LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alajjohnstone wrote:Did i say i do not appreciate facts? I often quote Burns that facts are chiels that dinnae ding. I have several times agreed that Piketty (and Marx…) provided a more grounded critique for us to use as tools in our case for socialism.
'Theory' is not 'grounded' in 'facts'.'Facts' are 'grounded' in 'theory'.'Grounded Theory' is a conservative method, ajj.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theoryMarx provides us with a different theory to Piketty. Our 'tools' flow from our critical ideas, not from 'facts', and especially not from Piketty's 'facts'.The conclusion from Piketty's book will be reformist, because Piketty selects his 'facts' to fit his reformist theory. We're kidding ourselves if we think that the world will draw revolutionary conclusions from this book.
stuart2112 wrote:If on the other hand the facts are not your concern, that's fair enough but it puzzles me why you've come into a thread called "Piketty's data" to tell us so!I've come to this thread to tell anyone who'll listen that the scientific method is 'theory and practice'.'Piketty's data' flows from 'Picketty's theory', and not the other way round.Our Communist theories contain other elements, that Piketty doesn't employ, to uncover 'facts', and so his conclusions will be different to ours, not because of 'moral denunciation', but because 'facts' are like fish in the sea (to follow Carr's famous analogy). Piketty and you, compared to me, employ different tackle and methods, and fish in different waters, and so get very different 'fish/facts'.
SocialistCenter wrote:Each country has its own problem and issues.This is where we disagree, Paramjeet.We have the same problem. And that is, the ruling class.The British ruling class has the same 'problems and issues' as the Indian ruling class.The proletariat in Britain has the same 'problems and issues' as the proletariat in India.If 'your intererests are different than mine', it's because your political methods will support your ruling class, whereas mine will support the international proletariat.These are philosophical differences, Paramjeet. That's why other posters have pointed out that you are on the wrong site.[edit]Your key organising concept is 'countries', whereas our key organising concept is 'classes'.
SocialistPunk wrote:The discussion I am involved with concerns not wage slavery as is commonly defined within capitalism but the use of money as a means to ration and regulate consumption, within a so called socialist society.[my bold] Hear, hear!And because of this assumption of opposition, which I share with SocialistPunk, I'm not sure why so many 'socialists' seem to look to Picketty for inspiration (on the other thread), or even information (unless one is a 'data produces theory' ideological inductivist).'The wages system leads to the rich becoming richer'? This is only 'Shock, horror!'-type news to reformists, and those who base their ideology on 'individualist consumption' and 'rewards for the hardworking; less for the lazy'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:And in the meantime what exactly is wrong with studying the instruction manual again and checking we are using the old tool in the correct manner?I think that you're spot on with your sentiments here, ajj. But that 'studying and checking' is at heart a philosophical exercise, rather than a practical one. I only need say again, the old mantra, 'theory and practice'. If our 'theory' is astray, then there is no hope for our 'practice'. 'Theorising' is pointless unless it is put to the test of 'practice', but, nevetheless, 'theory' comes first in the dialogue.I think that what you're proposing is exactly what I've being doing with all my posts, but the 'basics' of my views have been constantly challenged, with every right, by twc. But you seem to regard these important exchanges (to me, anyway) as too 'high-flown' for ordinary workers to engage in.
