUTHS in the interests of every last fun-loving member of ‘democratic socialist’ society.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.