the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology
- This topic has 410 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Wez wrote:I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?
We've been discussing this issue for a few years now, Wez, so there's lots of things being said here which are taken for granted by the usual posters.In a nutshell, my view is that Marx was an 'idealist-materialist' (I only use that term to capture the two inputs into his ideas).We could just as easily call him a 'social productionist' or focus on his 'theory and practice'.All these terms try to capture the relationship between 'consciousness' and 'not-consciousness': that is, an active, productive, purposeful, planning, social consciousness and the 'stuff' that the conscious agent changes, to produce their 'product'.Engels didn't understand Marx, and broke apart Marx's synthesis (of 'ideal-material'), and reverted to 'materialism'.
Extracted from Raya Dunayeskaya 1965 Marxism-Humanish today. Marx’s humanism was neither a rejection of idealism nor an acceptance of materialism, but the truth of both, and therefore a new unity. Marx’s “collectivism” has, as its very soul, the individualistic element. That is why the young Marx felt compelled to separate himself from the “quite vulgar and unthinking communism which completely negates the personality of man.” Because alienated labor was the essence of all that was perverse in capitalism, private or state, “organized” or “anarchic,” Marx concluded his 1844 attack on capitalism with the statement that “communism, as such, is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.” Freedom meant more, a great deal more, than the abolition of private property. Marx considered the abolition of private property to be only “the first transcendence.” Full freedom demanded a second transcendence. Four years after these humanist essays were written Marx published the historic Communist Manifesto. His basic philosophy was not changed by the new terminology. On the contrary. On the eve of the 1848 revolutions, the Manifesto proclaimed: “The freedom of the individual is the basis of the freedom of all.” At the end of his life the concept remained unchanged. His magnum opus, like his life’s activity, never deviated from the concept that only “the development of human power, which is its own end” is the true “realm of freedom.” [29] Again, our age should understand better than any other the reasons for the young Marx’s insistence that the abolition of private property is only the first transcendence. “Not until the transcendence of this mediation, which is nevertheless a necessary presupposition, does there arise positive Humanism, beginning from itself.”
mcolome1 wrote:Brian wrote:Wez wrote:I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?Not quite. He's suggesting that Marx evolved into an idealist-materialist or even a materialist-idealist. Further he's also proposing we are Lenists because Engles failed to foresee the necessity for the democratic control of all theory.
Therefore, he is in agreement with Raya Dunayeskaya who was a Marxist-Humanist. She said that Marx was one of the most idealist of the Materialist, philosopher,s and one of the most Materialist of the idealist philosophers. She combined Materialism with Idealism. She was a Hegelian and a Leninist, and she rejected some of Engels conceptions
One can find the relevant quote from Dunayevskaya regarding Marx on page 42 of her Marxism and Freedom.But she makes excuses for Lenin on page 171, where she says that Lenin rejected his earlier 'vulgar materialism' of his Materialism and Empirio-criticism.I disagree with Dunayevskaya, so mcolome1 is incorrect to identify us as being 'in agreement'.
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Brian wrote:Wez wrote:I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?Not quite. He's suggesting that Marx evolved into an idealist-materialist or even a materialist-idealist. Further he's also proposing we are Lenists because Engles failed to foresee the necessity for the democratic control of all theory.
Therefore, he is in agreement with Raya Dunayeskaya who was a Marxist-Humanist. She said that Marx was one of the most idealist of the Materialist, philosopher,s and one of the most Materialist of the idealist philosophers. She combined Materialism with Idealism. She was a Hegelian and a Leninist, and she rejected some of Engels conceptions
One can find the relevant quote from Dunayevskaya regarding Marx on page 42 of her Marxism and Freedom.But she makes excuses for Lenin on page 171, where she says that Lenin rejected his earlier 'vulgar materialism' of his Materialism and Empirio-criticism.I disagree with Dunayevskaya, so mcolome1 is incorrect to identify us as being 'in agreement'.
Do you know the works of Raya Dunayeskaya ? Were you a member of the Marxist Humanist movement ?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1958/dunayevskaya.htm Probably, Paul Mattick describes much better her amivalence
mcolome1 wrote:https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1958/dunayevskaya.htm Probably, Paul Mattick describes much better her amivalenceThanks for that, mcolome1.Mattick is also confused.He says "As practice leads to theory…", but also talks "unity of theory and practice".'Practice' does not 'lead to theory', according to Marx. The notion that 'practice leads to theory' is 'induction'. This is not Marx's method.Marx argues that 'theory' is required (purpose, planning), which is then put into 'practice'.Whether the resulting 'product' satisfies the producers, can only be determined by the producers themselves.The 'product' does not tell the producers that it is satisfactory to them. Something might 'work in practice', but still be determined by the producers to be 'untrue'.So, …not 'practice leads to theory' (leads to 'truth');not 'theory leads to practice' (leads to 'truth);but, 'theory leads to practice' (leads to 'vote' on 'truth').Only the latter is compatible with Marx's views about 'social theory and practice' which remains under the democratic control of the producers.Unless the 'scientific method' follows Marx's unified method (the unity of social theory and practice), then an elite will always have power over the producers.'Scientific knowledge' and 'truth' are social products, and thus we can change them. They are not 'Eternal Truths' produced by an elite which must henceforth be simply contemplated.
