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
-
LBird wrote: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.
Ironically, I finally rejected Leninism completely when I started my discussion with the Socialist Party, therefore, your statement is totally incorrect.( I do not think that we have supported the tied binomials between Marx and Engels.) How did i come to that conclusion, simply by accepting my mistakes. I have not seen you doing that in this forumThe Marxist-Humanists have rejected many of Engels ideas, but they have not rejected Lenin and Trotsky completely, they are like CLR James who rejected the vanguard party, but was not able to reject Leninism
Some would go as far as say that we don't need to discuss Marx, at all.Aren't some anarcho-communists communists?Isn't Kropotkin more on the same wave-length as us in abolishing wages entirely than Marx/s labour time certificates.I'll let you continue to argue your Marx and not Engels case and as you pointed out, the very long-standing early Marx versus Later Marx Marxologies…more curricula for colleges and universities but not for men and women at the factory gates or the slums of Mumbai. Elitist?…No…but shorning down the case for socialism to the essentials for social change…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Some would go as far as say that we don't need to discuss Marx, at all.Aren't some anarcho-communists communists?Isn't Kropotkin more on the same wave-length as us in abolishing wages entirely than Marx/s labour time certificates.I'll let you continue to argue your Marx and not Engels case and as you pointed out, the very long-standing early Marx versus Later Marx Marxologies…more curricula for colleges and universities but not for men and women at the factory gates or the slums of Mumbai. Elitist?…No…but shorning down the case for socialism to the essentials for social change…Edward Bernstein waited until the death of Engels in order to put mud on top of Marx, he did not dare to do that when Engels was alive, and Rudolf Rucker also wrote about the church of Marx and Engels. the problem is that this Anarchist did not know the Marx was first influenced by the French Anarchists Engels invested most of his money for the publication of the works of his friend Marx, both are a sign of true friendship, and he is one of the few industrialist who dedicated his life to the cause of the working class, and one of the few socialists who spent great deal of time talking, and interviewing workers in England in order to write his book about the situation of the working class, Are we going to reject this good book written by Engels ? Can we reject Karl Klaus completely ? We do know that he made several contributions to socialism, and he was much better than Lenin, and Lenin himself rejected him completely, and forgot about Kaustky contributions to Marxism
jondwhite wrote:The SPGB idientifies itself as influenced by the writings of Marx, not the pre-Marxian communists like Fourier, Saint-Simon etc. The difference is Marxists are scientific socialists and Pre-Marxian socialists were utopians.In some way modern socialists are utopian too, because we envision a fiuture society that does not exist at the present time
Never really liked that expression "scientific socialism"…one for the bin like "dictatorship of the proletariat".The German word wissenschaftlich. This is usually rendered in English as ‘scientific’, as in ‘scientific Socialism’, but it can equally well mean ‘theory-based’, which has fewer connotations than ‘scientific’.This puts in perspective, i thinkhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist(don't know if you read it, Lbird)
Quote:The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.Just as science is cultivated in social surroundings, amid a network of conflicting interests, so too is the case of the SPGB. Socialism would be a class solution to the social problems of today. A solution which would be in the interest of the majority class of workers, but not of the capitalist class. There is no objective, logical or rational ground upon which the capitalist and worker can meet and settle the matter. So when the SPGB advocates class war, this is not cause for despair, but for hope; that the pattern of social and scientific development of the past may be continued – not by an elite of scientists, not by a gang of political butchers, but by the ordinary workers of the world.I came across this quote from Maurice Cornforth, an old CPer, but i thought it useful
Quote:The meaning of scientific socialism is not that it tells us that socialism will come regardless, but that it explains to us where we stand, what course lies open to us, what is the road to life.mcolome1 wrote:The basic of Leninism is not Materialism, it is the vanguard party…This belief of yours is worthy of discussion, mcolome1.I'd argue that 'materialism' implies an elite, because 'materialists' deny that 'matter' can be voted upon (and so only 'materialists' can determine 'matter', and not the majority of workers).This ideology of materialism provides the basis for the 'vanguard party', because the elite within science parallel the elite within politics.Just as materialists will not allow the class to democratically control science, so the Leninists will not allow the class to democratically control power.The root of this is Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's usage of 'material', by which he meant 'human' (as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'). Whenever one reads Marx, and he uses the term 'material', if one replaces 'material' with 'social' (or 'human'), there is no change of meaning. When Marx talks of 'material production', he's talking about 'human production'.Engels thought that 'material' meant 'matter' (a 19th century focus for 'science'), and thus broke Marx's link to humanity.Of course, Marx was right, that 'material production' is social, and thus can be changed by us. The materialists hide this human activity, and preserve for themselves the right to determine 'matter'. That's why Lenin latched onto a scientific term which justified his non-democratic politics, and thanks to Engels' mistake, was able to pretend that Marx was a 'materialist', in the Leninist sense.The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.
