LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:Unless I have seriously misread him, he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not , it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material reality, before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind but an objective organisational reality…
I have the sinking feeling here, robbo, that your use of the philosophical categories 'materal' and 'objective' might be very different to those that I think that Marx used. Your usage suggests, to me, Engels' science, rather than Marx's. But we've had a number of recent discussions about these issues, and I'm sure that both me and everyone else has had enough of that debate, for now at least.Please take my absence of a longer reply, not as ignoring your reasonable post, but as current exhaustion about discussing this.If you feel compelled to resurrect this debate, could you read some of the other relevant threads first, to get some feel for my position, and then I will be pleased to answer any questions you have. Cheers, comrade.Apologies if I've misunderstood you.
pgb wrote:Yes, but what is the significance of this in light of the discussion on this thread?You must be on a different thread to me, pgb!
Some info from The Independent:
Quote:The thing he did for us was to bring people together. White and black – we are not hating each other any more,” said 65-year-old Daniel Lethoalo, a retired driver who lives a couple of doors from where Mandela once lodged. “But the difference between rich and poor is still the same. That has not changed".[my bold]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-has-not-changed-as-south-africa-mourns-its-most-deprived-say-that-nelson-mandelas-vision-has-not-been-realised-8990868.html
Marx, quoted and bolded by robbo203, wrote:We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces, and because the contradiction between the classes has reached its extreme limit. Finally, we have shown that the abolition of private property and of the division of labour is itself the association of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse.robbo203 wrote:If Marx was right in thinking this what are the implications of such an insight for the establishment of socialism? Is the nature of work under capitalism being transformed in such a way as to foster the "all round development of individuals" that would allow them to appropriate the productive forces?Surely the task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'. Indeed, the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.So, it's not so much 'the nature of work under capitalism', but the criticism of 'the nature of work under capitalism' that is able to be developed only due to the prior existence of that 'nature'. Communism requires an active and critical proletariat to develop within capitalist relations of production.The 'all-round development of individuals' is our own task, and the fulfilling of that task itself will prove us to be fitted to move to Communism.
robbo203 wrote:The psychological effect of what is a kind of de facto divide and rule strategy in terms of promoting job consciousness at the expense of class consciousness, would seem on the face of it, to be somewhat discouraging from a revolutionary socialist perspective. Or am I being unduly pessimistic?Workers themselves have to see through the 'job consciousness'; surely it can't be long before students (many now from a proletarian background) start to see through the myth that the purpose of 'education' is to 'get a job', rather than its real purpose of 'teaching critical thought'. Indeed, there have been some straws in the wind recently, in 'economics' departments, at least. So, I don't think you're being 'pessimistic', just 'realistic' at the present. Time will tell, if workers will start to see through the 'work for shit wages, in a shit job, to consume shite' propaganda put forward by the ruling class.
pgb wrote:BTW, what do you find objectionable in concepts such as rights, equality, freedom and peace?I don't think any Communist finds these concepts 'objectionable'.We'd like to see them. In the economy. Where they would actually count.The introduction of these concepts into the polity might be welcome, but it's not Communism.If you're arguing for 'fairer capitalism', pgb, that's fine by me. But I'm a Communist, and want to see the destruction of capitalism, markets, wage-labour, etc., and the emergence of a democratic control of the world economy. If that's 'reductionism', I plead guilty!
pgb wrote:I have seen no evidence that he was dishonest (lying)…No-one on this thread has suggested that Mandela was 'lying', pgb. By all accounts, he was a honest man.
pgb wrote:If this is where class analysis takes you, I humbly suggest you find a new method.And I humbly suggest that you re-read this thread, and follow up some of the links provided, and also go to other Communist sites to find out what other revolutionaries are saying about Mandela. I think you'll find that it is your 'analysis' that is out-of-step with the majority.I agree with you that 'this is where class analysis takes us', but, in contrast to you, I'm content with the findings of this method. I think its findings quite accurately describe the society of South Africa, for Communists.If you're not a Communist, no doubt you employ a different method (liberalism?), which will give you different results. For Communists, the concept of 'exploitation' plays a central part of understanding any society. You don't seem to agree with the importance of this concept, and focus on 'rights', 'equality', 'freedom' and 'peace'.In our opinion, there are no rights, equality, freedom or peace in the exploitative socio-economic structures of South Africa. The rich still take the wealth from the producers, by violence when necessary.Mandela did not change those structures; if anything, his political actions have strengthened them.
