ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Ollman is incorrect, though, in some of what he had to say; it wasn't Marx who used the word "brilliant" in relation to Dietzgen, but Engels — he did so in a letter to Marx, dated 06/11/1868 (MECW 43, pp.152-53)
For the record, Ollmann does not claim that it was Marx that used this word. Re-read the footnote and you'll see he says Engels did.
Thanks for your researches. By the way, I meant to add that I don't think that Marx would have been being "facetious" when he introduced Dietzgen to the delegates at the Congress of the IWMA in the Hague in 1872 as "our philosopher". At most he may have been being diplomatic, but I see no reason to doubt that he was sincere.
Here's a couple of footnotes to the chapter on "The Philosophy of Internal Relations" in Berthell Ollman's The Dance of the Dialectic:
Quote:13. Marx's enthusiasm for Dietzgen was not unqualified. To Kugclmann. he writes of a "certain confusion and… too frequent repetition" in a manuscript that Dietzgcn had sent him, but he makes it clear that despite this the work "contains much that is. excellent" (1941,80). Since these comments were directed to the manuscript of Dietzgen's work and forwarded to him, it is not unlikely that they affected the published version.14. Engels writes, "And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us, but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by Joseph Dietatgen" (Marx and Engcls 1951,350-51). Engels too was not altogether unambiguous in his estimation of Dictzgen, whose work he, like Marx, first saw in manuscript form. Writing to Marx, Engels complains that Dietzgen's use of the dialectic appears "more in flashes than as a connected whole." "The account of the thing-in-itsclf as a thing made of thought," however, is scored as "brilliant" (Marx and Engels 1941,151).If accurate these show that Marx was not entirely critical of Dietzgen, but what his final opinion was is irrelevant in one sense as this shows that Marx did retain some interest in "philosophy" after 1845. If Ollman's assumption is correct he even commented to Dietzgen on what he'd written. The reference to "phenomenalism" in one of your quotes shows this too.As I said, I'm not sure what all this shows, either way.
There's also a couple of articles here, written on the occasion of our centenary:http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2005-anglo-marxism-the-spgb-buick/
Dave wrote:One other question regarding the development of socialist consciousness within the working class. After many years of being either active or through researching labour history I have come to the conclusion that the idea of false consciouness is probably incorrect to explain why workers have not yet developed a socialist consciousnes.Here's an article from the Socialist Standard which discusses another criticism of the inadequacy of the "false consciousness" explanation:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relations
It's actually even sillier than that. The Labour candidate lives in a street which forms the boundary of the ward, with one side in it and the other not. He lives on the wrong side, The Liberal candidate lives a few streets away. They both probably shop at the same corner shop and wait at the same bus stop.It seems the campaign is sorely in need of elevating beyond the level of parish pump politics, as it will be with our leaflet "Revolution the only solution".
Dave wrote:While I agree that when the working class as a class develops a socialist perspective the capitalist class will more than likely be overthrown with a relative small amount of casualties. After all the Russian reolution of 1917 was a relatively bloodless affair. The problem however is that as the process develops the capitalist class will use a wide variety of methods to sustain their power and part of that will be the use of physical force.I take it you mean by "physical force" actual violence rather than the routine exercise of state power which is always a case of "force". Maybe, but maybe not for the reasons I outlined. Having said this, I don't think we can rule out isolated incidents of physical violence before and immediately after the working class capture of political power but I suggest that these would just be that — isolated incidents. Even Marx, in 1872, considered that a peaceful takeover of power by the working class was possible in certain conditions, i.e a stable political democracy, (even though he expected that sections of the capitalist class would stage a "slaveholders' revolt").
Dave wrote:The example of Noske is a good one for it shows that the German capitalist class took steps to abort the development of a socialist consciousness and they were helped in this by bad tactics of the sparticists and the left of the Marxist movement.I don't think this is a good example as conditions in Germany in 1918-19 have very little in common with conditions in the developed capitalist countries a hundred years later. The Social Democrat government that came to power in 1918 was trying to consolidate "bourgeois democracy" which had just been established there, whereas today in most countries this is fairly well established and supported by the population. I do agree that the minority of socialists in Germany at the time did make a mistake in staging an uprising without majority or even widespread support. As would any socialist minority fool-hardy enough to try this today or in the future.
