Hud955

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 212 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Chris Knight – Revolutionary Reformism #200670
    Hud955
    Participant

    Article is by Chris Wright,  not Chris Knight.  Chris Knight isn’t a Marxist in any political sense.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Hud955.
    in reply to: “The Case against Civilisation” #129427
    Hud955
    Participant

    This is a view you will hear expressed by many anthropologists, Sympo.   Anthropologists have traditionally studied hunter gatherer societies.  For them the neolithic revolution was a disaster.  Interestingly archaeologists will tell you the opposite.  It was agrarian communities, they will point out, that eventually gave us art and culture and writing etc.  But archaeologists earn their living by studying material culture, and hunter gatherers didn't leave much of that for them to study.  In academia, which position you take generally depends on how you make your bread and butter.  James Scott is an anarchist so has his own particular angle on this as well."Insulting the meat" is a commonplace practice among immediate return hunter gatherers, but is just part of a much larger body of social practices designed to asert the authority of the group over that of the individual.  By this means no individual can claim status, and egalitarianism is maintained.  That's not to say that individuals don't attempt to claim status in these groups.  They do.  Particularly young males, and they are generally dealt with very swiftly.  Boastful men are generally not well regarded by women, and in many groups it falls to the women to control their behaviour by the use of humour and public ribbing.  It is often the women who maintain the egalitarian balance, at least in Africa. South Asian hunter gatherers have different structures and use different methods but the outcomes are the same.  Good article.

    in reply to: Religion and Socialist Society #129236
    Hud955
    Participant

    Hi Sympo.Thanks for the clarification on class.  I get you.As for membership, that's easy.  The WSM consists of parties which have a democratic form of determining policy, so that the nature of each party is determined by the party's membership.  The WSM parties wish to maintain a materialist understanding within the organisation. It therefore makes sense to exclude people who might want to change that, particularly at present when the parties are small and a relatively small number of votes could alter their whole nature.  We make the same argument for rejecting reformists.  The experience of history is that democratic organisation that have a reformist as well as a revolutionary programme soon get taken over by reformists who at this present time far outnumber those whose class consciousness is revolutionary.  That's the broad position.   Allowing membership to people who have religious beliefs but who do not subscribe to any particular religious organisation, or people like pantheists who are only one step away from materialism is a more complex question.  My views are ambivalent on that, but on the whole I'd rather not end up in a situation where we have to deal with  issues of religion or spirituality within the party, which branches would be entitled to raise if they had a majority of members with religious views of these kinds.

    in reply to: Religion and Socialist Society #129233
    Hud955
    Participant

    Hi Sympo,Putting aside for one moment the argument that belief in religion is inherently illogical, yes I see no reason why a Christian for instance couldn't take the the conclusions of Marxian historical materialism, and choose to regard them as morally desirable, and so perch a commitment to socialism on top of a religious conviction.  I don't think there is anything particularly impossible or controversial about that.I don''t think that religion creates class division.  Religion is used to justify or excuse class division, it is also used to motivate others to act in the interests of elites.  Religious bodies are usually, themselves, class based or in close collusion with class based bodies. But it  is the social relationship of property in society that creates class division, not religion.  Immediate return hunter gatherers have no property and therefore have no classes, but they have religion, for instance  It might be useful to distinguish between religious authorities and  religious doctrine on the one side and the beliefs of religious people on the other.  People with religious beliefs can and do have all kinds of personal variations on religion belief systems that diverge from the doctrine of religious authorities.   Individuals can believe all kinds of things.  So I don't think it is possible to lay down any firm claims about what individuals might or might not be able to believe. I don't have a crystal ball, so I am very wary of making predictions, but I understand the issue broadly like this.  Because religion performs all kind of ideological tasks for the ruling class I doubt whether anyone who is fully committed to the doctrines and pronouncements of a religious body is ever going to be a wholly  trustworthy socialist.  You cannot serve two interests, your own and those of your masters.  Those that can be scared or intimidated by religious claims are also less likely to make a firm committment to socialism.  But people with looser forms of religious belief and less commitment to authority might well come to recognise their class interests and take a clear class view. All I can say for sure is that the more firmly people are committed to religious dogma and the institutions that promote it, the less likely they are to be willing to carry through a socialist programme to overturn the capitalist system.  Thoroughgoing atheists who are also socialists the most trustworthy and consistent.  

