[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Shall we intervene with forced collectivisation of the billions who still live a peasant-proprietary way of life…or shall we simply let them get on with it but offer the carrots of co-operative shared free access of tractors and machinery and fertilisers and seeds and what not, in "exchange" for the surplus product, and let them retain their "title deeds" to their little plots of land and consider it more a personal possession than private property and let things evolve at its own pace, if it has no bearing on the majority of us well-being or condition.

The whole tenor of your post, ajj, leads me to think you stand closer to the ICC's conception of 'revolution', than what I understood the SPGB's position to be. That is, for the ICC, that most of the 'revolution', in practice, will take place after the revolution.I'm of the opinion that most of the 'revolution' will take place prior to the revolution. That is, proletarian culture and ideas will have displaced most of the religious mumbo-jumbo about cutting bits of skin off kids' genitals, whether girl or boy, and that Communist class consciousness will be dominant, and that the peasantry will be a small minority, after capitalism has trampled across the remaining pre-capitalist modes.As for 'title deeds', I thought that the concept of 'the earth is a common treasury' would trump that ideology? How can someone retain 'title deeds' to our common property?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

I don't recognise this scenario, YMS, as any sort of revolutionary situation.I've no intention of allowing the CBI to exist, never mind to negotiate with it! Or 'to govern within the limits of capitalism'!No money, no market. Production and distribution on the basis of need. What's the problem?

Yes, that's right, that's a non-revolutionary situation, where the revolutionary parts of the working class are in the minority, but still able to exercise decisive control of the levers of state machienry whether in localities or nationally by a technical quirk of the electoral system.

This sounds awfully like confirmation of the accusations hurled at the SPGB by the ICC and on LibCom, YMS!That is, that the SPGB thinks that 'parliament' within a capitalist economy can be controlled by the proletariat.But, on the contrary, surely 'the revolutionary parts of the working class' will be embodied in Workers' Councils, not parliament? And that parliament will be merely a propaganda tool used during the non-revolutionary period, and will dissolve itself, because those worker-delegates (ie. Communist MPs) will be controlled by workers, who will now have their own proletarian political structures, once the workers' councils are in a position to supercede parliament?Your scenario leads me to believe that the concerns expressed by the ICC and on LibCom have some substance.I'm still unsure about this issue; perhaps I'm still missing some fundamental point, on either side. Do your views represent the SPGB? Will someone from the SPGB confirm or clarify these points?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority).  Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.

I should add, of course, that the situation could arise where the working class collectively and as a whole consciously deals with the capitalist class as a whiole, through some formal mechanism.  Not corporatism, but an open line of division say, between the democratic socialist majority's delegates and the CBI.

I don't recognise this scenario, YMS, as any sort of revolutionary situation.I've no intention of allowing the CBI to exist, never mind to negotiate with it! Or 'to govern within the limits of capitalism'!No money, no market. Production and distribution on the basis of need. What's the problem?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

At one time long ago i had this romantic idea that we form a International Brigade to liberate socialist minorities in 'medieval' backward countries. Having since visited some places i re-evaluated and just as medieval Calvinism existed in the Outer Hebrides (and Chapel in parts of Wales, i guess) long after it disappeared elsewhere and died its own death in its own time we will let that happen and meantime any who wish to exit such a region will receive a welcome and not be treated as a unwanted as a political refugee or asylum seeker currently is.

