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 term was also used by Engels, and Engels was the one who defined ideology as false conscience, although both in the German Ideology defined it as the prevaling ideas of the ruling class in a class society . I think the definition of ideology has been distorted because socialism is not an ideology according to their definition
The point is, 'ideology' is 'ideas as a structure'.Perhaps Charlie and Fred did use it to mean 'the prevailing ideas of the ruling class', but that shouldn't stop us using it to also refer to 'the countervailing ideas of the exploited class'.That is, we're engaged in a class struggle, in part about ideologies.I suspect, however, that 'materialists' will disagree with this, because they have a faith that 'our ideas' are 'True' in an absolute sense, rather than 'our truths', that we create and can thus change.Short answer: 'socialism' is an ideology. Our ideology.
Would you consider socialism-communism as an economical system ?
mcolome1 wrote:LBird wrote:Short answer: 'socialism' is an ideology. Our ideology.Would you consider socialism-communism as an economical system ?
No, with Marx, I'd consider it a 'system' of social production.The use of the term 'economic', as opposed to 'productive', is to ensure that the emphasis falls upon 'things' alone. This usage suits those who follow Engels' 'materialism'. So, 'economics' focuses on 'material stuff', whereas 'political economy' focuses upon 'social production'.Those who look to Marx, however, consider the production of both ideas and things to fall under the category 'social production'. That is, 'theory and practice' is a social method, which consists of both producing creative/critical ideas, and the putting into practice of those already existing ideas, to produce a product.A plan must exist prior to a productive act. Marx makes this plain in Capital.
jondwhite wrote:Didn't Marx have a few words to say about the utopian communists preceding him?Yes, and he had 'a few words to say about' the mechanical materialists 'preceding him', too.Unless workers read both sets of 'a few words' with equal interest, which Marx gave to both sets, they will continue to follow Engels and his biased obsession with only 'the utopian communists'.I suspect you share Engels' obsession, jdw.
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:LBird wrote:Short answer: 'socialism' is an ideology. Our ideology.Would you consider socialism-communism as an economical system ?
No, with Marx, I'd consider it a 'system' of social production.The use of the term 'economic', as opposed to 'productive', is to ensure that the emphasis falls upon 'things' alone. This usage suits those who follow Engels' 'materialism'. So, 'economics' focuses on 'material stuff', whereas 'political economy' focuses upon 'social production'.Those who look to Marx, however, consider the production of both ideas and things to fall under the category 'social production'. That is, 'theory and practice' is a social method, which consists of both producing creative/critical ideas, and the putting into practice of those already existing ideas, to produce a product.A plan must exist prior to a productive act. Marx makes this plain in Capital.
Therefore, socialism is not an ideology. Marx defined ideology as a distortion of reality. I think you have a fixed obsesion with Engels, He made several mistakes but he made contributions to socialism
mcolome1 wrote:Therefore, socialism is not an ideology. Marx defined ideology as a distortion of reality.No, he didn't.Marx actually argued that we create reality, according to our social theory and practice.It was Engels who didn't understand this philosophical approach of Marx's, and built a 'Marxism' of 'Materialism'. When the French 'Marxists' followed this viewpoint, and produced a matching politics, Marx wasn't impressed.
mcolome1 wrote:I think you have a fixed obsesion with Engels, He made several mistakes but he made contributions to socialism'Materialists', like you, are the ones with the 'fixed obsession with Engels'.He made contributions, but he also made a profound philosophical error, and wrote contradictory things in his texts, some agreeing with Marx, but some undoing Marx's work.Engels in effect returned to 'mechanical materialism', which looks to the fixity of matter as 'Truth', rather than the dynamic social production of our object, which thus has a history. 'Truth' is a socio-historical product, which varies with societies.'Materialists' reject this philosophy and ideology, of social production. That is, they reject Marx.