Vin Maratty wrote:One of Mandela's great achievements : black miners are now shot dead by black police.Oh, let's be fair, Vin! The black police would shoot white strikers, too!The police are now morally colourless in their treatment of workers!It's what liberals all over the world demand. Fair policing. Mandela Morality.
ALB wrote:Yes, I suppose the tone of this thread is a bit churlish considering the man spent 27 years in prison…I wouldn't call it 'churlish', ALB, more being realistic or accurate.I think we all accept he was a very brave man, who suffered and achieved more than any of us will as individuals, but I think it's important for Communists to challenge the myth that he was some sort of Socialist/Communist.He suffered for his class, and achieved for his class. He was a great class warrior, who has ensured the strengthening of class rule in South Africa. The great gold and gem magnates have slept sounder in their beds since 1990, whilst the workers are still shot by police officers for striking and peacefully protesting.Plus ca change…
pgb wrote:Mandela finished his law degree while in prison where he was locked up for 27 years. Does this incarceration redeem him in your eyes and thus give him a sort of "moral equivalence" to all those workers of the developed world who you suggest don't have the same opportunity as Mandela had to become lawyers (not true BTW in my part of the world)? And what are these "ill-gotten gains" you refer to? And what "class" are you referring to? He was born the son a a tribal chief (not wealthy by the standards of Whites in Apartheid South Africa). Surely you are not suggesting he was a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie!Are you a Communist, pgb? I'm afraid I am.I use class analysis to try to understand the exploitative structures of society, rather than 'moral' categories.He wasn't 'incarcerated' for trying to smash exploitative structures – he was gaoled for trying to ensure that rich blacks had the same access to those structures that rich whites had. He succeeded, and is praised by bosses of all colours throughout the world for doing it.And 'Yes!', I am "suggesting he was a paid up member of a black bourgeoisie!". That suggestion is based upon class analysis, not 'moral equivalence'.As to your ignorance of the 'ill-gotten gains' of the South African bourgeoisie, and of the life-chances of workers 'in your part of the world', perhaps that's best left to other comrades to comment upon. I can only say that if you are a Communist, I'm surprised at your claims.
Vin Maratty wrote:Interesting quote of Mandela that may sound familiar. "It is not the kings and generals that make history but the masses of the people, the workers, the peasants…"Perhaps if he'd given a less 'familiar' quote, it would be even more 'interesting' to the workers of the world:"It is not the kings and generals that make wealth but the masses of the people, the workers, the peasants…"He came from a wealthy background, and became a lawyer (something still realistically out of reach for most workers in the 'first world' like the UK) under Apartheid.He was never going to share the ill-gotten gains of his class, just to share platitudes about 'people'. He wanted his class, black and white, to share the wealth amongst his own class more 'colourlessly'.
Vin Maratty wrote:If this is difficult to understand simply replace 'capitalist' with 'slave' or even 'wage slave'. He did not free 'his' people; they remain exploited and poor. Capitalist propaganda will never pull the wool over the eyes of class consious workers. We see right through it all.At a SWSS meeting in 1987 about Apartheid at my Poly, we had a black guy from South Africa in attendance. He was (not surprisingly) very sympathetic to Mandela (and by implication Mandela's politics). I pointed out to him that Mandela wanted 'black capitalism' rather than workers' power, that the future would bear me out, and based my opinion on the historical development of other African states since the 'Winds of Change' started blowing in the late '50s.He looked a bit shocked (don't forget, Mandela was still in prison), but nevertheless listened, and seemed to be weighing up some confusing information which he'd never had before. He didn't say much, though. On the other hand, the SWP members were openly pissed off at me, perhaps because they thought my 'unwelcome' intervention would drive away a potential recruit.I often wonder if that worker ever thought back to what I said, and started to use a class, rather than a black nationalist, analysis of his society.Anyway, now that Mandela has gone, I wonder if his legacy will begin to be questioned by the workers of South Africa and elsewhere?
