[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Oh dear in your eagerness to advertise your pet[ty] hobby horse you lost track of the fact that the question is asking "How" and not 'Is the Marxist theory relevant in the 21st Century?'  For just this once could you please stay on track by focusing on how Marxist theory is relevant in the 21st Century rather than doing yet another deliberate Off-topic distraction?For instance the "How" is deductible by ascertaining that the Marxist theory is very relevant in the twenty first century not just for its alternative outlook on the capitalist mode of production but also for the provision of a methodology that systematically induces us to investigate the revolutionary process associated with social evolution so we become aware of the past, the present and the future.You claim to be a democratic Marxist so is it too much to ask for you exhibit your democratic credentials by responding to the question and not your personal theory on democratic outcomes?

If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Is Marx just 'philosophy and sociology' (ie. the humanities, 'soft science'), or is Marx relevant to 'physics, maths, logic, philosophy, sociology, etc.', (ie. all science, whether defined as 'hard' or 'soft')?

To clarify what I was arguing, those elements of Marx' writings about philosophy, sociology, etc. were largely adaptations or syntheses of other writers, so Marx is not essential to those debates, Marx' most significant original contribution was the theory of exploitation: Marxism does not hang by it's philosophy of science (though Marx' writings on the subject are certainly interesting) but by the theory of exploitation, and all the derived extrapolations therefrom.Unless I am wrong, and there is a specific innovation of Marx' in those philosophies.

[my bold]Thanks for the clarification, YMS, because I was a little unsure if I had got the correct gist of what you were saying.To further clarify, I've bolded what I think is the heart of your post:1. Marx is largely derivative (except for economic 'exploitation');2. Outside of 'exploitation', his views on 'science' are 'not essential'.This is an opinion that I do not share.I regard Marx's views on 'exploitation' to be fundamentally related to his views about social production, and its socio-historical nature. By 'social production', I think Marx included all 'science', and the social production of 'nature-for-us'. I think that his ideas were revolutionary (ie., not simply derivative of earlier ones, but fundamentally new).It seems that, from your perspective, that if 'exploitation' (as you'd define it) were removed, then Marx's views would be superfluous to society. To put it in context of this thread, if 'exploitation' were removed during the 21st century, then Marx would become an irrelevance.From my perspective, 'social production' will carry on forever (it being a 'natural' condition of humanity, according to Marx), and so Marx's views, which are much wider than 'exploitation', would continue to be relevant, to physics, maths, logic, etc., because these are all social products, and change (as can the concept of 'matter': we don't have to employ it, there are alternatives).Again, to clarify, I think Marx is concerned with the power of social production (politics in all modes of production), whereas you seem to restrict Marx to 'exploitation' (economics in class-based modes of production).If asked to label our conflicting views of Marx, I'd call yours 'materialist' (in the 18th century, pre-Marx sense), and label mine 'social productionist' (Marx's 'new materialism', or, better as an explanation, 'idealism-materialism').

[LBird]

Bob Andrews wrote:

All of a sudden, fascism looks very attractive. Do I have to have 'social power' ( whatever that is )? After all, as things stand I just call myself Professor and everyone has to put up with it.

Well, Marx warned where 'materialism' would lead to, politically. Professors, just like you, who really believe that they know better than any 'society' of seven billion others.Apparently, according to a professor, 'everyone has to put up with it'. The bourgeois elite "I/Me/Myself" principle, as advocated by the 'Free Market', which doesn't recognise 'social power'.And to think that Brian and YMS were wondering whether Marx was still relevant in the 21st century.

[LBird]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Would it be open to me to truthfully describe myself as a professor even though I didn't get through the 11-plus? Can't see myself getting elected as one. 

Depends upon which ideology, those doing the 'voting', were employing, Bob.If it's a Fascist plebiscite, and you already personally have the social power to determine 'truth', then perhaps you would be.

Bob Andrews wrote:

Between you and me I tell anyone who will listen I am a  professor. …Professor of Microcalifragilistics, Robert Andrews.

