Rethinking the Marxist Conception of Revolution by Chris Wright
- This topic has 83 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I should point out the political importance of this question of 'matter'.If one follows Marx's ideas about democratic social production, then the class can always say to the party 'Only we can know our nature'. When the The Party claims to already 'Know Matter', the class can insist 'but we haven't produced our social theory and practice, yet, so how can an elite party claim to already know what we haven't yet produced?'.This is the political problem that Engels didn't realise, when he amended Marx's concept of 'inorganic nature' to become the contemporary bourgeois concept of 'matter'.For the bourgeoisie, 'matter' is the correlation, within their physics, with 'property' within their social production. That is, both concepts must predate any conscious control of them. 'Matter', like 'property', just 'is'.For Marx, 'inorganic nature' is something we consciously change, into our 'organic nature', a 'nature-for-us', a social product that we can change. We have democratic power over our product.And as I've said before, Marx was well aware of this problem with 'materialism' – it must posit a 'knowing elite' who know the 'material' prior to society as a whole. It's an ideology for an elite, as Lenin well realised.
LBird wrote:Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?No reason at all why they can't, they're free to do so. They're free to rename the moon. Free to decide gravity doesn't exist. Of course, as a free association, this only applies to the willingness of the members of the association to comply without coercion.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?No reason at all why they can't, they're free to do so. They're free to rename the moon. Free to decide gravity doesn't exist.
Yeah, you're right – it's entirely possible that Newton's concept of 'gravity' doesn't really exist. It's up to us as the democratic producers to determine whether 'gravity' suits our needs, interests and purposes, for our social production, or whether a different concept is more suitable to explain our nature.
YMS wrote:Of course, as a free association, this only applies to the willingness of the members of the association to comply without coercion.This sounds like you're going back on all your talk about 'community', 'in common', 'combined', and simply reverting to 'free individuals'. This is what I explained to alan, earlier – the SPGB says things that it has no intention of allowing to happen.This is the whole political point, YMS. There is no 'Robinsonade' world of 'individual gravity' which you alone know, to the exclusion of the society in which you collectively produce.As to 'coercion', since your kids will be brought up in an education system determined by the 'community', 'in common', 'combined', then they'll be taught the best that society 'knows'. And if their education is telling them that 'gravity' was a concept that is now outdated, and has been replaced one that suits us all better, your 'individual gravity' will have the 'existence' to them, that 'angels', 'grace' and god' has to us.If you regard 'social education' as 'coercion', then you'll be off to the backwoods of Montana, with the rest of the 'free individuals', armed and dangerous.
Refering to humans as 'workers' or 'producers' in communism/socialism is what leads to Lbird's confused condition, he cannot escape left wing thinking. It is not semantics or a slip of the tongue as he claims. It is his confused thinking.What if I choose to be a 'non-worker' or a non-producer , will that mean I will be excluded from democratic voting? I may even choose to be an 'elite scientist'.(LBird forbid). Will that mean I am not a 'producer' and therefore excluded from the democratic process? This is the confused thinking of the left and in particular Lbird on this forum. The means of production will be under the democratic control of the community. All INDIVIDUALS will be free to take part in democratic decisions and all will take freely from the common store, regardless of how they spend their time.Referring to 'producers' and 'workers' is not only misleading but completely wrong. They imply their opposites.
I don't regard social education as coercion, I was simply point out that there wouldn't be any, and if any individuals chose to decide they wanted matter, they could have it. Indeed, if a minority feel they need to have matter, the community would provide it.
Vin wrote:Refering to humans as 'workers' or 'producers' in communism/socialism is what leads to Lbird's confused condition, he cannot escape left wing thinking. What if I choose the right to be lazy, will that mean I will be excluded from the democratic votes? I may even choose to be an elite scientist. Will that mean I am not a 'producer' and therefore excluded from the democratic process?The means of production will be under the democratic control of the community – of us all, not 'workers' or 'producers'. Why refer to us all as 'workers' or .'producers' or It could be misleading and co by implying 'non-producers' and 'non-workers'You don't understand Marx, Vin. For him, all humans are 'producers'. We collectively produce our world.It's just that under class societies, this social product is under the control of the exploiters, and not the direct producers.These issues of 'activity/labour' are philosophical issues – I've tried to explain the depth of what you're getting into, and help you out, but you won't accept my help.In your terms above, 'the community' is the 'active side'. And I agree with you – its social production must 'be under its democratic control'.Note – 'democratic' is not 'each individual separately', as YMS and robbo insist. You have to decide whether you agree with Marx or with the 'individualists'. Who is the 'active side' in epistemological terms – 'the community' or 'each individual'?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I don't regard social education as coercion, I was simply point out that there wouldn't be any, and if any individuals chose to decide they wanted matter, they could have it. Indeed, if a minority feel they need to have matter, the community would provide it.I take it then, that you'll be spending some of your time in socialism producing 'angels' and 'fairies' for those who insist that your community provides them.As for your political opinion that it's possible that there wouldn't be any social education, well, perhaps in the deep backwoods there won't be.But I'll bet that you'll find angels and fairies there…. along with long suppressed diseases, like polio and TB……and you'll soon be celebrating with your 'free community' and be slapping palms, shouting 'High Six!'.
