The Statesman and Marx
- This topic has 30 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/relevance-of-marx/84255.htmlQuote:He offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism. Yet his writings provide an explanation of the inner working of capitalism for good and evil. From this vantage point, Marx’s writings can throw light on the problems of our age and the limitations of their possible solutions.
No wonder Gupta thinks "Marx offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism" having just said "Marx’s writings still evoke interest across the world despite speculation that his readership would dwindle after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the eclipse of Communism in East Europe" The implication of course being that "Marx's solution" has been tried and found wanting in these places. I tire of pundits who come up with this old hackneyed bogus line of argument. That suggests to me that Gupta's understanding of Marxism is of the glossy, coffee table magazine type. Pretty superficial and cliched.
New Statesman:
Quote:He offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism.“Workers ought not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!’ they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system!’” [Value, Price and Profit]
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps the mod can change the thread title since i cannotWhat do you suggest?
To the Editor New Statesman The New Statesman and Marx Regarding your article:http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/relevance-of-marx/84255.html Quote:“He offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism.”, New Statesman This is incorrect and is a common misconception. In fact Marx’s solution to capitalism was well known and advocated by the Socialist Party before Marx was distorted by the likes of the Labour Party and the Soviet Union. Although Marx did not offer a blueprint for a new society, his proposed solution was clearly stated in his writings. “Workers ought not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!’ they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system!’”[Value, Price and Profit](My emphasis) For an accurate and in-depth analysis of the writings of Karl Marx I recommend to you the party that was formed before the Labour Party, https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/ Yours Vincent Maratty, member of the North East Regional Branch of the Socialist Party of GB https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/
robbo203 wrote:No wonder Gupta thinks "Marx offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism"having just said"Marx’s writings still evoke interest across the world despite speculation that his readership would dwindle after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the eclipse of Communism in East Europe" The implication of course being that "Marx's solution" has been tried and found wanting in these places. I tire of pundits who come up with this old hackneyed bogus line of argument. That suggests to me that Gupta's understanding of Marxism is of the glossy, coffee table magazine type. Pretty superficial and cliched.I think we are all getting the wrong end of the stick here. I don't think this is what Gupta implies. Actually, it's not a bad article. She is right that "Marx offers no readymade solutions to the problems of capitalism". Isn't that what we say, i.e that Marx was no advocating any policies to be implemented within capitalism? At least that's how I interpreted what she's saying.And she gives quite a good outline of what Marx meant by capitalism:
Quote:Marx believed that human development requires a cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production. Real human development requires production in which people can develop their own activity i.e. socialist production organised by workers. But this implies common ownership of the means of production or what is referred to as social ownership. This is not ownership by groups of workers; rather it implies ownership by society. This involves the total production system which must cater to the needs of society. The community, as a social institution, must identity the needs that must be fulfilled. As we live in a community, we need to produce for others out of a spirit of solidarity. This is the society for which Marx had once struggled.Why do we have this kneejerk reaction of looking a gift horse in the mouth whenever somebody says something that's not all that different from what we do?It reminds me of the reaction of one member to this article by G. A. Cohen which originally appeared in The Listener on 4 September 1986. He wrote complaining that workers sell their labour-power not their labour ! Having said that, the article was reprinted in the journal at the time of our campanion party in the US, the World Socialist Review.
Vin wrote:To the Editor New Statesman The New Statesman and MarxVin, hopes it's not too late not to send this off. After all, she herself wrote:
Quote:Marx grasped the nature of capitalism and realised that although capitalism has over time changed its forms, its essence remains the same. It is still a system of exploitation and wage labour for those who operate the means of production.ALB wrote:Vin wrote:To the Editor New Statesman The New Statesman and MarxVin, hopes it's not too late not to send this off.
Why? She claims Marx had no solution. Socialism/Communism was the solution. Everyone new what it was, why should Marx have to spell it out?It is my opinion about the article. pretty could article but then the SWP say the same.
It is also a chance to draw attention to the party.I am not being confrontational.jeez. Nee wonda nee body naaws the party.
Vin wrote:She claims Marx had no solution. Socialism/Communism was the solution.She doesn't claim that Marx had no solution. She writes about no "readymade" solutions to "capitalism's problems". Which can either mean that he offered no solutions within capitalism to capitalism's problems or that he offered no "readymade" solution to capitalism, i.e. offered no blueprint or recipes for the cookshops of the future. Both of which are true.And she does spell out what Marx meant by socialism (see my reply to Robbo) as "the society for which Marx had once struggled."
jondwhite wrote:Not New Statesman but The Statesman!I'm all in favour of writing to the press, but, Vin, did you send it to the New Statesman or to the Statesman which is an Indian paper?Might be better to get our Indian comrades to follow this up. I'll email them.
I thought it a good article. I'm no expert on Marx, but I got the impression the author of the article has a handle on what Marx was getting at.
Quote:Marx believed that human development requires a cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production. Real human development requires production in which people can develop their own activity i.e. socialist production organised by workers. But this implies common ownership of the means of production or what is referred to as social ownership. This is not ownership by groups of workers; rather it implies ownership by society. This involves the total production system which must cater to the needs of society. The community, as a social institution, must identity the needs that must be fulfilled. As we live in a community, we need to produce for others out of a spirit of solidarity. This is the society for which Marx had once struggled.And the following seems to me to imply that the communist "experiments" of the last century, where not what Marx had in mind.
Quote:There is no denying that the effort to implement this vision in the 20th century, admittedly under such circumstances, was quite different from that which Marx had once envisaged.I guess it comes down to the age old concept of interpretation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.