twc
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Robbo, that’s why I reserved a consecutive spot for Part 2 — the details. It’s a pity my numbered cross references will be split across pages, but that can’t be helped.You’ll just have to wait.You just trashed most of Marx. It’s easy to destroy. Building takes a little longer.Rest assured, unlike you, I will answer every last point you make.
Robbo Denies Exploitation is Objective
robbo203 wrote:The point that I am getting at is that [exploitation] is, at bottom, a value judgement, not simply a cold mathematical calculation that workers are exploited in terms of socially necessary labour time.This is bourgeois idiocy.In the concrete world, an employer’s conception of exploitation is forced upon him by the relentless pressure of capitalist competition. An employer is compelled, like a marionette, to act out Marx’s abstraction of his social position. He must continually make cold mathematical calculation, precisely in terms of labour time, to lower running costs, and from time-to-time make terrifyingly objective “judgements” on the “value” to his profit-making enterprise of his employees. He mightn’t like doing it, but that’s what keeps his business and him up and running.In the concrete world, an employee’s conception of exploitation is doubly constrained by the relentless pressure of capitalist competition and of fellow-worker competition for the right to be exploited. He is forced to act out Marx’s abstraction of his social position. He is compelled to groom himself as a suitable candidate for exploitation because it puts a roof over his head and food in his belly. He mightn’t like doing it, but that’s just the way the world is for a worker.Where in the name of socialism is there anything remotely approaching genuine “value judgement” in that? ObjectivePeople can disagree on their evaluation of any phenomenon, but still agree on its objectivity. For if something is objective, it is accessible to others.In the American Civil War [a class war between two ruling classes], the industrial-capitalist North and the slave-holding South¹ fought over opposing forms of exploitation, and neither doubted the objectivity of each other’s form.Each hypocritically exposed the “unethical” nature of the other’s variety of exploitation. Unsentimental anti-chattel-slave exploitation opposed equally unsentimental anti-wage-slave exploitation. Accusation and counter-accusation were both objectively true, and so unanswerable, except by force.“We are now engaged” in a class war between a ruling and a ruled class. If the ruled class harbours “philosophical” doubts over the objectivity of exploitation, this can only reflect (1) that capitalist–working-class exploitation is barely on the social agenda, and (2) the working class is still content for [class-divided] society to make up its working-class mind for it.The very fact that human exploitation can be raised to the status of an “intellectual proposition”, over which it is possible to have “views” and “values”, is tangible proof to a materialist that exploitation is not only objective concretely but also intellectually. Marx was Aware of Every Criticism Subsequently Made of HimFor Marx, science is the practice of the critique of appearance.In his quest to unmask bourgeois appearance, Marx was omnivorous, devouring every view and counter-view on capitalist appearance [phenomena] that he could lay his hands on in the British Museum and elsewhere—just look at his Theories of Surplus Value—from capitalism’s deepest and bravest thinkers to its hired “prize fighters”.He worked in the tradition of Hegel, for whom “science cannot reject a non-true knowledge just because it considers it to be a vulgar [apologetic] point of view.”Thus, we find Marx writing “Ricardo’s ruthlessness was not only scientifically justified but also a scientific necessity from his point of view”.Just pause to consider Marx justifying exploitation, in the context of Ricardo’s science, and we see what little intellectual store he placed upon “value judgement”. He is equally detached about Aristotle’s “natural slave” theory. Such lack of sentiment, where you might expect him to explode, is comprehensible for an historical materialist for whom people are products of their social environment.²Every counter-view to Marx that you hurl at him here, Marx had encountered by perennial genus and species long before you ever stumbled across its “modern” ephemeral rehash.Marx confronted a complete catalogue of counter-views while reaching the materialist conclusion “that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended, whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life … the anatomy of which has to be sought in political economy.”Make no mistake, Marx stands on comfortably equal footing with his “modern” critics, and has the supreme advantage over them of knowing them, and their heritage, far better than they know him.It is therefore simply a matter of whether Castoriadis can genuinely go toe-to-toe with Marx and last the distance, or Levi-Strauss can, etc. But first things first. Robbo’s “Response”Firstly, robbo, you chose not to answer #77. Squibbed it. I mention this so that there can be no misunderstanding, and I’m not letting you claim you did.To answer your response, I need to categorize your substantiated claims:(robbo.1) the materialist conception of history is false.