From the AtoZ of Marxism available on here under the Publications tab:Science. In academia and capitalist production a theory or practice is said to be ‘scientific’ if it has been peer-reviewed and approved by practising scientists. In socialist theory, however, science means something different. According to Marx, ‘all science would be superfluous if the outward appearances and essences of things directly coincided’ (Capital, Vol. 2, Ch. 48); and ‘that in their appearances things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well-known in every science except political economy’ (Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 19). Marx argued that his scientific method penetrated the surface of capitalist social relations to reveal their inner workings. His labour theory of value shows the exploitative nature of capitalism, whereas political economy takes capitalism at face value as the free and equal exchange of commodities in the market.Marx’s method of scientific investigation consists in uncovering the real underlying and often unobservable mechanisms of exploitation. This is to be contrasted with ‘positivist’ accounts of science which demands that science can only deal with empirically observable phenomena. (See also IDEOLOGY; POPPER.)ReadingA.F. Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?, 1999Science Resource Online: www.scienceresourceonline.com/
moderator1 wrote:From the AtoZ of Marxism available on here under the Publications tab:Science. In academia and capitalist production a theory or practice is said to be ‘scientific’ if it has been peer-reviewed and approved by practising scientists. In socialist theory, however, science means something different. According to Marx, ‘all science would be superfluous if the outward appearances and essences of things directly coincided’ (Capital, Vol. 2, Ch. 48); and ‘that in their appearances things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well-known in every science except political economy’ (Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 19). Marx argued that his scientific method penetrated the surface of capitalist social relations to reveal their inner workings. His labour theory of value shows the exploitative nature of capitalism, whereas political economy takes capitalism at face value as the free and equal exchange of commodities in the market.Marx’s method of scientific investigation consists in uncovering the real underlying and often unobservable mechanisms of exploitation. This is to be contrasted with ‘positivist’ accounts of science which demands that science can only deal with empirically observable phenomena. (See also IDEOLOGY; POPPER.)ReadingA.F. Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?, 1999Science Resource Online: www.scienceresourceonline.com/Unfortunately, Chalmers admits that he doesn't address politics/ideology within 'science', in the latest edition of his book.I've given this quote before, so there doesn't seem any point me giving it again.We seem to be going down the same route as usual. The 'materialists' insist Marx was a 'materialist'.As long as the SPGB is happy with Engels' 'materialism', nothing I say will change its mind.The real problem for the SPGB is getting together a political argument for workers, which doesn't tell them they can't decide for themselves, but must defer to a 'reality', which an elite will give them.It's not much of a basis for a democratic socialism, telling workers that they can't decide for themselves, especially when there are Marxists saying just that.The SPGB will be confronted with the sort of arguments that I'm making, so you need to know how to argue clearly to workers how you'll explain that you, and not they, will determine 'reality'.As long as the OP knows that there are three options: 'science', 'utopia', and Marx's 'social production'.
wow thanks for the comments! I did not expect so many people to respond so thanks alot!. It is still very complicated though looking at the varied and somewhat off topic responses. What I got from all of your comments is that Marxism is just the perception of what people thought Marx meant by 'this' or 'that' and 'Communist Theory' Is something more ideologically solid. Correct me if I misunderstood and by all means keep at it!
Capitalist Pig wrote:What I got from all of your comments is that Marxism is just the perception of what people thought Marx meant…CP, it's more accurate to say that 'Marxism' was 'the perception of what' Engels 'thought Marx meant'.The crux of the issue is whether Engels actually understood Marx's philosophy.One group, the 'materialists', claim that Engels did understand Marx, whereas another group, who we could call 'Democratic Communists', claim that Engels did not.FWIW, I think that the key issue is 'democracy in production'. Those who argue that 'matter' is not a social product must deny the power of workers to decide whether they will have 'matter' or not.The 'materialists' want it left to an elite to decide whether 'matter' should be replaced with, say, 'energy', or some other theoretical concept. The Democratic Communists think that only the mass of producers can decide whether a concept fits their own needs, purposes, theories, practice and production.
