robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Sun also said "In a tweet to the Labour leader, the official Socialist Party account said to him that socialism must replace capitalism in Britain". Which makes it sound like the SPGB suppports the idea of "socialism in one country". I think the Sun needs to be corrected.
LBird wrote:.Oh yes, whilst I rememer – it was Engels who resurrected the 'idealism' versus 'materialism' debate, the notion that there is a choice between 'mind' and 'matter', as to 'which came first?'.Once again, I refer you to the Engels quote in which Engels explicitly talks of the "the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body" Automation does not happen because the bourgeosie think it is a "nice idea". They are embedded within an economic system that operates according to laws that are beyond their control, akin to a force of nature, which in turn, shapes their thinking on the matter. There is always a two way interaction between the objective and the subjective, between mind and matter. Its not a one way process
LBird wrote:Marx, Letter to Annenkov, 1846, wrote:…those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive.http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.
It would have been more apprpriate and relevent to this thread had LBird dealt with the argument I presented earlier that Marx's view of the nature of appopriation in a socialist society rests on certain assumptions that are individualistic. If LBird understand more about the sociology of Marx he would less quick off the mark at simply dismissing his opponents as "individualists" and constantly invoking Marx in support of his ideas. Marx was not a straightforward individualist thinker but there are unquestionably elements of individualism in his thinking. This whole argument that he presented that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" is quintessentially individualistic in orientation from start to finish Any realistic or plausible sociology requires, as a starting point an acknowledgment that human beings are real entitties and are what constitute society even if they are also constituted by society. In other words any realistic or plausible sociology requires us to acknowledge that the relationship between the individual and society is a TWO way process – not ONE way – whether we think that ONE way is from society to the individuals , meaning there is no such thing as individuals (LBirds ontology) or from the individual to society meaning there is no such thing as society (Margaret Thatcher's ontology). Mrs M Thatcher and Mr L Bird are in an important sense, mirror images of each other
LBird wrote:The 'physical' is a social category, robbo.Human activity produces the 'physical'.You are simply replacing 'matter' (now you accept that it is a discredited category) with 'physical'.The 'physical universe' is a social product of conscious human activity. That's why, according to Marx, we can change it.You wish to passively contemplate something that 'exists' prior to human conscious activity. You're an 18th century 'materialist'.This makes no sense. The physical universe cannot possibly be a product of human society not least because it prexisted human society. What you are trying to say in your clumsy manner is that our apprehnsion of the physcial world is a product of human society and that I wouldnt disagree with but you cannot then infer from that that physical world itself does not exist or does not eist without us which is what you saying when you say there that "there is no 'matter-in-itself'",. Our technical ability to determine the age of the earth as 4.5 billion and modern humans as a mere 200,000 years disproves you In other words, you are confusing "matter in itself" and our human knowledge of matter and trying to soud profoud by putting matter in itself in inverted commas when all you are talking about is the concept of matter and not matter in itself Incidentally now that Ive provided you with that wonderful quote from Engels will you now concede that you were wrong in your assessment of him?
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:.Marx starts from the assumption of both, unified, as so doesn't talk about either 'mind' alone or 'matter' alone. This issue of 'which is over the other' is a non-problem for MarxistsAs I've said, it was Engels who split Marx's ideas back into a battle between 'idealism' versus 'materialism', in which struggle one must take a side. As you're a 'materialist', you accuse me of 'idealism'. In this, you're also continuing the views of the SPGB, which also subscribes to Engels' 'materialism'.Frederich Engels:"And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will men not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity."https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm
Thanks for that, robbo.Now, you have to accept that there is no 'matter-in-itself', only Marx's 'mind-matter', 'idealism-materialism'.
If if there no matter in itself then the physical universe could not have existed before human beings thought about it. Is that what you are saying?
A thought occurred to me – why not contact Andrew to get a clarification and maybe to make a comment or two on this forum. Does anyone have his contat details?