Dave wrote:The same will happen in the UK and the working class needs to know that a revolution can be a dangerous but necessary event if class rule is to be overthrown.If we really think that, then we'd have to revise our whole approach. Frankly, I don't see a civil war (and so preparing for it) as being on the cards and, even if it was, I would think most workers would opt for staying with capitalism rather than going through a modern civil war (as in the former Yugoslavia and now in Syria) to get to socialism.
Dave wrote:The example of the collapse of Stalinist/State Capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe is not a very good one as what we saw was a shift within the ruling class where sections of the ruling class became the dominate class.I know that's the counter-argument and there's some truth in it, but what happened there still showed that no government can hold on to power in the face of mass popular opposition. It is also the case that a modern capitalist economy, which requires trained and self-motivated workers, could not function on the basis of forced labour for any length of time. So, in that sense, political democracy, and the illusion of "freedom" that goes with it, is the best political form for capitalism. If a government were to suspend it in the face of a growing, but still minority socialist movement they would severely disrupt profit-making and if they tried it in the face of a majority socialist movement they would merely be uselessly postponing their demise (as some maybe most of them would surely realise as did Honecker and co in East Germany). In any event, we've always endorsed the old Chartist slogan of "peaceably if we may, forcibly if we must" as long as there's a majority in favour.
Dave wrote:A revolution is qualatatively different with one class being replaced by another class.Agreed, but all the revolutions that have taken place in history up to now have been a case of one minority replacing another minority (even what happened in Russia in 1917). The socialist revolution, on the other hand, will be a case of a minority ruling class being replaced by a majority. This has never happened before, so I don't think we can conclude from the experience of minority or minority-led revolutions what is likely to be the case in a majority revolution.
Dave wrote:One question does the SPGB see socialism as an ethical imperative or a material necessity?Opinions on this are divided, with some members saying "both" and other saying "material necessity" (the current majority position).
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:However, I'm not sure why you mentioned 'transitional demands' — I have never argued in their favour, whatever other Trotskyists might have maintained.I thought you said somewhere that you were or had been in some Trotskyist organisation (SWP, I think) and jumped to the conclusion that you were an orthodox one. My apologies but what, then, is your case against "abstract propaganda" for socialism?In the meantime, I've discovered that Marx did take some interest in "philosophy" after 1845. He introduced Joseph Dietzgen, who was one of the delegates to the congress of the IWMA in Amsterdam in 1872 as, "our philosopher" (as reported by his son, Eugene, in this article) and also discussed his ideas in correspondence with Engels and Kugelmann. I agree, though, that Dietzgen was into the theory of knowledge (epistemology) rather than general, speculative "philosophy" and that he did write a book called The Positive Outcome of Philosophy, a title implying that philosophy's day was over. But didn't you also claim somewhere that Marx wasn't interested even in "epistemology"?I'm not sure that this makes any difference to anything.
That's actually one of the approaches we used to adopt when speaking at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park on a Sunday. We told the listeners that it was true that every 4 or 5 years they were free to elect MPs and councillors to fill certain political posts but that, come Monday morning, as soon as they passed through the doors of the office or the gates of the factory where they worked they stopped being "free citizens" and became subjected to the dictates of whoever was acting on the authority of those who owned where they worked. In other words, that democracy stopped at work, whereas in socialism it would be different, etc.
