Socialism over night
- This topic has 53 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Marcos wrote “Calling elitists to members of the SPGB, and saying that you know more than them, is not an abuse? I do not suffer from historical amnesia”
But you all admit that you’re ‘materialists’, and MARX himself called this 18th century ideology elitist.
And I rather think you do ‘suffer from historical amnesia’, because you’ve read Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, and yet have forgotten what Marx said therein.
And because if you read them (again), and remember what you’ve just read long enough, you’ll be forced to re-think, critically, your present ideology of ‘materialism’ – and so, since you won’t do that, and argue your case, you revert (as do all ‘materialists’, always) to abusing those workers who do follow Marx, read his works, and then think critically about what they’ve read.
So, you ‘abuse’ (as this thread shows), whereas I don’t abuse you, but ask you to account for your politics.
alan wrote “
So LBird you decline the cordial invitation to offer comradely advice to a group you very obviously seem attached to, despite what disagreements you hold with us.
Then let me re-phrase my request
Construct an address to our fellow-workers in a non-party, non-partisan manner that will encourage them to investigate the socialist case further.”
But what are my thousands of posts over several years, if not an ‘offer of comradely advice’ to think critically about the anti-democratic ideology of ‘materialism’?
And I’d like to be ‘attached’, as I’ve said often before – but, having joined, argued with, and left, the SWP (as did many friends in Militant, RCP, WRP, CP, WP, etc., etc. – I’ve known a few), I want to politically examine this party, first. That hasn’t gone well, has it? The membership have consistently argued that they will deny workers’ democracy in production, and then have resorted to personally abusing me, rather than make a case for their anti-democratic views (which clearly will let the cat out of the bag in front of other readers).
I’m non-party and non-partisan, through and through, alan – I’m only ‘partisan’ to my class and its necessary democratic methods, which is why I’m here, at least. Obviously, that’s not why some are here.
Anyway, I’d ‘cordially invite’ those comrades in London to attend Carver’s talk on Engels, because that might help to break the political logjam between us, once some ‘outside’ input has been accepted by SPGB members.
And another, repeated, ‘cordial invitation’, alan.
Have a read of Gareth Stedman Jones’ “Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion’ (2016), especially pp. 191-99.
Surely 9 pages is not too much to ask of anyone’s time, is it, alan?
It will be noted that, yet again, L Bird evades the epistemological problems inherent in his position as he obsessively pursues his ‘materialist’ straw man.
As it happens, I’ve reviewed Carver’s books for the Socialist Standard and I agree with his point that there are important philosophical differences between Marx and Engels. However, they have no practical political significance as far as we are concerned. Nobody, including the WSM, is obliged to agree with everything they said.
Ironically, Carver shows that the main philosophical difference between Marx and Engels concerns epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and it is precisely here that L Bird’s argument fails.
Lew
Lew wrote “As it happens, I’ve reviewed Carver’s books for the Socialist Standard and I agree with his point that there are important philosophical differences between Marx and Engels. However, they have no practical political significance as far as we are concerned. “
No, practical political significance, eh?
Well, let’s see how it aligns to this thread.
The ‘materialists’ (see ALB’s quote) argue that the ‘material conditions’ for socialism have existed since the late 19th century, but there has been no workers’ revolution.
What is the OP to make of this?
There’s all this shiny, new, bright ‘material socialism’, just sitting there, for 120 years, and those workers have completely ignored it!
It doesn’t take much deep thought to realise those workers must be stupid! Fancy them ignoring the ‘material conditions’, which are just begging to be employed in the interests of all workers! And all the hard work has already been done, by those capitalists!
Either it can be done overnight, because the ‘material conditions’ already exist – or it can’t be done overnight, because those dumb workers haven’t yet shown the slightest inclination to take those ‘material conditions’ over for themselves, so they’re clearly going to take a long time to learn, being taught by those nice ‘materialists’!
Of course, whichever answer is given to the OP (and any other interested workers, looking to the SPGB ‘materialists’ for a lead), it involves workers being as thick as pig shit.
Lew wrote “Ironically, Carver shows that the main philosophical difference between Marx and Engels concerns epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and it is precisely here that L Bird’s argument fails.”