(robbo.2) base–superstructure determinism is false.(robbo.3) the objectivity of capitalist social relations is false.(robbo.4) we must therefore rely on emotion and morality. Marx’s MethodTo answer your claims, I need to teach a little science, and so I’ll slip in my far too brief itemized summary of Marx’s method:(twc.1) We conceive appearance as a process.(twc.2) We abstract determinism from processes to conceive their unifying dynamics — the changing fluidity of the persistent thing.(twc.3) We abstract categories from processes to categorize their unifying statics — the persistent thingness of the fluid change.(twc.4) We develop abstract theory [concept] of processes in which our determinism operates abstractly upon our categories and produces abstract appearance [phenomena].(twc: 5). We can test in practice our abstract appearance against the phenomena of the world. Marx’s ScienceFinally, here is the [enumerated] excerpt from Capital Volume 1:(marx.1) “Vico says, human history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not the latter.”(marx.2) “Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them.”(marx.3) “Every history (even the history of religion) that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical.”(marx.4) “It is, in reality, much easier to discover (marx.4α) by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion,than, conversely, it is, (marx.4β) to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations.”(marx.5) “The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific one.”(marx.6) “The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality.”To be continued in next post Footnotes¹ The South was unsentimentally aided and abetted by sections of British industrial capital whose profits depended on Southern cotton. ↩ [Back]² The ancient world left us few arguments against slavery as an institution, but many outraged accounts of cruel masters or sympathetic accounts of kind ones, and instances of raising civil-service slaves to gods for general worship in imperial Rome, all of which reveals a “value judgement” that tacitly accepted the ancient institution of slavery as a whole, just as did the ante-bellum South.On the inefficacy of sentimentality, which is relevant to the main topic of this thread, and parallels the inefficacy of reformism, I quote the following (of uncertain origin) — he who consoles a slave in his servitude does his master an incalculable service. ↩ [Back]
[11] PASSING THE BUCK — WHAT WENT WRONG WITH THE SAVE THE SEAMEN FUND (Continuation)Clarke’s response immediately followed Orr’s letter in the 25 October 1935 Seamen’s Journal.Response
Seamans Journal, Clarke wrote:WE REPLYIn our last issue we published a list of “Things to Remember” in connection with the recent “Murada” dispute.Mr. Orr takes exception to some of the points and, by conveniently coupling two pars¹ together, concocts an allegation of insincerity and dishonesty against his organisation.While we cannot accept responsibility for the distorted interpretations Mr. Orr places upon our statements, we hasten to deny any charge of dishonesty or insincerity on the part of the Miners’ Union.Let us see, then, what is behind Mr. Orr’s disclaimer. During the “Murada” dispute, many spurious claims were made by some members of our Union, and an attempt was made to lull the general membership into a false sense of security.We exposed some of these claims in the article referred to by Mr. Orr and, had he read the par. in question, he would not have made the objections in his letter.We said:— “The £250 alleged to have been RECEIVED from the Miners’ Union never turned up. Neither did the £50 alleged to come from the Printing Trades’ Union, ALTHOUGH MEETINGS IN SYDNEY WERE TOLD BY MEMBERS OF THE STRIKE COMMITTEE² THAT THE MONEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED.”Had Mr. Orr read the words we have emphasized he would understand that whatever charges, the par. contained, were aimed at the people who told the meetings THAT THE MONEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED.Surely he will not object to our exposure of people who deliberately misrepresented the facts to the Seamen. More especially when he learns that, later, a meeting was told that the cheque for £250 from the Miners’ Union should be sent to the Sugar Workers, who were on strike in Queensland.If the friends³ of Mr. Orr desire to mislead the Seamen in regard to the Miners’ Union, he should take his friends to task, and not those ⁴ who correct their false statements.Why Mr. Orr objects to the second par. we cannot say, unless the “cap fitted”. For his information, we point out that the Seamen were told that:—The Waterside Workers’ Union had promised support.The Tramways Union at a “Mass” meting in Melbourne had promised support.The Australian Railways Union had decided to support the Seamen, etc.