[my bold]Could you elaborate your thinking on this, please, ajj?To me, your analogy of 'medieval Calvinism' with 'remnants of capitalism' just doesn't seem apt. Surely the successful socialist majority across the world would openly and forcefully intervene, to destroy any remaining exploitative class relationships, anywhere on this planet? Small pockets of 'medieval Calvinism' didn't threaten wider capitalism, in either systemic or individual terms, and could be left to dissolve in time. But for us, even if it could be argued that small pockets of 'remnant capitalism' didn't threaten us systematically (and I'd be very wary of accepting this view), surely the presence of these exploitative socio-economic relations would harm those individuals left within those 'backward' structures?To focus the question, polemically, would we allow FGM to continue, just because some remnant cultures wanted it to continue?This issue of 'intervention' (whether "romantic International Brigade-like" or not), to destroy exploitative socio-economic structures (and their corresponding 'cultures'), needs much more further thought and discussion by Communists, I think.

ajj wrote:

i guess if a warlord (or a recalcitrant region) has in his clutches (as in Congo) highly sought after natural resource we will engage in barter. No lifestyle crisis for the rest of us in the rest of the world.

This almost seems like an 'I'm all right, Jack!' attitude, ajj!Surely we'd argue that , the earth being a common treasury, the 'warlord' would be expropriated by force, his exploited subjects liberated, educated and socialised into our Communist worldview, and the issue of 'natural resources' and their extraction would be decided democratically, taking into account our world ecology.The warlord would be the one facing a 'lifestyle crisis' (if not a 'life crisis'), not us, anyway! No 'barter' with thieves, no leaving 'the remnant exploited' to their fate, as long as it doesn't impact on our 'lifestyle'.No, intervention would be necessary, IMO.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I still think that social, political and economic conditions in Russia a hundred or more years were so vastly different from those that exist in Britain, most other European countries, North America, Australasia, Japan, etc that tactics derived from Tsarist Russia are not relevant for us today (and weren't then in Britain or North America either). So, discussing them is interesting but largely of historical or academic interest.

[my bold]Personally, I think this constant pre-occupation, with the Bolsheviks' experience during the Tsarist period, is one of the main factors why Communists during the 20th century have had less and less influence on other workers. It might have been relevant in some areas prior to WW2, but since then that period has become increasingly irrelevant to the problems (and potential solutions) of workers on this planet.We must learn to explain our ideas in contemporary terms, not those of the 19th or early 20th centuries. Some can be translated (Marx's gobbledegook is still useful, but needs updating and, most of all, explaining), but the ideas, context and experiences of Lenin and the Bolsheviks are as irrelevant and sleep-inducing to most, as are the minutiae of 8th century Vatican personalities and policies.I've nothing againgst 'historical and academic interests' (if fact, I think that they'll bloom under Communism), but they are not the political and ideological interests that should be our focus, in the present.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

After somebody accused us of accepting Lenin's view in What Is To Be Done? that left to itself the working class is capable of acquiring only a trade union consciousness and that socialist consciousness had therefore to be brought to them from outside the class struggle by "educators", one of our members retorted that it was them who were being Leninist as they assumed that while they were able to reach a socialist consciousness under capitalism the rest of the working class couldn't.

Yes, I'm always being accused, on the ICC site, of being a "pseudo-Leninist educator" (my phrase, I hasten to add, not theirs, but it sums up the 'charge' well), for arguing that the proletariat has to educate itself. That is, the working class has to consciously choose Communism.The next 'charge' (also levelled at the SPGB) is my wanting 'consciousness by individual accretion' (me again). Well, yeah, 'how else?'. They always mention 'mass consciousness', as if 'the mass' isn't individuals thinking for themselves.To sum up, I do believe that Communist propaganda must emerge from, be circulated around, and accepted by, the individuals who constitute the 'mass' of the working class. I'm a worker, and do a bit (far too little, perhaps) to help this development to take place, both on the internet, in pubs, in meetings, in work and in the bloody street with strangers, sometimes!Lenin was wrong. Communism is now in (sections of) the working class; it doesn't need 'help from outside'. That particular 'task from outside' was done in the 19th century, not least by Marx and Engels. The working class has since had the task itself of developing Communist class consciousness. It hasn't achieved this yet, but it has to do this itself, in the future. It might sometimes be the result of 'mass struggle' (in the sense of consciousness spreading quickly to many individuals), but more often the result of face-to-face debate and discussions between individual workers, until a 'critical mass' is achieved. This won't be 100%, but neither will it be 5% organised in a Leninist-style party. It has to be a mass Communist consciousness, prior to 'the big day'.Their argument of the 'material struggle' is related to their Engelsian conception of Marx's views. We've had some debate here about that, so I won't resurrect it now. Suffice to say, I think views of science and views of politics are interrelated.

