Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LB – ‘The lesson for me is to maintain Marxism as Marxism and Socialism as Socialism- else it can morph into Leninism or an other type of state capitalism coupling the State with Capital ownership. Dominant narratives conjoining its countering ones. Socialist modes get consumed with State based Capitalist modes?’
The main problem with that perspective is that it was only possible for us to predict the failure of Bolshevism to create socialism was specifically due to our Marxian methodology. Marxism cannot ‘morph into Leninism’ as long as it is preserved as a method and not turned into an ideology as the Bolsheviks and Left attempt to do. Being a socialist without referencing Marx is rather like trying to be a physicist without a reference to Einstein – the Marxist genie is well out of the bottle and there’s no putting it back even if we should wish to do so.
MS – Just pointing out that many Leftists claim to be socialists and Marxists – doesn’t make it so, does it?
MS – ‘Most leftist groups are dialecticians. You must get in contact with them a little more to understand their world.’
Now your assertions have taken on a confidence concerning my political life experiences! I’ve been a socialist for 40 years and have debated with all varieties of the Left. You really have to learn to differentiate between those who make claims to be this or that and the reality that their claims might well be baseless. I have rarely encountered such a pompous individual as yourself.
ALB – There is nothing remotely ‘rational’ about the rise of Nazism – indeed that’s the whole point of Fascism. I’ve found my explanation, which you may remember from many years ago, of the Death Instinct’ here: http://wezselecta.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-death-instinct.html
ALB – at least these elitist thoughts ‘disquiet’ him! He’s suffering from the syndrome you mention in your earlier post – the total triumph of consumerism seems to give us no way out. Unfortunately this seems to be the case in reality and the success of his analysis leads him to despair. All we can say in response is that how ever miniscule our movement is we have escaped to conceive an alternative. We can only hope that this is not because we are exceptional in some way – but the evidence is sadly there to support such a contention.
MS – ‘The biggest rejection that I have found is that we are anti-Leninist and we do not support state capitalism. What I said is that many peoples outside of the Socialist Party have rejected dialectic, and you do not to be a dialectician to be a socialist or a Marxist, as well you do not have to accept everything about Marx to be a socialist.’
Finally something I can agree with you about – the Left love the authoritarianism found in Bolshevism and its leader cults. Many have rejected the dialectic without understanding it in the same way they have rejected socialism. Understanding Marx’s methodology (the dialectic) makes his work infinitely more accessible.
‘Marcuse thought that the only way out would be for some minority to seize power and unbrainwash the majority.’
I’m surprised he came to that conclusion – where does he say that?
The transformation of a highly cultivated society like Germany in the 1930s into a murderous death cult provides all the evidence we need for the existence of the ‘death instinct’.
Robbo – I agree but the inability to distinguish jargon from ideas that reflect the complexity of experience is a problem here. The need for a ‘ready-meal’ of simplicity reflects the consumerism of our society – some things cannot be communicated without the recipients desire to work on his or her capacity to understand.
ALB – I’ve never understood your need to reduce psychology to some kind of materialistic mechanics. The libido theory of which you speak was a very early Freudian theory which he himself went on to replace with the dialectical relationship between Eros & Thanatos which was later taken up by the Frankfurt School to great effect – but, as you say, that’s another thread. Perhaps what’s at the heart of this thread is the belief that complex intellectual theories implicit in philosophy and psychology (and their dialectical synthesis) inhibits people from becoming socialists? I don’t believe this as I think it’s merely an excuse for anti-intellectual populism.
MS – ‘Again, you are missing the point I am talking about attracting future members to the socialist party…’
This implies that you believe the use of the dialectic inhibits people from joining the Party? I don’t believe this to be the case – certainly not with myself as I found it an inspiring intellectual journey. Ironically (from your perspective) it was the ‘philosophical’ work of the Frankfurt School that discovered one of the main reasons for the rejection of socialism – the ‘authoritarian personality’. The conditioned need for leaders and authoritarian social structure is our main enemy.
ALB – ‘So that’s all you mean by dialectics? Thesis and antithesis confronting each other, resulting in a synthesis?’
Having edited my articles down the years you know perfectly well that that’s not ‘all I mean by dialectics’. I was just pointing out its origins pre-date its use in Hegelian idealist philosophy.
MS – Again what’s your problem with Marx’s dialectic? As a form of logic it goes way back to ancient Greece and I can guarantee it will outlast many speculative scientific theories. In my view a rejection of it is to impoverish knowledge and I reject entirely anyone trying to impose sanctions on its use. It has been said that trying to understand the world without the dialectic is like trying to board a moving train whilst blindfolded – something you are welcome to keep trying if you so wish. As for your absurd assertion that ‘we do not understand cultural variations’ I can only point out the obvious fact that we all live within global capitalism and the experience of the working class is universal and ubiquitous.
ALB – I just get the impression sometimes that our Party is moving away from Marxism and embracing an anti-intellectual perspective. I thought the whole point was that before socialist consciousness historical development was independent of human intentions and desires and so constituted, as you say, a ‘coercive force’!
As I keep repeating, even if he lost interest in ‘philosophy’ Marx’s analysis was dependent on a dialectical critique which was, undoubtedly, philosophical in origin. The same can be said of science since logic, empiricism and materialism on which it depends are all philosophical concepts. Philosophy after Marx went from strength to strength under the Frankfurt school. You have previously poured scorn on the philosophy of science but it is only through the critique of what science is and what it is not can it be rescued from becoming an ideological religion. There has never been anything more ‘speculative’ than science’s present theory of ‘dark matter and dark energy’ which could well mark the beginning of the end of present scientific paradigms.
‘There is a big world out there that probably you do not know, there is a big world outside of the socialist party, I might ask the same question why thousands of others members of others organizations do not join the socialist party?’
MS – the answer to your query is quite obvious, they do not join the Party because they are not Marxists. I speak, of course, of the thousands who have encountered the SPGB and rejected it.
‘At times i wish Marx and Engels never ever existed…’
Alan – I wish at times that capitalism had never existed. Sometimes socialists seem to think that if Marx agreed with their specific perspectives then it is proved correct instead of occasionally using Marx’s own theory to disprove some of his conclusions.