If El Presidente, the most glorious Robert Andrews, says so… Welcome to the thread, Professor Andrews!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbirds point is sage, what part of 'Marxist theory' do we mean?… All else is just useful philosophy and sociology, but disprove that statement, then Marx is rendered redundant.

But that's the point being argued, YMS.Is Marx just 'philosophy and sociology' (ie. the humanities, 'soft science'), or is Marx relevant to 'physics, maths, logic, philosophy, sociology, etc.', (ie. all science, whether defined as 'hard' or 'soft')?If 'Marxism' is Engels' 'Materialism', then Marx is indeed 'rendered redundant' for the 21st century.But if 'Marxism' is concerned with all social production (ie. also including so-called 'academic knowledge'), then Marx is still relevant.As a Marxist and a Democratic Communist, I'd argue that the class conscious proletariat has to democratise academia – that is, all education classes become democratically controlled, all positions of power (professors, etc.) are elected, and even 'truth' is regarded as a social product, which is produced for socio-historical purposes for specific groups in society.All this 'democracy' is, of course, anathaema to the ideology which Engels unwittingly espoused, which is suited to an elite group. 'Materialism' is a ruling class, bourgeois ideology.The only 'physical' that we can have is the 'physical-for-us'. We must have the power to determine our theories and practices, and our interests and purposes, which inform our social production.Only a society can determine 'physical' – it is not in the power of isolated biological individuals to determine whether something is 'physical' or not, by their 'biological senses'. That view is simply 'the free market' installed into physics.Power is social, not individual.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

This is a question which was sent to me on Quora and I replied to:  https://www.quora.com/How-relevant-is-the-Marxist-theory-in-the-twenty-first-century/answer/Brian-Johnson-429 Would appreciate users opinion on this forum regarding this subject.

The first step would be to define 'Marxist'.It must be obvious, given our exchanges over the last few years, that there has been an ongoing debate since the late 19th century about whether 'Marxism' is anything to do with Marx's views about democratic socialism, or has been simply a re-run of elitist politics and philosophy (ruling class ideas about nature and humanity), which has its orgins in Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's views.That is, what most thinkers since the late 19th century have called 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'. Any reading of Kautsky, Plekhanov or Lenin, shows that their views were elitist, and anti-proletarian power.As I've also pointed out, this problem predates the Leninist view of 'Marxism' and the Bolshevik Revolution, so predates the foundation of the SPGB. Thus, the SPGB itself is contaminated by this 'Engelsism' (which is synomymous with 'Materialism' or 'Physicalism').That's one user's considered political opinion, Brian.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

… but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!

But be open about the SPGB's version of 'socialism', too, jdw!You won't say either, 'what role would democracy play in your 'socialism', for physics, logic, mathematics, science generally, etc., etc.Apparently, you completely separate 'state, authority, political unit' from the central theoretical core of social production within society.That is, your 'socialism' shares a lack of democracy with Ike's 'alt-socialism'. Both avoid discussing 'social power'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I hope I don't sound like a little Bird here but the working class needs to define the Truth of poverty.

That's what 'power' is all about, Vin. The power to 'define'. Without that power, someone else will 'define'.Where we differ is not in this view of sociology, but in that Marxists extend your insight to physics, too.Simply put, someone socially produces 'definitions', in all areas of production.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Submissions aren't limited to those topics so feel free to submit something.

Perhaps you're missing the point.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

The Russian journal “Epistemology & Philosophy of Science” (http://journal.iph.ras.ru/) announces a call for papers for a special thematic issue devoted to the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. The submissions are welcomed in terms of but not limited to the following topics:Marxist tradition of constructing a scientific philosophy and the modern naturalization trendMarxist understanding of science as an intellectual activity and a social institutionMarxist ideas of the social nature of cognition and the contemporary science and technology studiesScientific revolutions and the role of metaphysics in scienceDialectical materialism and the varieties of realismEpistemological theory of reflexion and its alternativesRepresentation and construction in knowledgeRelativism revisited and Lenin’s critique of relativismThe individual and collective cognitive agent: difference, identity, reductionN. Bukharin, B. Hessen and the science policy todayMarxism, Russian cosmism and post-humanism about the prospects of science, technology and humanity 

jdw, I think that it's very revealing that not one of those topic titles feature the political term 'democracy'.The fact that a discussion can be had about Marx's views without mentioning 'democracy' at the very forefront, shows how far any current academic notion of 'Marxism' is from Marx's own views about our world.

