LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A Response… wrote:What we are instead looking for is to establish a reality based (inductively taught), pluralistic economics, particularly at undergraduate level. We want economists to acknowledge where there are competing theories which explain certain phenomena, and to draw attention to the pros and cons of the relevant theories. This is critical pluralism, not an “anything goes” smorgasbord of dead economists.
[my bold]http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/a-response-to-commentary-on-the-post-crash-economics-society/You're on seriously bad philosophical and methodological ground here, PCES.'Induction' pretends to be based upon 'reality', without questioning how it accesses 'reality'. As a result, it takes 'reality' to be what 'common sense' tells us it is, and so is an essentially conservative method. It starts from 'what exists', rather than critically examining where 'reality' come from, and who constructed our understanding of it. A historical method is opposed to an inductive method.I recommend that you begin your 'critical pluralism' with a discussion about philosophy and method, and ensure that any teacher/researcher/student exposes their ideology before you start to examine 'reality'.Anyone who says they don't have an 'ideology' is either lying or ignorant. In my experience with academics, it's the latter.
PCES wrote:– We agree economics isn't a separate field and one of the key things we want is context (political, historical, ethical). Having said that, sometimes you have to compromise and go for the catchiest name.Does 'catchy' mean what 'exists', what is 'common sense', what is the 'reality' of it now, what 'everybody understands'? IMO, if you continue to use 'economics' in your name, you're already on the slippery ideological slope back to whence you came! Beware!Have fun!
robbo203 wrote:So here's the point Im trying to make: could it be that Marx's preoccupatiuon with the abolition of the division of labour was based on a tacit acceptance of the argument that the division of labour necessitated the existence of a market to mediate between otherwise disconnected and dissimilar individuals…I don't think the the D of L 'necessitates a market' robbo. All sorts of societies have had a D of L but no market to mediate between 'individuals'.I think 'individualism' is an ideology, not biology.Once all workers, when asked 'Are you an individual?', reply 'No, I'm a worker', then we'll know that we're getting somewhere.The real relations of the market and its ideological excuse both need to be criticised and smashed.We can have a voluntary D of L and still meet the aims of Communism, the building of a society of 'social individuals'. The development of any individual is dependent upon the development of all.
ALB wrote:It looks as if Engels wasn't the only one to talk of material conditions imposing themselves "after the manner of an overpowering natural law" on society !No, you're quite right about Marx also having a 'positivistic' tendency, and I've made this point before on other threads. But this isn't the place to resurrect that debate.
ALB wrote:In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what Marx or Engels wrote or thought as socialism/communism does not depend on that. They were just a couple of 19th century socialists whose views on what socialism/communism would or should be like are no more authoritative than those of any other socialist.I couldn't agree more. The sooner Marx is subjected to the same level criticism that Engels has been, the better for us all. Marx and Engels are 'suggestive' rather than 'prescriptive', and we must learn to select what we now consider correct after 130 years of further critical thought, and reject the 19th century guff that both of them accepted to different degrees (although, IMO, Engels was far more culpable in this).Workers must have the final say, not Marx, Engels, Lenin, Pannekoek, or any other supposed 'scriptural authority'.
pgb wrote:In your previous posts you saw Mandela as "a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie" and a "class warrior" – for the rich. I found it difficult to avoid the impression from this that, for you, Mandela was a bit of a con-man, a bit of a fake, because although he presented himself as a liberator, and a "man of the people", etc, he was in fact acting in the interests of their oppressors – white capitalists and black capitalists (in waiting). Do you still hold that view?Never mind just 'me', don't all Communists hold this view?
mcolome1 wrote:It looks like you do support the individualistic conception of history.I share mcolome1's opinion of your ideology, and I agree with their ideology, as expressed in that post. We're Communists, employing class analysis, you're a Liberal, employing the 'Great Man Theory of History'.Fine by me, if you think that your method is more useful for building an understanding of South African socio-economics.
robbo203 wrote:Hi LBird No, Im certainly not using Engelsian philosophical categories of "material" and "objective". I did glance though the mega debates on this forum on dialectics , science and whatnot and found it all fascinating stuff – if perhaps a bit too much to keep up with. As a matter of fact, by and large I found myself very much in agreement with the position you yourself expressed throughout.I could cry with joy at finding a sympathetic ear, and not having to go through all that science shit again, so soon!