LBird wrote:.Marx starts from the assumption of both, unified, as so doesn't talk about either 'mind' alone or 'matter' alone. This issue of 'which is over the other' is a non-problem for MarxistsAs I've said, it was Engels who split Marx's ideas back into a battle between 'idealism' versus 'materialism', in which struggle one must take a side. As you're a 'materialist', you accuse me of 'idealism'. In this, you're also continuing the views of the SPGB, which also subscribes to Engels' 'materialism'.Frederich Engels: "And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will men not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity."https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm
twc wrote:Thanks Robbo and Marcos.However, for a more incoherent experience than the talk, as published, I suggest (if you can spare the time) listening to the post-debate discussion between Andrew Kliman and Per Bylund — can’t recall, but it starts about an hour from the end. Kliman seems to agree wholeheartedly with most, if not all, of the Mises/Hayek proposals.Have I badly misconstrued something?Gawd, I hope not TWC I would be sorely disappointed in Kliman if that is the case. I havent yet listened to the whole talk but will do so. However from the limited evidence I have so far I dont yet see any grounds for coming to this conclusion. I think he is using the labour theory of property as a tool to attack capitalism
Marcos wrote:I read the argumentation of Andrew Killman, but in reality, it is not his idea, he is developing a conception expressed by Raya Dunayevskaya several years ago in her book Marxism and Freedom, and her idea of the negation of the negation, and labour power in a communist society, she was always constantly talking about the same idea. The point that he is making is the same one expressed by Robbo. He is not talking about individual private property per se. That idea has also been developed by Peter Hudis and Kevin Anderson. It is on this book:http://newsandletters.org/shop/books/the-power-of-negativity/Marcos, from your knowlege of the Marxist Humanist project would you say that by the term "individual property" is meant specifically labour power rather than the products of labour power? So when Kliman writes about individual property being returned to the great mass of people, he is not actually advocating individualised ownership of the means of production – actually he explictly seems to support common ownership of those means – but rather the re-appropriation of labour power by the labourer as an inalienable aspect of his or her person and no longer for sale on the market. This is precisely the point that I was driving at in the thread I started up on "Marx and the Individual". There is unquestionably a strong streak of individualistic thinking in Marx which is grounded in the premiss of his whole argument about alienation. That is something which our resident critic LBird does not seem to understand with his knee jerk jibes about the Robbo's and others "individualism" Thats simply not the case. My ideas and I think those of Marx's too are grounded instead in an "Emergence paradigm" , not an atomistic reductionist individualist paradigm such as Mrs Thatcher expressed – "Theres no such thing as society , only individuals". I agree that individuals are real entities on which society is based – how it not be? – but consider that society has an "emergent" quality about it that cannot be reduced to – or simply explained by – the individuals who comprise society. In other words society has causal power . It influences us. The relationship between individuals and society is thus two way not one way as a true "individualists" would maintain but Lbird does not seem to understand this point
I looked up the Marxist-Humanist site and the transcript of the debate was there – or, at least, of Andrew Kliman's opening contribution: Here is the relevant passage: "So forcible expropriation, violence, and repressive state action are what created a new starting point, in which the great majority of the population has to choose between starvation and working under the domination of one or another capitalist. And so, given this new starting point that that they did not voluntarily choose, working people began to “voluntarily” work under the domination of capitalists. And these “voluntary” labor-market transactions “only cement[ ] this situation,” reinforce and perpetuate this new and much-less-free starting point. A genuinely free society requires that we undo—reverse–this expropriation. We need to return to individual property, in the sense that the direct producers—the folks who do the work–have ownership and control over the means of production–land, tools, raw materials, and so forth-that they need to make a living. If you are for reversing the forcible expropriation and re-establishing individual property in this sense, you and Marx are on the same side. This is exactly what he envisioned in the culminating chapter of his book, Capital: “The expropriators are expropriated. “… capitalist private property … is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.” Now, it’s conceivable that when individual property is returned to the great mass of people, some of them may want to work under the domination of others, in return for a wage. I find that bizarre, but I admit that it is conceivable—just barely. So what I recommend is–if you’re an absolutist about freedom of exchange: support the expropriation of the expropriators. Then, after that’s been accomplished, advocate that people who possess individual property should be allowed to work under the domination of others–if they so choose. … But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to choose that. " https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Stockholm-freedom-debate-opening-remarks-9.14.16.pdf Its all a bit messy and unclear what Kliman is actually saying here but he seems to be saying that "individual property" is distinguishable from "private property" and, following Marx, is based on the "possession in common of the land and of the means of production". If that is the case then possibly what he is talking about is not property in the sense of something that you own and can dispose of – something that is alienable which is the essence of private property – but rather property in the sense of something that you as an individual possess nd use – namely, your labour power – which in communism would no longer be alienable but subject to your own volition. Meaning that you as an individual would freely contribute as you would wish in cooperation with others on an entirely voluntary basis. So really what Kliman seems to be alluding to here is the theory of "possessive individualism" and the "labour theory of property" – that you should own what you create through