Socialism over night
- This topic has 53 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You may have missed my earlier comment where i made clear that
“The only thing lacking is the political will of our fellow-workers, which is something I don’t think Marx anticipated and something our Party founders underestimated, that workers would decline to use their political power to change society and benefit themselves by acting in their own interests. Why this is so is an ongoing debate.”
Is that not the “self-determination” you accuse me of not taking account of, LBird. Or do you have another definition of self-determination, LBird.
As been said elsewhere, socialism had to wait for its time to come to be more than a utopian aspiration, and it was the recognition of the progressive nature of capitalism in creating the forces of production that Marx frequently alluded to which created the possibility of socialist ideas arising, in the first place, by creating a class that can carry out the task of transforming the economic basis without substituting itself as a ruling class (even if for the shortest of periods workers will become the supreme class so to dispose of the present ruling class before society becomes classfree)
Consciousness is always at the core of the Socialist Party’s analysis and it is why we place the battle of ideas at the forefront of the class war.
alan wrote “Consciousness is always at the core of the Socialist Party’s analysis and it is why we place the battle of ideas at the forefront of the class war.”
So you agree that workers can determine for themselves the meaning of ‘material’?
And that the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat that reads Marx, and finds that his ideas are contradicted by Engels’ interpretation?
I never miss your contributions, alan, but you contradict yourself (as did Engels, even within his own short letters).
EITHER ‘technology’ (industry, ‘forces of production’, ‘matter’, ‘the material’, etc.) CREATES ‘the possibility of socialist ideas arising’ (Engels’, Lenin’s, and all ‘materialist’s’ argument), OR ‘socialist ideas’ self-consciously CREATE a class conscious proletariat (Marx’s argument, which as you say, when you contradict your other view, ‘the battle of ideas’ is at ‘the forefront of the class war’).
‘Matter’ (or ‘material’) doesn’t ‘create ideas’ or do ‘social production’. Only HUMANS do this – we are the ‘active consciousness’, the creators of our own social theory and practice.
If we wait for the ‘material conditions’, a party which doesn’t wait will replace the class conscious proletariat as the agent of change. This party will claim to ‘know’ the ‘material’, in a way that the workers cannot change, so that the party can provide ‘leadership’ (and a ‘scientific’ approach, mere ‘neutral advice’, which, of course, it demands that workers take). The party doesn’t wait for the ‘material conditions’ to decide – the party supplants the class.
I’ve asked this political and philosophical question of you (and the SPGB) before, alan – ‘Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’.
The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.
‘Materialists’ deny this, and argue that ‘truth’ is not a social product, and so we workers can’t change it.
The ‘materialists’, of course, retain for themselves the power to change truth. They call this ‘science’, and ‘scientists’ constantly ‘change truth’, as anyone who reads the about history of science, especially since Einstein, knows already.
‘Scientific Socialism’ and ‘Materialism’ (Engels’ social products, influenced by 19th century bourgeois science) aim to prevent workers determining for themselves their own social products, which is why Lenin espoused these ‘ideas’, in his battle against workers’ democracy.
My understanding has always been that two requisites were required for the establishment of socialism, the productive capacity and a mental development, both complementing one another
We reached the capability of supplying the needs and wants of the population sometime in the late 19th C and early 20C although i am willing to be corrected on this matter.
But the mental consciousness has lagged behind.
I suggest a re-reading of the Communist Manifesto and how capitalism, the development of machine-manufacture and factory-production (not the earlier mercantile capitalism) created the gravediggers of the present system – the potentially revolutionary working class through the emergence of the class struggle
“…the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product….”
Socialism could not emerge until the working class was given birth to and grew and it was the Industrial Revolution that was the real beginning of this class (and then later it incorporated other continents.)
As for who determines “truth”, i already suggested who…our fellow-workers, who have consistently and continually rejected the “truths” of social evolution and socialist revolution. Marx’s arguments are dismissed and not reality because it does appear to our fellow-workers that capitalism is commonsense and the only reality to live in.
They have rejected the socialist agenda ….so far.
And if you did read my earlier post, i would like your answer to why capitalism continues to be supported.
alan wrote “My understanding has always been that two requisites were required for the establishment of socialism, the productive capacity and a mental development, both complementing one another”
So, how can ‘productive capacity’ develop, without ‘mental development’ (to employ your terms)?
You’re simply following Engels here, by SEPARATING ‘material’ from ‘ideal’ factors. It was Engels who instituted this trend, of regarding ‘Idealism’ and ‘Materialism’ as in a terrific battle, from which there can only be one winner.
