[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, my aim is to try and influence Marxists (even though I know that I won't succeed), and since the vast majority of the latter have accepted 'dialectics' in some form or another, I naturally address that.

I think you underestimate your 'influence' Rosa, even if only in the sense of 'reinforcement' for those who've tentatively come to the same opinion as you, though independently, by other routes.You've provided a great resource for those Marxists who do try to argue against 'dialectics', especially in the form of 'dialectical materialism'.Having said that, though, I think that some of your opinions (I nearly said 'your philosophical approaches'  ) are wide of the mark…

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

This is why I object to the term primitive communism. For me the quote marks are in the wrong place, better would be primitive 'communism'. As what is meant by communism is not a society based on 'to each according their abilities to each according their need'. Primitive communism may have been a classless society but it was far from a society of abundance.

admice wrote:

i agree the 2 communisms are not the same.

I think that the notion of a return to some form of Communism is just a Hegelian leftover. That is, Hegel's notion of matter separating itself from spirit (geist) and history being the process of the estrangement from, and the reconciliation back to, of matter and spirit.So, spirit becomes whole again, back to its natural state. Thus, 'primitive communism' is returned to through modern communism, having go through the estrangement of material property.I agree with Ed, though. If we were to follow this schema, it would be better to name it 'primitive classlessness', because it wasn't a society based on 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.I think it's better to regard Communism as potentially the highest point of human development so far. Its main similarity to hunter-gatherer society is in its lack of an exploitative class structure.Mere lack of class exploitation does not equal Communism. Communism must include democratic methods of human organisation, including the historically learnt liberal values of respect for individuals, minority opinion, freedom of speech, etc.; democracy is not simple 'majoritarianism', as some of those same property-owning liberals allege.

[LBird]

Regarding youtube videos and politics, my favourite from The Simpsons, 'worker and parasite':http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7m-4Vc3MUCrusty as critical philosopher!

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

What is needed is a shift of consiousness and understanding, followed by democratic organisation.

This just about sums up my personal belief of what the proletariat's strategy to produce a successful revolution has to be, Vin.The proletariat has to wake up (and to some extent this has to be a personal, individual awakening by workers who are sick of their experience of capitalism) and start asking questions, and following on from this there has to be democratic organisation by workers themselves.To my mind, all that any socialist/communist party can do is to promote the 'wakening-up' and to provide some questions to provoke workers' thought. The proletariat itself has to begin to form its own discussion groups, which will provide the model, method and ideology for democratic workers' organisations.Whilst any form of Leninist ideology has a hold on workers, we're all wasting our time.But the first step is a re-awakening in workers – and we can't make workers do that. We can't even make a worker do that. There has to be something in the experience of capitalism that causes initially some, and then eventually mass, critical thought to emerge, or Marx was wrong.

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Yes I know all this mate but what of the problem of a "reactionary lumpenproletariat"? You don't think this could pose a grave danger at all? I just think the whole thing could be fraught with danger. As you have probably deduced I have very little faith in the working class. Very little faith indeed.

[my bold]Ozymandias, if there is a problem with the 'lumpenproletariat', why should this cause you to have little faith in the 'proletariat'?I know that I've replaced your term 'working class' with 'proletariat', but for us these should be interchangable. If you accept this, then you have to treat the 'lumpen' as a separate class.If you think that it is invalid to replace w.c. with p., could you give your definition of 'working class', especially with reference to  'a reactionary lumpenproletariat'? I suspect that you're using 'working class' as a descriptive category, and also employ 'middle class' in a similar way.For Marxists, many of the so-called 'middle class' are actually proletarians. If this is accepted, why should you not have 'faith' in university-educated workers because thieves and drug-dealers (for example) are a social problem in capitalist society? What is the connection with the lumpen elements that causes you to have 'very little faith indeed' in the best educated, most travelled, least racist, proletariat ever?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"when I say that no worker could possibly understand DM, I do not intend to demean them, since I also claim that no one could possibly understand this theory " Phewwww… am i pleased to read that bit by Rosa. I always thought myself as an ignoramus when dialects is raised…

ajj, all you need to know about 'dialectics' is that it comes from the Ancient Greek 'dia-lego', which literally means 'through-talk' (or 'talk through', or discuss).There can't be a 'dialectic in nature' because the only part of nature that talks and discusses is humanity.Dialectic can only refer to conscious human activity: rocks don't talk, nature 'tells' us nothing unbidden.As to whether it's useful to discuss whether a 'dialectical method' exists which can be used to try to understand nature, I'm not sure. Every time I've tried to get someone to describe this epistemological method to me, they seem to lose their temper because I'm apparently thick or something. It seems to me to have a bit of a religious overtone to it, in that one must have faith in what one is being told, and not ask critical questions (ironically, given 'dia-lego'!) of either the method or the person describing it.Perhaps Rosa can contribute here; they, too, seem to have taken a lot of stick from the 'dialecticians'. I'm not sure if Rosa thinks that there is anything to 'dialectics' in the sense of 'human discussion'.

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.

ALB wrote:

That's actually one of the approaches we used to adopt when speaking at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park on a Sunday.

Errr…. I might have uncovered one of the reasons for the slowness in growth of the SPGB!

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'? 

 This is actually  a good way to introduce the idea of  socialism. It is simple and easily understood; and difficult to argue against.I would accept that in many cases it is simply a matter of semantics.