you own labour. Except that Kliman is not talking about the products of your labour since he seems to go along with the idea of common ownership of the means of production but rather with labour itself. In other words, he is taking the advocates of possesive individualism at face value and subverting their theory by exploiting the very premiss on which it is based – namely, that your labour power should be your own individual property to use as you choose There is a section in Paresh Chattopadhyay's book (p.22- 29) where he discusses Marx's idea of alienated or alienable labour as the basis of capitalist private property. For Marx private property has a double expresssion – as individual private poprerty and as class based private propeorty. The tendency in capitalism is for the latter to crowd out the former just as the former tranformed the individual property of the labourer – his or her labour power which in one sense is physically inseparable from the labourer – into alienable or private property. A commodity in other words. In effect, it is in the context of the specificity of the form of property within class property that capitalist private property takes on a second meaning in Marx. Here the starting point is private property considered simply as the "opposite [Gegensatz] of social, collective property," and private property in this sense refers to the property of "private individuals" [Privatleute] in the conditions of production which, again, can have two different "characters," according as these "private individuals" are "laborers or non-laborers" (1962a: 1X9). Corresponding to these two characters, Marx speaks of "two laws" of (private) property. "The first [law] is the identity of labor and property," that is, "private property based on one’s own labor" (1953: 373; 1962a: 802). The second law is the law of "bourgeois" (private) property into which the first law is "transformed" [umschlagt] "by its own inner, unfailing dialectic" (1953: 373; 1962a: 609). According to this second law, the "product of one’s own labor appears as alien property [and] contrariwise, alien labor appears as the property of the capitalist", that is, labor appears as "negated property." Capitalist private property "necessitates [bedingt] the annihilation of private property based on one's own labor". Thus the "separation of property from labor becomes the necessary consequence of a law that apparently started out from their identity" (1953: 373; 1962a: 802,610). https://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience In summary then I think Kliman is making a distinction between individual private property and individual property insofar as he seems to be agreeing with Marx in saying that communism – the negation of the negation – does not re-establish private property for the producer but gives him individual property – meaning property that is no longer alienable and therefore no longer takes the form of private property. Meaning specifically labour power
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.LOL the irony of ironies – LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided" without so much as a single working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird? Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary. Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical? Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?
That's right, robbo – I've already decide that 'democratic socialism' can only mean 'democratic socialism', and not alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism'. I'm a worker that's had experience of a form of 'democracy' a bit like alan's (ie. 'democratic centralism').I'm quite willing to put this to a vote of workers – do they want 'democratic socialism' (within which they decide) or do they want 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism' (within which it's been pre-decided by an elite, that somethings cannot be decided by the workers themselves).I already know that this issue is of no interest to you – at least alan wants some sort of 'democratic socialism', whereas you just want 'robbo individualism'.So, we can expect, during the struggle to build socialism by workers, for those workers to be confronted by this question. Perhaps they'll vote for the SPGB's and alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism', perhaps for 'democratic socialism'… perhaps even for 'robbo individualism'.I'm prepared for their decision. Unlike you or alan, apparently.
You will once again note how LBird slyly avoids the two questions asked of him. He he claims to be prepared for the workers decision on the make up of democracy while his opponents are being "elitist" for prejudging the decision. Its a typical devious LBird ploy. His opponents can just as easily counter by saying that they too are prepared for whatever the decision the workers give but the probability is the workers will opt for the much mre realistic concept of demcracy put forward by his oppoents than for LBird.s bartty idea As for "Robbos individualism" why has LBird declined to comment on thread that I recently started that demonstrates pretty conclusivly that Marx himslef who LBird constantly invokes, has a strobg streak of individualistic ideas runnng through his writings – at least by Lbirds interpretation of "individualism".
LBird wrote:MBellemare wrote:Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large???Given that you've not followed a very long political, ideological and philosophical discussion here, over years, you don't know the context of this debate.But, having said that, perhaps you can answer a question that the SPGB seems incapable of doing.If you are a 'democratic socialist' (and I'm assuming that you are, for now, but you can correct me later), who or what would determine 'truth' within a democratic socialist society?To make you aware of the central issue (and so more careful of your answer), this is a question about political power and who wields it.I'm simply asking, if not society employing democratic methods, which elite is going to make decisions about 'truth'?
You see, Michel, how Lbird studiously avoids answring the questions 1) what is the point of democraticaly deciding the truth of scientific theories?2) how is it remotely practical to implement tens of thousands of global plebiscites on the truth of all these scientific theories? Instead, LBird resorts to the cunning ruse of suggesting that if you dont submit the truth of scientific theories to a worldwide democratic vote this somehow vests the scientists iwith more "political power" than the layperson. He makes no attempt to justify this astonishing claim which is unsurpirsing since as a Leninist he does not really understand that nature of a socialist cum communist society Sad to say, it is an all too familiar pattern….