I never said that Marx had a positive attitude to philosophy in general (In fact I said the opposite) nor would I deny that when Marx talks about ruling ideas he includes philosophy of all kinds in this. My point was narrower: that by "die Philosophen" in your quotes he was talking about post-Hegel German philosophers of which he'd once been one.It is surely significant that in the passage where he writes of this he speaks of "thinkers", "producers of ideas" rather than "philosophers". Surely to make it clear he was referring to a wider group than he referred elsewhere to as "die Philosphen", a group that includes theologists, theorists of law or history or literature and ideologists of all kind as well as philosophers, German or otherwise.It doesn't make any difference which one of us is right on this narrow point. I just think that the ecidence shows that .you are wrong on it.I would add, though, that in assimilating "producers of ideas" and "philosphers" and then rejecting philosophy you would also seem to be rejecting all theorising, even by socialists. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or, more worryingly, denying the utility of arguing the case for socialism with fellow workers, not even in simple, everyday language (preferring to lead them down the path of "transitional demands" instead as a way of making them learn).
I still say, RL, that you are on to a loser in trying to argue that Wittgenstein meant something different by "philosophy" than the Logical Positivists and the Ordinary Language Philosophers. All of them were concerned with analysing the meaning of everyday language and eliminating most of what traditional philosophy had studied as "metaphysics". Anyway, you have conceded that Wittgengstein did philosophy and was a philospher, even if a sort of anti-philosophy philosopher.You are on to a loser too is trying to argue that by "the philosophers" Marx meant more than the German "critical critics" that he'd once been associated with himself and that the quotes you have given about him saying they were quasi-religious, ought to come down to earth, were only concerned with discussing and changing ideas, etc, etc don't refer to them. Engels actually says so in his preface to his Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. Referring to what was later to be published (after his death) as The German Ideology, he wrote:
Quote:In the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, published in Berlin, 1859, Karl Marx relates how the two of us in Brussels in the year 1845 set about:“to work out in common the opposition of our view” — the materialist conception of history which was elaborated mainly by Marx — to the ideological view of German philosophy, in fact, to settle accounts with our erstwhile philosophical conscience. The resolve was carried out in the form of a criticism of post-Hegelian philosophy.So, for Marx, "die Philosophen" in your quotes were the exponents of this, not philosphers in general.Having said this, I don't like the term "Marxist philosophy" as I agree with you that there is no such thing, "philosophy" (all philosophies of history, not just German) having been replaced by the materialist conception of history and all "philosophies of nature" by science.But this discussion about the meaning of philosophy is a bit of a side-show. More important are the differences over Leninism and its political tactics and practice, as an ideology of state capitalism, arising from the meaning of the ruling ideas being those of the ruling class and how to deal with this.
I know what you mean. Of course "politics" in the sense of arguments over what "policies" should be pursued or decisions taken will continue in a socialist/communist society. The objection to applying the word to such a society is that it is associated with the state and what policies it should pursue whereas there will no longer be any state. Just semantics perhaps, but I can't think of an alternative singe word for this at the moment.I think there's been some discussion here before on applying the word "economy" to socialism/communism. I'd be more opposed to this since the words "economy", "economics", etc are too linked to the concept of exchange and the study of the impersonal forces that arise and determine people's decisions about the production and distribution of wealth when there is production for sale.When production for the market with a view to profit has been replaced by production solely and directly to need people's needs, as will be the case in socialism, there will no longer be such impersonal forces to study and "economics" will cease to exist. So, on this definition, socialism is not an economy, not even a planned or a democratic economy. I'd be more insistent on this one in view of the fact that there are so many groups advocating democratic control of production for sale who imagine that that would be socialism. This, of course, is not what you mean, so there's no need to fall out over this (we know what we mean because we've defined our terms). It's others who might be misled.Better, then, to speak of socialism/communism as "the democratic control of the production and distribution of wealth" or simply "the democratic control of production".
Who's saying that? The argument is that, with the spread of socialist ideas, enough members of the armed forces would be to render these forces an unreliable and perhaps a useless instrument in the hands of the ruling class. We've seen plenty of dictators give up when they realise that the armed forces are no longer on their side.Even today when socialist understanding is very limited there are some former members of the armed forces in the Socialist Party. I was talking to one the other evening.
Just found while looking for something else this example of the Red Flag being sung by Party members (right at the end):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1916/no-141-may-1916/crabbed-age-and-youth