Mattick wrote:What remains to be said is that the book has appendices consisting of fragmentary early writings of Marx on Private Property and Communism and the Hegelian Dialectic. They represent a stage of Marx’s intellectual development which he himself was glad to get behind him. And though they are of some interest, as is almost anything that Marx wrote, they do not enhance the understanding of either Marxism or capitalism.[my bold]mcolome1, I also disagree fundamentally with Mattick on this issue about Marx's earlier works.Mattick seems to subscribe here to an 'epistemological break'.I think that I've shown with quotes from Marx's Capital that he always employed the same method of 'social theory and practice' throughout his works.There is no evidence that Marx 'was glad to get behind him' his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, and those works clearly do 'enhance the understanding' of all Marx's work.
LBird wrote:Mattick wrote:What remains to be said is that the book has appendices consisting of fragmentary early writings of Marx on Private Property and Communism and the Hegelian Dialectic. They represent a stage of Marx’s intellectual development which he himself was glad to get behind him. And though they are of some interest, as is almost anything that Marx wrote, they do not enhance the understanding of either Marxism or capitalism.[my bold]mcolome1, I also disagree fundamentally with Mattick on this issue about Marx's earlier works.Mattick seems to subscribe here to an 'epistemological break'.I think that I've shown with quotes from Marx's Capital that he always employed the same method of 'social theory and practice' throughout his works.There is no evidence that Marx 'was glad to get behind him' his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, and those works clearly do 'enhance the understanding' of all Marx's work.
With the only one that you do not disagree is with yourself. Your arguments do sound iike a Marxist-Humanist
mcolome1 wrote:With the only one that you do not disagree is with yourself. Your arguments do sound iike a Marxist-HumanistThat's an unnecessary tone, mcolome1.I've treated you like a adult, and responded to your posts with reasoned arguments, and I expect you to do the same, and keep a comradely tone.Now, I've said that I'm not an adherent of Dunayevskaya, and I've said that I'm not a Leninist Materialist.You haven't. You've actually said that you are a 'materialist'.It's up to you to argue coherently why you are a 'materialist', when this is the basis of Leninism, but yet you reject Lenin.If you are unable to argue a point, then the blame lies with you, not with my arguing for Marx and workers' democracy, which you apparently dislike.
Quote:the important thing in this movement, it is not in what we disagree, it is what we agree,A crucial point i think. Too often i come across members who don't have an inclusive approach to politics and recognise fellow-socialists but seek an exclusive claim to socialism – an "ownership" of the socialist concept There are core ideas that defines us as socialists and a lot of extraneous things that can make for comradely debate.WSPUS member Rab suggests (taken from his biography) that :
Quote:1. Capitalism can no longer be administered or reformed in the interest of the working class or of society. 2. Capitalism is incapable of eliminating poverty, wars, crises, etc. 3. Socialism can solve the social problems confronting society today, since the material conditions are ripe for socialism, save the lack of a socialist majority. All members would agree: The conscious, majority, political nature of the socialist revolution; Conception of History; the Law of Value; the Class Struggle; attitudes on leadership, reformism, and religion; the general nature of socialism as a system of society. However a socialist does not necessarily require an academic's grasp of Marxian economics such as perhaps the distinction between “labour” and “labour power.” Understanding this distinction is not an acid test of whether a person is a socialist or not! (However, it is true that there is a distinction between these two terms when it comes to describe the nature of capitalist exploitation.) The acid test of socialist convictions hinges on such factors as: Capitalism cannot be reformed or administered in the interest of the working class or of society; Capitalism, as a social system, is in the interest of the ruling class (albeit that capitalism, historically, is an essential stage of social evolution); Socialism is the solution to the social problems and irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism; Socialism cannot be rammed down the workers’ throats against their wishes; The socialist victory is dependant upon the fervor and enthusiasm of the determined, conscious socialist majority. These are the characteristics of a socialist; a coupling of the head and the heart, theory coupled with action. A socialist is one who recognizes and realizes that capitalism can no longer be reformed or administered in the interest of society or of the working class; that capitalism is incapable of eliminating poverty, war, crises, etc.; and that the times call for arousing the majority to become socialists to inaugurate socialism, now possible and necessary.”Perhaps the followers of their thread have their own. The Socialist Party's official minimum of agreement i think can be determined from the questions in our knowledge test http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-applicationI have always had a soft spot for Solidarity's statement in their 'As We See It"
Quote:7. Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.LBird wrote:Mattick wrote:What remains to be said is that the book has appendices consisting of fragmentary early writings of Marx on Private Property and Communism and the Hegelian Dialectic. They represent a stage of Marx’s intellectual development which he himself was glad to get behind him. And though they are of some interest, as is almost anything that Marx wrote, they do not enhance the understanding of either Marxism or capitalism.[my bold]mcolome1, I also disagree fundamentally with Mattick on this issue about Marx's earlier works.Mattick seems to subscribe here to an 'epistemological break'.I think that I've shown with quotes from Marx's Capital that he always employed the same method of 'social theory and practice' throughout his works.There is no evidence that Marx 'was glad to get behind him' his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, and those works clearly do 'enhance the understanding' of all Marx's work.
