LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alan wrote “Consciousness is always at the core of the Socialist Party’s analysis and it is why we place the battle of ideas at the forefront of the class war.”
So you agree that workers can determine for themselves the meaning of ‘material’?
And that the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat that reads Marx, and finds that his ideas are contradicted by Engels’ interpretation?
I never miss your contributions, alan, but you contradict yourself (as did Engels, even within his own short letters).
EITHER ‘technology’ (industry, ‘forces of production’, ‘matter’, ‘the material’, etc.) CREATES ‘the possibility of socialist ideas arising’ (Engels’, Lenin’s, and all ‘materialist’s’ argument), OR ‘socialist ideas’ self-consciously CREATE a class conscious proletariat (Marx’s argument, which as you say, when you contradict your other view, ‘the battle of ideas’ is at ‘the forefront of the class war’).
‘Matter’ (or ‘material’) doesn’t ‘create ideas’ or do ‘social production’. Only HUMANS do this – we are the ‘active consciousness’, the creators of our own social theory and practice.
If we wait for the ‘material conditions’, a party which doesn’t wait will replace the class conscious proletariat as the agent of change. This party will claim to ‘know’ the ‘material’, in a way that the workers cannot change, so that the party can provide ‘leadership’ (and a ‘scientific’ approach, mere ‘neutral advice’, which, of course, it demands that workers take). The party doesn’t wait for the ‘material conditions’ to decide – the party supplants the class.
I’ve asked this political and philosophical question of you (and the SPGB) before, alan – ‘Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’.
The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.
‘Materialists’ deny this, and argue that ‘truth’ is not a social product, and so we workers can’t change it.
The ‘materialists’, of course, retain for themselves the power to change truth. They call this ‘science’, and ‘scientists’ constantly ‘change truth’, as anyone who reads the about history of science, especially since Einstein, knows already.
‘Scientific Socialism’ and ‘Materialism’ (Engels’ social products, influenced by 19th century bourgeois science) aim to prevent workers determining for themselves their own social products, which is why Lenin espoused these ‘ideas’, in his battle against workers’ democracy.
Unfortunately, alan, ‘technological wonders’ which ‘provide a decent standard of living for everyone on the planet’, is not ‘socialism’.
Your ‘materialist’ approach to this issue echoes Engels in philosophical approach, and Lenin in political approach.
Unless your account of the emergence of ‘socialism’ fundamentally involves the conscious activity of the democratically-organised proletariat, then it won’t be any sort of ‘socialism’ that you, I, Marx, ALB or Bijou Drains, envisage.
Many Marxists have pointed out this political problem, since before Lenin. Put simply, either ‘matter’ or ‘conscious humanity’ builds ‘socialism’. Engels interpreted ‘material’ to be ‘matter’, whilst Marx interpreted ‘material’ to be ‘humanity’ (in opposition to ‘ideal’ meaning ‘divine’).
‘Material conditions’, for Marx, simply means ‘social conditions’. Marx’s fundamental concern was ‘social production’, not ‘matter’. That’s why all his core concepts involve terms like ‘social’ and ‘production’ (eg. ‘social individual’, ‘mode/relations/forces of production’). ‘Material production’ means ‘human production’.
‘Material’ meaning ‘Matter’ (the physical, hard stuff, tangibility, etc.) is Engels’ misunderstanding of Marx’s rejection of ‘divine creation’, of Marx’s attempt to make any ‘production’ a ‘profane production’.
So, alan, your ‘technological wonders’ and their achievements can be made by other political means than by the democratic direct producers. The danger is, that EVERY ‘materialist’ party ALWAYS turns to non-democratic, elite, ‘specialist’, ‘scientific’ politics, and rejects the argument that only self-determination by the class conscious proletariat can build ‘socialism’.
Of course, IF that is what one believes, that there is an alternative to workers democratically determining for themselves what ‘material’ means, then simply say so to all workers who ask you who will control social production. If you think that the SPGB should determine ‘material’, then say so. ALB and Bijou Drains will support you, as I already know their political beliefs, whereas you always avoid this political question.
