ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
An anonymous sympathiser has sent us a cutting from the London Evening Standard of 10 December about David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham (Bernie Grant's successor).
Quote:David Lammy said it was time to stop demonising bankers as "fat cats" and that the interests of financiers and other Londoners were not "at odds" (…) He said today: "I have not been one to bash the banks and big business. We must challenge the divide that exists between the financial sector and the rest of London. I want a London where kids from Tottenham can become bankers, not simply serve their sandwiches and clean their offices."Yes bankers should not be demonised as if they caused the present crisis because they didn't. The capitalist system did. To blame them is to deflect criticism from capitalism as a whole. But there is a difference between not demonising them and praising them as Lammy is doing.Also his statement exposes why there's nothing socialist about "identity politics" as some claim. Women generals and black bankers, that'll make a difference.Apparently he wants to be the Labour candidate for the next elections for the mayor of London, but most people out there must realise by now that there's no practical difference between Labour and the Tories. A Labour MP and former Minister praising bankers, what's new?
I don't think that a majority of workers need to understand value theory before they can establish socialism/communism.It will be enough that they know that capitalism can never be reformed to work in their interest and that the only way forward is to make the means of wealth production the common heritage of all so they can be used, under democratic control, to turn out goods and services to satisfy people's needs to which people can have access in accordance with the principle "from each their ability, to each their needs".Having said that, I don't think the concept of surplus value is all that difficult to understand or get across. Most people can easily realise that the only way that useful things can be produced is by people working and that a non-work income such as profit can only be derived from what those who work produce. This will reflect itself as "profit" becoming a dirty word for most people.Understanding value as a social relationship is a bit more difficult but everybody knows about money (which today is another expression of the same relationship). So an easy way to get across that socialism will get rid of value is to say that it will get rid of money. I know we get stick and get mocked for it, but saying that socialism will get rid of money is easier for people to understand even if they don't agree with it. We might get less stick from leftwing intellectuals if we said we were for the abolition of value but wouldn't be so readily understood. We are painfully aware that even the good old socialist slogan of "Abolition of the Wages System" isn't immediately understood these days.Let's not put the bar for majority socialist/communist understanding too high. It's only because today we are a tiny minority faced with having to wage an ideological struggle against entrenched ruling class ideas that we socialist/communists need to be clued up on these things. As socialist ideas spread this will become less necessary. and people can talk about the practicalities of organising socialism rather than analysing in great detail how capitalism works and why.
robbo203 wrote:It certainly does seem that the title of Luxemburg's pamphlet was somewhat misleading.I agree that the title doesn't properly convey the content as she wasn't opposed to reforms. The original German title was Sozialreform oder Revolution? But a better one might have been "Reformism or Revolution?" or "Gradualism or Revolution?" or even "Possibilism or Revolution?" We, too, are not opposed to reforms that really do benefit workers, but rather to the policy of reformism, of trying to gradually reform capitalism into something else, which is what she was effectively criticising and refuting.I think it is clear that she did distinguish between "social reform" (state intervention to try to improve the lot of the workers), trade union action, co-operatives and political democracy, which were the four things that Bernstein thought made a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism possible.For instance, she writes in Chapter 3 on "The Realisation of Socialism through Social Reforms":
Quote:Therefore trade unions, social reforms and, adds Bernstein, the political democratisation of the State are the means of the progressive realisation of socialism.I'll have to read yet again her pamphlet to see if did think that the SPD should offer workers "inadequate" reforms so that, after they got them, they would realise this and turn to socialism. I don't think so, if only because she thought the SPD was the working class organised politically and that it was natural for workers to struggle to try to improve their lot within capitalism (as it probably is, thankfully).I don't think either than she would accept the distinction between "political" and "economic" that we've traditionally made. After all, one of the reason she is so popular in leftist circles is that she advocated the "mass strike" (as opposed to parliamentary bargaining or alliances with bourgeois democrats) as a way to get both political democracy and social reforms.And of course, although we don't advocate them (so as not to suffer the fate of the SPD and become a reformist party), we ourselves are not opposed to all reforms. Wouldn't we too describe any favourable reforms obtained as "indequate"? We do regard some proposed reforms as "unrealisable" but say this openly and that workers are wasting their time pursuing them. Which of course is the basis of our criticism of Trotskyist "transitional demands".
I don't think value as a non-tangible social relationship and angels as a non-tangible figment of the imagination can be put on a par just because both are non-tangible. Social relationships exist while angels don't. The extraction of surplus value happens too and is not a figment of the imagination, as I'm sure you agree.
