LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’ve just come across a debate which mirrors the debate that we’ve been having here, between ‘a mind-independent reality’ (materialism) and ‘reality-for-us’ (Marx’s social productionism, or ‘idealism-materialism’).
It’s in the context of a ‘Green/Red’ debate.
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/23/two-views-on-marxist-ecology-and-jason-w-moore/
Jason Moore (and Fred Murphy, perhaps?) seem to share the ‘constructivist’ ideology of Marx, whereas John Bellamy Foster and Ian Angus seem to share the ‘materialist’ ideology, which is common on this site.
I’m pleased to have found this debate which reflects ours, because I think it is central for the future of both ‘Marx’ and democratic socialism.
Very interesting article in today’s Grauniad, regarding brain, consciousness and ‘reality’.
“By viewing the brain as a computer that passively responds to inputs and processes data, we forget that it is an active organ, part of a body that is intervening in the world, and which has an evolutionary past that has shaped its structure and function. This view of the brain has been outlined by the Hungarian neuroscientist György Buzsáki in his recent book The Brain from Inside Out. According to Buzsáki, the brain is not simply passively absorbing stimuli and representing them through a neural code, but rather is actively searching through alternative possibilities to test various options. His conclusion – following scientists going back to the 19th century – is that the brain does not represent information: it constructs it.” [my bold]
Of course, the main ‘scientist’ from ‘the 19th century’ who has influenced this philosophical approach is Marx.
As Marx argued, our world is socially produced (constructed) by our production (intervention), and we can change (alternative possibilities) it.
We are the ‘active side’; we are not the passive tool of matter (responding to inputs).
I’m sure that we’ll realise eventually that Marx was correct about ‘modes of production’, and that different modes produce different ‘consciousness’. This would help explain why contemporary survivors from pre-capitalist social production, like native Americans, Eskimos and native Australians, turn to drink when confronted with a ‘reality’ not of their making, which is beyond their social comprehension, and is ‘madness’, not ‘reality-in-itself’.
18th century Materialism is nearly dead. Hopefully, humanity and Marx’s ideas will survive.
The only way to capture the ideological difference between the ‘materialist’ and Marx, is to question the thread title.
For a ‘materialist’, there is ‘Reality’.
For Marx, there is ‘Reality-For’.
For the ‘materialist’, there is no need to specify a producer of that ‘Reality’.
For Marx, there is a need to specify a producer of that ‘Reality-For’.
Thus, Marx’s fundamental concept of ‘Production’, which permeates all of his works, and is made apparent by his conceptual terms ‘mode of production’, ‘forces of production’, ‘means of production’, ‘social production’, ‘social producer’, etc.
And because ‘production’ changes, it has a history.
This is all a long way from ‘Reality’ (the concept is actually ‘Reality-In-Itself’, but who needs consciously created concepts when one has ‘Reality’ to inform one).
alanjjohnstone wrote: “But to stick to the point…we don’t have socialism because people don’t want it because they are imbued with the capitalist ideology, ruling class ideas prevailing …and so far the contradictions created by the capitalist system which TWC expects to break down this hegemony of ideas are not sufficiently experienced or expressed enough. So do we wait?”
No ‘contradictions’ will ‘create’ anything, because, for Marx, humanity was the ‘creator’.
‘Waiting for contradictions’ will lead to, as it always has, ‘waiting’.
We’ll continue to ‘wait’, until we become ‘the active side’. And that won’t happen, whilst the ‘waiters’ are told to ‘wait’ for ‘contradictions’ (or its synonym ‘material conditions’), without which, it is argued, being ‘active’ is simply a waste of time.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Yes, and Dietzgen and Pannekoek suggested much the same that ideas are as part of the material world as physical matter. Or am i mistaken?“.
No, you’re not mistaken, you’re correct. Dietzgen and Pannekoek were simply following Marx, who himself said that he’d unified ‘idealism’ and ‘materialism’. That’s why it’s incomplete, to one-sidedly say “ideas are as part of the material world as physical matter” – it’s just as accurate to say “physical matter is as part of the ideal world as ideas“.
It’s probably best to say ‘ideas and physical matter are as part of the ideal-material world‘. Marx was interested in social production (‘idealism-materialism’), which requires conscious human action to change its objective world.