⁵The statement regarding the Waterside Workers was not true. There was no “mass” meeting of the Tramways Union. The rank and file of the A.R.U.⁶ did not discuss the question.In reference to the “promised support” from the Waterside Workers, the “Marine Worker” for October 10th [1935] admitted the falsity of the misleading statements and said:— “This was incorrect, although the spokesman erred in not having ascertained whether the communication was an official one or otherwise. Again, on the last day of the struggle, a similar incident was recorded … Here again the information was taken as being correct; later events proved it was not.”Here again we have a crude confession of clumsy error and malicious lying from their official organ.If Mr. Orr really desires to “eliminate suspicion and defeatism from the ranks of the trade union movement and inspire confidence and solidarity in the workers”, he cannot consistently do so and at the same time support directly or, indirectly, those who, in order to further their own ends, unblushingly spread the most infamous lies among members of the Seamen’s Union. W. J. Clarke, Editor.Editor’s Notes¹ “par” = paragraph. A reference to the ‘Second “Murada” Report’. ↩ [Back]² Allegations made by members of the MMM. ↩ [Back]³ William Orr was a prominent member of the MMM. ↩ [Back]⁴ “those who correct” = Clarke, in defence of the Union. ↩ [Back]⁵ Clarke inserts the handwritten annotation “All of which were lies”. ↩ [Back]⁶ A.R.U. Australian Railways Union. ↩ [Back]↩ [Table of Contents] [Proofread: 27 April 2014. Validated XHTML 1.0 Strict: 27 April 2014] THE 1935 SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 11
[12] THE NEW AWARD*[Meanwhile, Mr Justice G. J. Dethridge, Chief Judge of the Federal Arbitration Court, finalized a new Seamen’s Award. This Award, no matter what its provisions, was guaranteed to provide an automatic cue for another MMM [dis]organised strike.The Australasian Seamen’s Journal of 25th November, 1935, carried the following appraisal of the Award, signed by the Union’s Committee of Management.¹ ]
Seamens Journal, 25 Nov, 1935 wrote:THE NEW AWARD²The Arbitration Court has delivered its final Award which is to govern Seamen in the Interstate Trade. The rates of pay operate as from the 1st of November, 1935, and the working conditions from the 1st December, 1935, and will continue to operate until 31st December, 1938.Those clauses which appear to be an improvement on the previous Award or Agreement, and those that disclose a loss are enumerated in order to simplify—or make easy—comparison.Many of the clauses are not commented upon by the Committee of Management; although they may appear in different language, [they] are in essence identical with the old ones; comment, therefore, on those clauses is unnecessary.³So far as it has been possible to sift and measure the altered conditions and rates of pay, we have classified as far as possible the gains and losses. We are unable at the present stage to compute the magnitude gained or lost of each individual item, [as] this will be better revealed in the process of practical application.It will be noted that the Award provides penal clauses. These clauses have been copied more or less from the Arbitration Act, which whether such penal clauses were in the Award or not, would still have force. Some minor improvements we have passed over without comment. The chief losses and gains are:— LOSSESOvertime Rates. Clause 10. Overtime rates have been reduced from 2/9 to 2/6.Working Cargo. Clause 19. Keeping steam for cargo, Skippers of Holds, Hatches and Beams, are not regarded as cargo work.Night Watchman. Clause 26. Hours for Night Watchman, from 6 pm to 7 am. Hourly rate reduced by 3d, and 4d less in assisting shifting ship.Deferred Sailing. Not included in present Award, but employers under penalty if breach is committed. GAINSIncrease in Wages, per MonthAble Seamen, Firemen, Trimmers, Donkeymen, Greasers, Lamptrimmers, Wipers, Oilburners, and Firemen Greasers— Increase in wages … … £1 5 0Fireman’s Attendant, over 21 years of age— Increase … … £3 2 6Fireman’s Attendant, under 21 years— Increase in wages … … £1 15 0Deckhand’s Attendant, over 21 years— Increase … … £3 2 6Deckhand’s Attendant, over 18 and under 21— Increase … … £1 15 0Ordinary Seaman, over 21— Increase … … £3 2 6Ordinary Seaman, over 18 and under 21— Increase in wages … … £1 15 0Ordinary Seaman, under 18 years of age— Increase in wages … … £1 15 0Deckhand Attendant, under 18— Increase in wages … … £1 15 0N.B.—For the month of November deduct 2/6 from the above rates.Clause 4. Mainports. Additional Mainports:—Bowen, Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, Suva, Honolulu, San Francisco, Vancouver, Port Moresby and Samarai, Rabaul, Kaveing, Madang, Salamoa, Tulagi, Makambo, Gavutu, Gizo, Faisi, Vila.Short Term of Employment. Clause 9. 25 per cent. additional wage for short terms of employment for less than 14 days.Meal and Bed Allowance. Clause 11. Increase from 6/6 per day to 8/6 per day away from homeport. 