Rethinking the Marxist Conception of Revolution by Chris Wright

[alanjjohnstone]

He certainly isn't modest in his aspirations but an article worth a send closer read, which i will do later.

Quote:

when Marx conceptualized revolution in terms of a fettering of the productive forces by production relations, as well as in terms of a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” he was the victim of both intellectual sloppiness and a misunderstanding of his own system. Accordingly, I will purify Marx’s conception of revolution of his and his followers’ mistakes.

Rethinking the Marxist Conception of Revolution

Quote:

My revision of the theory, then, is simply that at certain moments in history, new forces and relations of production evolve in an older economic, social, political, and cultural framework, undermining it from within.

His idea then turns out to be less novel than he believes…a revival of "the seed of new world in the kernel of the old" or whatever that phrase was. And of course, it bring us to Wright's book on workers cooperatives. 

[LBird]

Wright wrote:

History really happens “behind the backs” of actors: it evolves “unconsciously,” so to speak, as Hegel understood. Social and institutional conflicts work themselves out, slowly, through the actions of large numbers of people who generally have little idea of the true historical significance of their acts.

It's just the usual 'elitist materialism', alan.Religious Materialists always have to posit an 'elite' who are 'conscious' – as opposed to 'large numbers of people who generally have little idea'. That is, 'academics like Wright' as opposed to 'us dumb workers'.Marx pointed this out – if you start with a 'non-consciousness' which is 'active', then you have to then find a 'consciousness' which knows this, and so is itself 'active'.The simple answer is conscious democracy, which is socialism.Bourgeois ideologists disagree with democracy, and look to elite, conscious, individuals (just like them, eh?).

[Anonymous]

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. "(my emphasis) Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. "(my emphasis) Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 

I know that you're not very good at this theoretical stuff, Vin, so I'll make it easy for you.'Relations of production' are socio-historical products of human activity.This doesn't mean that 'rocks talk to us', as Religious Materialists like you allege, Vin.No worker with half-a-brain listens to this 19th century guff any more, Vin, so you're wasting your time pretending to them that you have a 'special consciousness' and access to something that they don't have. If you agreed that they had the same access, you'd clearly agree that they could vote on this access, but you don't, so you have to deny democracy to those you pretend to able to persuade to give you power within socialism.Have a nice night, chatting to the rocks.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Vin wrote:

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. "(my emphasis) Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 

I know that you're not very good at this theoretical stuff, Vin, so I'll make it easy for you.'Relations of production' are socio-historical products of human activity.This doesn't mean that 'rocks talk to us', as Religious Materialists like you allege, Vin.No worker with half-a-brain listens to this 19th century guff any more, Vin, so you're wasting your time pretending to them that you have a 'special consciousness' and access to something that they don't have. If you agreed that they had the same access, you'd clearly agree that they could vote on this access, but you don't, so you have to deny democracy to those you pretend to able to persuade to give you power within socialism.Have a nice night, chatting to the rocks.

 Nice. LBird has taken the art of patronising others to a new level with this contemptuosuly elitist brush off of his but never mind… The odd thing about this quote that Vin cites is that it comes from Marx, the same Marx who LBird claims to faithfully interpret and endorse unlike the rest of us who are supposed to be "Engelsists" prone to engaging in fascinating conversations with rocks. The point about this quote which seems to have eluded LBird competely is NOT that relations of production' are not socio-historical products of human activity – I don t think that is what either Marx or Vin are suggesting at all – but, rather that these relations present themselves as being independent of the will of individuals.  That is to say, particular individuals. Or to put it differently, the way society is organised has a certain "objective" character vis a vis these particular individuals insofar they cannot as individuals do much about it. These relations of production exist for them  as a set of external constraints According to emergence theory higher levels of reality "supervene"  on lower levels of reality but cannot be reduced to lower levels of reality.  So society depends or supervene on concrete individuals – you cannot have society without individuals – but social phenomena , like the "relations of production" that characterise society – cannot be reduced to individuals (who in case differ sharply with one another – for instance over the desirablity of a given set of relations of production). Rather, they are what are called "emergent" phenomena that exhibit a degree of relative autonomy vis a vis these individuals. This is the point that Marx was getting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence The irony about all this is that it is LBird who, after all, reveals hinself to be an an extreme individualist and reductionist (and Anti-Marxist) by denying the emergent character of social phenomena like the relatons of production.  These arise out of the interactions between indviduals rather than .their "will".  Only particular individuals can express a "will",  Society is not an individual that in some reified sense expresss a "will".  So what LBird is saying in effect is that the relations of production that characterise a given society are the direct product of some particuar individuals "will". Naturally, as a democratic communist I throughly repudiate LBird's extreme  individualism

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…as a democratic communist…

So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…as a democratic communist…

So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?

You don't have to answer that question publicly here, robbo, but, for your own development, try to work out for yourself what you think that the answer is, and then try to work out why you think that.That is, come up with a socio-historic answer of what you believe, where that originated, why that originated, and who benefits from your continuing to believe that answer.Of course, you can always refuse to do this historical analysis of a social product, and just continue to claim that, as an individual, you just know eternal truth (probably on the basis that 'reality' is 'obvious' to your biological senses).alanjjohnstone mentioned a history book on the other thread, and you could do worse than reading that, to help situate your political beliefs about 'nature' and 'science' in a socio-historic context of human production.That is, in a social context that we can change.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…as a democratic communist…

So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?