LBird wrote:Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.LOL the irony of ironies – LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided" without so much as a single working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird? Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary. Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical? Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?
MBellemare wrote:Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large???I regret to say that, yes, he is serious about such an idea but I can assure you no socialist here or anywhere would endorse such a crackpot proposal. He has never once explained how such a proposal would work in practice or what would be the point of the exercise but he conrinues to plug this harebrained scheme on this forum to the bemusement of all Ive been accused of being an "elitist" and an " individualist" for assuming that scientists "know better". But thats so silly when you think about it. A trained nuclear physicist is always going to know better than a layperson about nuclear physics unless LBird proposes 1) that we no longer have any trained nuclear physicists or 2) that everyone becomes a trained nuclear physicist in which case what about all those thousands of other occupations where differences in ability and competence will arise? Are we all meant to become trained up in those too? LBird's big problem is that he doesnt understand democracy or what its for. Socialist democracy which I fullly support wll apply to the realm of practical decision making, not the determination of sciientific truth. There is simply no point in voting to determine the truth of a scientific theory and scientists will have no more power in a socialist society than anyone else because the social relationship characteristic of a socialist society – free access to goods and serices plus volunteer labour – dissolve the very basis of political power as such. As for me and others being an " individualist" – a jibe that LBird routinely makes – I would counter that his view of a future socialist society is more akin to a beehive colony than a human society of free individuals. Iroically democracy would be meaningless if it extingushed the capacity of individuals to express themselves by chosing by means of a vote. . Embarrasingly for him and for all his extravagant claims to be a Marxist I note he has nothing to say on the question of Marx's own thinking which contains a strong streak of individualism, as LBird would see it. See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-individual
MBellemare wrote:@ Robbo 2.03 I am gonna take a look at that pamphlet. (Much appreciated)I see what you mean about the "stateless society". I thought you were using it in Bakunin's sense, as some sort of total structural-liquidation, which was not the case. Now, about Class, Robbo, I am inclined to state that we are already in a "classless society", class has been fragmented to such a radical extent, do to the artificial fabrication of price, value and wage, that, now, we have more or less fragmented into affinity groups. Microscopic networks aligned along various affinities. Such as Punks, Goths, SPGB forum, anarcho-autonomous-collectives etc.etc.etc. People, more or less relate to each other, within post-industrial, post-modern society, no longer, predominantly along class-lines, but in a multiplicity of variable groups, relations and manners.Namely, I go to political meetings, take part in academic discussions/groups, go to hockey games, critique litterature after supper, rear cattle in the morning, Read Marx after midnight. And/or Take part in a Union strike in the afternoon, Wear clothes made in Mexico on the streets of Montreal etc. (I see no class. I see affinities.)Once again , we seem to be talking from quite differnent perspectives as in the case of the term "state". Look, the word "class" can be used in serveral different ways. Mainstream statisticians use the term to denote various occupational/income groupings in society. Even factors like education and upbringing can be used as a class determinant. There is no right or wrong way to use the term "class". You can classify people in whichever way you want. What matters is the purpose behind your classification system If you are involved in marketing some product then you might want to tailor your advertising to appeal o a certain target sector of the population – perhaps the "upper middle class" or those aspiring to enter that class. Needless to say the purpose behind the Marxian classification system is completely different We Marxists are concerned with the radical transformation of society from capitalism to socialism and the question of class is key to this process. It is what unlocks an understanding of what is entailed in this process. Class is what defines one's relationship to the means of production. Far from contemporary capitalism fragmenting into a "classless society ", a mantra of one ex British Prime Minisiter, John Major, the opposite is true. Capitalism is more and more rigidifying into a two-class society – the top 1 per cent versus the rest. In other words a tiny minority who effectively monopolise the means of wealth production and the huge majority who own little or no capital to live upon without having to submit to the rigours of wage slavery – selling their skills for a wage to the owning class Certainly , this is a sweeping generalisation and as with all generalisations there are exceptions to the rule. There is, for example, a grey area between these two class categories – worker and capitalist – where one class shades into the other and I would say a good example of this is the CEOs of smaller sized corporations (the CEOs of big corporations with an average annual compensation package of about 20 million dollar per year are unquestionably capitalist in my book and derive much of their income from stock options) However, in broad outline, at least from a Marxian perspective, we are very clearly living in a class based sciety and there is no evidence whatsoever of any tendency for capitalism to fragment into a "clasless society"