mcolome1 wrote:Ironically, I finally rejected Leninism completely when I started my discussion with the Socialist Party, therefore, your statement is totally incorrect.If you're a 'materialist', mcolome1, you haven't rejected Leninism.Marx was an 'idealist-materialist' (or, argued for 'theory and practice'). He always focussed on humanity, not 'matter', on social production and change (plans, ideas, schemes, then put into practice), not on contemplation of 'what simply is'.
mcolome1 wrote:The Marxist-Humanists have rejected many of Engels ideas, but they have not rejected Lenin and Trotsky completely, they are like CLR James who rejected the vanguard party, but was not able to reject LeninismThen the M-Hs and CLR James did not understand Marx, if they look to Lenin in any sense.Lenin was not a democrat.Socialism/communism is workers' democracy, the control by the producers of their production, on a world scale.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Some would go as far as say that we don't need to discuss Marx, at all.The final refuge of a 'materialist' who can't defend their 'materialism', in the face of claims for democratic production, which is what Marx argued for.
mcolome1 wrote:jondwhite wrote:The SPGB idientifies itself as influenced by the writings of Marx, not the pre-Marxian communists like Fourier, Saint-Simon etc. The difference is Marxists are scientific socialists and Pre-Marxian socialists were utopians.In some way modern socialists are utopian too, because we envision a fiuture society that does not exist at the present time
Spot on, mcolome1!The ideological belief that 'socialism' is either 'scientific' (materialist) or 'utopian' (idealist) is sheer nonsense.It's simply the old 'good-bad' dichotomy, in which scenario the 'materialists' are our saviours, and the 'idealists' are the bogeyman.It's simple stuff, for simple thinkers. That's why they'll avoid Marx, if possible, because his work is not simple.The 'materialists' prefer to read Engels, because he simplified and changed Marx's views.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Never really liked that expression "scientific socialism"…one for the bin like "dictatorship of the proletariat".The German word wissenschaftlich. This is usually rendered in English as ‘scientific’, as in ‘scientific Socialism’, but it can equally well mean ‘theory-based’, which has fewer connotations than ‘scientific’.This puts in perspective, i thinkhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist(don't know if you read it, Lbird)Quote:The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.Just as science is cultivated in social surroundings, amid a network of conflicting interests, so too is the case of the SPGB. Socialism would be a class solution to the social problems of today. A solution which would be in the interest of the majority class of workers, but not of the capitalist class. There is no objective, logical or rational ground upon which the capitalist and worker can meet and settle the matter. So when the SPGB advocates class war, this is not cause for despair, but for hope; that the pattern of social and scientific development of the past may be continued – not by an elite of scientists, not by a gang of political butchers, but by the ordinary workers of the world.[my bold]Music to my ears, alan!But it has nothing to do with what the SPGB and their supporters, like you, argue on the threads about science, knowledge, democracy, materialism, etc., etc.This 'study guide' seems to be just so much fluff, in comparison to what's written here, on this site.My postings are far more identifiable with your extract, than are those of my political opponents in the SPGB.
LBird wrote:I'd argue that 'materialism' implies an elite, because 'materialists' deny that 'matter' can be voted upon (and so only 'materialists' can determine 'matter', and not the majority of workers).This doesn't follow. The minority is just as likely to be wrong as the majority, and there is no reason why the majority cannot decide something that is true. Yes, materialism does mean that one person can be right against millions (and the same is true in a democracy, since the minority can become the majority); but it also means the the majority can be right against the minority.As an anarcho monarchist, I believe that what is Real is Royal.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, materialism does mean that one person can be right against millions …alan, can you tell me just where in the SPGB study guide on 'science', it argues this?As far as I can tell, the study guide would suggest that in socialism that the producers determine what's 'right', and not elite, expert, genius individuals.I suspect that the 'one person' who determines that they alone ('against' the democratically-produced views of 'millions', and is an ideological 'materialist', and who claims to commune biologically with 'material reality'), shall determine 'right'.Where in the SPGB educational pamphlets for socialism and workers' self-development, does it mention 'one person' having power to determine 'right'?This claim can only come from 'materialists', who claim that they alone have access to a 'reality' that the vast majority don't, because the 'materialists' have a 'special consciousness' which is not widely available. No socio-historical analysis of 'science' or social production, just belief in special individuals, an expert elite, who shall tell the workers what 'reality is'.Young Master Stalin, more like.
But Lbird, that is your position, since by definition, in a democracy, a minority of one can be right, and can struggle to become the majority. But
Quote:This claim can only come from 'materialists', who claim that they alone have access to a 'reality' that the vast majority don't, because the 'materialists' have a 'special consciousness' which is not widely available. No socio-historical analysis of 'science' or social production, just belief in special individuals, an expert elite, who shall tell the workers what 'reality is'.This is false, since, as I said, the claim of materialists is that a majority could just as well have access to reality, I'm afraid your argument is flawed at the level of a major premise. The claim of a special consciousness is not essential to materialism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.