Alf
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Please note that we have had to change the venue of the meeting. Same day, same time but now at:
The Lucas Arms
245A Grays Inn Rd, London WC1X 8QYICC leaflet on the war. The presentation at the meetings will be based on this.
https://en.internationalism.org/content/17148/capitalism-war-war-capitalism-international-leaflet
of course comrades of the SPGB are warmly invited to come and express their views on the revolution… We can give some details about the proposed format for the meeting: 11am-11.30: introduction to the day of discussion by the ICC11.30am – 2.30pm: presentation by the Communist Workers Organisation on the proletarian nature of the Bolshevik party and the October insurrection followed by discussion, with a 1 hour lunch break in between2.30-5.30: ICC presentation on the degeneration of the revolution, followed by discussion5.30: conclusions
I was certainly informed about the existence of a discussion group sympathetic to left communist positions in the Dominican Republic, but it was never a section of the ICC.
I was certainly informed about the existence of a discussion group sympathetic to left communist positions in the Dominican Republic, but it was never a section of the ICC.
In the Caribbean? We wish!Neither would I recommend 'fractioncommuniste' as an accurate guide to the politics of the ICC. Leaving aside some of the factual problems, mcolome has raised an interesting discussion about Marx and the state, but a bit off the point in this thread. We encourage comrades to attend the meeting to discuss the meaning of the Trump presidency and the populist upsurge; and after the raid on Syria, the question of war is obviously going to be paramount.
I agree that syndicalism contains a strong element advocating a self-managed commodity economy, which is in turn a key element in anarchism historically (Proudhon and all that), but there are are still numerous anarcho-syndicalists today who are (a) internationalists and (b) do envisage a genuinely communist society. It may well be that they have to struggle to be consistent about their actual adherence to traditional syndlicalism (see the discussions in the Solidarity Federation for example). And even in the past there were debates among them about how to get rid of commodity production (Vadim's book History of anarcho-syndicalism in the 20th century has an interesting chapter about these discussions in the 30s).Regarding the petty bourgeoisie and similar non-exploiting classes, the problem becomes much more significant when we move away from the old capitalist centres and look at the situation in the peripheries of the system. We are talking about a world transformation here after all.
What's striking about ALB's defintion, which is obviously accurate, is that it entirely leaves aside the 'subjective' side of human experience, both the unconscious and conscious aspects. And yet that is what we are dealing with when we examine the problem of alienation, which is not simply a description of the objective reality of exploitation, but an attempt to understand how it impacts on the experience of the exploited.Looking back at The German Ideology (part one Feurbach) it seems obvious to me that Marx sees this problem as having very deep roots historically. Locating alienation in the division of labour and the conflict between the individual and the general certainly traces these roots to historical eras long before the advent of capitalism, These are not problems which can be 'abolished' in a few years simply because we ahve achieved material abundance and can even operate as an ideological obstacle to acheiving it, even among a working class where the majority are 'convinced socialists' "Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now"
For a more theoretical examination of why the movement from one mode of production to another necessarily involves a period of transition, I would recommend this text written by Marc Chirik in 1975 http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_problems_mc.htm
A lot to say there, but I could begin with saying that by no means all schools of anthropology since the 1840s consider that 'human nature' is a simple reflection of particular social relations. I don't agree that this was Marx's view or that he ever abandoned the concept of species being. But that's a big discussion. i'd like to hear others' views on this, but I will try to come back to Adam's points in more depth.
It's certainly true that in The German Ideology, Marx makes some crucial observations about the productive forces and the relations of production, about how the latter, the social relations between human beings, can both serve as a framework for the development of the productive forces, and, in another epoch, as a barrier to their advance. And in the future revolution, understanding exactly what this means will be directly linked to the actual proces of social transformation. But Marx in the same work, as well as in others written at the time, also talks about the self-alienation of man, and demonstrates how deep its roots lie. This problem is obviously connected to the level of the productive forces, but it cannot be reduced to this aspect. The process leading from capitalism to communism is above all else a grandiose attempt to go beyond alienation, and nothing would be gained in this struggle by underestimating how estranged we are from each other, and from our own inner potential.