That is the ‘argument’, Lew.
You ‘materialists’ claim to know something workers don’t and can’t (ie. you have an elitist epistemology), which is why you refuse to countenance workers voting on the ‘truth’ of physics, maths, logic, scientific method, etc., etc.
Lew wrote “It will be noted that, yet again, L Bird evades the epistemological problems inherent in his position as he obsessively pursues his ‘materialist’ straw man.”
Who’s ‘evading the epistemological problems inherent in his position as he obsessively pursues his ‘materialist’ hard man’, Lew?
The worship of ‘matter’ is a religious practice, and Marx argued against it.
Try re-reading Carver’s books, Lew, in the light of the failure of the ‘material conditions’ to have persuaded workers to adopt socialism. You (and ALB) will be waiting a long time for ‘material conditions’ to do anything. Only humans, as Marx argued, consciously, with planning and purpose, change their world.
To have socialism or full communism you need two things.
1] A highly developed means of production and technology etc capable of producing sufficient abundance given expectations at the time etc with minimal effort.
2] And a communist consciousness; wherever that might come from.
If you just extrapolate 1] forward, for example, you may arrive at a situation where for instance 5 hours work a week is enough to satisfy everyone’s needs.
Then the cramping, restrictive and chaotic organization of production on a for profit system becomes increasing absurd and stupid and the communist alternative more rational.
As with Star Trek the next generation.
Thus communist consciousness isn’t even really that.
In that case it is just material egotism.
Or it is just better for me.
There is a kind moral dimension to communism even if some don’t see it like that but others do and have done.
There are obvious problems with 1].
First is that capitalism keeps expanding on what is necessary or to satisfy everyone’s needs.
In the western world advertising etc keeps on convincing us that we need more and more stuff like private swimming pools and boats and all the rest.
Actually taken as a whole the life style of fairly well paid workers in the ‘West’ is probably materially better than that of the capitalist class 100 years ago.
I wouldn’t exchange places with a member of the capitalist class from 100 years ago.
All they had that I don’t is maybe really big houses and flunkies to do the housework.
But with ‘us’ now more never seems to be enough.
At the other end of $10 a day or a lot less ie the vast majority of the world population they actually don’t want anymore than could be provided.
It is quite humbling to listen to their dreams and aspirations.
I think that world communism would have been a challenge 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.
I think it is only in the last 30 years or so that it has started to be more technologically feasible.
I think most have little idea what has changed so much in the last 30 years in manufacturing over that period with the introduction of robots into production.
There are probably a few more technological ‘breakthroughs’ required that are in fact ongoing
eg cheap solar power that is cracking along with material chemists.
And electricity Super-conducting materials that are surging forward.
The downside has been the anti-communist ideological brain washing power of the modern technological media.
But they are beginning to loose control of that as well with the internet and twitter etc.
They are fighting back of course.
Like they did when the bible was translated into English and printed; it was one of the first cases of mass book burning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible
They at least understood the potentially seditious stuff in it about the rich having as much chance of getting into heaven as a jumbo jet flying through a keyhole.
But they eventually did just rework that again like Stalin did with Marxism.
Anti communist ideology can survive in other forms where sort of ruthless competition and the consequences of failure and success brings out the ‘best’ of us and pushes us to realize our full potential etc.
Eg Nietzsche.
He can be hardwork as he spends a lot of time attacking other philosophers and thus you need a background in that to follow it.
However I thought this following was a good wrap up of his ideas?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_(book)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm
thus he says that;
What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist [by which he meant us, or libertarian communism]
and the Christian have the same <u>ancestry</u>….
Which is true after a fashion.
We just want to put the ruling class up against the wall or guillotine them or something.
The Early Christians were more vicious and wanted then to burn for eternity whilst spitting on them to relieve their suffering.
Dave B wrote “
To have socialism or full communism you need two things.
1] A highly developed means of production and technology etc capable of producing sufficient abundance given expectations at the time etc with minimal effort.
2] And a communist consciousness; wherever that might come from.”
I agree with you, Dave, as far as it goes.
