We need to educate not with words but with “concrete things.”
- This topic has 11 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Until the Rulers Obey: Voices From Latin American Social Movements, ed. Clifton Ross and Marcy Rein (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2014)
Reviewed here:-
http://www.countercurrents.org/lynd290515.htm
For your reading list
It may well relate to the existing thread on the purpose of capturing the State machinery
Quote:The Venezuelan state, it is alleged, builds parallel institutions where long-standing indigenous networks already exist. The people “don’t identify with socialism” so for socialists there is a need to “deepen the revolution.” What must happen is for militants to “respectfully accompany the communities.”Quote:In Colombia the contest for state power continues but, in the words of Jesus Tuberquia, “we can live life differently within an unjust system.” He goes on: “We’re trying to be a model of a different world . . . . We’ve learned it’s possible to build an alternative . . . where life will be different.” And this is so because we’re not a theory written on paper, we’re human beings who walk, live, and feel. We’re not fables, because on paper you can put anything, theoretically I can invent anything, but reality can’t be invented; it’s made. And we, as an experience, we’re a reality.Marx, Capital, wrote:Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htmTheory and practice.Words, ideas, imagination, purpose, will. First.The 'concrete' is the 'material substratum' upon which humans employ 'theory and practice'.If we accept the existing 'concrete', we live in a world not actively constructed by us. The 'theory and practice' of the exploiting class produced this 'concrete', and we must first of all criticise the 'concrete', not work from it.'Words' first. We educate ourselves, we don't 'listen to the rocks'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We need to educate not with words but with “concrete things.”Who educates us about the 'concrete things'?
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach III, wrote:The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm'Concrete things' do not talk to us. They are not obvious. They are not amenable to 'individual senses'.That is the myth of 'objective science', of 'positivism', of the bourgeois method that ensures, as in Venezuela, that 'society' remains 'divided into two parts', and ensures the persistence of classes.The revolutionary method is:"We need to educate not with “concrete things" but with words."Openly espoused 'Theory and practice' is the way. We must discuss, criticise and create with 'words', first.'Practice and theory' (ie. 'concrete' first) is the method that hides 'words' and ideas, and is the method of Leninism.Because all humans employ 'theory and practice', the 'concrete things' method allows the minority to hide their 'words' and ideas.Unless the phase of 'theory' (words, ideas) is open to democratic control, then the 'concrete' will always be constructed by the 'part of society' that is 'superior'.Marx warned about this.We workers must educate ourselves. The rocks do not talk to us. The 'concrete' is already in existence and created by another class. To look to 'the concrete' is a conservative method. We must criticise 'the concrete' with new words.
LBird, if i didn't know better, i think perhaps you replied without going to the link to place the title which was a quote into context. I may well be wrong but your two replies, are way above my head if they are in response to what the book review seems to be suggesting to me.
Quote:Ecuador companeros and companeras repeat words heard in many other places. “They evicted us and we returned and built again.” And: We need to educate not with words but with “concrete things.”Those "concrete things" are the things that constitute the class struggle for those people in those countries at this time …i would have thought "concrete things" could well be in different conditions and situations the actual creation of those workers councils you often express sympathy for.It is about advancing the concept of “workers’ control” not “controlled workers.” as the review author expresses it. …Building grass-roots organisations and implementing alternative means of resistance…that is praxis of the class struggle. We educate ourselves when we assume responsibility for ourselves on a social and political and economic level and come into conflict with our rulers. Again to quote the review
Quote:Brazil is the site of the movement of landless workers (MST). In the MST, decisions are made by consensus. But this is not because of some petty-bourgeois deviation. On the contrary, participants believe that “This is a class struggle.” The ultimate goal is socialism.Did you have a knee-jerk reaction to the words rather than read the meaning and intent that lay behind their use? If not, as i said, i can't see the relevance of either of your comments to the article and they seem not at all in line with some of your previous observations.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Those "concrete things" are the things that constitute the class struggle for those people in those countries at this time …i would have thought "concrete things" could well be in different conditions and situations the actual creation of those workers councils you often express sympathy for.Right. I get it, now!So, not 'concrete things', but workers actively creating new social structures by the method of 'theory and practice', that, as Marx said in Capital, must be theorised in ideas first, prior to the construction of any 'concrete things', in the sense that the vast majority of workers understand by the term 'concrete things'.For a moment, there, I thought you wanted 'practice and theory', that well known ruling class idea, that ensures that 'hidden theory' precedes the so-called initial 'practice', and which allows, as Marx said, a minority above society to covertly insert their 'theory' first, and then pretend it's 'practice and theory'. It's Leninism in science.
ajj wrote:We educate ourselves when we assume responsibility for ourselves…No, no, no!!!That is 'practice and theory' – if we 'assume responsibility' prior to educating and criticising in words, then we'll find ourselves following the existing practice, supposedly 'learning on the hoof'. In fact, there is no 'practice' without 'theory', and 'on the job' learning simply means recreating in ideas what exists in practice.Marx argues that we must raise the structure in our ideas first, prior to building.'Assuming responsibility' before we have our democratic ideas in place will lead, as usual, to workers' tears.
ajj wrote:Did you have a knee-jerk reaction to the words rather than read the meaning and intent that lay behind their use? If not, as i said, i can't see the relevance of either of your comments to the article and they seem not at all in line with some of your previous observations.I refer you to:
ajj wrote:I may well be wrong but your two replies, are way above my head…No, you're not wrong, they are 'way above your head', you won't discuss science, because you consider it 'way above your head'. Whilst you refuse to engage in discussions about democratic theory and practice in science, then you'll remain prey to the next lot who argue that they're merely doing 'class struggle' in practice. Without theory.They're bluffing. Quoting articles which 'sound good' is not a good method. You must clarify your theory, and criticise from that conscious position.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
"… 'Assuming responsibility' before we have our democratic ideas in place will lead, as usual, to workers' tears…"Lbird, i have to cite Luxemburg
Quote:A manual of regulations may master the life of a small sect or a private circle. An historic current, however, will pass through the mesh of the most subtly worded paragraph….The working class demands the right to make its mistakes and learn the dialectic of history. Let us speak plainly. Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee.alanjjohnstone wrote:Lbird, i have to cite Luxemburg…So, whatever happened to Red Rosa, and the so-called "Workers' Councils" in 'revolutionary' Germany of her period?
LBird wrote:"… 'Assuming responsibility' before we have our democratic ideas in place will lead, as usual, to workers' tears…"1919 Germany. "Workers' Councils" (supposedly); no 'democratic ideas' within the proletariat concerning physics; someone else (The SPD) provides the 'ideas'; … not just workers' tears, but Rosa's murder, amongst many others.I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan.
"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph Dietzgen
alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
I just could not let this one past. "There are times when even the educator needs educating" Marx. Which with all due respect illustrates its a two way affair. Always doubt to avoid the dogma.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
I just could not let this one past. "There are times when even the educator needs educating" Marx. Which with all due respect illustrates its a two way affair. Always doubt to avoid the dogma.
[my bold]That's not what Marx said, Brian.He didn't say 'there are times'.He said 'essential', which means 'always'.
Marx wrote:…it is essential to educate the educator…For us, this can only mean proletarian self-education, and the removal of 'educators' as an elite. The latter is the only way society could be divided into two parts, one superior to the other.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.