LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote: “But LBird, equally you must explain why the likes of Luxemburg and Pannekoek who had critiqued elitism and stuck with the SPD until the middle of the war before joining with Kautsky and arch-revisionist Bernstein to form the Independent Socialists.
What was it that Luxemburg and Pannekoek recognize which meant they declined to break with the SPD?”
I’m afraid even Tories ‘critique elitism’ when it suits. The question is: ‘did they argue for the democratic control of all production by workers?’, and hence attempt to build party ideas, methods and structures that developed that aim.
As for the ‘Independent Socialists’, the same questions apply, as to the SPD. The splits and re-alignments between various ‘leaders’ and factions were nothing to do with the issue of workers’ democratic control of production.
I’m most familiar with Pannekoek’s views, and he seems to have been very similar to Engels – some of his writing is Marxist (he argued that the laws of physics were a human product, and so, presumably, amenable to democratic control), but some falls back into echoing Engels’ 18th century ‘materialism’ (ie. ‘matter’, not humans, produces ‘reality’, and so is not amenable to democratic control). Neither Engels nor Pannekoek squared this particular political circle. Marx, of course, did – to him, humans, as the active subject, the conscious creator, socially produce their objects, and thus can change them.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I suggested that it was a class party, something you challenged. But I emphasized that it incorporated a class view on all aspects of everyday life from music to drama, to literature and journalism, to sports and social activities where play-writers became presidents in Bavaria’s Workers Republic.
The Party had become the class, dissolving the separation between politics and people. Culture and politics merged (as they again did during the Russian Revolution).”
This is simply untrue. A ‘class view’ would suggest an organisation (party or council) which was built upon the notion of democratic control by its worker membership, and all its ideas and activities were premised upon that political belief. No workers were taught by the SPD that they, and they alone (to the exclusion of the party managers, etc., that you listed earlier) should democratically control ‘all aspects of everyday life’ (ie. theirs). For example, were workers taught to critique and change the laws of football, and encouraged to elect any officials (and remove any who failed to obey the workers instructions) within the game? This political method applies to all the examples you give.
The SPD, like all bourgeois parties, may have a majority of workers for members, but those workers don’t democratically control the party leaders, party machine or party ideas. You’ve said as much yourself already.
The SPD and Independent Socialists were not workers’ parties. They might have contained politicians who were sympathetic to workers, but that’s a long way from those politicians doing as they are told by workers, politically and intellectually, according to democratic controls.
ALB wrote: ” I think the early Party members regarded the SPD pre-WW1 … as: while not a socialist party at least a “party with socialists in it.” ”
I suppose we’d have to ask – ‘just who in the pre-Great War SPD believed in workers democratically controlling all social production?’
Kautsky certainly didn’t; neither did Bernstein. If we can’t name someone, at least, then it would appear that ‘the early Party members’ were wrong then, and that the present Party members, too, are still wrong now, to regard the SPD as anything whatsoever to do with ‘revolutionary socialism’, as we in the 21st century would understand it.
Perhaps you know more about Liebknecht than I do, ALB, and can provide some quotes from him, which would allow us to name one. I must say, though, that from what I know of ‘Marxist Socialists’ after Marx’s death, I’ll be very surprised to hear of any SPD ‘socialists’.
I think that the disaster of 1914 could have been foreseen, by any socialists who had a proper basis in Marx’s ideas, of the necessity for the self-emancipation of the proletariat. The SPD never had any intention in allowing the German workers to ‘self-emancipate’. alan’s list, above, says it all.
ALB wrote… “The problem of the pre-WW1 SPD is … why what was always essentially a pro-democracy reformist party claimed for a period to be a revolutionary socialist one”
Yes, this is why it’s right to criticise not just Kautsky as an individual, but the whole movement: people, party, ideology, aims, methods, etc.
Neither Kautsky, nor the SPD, was revolutionary socialist, which raises the question of why any revolutionary socialists today would regard either Kauksky or any other of the, as alan lists “professional politicians, party-machine bureaucrats, political managers, ideological pillars”, should be regarded as in the revolutionary socialist tradition.
It was never, as alan also claims though, a ‘class party’. A ‘working class party’ is one which is democratically controlled by workers, and can be changed by them, rather than controlled and changed by “professional politicians, party-machine bureaucrats, political managers, ideological pillars”.
Marcos wrote “…during that time Kautsky was a revolutionary socialist…”.