    in reply to: Religion and Socialist Society #129231
    Hud955
    Participant

    Hi SympoThe Diggers:  Yes, you are right. It all depends on whether we are talking about utopian socialism (which is theoretically compatible with religious belief) or Marxian socialism, based on historical materialism, which isn't. The Diggers, as you say were utopian socialsits and so had no issue reconciling their views with religion.Religion and Marxian socialism: religious belief, underpinned by an idealist philosophy, and Marxian socialism, founded on historical materialism are theoretically incompatible.  You cannot hold an idealist and a materialist position at the same time without contradiction.  The fact is though, that people are not all philosophers and, individually, they are perfectly capable of holding contradictory beliefs.  So no, there is no reason why a Christian, or any religious individual, could not also believe in and work towards the establishment of a socialist society.  And if they were philosophically minded and bothered by the contradiction, there is nothing to prevent them taking the conclusions of Marx's materialist analysis and reinterpreting them ideologically,  so that their class interests end up bing expressed through an ethical or even a religious lens.   It would be a less secure foundation for their belief than Marxian materialism, but it would be possible.  It's very likely, in my view, that there will be individuals with religious beliefs, or the remnants of religious beliefs involved in a majority working class movement for socialism.But as Marcos indicates, the means by which an individual might come to adopt socialism or explain it ideologicaly to himself is very different from an analysis of  the forces operating more generally upon society.  Marxian materialism presents socialism as the work of a class conscious working class who have identified  their class interests.  The more their minds are clouded by diverting ideologies like religion, however, the more difficult gaining that consciousness will be.  It doesn't mean that some religious individuals can't see through to the realities of their class position.  It just means that for the working class as a whole religion makes obtaining that consciousness harder.The other passage you quoted argued that religion will only die when human being gain complete control over their environment.  I think there is some reality in this, though I suspect a claim like this over-eggs the pudding a little.  I think this is best understood as a process rather than as an achieved result.  In recent centuries, despite the ongoing chaos of the capitalist market,  our control over our environment has increased and religion has, indeed, receded.  In some places more than others. There is no exact rule operating here.  Personally, however, I doubt whether we will ever gain complete control over our environment, and, correspondingly,  I don't see any evidence to suggest that religion will die a final death even in a socialist society.  At least I wouldn't lay bets on it.   I don't think socialism will be fertile ground for religious belief, though, for the reason indicated – increasing control goes at least some way to removing the need for it. 

    in reply to: “Superexploitation” #129391
    Hud955
    Participant

    The importing of capital is interesting.  Thanks YMS.  It stands beside's one of Post's claims.  He asserts that 95% of capital from the "first world" is invested in its home country, that 3.75% is invested in other "first world" countries, and that a mere 1.25% is invested in the "third world".  I find that very surprising, but if true and I haven't missed something obvious,  the Leninist argument, as subtle and convoluted as it may be, falls flat on its face.Every time I think I am getting to grips with this argument on facebook, it seems to metamorphose into something else (As is the nature of the beast.)  It began as an argument that "first world" welfare services (and other aspects of the social wage) are funded from "third world" labour.  Easy enough to deal with.  Then by means of an abstract argument based on labour-time it argued that workers in the "global north"  (the terminology morphed as well at this point.)  directly consumed the labour of workers in the "global south".  It is now arguing that surplus value transferred from the "global south" to the "global north" by market and labour arbitrage and by other means is used by employers in the "global north" to bribe workers of the "labour aristocracy" with higher wages and better conditions.  I haven't yet come across anyone providing  'evidence' of this, but I still haven't finished reading Zac Cope whom, it is claimed, reveals all.  (I'm not sure I will finish it.  I have a limited boredom threshold for dense economic arguments.)I think Robin's comment earlier was pertinent.  The ultimate achievement of this debate is simply to divide the global working class and is really of interest only to those arguing from a national perspective.Thanks for the background Marcos. That too is useful. 

    in reply to: “Superexploitation” #129388
    Hud955
    Participant

    Hi Robin.  I am actually half way through the Post article now. I also need to read Zac Cope.  The guy I am discussing this with on the 'A spectre is haunting facebook'  page has simply responded that Post does not address Cope's argument..  He knows I haven't read Cope, so that may just be a brush off.  I'll have to check it out.  Sigh!  I've got myself into this discussion so will now have to follow through.  And this was going to be my month for reading light  fiction and watching Dr Who.  :-) Thanks for your input, though.  There is some useful stuff there.

    in reply to: “Superexploitation” #129386
    Hud955
    Participant

    Thanks for the useful examples, Robin.  I get that. The problem I have however, is that writers like Zac Cope use this fact to feed into their superprofits argument.    And in this part of his argument perhaps he is correct.   Producers in the global north can use market, and particularly labour, arbitrage to trade with "third world" producers on very unfavourable terms.    Marx dealt with that and outlined the mechanism clearly.  And these days monopolistic practices also have an effect. 