2/– increase in bed allowance, but the increase in bed allowance does not apply at home port.Shipwreck Gift. Clause 14. Shipwreck gift of up to £20 in case of effects being lost through shipwreck. This becomes operative on March 31st, 1936.Boiler Work. Clause 16. 1/– per hour additional rates for performance of such work in port.Trimming Coal Out of Bunker Space. Clause 17. Trimming coal outside of bunker space, if work performed on watch, 1/– per hour; 3/6 when off watch.Shipwrecked Employees. Clause 18. Compensation for loss of employment through shipwreck, not less than two months’ wages and victualling allowance, unless members refuse to accept employment offered by the Employer.Working Cargo in Port. Clause 19. Right of refusal to perform this work in port if Waterside Workers are available. If Waterside Workers are not available the additional wage for performing this work is 2/– per hour between the hours of 7 am and 5 pm, and 2/6 per hour on Sundays and Holidays for Mails, Passengers’ Luggage and Motor Cars, and 3/9 per hour for Ordinary Cargo.Treating Ships in Port as Being at Sea. Clause 22, Sub-clause (1). Ships cannot be treated [as being] at Sea in Mainport, even although vessel may arrive and depart again on same day and watches cannot be kept under circumstances except in those ports mentioned in this clause.Saturday Afternoon Off. Clause 23, Sub-clause (11). Saturday afternoon off in port under certain conditions.Mooring and Unmooring. No mention of this in the Award. This work is classed as ordinary hours of labor for the day and Overtime payment claim able in future if performed after eight hours have already been completed.Setting Watches for Stokehold and Engine-Room. Clause 23, Sub-clause (9). Setting watches for these departments two hours prior to intended departure instead of three hours as previously.Sundays. Clause 28, Sub-clause (2). Minimum of three hours’ overtime payment if required to come aboard in home port on Sundays and Holidays. Clause 28 (c). 3/9 per hour overtime rates for working General cargo.Holidays. Clause 29. Anzac Day, additional Holiday at sea; also further improvement.Leave of Absence. Clause 31. Although the 14 days’ annual leave has not been actually extended, the present clause is an improvement upon the old clause when leave is granted during time when ordinary Holidays intervene, such as Xmas time and Easter Holidays.Meals on Sundays and Holidays. Clause 33. Meals must be cooked for crew when ship is in port on Sundays and Holidays in future; if not, the meal allowance as provided must be paid for.Bilges and Tubes. Clause 37. If bilges are cleaned by men at sea at night when on watch, 2/– per hour extra. If done off watch at night at sea, 4/6 per hour. If Tubes are cleaned at sea, 2/– per hour extra during ordinary working hours; if done outside ordinary working hours or off watch, 4/6 per hour.Discharging Ashes, Clause 37. Ashes made in port to be discharged prior to departure in all ships in future whereas in the past, this only applied to passenger ships.Work in Engine-room and Stokehold. Clause 39. If ship is in port and treated as at sea, no member of the Stokehold to be taken in the Engine-room except for assisting in repairs to Machinery.Hatches Off at Sea. Clauses 42 and 45. Provides for comprehensive safety measures. No vessel is allowed prior to arrival to take hatches off until within Harbour limits of a port. Hatches must also be battened down prior to leaving Harbour limits of a port.Cargo Gear at Sea. Clause 43. Cargo gear must not be rigged up elsewhere than within the harbour limits of a port.Cargo Gear at Night. Clause 44. Cargo gear must not be rigged at night except for passengers’ luggage and mails.Guarding Open Hatches. Open hatches shall be guarded by a rail or similar means.Bedding. Clause 51. In addition to bed and blankets, sheets are to be supplied, also pillow slips, and clean sheets, and pillow slips must be issued each week. Members joining ship must be supplied with clean bedding, etc.Consecutive Duty. Clause 24, Sub-clause (5). This clause provides for ten hours off duty instead of eight as previously.Conveyance Whilst at Anchorage. Clause 55. Conveyance to be supplied by Employer for convenience of members desiring to go ashore when laying at anchorage.Sickness. Clause 57. This clause now provides for continuation of wages and maintenance when returned to the Homeport before recovery, until certified recovered. Section 132 of the Navigation Act and our old Agreement only provided for wages and not maintenance after a seaman had returned to the Homeport before recovery.Discharge at Other Port. Clause 68. All moneys to be paid immediately upon discharge proceeding to the Homeport, inclusive of overtime and bed allowance, also wages accruing during travelling time. Note.