the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

ALB wrote:

Bought this as a second-hand pamphlet at the SP's Summer School in Birmingham last weekend:https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-iroquois-franklin-rosemontIt's based on Marx's Enthnological Notebooks of 1881 and throws some light on Marx's attitude to LH Morgan which Engels used as the basis of his Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. I didn't know that Darwin mentioned Morgan too (for a study of beavers).[/quotehttp://www.kevin-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-article-uncovering-marx.pdftheanarchistlibrary.org/library/franklin-rosemont-karl-marx-and-the-iroquois.a4.pdfMarx and the Iroquies https://books.google.com/books?id=F8Cfc4lcIc0C&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=marx+ethnological+books,+raya+dunayevskaya&source=bl&ots=LHHN99T_WC&sig=sPgdXP3tb5Kj91lVk1V4OZwUSy4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBj8CRppzOAhUDzGMKHYvcAHIQ6AEIUjAI#v=onepage&q=marx%20ethnological%20books%2C%20raya%20dunayevskaya&f=falseT

There are still many writtings of Marx that we do not know yet. The new edition of Mega will publish many uncovered writtings.  Some peoples should get down from their high horses and look around, we do not know everything yet

[Anonymous]

http://www.kevin-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-article-marx-late-writings.pdfMarx on non Western societyLike someone said it was too much work for one man, even Engels was surprised to know that Marx was working in different topics that he di not know. One of the few person able to understand Marx hanwritting was Engels. We know that Engels made many mistake but he invested a great deal of time and money in order to publish the work of his best  friend, The thing is like Dunayeskaya used to say: When they move ( the working class ) they will move, the question is: Are you going to be ready ? 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

That is, to those already having a revolutionary class consciousness,  he'll [Chomsky]say 'build for socialism/anarchism';Whereas, to those not presently class conscious, he'll say 'vote for the lesser of two evils'.I do this myself, regarding Corbyn. To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'. If they press me for a deeper, more politically profound answer (and they already know my Communist views), I discuss Democratic Communism, and the dangers of Corbyn.

This sounds rather elitist to me.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

That is, to those already having a revolutionary class consciousness,  he'll [Chomsky]say 'build for socialism/anarchism';Whereas, to those not presently class conscious, he'll say 'vote for the lesser of two evils'.I do this myself, regarding Corbyn. To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'. If they press me for a deeper, more politically profound answer (and they already know my Communist views), I discuss Democratic Communism, and the dangers of Corbyn.

This sounds rather elitist to me.

It would, since, being a 'materialist', you are one, and clearly wish to taint Democratic Communists with your non-democratic 'scientific' views.The whole notion of the development of workers' consciousness is completely alien to 'materialists', and so they see their own elitism everywhere.I allow workers to dictate their own questions to me, and answer honestly to their present political consciousness.Remind me again, ALB, of your political views on 'truth' – you won't have workers voting on it, will you? Because you have faith that 'matter' speaks personally to your own elite, but not to all workers, who thus cannot be allowed to participate in the building of their 'truth'.Is this elitism the policy of the SPGB? Is the whole of the party membership bound to 'elitist materialism'? Will the SPGB, if they participate in a workers' revolution, really seek to deny the democratic participation of workers in the social production of 'scientific knowledge', as I know already, because you've said so, that you will?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Is this elitism the policy of the SPGB? Is the whole of the party membership bound to 'elitist materialism'? Will the SPGB, if they participate in a workers' revolution, really seek to deny the democratic participation of workers in the social production of 'scientific knowledge', as I know already, because you've said so, that you will?

 Groan.  Not this same old rehashed nonsense from LBird yet again. Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time. This is not elitism; it simply stating the obvious – that the opportunity costs of acquiring expertise in one specialism means forsaking expertise in another. It takes time and years of study/practice to become a trained neurosurgeon. We only have three score years and ten within which to allocate our time to what become what we would like to become.  No individual, however talented, can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. I would have thought that was obvious but not according to LBird.  He seems to think human beings are potentially demigods endowed with the capacity for infinite wisdom and understanding. As for his silly rhetorical question "Will the SPGB, if they participate in a workers' revolution, really seek to deny the democratic participation of workers in the social production of 'scientific knowledge', as I know already, because you've said so, that you will?" – no, LBird no one here is proposing to place any barriers whatsoever on anyone contributing to the production of scientific knowledge.  On the contrary, any individual in a socialist society. I imagine,  will be encouraged to contribute whatever they can to the production of scientific knowledge.  The more the better as far as I am concerned However, it is one thing to say that, its quite another to expect every worker without exception to  contribute significantly to every conceivable branch of scientific  understanding.  Thats just plain daft in my opinion.  There are obviously going to be groups of workers more skilled in some areas of expertise than the population in general.  Or is LBird seriously trying to tell us that this will not be the case.  In which case, lets hear his argument for this if he has one!