Marx, on the contrary, UNITED ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’ in a philosophy of ‘social production’, where HUMAN theory and practice form a whole, and neither ‘mind’ nor ‘matter’ can be addressed apart – as did the Idealists, who emphasised the activity of Divine Production, as did the Materialists, who emphasised the passivity of unconscious Material Production. It was obvious to Marx, and should be to us, that NEITHER had any place for human conscious activity – the idealists saw consciousness as divine, the materialists saw motion as clockwork, self-motivated. Marx put the ‘human’ into ‘production’.
ALB wrote “Calling all Engelsists:”
I recommend that all who are interested in these vital political issues, and who live near enough, to attend this lecture.
This will help those who confuse Marx’s and Engels’ views, to understand their profound differences.
I’d also recommend having a read prior to the lecture of Carver’s 1983 book “Marx & Engels: The Intellectual Relationship’, especially chapters 4 & 5.
alan wrote “And if you did read my earlier post, i would like your answer to why capitalism continues to be supported.”
Because the alternative to capitalism, ie, socialism, would require a class conscious revolutionary proletariat organised upon democratic lines, to socially produce it.
EVERY ‘materialist’ party tells workers that they can’t change ‘matter’.
Then, underhandedly, those parties propose an elite to take control of the social production of physics, maths, logic, truth, reality, etc., etc.
It’s obvious to any worker who joins those parties that they don’t intend to let workers determine ‘science-for-workers’.
Hence, 135 years after Marx’s death, capitalism is going strong, and will continue to do so, because supposed ‘Marxists’ (ie., ‘materialists’) prevent the self-development of any workers who show any interest in overthrowing capitalism.
Capitalism continues to be supported because it works, and the capitalists don’t pretend that they’re going to hand over control to workers, and then don’t, which is what EVERY ‘materialist’ party that has gotten into power has done.
It’s very clear to all workers, that capitalism is the preferred mode of production for their own interests. There is no alternative to a minority in control of ‘truth’, as the ‘materialists’ keep telling them.
Workers might as well have a competent elite in charge, rather than an incompetent ‘materialist’ elite, who can’t even account for the social and historical development of ‘science’, and wish to drag us all back to the 18th century, before Marx wrote.
Any ‘materialist’ party might as well put Rees Mogg in control.
potaytoes and potahtoes…tomahtoes and tomaytoes
“Because the alternative to capitalism, ie, socialism, would require a class conscious revolutionary proletariat organised upon democratic lines, to socially produce it.”
And how is that different from when i say
“The only thing lacking is the political will of our fellow-workers”
“…two requisites were required for the establishment of socialism, the productive capacity and a mental development, both complementing one another…But the mental consciousness has lagged behind…”
As for your answer to my question….i again see little difference but you insist upon making some great philosophical disagreement out of it.
” ‘Marxists’ (ie., ‘materialists’) prevent the self-development of any workers who show any interest in overthrowing capitalism…”
However, this i do find strange is how you ascribe to the “materialists” this amazing great power of prevention … yet you on’t give an instance of when those workers have endeavoured to overthrow capitalism….they have not even joined the “materialist” parties in any great number to even indicate a willingness to do so but as you say…
“Capitalism continues to be supported because it works..”
Again i find myself repeating myself
“As for who determines “truth”, i already suggested who…our fellow-workers, who have consistently and continually rejected the “truths” of social evolution and socialist revolution. Marx’s arguments are dismissed and not reality because it does appear to our fellow-workers that capitalism is commonsense and the only reality to live in. They have rejected the socialist agenda ….so far.”
Capitalism is preferred, not because we are preventing a “true” understanding by imposing our “materialist” truth upon fellow-workers but that they have already self-determinedly developed their own version of the truth…socialism won’t work…it is impractical, unviable, unfeasible…As you say…”because [they think] it works…”
Our task is to demonstrate that it doesn’t work and most definitely not work in their interests…poverty war racism mental illness and the countless other detrimental effects of the capitalist mode of production.
My difficulty is that even when this paradox is shown, there is still a disconnect …a refusal to admit that the problem in society is that the world is working as it should and a denial that things can change if we willed it to happen.
This what we need to overcome.
I was a bit contradictory when i said the OP’s question “was a straightforward one and the answer an easy one.” I hadn’t taken into account your convoluted distraction, LBird 🙄
L Bird Wrote –
“Alan wrote “And if you did read my earlier post, i would like your answer to why capitalism continues to be supported.”
Because the alternative to capitalism, ie, socialism, would require a class conscious revolutionary proletariat organised upon democratic lines, to socially produce it.
EVERY ‘materialist’ party tells workers that they can’t change ‘matter’.
Then, underhandedly, those parties propose an elite to take control of the social production of physics, maths, logic, truth, reality, etc., etc.