There is no subject without object, and no object without subject. If you want to term this ‘unity’ as ‘material’ alone, you’re likely to forget the other aspect, which is why I always suggest, if the term ‘material’ is insisted upon, that the term ‘ideal’ is also insisted upon.
It makes more sense to call this ‘social productionism’, but if ‘material’ must be a part of the phrase, then ‘idealism-materialism’ fits the bill better than ‘materialism’ alone.
We socially produce the ‘physical-for-us’ and the ‘idea-for us’. As Marx said, any part of a supposed ‘nature’ which is not for us, is a nothing for us.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “We have all the objective material conditions for socialism. What is missing is the will to establish it…“. [my bold]
I’d argue that you’re being contradictory here, alan.
It’s only when democratic socialists (Marxists) realise that ‘the will’ is an ‘objective material condition’ for socialism, that we’ll make any progress.
Whilst those who regard ‘material’ as meaning ‘non-conscious stuff’, and that as the force behind ‘the will’, hold sway, we’ll continue to miss Marx’s point about ‘the active side’, and remain waiting.
It’s humanity that is consciously active, not ‘all the objective material conditions’ which exclude our conscious actions.
Ahhh, I thought you’d struggle to keep it civil, YMS – nice to be proved right, once again!
Anyway, as you simply echo what’s already been said:
YMS wrote: “Productive and unproductive are useful concepts when discussing useful work versus useless toil, and especially when we can show that productive labour is useless,” [my bold]
I’ll simply ask once again, who defines ‘unproductive’ as ‘useless toil’?
Surely even thinkers with your ideological views can see that calling any worker’s work ‘useless toil’ is making a moral judgement about their labour, which can only alienate them from socialist politics?
I was going to write ‘from our politics’, but I’m not convinced that you are a democratic communist. You never mention either ‘democracy’ or ‘communism’ in your discussions. I’m inclined to think that you see yourself as some sort of ‘expert academic’, who has an access to ‘reality’ (like supposedly ‘unproductive labour’) which can’t be done by an ordinary worker.
If you are one of these ‘experts’ (sic), no wonder my questioning annoys you!
Thanks for your reply, YMS.
YMS wrote: “To go back to Charlie’s original concept…Now, part of that may have been an attempt on Marx’ part to demonstrate…“.
As I suggested earlier, one form of reply to my question would be to argue from authority. And I’ve already given my reply.
LBird wrote: “My reply would be … If he did, Marx was mistaken…”
I think Marx is very useful, but in the 21st century, nearly 137 years after his death, and with us socialists having had no success whatsoever in building socialism amongst the proletariat, I think it is necessary to critically engage with Marx’s ideas. Sometimes he is plain wrong, sometimes he expresses himself very unclearly, sometimes he contradicts himself, and sometimes he is right, but needs re-writing for a modern audience. I’m sure you can think of other reasons to do this.
YMS wrote: “This is attractive to those who want to talk of a ‘middle class’…“.
So, are you saying that the political purpose of employing the term ‘unproductive labour’ is to persuade academics, who regard themselves as ‘middle class’, to change their political and ideological views?
That is, the audience for the concept ‘unproductive labour’ is not workers? If so, again, that’s fine by me.
But… why would robbo, and anyone else employing this term, spend their valuable time arguing with academics who aren’t going to agree with democratic socialists, whose main categories are ‘proletariat’, ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘petit-bourgeoisie’ (non-property owners, big property owners and small property owners), about our views of a ‘middle class’ (a Weberian, not a Marxist, category, which Weber intended to obscure ‘class’ as an exploitative relationship)?
Why wouldn’t robbo just challenge Cope’s categories (and underlying, often unconscious, political assumptions, theories, methods, philosophy, ideology)?
I still don’t see the political purpose of the category ‘unproductive labour’. It’s usage can only damage our political efforts.
robbo203 wrote: “LBird, the political purpose of saying that some workers do not produce surplus value but are financed out of surplus value is to show that there are structural limits to what reformism can achieve.” [my bold]
Thank you for an answer to my question, robbo.
But you’ll already know that I’ve said a number of times on this thread that I agree with you ‘that there are structural limits to what reformism can achieve‘.