Education is not a one way street: of course there will be social education, but unless you are dividing society into two parts, the educated and the educator, the co-producer of the education product will change it.(what there won't be any of is coercion, not edumacation).
Young Master Smeet wrote:Education is not a one way street: of course there will be social education, but unless you are dividing society into two parts, the educated and the educator, the co-producer of the education product will change it.Only the 'materialists', as Marx said, 'divide society into two parts'.For Communists, the social producers self-educate, so the community educates and is educated.There are no 'individuals' who 'escape' this process – unless one subscribes to the ideology of 'individualism', as do you and robbo. That is, we're 'co-producers', you and me aren't.Youse two just pay lip service to 'democratic association', and I've warned alan that the whole SPGB seems to be doing this, too, whilst they follow the ideology of 'materialism'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:But what are we?'We'? According to Marx, 'we' (humanity) are the 'social producers'. The link between the 'social individuals' making up this 'active producer' is 'democracy'. Without democracy, the notion of the 'social producers' must involve either a group elite or elite individuals.The notion of 'individual production' is simply the most elitist formulation, in which every individual forms a separated unit, much like 'individual consumers' in a 'free market'.'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.
I entirely agree with the above. We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."
Young Master Smeet wrote:I entirely agree with the above. We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."[my bold]As I said to alan earlier, you're using the words, but missing the meaning.Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so, you'll remain in the world of 'free individuals', and a system of production that reflects those needs, interests and purposes.
LBird wrote:'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.More red herrings from LBird, Nobody is is denying socialist prduction will involve democratic decision-making. In fact that is written into the very declaration of principles of the SPGB which talks of The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the debate is really about the scope of democratic decisionmaking but you have chosen to ignore this. You have made it quite plain that you reject the Marxist view of socialism as a society in which individuals freely take from the common store and freely freely contribute to the production of wealth on a voluntary basis. You want a society in which individuals will have no choice whatsoever about what they consume or what work they contribute. According to you there should be only one entity that will make the entire gamut of decisions in society – namely, global society society itself , meaning 7,4 billion of us collectively voting on billions of decisions. Understood literally, that is what you are arguing for. Its is obviously absurd and equally obviously, is a direct invation to a tiny elite to take over the apparatus of decsionmaking since that is the only "practical" you can administer a system of society wide planning when you prevent individuals or local communities making decsions as well. i.e. when you prevent a polycentric model of decisionmaking from coming into existenceSince individuals will not be able to exercise any kind of choice in your society, what this means is that you advocate a society in which what you as an individual can consume will be strictly rationed according to what the powers-that-be determine you should be entitled to, Work for you, Lbird, need to take the compulsory or forced labour form++ that is typical of all class societies, Like the good Leninist that you are , you subscribe to the precept that "he who does not work shall not eat". In your Leninist dystopia, individuals will have no say in the matter of work. They must conform to what society requires of them which in de facto terms means what your vanguard elite tells them to do. Frankly, you are as bad as Maggie Thatcher who famously contended that there is "no such thing as society only individuals" except for you there is no such things as individuals only society. Unlike you, however, Marxists have a quite different take on the relationship between the individual and society essentially seeing it as a two-way, not one-way,, relationship. Which is precisely why Marx insisted,as I pointed out earlier that in a socialist society the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all". What do you imagine he meant by that ? What do you think the "free development of each" actually entails eh? Really and truly you should be criticising Marx for being an "individualist" (a sociological term you still dont understand and which you repeatedly confuse wth the term" individuality") along with the rest of us on this forum – you being the only one who stands out like a sore thumb for the holding the bizarre ideas that you promote on this forum. Come to think of it, that is richly ironic for someone who is forever going on about the "democratic production of truth". If a vote was taken on this forum on the validity of your ideas I bet you wouldnt accept – not for one moment! -what the majority voted for – would you now, Lbird?
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:But what are we?'We'? According to Marx, 'we' (humanity) are the 'social producers'. The link between the 'social individuals' making up this 'active producer' is 'democracy'. Without democracy, the notion of the 'social producers' must involve either a group elite or elite individuals.The notion of 'individual production' is simply the most elitist formulation, in which every individual forms a separated unit, much like 'individual consumers' in a 'free market'.'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.
I can go along with your use of the term "producers", in that within our social word all are producers of whatever is considered at that time to be the social understanding of the world. I would politely, and without taking the piss as you accuse me of frequently, however, point out that on another post you used the term "workers" not producers, if this was a slip of the tongue (or fingers) fair play.I queried the apparent excusiveness of that, but, alas, no reply. Some clarification of your use of this term would be appreciated. This is because it gives the impression of a class based sociaty, as there would be members of the world community that were not workers, Would, in your view the democracy of a Communist/Socialist sociaty be one wheer ALL members of the community were involved in ALL decision making and that no part of that community had the right to exclude any other part of that community from the decision making process.To clarify a little further, am I correct in assuming that your argument is based, among other things on the ideas put forward in the German Ideology? If so, again no problems there. Karl's view was clearly expressed in the oft quoted:“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”Iin the spirit of one member of the working class, speaking to another member of the working class, with the caveats that I agree to not try and take the piss and working on the agreement that you are happy not to try and patronise. Would you be able to briefly clarify your views on these areas?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.