That is a myth, Marcos. Kautsky was never any sort of ‘revolutionary socialist’. He was an elitist, who had no time for workers’ democracy, democratic control of social production, which are both how we, I think, would define as ‘revolutionary socialist’.
Bijou Drains wrote: “L Bird mate, it was a joke 😆”
Yeah, I know. And I know that you’ve got a sense of humour, which I share.
But, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from posting on the internet, there’s always a reader or a moderator who hasn’t! 😆
So, I’ll keep my responses to the strictly academic side of the debate/humour continuum, and tender my apologies up front right now to those who find any levity in this post to be insulting.
It’s always a sure sign that one has hit a weak spot in a political belief, when the defenders of that belief, rather than defend that belief with argument, turn to personal attacks upon the critical questioner: that is, they attack the messenger, rather than the message.
I’ve made the mistake in the past of responding on a personal level, but even I’ve learned that it’s better to continue to focus upon the political message, rather than be side-tracked into a personalised spat, after which I’m accused of being a ‘troll’, and the party members, who originate that form of debate, are left alone by the moderators, whilst I am censured or even banned. I should make it plain, too, that I’m not just talking here about the SPGB here, but also the ICC and LibCom (all on the net), and the SWP, in real life. Because of this confirmatory history of similar political responses to critical questions about the Marx-Engels relationship (and its consequences: materialism, matter, science, and lack of democratic methods), I’m forced to conclude not only that my critical questions can’t be answered by those who prioritise Engels’ ideas, but also that this ‘personalisation’ of the debate is a necessary political response within the community who call themselves ‘Materialists’. I’m sure that anyone who knows of the history of any ‘Materialists’ who have gained power will know that this ‘personalisation’ leads to ‘confessions’ by those guilty of questioning the ‘Marx-Engels-X’ relationship (‘X’ of course, being the current unquestionable leader who has access to ‘what matter says’).
So, to continue the political debate:
Marcos wrote: “…I stay with Engles because he dedicated his whole life to the cause of the working class”
This is untrue, Marcos – Engels was fascinated with Bourgeois Science and its central concept, ‘matter’, which is why his erroneous ideas were so useful for those ‘thinkers’ determined to prevent workers’ democratic control of social production, starting with Kautsky, Plekhanov and Bernstein. None of these first-generation thinkers understood Marx, and if they had, clearly wouldn’t have touched his ideas with a barge-pole. Engels was the originator of the ‘Marxism’ which you follow, which is why when confronted with Marx’s key concepts of ‘democratic social production’ and ‘critique’ you are at a loss to make a political response.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…this whole hatred of Engles…”
There is no ‘hatred’ of Engels on the part of Marxists, BD. We just know that he and Marx wrote very different things, based upon very different ideologies, concepts and theories, and that Engels was very confused about the relationship between ‘matter’ and ‘social production’. For Marx, ‘matter’ was a social product, not something that pre-existed the human creation of it. On Engels’ part, he both agreed and disagreed with Marx, in different parts of his writings, because he had no clear understanding of Marx’s basic philosophical views, which had been fundamentally formed by his social upbringing within German Idealism. Put simply, Marx effected the unity of idealism and materialism (a task being attempted by many Idealists of Marx’s generation), whereas Engels remained in the ideological world of 18<sup>th</sup> century materialism. Of course, it was Einstein’s work in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century which confirmed Marx’s views about social production, and completely undermined the current ‘science’ of the bourgeoisie, which Engels had so unfortunately (and uncomprehendingly) espoused.
Marcos wrote: “…the whole body of ideas of Marx and Engels…”
The problem with this formulation, Marcos, is that there isn’t a ‘whole body of ideas’, which were produced by these two different thinkers.
Marx and Engels said many things which conflict with each other (and both sometimes said things which actually conflicted with what each had said earlier). There never was a ‘unity’ to their thoughts, which is a myth propagated by Leninists, to allow the political method of ‘name addition to the divinity’ to be employed: first, ‘Marx-Engels’, then ‘Marx-Engels-Lenin’, then ‘Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin’, etc. It’s simply a political method to allow the political ideas of the last-named to have a spurious legitimacy. And yes, Engels was the originator of the policy.
The 21st century proletariat has to clear up these issues, to our satisfaction. The mere repetition of the myth of a ‘whole body’ didn’t work last century, and it’s never going to work now, with an even better educated proletariat.
‘Marx-Engels’, the unified being, never existed.