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have.

If they are fellow socialists, LBird, surely they don't require to be told about the anti-working class nature of the Labour Party, regardless of who its leader happens to be. In an election,We don't "vote for Corbyn"…we vote for a manifesto…although if i'm pushed for literal truth , it is the constituency candidates.  Or do you mean Labour Party members? Which in that case, in any exchanges i will endeavour to dispel any illusions about the Labour Party and voting for its leader. If they are not socialists, then i thought it would be incumbent upon a socialist to explain the role and the history of the Labour Party in anti-working policies and without imposing your own will upon them, describe what your own intentions would be … to oppose and to expose the Labour Party.  This isn't something in the abstract but practically daily practice socialists face in the work-place. If i'm honest with my fellow-workers i don't avoid telling them what i consider to be "the truth" on particular issues and policies and it is up to them to challenge me on that and prove otherwise. It is called debating. My fellow workers aren't numpties…they know what and why they do things…It is simply mostly against their own interests and that is what the message has always been for socialists. As Marx said , communist disdain from hiding their politics…We don't pretend to be anything other than what we are – workers with a political/class/socialist consciousness in advance of many of our fellow workers. That is the reality…and a truth…

[LBird]

I notice that you've taken up ALB's derail, alan, to avoid confronting the central issue, that the SPGB argue that workers will not democratically control the social production of 'truths'.robbo is his reply confirms as much, with his 'opportunity costs', etc.I'm giving, and have given many times, an opportunity for any SPGB member (or even just a supporter, just one), to argue their case for the political support for the democratic control of social production of 'truths'.No-one has made this case, so I can only assume that the opposing non-democratic case for 'science' is the (unspoken?) policy of the SPGB.I know that this is the case for Leninists 'materialists', but we'd expect them to be elitist and anti-workers' democracy, but the SPGB seems to follow the Leninist method.Since I have to assume that the posters are posting in good faith, I can only assume that the political centrality of the democratic control of the means of production has not dawned on the membership, or that the SPGB define 'means of production' in a way that does not involve the production of theory.That is, the SPGB does not include the universities, education system, research facilities, scientific review publications, etc. in their definition of 'the means of production'. That is, the SPGB seems to believe that, with socialism, workers will control the production of factories and their widgets, but not 'the clever stuff'.It seems elitist to me, so here's someone's chance to make their case for the SPGB policy on the production of 'science'.Is 'democracy' too much of an 'opportunity cost'? If so, where will that attitude end? If 'science' in socialist society can work without democracy, why bother with the 'costs' of political democracy, either?Surely youse can appreciate the political questions being asked? About power.

[robbo203]

Answer the question LBird Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time. Do  you feel everyone can become an accomplished neurosurgeon , a geophysicist and a biochemist all at the same time?Yes or no?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Answer the question LBird Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time. Do  you feel everyone can become an accomplished neurosurgeon , a geophysicist and a biochemist all at the same time?Yes or no?

Once again, robbo wishes to turn this political and epistemological issue into one about 'practical matters'.This is a question, on a politics site, about power.robbo's method is, of course, the standard bourgeois materialist method of reducing everything to a question of 'practicality'. This always ends up with 'democracy' not being 'practical', because "there's no need for the dumb workers to worry their tiny little minds with philosophy or physics, when their betters can just do it for them".robbo's question, above, with suitable changes, could be addressed by any boss to revolutionary workers arguing for democratic control of the boss's factory:Do they not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished managers or directors let alone both at the same time.And the more ideologically aware amongst you will notice the form of robbo's question about 'everyone'.The assumption here is 'individualism', to try to force me to answer from the perspective of the bourgeoisie.If the question is asked from a socialist perspective, that is, 'Do you feel collectively everyone can become…'And to that question, I can answer 'Yes'.Unlike robbo, I see socialism as a society driven by collective concerns, organised democratically, whereas, as we've seen before, robbo sees socialism as an individualist free-for-all, which is why robbo is very wary of 'democratic' claims for our class, because robbo is already planning to circumvent any constraints upon his personal, individual, 'freedom'.robbo's views about 'power' are not social, but individual.