Don't forget the other half of the couplet, though!If I was a Leninist Dialectical Materialist, I'd simply stress the the 'removal of democracy from politics' is the correct dialectical answer.What with the initial intricacies of 'interpenetrating opposites' and the development of 'quantities into qualities', 'democracy' is the succeeding negation of 'economics and politics', so that it's negation means 'Party Rule' and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.Simples!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 I think the word we are both struggling towards is valid.

Yeah, and 'validity' is a social judgement, and doesn't simply actively emerge from rocks, if we are passive enough and listen carefully.The notion of 'dialectics in nature', as I'm sure you'll agree, is nonsense.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet, in reply to Rosa L, wrote:

I note, though, that you don't provide any refutation for the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on experience reconciling their knowledge through discussion.

Well, it could be argued that that isn't the 'dialectical method'.  It could be argued that it should read:"the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on theory reconciling their knowledge through experience (ie. practice)".

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Theories or propositions can be refuted (since they are both capable of being true), but a method can't (since methods can't be true or false, only useful or useless, practical or impractical.

I don't agree with you here, Rosa. Any method implies a theory behind it, so a method can be refuted, through its theoretical underpinnings.And since theories contain assumptions and axioms, the simple useful/useless or practical/impractical dichotomy would be better expressed as less/more useful or less/more practical. That is, a spectrum which requires judgement after discussion, rather than any obvious acceptance/rejection.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

This, of course, is not what you mean, so there's no need to fall out over this (we know what we mean because we've defined our terms). It's others who might be misled.Better, then, to speak of socialism/communism as "the democratic control of the production and distribution of wealth" or simply "the democratic control of production".

Of course, the problem of workers 'being misled' is the central problem, because the ruling class constantly 'misleads' them with ruling class ideas. Personally, I'm always in favour of trying to present Communist ideas, which oppose ruling class ideas, in as simple and immediately accessible way as possible (you'll remember my attempts on the Pannekoek thread to illustrate the scientific method by reference to 'a baker making pies', etc.). This isn't to argue that workers can't understand or shouldn't proceed to read and discuss Communist ideas in a more sophisticated form, but that, given that Communists are in a tiny weak minority, as are their ideas, we should present anti-ruling class ideas in as simple a form as possible. Once workers begin to even see that there are oppositional ideas to those that they've been force-fed all their lives, only then is the beginnings of a conversation even possible between Communist workers and non-Communist workers.So, since most workers already 'know' that 'economics is not politics', to me it makes sense to try to stress the similarities within the bounds of their existing 'knowledge'. Thus the formulation…

LBird wrote:

Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'

…in my opinion lends itself to an easily understood starting point for further discussion, because it begs as many questions as it answers, and also falls within the experience and current understanding of workers who are not yet Communists, but are already asking questions in search of answers different from those they've been given so far in their lives.I'm not of the 'Read Capital, read Hegel, now!' school of tactics, when someone in the pub asks me about capitalism.So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'? Or if democracy shouldn't be extended to 'economics', why not remove it from 'politics', too. The contradiction is exposed, as most workers in bourgeois society are totally in favour of democracy, but have never been led to ask the questions above. Discussion will follow.As you say, none of this tactical opinion of mine leads to any disagreement whatsoever about our longer-term strategy: the end of the market and money, and free access for all.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

As for political democracy? Socialism will abolish politics.

I've come across this formulation before from Anarchists. It seems to see 'politics' as synonymous with 'parliamentary politics', and see political sovereignty as residing in the 'individual'. Under Communism, political sovereignty will reside in the commune, and democracy is the method to ensure that all the members of the commune determine collectively and equally the policies of the commune.Personally, I don't understand how 'politics' can be 'abolished'. There will always be disagreements within society, which have to be dealt with. I think that a better way of conceiving this issue is to regard Communism as 'the democratic control of the economy'.Or,Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

I think it's a very interesting question LBird.

Yeah, isn't it just!

Ed wrote:

The party should merely be a tool of the working class as a whole.

Once again, I could intepret 'the working class as a whole' to mean Workers' Councils, because 'as a whole' suggests a 'structure', rather than an aggregate of individuals lumped together, who vote as individuals in parliamentary elections, as we have now.

Ed wrote:

If we were elected with an overwhelming majority then that would be our mandate as directed by the class, who would also be formed into workers councils. So I have always seen the relationship between party and class as more symbiotic than with either being dominant.

The term 'symbiosis' in politics usually merely gives ideological cover to the side that is doing the 'exploitation'. Power is a one-way street.Dracula to victim: 'Of course, we're in a symbiotic relationship, aren't we, friend? I need blood, and you need the attentions of the count to validate your miserable existence, so, really, we need each other!'Yeah, an interesting question…

[LBird]

Dave wrote:

Workers council does not automatically lead to a succesful reolution after all look at Germany in 1919 where workers councils existed and they were dominated by the SPD the German versionof the Labour Party.

I've used that very argument myself, Dave, in a debate with the ICC about the need for mass class consciousness prior to the revolution.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

At this moment in time, how can we envisage arming workers for revolution when they wont even vote for it?

This might be accidentally very revealing, Vin!From my perspective, I envisage 'workers arming themselves for revolution', rather than a separate 'we' providing permission!

[Author]

Posts