LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Marx and Lenin’s views contrasted”?
It’s a very easy to make the political distinction between their views.
Marx argued that the vast majority of humanity should be democratically involved in their own social production, whereas Lenin argued that there was an elite with a ‘special consciousness’ who should direct the social production of the majority, and thus democratic social production wasn’t needed.
If one is a democrat and a communist, one can’t look to any of Lenin’s political ideas.
Obviously, this also includes Lenin’s views on ‘science’, which are standard 19th century bourgeois views.
Einstein (quoted by ALB) “The intelligence and character of the masses are unquestionably lower than the intelligence and character of the few who produce something valuable for the community.”
Yes, Einstein was a bog-standard ‘materialist’ (as Marx pointed out their key political trait in his Theses on Feuerbach), who later rejected his own work in physics, because his theory of relativity undermined ‘materialism’, as many other physicists soon realised.
Our political choice in physics is either ‘elite knowledge’ or ‘democratic epistemology’.
All ‘materialists’, without fail, choose ‘elite knowledge’. Like Einstein, given a choice between ‘mass activity’ or ‘elite reflection’, when determining ‘truth’ in ‘nature’, the ‘materialists’ will choose ‘elite reflection’.
Marx pointed this out in 1845.
Bourgeois physics caught up in 1915.
‘Materialists’ in 2020? Still faithful to the elite.
robbo, if you (or anyone else) is minded to look further into the Brenner/Wood thesis, and explore the differences between ‘Political Marxism’ (idealism-materialism) and ‘Orthodox Marxism’ (materialism), have a read of:
The Origin of Capitalism in England 1400-1600 by Spencer Dimmock, Haymarket (2015), which is part of the Historical Materialism book series.
robbo203 wrote: “Yes I for one would go along with this. Ellen Meiksins Wood & Brenner’s “agrarian-origins-of -capitalism” seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for the rise of capitalism”
I know that this will come as an unwelcome post, robbo, but here goes!
Brenner and Wood are proponents of what I’ve called ‘idealism-materialism’.
That’s why the ‘materialist’ SWP has argued so vehemently against their ‘Political Marxism’. This is opposed to a ‘materialist’ viewpoint of ‘Economic Marxism’.
The difference is simple: for ‘Political Marxism’, consciousness carries as much weight as ‘reality’. That is, political, social, historical and ideological factors play as much of a part in explanations as ‘current reality’. Again, there is no determinism, that ‘Feudalism’ must lead to ‘Capitalism’. For Brenner and Wood, it’s entirely historically possible that capitalism wouldn’t have emerged in the English countryside, or at all.
The reason for the ‘materialist’ SWP’s opposition, of course, is political.
If the ‘materialists’ can’t claim to ‘know truth’ (and so discern the course of the past, present and future), then their elite party has no purchase over the working class.
You’re fishing in very complex philosophical waters, by accepting Brenner and Wood’s version of Marx.
Wez wrote: “As I’ve made clear on innumerable occasions I, along with C. Hill, believe that the merchant class bought up a lot of land to convert it into a capitalist enterprise – this was much resented by the conservative landowners. Some of them converted their own land into capitalist farms but those who did not still relied on feudal tenure and joined the king’s cause. DJP seems to think that there’s something different about ‘rural’ capitalists whereas I thought, as merchants, financiers, pirates and slavers they were the same old bourgeoisie.”
As I and others have recommended, Wez, you should read E. M. Wood’s book.
It seems to me that you regard ‘merchants’ as the source of ‘capitalist’ relations, and so their buying of land produced those social relations in the English countryside.
On the contrary, Wood (and Brenner originally) argue that ‘capitalist’ social relations emerged in the English countryside, amongst very large landowners and tenant farmers (because of very specific, long term, political and socio-historical reasons, dating back to the pre-Norman period, and developed by the Normans, and exacerbated by the Black Death). That is, the ‘commercial bourgeoisie’ were not the source of ‘capitalism’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Or AMP?”
alan, you might want to read a good critique of the whole concept of Marx’s ‘Asiatic Mode of Production’, in:
Lineages of the Absolutist State by Perry Anderson (1979), esp. pp. 462-95.
Thanks too, L.B.
If I had to put my finger on the difference between us, it’s that, as a Democratic Communist, I have to espouse an ideology that allows for the democratic control of ‘matter’.
This political aim isn’t, from what I can tell, part of your problematic. Which is fair enough, most people on this planet, at present, don’t want democratic control of ‘matter’.
But, this political aim is a fundamental part of the socialist project – if humanity as a whole, employing democratic methods, doesn’t control ‘matter’, who does? The answer must be an elite. Even if that ‘elite’ is the isolated, biological individual, the Robinsonade, as Marx called them, who, simply by ‘kicking their toe against a rock’, can assure themselves that they, as an individual, ‘know reality’. No need to educate oneself about history, society, science, politics, philosophy… just a kick, and all that need for political self-education as a class simply goes away!
Well, L.B. if you’re satisfied with ‘the physical’ as the last word… as I said, ‘the democratic production of the physical’ isn’t part of your ideology, so that’s fine for you. 😛
L.B. Neill wrote: “Mental and the material is like saying: how do we tell the dancer from the dance. Matter will exist even if we fail to even see it…”
But your second sentence contradicts your first, L.B.
The second says (in effect) ‘the dance will exist without the dancer‘.
This is the whole point of post-Kantian, German Idealist, and Marx’s philosophy. There has to be a ‘dancer’, in any account of ‘the dance’.
There isn’t a ‘dance’ simply ‘out there’, taking place without ‘the dancer’.
It’s been pointed out by many philosophers that ‘materialism’ is, ironically, a form of ‘idealism’.