Bijou Drains wrote “I find taking the piss out of them works quite well.
Ridicule the fact that they take an anti science stance whilst happily using their science based iPhones and web sites.
Call them hypocrites who denounce science but reach for the medicine cabinet as soon as they get a cough or a cold.
Ask them why they don’t trust conventional science but are happy to rely on it when they are being thrust through the air at hundreds of miles an hour in aircraft that rely on the findings of that science.
The problem with these types of fuck wits is that they cherry pick the science they disregard. They will denounce vaccination but if they get cancer or another serious health condition they are quick to return to conventional medicine.”
Whilst I don’t have any time for god-botherers, BD, I think that you’re seriously underestimating the problems in ‘science’, which allow the religious and the ignorant to build their influence amongst ‘the young and early middle-aged adults’.
FWIW, I’d prefix, what you call ‘science’, as ‘Bourgeois Science’, and point out its historical and social origins in the defeat of the revolutionaries during the English Revolution, which are also the source of its fundamental problems, the sort of problems that have been apparent in, for example, physics, maths and logic, since the end of the 19th century.
I’d contrast that ‘science’ with ‘Proletarian Science’, which has both a democratic method and entirely different ‘scientific’ aims and purposes.
I think your scorn, whilst I can understand it, will do nothing to build a viable alternative ‘science’ which would be our socio-historical method within socialism.
Whatever, it’s clear that ‘science’ (ie., Bourgeois Science) only supports and strengthens the current ruling class, and we should be trying to pose an alternative to both Bourgeois Science and ignorant pseudo-science.
alanjjohnstone wrote “A SOCIAL REVOLUTION, encompasses the whole of society and will express itself in a wide variety of ways.”
Indeed. ‘a wide variety of ways’, including ‘science’.
We’d best start preparing now, to explain why ‘science’ has to be democratised. All talk of Stephen Hawking, and his ilk, knowing ‘nature’ better than the rest of us, to the extent that we can’t vote to change ‘nature’, will have to be politically challenged.
Whilst socialists disagree with Marx’s argument that ‘nature’ is a social product, and that we can change it, we’re all hamstrung.
Only a majority can determine ‘nature-for-us’.
robbo203 wrote “Change is essentially a bottom-up process. The capitalists and their representatives have power only because we give it to them. When the writing is on the wall and their time is clearly up, there will precious little they could do about it. For the most part even they will fall in line with the will of majority, grudgingly or otherwise”
It should also be stressed that any ‘change’ from the ‘bottom-up’, if it is to lead to socialism, will have to be democratic.
Furthermore, these ‘democratic bottom-up changes’ will also involve the social production of our ‘science’, including education, academia, universities, philosophy, logic, maths, physics, nature, reality, truth, objectivity, etc.
There won’t be any ‘specialists’ who supposedly have a non-democratic ‘method’ which allows them, and them alone, to dictate to the ‘majority’ just what ‘is‘.
It’s clear to me that the reason so many self-proclaimed ‘socialists’ look to Engels’ notion of ‘Scientific Socialism’ is precisely because the bourgeois term ‘science’ implies an elite.
I’d be inclined to oppose ‘Scientific Socialism’ to ‘Democratic Socialism’, to draw out the differences in these politically-opposed conceptions of ‘socialism’, and the question of whether it requires a majority to build it, or, on the contrary, that an elite can build ‘nature’, ‘reality’, ‘truth’, etc., and so, ‘socialism’.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and … the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, … a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
[my bold]
It’s clear that for Marx, and thus for anyone claiming to be influenced by Marx, that the overwhelming majority of humanity is what is meant by ‘a majority’.
Any attempt by a self-constituting ‘elite’ to argue that ‘socialism’ will be brought about by a minority (which just happens to be them) is tantamount to Leninism.
To be clear, we’re talking about 80-90% of humanity here, not 3.5%, not 20-30%, not even 40-50%.
Socialism is the self-emancipation of the proletariat. Anything less will require an elite to lead it.
To specifically address the issue in terms argued by some SPGB members, the generalists will determine ‘truth’, not an elite of specialists.
Thanks for that link, alan.
The writer of the letter, H D Walters, is very confused. On the one hand, they appear to support Marx’s ‘idealism-materialism’ (ie. social productionism), but then on the other revert to a form of Engels’ 18th century ‘materialism’ (‘stuff-in-itself’, like ‘matter’ or ‘biology’).
