[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

If this is difficult to understand simply replace 'capitalist' with 'slave' or even 'wage slave'. He did not free 'his' people; they remain exploited and poor. Capitalist propaganda will never pull the wool over the eyes of class consious workers. We see right through it all.

At a SWSS meeting in 1987 about Apartheid at my Poly, we had a black guy from South Africa in attendance. He was (not surprisingly) very sympathetic to Mandela (and by implication Mandela's politics). I pointed out to him that Mandela wanted 'black capitalism' rather than workers' power, that the future would bear me out, and based my opinion on the historical development of other African states since the 'Winds of Change' started blowing in the late '50s.He looked a bit shocked (don't forget, Mandela was still in prison), but nevertheless listened, and seemed to be weighing up some confusing information which he'd never had before. He didn't say much, though. On the other hand, the SWP members were openly pissed off at me, perhaps because they thought my 'unwelcome' intervention would drive away a potential recruit.I often wonder if that worker ever thought back to what I said, and started to use a class, rather than a black nationalist, analysis of his society.Anyway, now that Mandela has gone, I wonder if his legacy will begin to be questioned by the workers of South Africa and elsewhere?

[LBird]

admice wrote:

Stop being a troll

I'm asking you to reveal your ideology, admice.Do you believe in 'markets' as a means of distributing goods?If you do, then you'll misunderstand the position of Communists. We're opposed to 'markets'. We want democracy, not 'one dollar, one vote'.

[LBird]

BTSomerset wrote:

The Post-Crash Economics Society at Manchester University has just been discussed on Radio 4 news this morning, with one commentator worried that 'the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater' if economics courses are redesigned.

The real theoretical problem here is the very name of the group. There is no such activity or study as 'economics'. That, itself, is an ideological choice, to call the society an 'economics' group.They should immediately rename it 'The Post-Crash Socio-Economics Society'.Then the clowns worrying about the 'bathwater' will be told that the 'baby' has been reintroduced, not 'thrown out'.'Economics' is the study of 'bathwater'. The sooner these dim academics learn what any worker already knows, the better for their universities.

[LBird]

admice wrote:

And this is one of the crucial issues and why I and many others thinks some kind of market would develop. Not capitalism, necessarily, but a market.

The real 'crucial issue', admice, is what 'you and many others think' that a market is actually for.Put simply, liberals focus on individual choice and distribution, and see the market as a fair way of ensuring that individuals get what they want. The extreme libertarians argue that 'markets' can be separated from capitalism, but that is (as usual for the right) an ahistorical analysis, which ignores the commodification of labour-power.On the contrary, communists focus on socio-economic structures, and see the market as a mechanism for transferring wealth from the producers to the rich.It's your  choice, about which ideology you choose to use to help you understand the world in which you live.Although, if you think that 'markets' lead to free choice for consumers, why not stick with what we've got now? On our part, we think that the evidence shows that wealth is flowing to the rich through the market mechanism.All forms of 'market' must be smashed, and democracy introduced into the economy.

admice wrote:

I didn't get a satisfactory answer yet about how socialism will address me wanting a different kind of house, a friend wanting chocolate with lavender. How does it not become dicatated what you can and can't have? I sculpt. What if 1000 people want my sculptures? How do we decide distribution? Or pick your own example, hopefully you get the point.

Aren't you and your friend, together with all your other co-producers of our wealth, like us, able to discuss and decide, as a community?Plus, the word 'dictated' shows worrying signs of extreme individualism. Don't you think democracy is a suitable system of decision-making?If you want the 'freedom' to ignore the wishes of your comrades, why not just become a billionaire? That's the 'freedom' you already have now. Billionaires always stress 'freedom of choice'; I wonder why you'd repeat their ideological views?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

We criticise capitalism for its D of L but will socialism continue with it? I am probably not making myself clear which is why I ask for clarity.