ajj, to twc, wrote:These questions has been my explicit aim posting several links and comments while you have busied yourself with Lbird on the Meaning of Life.In addition to my attempts to discuss the philosophical basis of 'science' (which I regard as a key debate for Communists), I also think that, in line with your ideas, I've also tried to open up 'economics' to 'ordinary' workers, by trying to get a discussion going about the meaning of Marx's ideas, an explanation of Capital. To me, just repeating Marx's often mysterious formulae is not working; the 20th century has proved that. Most workers don't understand 'exploitation', even though they endure it every day. To me, this is the fault of Communists, not workers; that is, the fault of worker-communists, not the wider class. Experience doesn't simply lead to theory. Theory is a creative impulse by communist-workers.I think I agree with twc here (if I understand them correctly), that there is no necessary need to jettison all old terms and phrases; they can be put forward anew, with better explanations.To me, the 'ideas of the ruling class' are still the dominant ones, even amongst many Communists, as we constantly hear when discussing 'individuals' and 'discovery science'. If I were pushed, I would list the tripod of ruling class ideas as consisting of "I'm an individual", "Science produces the Eternal Truth" and "There is no alternative to The Market". I think, even amongst Communists, only the latter has so far been successfully challenged.But even that successful challenge is not being disseminated amongst the class, but is being kept secret by lack of explanation.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Was my suggestion on track as a proper response? Can you offer other arguments/sources to support the idea that you cannot pay a worker his wage plus surplus value?I know your question was aimed at twc, but, once again, I think that delving into Marx and economics, without being clear about one's own ideological position, is a recipe for falling into a swamp of misunderstanding.The simple reason a worker "can't be paid a wage plus surplus value" is that that mechanism in operation would make the 'worker' into a 'boss'.A 'money-wage' can't be equivalent to what the worker produces. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore the production process.The very suggestion, (by Vin's opponent?), shows that the person suggesting it has no understanding of the role a 'wage' plays in the process of production.A 'wage' isn't something an individual can have, and the basis of the very suggestion is that 'we are all individuals', rather than a productive community of humans, 'a society'.Vin must challenge his protagonist on these ideological lines, otherwise the discussion will be upon philosophical grounds that both parties will remain unaware of.If Vin is a Communist, it seems obvious to me that his opponent isn't. Discussing 'economics' outside of ideology is impossible. There are no 'objective facts' of economics which exist outside of an ideological, interpretive, framework.Pretending to 'just discuss the facts' means that the persons doing the discussing are ignorant of their own 'framework'. As Communists, we're not ignorant of our framework, and we distain to hide it.
Vin, another way of putting it, is that 'money' (and its version for proletarians, a 'wage') is a measure of 'theft-success'.As 'value' is produced by an exploitative economic relationship between the vampires (bosses) and victims (workers), its 'expression' or 'universal equivalent', that is, 'money' is how we can understand the relationship.If one has little money, one is a donor (a 'value-producer'); if one has much money, one is a bloodsucker (a 'value-vacuum').This is why 'money' (or 'wages') can play no part in Communism, but your professorial protagonist argues that it can.Money is not a measure of 'individual effort' (and so would be an 'objective' reward for work done, according to the 'market socialists'), but is a measure of 'theft-success'. Money requires an exploitative relationship.Without exploitation, there is no 'money'.The retention of 'money' will mean the retention of exploitation.
twc wrote:Vin,Please ignore LBird’s pronouncements on Capital, which he misunderstands because he has not read it.You and the SPGB remain with twc, Vin, and remain mystified, along with most workers.twc's ideology and methods are no way to help inform our class. The 20th century has proved beyond doubt that the mere quoting Marx doesn't explain anything.Unless and until Marx's ideas are more clearly explained, we will continue to fail.
Chris Gaffney wrote:From the time of the Greeks through to modern philosophy, which is but a continuation of the Greeks, a major question has been how is reality known?The answer given divides into two principle viewpoints, the materialist and the idealist. These terms are not related at all to the popular meanings of the terms namely the person who values only material things we call materialist and the person who pursues loft ideas is an idealist. We speak only of philosophical methods here.The materialist method stands sat one end and the idealist view at the other. It makes a mockery of the person who says that they are Marxist or materialist and yet believe in God. That is, the two viewpoints are opposites.I've done the response to this nonsense to death, by now.It's Engels' erroneous dichotomous taxonomy from Ludwig Feuerbach, p. 17.It's nothing to do with Marx, who in the Theses on Feuerbach, moved towards Historical Materialism. This is NOT simple, mechanical 'materialism', but a blending of the 'active' from idealism with the 'practice' from materialism.Are you deliberately stirring things up again, ajj?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think that was exactly what Marx was saying, LBird …a social product.Yeah, I learned a lot from you on LibCom, in the debates with various ‘market socialists’ (PARECON, IOPS, ID, etc.), if you recall!