My point is that this political purpose can be achieved much more simply and closer to ‘ordinary sense’ by simply using the analogy of the operation of a pair of lungs, with which every worker is already physically familiar.
That is, simply say ‘Keynesian reformism can’t work because capitalism always contracts, and so reforms are removed‘. That is, the ‘structural limit’ is the working of capitalism.
Neither you nor any other poster has explained why this simple explanation needs to be replaced with a far more complex ‘explanation’ involving, not just unfamiliar terminology, but downright contradictory, non-intuitive, complex terms like ‘unproductive labour’ (which even youse here say is productive – but which just isn’t productive for yet another concept which is not commonly used). Plus, ‘unproductive’ is morally-loaded, no matter what your protestations are.
My other main question, which also hasn’t been answered, is: ‘Who is the audience for which this concept of ‘unproductive labour’ is aimed?‘.
If you simply answer ‘academics’, that’s fine by me.
But then, I’ll just ask ‘Why?’.
‘Why academics and not workers, who are supposed to be who socialists are interested in influencing?’
Wez wrote: “ALB and robbo have made a clear and coherent explanation…“.
If you can point that out, Wez, I’d be glad to read it.
Wez wrote: “Is it ever possible that you can be mistaken?“.
Of course it is! I was a member of the SWP, and used to believe all their Leninist crap about ‘materialism’! 😛
We seem to have come to the usual end to a critical discussion with the SPGB. A resort to personal insults, which go unpunished by the moderators, and a refusal to engage with questions.
But.. if I answer Wez with the same insulting tone, I’m banned.
Perhaps there is still a member (or even just a sympathiser) who reads these threads, and can explain why no-one in the SPGB can answer questions like “what is the political purpose of calling some workers ‘unproductive’?“, and why this failure is always accompanied by personal insults, like Wez’s post?
It’s probably best that we bring this particular exchange to a friendly halt, robbo. 🙂
I’ve read your (and others’) arguments, and I fully understand that youse don’t regard ‘unproductive labour’ as ‘derogatory’, and that youse regard it as ‘productive’ in the ‘ordinary sense’. You’ve said this several times, but ignored the actual questions that I’ve asked.
I’m asking why you employ such a confusing term. By your own argument, it’s likely to confuse any worker using ‘ordinary sense’.
I suspect that your answer would be either: a) an argument from authority: ‘Marx used it, so, so do we’; or, b) that ‘unproductive labour’ really exists as an ‘objective reality’, and that your concept merely reflects that ‘reality’.
My reply would be either: a) If he did, Marx was mistaken; or b) how do you have access to this ‘reality’, if ‘ordinary sense’ doesn’t/can’t?
As I’ve tried to make clear, I’m asking a political question – why baffle workers? What’s the political point of the category ‘unproductive labour’?
Put simply, robbo – Cope mightn’t give a shit about being understood by the masses, perhaps he isn’t a socialist, or is a career academic, but surely the SPGB has an interest in explaining the world we live in, in familiar terms.
Who benefits from ‘unproductive labour’? And I mean the concept.
Please don’t reply, just to reiterate what’s already been said on the thread. I know that. Thanks anyway, I’ll just remain baffled.
robbo203 wrote: “If Keynesian reformism worked why did it end in such dismal failure? The whole point of the exercise was to moderate and even eliminate the capitalist trade cycle which it singularly failed to do.”
Yes, I pointed this out to you – that the attempt to ‘eliminate the capitalist trade cycle’ always ‘ends in dismal failure’.
robbo203 quoted LBird: “After all, Keynesian reformism does work… but only in the expansion phase of capitalism. The reforms must come to an end.”
The point is – it’s to do with the workings of capitalism, ie. expansion and contraction.
This would happen whether or not some concept termed ‘unproductive labour’ was present or not.
This is my ‘whole point’ – why should workers be told some of them are necessarily ‘unproductive’?
What is the political purpose of employing the term ‘unproductive labour’?
It’s almost as if an elite seems to think it knows better than workers themselves, what terms and concepts to employ, when analysing and describing the workers’ own reality to them.
