[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…as I have told him often enough, LBird is quite wrong to characterise my position as an "individualist" one.  An individualist perspective is fundamentally an atomistic one  which sees individuals as primary and society as a derivative phenomenon (the so called "social contract" idea). That is not my position but LBird cannot seem to get his head around that

Hmmm… OK, let's read robbo further…

robbo203 wrote:

In any case, the argument is not about  this but about whether one identify such a thing as individual capitalists in this capitalist world we live in.  I assert that indeed we can.

But, why would we want to 'identify individual capitalists'?Surely, it's their social role that is the key to understanding them as 'individuals'? In fact, not their individualness, but their exploitative role within a society. Their class position within a society. Not them as biological entities.

robbo203 wrote:

He seems to think this makes my position an "individualist" one because I can point to and identify such individual capitalists.

Yes, why the hell are you so concerned with 'individuals'? Well, I ask rhetorically, because I know your view of future "workers' power" requires it, because you think, like anarchists do, that 'communism' equals 'free individuals', rather than a social power, a structural role for democracy.

robbo203 wrote:

Exploitation is indeed a social process but if you cannot identity a subset within society – a class of individuals – that exploits another much larger class – then notion of capitalism being an "exploitative society" becomes meaningless…

We're back to examining 'individual bricks', after our encounter with the rabid wolf, to see if the big tear in our arse can be explained by the 'individual brick'.'A class of individuals'. A concept guaranteed to shift focus from 'class' to 'individuals'. In fact, ideologically, it's doing the work of the bourgeoisie for them.Unless workers can start to get past their bourgeois-implanted fascination with 'individuals', and start to examine how the structure works, outside of looking at the individuals who make it up, then we'll remain static in this society.I think that the real ideological issue, between robbo and me, is in our ideological identification of ourselves.robbo regards himself as an 'individual'.I don't. I'm not an individual. That is a concept that emerged historically with bourgeois society. It suits the purposes of the bourgeoisie for everybody to regard themselves, as does robbo, as an 'individual'.I'm a 'worker'. This is a structural concept, which implies its exploitative opposite, a 'boss'. My understanding of my birth, family background, education, socialisation, development and future, is linked, not to my biology, my physical existence as an 'individual' being, but to my class position within the social structure in which I live. Thus, the tug of conflicting ideologies, ruling class ideas and exploited class ideas, has played the key part in my life. I used to think that I was an 'individual', as we are all told we are, but now I know better.But whilst the majority of workers continue to examine themselves through the prism of 'individuality', and view society similarly, and worry about 'individuals' or 'classes of individuals', we'll remain slaves of an ideology not of our own making.I'm a 'wallist', robbo, not a 'brickist', as you are. That's why you continue to talk about bricks. You can't even bring yourself to just say 'wall', but have to stress a 'wall of bricks'. And when I insist on discussing the structure of 'walls', you immediately shout 'What about the bricks? LBird says bricks don't exist!' And Richard is confused. He thinks 'wallists' deny the existence of 'bricks'.With your 'help', robbo, workers asking questions about capitalism will continue to be confused, by talk of individuals.

[LBird]

Richard wrote:

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. For now, I agree with robbo203 that society is made up of individuals. On the other hand, I agree with LBird that exploitation is the key to understanding capitalism.