[robbo203]

  LBird, your answer  to my simple question is evasive and full of red herrings There is no equivalence between my original statement:Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time.and your gloss on it:Do they not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished managers or directors let alone both at the same time. These are referring to two quite different things – knowledge/skills,  on the one hand,. and  the economic power to manage, supervise and dictate to others within an authoritarian structure called the capitalist corporation on the other hand.   I don't see how the latter could arise in a voluntaristic society of freely associated producers – communism –  but I can very definitely envisage in such a society some people specialising in becoming neurosurgeons or biochemists and others opting for other kinds of specialisms.  My point is that there is actually no way in which this could NOT happen.  Would you be happy to have just anyone walk off the street to operate on your brain to remove a tumour?  Of course you wouldnt.   You would expect such a person to be trained up and that takes years of practice and study, years that would prevent such a person becoming at the same time a skilled mechanical e gineer for example.  These are the inevitable opportunity costs of speicalisation and the social division of labour.  Get used to it What LBird does not seem to understand with his utterly naive view and simpliustic of communism is that specialisation and the social division of labour does not in anyway impact on or alter the patten of social power in communist society.  This is because he is still thinking through the prism of bourgeois ideology.  Being a neurosurgeon does not give you greater  leverage over others in a communist society though it certainly can in a capitalist society where your skill command a higher price It is amusing that L Bird should sayIf the question is asked from a socialist perspective, that is, 'Do you feel collectively everyone can become…'And to that question, I can answer 'Yes'. How telling that L Bird does not tell us what it is in his question that "collectively everyone can become…"!!!  Become "what" L Bird? If I rephrased or  interpolated into your comment the specific details that you evidently preferred to leave out , thusIf the question is asked from a socialist perspective, that is, 'Do you feel collectively everyone can become an accomplished neurosurgeon, a biochemist and mechanical engineer?…'And to that question, I can answer 'Yes'. would you still answer "yes" in this instance? Lets hear it from you LBird but this time without evasion.  Do you think everyone become an "accomplished neurosurgeon, a biochemist and mechanical engineer, all at the same time" Do you seriously there is absolutely no room for specialisation or a social division of labour in communism Yes or no, LBird?

[LBird]

I've given my political answer, robbo, in some detail.You don't like my answer, because it doesn't suit your political ideology.Talking of giving answers, though, can you explain why you intend to deny the producers the right to decide for themselves what they produce? And to make it clear that I'm not talking about just 'widgets', but the right to decide 'truth'.This is the nub of the political debate on a political site, about 'power' and who will wield it, in your proposed version of 'socialism'.My answer is very clear: only the democratic producers can determine their truths.

[SocialistPunk]

And still the evasion from LBird continues.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

That is, to those already having a revolutionary class consciousness,  he'll [Chomsky]say 'build for socialism/anarchism';Whereas, to those not presently class conscious, he'll say 'vote for the lesser of two evils'.I do this myself, regarding Corbyn. To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'. If they press me for a deeper, more politically profound answer (and they already know my Communist views), I discuss Democratic Communism, and the dangers of Corbyn.

This sounds rather elitist to me.

I do really know what elitism is by practice, not by seating on a rocking chair and looking for the wrong doing of others persons, who in some way  have also contributed to the cause of working class,  because I have been  a member of several elitist organizations, and I  think that the  SPGB does not get closer to them when it comes to elitism, therefore he does not what he is talking about.We do not even know what the working class of the whole world is going to do when they take real  political consciousness, and what method they are going to use in order to overthrow capitalism, we do not even know if in some part of the world they will be forced to use violence, and if  they do, this kind of person who talk to much about revolution, they are the first one that look for protection under a bed. I have seen many like that. The question again is: Are you ready for the workers revolution ?  Will the SPGB and WSM become the preferred political organization of the world working class ? We do not know that eitherI have been ready for more than 50 years, and i would be ready when the working class decide to overthrow capitalism.The SPGB has existed for more than 100 years and it is still alive and well, and they members are doing what the have to do with their limited resources in the middle of world where most of the workers are still supporting capitalism and we can not grab the workers by their hairs, our work as a school of socialist education has been accomplished thru all those years.Instead of being looking for mistakes it is better to join a political movement and work inside of that group. We do not need philosophers or philosophy, what need is a coherent socialist theory  for real  world liberation

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

I do really know what elitism is by practice, not by seating on a rocking chair and looking for the wrong doing of others persons, who in some way  have also contributed to the cause of working class,  because I have been  a member of several elitist organizations, and I  think that the  SPGB does not get closer to them when it comes to elitism, therefore he does not what he is talking about.