Materialism simply replaces ‘god’ as the active dancer, with ‘matter’ as the active dancer. As Marx realised, both regard ‘humanity’ as the passive element.
For Marx, ‘the dance’ is a social product, and ‘the dancer’ is humanity. Both idealism and materialism deny this. Again, as Marx pointed out, if the ideology pretends that humanity is the passive element, it has to smuggle in human activity for an elite: hence, either ‘priests’ or ‘scientists’, who are outside of any democratic controls.
Lenin’s ‘party consciousness’ also provided this elite, separated from the political control of the whole class. That’s why Lenin defended ‘materialism’ to the death.
ALB wrote: “What is annoying is that he drags in Marx who never dabbled in such ideas and attributes them to him”
Marx certainly did ‘dabble in’ democratic social production.
Only the bourgeoisie separate ‘nature’ from ‘society’ – Marx certainly didn’t. ‘Nature’ separate from ‘Society’ is a ruling class idea.
It’s as if you’ve never actually read Marx, ALB!
Good luck with ‘the physical’! It’s as if Marx never wrote a word that you understand.
‘Value’ and ‘Matter’ are social creations, and we can change them. We do not need to ‘contemplate’ them.
If a ‘biological individual’ can determine ‘matter’, then a ‘biological individual’ can determine ‘value’.
Your ideology and politics are suitable for bourgeois economics and bourgeois science. ‘Value/Matter’ is regarded by you as an individual estimation, rather than a social product, which we can change.
It must be very annoying for you to keep reading about Marx and Democratic Communism, ALB, but this is your future. You’re going to have to come out of the 18th century, reject bourgeois ruling class ideas, and embrace democracy.
Isn’t that what the SPGB is supposed to be about? Why keep denying democracy?
L.B. Neill wrote: “It is an example you ask for. And hope my tired attempts help (it has been a long year).
Stay safe
LB”
Thanks – in fact, you gave several examples!
It’s clear to me that we’re very far apart in our respective views about society, reality and science.
My views flow from Marx – I’m a Democratic Communist, so my views about all three of those start from the need for a political theory that stresses ‘democratic social production‘.
I don’t think that looking to ‘individual biological opinion‘ is useful in any of these areas.
I believe that society, reality and science are socio-historical productions, so that they can always be located in specific societies at specific times. I don’t agree that there are any ‘universal’ or ‘absolute’ things or ‘stuff’, about which the bourgeoisie has, for the first time in human history, been given a way to this ‘absolute’.
Ironically, given that you declare that you are a postmodernist (in some way), many of your statements above (like ‘stubbing your toe’ and ‘reality’) show that you have far more in common with the materialists here, than the Marxists!
It would be very interesting to explore this affinity of postmodernism with materialism, and the complete absence in both of any mention of ‘democracy’ when determining ‘reality’, but perhaps we’ve gone as far we can, on this forum.
Thanks again, L.B., for an enlightening discussion.
L. B. Neill wrote: “I said I use post modern theory- I did not say I am form my World View by it- they are just tools.”
Thanks for being honest about your ideology, L. B. At least we all know both yours and mine.
It’d be interesting and informative, though, to ask what ideology does form your ‘World View’?
The answer from me is Marx.
To be clear, Marx’s ideas form both my ‘Science View’ and my ‘World View’.
I’m not sure that there is a difference, but I’m prepared to employ your concepts to give a clear answer.
And… ‘tools’… what other ‘tools’ do you employ, then, other than ‘post structural ideas’ and ‘post modern theory’?
What are your criteria for picking up any ‘tool’, as opposed to any other ‘tool’?
Thomas More wrote: “So Wez, you must think the bourgeoisie led the revolutions in Japan, Russia and China?”
Thomas, if you haven’t already read it, you might be interested in:
Revolution from above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and Peru by Ellen Kay Trimberger (1978)
L. B. Neil wrote: “I use post structural ideas…”
Yeah, that’s were we differ, I think, L. B.
I use Marx’s ideas.
There’s no problem in having differing ideologies – it’s just best, like us, to be open about our ‘theory’, which informs our practice.
We’d both agree on that, I think – that exposing one’s pre-existing assumptions, theories, concepts, methods is a fundamental part of any ‘science’, and has been since at least the late 19 century.
Ozymandias wrote: “Just a small grammatical point here. It’s You’se.
Not Youse.”
I’m afraid you’re wrong. Oz.
‘Youse’ is the plural of ‘you’.
Similar to ‘I/We’ or ‘He/They, there is ‘You/Youse’.
‘Youse’ = second person plural.
There is no apostrophe in a plural – apostrophes are used for omission or possession. It’s a common mistake, though. Often in small shops – “Apple’s for sale”, for example.
I used ‘youse’ to make it clear I was talking to more people than just twc – that is, my advice was for the whole party, not just for twc personally.
Wez, have you read The Origin of Capitalism: a longer view by Ellen Meiksins Wood?
This book is my preferred argument about the origins of capitalism in England. I think that she’d disagree with Hill’s:
“By “feudalism” I mean a form of society in which agriculture is the basis of economy and in which political power is monopolised by a class of landowners. The mass of the population consists of dependent peasants subsisting on the produce of their family holdings. The landowners are maintained by the rent paid by the peasants, which might be in the form of food or labour, as in early days, or (by the sixteenth century) in money.” [my bold]
According to EMW, by the 16th century, England wasn’t ‘feudal’, but already capitalist. The capitalist landowners took rent off tenants, who weren’t ‘peasants’ (who controlled their land, as in France), but ‘farmers’ (who rented their land temporarily from its controllers).