The problem is, Richard, is that no-one argues that society is not made up of individuals.The issue is the structure within which individuals find themselves, a structure which pre-exists them, and which they are fitted into from birth.The 'key to understanding capitalism' is precisely that: that it is a structure which embodies exploitation. This cannot be found by examining individuals, so looking at individuals does not tell us anything about exploitation, because exploitation is a structural characteristic. So, your 'classes of individuals' concept is meaningless. Of course, classes consist of 'individuals', but that is not what explains 'exploitation' (ie. it is not 'individual greed' or 'individual genes'). The explanation lies in understanding the characteristics of the structure of capitalism, not in 'understanding the individuals'.Perhaps an analogy will help you to grasp this difference in approach.A wall, quite clearly, consists of 'individual bricks'. No-one says it doesn't.But, a jumbled pile of bricks scattered on the ground consists, too, of 'individual bricks'.If we focus on 'individual bricks', we learn nothing more than the individual characteristics of bricks: size, shape, colour, hardness, etc.But if we want to understand the protection that a load of bricks, precisely structured together into a wall, gives to us from attackers (savage dogs outside our house, or attacking enemies outside our castle), we have to examine the wall, not the individual bricks.The structural qualities of a wall are not present in its constituent bricks. Try hiding from a rabid  wolf behind a pile of bricks: it won't help; the wolf will simply go over or around the pile of bricks, and bob's your uncle, your arse is its meal. After you get out of hospital, going back to the pile of bricks, and picking them up, each individuallly, and asking why the individual brick didn't protect you, is a fool's errand.No, the wall, just as society does, has qualities that are produced by its structure, and which are not to be found in its bricks, just as not in individuals, but are to be found in an examination of the structure. That is, the wall, or capitalism.So, the lesson is, Richard, don't be fooled by bourgeois ideologists who harp on about 'individuals', and instead focus your attention upon the structure of capitalist society, and its structural inequalities (which are not individual qualities) and its structural purpose of exploitation (which is nothing to do with individual greed or genes).If you turn your attention to individuals, you're losing focus on our real problem. And beware of ruling class ideas, about concerns for  'individuals'. That's precisely what they want you to look at, and thus to ignore the exploitative structure of society.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

What that means is that of course you can in principle "place" individuals according to their class.

Why would one want to do this? Only if one is more interested in 'placing individuals' (a concern of liberals, rather than Marxists), would one do this, in 'principle' or in 'practice'.

robbo203 wrote:

Of course, we are not saying he is a capitalist because of his habits, his clothes, his accent etc etc but rather because of his significant  ownership of capital.

No.Not 'he'; capitalists can be female.And not 'significant'.The exploitative relationship is the key, not amounts. Relatively poor individuals can be capitalists, because they exploit even poorer workers.

robbo203 wrote:

That is what counts in the Marxian class schema and on that basis you can certainly differentiate between individuals. In fact. if you think about it,  if you could not do this then the whole concept of class would be rendered meaningless.

[my bold]'Differentiating between individuals' is not a concern of class analysis.It's a concern of yours, robbo, because, as other threads have shown, you employ an individualist perspective, regarding both society and your place in it in the future.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I think it is important to understand that the notion of  "class" in the Marxian sense is an abstraction  and that, in reality, there is a grey area where one class shades into the other.

Yeah, the Marxian perspective on 'class' has nothing whatsoever to do with 'placing every individual' in an 'individualist schema' of society.It is an approach to understanding, describing, criticising and analysing a society, at the level of a society.A society is not a collection of individuals. It is more than the sum of its parts.Marxian 'class' is nothing to do with individuals, their pay, their income level, their accents, their clothes, their habits, their education, or their cultural views. It is nothing to do with 'appearances', that can be easily seen.'Class' is a social relationship, a relationship of exploitation.It presumes exploitation at the societel level.If someone doesn't share that presumption, they will not agree with 'class analysis'. Other factors, rather than discussing 'class', will have to intervene, to bring people to that presumption.If someone is looking to place individuals in a comprehensive ladder of appearances, 'class' is of no use.They are better employing 'status', which liberal sociology often mistakenly identifies with 'class'. This is why some people think 'class' is about accents, clothes, attitudes, whippets, keeping pidgeons, going to the opera and ballet, speaking posh or rough, etc.

[LBird]

Richard wrote:

Fair enough, although that means there must be a fairly arbitrary cut off point between working class and capitalist.