You are not telling me anything new. I started in this movement ( taking a lot of risks ) when I was very young, and I am constantly reading and studying, and looking for new ideas, and. I have read the whole index of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and the Socialist Party of Canada, and I have read their critiques in regard to Paul MattickThe Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts are also used by the Marxist Humanists to indicates that Marx was a Hegelian through all his life, and until his death, and that the whole work of Capital is based on the Hegelian method. The real Economists at the very beginning was not Marx, it was Engels.They have also indicated that Vladimir Lenin used the same method when he was reading Hegel during 1914 before writ ting Imperialism, and the State and the revolution, and they are known as : Lenin Philosophical notebooks, and there is a book written by Kevin Anderson which I have read, and he is also subscribed to the Paris Notebooks also known as the Economics Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, which I also read and studied when I was very young.The important thing in this movement, it is not in what we disagree, it is what we agree, and what essential ideas we have taken from others writers and thinkers. I have never taken Marx as a god, or a perfect thinker, he also made many mistakes, but I have taken his most important ideas, as well I have taken the essential ideas from Engels
mcolome1 wrote:The important thing in this movement, it is not in what we disagree, it is what we agree, and what essential ideas we have taken from others writers and thinkers. I have never taken Marx as a god, or a perfect thinker, he also made many mistakes, but I have taken his most important ideas, as well I have taken the essential ideas from Engels[my bold]But do we agree that, in some important respects, that Engels contradicted what Marx wrote?If we can agree on that, there is hope for an informed discussion.Those who argue for the singularity of the unified being of 'Marx-Engels', have historically been the Leninists. Why SPGB members and supporters should follow the Leninists, baffles me.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I have always had a soft spot for Solidarity's statement in their 'As We See It"Quote:7. Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.[my bold]The problem, alan, is that several posters here, regarding science and epistemology, follow the 'sterile and harmful action' route, rather than the 'meaningful action' route.Only the class conscious proletariat can determine what is 'meaningful' for them, and thus 'meaning' can be voted upon.No elite can determine our academic disciplines, whereas the elitist ideology of science argues that only the expert academics can.
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:With the only one that you do not disagree is with yourself. Your arguments do sound iike a Marxist-HumanistThat's an unnecessary tone, mcolome1.I've treated you like a adult, and responded to your posts with reasoned arguments, and I expect you to do the same, and keep a comradely tone.Now, I've said that I'm not an adherent of Dunayevskaya, and I've said that I'm not a Leninist Materialist.You haven't. You've actually said that you are a 'materialist'.It's up to you to argue coherently why you are a 'materialist', when this is the basis of Leninism, but yet you reject Lenin.If you are unable to argue a point, then the blame lies with you, not with my arguing for Marx and workers' democracy, which you apparently dislike.
The basic of Leninism is not Materialism, it is the vanguard party and the theory of the permanent revolution, that Lenin added himself to the bourgeois materialism is not an essential part of his whole body of ideas, even more, in some way, he was ambivalent, and I know that because I have read most of the works of Lenin, and I wasted a great of times within the Leninist movement, coincidentally Stalin was one of the few Bolshevik who understood the real meaning of socialism, and he supported Lenin philosophical view, therefore, one particle is not an universeI do not care if am a Materialist, or idealist, or I have unified both, an idea that I accepted when I was part of the Marxist-Humanist movement, therefore, what you are arguing now is now new for me either. What I care, is to have inside my brain a coherent socialist theory, and a theory for human liberation, and to be ready for the world revolution of the working class, and if I were living in England I would be in the front line to vote for the Socialist PartyI am not an adherent of Raya Dunayeska, i rejected some of her ideas, but I do recognize that she made certain contributions in the field of economics, and I know that because I have read her works, and I knew her personally, in the same way that I met a Stalinist known as Enver Hoxha. Was he wrong when he said that China and Russia were based on state capitalist economy ? Was Dunayeskaya wrong whern she was a member of the Trotskyis party and she said that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist economy ? Both were correct, therefore, we can not reject everything from others thinkers, you do have some correct ideas, am I going to reject them ? No. I am not going to do that, even more, you have cited Anton Pannekoek, and he is one of my favorite Marxist exponent. We have to be balanced in our politrical-economical ideas. PS The wife of Trotsky Sedovia she was influenced by the ideas of her husband and the idea of Lenin, but at the end of her life, she took a much better than her husband, she said that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist country, and she was expelled from the Fourth International, was she wrong? No, she was right.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.