robbo203 wrote:But the point I wanted to convey from my reading of Marx in the passage I quoted is that he seemed to have envisaged the development of the polytechnic worker (as an ideal type) as being a precondtion for establishing communism and by polytechnic he meant someone who was multi-skilled and all rounded in a quite literal sense – that is someone who is able to quite lierally undertake a great variety of different task. This is what I was getting at.Yes, I think you're right about what Marx meant, and I think that I agree with him. On the whole, I think that the 'preconditions of communism' will have to be largely built by workers within the womb of capitalism. The more time that workers have now, after their job, will have to be spent developing themselves in all ways: education, skills, hobbies, the 'polytechnic worker', rather than choosing the many meaningless 'diversions' that capitalism provides for us.If workers, by and large, can't start to reject the 'delights' of capitalism, and in their place start to develop themselves, then I think we'll never see Communism. These, of course, would have to be done outside the boundaries of bourgeois control. I'm thinking, initially, of the emergence of workers' study groups, to replace the crap being taught in the universities, for example.The rest of your post, about the D of L, I think I've already posted in agreement about. A voluntary D of L, rather than a compulsory one.The general tenor of my posts is based upon workers' conscious self-development; I don't believe that 'material forces' will compel anyone down a particular path. 'Consciousness' is as 'real' as a brick, and I think that we Communists need to find a way to propagandise and help to stimulate other workers. Workers themselves must want Communism, and must begin to think and act in ways which lay the 'preconditions for establishing communism'.I think that this stress on self-activity is closer to Marx's ideas, than is Engels' 'material forces' which in some way compel workers to communism. Put simply, more workers need to think critically and ask questions. We can't make them do this, and technology certainly won't.
robbo203 wrote:Unless I have seriously misread him, he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not , it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material reality, before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind but an objective organisational reality…I have the sinking feeling here, robbo, that your use of the philosophical categories 'materal' and 'objective' might be very different to those that I think that Marx used. Your usage suggests, to me, Engels' science, rather than Marx's. But we've had a number of recent discussions about these issues, and I'm sure that both me and everyone else has had enough of that debate, for now at least.Please take my absence of a longer reply, not as ignoring your reasonable post, but as current exhaustion about discussing this.If you feel compelled to resurrect this debate, could you read some of the other relevant threads first, to get some feel for my position, and then I will be pleased to answer any questions you have. Cheers, comrade.Apologies if I've misunderstood you.
pgb wrote:Yes, but what is the significance of this in light of the discussion on this thread?You must be on a different thread to me, pgb!
Some info from The Independent:
Quote:The thing he did for us was to bring people together. White and black – we are not hating each other any more,” said 65-year-old Daniel Lethoalo, a retired driver who lives a couple of doors from where Mandela once lodged. “But the difference between rich and poor is still the same. That has not changed".[my bold]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-has-not-changed-as-south-africa-mourns-its-most-deprived-say-that-nelson-mandelas-vision-has-not-been-realised-8990868.html
Marx, quoted and bolded by robbo203, wrote:We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces, and because the contradiction between the classes has reached its extreme limit. Finally, we have shown that the abolition of private property and of the division of labour is itself the association of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse.robbo203 wrote:If Marx was right in thinking this what are the implications of such an insight for the establishment of socialism? Is the nature of work under capitalism being transformed in such a way as to foster the "all round development of individuals" that would allow them to appropriate the productive forces?Surely the task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'. Indeed, the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.So, it's not so much 'the nature of work under capitalism', but the criticism of 'the nature of work under capitalism' that is able to be developed only due to the prior existence of that 'nature'. Communism requires an active and critical proletariat to develop within capitalist relations of production.The 'all-round development of individuals' is our own task, and the fulfilling of that task itself will prove us to be fitted to move to Communism.
robbo203 wrote:The psychological effect of what is a kind of de facto divide and rule strategy in terms of promoting job consciousness at the expense of class consciousness, would seem on the face of it, to be somewhat discouraging from a revolutionary socialist perspective. Or am I being unduly pessimistic?Workers themselves have to see through the 'job consciousness'; surely it can't be long before students (many now from a proletarian background) start to see through the myth that the purpose of 'education' is to 'get a job', rather than its real purpose of 'teaching critical thought'. Indeed, there have been some straws in the wind recently, in 'economics' departments, at least. So, I don't think you're being 'pessimistic', just 'realistic' at the present. Time will tell, if workers will start to see through the 'work for shit wages, in a shit job, to consume shite' propaganda put forward by the ruling class.
