DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Whereas philosophers spoke of the essence of things, physicists spoke of matter, the lasting background behind the changing phenomena. Reality, they say, is matter; the world is the totality of matter. This matter consists of atoms, the invariable ultimate building stones of the universe, that by their various combinations impose the impression of endless change. On the model of surrounding hard objects, as an extension of the visible world of stones, grams, and dust, these still smaller particles were assumed to be the constituents of the entire world, of the fluid water as well as of the formless air. The truth of the atomic theory has stood the test of a century of experience, in an endless number of good explanations and successful predictions. Atoms of course are not observed phenomena themselves: they are inferences of our thinking. As such they share the nature of all products of our thinking their sharp limitation and distinction, their precise equality belongs to their abstract character. As abstractions they express what is general and common in the phenomena, what is necessary for predictions.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch03.htm
To link all this law stuff to another thread, Kautsky wrote extensively on this subject too – I’ve yet to read it to see how it compares to the SPGB but English translations are in this book. Unfortunately, it’s not on Marxists.org and the retail price is €153. Pirate copies can be found online on place like Library Genesis I’m told, but we shouldn’t promote that here..
“In a pamphlet entitled Socialism and Law the late Pieter Lawrence argues that the above article, which appeared in the November 2000 edition of the Socialist Standard, does not state the socialist position on law but rather an anarchist utopian position.”
I’m presuming you’re talking about this:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawrence/2006/6socialism_law.htmBut I can’t see any reference there to what you are talking about…
Contrast that article with this one:
“[… ] a society without any enforceable norms of behaviour would amount to a kind of tyranny of the individual and, as such, would not meet the definition of a civilised society. Socially-useful rules regulating human relationships and our relationship with the broader environment will persist in socialism. Enforceable rules and regulations which prohibit certain conduct towards environmental destruction and such things as violence, rape, drunk driving, child abuse and similar will continue in a socialist society, but its purpose will be to serve the interests of society as a whole, not the capitalist class. Such rules and regulations will be conceived and administered by members of the community as part of its democratic structures and adjudicated by ordinary people, perhaps through an expansion of the jury system, or similar. They will not be punitive, but rather restorative and rehabilitative to facilitate social inclusion.”
Is the position on “law” one that is fully worked out?
“So those in control of the US state machine have decided to put a prominent leader of the opposition on trial on a political charge. This is the sort of thing that authoritarian regimes like Erdogan in Turkey and Putin in Russia do. And the left said Biden was the lesser evil.”
Is Biden in control of the judiciary?
“The young bloggers are commenting on Kautsky’s Chapter IV.”
I guess age is relative. But these young podcasters are all either professional lecturers or post-doc students. Hardly teenagers.
“It’s fascinating to hear how Kautsky’s 19th century social-democratic socialism pleasantly shocks the young commentators, and how much of it rings true in the 21st century to people, presumably schooled to see “socialism” through a Leninist lens.”
Yes it’s interesting to listen to things like this to try and get some kind of gauge of what people “out there” are thinking. Though I think the presumption of learning about Marx through Leninism is increasingly outdated. One of the presenters says an influence is Raymond Geuss, who was a lecturer at Cambridge – His lectures on Marx are actually very good, and are not derived from some kind of Marx = Lenin presumption. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfqdvDnX3lbAGzd770mJOFyRI4Khz50Uq
“So, the party position is we oppose reforms as a means to socialism, but in the meantime we kind of like them?”
Opposition to the idea that you can gradually get to socialism, or ameliorate all the problems of capitalism, through reforms.
Whether or not an individual reform is veiwed favourably, unfavourably, or with indifference, depends on what that specific reform is.
Did Kautsky envision the ‘Zukunftsstaat’ as having some kind of coercive force that stands above society in general? The only way we could answer that is to read the chapter, and then we can know if the translation of staat as ‘commonwealth’ was a liberty or not.
To bring this back to the podcast, rather than Kautsky in general, all of the commentators seemed to be sympathetic to the idea of the revolutionary use of parliament and said it is a view that isn’t expressed very often these days. But what can we conclude from that?
“He unquestionably contributed to the confusion into which the term “socialism” subsequently fell”
But there never has been a universally accepted understanding of “socialism” as a marketless, stateless society etc. Look in the Communist Manifesto. It’s not a fall, more a contestation, which is still ongoing.
It’s true there are many things that Kautsky got wrong, but that doesn’t mean that there is nothing of use in his writings. He was most certainly a strong influence on the people that set up the SPGB, and if you read the various debates he took part in over the issues of spontaneity versus organisation, councils versus parliament (his conclusion was “why not both”), or against the bolsheviks, there are certainly insightful things to learn.
“That is what I’m saying.”
Ah, OK. With the “you” meaning the socialist party.
But there must be times when workers, as part of a trade union struggles or residents associations or whatever, do ask for reforms or attempt to defend pre-existing ones. You don’t think the socialist party should say “don’t do that” do you?
“While we have nothing against reforms, we are against reformism: that the proletariat should beg the capitalist state for a few more crumbs, when we can, should, and deserve to take the whole bakery.”
Not sure about putting it that way. Sounds like you’re saying reforms are fine so long as you don’t ask for them!
I thought “reformism” referred to the idea that you can gradually get to socialism, or eliminate the problems of capitalism, by the gradual building up of reforms.
Try this link instead and scroll down to episode 44. You don’t need to pay them a subscription to listen.
https://www.patreon.com/leftofphilosophy/posts
“What was Kautsky advocating”
Actually the *how* of Kautsky seems like the SPGB, through a conscious majority using democratic means.
But the *what* I’m a bit unclear, I have not read enough of him to know. I know he writes about “socialisation”, but is this some kind of nationalisation as a transitional step, or something else?
“Voting in a General Election isn’t going to achieve socialism of course”
But the SPGB case is that you can achieve socialism through this means, so long as there is also a conscious and active socialist majority within the population.
“but can I suggest that voting in it, for a reformist party isn’t going to actually impede socialism”
In the absence of a mass socialist movement how people vote, or not, isn’t of decisive importance. But if a Socialist party was to start campaigning for reforms, or telling people to vote for another party that is proposing reforms, that would be an impedance. The end goal gets forever obscured.
Is the only way that beneficial reforms have come about been through people voting a party into office?