    in reply to: “Superexploitation” #129383
    Hud955
    Participant

    This question came up during a discussion on facebook.  I'm still trying to get a real handle on the (failed) logic of this argument.  But thanks everyone for your comments.  Some usefully flesh out what I already understood, but  they also include a couple of angles I hadn't considered.Having slept on the matter several other things occur to me.  The article bases its calculations on labour time rather than price on the grounds that price distorts the picture and disguises (supposedly) the degree to which "first world" workers benefit at the expense of "third world" labour.  Yet it seems to me that calculation in terms of labour-time is no less problematic than calculation in terms of price, since a worker in the UK will be forced to pay a UK price for a commodity made in China irrespective of the amount of labour time that went into it, and 2. a UK worker is not getting a better deal paying a UK price for a good that cost  20 hours of labour time to manufacture in south-east asia than 10 in the UK.    There are a whole slew of issues that arise when goods produced in one local market are transferred to another for sale that I don't understand.  And while the market is rapidly globalising, I don't think that has been fully achieved.  What does this do, for instance, to the concept of 'socially necessary labour'?  Iit occurs to me also that the article writer has missed the obvious fact that non-productive workers need to be paid for their work despite being non-productive.  So if non-productive workers are concentrated in the so called 'first world' it is hardly surprising that commodities flow in from outside that area.  And those commodities are not just consumed by those that produce.  

    in reply to: “Superexploitation” #129384
    Hud955
    Participant

    I've also been asked this.  "if it holds true that there is no difference between the exploitation of the first world and the third aside from their relative development and productivity, what is it that causes work that is of equal quality and technology in both locations to be valued so differently?"I can make a couple of guesses of what is happening, but I have no evidence to back them up.  

    in reply to: “Superexploitation” #129374
    Hud955
    Participant

    By the way.  Is there a way to copy and paste into a comment?  

    in reply to: Dictatorship of the proletariat #124900
    Hud955
    Participant

    That's the one.  Thanks ALB.  

    in reply to: Hunter gatherer violence #109839
    Hud955
    Participant

    Hi Meel.Most of the negative online comments I have seen for Buller are from EP polemicists, or reviewers who clearly fail to understand the arguments he makes.  Bear in mind that Buller is a philosopher and so his arguments are directed principally at the logic of EP claims, not the validity of the evidence it provides. That is enough to put some people off before he even begins.  As the Tooby/Cosmides approach rests heavily on an extensive structure of conceptual argument, this approach, in my view, is perfectly valid and appropriate. That the majority of reviews are hostile is to be expected with a book like this.  Naturally its publication resulted in a huge fightback by the EP establishment who responded immediately with a whole range of arguments both good and bad.  Buller has responded to them in turn. If you can get through the mud-slinging, the debate is interesting and is worth investigating.  Personally, the idealist presumptions of EP do little to commend it to me.  Mind you, Buller is himself something of an idealist so I have to put all this in context.  :-) 

    in reply to: Hunter gatherer violence #109840
    Hud955
    Participant

    Hi JohnI don't think anyone is making an argument that we are geneticically close enough to vampire bats for their parenting habits to be relevant to the development of our own species.  'Altruism' or socialbility is found widely throughout nature.  Rats are highly social animals, and they are very much closer to us than bats.

    in reply to: Hunter gatherer violence #109836
    Hud955
    Participant

    Hi JohnI've read Jane Goodall and Carl Sagan.  I started to read 'Beasts' a couple of years ago when it first appeared but never finished it.  I found it a superficial collection of data without any sound theoretical underpinnings.  Masson seems to have ransaked the literature for as many examples of human depradations and ignominy as he could find without assessing them in any meaningul theoretical context.  The issue is politically fraught and needs to be addressed much more carefully and thoroughly than this.  The question, in my view, is not, can we find examples of human violence or 'mutual destruction' – that is all to easy – but how do we understand this.  Appealing to some notion of 'human nature' as it is usually understood does not help.  The concept is multiply problematic.  So we need to look for other kinds of explanation.  This is one of the reasons I find Wrangham so unconvincing as well. I have also read Jerome Lewis who has been developing the thesis I referred to above, and I've attended his lectures.  His is an interdisciplinary view and it is relatively new, not yet well represented in the academic literature, but it is gaining ground rapidly. The evidence for it seems to me compelling, though I am no expert.  Though the overall thesis is new, the research it is based on is well established and fairly uncontroversial.  Among the primates, our unique capacity for intersubjectivity (our ability to interpret each others thoughts and intentions and gain a concept of ourselves through another's eye movements) has long been studied, and in a Darwinian world appears to be adaptive to our particular kind of social environment.  By contrast, the private, dark-on-dark eyes of an ape obscure direction of gaze and obstruct others from gleaning the same kind of information.  This too appears to be adaptive to the social relationships formed by other ape species, which in general depend much more extensively on establishing dominance hierarchies and secretive alliances.  The earliest human societies, as far as we can infer the matter, were egalitarian and based on trust.  No chimpanzee mother, for instance would think for one moment of trusting her offspring to another female let alone another male and would certainly not rely on a male to provision here during her pregnancy.  'Mothers and Others' by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is the key text here.  It has swept the field and established itself as the current paradigm for understanding primate (including  human) relationships.  None of this has anything to do with the free-will/detrminism debate.  Nor do human beings have to be 'special' to be unique.  Many species have features unique to themselves, and our own certainly does.  This claim is not unusual and can easily be substantiated.CheersRichard

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 212 total)