One thing you should bear in mind, Richard, is that ‘class analysis’ (ie., including the identification of ‘workers’ and ‘capitalists’) is not concerned with placing every individual in a ‘perfect category’. In the sense meant by non-Marxists, this will appear ‘fairly arbitrary’, because non-Marxists tend to have an ‘individualist’ perspective, and so are far more concerned with identifying the ‘cut off point’ between which every individual can be placed.I’m not sure of your views about Marx and class analysis, but if you do not share those views, it’s important not to misunderstand what’s being said. You can disagree, of course, whilst still understanding why this ‘fairly arbitrary cut off point’ is perfectly acceptable and not a problem for Marxists, even if it isn’t acceptable for liberals, for example.The best way that I’ve thought of explaining this is by analogy to a colour spectrum. No rainbow has clearly defined ‘cut off points’ between its various colours: there are zones of blurring of adjacent colours. If one is concerned to accurately specify every particle of colour, then one has a problem, because there are numerous ‘mixed colours’ outside of the seven core colours, which we regard as making up a rainbow. But if one is merely concerned, for one’s purposes, to identify the seven colours, to teach what a rainbow is, then this is sufficient.In the same sense, if one is concerned with indentifying every individual’s class category, for one’s own reasons, then the ‘fairly arbitrary cut off points’ of Marxists are, well, fairly arbitrary and so unscientific and useless. But, if one is concerned, as a Marxist, to understand the dynamics of a class society, these ‘fairly arbitrary cut off points’ are perfectly acceptable, because the blurring of individuals' positions does not prevent us from understanding the society, which is like a spectrum.The placing of individuals within the categories of ‘working class and capitalists’ is not an important concern, rather the understanding of the relationship between these two ‘colours’ is our concern.As I’ve said, you can disagree that this is acceptable in helping to analyse society, but you can still come to understand the difference in these two approaches, the ‘individualist/pointillist’ versus the ‘society/spectrumist’, in understanding ‘classes/colours’.Hope this helps.

[LBird]

Surely the only reason for a worker to vote for the SPGB is because that worker wants to see parliament closed down?I've suggested before that the party, for this strategy, should adopt the term 'Parliamentary Suicide'.This will clarify the strategy for those socialist comrades who are also critics of a supposed 'parliamentary approach', like those on LibCom. They  fear, rightly, that the SPGB aims to employ parliament as a political centre, from which commands will be issued.On the contrary, all political commands must issue from self-developed Workers' Councils, which are democratic from their inception, and are totally structured to reflect the wishes of the class conscious workers, organised as a political force.The purpose of capturing parliament is merely to legitimise the 'closing down' of bourgeois power sources, so that 'legitimate authority' for the armed forces, police, civil service, etc. is clearly and openly handed to Workers' Councils. Of course, 'illegitimate authority' will already have been established, and the only reason for parliamentary activity is to undermine bourgeois 'legitimate authority' in the eyes of those who still claim to recognise it. That is, those liberal officers of the state forces who already reject any attempts at an unconstitutional coup by the reactionaries within the state forces, but who haven't yet, like the majority of the workers within those forces, come to accept a revolutionary position.Put simply, the policy of 'Parliamentary Suicide' is to place those liberals who are within the state, legitimately in their own eyes, onto the side of the revolution.The reactionaries within the state will obviously have to be arrested by a combination of Workers' Councils' units and those units of the state that have come over to the revolution (that is, a revolutionary rank-and-file, revolutionary junior officers, and any liberal senior offices who maintain their declared loyalty to parliament, and thus accept the legitimacy of the transfer of control from the heads of the armed forces to the Workers' Councils).Any units which maintain their previous cohesion, and loyalty to any unelected authority, and determination to resist our legitimate claiming of democratic power, will have to be broken by force.Don't forget, this scenario is taking place in the middle of a huge upheaval, the end of a process during which ever-greater numbers of people will have rejected the market and the state, and will have become class conscious about the need for breaking of state power.The thermometer reading determining the 'heat' of this 'process' is the votes for the SPGB.Do I think that it will happen like this? Quite possibly not, but I agree that all avenues of peaceful transformation should be explored, and if electing a majority of the SPGB to parliament can help this transition, then I'm all for it.Do I think that the SPGB parliament will be giving any orders to workers? No.Do I think the the SPGB parliament will be giving orders to state personnel to transfer their loyalty to Workers' Councils? Yes.That's its final act. End of parliament. End of a phase of history. It commits suicide.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I happen to believe workers councils will be strongly featured because workers are already effectively organised at the point of production.

This is not clear enough a statement of political intent, alan.Workers' Councils 'will be strongly featured because' they'll embody Workers' Power. They will be both economic and political bodies, not simply 'production' bodies.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I think you would be far better advised to shift your focus of attention away from abstract philosophy for a while to something a little  more practically oriented and down to earth,  to be brutally frank.  You've been reading too many philosophy books lately.  Time to take a break!