Capitalist Pig wrote:can you explain in more detail 'democracy in production' it is a new concept for meUnder Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) there’s no need for a vote or ballot to be taken on every issue. For instance, with most of the day to day work carried out in socialism concerned with the production and distribution of human needs, many of these tasks will be to the standard already agreed on before the establishment of socialism.In capitalism political parties represent the sectional interests of the capitalist class with all of them competing for political control of the state and its machinery of government. With no sectional interests being represented under common ownership there won’t be political parties or a state machinery. Nonetheless, political discussion on major issues will be thrashed out under DPD and decisions made on what’s the best course of action for gaining a successful outcome.A DPD cannot be imposed by a hierarchy or a vanguard, its either a bottom up decision making process involving voluntary participation or the concept becomes meaningless. DPD isn’t restricted by geography, artificial boundaries, or to specific community boundaries. status of participants be they delegates or non-delegates, specialists or generalists, scientists or lay-person. DPD can only work on a global scale where the earths resources are under the common ownership of the community as a whole.The basic building block of DPD is the community or neighbourhood assembly, face to face meetings where citizens meet to discuss and vote on the issues of the day. These assemblies elect mandated and recallable delegates who then link with other assemblies forming a confederated council, a 'community of communities'. The difference between this form of delegate democracy and our current form of representative democracy is that in a representative democracy power is given wholesale to the representative who then is free to act on their own initiative; in a delegate democracy the initiative is set by the electing body and the delegate can be recalled at any time should the electing body feel that their mandate is not being met, thus power remains at the base.The discussion on this thread – as on other threads where LBird has left his footprint – is on how far DPD shall go in respect of the extension of the decision making process. In other words does the community democratic control include every sphere of social interaction (like science) or does it limit itself to: impact assesments; health and safety; global resources; productive capacity; calculation in kind; and everything else concerning the satisfaction of human needs.LBird is arguing that democratic control over science is necessary and essential, which includes scientific theory. Others are arguing the scientific community alone and the scientific method is self-regulatory and DPD can be easily included as an add on for peer review and consquential acceptance for the theory to be put into practice.LBird's rebuttal is the scientific method itself contains a fatal flaw by making 'matter' its starting point instead of 'theory'.
Capitalist Pig wrote:can you explain in more detail 'democracy in production' it is a new concept for meI'll try, CP!Marx argues that all humans produce their 'world'.In a socialist society, which I think all here would agree would be a democratic society, then the production of that society would be democratically controlled.So, 'democracy in production' simply means that the 'products' that we produce would be planned and created by us all, according to our purposes, needs, interests, desires. Our world would be built by us all, for us all.
moderator1 wrote:The discussion on this thread – as on other threads where LBird has left his footprint – is on how far DPD shall go in respect of the extension of the decision making process. In other words does the community democratic control include every sphere of social interaction (like science) or does it limit itself …LBird is arguing that democratic control over science is necessary and essential, which includes scientific theory. Others are arguing the scientific community alone and the scientific method is self-regulatory…mod1's outline of the Marxist view is pretty fair.Marxists, who are Democratic Communists, argue that all human productive activity is social (rather than elite or individual), and so argue that all social production must be under the control of our society (and not under the control of an elite or powerful individuals).The 'materialists', on the other hand, hold to the myth of the bourgeoisie, that 'science' is not a 'social activity', nor should be subject to democratic control by society. They believe that 'science' is above society, and that it has a 'neutral method' that is not social (and thus not political). The power of 'science' is denied. The 'materialists' seem to pretend that 'science' itself (without human intervention) imposes 'limits' and is 'self-regulatory'. In fact, when pushed, they admit that 'science' is social, but tell workers that there is an apolitical, neutral social elite called 'the scientific community', who can avoid the democratic controls that all other workers will live under.Of course, this 'scientific community' must, in logic, be a self-selecting elite; otherwise, workers would only elect 'scientists' who are Democratic Communists who already accept that they are a part of our society, and that their 'scientific' production is as social as producing 'widgets'.'Knowledge' is of course a social product, and is produced according to the method, as Marx argues, of 'theory and practice'. We must have democratic control of our social theory and practice, in a society which claims, as does socialism, to be democratic.The 'materialists' deny all of this, and regard 'material' or 'matter' as determining our world, rather than 'social production'. They have faith in an elite body of 'scientists', and claim to have a 'politically neutral scientific method' which can only be understood by an expert elite (and so it can't be subject to democratic controls).So, there you have it, CP.Undemocratic, elite, 'materialists'……or Democratic Communists, who want to see 'democracy in production'.Hope this helps you to understand the issues, and helps in your political choice of ideology, which we all must make.
moderator1 wrote:Under…Am I breaking the rules if I suggest that it is unwise of you to intervene in a debate under that name to express a point of view?It means that you cannot later intervene as moderator should this be necessary. Haven't you another hat to wear to take part in debates?
ALB wrote:moderator1 wrote:Under…Am I breaking the rules if I suggest that it is unwise of you to intervene in a debate under that name to express a point of view?It means that you cannot later intervene as moderator should this be necessary. Haven't you another hat to wear to take part in debates?
No you are not breaking the rules, but you should have PMed me. There are now 3 moderators so if any problems pop up on this thread the other's can deal with it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.