pgb wrote:BTW, what do you find objectionable in concepts such as rights, equality, freedom and peace?I don't think any Communist finds these concepts 'objectionable'.We'd like to see them. In the economy. Where they would actually count.The introduction of these concepts into the polity might be welcome, but it's not Communism.If you're arguing for 'fairer capitalism', pgb, that's fine by me. But I'm a Communist, and want to see the destruction of capitalism, markets, wage-labour, etc., and the emergence of a democratic control of the world economy. If that's 'reductionism', I plead guilty!
pgb wrote:I have seen no evidence that he was dishonest (lying)…No-one on this thread has suggested that Mandela was 'lying', pgb. By all accounts, he was a honest man.
pgb wrote:If this is where class analysis takes you, I humbly suggest you find a new method.And I humbly suggest that you re-read this thread, and follow up some of the links provided, and also go to other Communist sites to find out what other revolutionaries are saying about Mandela. I think you'll find that it is your 'analysis' that is out-of-step with the majority.I agree with you that 'this is where class analysis takes us', but, in contrast to you, I'm content with the findings of this method. I think its findings quite accurately describe the society of South Africa, for Communists.If you're not a Communist, no doubt you employ a different method (liberalism?), which will give you different results. For Communists, the concept of 'exploitation' plays a central part of understanding any society. You don't seem to agree with the importance of this concept, and focus on 'rights', 'equality', 'freedom' and 'peace'.In our opinion, there are no rights, equality, freedom or peace in the exploitative socio-economic structures of South Africa. The rich still take the wealth from the producers, by violence when necessary.Mandela did not change those structures; if anything, his political actions have strengthened them.
Vin Maratty wrote:One of Mandela's great achievements : black miners are now shot dead by black police.Oh, let's be fair, Vin! The black police would shoot white strikers, too!The police are now morally colourless in their treatment of workers!It's what liberals all over the world demand. Fair policing. Mandela Morality.
ALB wrote:Yes, I suppose the tone of this thread is a bit churlish considering the man spent 27 years in prison…I wouldn't call it 'churlish', ALB, more being realistic or accurate.I think we all accept he was a very brave man, who suffered and achieved more than any of us will as individuals, but I think it's important for Communists to challenge the myth that he was some sort of Socialist/Communist.He suffered for his class, and achieved for his class. He was a great class warrior, who has ensured the strengthening of class rule in South Africa. The great gold and gem magnates have slept sounder in their beds since 1990, whilst the workers are still shot by police officers for striking and peacefully protesting.Plus ca change…
pgb wrote:Mandela finished his law degree while in prison where he was locked up for 27 years. Does this incarceration redeem him in your eyes and thus give him a sort of "moral equivalence" to all those workers of the developed world who you suggest don't have the same opportunity as Mandela had to become lawyers (not true BTW in my part of the world)? And what are these "ill-gotten gains" you refer to? And what "class" are you referring to? He was born the son a a tribal chief (not wealthy by the standards of Whites in Apartheid South Africa). Surely you are not suggesting he was a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie!Are you a Communist, pgb? I'm afraid I am.I use class analysis to try to understand the exploitative structures of society, rather than 'moral' categories.He wasn't 'incarcerated' for trying to smash exploitative structures – he was gaoled for trying to ensure that rich blacks had the same access to those structures that rich whites had. He succeeded, and is praised by bosses of all colours throughout the world for doing it.And 'Yes!', I am "suggesting he was a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie!". That suggestion is based upon class analysis, not 'moral equivalence'.As to your ignorance of the 'ill-gotten gains' of the South African bourgeoisie, and of the life-chances of workers 'in your part of the world', perhaps that's best left to other comrades to comment upon. I can only say that if you are a Communist, I'm surprised at your claims.
Vin Maratty wrote:Interesting quote of Mandela that may sound familiar. "It is not the kings and generals that make history but the masses of the people, the workers, the peasants…"Perhaps if he'd given a less 'familiar' quote, it would be even more 'interesting' to the workers of the world:"It is not the kings and generals that make wealth but the masses of the people, the workers, the peasants…"He came from a wealthy background, and became a lawyer (something still realistically out of reach for most workers in the 'first world' like the UK) under Apartheid.He was never going to share the ill-gotten gains of his class, just to share platitudes about 'people'. He wanted his class, black and white, to share the wealth amongst his own class more 'colourlessly'.