I know that your advice is well-meant, robbo, and comradely.But, in fact, having been active and 'practically oriented and down to earth', just like every other worker who gets involved in 'revolutionary politics', if there's one thing that I've learnt, it's that 'abstract philosophy', if left to 'our betters', will dominate our ideas.And, 'to be brutally frank', you haven't been reading enough philosophy books lately.But, I agree, 'time for a break'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

With regard Lbird, it is your views that are dogmatic and unchanging…. Before you go, just for my own curiosity, what DO you mean by 'Communism'? 

By 'Communism', I mean the democratic control of production.Since 'truth' is a social product, I also mean that 'truth' must be under our control.'Dogmatic and unchanging', to the end.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

For just once try engaging with the arguments that are presented than continuously  try to misrepresent them to save face.

No, I'm not going to 'engage with the arguments' that you 'present'.I know I'm wasting my time, and yours, Vin's, YMS's, and anybody else's who isn't interested the the philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge.Stick with what you believe, robbo, and I can get back to some reading on other subjects.My 18 months posting here have developed, tremendously, my understanding of these issues of ontology, epistemology, science and truth. I've read dozens of books, from both the 19th and 20th centuries, which I probably wouldn't have, without the recommendations of others, including some by you.If my contributions have helped others, then I'm happy, because I aimed to try to do just that, but if they haven't, then I just have to reluctantly accept that I've failed in that social task.On a wider note, I think that I've discovered that the SPGB's politics are not mine. Politics emerge from philosophy, and I don't share that basis with those who post here. Perhaps there are some who don't post, who regard themselves as closer to my beliefs, but probably not.Given that I've had many similar discussions on LibCom and the ICC site, too, and had similar responses, perhaps it's time for me to admit to myself that the 'socialism/communism/Marxism', that I look to, doesn't really exist.Anyway, my disenchantment is not just with you, robbo, so no personal hard feelings – you build for socialism in the way that you see fit.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 God, the bourgeoisie must be quaking in their boots, at the level of this conversation between workers, 130 years after Marx's death.

 Only since you came on the forum. lol

I know. I seem to be wasting everyone's time, mine included.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why is it, that every time I talk to you like a grown up, 

You never talk like a grown up.

God, the bourgeoisie must be quaking in their boots, at the level of this conversation between workers, 130 years after Marx's death.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

01042015 = data01/04/2015 = Information

You're pulling my leg now, surely?!God, say you are.

[LBird]

Why is it, that every time I talk to you like a grown up, you revert to childishness?Discussion with the 'big kids' doesn't come easily to you, does it?

[LBird]

Vin, grow up.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The information, which is, as you'll recall, distinct from data …

You'll have to remind me, YMS – which one is the one that is not 'theory-laden', the 'information', or 'data'.I keep getting mixed up, because all the 'scientists' who've read a modicum of philosophy of science quite happily regurgitate the modern mantra about 'the theory-ladenness of facts'.But then… they seem to just blithely return to their 'facts' (I know it's either 'information' or 'data', but my really poor memory struggles to remember which is which…).There's me, eh, a worker, thinking I can keep up with all this 'science' stuff!It's best left to the 'experts, eh, like you, YMS?So, tell me once again – have some thought for the thick workers, comrade! – which is the 'facts', the 'information' or 'data'?

YMS wrote:

If someone comes yup to you and says: "The Earth is flat", you can ask them what reliable process led them to that truth claim.  If you have a different rpocess, you can produce that, and the debate is on.  if neitehr side demonstrates a flaw in the validity of the other, a draw is declared, else one truth claim is declared invalid (or at least inferior).

But… this is not how science works… anyone who has read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos… even Einstein, knows that science is a human activity, and involves faith, belief, trust, intuition, guesswork, violent disagreement, hatred, petty squabbles, professional jealousies, even religious certainty and god worship… it's enough to come to believe that 'scientists' are human, and, just like the rest of us, talk out of their arses most of the time.Indeed, some class conscious workers suspect that physicists talk out of their arses far more often than the average worker…

[Author]

Posts