[LBird]

ALB wrote:

We don't think much of Holloway's politics, but perhaps this will help:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1274-october-2010/book-reviews

Thanks for that review, ALB. I, too (without having read them in depth, yet) am very doubtful so far about Holloway's politics.But the chapters that I'm reading, regarding our ongoing discussions about 'science', seem to me to be full of interesting and (relatively) easily understood points.Plus, I don't think that the politics of Holloway necessarily flow from his undertanding of 'science'.  I think that his philosophy excludes some sorts of politics and 'scientific method' (Engels?, Lenin?) but it doesn't determine those to be adopted. There are other factors involved, I think. Perhaps more discussion between us all will help to tease out some more understanding on our part.I hope we can continue with this, because personally I'm gaining great benefit. I hope others are, too.

[LBird]

The text above (containing the quote) from Holloway is actually chapter 7 taken from his book Change the World Without Taking Power.http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745329185I’ve also found an interesting quote from Lukacs in the previous chapter, which might give food for thought on our discussions about the ‘material’.

Lukacs, quoted by Holloway, p. 107, wrote:

[science’s] underlying material base is permitted to dwell inviolate and undisturbed in its irrationality (‘non-createdness’, ‘givenness’) so that it becomes possible to operate with unproblematic, rational categories in the resulting methodically purified world. These categories are then applied not to the real material substratum… but to an ‘intelligible’ subject matter.

Clearly, this is relevant to our recent discussions regarding the active human ‘creation’ of ‘scientific knowledge’, rather than this knowledge being just a reflection of a ‘material base’, as naïve realists would have it, following Engels and 19th century positivist science. I’ve quoted Pannekoek enough times already to the effect that he sees ‘scientific laws’, etc., as a human creation, not as ‘material truths’ uncovered by ‘discovery science’.Furthermore, Holloway goes on to discuss the history behind the notion of ‘the creation of knowledge’.

Holloway, p. 109, wrote:

The eighteenth century philosopher Giambattista Vico formulated the link between understanding and making with particular force when he made his central principle the idea that verum et factum convertuntur: the true and the made are interchangeable, so that we can only know for certain that which we have created. An object of knowledge can only be fully known to the extent that it is the creation of the knowing subject. The link between knowledge and creation is central for Hegel, for whom the subject-object of knowledge-creation is the movement of absolute spirit, but it is with Marx that the verum-factum principle acquires full critical force.

[my bold]I think this is very interesting and relevant, and if comrades have any comments, critical or supportive, I’d be keen to read them. I’m certainly aware that I don’t fully understand these issues, but participating on these threads has definitely helped me to progress. I hope that it’s helping other comrades, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid he won't be able to reply for a week as he's been suspended.

Why doesn't that come as a surprise?But I hope you didn't use the word 'suspension' to him, it's a bit big.He's probably able to cope with 'ban', though, if spelt slowly. Buhh, ahh, nuhh.Wonder if he'll ever stretch to 'manners', both the word and the concept?

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Your petulant response didn't contain any.

Christ, you have got an attitude problem, haven't you?I'll leave it to the other comrades to explain to you in small words.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

…will it also lead to a reduction in productivity and society's ability to produce abundance…

You'd need to define and contextualise both 'productivity' and 'adundance', Vin, to answer this 'central' question.Reduced 'productivity' doesn't necessarily lead to lack of 'abundance'.They are both socially-determined concepts, not absolutes.And we can't assumed that the 'removal of the division of labour' will lead to 'reduction in productivity'.

VM wrote:

If there is no opinion on this, then fair enough but I would have thought it central to our case

Oh, there's always 'opinions', comrade!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course, but now you're changing the meaning of the word "proletarian".

Couldn't it be that you are misunderstanding my use of the word?

ALB wrote:

Originally, you used it to refer to the sort of democracy that would obtain in a classless, socialist/communist society (extending beyond administration to the workplace). Now you are using it to refer to working-class organisation within capitalism. In which case "proletarian democracy" simply means workers organising democratically. Good idea.

Yes?Surely the political methods we develop during the class struggle will prefigure socialist/communist society? In the context of an answer for admice, doesn't this suffice? So, 'originally' and 'now' are the same concept?

ALB wrote:

We've got to be able to put over the case in simple everyday language…

Yes.Who's complicating matters?

ALB wrote:

"Economic democracy" has its drawbacks too as it could suggest "one person, one vote" in enterprises producing for the market, e.g. co-operatives.

