Skip to Content

Andrew Kliman and Individual Appropriation by the Producers...

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
LBird
Offline
Joined: 21/07/2013

Marx, Letter to Annenkov, 1846, wrote:
...those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive.

http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html

'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.

Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.

Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.

Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.


Marcos
Online
Joined: 23/04/2017

twc wrote:

Thanks Robbo and Marcos.

However, for a more incoherent experience than the talk, as published, I suggest (if you can spare the time) listening to the post-debate discussion between Andrew Kliman and Per Bylund — can’t recall, but it starts about an hour from the end. 

Kliman seems to agree wholeheartedly with most, if not all, of the Mises/Hayek proposals.

Have I badly misconstrued something?

I do not think that Killman will get to that point to accept the point of view of those reactionaries. The Marxist-Humanists might be mistaken in certain aspects of socialism-communism, but they are not so backward

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marcos
Online
Joined: 23/04/2017

robbo203 wrote:

A thought occurred to me - why not contact Andrew to get a clarification and maybe to make a comment or two on this forum.  Does anyone have his contat details?

I have sent a message to Peter Hudis and News and Letters. They will provide a much better clarification and they are not so ambivalent like him, and also they have been more involved too.

One of the biggest merit of the Socialist Party is that they have transformed complicated economic terms into simple terms, Marx style of writing was a little confused and complicated, he was not such  an explicit writer like Engels. Marxist Humanist tend to be complicated too in the same way like Hegel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21/07/2013

Marx wrote:
Now it is certainly easy to say to the single individual what Aristotle has already said: You have been begotten by your father and your mother; therefore in you the mating of two human beings – a species-act of human beings – has produced the human being. You see, therefore, that even physically man owes his existence to man. Therefore you must not only keep sight of the one aspect – the infinite progression which leads you further to inquire: Who begot my father? Who his grandfather? etc. You must also hold on to the circular movement sensuously perceptible in that progress by which man repeats himself in procreation, man thus always remaining the subject. You will reply, however: I grant you this circular movement; now grant me the progress which drives me ever further until I ask: Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is itself a product of abstraction. Ask yourself how you arrived at that question. Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if you want to hold on to your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non-existent, ||XI| then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man. Don’t think, don’t ask me, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature and man has no meaning. Or are you such an egotist that you conceive everything as nothing, and yet want yourself to exist?

You can reply: I do not want to postulate the nothingness of nature, etc. I ask you about its genesis, just as I ask the anatomist about the formation of bones, etc.

But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis. Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

See also: Early Writings, Penguin, p. 357;

or, Collected Works, Volume 3, page 305;

or, Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, page 112, for slightly different translations.


Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

LBird wrote:

'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.

Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.

Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.

Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.

 What do  "you" mean by "materialist" and "idealist".? What is "matter" and what is "social" in "social product"    

Who is "Engels" according to your "ideology"? What is "category"? And who are "Tim" and "Robbo" you speak to? . Are they "real" to "you"? Or are they "categories" and "constructs"? The  "truth" is "you" are "confused".

 

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013
Mon, 25/09/2017 - 4:09pm#15

LBird

2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

 Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message.   Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

robbo203
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011

LBird wrote:

Marx, Letter to Annenkov, 1846, wrote:
...those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive.

http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html

'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.

Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.

Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.

Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.

 

It would have been more apprpriate and relevent  to this thread had LBird dealt with the argument I presented earlier that Marx's view of the nature of appopriation in a socialist society rests on certain assumptions that are individualistic.  If  LBird understand more about the sociology of Marx he would less quick off the mark at simply dismissing his opponents as "individualists" and constantly invoking Marx in support of his ideas.

 

Marx was not a straightforward individualist thinker  but there are unquestionably elements of individualism in his thinking.  This whole argument that he presented that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" is quintessentially individualistic in orientation from start to finish

 

Any realistic or plausible sociology requires, as a starting point an acknowledgment that human beings are real entitties and are what constitute society even if they are also constituted by society.  In other words any realistic or plausible sociology requires us to acknowledge that the relationship between the individual and society is a TWO way process  - not ONE way - whether we think that ONE way is from society to the individuals , meaning there is no such thing as individuals (LBirds ontology) or from the individual to society meaning there is no such thing as society  (Margaret Thatcher's ontology).

 

Mrs M Thatcher and Mr L Bird are in an important sense, mirror images of each other

 

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013
Mon, 25/09/2017 - 7:38pm#18

 

robbo2031st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

 Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message.   Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

Quote:
A thought occurred to me - why not contact Andrew to get a clarification and maybe to make a comment or two on this forum.  Does anyone have his contat details?

I have it in my contacts, not sure if they are up to date though

akliman@xxxxxx

Andrew_Kliman@xxxxx

**IM Alan for details. Admin **

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

admin
admin's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/04/2010

Quote:
I have it in my contacts, not sure if they are up to date though

You shouldn't put those up here. I am going to remove them. Just ask members to IM you for details.

Login or register to post comments