So, to be clear – the ‘material conditions’ for socialism did not exist at the end of the 19th century.
The ‘material conditions’ for socialism do not exist today, and have never yet existed, anywhere.
To argue with my statements, one has to separate the so-called ‘material’ (your ‘means’) and the so-called ‘ideal’ (your ‘consciousness’), and argue that one ‘already exists’, to the exclusion of the other (usually, this argument takes the form that the ‘material’ can ‘exist’ without the ‘ideal’).
But, as you imply, neither can ‘exist’ without the other – there is no ‘means’ just sitting there, without ‘consciousness’ – both 1] and 2] define each other.
This was Marx’s great innovation – ‘material’ and ‘ideal’ are inescapably intertwined for humans. We socially produce any ‘conditions’, by theory and practice, and we can’t have one without the other.
The separation of these two, material and ideal, was Engels’ misunderstanding of Marx’s unifying of the two, and Engels’ return to 18th century, pre-Marx, ‘materialism’.
Thus, one’s political view of epistemology comes into play here – there is no non-epistemological, simply ‘practical/pragmatic’ answer to this issue.
If one argues that 1] can ‘exist’ alone (or, indeed, 2] can ‘exist’ alone), then one is taking an Engelsist epistemological stance, and rejecting Marx’s unifying of 1] and 2], in a theory of social production, which is both ‘ideal’ and ‘material’.
Semantic sophistry doesn’t achieve socialism
I am not surprised that the OP has fallen silent when confronted with this verbiage (of which i plead guilty of contributing to, as well.)
But yes ideas are material…or at least that what i believe was the contribution of Dietzgen.
Despite whatever value LBird’s views offer us, he has not presented any proposition of social change, no dynamic of society.
At least Marx did suggest class struggle from the material conditions being created by capitialist relations imposing itself upon labour would result in the formation of the capitalist grave-diggers…a movement coming forth…
alan wrote “Semantic sophistry doesn’t achieve socialism”
I know alan, that’s what I keep telling you!
But you keep doing it!
You say ‘ideas are material’… but then talk of ‘material’ conditions, as if they (without workers’ consciously building them) will ‘result in…a movement’.
Can’t you see the damage you’re doing?
Let me explain, as a worker who keeps trying to help ‘materialists’ to understand why they are preventing a workers’ movement from emerging.
If ‘ideas are material’, then, surely, ‘material are ideas’? So why not call this concept ‘idea-material’? And then say the ‘idea-material conditions’ will result in a movement?
This would then make it clear to all workers that neither ‘idea’ nor ‘material’ alone will produce socialism.
But when you tell workers that ‘material’ will build socialism, without their conscious participation, then why would they bother to participate? And, in fact, since you believe this, you really think that workers’ conscious participation is not required, because you’re only paying lip-service to ‘ideas are material’, which is, as you so rightly say, ‘semantic sophistry’.
Now, I’m a worker, and I’ve been in and around ‘materialist’ parties for over 30 years, as have dozens of workers I knew personally, who have all been dedicated to consciously building a workers’ movement, but after exposure to various ‘materialist’ parties, have left the ‘movement’, when they realised that this ‘movement’ had no intention whatsoever in letting them democratically control their movement. I don’t know a single person (all dedicated socialists/Marxists) who have remained.
So, throughout the 20th century, all over the world, millions of workers hopefully joined ‘materialist’ parties… and then, when they understood what ‘materialism’ entailed (an elite of ‘special consciousness, and lack of democracy), they left again.
This argument provides an answer to your conundrum… the ‘conditions’ for socialism don’t exist – because ‘materialist’ parties are ACTIVELY PREVENTING their emergence.
If I were to use the term ‘Leninist parties’ in this argument, you’d probably agree with me.
What’s stopping you (and the rest of the ‘materialist’ SPGB) coming to consciousness of this truth? It was the ‘materialism’ in Lenin that was the problem.
Marx argues for the self-emancipation of the proletariat, conscious self-activity of workers – not for ‘matter’ building a movement.
Workers’ emancipation requires ‘idea-material’, not ‘material’, conditions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.