ALB wrote:

We could have been even more philosophical and made more of the point (oft discussed here) that humans can't experience anything except via the mind. But I did discuss this with one of the visitors on the train back, who was a student of philosophy, who said he'd been tempted to make the same point.

Not 'via' the mind (that smacks of the origin being 'material reality', as for Engels and Leninists), but 'from' the mind. Humans creatively interact with 'reality', and build their social knowledge of the real.Humans create their knowledge of nature and society. That is why we can create Communism. Those who think that 'material conditions' will build Communism, are waiting for 'the rocks' to speak to us. That's why they've failed to bother trying to propagandise amongst their fellow workers. They don't need to, because, one fine day, the rocks will speak and workers will hear. Luckily, the Leninists can already hear these whispers (they have that sort of consciousness), and so can assure the rest of the class what is coming.Personally, I'm not surprised that workers haven't been taken in by this nonsense. I'm not anymore. To my shame, I once was, when I first tried to reject capitalism and went searching for 'Communists'. Whilst the first 'Communists' that workers, starting to ask questions, meet are Leninists/Trotskyists/Maoists, then the bourgeoisie have nothing to fear (from the proletariat, anyway; complete and utter collapse of human society, from social and environmental issues, is another fear entirely).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Notable is LBird's valiant efforts to put over a case similar to ours making the simple point that there is in fact no "total opposition" between participating in elections and "working in the autonomous organs created by the class struggle". But I don't think he's going to be able to convince the dogmatic anti-parliamentarists there to abandon their dogma and take a more reasonable approach.

My 'efforts', though, are directed to getting an informed discussion going, rather than simply 'supporting' the SPGB case. I'm still keen to see a proper exchange, rather than the building and destroying of 'straw men'.This is because I'm yet to be convinced, either way. Perhaps my conception of 'acceptable parliamentary action' isn't the same as the SPGB's official one, and perhaps my understanding of the relationship between 'parliamentary delegates' and 'workers' councils' isn't the same, either.As I say, I think many are in my position, of being unsure of 'just what it is' that both sides are saying…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The question of how socialist class consconsciousness arose also came up. At one point one of them came close to saying that workers had no need to hear or consider arguments for socialism as this would spontaneously arise from their experience of struggle at work. He later backtracked from this when it was asked why then did they publish a journal and pamphlets and hold meetings and conceded that an organisation putting over the case for socialism was necessary to hasten the growth of socialist (they call it communist) class consciousness.

[my bold]After many discussions with both Communists and Anarchists on LibCom and the ICC site, it's become clear to me that this is a central, fundamental, philosophical assumption which opponents both of parliamentary/electoral tactics and any political organisation at all have in common.That is, the belief that 'struggle leads to class consciousness'.I disagree with this, and think that 'struggle' alone (ie. any struggle which doesn't have widespread 'class consciousness' directing at it from the start) will lead down a non-Communist/Socialist road. The result of that struggle will not be Communism.If there is no (or very little) revolutionary consciousness and intent, it will go down bourgeois paths, and retain money and markets. If there is a wider (but still a small minority) consciousness, embodied in a 'party of revolutionaries', it will necessarily have to forego democracy, because democracy applied to a majority non-consciousness will lead to, yes, you've guessed it, money and markets. Thus, the result in this scenario will be undemocratic 'party rule' ('experts' who are 'in the know', both of science and society, an elitist technocracy), and we've seen where that leads during the 20th century.No, we must insist that mere 'struggle' (perhaps for higher wages, lower rents, tax increases for the rich, lead by Militant, etc.) will not lead to Communism. That outcome requires a class conscious proletariat, with a particular end in mind (ie. Communism). Struggle without an 'end' in mind will lead to Bernstein's road. After the 'revolutionary event', slow, evolutionary, reformist change, which will gradually remove money and the market…No, it won't. The revolution in workers' minds has to happen before the revolutionary event. That is, revolution is a long learning process, not just the capturing of political power. The event is the radical break, which ends the process, rather than a mere break in power, which initiates the process of developing consciousness.The market and money must be openly known to be the target of our destruction. While most workers still want money to spend as individuals in markets, they want capitalism, not Communism/Socialism. That aim must be the core of Communist propaganda, and workers must become Communists, because they can see that money and markets must be destroyed.They won't learn that in mere 'struggle', especially if the struggle is for 'higher wages'. Desire for higher wages is not class consciousness.