Surely some sort of natural D of L exists in the desires of every individual?By that, I mean that we all have our own strengths, weaknesses, aptitudes and inclinations, so that no-one wants to do or be everything.But a better society would try to extend our interests and inclinations, and challenge us to develop into areas of which we are initially reluctant, and to build upon our weaknesses so that new doors are opened to all.After all, most of us don't know if we'll be good at brain surgery, for example, and this society doesn't try to open up that particular field to all, with the necessary education and training. That doesn't mean that all will have to study this field, but that it will be open to exploration for all.Perhaps what we want is a chosen D of L, rather than a compulsory one, as we have now under capitalism, where square pegs are forced into round holes.Square pegs in square holes, round pegs in round holes, and the choice to migrate from one's 'squareness' to a new 'roundness', and vice versa!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

We don't think much of Holloway's politics, but perhaps this will help:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1274-october-2010/book-reviews

Thanks for that review, ALB. I, too (without having read them in depth, yet) am very doubtful so far about Holloway's politics.But the chapters that I'm reading, regarding our ongoing discussions about 'science', seem to me to be full of interesting and (relatively) easily understood points.Plus, I don't think that the politics of Holloway necessarily flow from his undertanding of 'science'.  I think that his philosophy excludes some sorts of politics and 'scientific method' (Engels?, Lenin?) but it doesn't determine those to be adopted. There are other factors involved, I think. Perhaps more discussion between us all will help to tease out some more understanding on our part.I hope we can continue with this, because personally I'm gaining great benefit. I hope others are, too.

[LBird]

The text above (containing the quote) from Holloway is actually chapter 7 taken from his book Change the World Without Taking Power.http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745329185I’ve also found an interesting quote from Lukacs in the previous chapter, which might give food for thought on our discussions about the ‘material’.

Lukacs, quoted by Holloway, p. 107, wrote:

[science’s] underlying material base is permitted to dwell inviolate and undisturbed in its irrationality (‘non-createdness’, ‘givenness’) so that it becomes possible to operate with unproblematic, rational categories in the resulting methodically purified world. These categories are then applied not to the real material substratum… but to an ‘intelligible’ subject matter.

Clearly, this is relevant to our recent discussions regarding the active human ‘creation’ of ‘scientific knowledge’, rather than this knowledge being just a reflection of a ‘material base’, as naïve realists would have it, following Engels and 19th century positivist science. I’ve quoted Pannekoek enough times already to the effect that he sees ‘scientific laws’, etc., as a human creation, not as ‘material truths’ uncovered by ‘discovery science’.Furthermore, Holloway goes on to discuss the history behind the notion of ‘the creation of knowledge’.

Holloway, p. 109, wrote:

The eighteenth century philosopher Giambattista Vico formulated the link between understanding and making with particular force when he made his central principle the idea that verum et factum convertuntur: the true and the made are interchangeable, so that we can only know for certain that which we have created. An object of knowledge can only be fully known to the extent that it is the creation of the knowing subject. The link between knowledge and creation is central for Hegel, for whom the subject-object of knowledge-creation is the movement of absolute spirit, but it is with Marx that the verum-factum principle acquires full critical force.

[my bold]I think this is very interesting and relevant, and if comrades have any comments, critical or supportive, I’d be keen to read them. I’m certainly aware that I don’t fully understand these issues, but participating on these threads has definitely helped me to progress. I hope that it’s helping other comrades, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid he won't be able to reply for a week as he's been suspended.

Why doesn't that come as a surprise?But I hope you didn't use the word 'suspension' to him, it's a bit big.He's probably able to cope with 'ban', though, if spelt slowly. Buhh, ahh, nuhh.Wonder if he'll ever stretch to 'manners', both the word and the concept?

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Your petulant response didn't contain any.

Christ, you have got an attitude problem, haven't you?I'll leave it to the other comrades to explain to you in small words.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

…will it also lead to a reduction in productivity and society's ability to produce abundance…

You'd need to define and contextualise both 'productivity' and 'adundance', Vin, to answer this 'central' question.Reduced 'productivity' doesn't necessarily lead to lack of 'abundance'.They are both socially-determined concepts, not absolutes.And we can't assumed that the 'removal of the division of labour' will lead to 'reduction in productivity'.

VM wrote:

If there is no opinion on this, then fair enough but I would have thought it central to our case

Oh, there's always 'opinions', comrade!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course, but now you're changing the meaning of the word "proletarian".

Couldn't it be that you are misunderstanding my use of the word?

ALB wrote:

Originally, you used it to refer to the sort of democracy that would obtain in a classless, socialist/communist society (extending beyond administration to the workplace). Now you are using it to refer to working-class organisation within capitalism. In which case "proletarian democracy" simply means workers organising democratically. Good idea.

Yes?Surely the political methods we develop during the class struggle will prefigure socialist/communist society? In the context of an answer for admice, doesn't this suffice? So, 'originally' and 'now' are the same concept?

ALB wrote:

We've got to be able to put over the case in simple everyday language…

Yes.Who's complicating matters?