But the SPGB adhers to the very same Engelsist Materialism that the Leninists do. This problem existed before 1904, so the die was already cast, much earlier than 1917, long before the SPGB was founded, in the Second International and Engels.I do know what I'm talking about.

mcolome1 wrote:

We do not even know what the working class of the whole world is going to do when they take real  political consciousness, and what method they are going to use in order to overthrow capitalism, …

This assertion worries me, because I thought that the SPGB, at least nominally (outside of epistemology) argued that only democratic methods could be employed by the class conscious workers, to build a revolution for themselves.

mcolome1 wrote:

The SPGB has existed for more than 100 years and it is still alive and well…

As I've said, on the contrary, the SPGB is no further forward than it was in 1904, founded upon Engels' materialism. This is 19th century philosophy, and not even suited to understanding Einstein's works of 1905 and 1915. And now, a hundred years even further forward in all areas, including physics, logic and maths, we're still crying out for a way to understand these fundamental changes.

mcolome1 wrote:

Instead of being looking for mistakes it is better to join a political movement and work inside of that group. We do not need philosophers or philosophy, what need is a coherent socialist theory  for real  world liberation

I couldn't agree more, about 'coherence', but unless workers produce their own philosophers and philosophy, to create a socialist theory, then there is no way forward. A coherent democratic theory is essential.Looking to 19th materialism, and Engels' mutilation of Marx's admittedly difficult-to-understand ideas, is a dead-end.Whilst the SPGB continues to hide in the dead-end, I can't see myself joining, because I'm a Democratic Communist, first and foremost. I've tried to promote some discussion about this political difficulty (the power of 'science', and its current elitism, the roots of that in the counterrevolution of 1660), but it seems 'heads-in-the-sand' is the preferred response by the membership, at least on this site.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

I do really know what elitism is by practice, not by seating on a rocking chair and looking for the wrong doing of others persons, who in some way  have also contributed to the cause of working class,  because I have been  a member of several elitist organizations, and I  think that the  SPGB does not get closer to them when it comes to elitism, therefore he does not what he is talking about.

But the SPGB adhers to the very same Engelsist Materialism that the Leninists do. This problem existed before 1904, so the die was already cast, much earlier than 1917, long before the SPGB was founded, in the Second International and Engels.I do know what I'm talking about.

mcolome1 wrote:

We do not even know what the working class of the whole world is going to do when they take real  political consciousness, and what method they are going to use in order to overthrow capitalism, …

This assertion worries me, because I thought that the SPGB, at least nominally (outside of epistemology) argued that only democratic methods could be employed by the class conscious workers, to build a revolution for themselves.

mcolome1 wrote:

The SPGB has existed for more than 100 years and it is still alive and well…

As I've said, on the contrary, the SPGB is no further forward than it was in 1904, founded upon Engels' materialism. This is 19th century philosophy, and not even suited to understanding Einstein's works of 1905 and 1915. And now, a hundred years even further forward in all areas, including physics, logic and maths, we're still crying out for a way to understand these fundamental changes.

mcolome1 wrote:

Instead of being looking for mistakes it is better to join a political movement and work inside of that group. We do not need philosophers or philosophy, what need is a coherent socialist theory  for real  world liberation

I couldn't agree more, about 'coherence', but unless workers produce their own philosophers and philosophy, to create a socialist theory, then there is no way forward. A coherent democratic theory is essential.Looking to 19th materialism, and Engels' mutilation of Marx's admittedly difficult-to-understand ideas, is a dead-end.Whilst the SPGB continues to hide in the dead-end, I can't see myself joining, because I'm a Democratic Communist, first and foremost. I've tried to promote some discussion about this political difficulty (the power of 'science', and its current elitism, the roots of that in the counterrevolution of 1660), but it seems 'heads-in-the-sand' is the preferred response by the membership, at least on this site.

Well, go ahead and build your own political party and start to play with your toy 

[Author]

Posts