I’m afraid I’d vote to remove ‘unproductive labour’. Then, if it was carried by democratic methods, any workers’ delegates would have to analyse without that concept. I’m sure that the academics who have invested so much wasted time and effort in this concept will be pissed off to be told they can’t use it anymore, but… democratic revolutions, eh?
YMS wrote: “…from the POV of the owners of capital, that which does not make them a profit is unproductive…”.
But that requires them to define their terms.
Who determines what counts as ‘makes a profit’? An individual capitalist? The capitalist class as a whole? A sector of capital? A nation? These would all have differing views, depending upon their varying interests.
And why would any socialist accept a bourgeois definition?
You’re still not giving any clear political reason why workers should accept that any of the members of their class should be deemed ‘unproductive’. It’s certainly not any ‘objective’, ‘real world’, ‘true’ concept, which reflects a ‘thing’.
For me, marcos earlier hit the nail on the head, with his mention about US policies, which were clearly intended to strengthen capitalism, even though there was an outcry from some US capitalists about ‘unproductive state spending’.
It’s clear to me that what’s ‘unproductive’ for one, is ‘productive’ for another.
It’s a bit like the ‘terrorist/freedom fighter’ label.
I can’t take seriously any political argument provided to workers, that doesn’t (or can’t) define its terms. The again, perhaps the politics aren’t aimed at workers, but those academics already ‘in the know’. Good for them, eh?
marcos wrote: “Do workers care about this? What is the importance of workers knowing about this? The only thing that workers care is about producing enough money to support their family and they do not care if they part of the productive or the unproductive sector. Personally, for me, Karl Marx is more than enough“.
I’d argue that workers do have to care and know about these issues, marcos.
If they want to themselves build socialism. They are the ‘active side’, to quote Marx, they must ‘self-determine’ their world.
Where I do agree with you is about the pointlessness of many academic debates, which play no part whatsoever in developing workers’ consciousness of their own abilities and tasks.
But, nevertheless, workers themselves must be able to win ‘academic debates’ – just the ones that they determine are worth winning. And workers must determine, not ‘academics’ for themselves.
Most workers, given half a chance, can run rings round the most educated academic. Our role is to ‘give half a chance’, but only they can grasp this ‘half’ and make it a ‘full chance’ of success.
ALB wrote: “If you are a leftwing Keynesian…reformists embrace…Reformist governments everywhere have failed every time…Another misunderstanding held by leftwing Keynesians…“.
Yes, but if your arguments are directed at Keynesian reformists, who start from an entirely different set of political and ideological assumptions, to us democratic communists, what’s the point of mentioning a concept like ‘unproductive’ which they won’t recognise as legitimate? And if your audience is workers, why use it at all?
Why not just argue that the capitalist system works like a set of lungs, expansion followed by contraction, for ever, a mechanism that can’t be prevented by Keynesian reformist policies, which any worker can understand, and then themselves be able to argue with any other workers or academics who try on the reformist bluff with them?
robbo203 wrote: “Part of the explanation as to why this is the case lies precisely in this discussion we are having about the relationship between productive and unproductive labour which clearly shows the priority in capitalism is to make profits above everything else.” [my bold]
Yes, ‘profits’. Easy to understand. But why relate ‘profits’ to the unnecessary and dismissive concept of ‘unproductive labour’? It would be better and simpler to say:
“Part of the explanation as to why this is the case lies precisely in this discussion we are having about the relationship between exploited labour and exploiting capital which clearly shows the priority in capitalism is to make profits above everything else.” Profits come from exploited labour. All of it. No worker gets called ‘unproductive’.
robbo203 wrote: “The need to make profit via productive labour imposes limits on the extent of the unproductive sector – including state spending on the very reforms that the workers want the politicians to implement“.
Why mention ‘unproductive’? It’s more simple to say ‘The need to make a profit’ when combined with the contraction phase of capitalism ‘imposes limits on reforms’?
After all, Keynesian reformism does work… but only in the expansion phase of capitalism. The reforms must come to an end.
The whole point is… capitalism as a system doesn’t and can’t continuously expand – which is what Keynesian reformism relies upon, continuous expansion.
Simply ask any worker to inflate their lungs… and hold… hold… for ever… they’ll soon get the point about ‘necessity’ within a system. And no calling (many of) them ‘unproductive’.