[LBird]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ LBirdYou are correct, though a paradox arises in that I may ask myself by what measure or standard I consider you correct and we are then back to ideological materialism.  So I will say you are right.  Either way, I agree.

Thanks for your agreement with Marx's Democratic Communism, Ike.Of course, 'measures' and 'standards' are always social products (it's a bourgeois myth that they don't impose their own ruling class measures and standards upon the world that they have created for their interests and purposes, including within physics, maths, logic, indeed, all 'science'), and so for a democratic socialist society all 'measures' and 'standards' would be our creation, and so subject to our democratic controls.Apparently, the SPGB disagree with Marx, and the SPGB wishes to remove the power to determine, eg., physics, from our democratic control, and to simply allow to continue the ruling class physics that were instituted with the emergence of the capitalist class (again, eg., the 'mathematisation of nature', the supposed 'objectifying of reality' to allow 'objective measurement').Marx argued that we create our world, a 'nature-for-us'. Thus, we can change our world. Bourgeois physics insists that, once supposedly 'discovered', their supposed 'objective world' can only be contemplated.Bourgeois 'science' is inherently conservative, and 'contemplation' preserves the status quo. From our perspective, of Democratic Communism, science must be revolutionised, and thus democratised.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Marcos wrote:

They must be removed.  That would be the best solution

No, Marcos – the best solution would be for you (or any other member) to answer the political questions that I posed to you, quite properly, earlier.It's simple – tell us workers, why you won't have workers' democracy in all social production, including science.Hiding, ignoring, insulting or banning, are not political answers.

[LBird]

The real political issue is, does the SPGB have the ability to reject 'materialism'?

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

If you have so much faith in the workers, Why aren't you a member of a workers party? I know the answer:  They are all Leninists, Engelsians and Stalinists

You're correct here, Marcos.The SPGB (and the ICC) are not "a workers party".If I ask you (as a representative of the SPGB) to give me a political answer to the question 'who or what has power to determine reality within socialism', you won't answer 'the revolutionary proletariat', but you'll answer 'matter'.This 'materialist' ideology (a bourgeois ideology for an elite) was not Marx's view, and he warned that it would split society into two: a small elite who pretend to 'know reality' and are thus 'the active side', and a majority who can't, and remain passive.Politically, this incomprehension by Engels led to Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc., thinking that 'matter determined thought' for the passive majority, whilst they, as members of an elite whose thought was not determined by 'matter' (but had the freedom to be creative), were to provide 'leadership' for the passive workers.As we've seen on this site, when I've previously asked this political question, I've received the political answer that 'reality' is not, and will not, be created by the majority.As Marx claimed that humans create 'reality-for-them' (and different modes of production and classes socially produce different 'realities'), then 'the active side' will remain a ruling elite, whilst there is not workers' democracy in all social production, including 'academic knowledge' and 'science'.Socialism means the majority can vote for their own reality, a 'nature-for-humanity', by our own creative social theory and practice.The SPGB, like the Leninists, deny this, and see an elite (including themselves) as the determiners of a 'reality' which the majority cannot change.The SPGB never addresses Marx's concerns with change, but instead argues that the proletariat must only contemplate a 'reality' which already 'exists', and is 'objective'.Marx argues that we humans create our 'objects'.You are not 'a workers party', but a party of 'elite materialism', as are the ICC.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Now, if i was you, LBird, i would be asking myself is there anything in the style of my debating rather than the substance of it that could be improved to help convince others.Have you found any receptive audience in your cyber travels?

It's impossible to 'convince' materialists, alan, because they worship their god 'matter'.They have Faith In Matter, not Faith In Workers.That's why they always turn to insults and bans, because they can't put together a political argument that involves democratic controls on the social production of our world.Marx was right – 'materialists' can't have majority rule.

[Author]

Posts