It might be useful for GeneKrupa to know that Bijou Drains and ALB are both ‘materialists’, and followers of Engels.
As such, they place all their hopes in ‘matter’ (which is what they think Marx meant by ‘material’), to the detriment of workers’ productive activity.
If they have to choose between ‘matter’ and ‘workers’, they’ll always choose ‘matter’.
Marx warned that they would. They see themselves as part of an elite, who ‘know’ what workers can’t, which is why they won’t have workers voting to replace ‘matter’. All ‘materialists’ deny democracy, in the service of ‘matter’.
This was, of course, also Lenin’s viewpoint, as he too was a ‘materialist’, and a follower of Engels.
My understanding was that socialism was only possible because of what has been achieved under capitalism, or even because capitalism came into existence first. That’s why I said “the conditions in capitalism.” Then, after some developments occurred, there was no longer a need for a transitional period but could now be accomplished overnight.
That was not Marx’s opinion.
In Marx’s opinion, socialism was possible without capitalism, if only under certain conditions.
Also in Marx’s opinion, nothing could be ‘accomplished overnight’, in any conditions, but only after a growth in class consciousness, sufficient to allow the direct producers to take control of production.
I think that you’ve been reading the wrong sources. My advice is to stick to Marx, and avoid Engels, or any self-proclaimed ‘materialists’. It should go without saying that anything tainted with Lenin’s or Trotsky’s views is destructive of Marx’s own view that ONLY the self-emancipation of the proletariat within capitalism could bring socialism, and NOT any ‘materialist party’ that claims to ‘know’ what workers supposedly can’t themselves.
Marx himself clearly warned of the dangers of a ‘materialist’ elite.
Hello! I am a newcomer to this forum. I remember reading that the conditions for capitalism to make socialism possible over night happened a certain amount of years after Marx’s death. What were these conditions that made this possible?
No, it’s not ‘the conditions for capitalism’ that ‘make socialism possible’, but ‘the conditions for socialism’.
The fundamental ‘condition for socialism’ is the revolutionary class consciousness of the proletariat, and this has never yet existed. Socialism is only possible when this condition has been fulfilled.
You’ve probably read something written by the followers of Engels, who claim to be ‘materialists’, and who ignore Marx’s views about the self-determination of the proletariat, and who claim that ‘material conditions’ will unconsciously bring socialism for the proletariat, and so those ‘materialists’ can ignore the proletariat itself.
Of course, workers who get involved with ‘materialist’ parties soon come to realise that the party has no intention whatsoever of allowing workers themselves to determine for themselves the nature of any ‘conditions’ that are required, and so those workers soon leave the ‘materialist’ party.
All ‘materialist’ parties insist that they, and they alone, have a special insight into ‘material’ factors, PRIOR TO workers themselves determining these factors. That is, the ‘materialist’ parties claim the ‘material’ in itself precedes workers themselves producing of the ‘material’, and so workers can have no productive democratic control of the ‘material’. Hence, workers MUST passively accept the determination of ‘material’ by a small elite who claim to know already what it is.
Hiya B ijou
Lively obviously has an alter ego, Lovely. Much prefer the latter, who, being au fait with psychology, will be already aware of the dialectical nature of their personality, and so will strive to prevail, in their unceasing battle with the ‘bastardness’ of their other half, that I referred to!
Love and kisses!
LibCom doesn’t do ‘lively’ anymore. They seem to think ‘lively’ is necessarily ‘offensive’. Perhaps it is.
Anyway, they banned me, again, for being too ‘lively’.Nice to be back in contact with you and the very civilised BD.