ajj wrote:Vin said his opponent claims to be some Marx expert, i simply suggest he demonstrates his protagonist's knowledge of Marx is limited and his interpretation of Marx is wrong by using Marx.In many ways, though, it is just simpler to point out that his protagonist isn’t a Communist.I suspect they’re just an individualist who’s read Marx, and can quote chunks, but doesn’t get ‘Communism’ and its view of ‘value’.They probably think that ‘value’ is simply something that is ‘valuable’, and thinks that an individual can determine what’s ‘valuable’ for oneself. This ‘individualist’ reading of ‘value’ is what is behind the ‘market’: the notion that individuals can have an objective measure of ‘valuability’ (ouch!) embodied in ‘money’. Whilst anyone thinks that they are ‘an individual’ and can recognise ‘value’, they don’t understand Marx and are not a Communist.Simply put, ‘individuals’ can’t see/observe/recognise/touch ‘value’, because it’s not a ‘thing’, and it isn’t embodied in ‘money’.‘Value’ is an expression of an exploitative relationship (that is, of the ‘social blood’ sucked by a vampire from its victim, of a ‘class’ relationship).Marx must be read from the perspective, the vantage point, of Communism. Non-communists of necessity can’t understand ‘value’ or Marx’s Capital. There is no objective observation point in the world, neither for physics nor economics. One has to choose.Vin’s protagonist should be made to expose their ideological view of ‘value’. My advice to Vin is to probe their ideology, because otherwise they’ll go round in circles, with neither understanding the other.If Vin’s protagonist believes in ‘individual identification of value’ (usually through ‘money’), they should have it pointed out to them that that’s not Marx’s view. If they’re an American professor, I think it unlike that they are a Communist, of our sort (ie. ‘free access’, rather than ‘individual worth’).
alanjjohnstone wrote:Vin , go to Marx and Gotha and i think he explains there that it is impossible for the worker to get back 100% of his value in a wage.Surely 'value' is a social relationship, not something any worker can 'have'?Isn't the belief that 'money' (ie. a wage) represents 'value' (and so the 'market socialists' assume individuals can use money to 'get back 100% of the value' they produce in a wage) the crux of the ideological problem?My advice to Vin is to simply point out to his opponent that he (his opponent) isn't a Communist. That's why Vin's opponent doesn't 'get it'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think that's slightly better than hoping for telepathy from our EC members.alanjjohnstone wrote:Now you wish the EC to be a mind-reader!!I know that many in the party are not aware of the influence of Einstein, but I rather thought that Alexander Graham Bell's invention (or, and I know this thought will definitely blow your minds, 'emails and the internet') was in use by now within the SPGB.So, it's the considered opinion of at least two party members that SocialistPunk and I are arguing in favour of 'telepathy'?Boy, do the 'materialists' hate 'idealists', with their talk of 'ideas', 'spirit' and 'telepathy', never mind that entirely idealist construction, 'democracy'.What a novel ‘idea’: the EC communicating with the party.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…frankly I feel it's more than a little insulting to two EC members in suggesting they can't make their own minds up on a situation.I think that you might be missing the point of my criticism, at least, YMS. To me, the problem is EC members 'making up their own minds', rather than attempting to put forward the party's 'own mind'.Surely the EC should see itself as the 'mind of the party' (and attempt to discern the wider mood on any issue), rather than the rather narrower (and less democratic) mere sum of its own individual preferences?Perhaps that's what SocialistPunk and I are grasping at, the notion of a 'spirit' of democracy within both members and those elected to party bodies?Personally, I don't think that this can be captured in the words of a constitution. Perhaps the shortest form is 'comradeship'.
ALB wrote:We can have an interesting discussion on the role of an EC Member, but it is certainly not to be a leader or a policy-maker, essentially only an administrator of routine month-to-month house-keeping matters and to implement decisions made by Conference of branch delegates or a referendum of all the members. Ideally, in my view at least, the EC should be a representative cross-section of the party membership. They could even by chosen by lot.Thanks again for the information, ALB.And your comments are certainly to my democratic tastes. Athenian sortition!