Yes, every explanation 'has its drawbacks', but if admice asks for clarification, we can give it.'Economic democracy' as a constrast to mere 'political democracy' is an easy way of explaining Communism to those workers who are starting to ask questions. It 'deepens' democracy, which workers are in favour of (and are opposed to the Stalinists, as are we), but shows that mere 'democracy' once every five years is not good enough. We want democracy every day of our lives. Detailed commentary and criticism about pre- and post-revolutionary methods can come later, when the questioner wants to move onto that.

ADM wrote:

We'll get it right in the end. Society-wide participatory democracy? Or even "true democracy"?

Yeah, but now we need the input of admice, and other newcomers, to enter the conversation with their opinions. 'Getting it right' is a task for all of us.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Fair enough it's only words, but I'm still not convinced that "proletarian democracy" is the best way of describing the opposite to "bourgeois democracy"…

Yeah, I'm trying to use 'words' to explain – if there is a better way than mine that gives a suitable explanation, I'm ready to learn! Really, in this context, it will take admice to say whether my explanation was useful or confusing.

ALB wrote:

… (still because there will no longer be a proletariat when it's achieved).

Surely there'll be 'democratic organisation' within the proletariat prior to the 'glorious day'? I think we should contrast the two forms of 'democracy' which to some extent will be operating together for some period during the class struggle.

ALB wrote:

In fact, I'm not even convinced that "bourgeois democracy" is the right word either (too dismissive, as one person, one vote is an important gain for workers).

Well, it's not 'dismissive' of the 'one person, one vote' concept, but of the fact that it only applies to 'politics' and not 'economics'.

ALB wrote:

The contrast is between limited, "political democracy" and full, dare I say it, "social democracy".

Once more, perhaps a matter of 'only words', but I prefer the term 'economic democracy', because all workers can understand that they'll be running their workplace. 'Social democracy', in contrast, sounds a bit hippy-ish, let's be 'social' and nice to each other.At the end of the day, we all want the best explanations to help develop the consciousness of the proletariat. And ourselves.

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

No, L, there's a false step in your logic, there. The notion that 'potential' doesn't need to be quantified doesn't preclude it from being – to a lesser or greater extent – socially determined.

Whoever's 'logic' you're talking about, J, it's not mine. I haven't mentioned 'quantified' or 'quantifying'.

JC wrote:

The important point for socialists, however, is that a society such as the one that we envisage will allow people to flourish to the best of their abilities.

But… are 'abilities' mainly 'socially' or 'materially' determined?I think 'socially'. Their 'best' is a social product.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

There's also the limitations of the circumstances we will find ourselves in regarding the reorganisation of the present authoritive institutions. Do we let them continue with their agreed procedures and processes when in most cases they are geared towards filtering and selecting subjects of a capitalist nature? Or does the review and assessment of these civic bodies take place during the run up to the revolutionary transformation of political power, or after the social relationships of capitalism have been abolished?

If by 'authoritative institutions' and 'civic bodies', Brian, you mean 'educational structures', I think that new ones will begin to emerge 'during the run up'. It's becoming clear that the present bourgeois universities are no longer fit for purpose, even for the bourgeoisie, never mind us! Critical thinking is no longer taught, and there seems to already be some resistance by students and academics to this loss. Of course, the managers and financiers within the universities are presently happy, but it can't last.I would imagine that the emergence of proletarian educational structures would mark a big step on the path to 'revolutionary transformation'. I think that there is already a growing demand by students for critical thought, and perhaps the only way they are going to get it is through non-formal, non-state, bodies.Democracy within education would of course play a central part in these new structures. Unless Jonathan is right about the 'material basis' of the IQ of professors!I don't think so!

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

I don't think that anyone needs to determine what, precisely, 'potential' either is or consists of. That smacks of authoritarianism, it seems to me.

So, if no human 'needs to determine' it, then 'potential' can't be socially-based.Which thus leads to the question 'what does determine potential?'.

JC wrote:

So far as the limits of potential are concerned, well, the material world will sort that out soon enough.Not sure about the genes/society question.

Hmmmm… seems to be 'genes', or some other 'Borisian' material (as opposed to socially malleable) factor, is what you have in mind, Jonathan.On the contrary, though, I think potential is mostly social, and certainly social is of more importance than 'genes' or an unchangeable 'material world'.