At least that bastard ‘Lively’ Tim has stopped posting…patreilly wrote:The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental formMarx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 3 (1867)To extend Marx's words:
Marx wrote:The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental form. Although invisible, the value of iron, linen and corn has actual existence in these very articles: it is ideally made perceptible by their equality with gold, a relation that, so to say, exists only in their own heads.[my bold]Yeah, nice quote, patreilly, about Marx's 'idealism-materialism'.This passage only makes sense in terms of Marx's ideology.This is not 'matter' nor simply 'material', but the relation between 'ideal-material', which requires human conscious, not 'matter-in-itself'.'Matter' only 'exists' in the form 'matter-for-us' – thus, being our social product, we can change it.This is nothing whatsoever to do with Engels' 'materialism'.
jondwhite wrote:Sven Eric-Liedman has translated and updated his biography of Karl Marx and it is reviewed herehttps://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/15919_a-world-to-win-the-life-and-thought-of-karl-marx-by-sven-eric-liedman-reviewed-by-david-mclellan/David McLellan wrote:Liedman is also good on the different approaches of Marx and Engels to the natural sciences.It would be worth their time, for members of the SPGB to read up on these 'different approaches of Marx and Engels'.
ALB wrote:So, Lenin was not saying that socialism could be established without a majority wanting and understanding it, but the lesser error of saying that no such majority can emerge as long as the capitalist class retain political power and that a socialist minority therefore has to overthrow capitalist rule and then educate a majority into wanting socialism. Of course this didn't work, and was never going to work, and led to the minority evolving into a new privileged, ruling class themselves.[my bold]Whilst I agree with what ALB and the SPGB say here, I'm never quite sure why they don't apply the same political analysis to 'science', but instead, in effect, in relation to the political power of 'science', adopt Lenin's method.This political method assumes, of course, that an elite minority of specialists have an ability, prior to the proletariat, to know something that the proletariat can know only after a political revolution, then being taught by the 'revolutionary elite'.That is, 'science' is not a socio-political activity that the proletariat must school itself to be able to take power over, but is an activity that must be left to specialists.This is clearly an anti-democratic political method.Why can't the SPGB answer this political criticism of their 'science ideology' (even if it's not yet an openly declared party 'science policy')?
Young Master Smeet wrote:2: Rational humans will exchange equally (i.e. no-one wants to get the worst of an exchange).I'll just add that (2) is the logical plank of the entire of Marx' theory, disprove that, and all of it falls down.The problem with your assertion, YMS, is that 'rational', 'equally', 'worst' and 'logical' are all social products.So, it's entirely possible that 'the entire of Marx' theory' can 'all of it fall down' for one viewpoint, but not for another.Unless you openly tell Sympo about your political assumptions, it's possible for Sympo to assume that you're making a universal/absolute statement, which is simply 'True'.This will lead Sympo to think that either Sympo or you have the individual ability to determine this 'falling down'.'Falling down' is a political opinion, socially produced by social groups. Within a democratic group, it would be voted upon. 'Falling down' is subject to election, not an obvious state of affairs which an elite (or an individual) can simply 'objectively know'.
Sympo, after a little thought, I think I can explain your misunderstanding of the theory of Socially Necessary Labour Time (SNLT).You're using the theory of Biologically Necessary Labour Time (BNLT).The essential difference between the two, is that the former assumes 'Social Individuals', whereas the latter assumes 'Biological Individuals', as their respective ideological underpinning.Once that is clear, your questions (and misunderstanding of our replies) start to make sense.SNLT is about social production (and the production of 'apples-as-commodities-for-us'), whereas your questions are about you (and 'apples-in-themselves').Of course, these differing interpretations of 'labour time' fit into the differing approaches of Marx's social production and of Engels' materialism, even if you are unaware of (and not interested in) the political and philosophical background.
Sympo wrote:This thread is about SNLT, not for debating materialism.In all my replies to you Sympo, I've explained your misunderstanding of the theory of SNLT.Of course, there are links between your misunderstanding of this specific issue, and the 'materialists' misunderstanding of Marx, but if you're not interested in the wider philosophical debate about your ideas, just ignore it.The SNLT is a part of a wider web of ideas.
Marcos wrote:i know that L bird I started to study Marx yesterdayYeah, it shows, Marcos!So, today, start to study the differences between Marx's 'social productionism' and Engels' 'materialism'.The political inconsistencies about 'elites' and 'socialism' run through Engels, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin and Stalin.Engels was inconsistent, and that laid the ground for Kautsky's notoriously elitist statement that workers shouldn't control 'science', and things only got worse.We have to get back to studying Marx, today and tomorrow, Marcus.