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

Ofsted's chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, told MPs that, as a former headteacher, he "saw the result of children being brought up badly by their parents" and communities should play more of a role in supporting problem families.

Wilshaw's yet another rich dickhead. Social analysis is beyond the thick.Why doesn't he 'see the result of' Cameron, Osbourne and Johnson 'being brought up badly by their parents'. Their parents (and other forebears) were thieves, who for generation after generation have been stealing our wealth. They brought up their little horrors to continue to ransack our society, and yet Wilshaw worries about a few 'problem families', who by comparison cause virtually no problems, and whose 'problems' will be easily remedied, given the economic and cultural resources.Our world community 'should play more of a role in expropriating problem families', not 'supporting' them."Wilshaw! Get to the back of the class, lad! And put on the pointy hat with the big 'D' on it…"

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird, my point was, though, to go closer to your own example, if people already have a mystified explanation for television, so you explain about components, structure and emergent properties, and then they go: "Ah, so that's where the pixies come in"……At some point though, if people don't want (or feel a need) to give up the Faeries…

Well, if they have difficulty believing that 'tellies aren't worked by pixies or Faeries' (I have my doubts that this is true for the vast majority), then the easy answer is to give another example which involves something that they do themselves, but which they already know isn't done by 'pixies or Faeries'.Say, for example, they collect various flowers and make them into a bouquet, which produces delight in others. Or, that they put their hat, scarf and coat on to produce weatherproofing, for their walk during the rain.Of course, if you're going to argue that you know people who say that pixies picked their mother's day present, rather than themselves, or that the Faeries dress them each winter's morn, we might have a big problem with them.Personally, I think most people will know some structures that are built by themselves, rather than elves/spirits.Once we've achieved that initial understanding, we can move on.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet, post #9, wrote:

TBH, it's normally the audience who make it over complicated by starting to split hairs, or introducing complex concepts that have been universally assimilated…

It's ironic that you wrote that, YMS, because that's exactly what you've done here:

YMS wrote:

LBird,the actual anaology, though, is rather like the people who believe that when their telly goes on the blink they need to say a prayer to God, spin thrice widdershins and then give the box a good thump on the right side. Trying to explain to them that it is a loose connexion that can be simply fixed would be met with a plaintive cry of 'But where God come into that solution?' Try telling them that they can thump it on the top or the left side would be met wiuth incredulity too.

The analogy is about components, structure and emergent properties. If someone doesn't understand the purpose of the analogy, all they need do is ask, and they can be provide with endless others, which don't involve 'on the blink', 'thumps' or 'loose connections'.Once they've understood that, we can move on. We haven't even really moved from the beginning of the explanation until we've done that.Really, it requires comrades who don't understand 'value' to take this process forward, and then we can see if it is working. I presume that you, YMS, already 'understand' value, so perhaps you're jumping too far ahead of the steps in the explanation.I've never said that some people don't understand 'value' just by reading chapters 1-3 of Capital, but I think that it's unarguable that most people don't. We need to try to remedy that. This attempt is really for that majority, not those who seem to be easily able to understand Marx's opaque ideas. I, for one, don't.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Sometimes we can't get our ideas across by simplifying them, because they conflict with these widely held beliefs.