ALB wrote:

"Economic democracy" has its drawbacks too as it could suggest "one person, one vote" in enterprises producing for the market, e.g. co-operatives.

Yes, every explanation 'has its drawbacks', but if admice asks for clarification, we can give it.'Economic democracy' as a constrast to mere 'political democracy' is an easy way of explaining Communism to those workers who are starting to ask questions. It 'deepens' democracy, which workers are in favour of (and are opposed to the Stalinists, as are we), but shows that mere 'democracy' once every five years is not good enough. We want democracy every day of our lives. Detailed commentary and criticism about pre- and post-revolutionary methods can come later, when the questioner wants to move onto that.

ADM wrote:

We'll get it right in the end. Society-wide participatory democracy? Or even "true democracy"?

Yeah, but now we need the input of admice, and other newcomers, to enter the conversation with their opinions. 'Getting it right' is a task for all of us.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Fair enough it's only words, but I'm still not convinced that "proletarian democracy" is the best way of describing the opposite to "bourgeois democracy"…

Yeah, I'm trying to use 'words' to explain – if there is a better way than mine that gives a suitable explanation, I'm ready to learn! Really, in this context, it will take admice to say whether my explanation was useful or confusing.

ALB wrote:

… (still because there will no longer be a proletariat when it's achieved).

Surely there'll be 'democratic organisation' within the proletariat prior to the 'glorious day'? I think we should contrast the two forms of 'democracy' which to some extent will be operating together for some period during the class struggle.

ALB wrote:

In fact, I'm not even convinced that "bourgeois democracy" is the right word either (too dismissive, as one person, one vote is an important gain for workers).

Well, it's not 'dismissive' of the 'one person, one vote' concept, but of the fact that it only applies to 'politics' and not 'economics'.

ALB wrote:

The contrast is between limited, "political democracy" and full, dare I say it, "social democracy".

Once more, perhaps a matter of 'only words', but I prefer the term 'economic democracy', because all workers can understand that they'll be running their workplace. 'Social democracy', in contrast, sounds a bit hippy-ish, let's be 'social' and nice to each other.At the end of the day, we all want the best explanations to help develop the consciousness of the proletariat. And ourselves.

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

No, L, there's a false step in your logic, there. The notion that 'potential' doesn't need to be quantified doesn't preclude it from being – to a lesser or greater extent – socially determined.

Whoever's 'logic' you're talking about, J, it's not mine. I haven't mentioned 'quantified' or 'quantifying'.

JC wrote:

The important point for socialists, however, is that a society such as the one that we envisage will allow people to flourish to the best of their abilities.

But… are 'abilities' mainly 'socially' or 'materially' determined?I think 'socially'. Their 'best' is a social product.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

There's also the limitations of the circumstances we will find ourselves in regarding the reorganisation of the present authoritive institutions. Do we let them continue with their agreed procedures and processes when in most cases they are geared towards filtering and selecting subjects of a capitalist nature? Or does the review and assessment of these civic bodies take place during the run up to the revolutionary transformation of political power, or after the social relationships of capitalism have been abolished?

If by 'authoritative institutions' and 'civic bodies', Brian, you mean 'educational structures', I think that new ones will begin to emerge 'during the run up'. It's becoming clear that the present bourgeois universities are no longer fit for purpose, even for the bourgeoisie, never mind us! Critical thinking is no longer taught, and there seems to already be some resistance by students and academics to this loss. Of course, the managers and financiers within the universities are presently happy, but it can't last.I would imagine that the emergence of proletarian educational structures would mark a big step on the path to 'revolutionary transformation'. I think that there is already a growing demand by students for critical thought, and perhaps the only way they are going to get it is through non-formal, non-state, bodies.Democracy within education would of course play a central part in these new structures. Unless Jonathan is right about the 'material basis' of the IQ of professors!I don't think so!

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

I don't think that anyone needs to determine what, precisely, 'potential' either is or consists of. That smacks of authoritarianism, it seems to me.

So, if no human 'needs to determine' it, then 'potential' can't be socially-based.Which thus leads to the question 'what does determine potential?'.

JC wrote:

So far as the limits of potential are concerned, well, the material world will sort that out soon enough.Not sure about the genes/society question.

Hmmmm… seems to be 'genes', or some other 'Borisian' material (as opposed to socially malleable) factor, is what you have in mind, Jonathan.On the contrary, though, I think potential is mostly social, and certainly social is of more importance than 'genes' or an unchangeable 'material world'.

[Author]

Posts