You don't have to answer that question publicly here, robbo, but, for your own development, try to work out for yourself what you think that the answer is, and then try to work out why you think that.That is, come up with a socio-historic answer of what you believe, where that originated, why that originated, and who benefits from your continuing to believe that answer.Of course, you can always refuse to do this historical analysis of a social product, and just continue to claim that, as an individual, you just know eternal truth (probably on the basis that 'reality' is 'obvious' to your biological senses).alanjjohnstone mentioned a history book on the other thread, and you could do worse than reading that, to help situate your political beliefs about 'nature' and 'science' in a socio-historic context of human production.That is, in a social context that we can change.

 Perhaps you would do well to stop trying to patronisingly lecture others on what you see as the inadequacies of their beliefs and what they should do to overcome these and focuss instead on addressing the glaring inadequacies of what they see in your own beliefs.  But no  – whenever your critics on this forum point out these inadequacies to you, or ask serious questions of you, all you ever do is to point blank ignore them and take refuge in a, by now, very well rehearsed little ritual of intellectual evasion. There is more than a touch of the Jehovah Witness way of looking at the world in your case which is richly ironic given your tendency to boringly and oh-so-predictably  label anyone who has the audacity to question your presumed elitist expertise as a…err…"religious materialist"!

[LBird]

The key political issue here is the question of 'independent'.'Independent of individuals' does not mean 'independent of society'.So, we're faced with arguing either that nothing is independent of society (and so this can be voted upon) or that something is independent of society (and so can't be voted upon).The problem is, as Marx says, nothing is independent of society, and so those who argue that something is independent have to then surreptitiously put their own elite in control of this something (which isn't really independent of society as a whole).This is precisely what Vin, robbo, and the rest of the Religious Materialists do. They claim to be dealing with something independent of society ('nature', 'matter', 'Truth', 'externality', 'reality', etc. etc.), which can't be voted upon, but then claim that they themselves, as an elite, outside of the democratic control of the social producers, can determine this 'something'.Marx points out this political process involved in 'materialism', in his Theses on Feuerbach.'Materialism' is a 19th century ideology, and any party which builds its politics upon that elite bourgeois ideology, will deny workers' democracy, and keep power for its own preferred elite. This is what Lenin did, and it's apparently what the SPGB supporters who argue for 'Specialist' power over 'Generalists' want to do, too.None of this Religious Materialism has anything to do with Socialism (ie. the democratic control of social production). RM is an ideology suited to elite individuals, which is why robbo (especially, but there are others) argues for 'Individualism', and not for 'Democratic Communism'.The simple test of the political ideology involved is to ask 'Who or what will control truth production in socialism?'.Any answer other than 'society by democratic methods' will lead to the same results as Leninism – elitism.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…as a democratic communist…

So you agree that we can elect truth then, robbo?If not, 'who' or 'what' produces 'truth'?

 You know my answer to this LBird so stop playing games.  I see no point or purpose in 7 billion plus people  democraticaly voting on literally tens of thousands of scientifc  theories to determine their truth status and I see no practical way in which this crackpot idea can ever be put into effect.  If you think otherwsie then explain in practical terms how your idea could be put into effect? But you wont will you? You never doDemocracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories and the praxis of communist democracy involves different levels of decisionmaking – local regional and global – but mainly local.  Which means local people get to decide democratically what applies at the local level  – not  the 7 billion plus people that constutue the world's population,  Or do you think the whole world population should be able decide on where you want to site your local sewage processing plant?

[LBird]

Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I know that you're not very good at this theoretical stuff, Vin, so I'll make it easy for you.

I see you continue with personal abuse and put downs to support your idealism. Pathetic.

[LBird]

Again, what this all boils down to is whether 'democracy' is a core value, or just something employed when it's 'practical'.But, who (or what) determines the 'practical'?Democratic Communists would argue that only the producers can determine whether a political situation is to be based upon 'democratic' values, or upon the 'practice' of an elite.Religious Materialists argue that special elites (in their political/ideological terminology, 'locals') can operate outside of the democratic controls of society. They do this by arguing that 'knowledge' is 'local' to an 'elite' – that is, 'knowledge' is not a social product by society, but a product by a 'knowing elite'.The obvious 'local' elite in political history is the Party, then its cadre, then its central committee, then its leader.You can't get a more 'practical' and 'local' power than 'Uncle Joe'.

robbo203 wrote:

Democracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories…

[my bold]What about 'democracy for us', robbo?How do you know what is 'practical', in the absence of 'abstract theories'?Whatever happened to Marx's 'abstract theories' about 'social theory and practice' and 'democratic production'?It's simply an excuse to try to realise the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom' – you're an ideological individualist, robbo.By 'local' you really mean 'yourself'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.

 Indeed.  And if you claim to be a democratic socialist do you also take note of it?  Do you concur with the statement I made or not.  Yes or no.   And if "no", in what way do you specifically disagree with it,  Spit it out LBIrd.  Lets hear you concrete objections to what was said in post 10 if you have any….

[alanjjohnstone]

The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.How will such dilemmas be resolved in socialism…by voting …but at what level…who is included in the debate and the who is entitled to vote? Anyone or only those proven to have studied the subject (after all we have a criteria for legitimising being in the Party) Certainly not the world as Robbo says, but where does his constituency begin and end?  The folk downwind of the sewage stink? (okay, i know we have technology to contain detrimental impacts but for sake of argument, we don't) versus those upwind?Should we stop those on the other side of the planet from voicing an opinion? Am i excluded from a vote on the DAPL even though i'm not living on a native American reservation or an inhabitant of Bismarck but hold strong views on pipelines. What authority will exclude me if it is an online vote? The URL Controllers?Is there really any point in going into details because as one early mentor told me "socialism is the science of generalisations", and so is specifics at this moment very irrelevant. 

[Author]

Posts