I disagree with you, here, YMS. Everyone can understand that a disassembled TV spread in pieces across their lounge carpet will not produce a picture. That is the intial basis for the eventual understanding of 'value'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

TBH, it's normally the audience who make it over complicated by starting to split hairs, or introducing complex concepts that have been universally assimilated (things like barter lead to money and that sort of thing).

Yeah, you're right, but that happens because the 'audience' doesn't understand the terms/phrases/concepts that are being used to explain 'value', for example (but this applies to all of Marx's ideas). So, they 'split hairs', or introduce 'complex concepts' (but these are often simpler, in fact, for the audience) in a (usually) forlorn bid to try to understand what they're being told.IMO, it's better to start with concepts/ideas/things that they are already familiar with, and once they've got the jist of the method and its underpinnings, then move on to introduce the more unfamiliar Marxian concepts.After all, anyone can understand that if their telly is in bits scattered across their living room floor, then the picture reception by their TV will be terrible!These examples from real life can be given endlessly [please try this for yourselves at home, at this point, comrades], until we generalise from these to give them more 'complex' names: 'bits' are 'components'; telly is 'structure'; and 'picture reception' is an 'emergent property'. After lots of example of all sorts of bits, things made of bits in a particular arrangement, and the effects they then (and only then) produce, we will have prepared for the $64,000 issue.It can't be predicted that hydrogen and oxygen, when combined in a specific chemical relationship, will produce wetness for humans. We could tell the story of the bourgeois firefighters who didn't believe in 'components/structures/emergent properties', and simply poured hydrogen and oxygen onto the raging house fire. We will even predict that the fire didn't go out. This example will go with a bang.Then when we say commodities are related to each other within a socio-economic structure, and this specific structure produces the dangerous emergent property of 'value', they will at least have a chance of getting a 'hook' into what we're saying.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

David Harvey’s naive flounderings in defence of Marxian value are on a par with LBird’s…

Yeah, thank god we have your concise and clear expositions on both 'value' and 'science', twc.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Here's a link to the last time I tried to explain value. My hesitant attempts to get a group of Communists to discuss a way of explaining 'value', in terms that workers unfamiliar with Marx's language could follow, soon ran into the sand. And it wasn't the first time: LibCom was the same.http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/derek-lorenz/6074/capital-best-way-read-it

Thanks for that. It is an interesting approach you suggest but I think it unecessarily complicates things, especially at an early stage. I think comment 21 in that thread sums up my personal feeling about that quite well…

Yeah, to me (alone, apparently!), it seems that to describe a watch, containing watch components in the correct relationship, that allows us to 'tell the time', is an easy way to start to understand 'value'.That is, only when the components of a structure are put together in a specific inter-relationship does that structure produce an emergent property.Or, when the parts of a telly are left lying around on the floor, they don't allow us to watch TV programmes. Or, a castle (with its defence capabilities) is 'bricks, mortar and a drawbridge' built in a certain geographic location which allows the king to dominate his land.This seems a good didactic approach to me, and allows us Communists to begin to explain social stuctures and socio-economic concepts, like Marx's 'value'. But, as with 'comment 21 in that thread', you and LoneLondoner (and many others) disagree with me.All I can say in reply, is that we Communists are not getting our message across to the working class. Marx has been dead 130 years, and most proletarians don't know anything about 'capitalism', never mind 'value'. One way to explain this is to say that 'it's all too difficult for workers to understand, and it should be left to those who have the time and energy to study Capital'. But it seems to me that this leads to the Leninist conception of consciousness, organisation and revolution. Surely the SPGB, which stresses the need for the widest democratic control by workers, should be looking for a way to explain these issues to workers?Simply repeating Marx's words does not work, as a method.

[Author]

Posts