By coincidence I re-read her pamphlet the other day to prepare a talk on "Revolution the only solution". I too noticed that in the opening paragraphs she goes out of her way to emphasise that, although she stands for revolution (the capture of political power by the working class) she is not against the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) or the working class struggling for reforms (measures aimed at bettering the condition of workers within capitalism) as well. In other words, that she didn't take up the same position on this question as us, but that she held the classic SPD position of a socialist party having a maximum (socialism) and a mimumum (reforms under capitalism) programme. On the other hand, she put a powerful case against the idea that capitalism can be gradually reformed into socialism; which is why we have liked her pamphlet.But I don't think she can be found guilty of advocating Trotsky's dishonest and stupid policy of advocating reforms they know can't be achieved under capitalism in the expectation that workers will turn to "revolution" (insurrection under the leadership of a vanguard party) after the struggle for the unrealisable reforms inevitably failed. This assumes that the reforms struggled for can't be achieved, but there is no evidence that Luxemburg thought that the reforms she favoured the SPD advocating and struggling for were unrealisable. She merely says that they would be "inadequate", which is not the same as "unrealisable".I think her position was that if the working class struggled for reforms on a class basis this would help prepare them for the final and more important struggle for political power (and that this wouldn't happen unless there was a body of socialists consciously advocating this, so it's not going to happen on its own).The irony is that Bernstein could see that the emperor had no clothes, that the SPD was in practice a reformist party which had a rhetoric of revolution and that it should drop the pretence of being revolutionary and come out openly as a democratic, reformist party. Which it eventually did after WWI. Bertrand Russell, incidentally, had reached a similar conclusion about the SPD in his rather good book on German Social Democracy that had come out in 1896, i.e 4 years before Luxemburg's pamphlet.
LBird wrote:That is, 'angels' exist for some societies, but not for others.That was the corner I thought you'd end painting yourself into !But we've been here before too. So back to surplus value.Just thought. Maybe we should start a thread on "Did angels ever exist, and how many of them could have danced on a pinhead?"
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:…ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas…Yes, the source of ideas is humans.
ALB wrote:… but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.No, this contradicts the previous half of the statement.You're playing with words, ALB.What are 'ideas' if not 'the content of ideas'? How can an 'idea' not have 'content'?
They can't. That was my point but I do have to confess to playing with words — the words of Anton Pannekoek. The sentence "the human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world" are the opening words of the brilliant third part of his 1937 article on."Society and Mind in Marxian philosophy". He continues:
Quote:We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world. Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it, the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream. All our observations of the surrounding world, all experiences of our lives are continually enriching the contents of our memories and our subconscious minds.I think the confusion has arisen because a distinction is not being made between "ideas" and the "sense-impressions", "sense-data", "sensations" or whatever you want to call them which are the raw material as it were which the mind works on to create ideas and which arise from the surrounding real world not the human mind. Ideas are abstractions from the outside world made, yes of course, by humans.But we been here before a number of times now.
Actually, not a bad summary of the difference except it's a pity you couldn't resist saying "the SPGB's idea that the working class must first be taught correct theory by the enlightened" instead of "the SPGB's idea that the working class become socialist through the interaction of their own experience and hearing the case for socialism put by fellow workers".Your position commits you to (a) a revolution started by a minority and (b) a longish period in which the working class would be running capitalism, with money, wages, production for sale, etc. Both of which we fundamentally reject.
That is precisely the question: Is the extraction of surplus value against some eternal, "transhistorical" (to use the new in-word) principle of morality or justice or is it simply against the interest of the class of wage and salary workers?
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.
These two statements are not contradictory.
Depending upon the interpretation of 'come from' which is accepted, they can be.If 'come from' means 'created by', then they are contradictory.
Yes, obviously ideas are not created by material conditions but both statements said "come from" not "created by".The original statements are not contradictory because ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.Anyway, this was just a passing comment. So back to surplus value.
LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.
These two statements are not contradictory.
admice wrote:Read ch II of this. Really good stuff. Too applicable to our times.http://marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1969/marx-keynes/ch02.htmYou are right. Chapter 2 (along with a couple of the other chapters) first appeared in the November-December 1955 issue of the Western Socialist, the journal of our companion party in the US. For a review of his book, see:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/books-and-pamphlets-marxian-economics
Vin Maratty wrote:I don't think the SPGB's case for socialism is based on a moral objection to capitalism and if it is then best of luck with that oneOfficially it isn't.In 2010 Conference passed the following resolution by 64 votes to 52 "Socialism is both scientific and ethical." Six branches then called a Party Poll to rescind this resolution. The result of this vote later the same year was:
Quote:Results of the Party Poll on the following motion : "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No" No of votes cast : Yes – 81 No – 39 Abstain – 3 Spoilt – 2 Therefore the 2010 Conference resolution – Socialism is both scientific and ethical – is rescinded.robbo203 wrote:In terms of early childhood development what we see, to begin with. is what psychoanalysts call a stage of primary identification in which the infant develops a strong emotional attachment to the "significant other" (most particularly, the mother) but is unable to distinguish itself from the latter whom it sees as a mere extension of itself. This is followed by a form of identification called narcissistic identification which derives from the experience of loss of, or alienation from, the other in question. In coming to see our mothers as separate from ourselves we gain a sense of self hood.I don't disagree with the basic point you are trying to make, but am surprised that you are making an appeal to "psychoanalysis" when Freud's theories have been so thoroughly discredited. The rival behaviourist theory is also capable of giving an account of the emergence of "self". See, for instance, this from GH Mead:http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/mead3.htmI was a bit surprised to find this on the Marxist Internet Archive but it's there and probably deserves to be as his theory does have socialist implications. His Mind, Self and Society used to be recommended to Party members for those interested in the subject as it provides a social materialist theory of "mind".
I don't suppose this will stop Roman Catholics voting for Boris, but then it's a good thing that Catholics no longer vote as their priests tell them. I wonder what leading Tory Catholics such as Anne Widdecombe, former Thatcher(ite) Minister Norman St John-Stevas (but I think he might be dead) and for that matter the premier Catholic peer, the Duke of Norfolk, think of all this.