[LBird]

I've just come across this text, and I'm still working my way through it.The Tradition of Scientific Marxism, by John Holloway.http://marxmyths.org/john-holloway/article.htmBut here is an excerpt which is to my political and scientific taste:

Holloway wrote:

The notion of Marxism as scientific socialism has two aspects. In Engels’ account there is a double objectivity. Marxism is objective, certain, ‘scientific’ knowledge of an objective, inevitable process. Marxism is understood as scientific in the sense that it has understood correctly the laws of motion of a historical process taking place independently of men’s will. All that is left for Marxists to do is to fill in the details, to apply the scientific understanding of history.The attraction of the conception of Marxism as a scientifically objective theory of revolution for those who were dedicating their lives to struggle against capitalism is obvious. It provided not just a coherent conception of historical movement, but also enormous moral support: whatever reverses might be suffered, history was on our side. The enormous force of the Engelsian conception and the importance of its role in the struggles of that time should not be overlooked. At the same time, however, both aspects of the concept of scientific socialism (objective knowledge, objective process) pose enormous problems for the development of Marxism as a theory of struggle.If Marxism is understood as the correct, objective, scientific knowledge of history, then this begs the question, ‘who says so?’ Who holds the correct knowledge and how did they gain that knowledge? Who is the subject of the knowledge? The notion of Marxism as ‘science’ implies a distinction between those who know and those who do not know, a distinction between those who have true consciousness and those who have false consciousness.This distinction immediately poses both epistemological and organisational problems. Political debate becomes focussed on the question of ‘correctness’ and the ‘correct line’. But how do we know (and how do they know) that the knowledge of ‘those who know’ is correct? How can the knowers (party, intellectuals or whatever) be said to have transcended the conditions of their social time and place in such a way as to have gained a privileged knowledge of historical movement? Perhaps even more important politically: if a distinction is to be made between those who know and those who do not, and if understanding or knowledge is seen as important in guiding the political struggle, then what is to be the organisational relation between the knowers and the others (the masses)? Are those in the know to lead and educate the masses (as in the concept of the vanguard party) or is a communist revolution necessarily the work of the masses themselves (as ‘left communists’ such as Pannekoek maintained)? .

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

'proletarian democracy'

Shouldn't this be "socialist" or "communist" democracy as by then the "proletariat" will have disappeared or, more precisely, will have abolished itself and all other classes by having made the means of production the common heritage of all?

As a contrast to 'bourgeois democracy' in an explanation tailored for admice's question, I think it'll do.Furthermore, what would we call our political method this side of the 'glorious day'?'Proto-communist democracy'?Nah, 'proletarian democracy', as a contrast to the current lie of 'parliamentary democracy', is easily understood by workers first coming to our Communist politics. It clearly separates us, too, from the Soviet Union, Maoist China and Castro's Cuba.'Democratic Kampuchea' might cause some confused comment, though!Ahhhh…. the essential fragrance of Pol Pot Pourri…

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Brian wrote:

…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community? 

 Of course.  But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.

The real issue is:'Who or what determines what 'potential' consists of and how it is realised, and who or what determines its 'limits'?'For example, the answer could be 'genes' or could be 'society'. And if 'society', it could be a 'minority social authority' or a 'majority social authority'.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

I personally would welcome any contribution you care to make regarding how we go about peeling the onion even if it occasionally brings tears to my eyes.

[my extended bold]It might bring tears to your eyes, Brian, to realise that you've answered your own philosophical question!Simply put, 'We'. Active humanity.The 'onion' doesn't disrobe itself to the passive viewer, as positivist science, Engels, Dialectical Materialism, and 'common sense', popular science, all seem to believe.And once we say 'We', we say 'Society'. And drag in politics, ideology, class, etc.There is no neutral scientific method that allows the onion to present itself unbidden.Anyone who says that 'there is' is trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes. That includes Leninist parties and bourgeois scientists.

[LBird]

admice wrote:

If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^

If we define 'bourgeois democracy' to be 'in politics, one person one vote; in economics, one dollar, one vote'and we define 'proletarian democracy' to be 'in both politics and economics, one person one vote'and, furthermore, regard your 'true democracy' as the latter, then I think we can 'guarantee it will remain socialist'.Once 'true democracy' has been achieved, why would a majority of people then choose to return to minority power? That is, to again allow the rich to determine how our wealth, which is produced in common by us all, should be spent on their private interests, rather than on our public interests?I think you'd be forced to argue, admice, that this could only happen if most people were stupid.This is precisely what conservatives do argue. Ask Boris Johnson.

[Author]

Posts