admice wrote:Stop being a trollI'm asking you to reveal your ideology, admice.Do you believe in 'markets' as a means of distributing goods?If you do, then you'll misunderstand the position of Communists. We're opposed to 'markets'. We want democracy, not 'one dollar, one vote'.
BTSomerset wrote:The Post-Crash Economics Society at Manchester University has just been discussed on Radio 4 news this morning, with one commentator worried that 'the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater' if economics courses are redesigned.The real theoretical problem here is the very name of the group. There is no such activity or study as 'economics'. That, itself, is an ideological choice, to call the society an 'economics' group.They should immediately rename it 'The Post-Crash Socio-Economics Society'.Then the clowns worrying about the 'bathwater' will be told that the 'baby' has been reintroduced, not 'thrown out'.'Economics' is the study of 'bathwater'. The sooner these dim academics learn what any worker already knows, the better for their universities.
admice wrote:And this is one of the crucial issues and why I and many others thinks some kind of market would develop. Not capitalism, necessarily, but a market.The real 'crucial issue', admice, is what 'you and many others think' that a market is actually for.Put simply, liberals focus on individual choice and distribution, and see the market as a fair way of ensuring that individuals get what they want. The extreme libertarians argue that 'markets' can be separated from capitalism, but that is (as usual for the right) an ahistorical analysis, which ignores the commodification of labour-power.On the contrary, communists focus on socio-economic structures, and see the market as a mechanism for transferring wealth from the producers to the rich.It's your choice, about which ideology you choose to use to help you understand the world in which you live.Although, if you think that 'markets' lead to free choice for consumers, why not stick with what we've got now? On our part, we think that the evidence shows that wealth is flowing to the rich through the market mechanism.All forms of 'market' must be smashed, and democracy introduced into the economy.
admice wrote:I didn't get a satisfactory answer yet about how socialism will address me wanting a different kind of house, a friend wanting chocolate with lavender. How does it not become dicatated what you can and can't have? I sculpt. What if 1000 people want my sculptures? How do we decide distribution? Or pick your own example, hopefully you get the point.Aren't you and your friend, together with all your other co-producers of our wealth, like us, able to discuss and decide, as a community?Plus, the word 'dictated' shows worrying signs of extreme individualism. Don't you think democracy is a suitable system of decision-making?If you want the 'freedom' to ignore the wishes of your comrades, why not just become a billionaire? That's the 'freedom' you already have now. Billionaires always stress 'freedom of choice'; I wonder why you'd repeat their ideological views?
Vin Maratty wrote:We criticise capitalism for its D of L but will socialism continue with it? I am probably not making myself clear which is why I ask for clarity.Surely some sort of natural D of L exists in the desires of every individual?By that, I mean that we all have our own strengths, weaknesses, aptitudes and inclinations, so that no-one wants to do or be everything.But a better society would try to extend our interests and inclinations, and challenge us to develop into areas of which we are initially reluctant, and to build upon our weaknesses so that new doors are opened to all.After all, most of us don't know if we'll be good at brain surgery, for example, and this society doesn't try to open up that particular field to all, with the necessary education and training. That doesn't mean that all will have to study this field, but that it will be open to exploration for all.Perhaps what we want is a chosen D of L, rather than a compulsory one, as we have now under capitalism, where square pegs are forced into round holes.Square pegs in square holes, round pegs in round holes, and the choice to migrate from one's 'squareness' to a new 'roundness', and vice versa!