It’s obvious to any worker who joins those parties that they don’t intend to let workers determine ‘science-for-workers’.
Hence, 135 years after Marx’s death, capitalism is going strong, and will continue to do so, because supposed ‘Marxists’ (ie., ‘materialists’) prevent the self-development of any workers who show any interest in overthrowing capitalism.
Capitalism continues to be supported because it works, and the capitalists don’t pretend that they’re going to hand over control to workers, and then don’t, which is what EVERY ‘materialist’ party that has gotten into power has done.
It’s very clear to all workers, that capitalism is the preferred mode of production for their own interests. There is no alternative to a minority in control of ‘truth’, as the ‘materialists’ keep telling them.
Workers might as well have a competent elite in charge, rather than an incompetent ‘materialist’ elite, who can’t even account for the social and historical development of ‘science’, and wish to drag us all back to the 18th century, before Marx wrote.
Any ‘materialist’ party might as well put Rees Mogg in control.”
Birds and Moggies, something tells me that isn’t a great mix!
Philosophy is a useless practice, we do not need philosophy or philosophers, what we need is a coherent theory of socialism, and we have that already. Marx and Engels thru the development of their body ideas gave more emphasis to Anthropology than to Philosophy. That Engels made mistakes, we have known that for many years, and personally and I have known that for many years, and there are several organizations who have analysed his mistakes, but there are millions of so-called rocking chairs theoreticians who cannot tie the shoelaces of Engels, and his contributions to Socialism-communism are extremely valuable
As you say Marcos,
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”
“The task at hand then becomes a theoretic one, namely, providing a concrete social analysis which shows how these needs, interests, and powers shape and hold particular human conventions and in which ways these conventions can be transformed” – Cornel West
Our task is to fight for a human community that satisfies human needs by abolishing wage-labour, money, trade, and the State and part of that struggle is to expose the mystification presented by apologists for the capitalist system and reveal the real nature of it – the reality of capitalism, rather than LBird’s pre-occupation with philosophical epistemology on the forum…what is “truth”…etc etc
As a socialist, i urge LBird to get real 😉
Like someone that I used to know said: When they move, they move ( the world working class) the question is: Are you going to be ready when they move? I have been ready for many years. When the world working class decides to overthrow capital, nobody would be able to stop them, nobody can hold a brave bull by the horns, and they are going to sweep the floors with all these picky rocking chairs philosophers, and most of these rocking chair philosophers are going to be under the bed,
I have seen many brave ones using their mouth and their pen, in the middle of a revolution making poop and piss in their pants, specially when the repressive forces place a pistol on your forehead. Politics and class struggles are so serious that peoples get killed, this is not child play, and we must get real
The choice is going to be the ballot or the bullet, and in some places, the rulers are going to resist too. Socialism can not be established overnight, it is going to be a long struggle, and it is not going to be perfect either, and it is not inevitable either. Socialists-communists must be militant of a working-class organization, this is not a struggle for contemplation, or philosophying, our task is to change the world
L Bird wrote:
“… the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat …”
The victorious proletariat might also reject your assertions about “materialists”. They are assertions because, according to your own criterion, they have not been voted on (and passed) by a class conscious proletariat.
“Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’. The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.”
If truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means, then we will have to wait to find out what is true and what truth is – including, presumably, the claim that truth is determined by a vote. Until then, again all you have, according to your own criterion, is opinion.
—
Lew
We don’t even know what is going to happen to us, and what type of organization the conscious proletariat will select, and what is going to be done, they are the ones who are going to determinate what is truth, and what route to take, that is the reason why Marx and Engels left everything to the creativity of the world working class, we do not even know if truth is going to be a vote because in some areas the rulers have a very backward mentality and they will resist, and workers would be forced to confront them unless the police and the armed forces would be in our side. We can not make any blueprint, not even Marx and Engels dared to do that.
Lenin is not Lenin ( or Leninism ) because of Engles, Leninism is a product of the real, and objective economic conditions of Russia, and the elite conception of Leninism is not a product of Engels either, even more, Lenin declared that What is to be done? , and the vanguard party were temporary measures only applicable to Russia, and he was not going to republish What is to be done? In a certain period of their life, Marx and Engels, looked like proto-Leninists, or Mensheviks, and Blanquists, and then, they changed their point of view, and at the very beginning the Economist was not Marx, it was Engels, and Marx was the philosopher
Both are dead and both did what they had to do in their epoch, we are the ones who must build and work for a new society, that is our task in our times. At the present time the world working class looks like is in retreat, receiving their own defeats, or moving backwards, but sometimes the same working class is able to move forward, and take class consciousness, if the world working class takes the proper consciousness the world ruling class will last less than a roach in a chicken nest
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.