Walters writes :
“The terms human nature and human behaviour are not interchangeable terms because they mean and connote different things.
They are not, however, mutually exclusive. The one (human nature), cannot exist without the existence of the other (the phenomenon of human behaviour) and vice versa. They are complementary.” [my bold].So far, so Marxist. We can’t talk about ‘matter’ or ‘biology’ without talking about the conscious producer of ‘it’. Humans are the social producer of anything which ‘exists-for’ them.But then Walters writes, in denial of their first statement:“May I point out what can only properly be called human nature (in contrast to human behaviour) is the sum total of the biological attributes common to all members of the human species. Far from being insignificant this unique combination of biological attributes is not only not insignificant, it is the most amazing and important biological event (apart from the emergence of organic matter itself) that has ever taken place.“.Here, they revert to ‘biological attributes’ and ‘biological event’ (and, indeed, ‘organic matter itself‘ [my bold]), which apparently are supposed to predate human social production. This is simply 18th century ‘materialism’, which Engels mistaken continued to employ, in contrast to Marx, who clearly rejected this ‘materialism’ and insisted that ‘matter’ cannot exist without the existence of humanity. For Marx ‘biology’ is a social product, which is why ‘biology’ changes as we change our forms of society, especially our forms of social production. ‘Biology’ for many other societies, now and in the past, is very different from our current ‘biology’. And of course, ‘organic matter’ is a fundamental concept of 18th century materialism, which has been superseded by later concepts such as ‘mass’ and ‘energy’ (which themselves will, have no doubt, be discarded in the future, as we humans refine our concepts, our theories and practices, about ‘ourselves’ and our ‘origins’).Marx’s views require the concept of ‘for-us’, not the pre-Kantian ‘in-itself’. There is only the changeable ‘biology-for-us’, a socio-historical product, which we produce and thus can change, rather than a ‘biology-itself’, which supposedly pre-exists our production of it, and so can’t be changed. It’s this supposed ‘biology-itself’ to which Walters is referring, and which breaks apart his earlier concept of ‘complementary existence’.I hope this clarifies the issue for you, alan.Anyone who’s a Marxist won’t be surprised by the thesis that ‘human nature’ is a social product, which changes over time, and since it is our socio-historical product, we can change it.
Only those who believe in ‘materialism’ will disagree with Marx’s ‘social productionist’ view, and will argue that ‘nature’ (of all forms, including the ‘human’) is not a social product which changes, but is ‘something out there’ which ‘bourgeois science’ ‘objectively discovers’, and so we can’t change it.
Persnickety wrote
“The problem is that there is a colossal inequality between those who have spent a lifetime in academia and those of us who weren’t even fortunate enough to go to university. Marxist theory can be very intimidating if you’re not university educated, I certainly find this. To take myself as an example, I’m not illiterate, I’m not unwilling to learn, I’m not unreceptive to Marxist ideas and I’m not unfamiliar with reading non-fiction and yet I make agonisingly slow progress with Marxist study. I would say that, if anything, I’m more amenable and intellectually curious than most of my peers and acquaintances, many of whom don’t read at all.
Without resorting to idealistic projections of a sudden intellectual renaissance or merely hand-waving the problem away what do we think about this, what do we do about this, realistically.”
I totally agree with you, Persnickety. There is a ‘colossal inequality’ between ‘Communists/Marxists’ and ‘workers’, and the cause of this lies squarely with Communists/Marxists, starting with Marx himself.
It should be the job of ‘theorists’ to explain their theories in a way understandable to the ‘interested/receptive’ worker, but this has never been done (not just done badly, but not done at all).
I have my own theory why this is so, but I’ll keep it to myself, unless you’re really interested and directly ask me, because it’ll cause no end of trouble to start discussing it here.
But… it should be said, that it takes time and effort to understand some very unusual theories, which Marx put forward, which don’t fit with the ‘common sense’ view of our world, which has been put forward by ruling classes throughout history, and so this ‘common sense’ has become a ‘ruling class idea’, and any opposition to it will appear on the surface to be ludicrous.
Thanks for the heads-up about this book, alan, and I’ve just ordered it.
I’ve already got Burkett’s Marx and Nature, Foster’s Marx’s Ecology, Smith’s Uneven Development, Castree’s Making Sense of Nature, and Grundmann’s Marxism and Ecology, so it will be interesting to see if Kohei Saito improves upon them. 🙂