—Unless Seamen are returned to the Homeport by steamer they are also entitled to 4/– bed allowance per night whilst travelling. Committee of Management RecommendationThe Award is the result of Constitutional procedure adopted by the Union through Arbitration Court Machinery. Opinions may considerably vary among members as to whether the Union’s efforts in utilizing this machinery to improve conditions have been worth while. Your Committee of Management, after weighing the pros and cons of the old Agreement with that of the new Award, have no hesitation in recommending the adoption of the new Award, on the grounds that they view the new Award from the point of appreciable improvement in the total result. Acceptance of AwardIn order to obtain a true opinion as to whether the Award should be accepted, your Committee of Management has unanimously agreed that the best course to adopt would be for members to decide this issue by plebiscite. With this object in view a vote of the members will be taken on this question conjointly with the Annual General Elections for Official positions. In order that members might acquaint themselves fully with the new Award before the vote is taken, the C.O.M. decided that it should be published in this issue of the “Seamen’s Journal”.As Mr Byrne, the West Australian Representative, was not summoned to the Committee of Management Meeting, his signature does not appear hereunder. William Casey, Queensland Branch. James Schofield, Newcastle Branch. Chris. Herbert, Sydney Branch. Harry O’Neill, South Australian Branch. W. J. Clarke, Presiding Officer. Jacob Johnson, General Secretary.Editor’s Notes* Text in italics indicates Clarke’s 1980s underlining of his 1935 original. ↩ [Back]¹ Committee of Management [C.O.M.] Union Branch officials tasked with negotiating the Award on behalf of the Union. As stated here “The Award is the result of Constitutional procedure adopted by the Union through Arbitration Court Machinery”. The signatories’ names and their branches appear at the bottom. ↩ [Back]² This appraisal is interesting (apart from both its intrinsic content and the spurious grounds it gave for provoking renewed MMM-inspired strike action) for its incidental insight into the conditions of working seamen in the 1930s. ↩ [Back]³ I’ve moved the following long paragraph from the text into this footnote, since its content is incidental to the Award: “Regarding members sailing out of Mackay and ports North of Mackay, they are not covered by this Award. The Union has asked for the exclusion of them from the provision of this Award on the grounds that the Judge intimated that he was not prepared to grant the 10 per cent tropical allowance
as they were not applicable to other employees in the Industry, such as the Marine Cooks, Merchant Service Guild, Marine Engineers, etc. Members in the port of Mackay and North of Mackay will, therefore, continue to work under the provisions of the old Award and local Agreements until such time as the Union makes application for a new Award to cover this section of our members in the Queensland State Arbitration Court, or until the Union makes further suitable arrangements with the Employers.” ↩ [Back]↩ [Table of Contents] [Proofread: 27 April 2014. Validated XHTML 1.0 Strict: 27 April 2014] THE 1935 SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 12That is mere smokescreen — a pathetic squib for not facing up to the moral imperative of defending one’s view, following one’s own science wherever it may lead. Show scientific integrity and moral courage and simply test your view.If you squib out, why should anyone respect you? Maybe you haven’t given the point consideration, and need time to do it justice. That's fine. But if you run for cover, and hide behind a barrage of sneer hoping that somehow the issue will go away, you are sadly mistaken, and proved — despite your bluster — to be a moral coward before all and sundry,If you won’t test your view, why should anyone else bother with it?Stop hiding and answer #77.
So it’s “the makings of a good discussion”! What dilettante puerility! Seek bourgeois edification on philosophical puzzles elsewhere.It is with no pleasure that I enter the threads you derail.Marx’s conception of science is too precious to discuss carefully with a proven sneerer. His profound thought plumbs the depths of appearance for essence, and so offers a perfect target for sneerers. By comparison, the vulgarities of bourgeois thought are impervious to sneering, because they remain satisfied with surface appearance, the tacitly-agreed phenomena recognized by us all.You earn your stripes, and answer #77.
LBird wrote:As for us Communists, we're throwing away our 150 years' head start, and reverting to 19th century 'scientific socialism'.Drivel. Stop feeling sorry for yourself!Show us the might of your ideological science, by answering the question I posed in #77.Bourgeois philosophy is insidious because it perfectly reflects the dominant thought of our society, and so appears perfectly correct. Falling for its might is absolutely evident in the postings of DJP, Robbo and especially yourself.You reflect the Kantian aspects that are latent in the scientific philosophy of Popper [who is an avowed Kantian] and his offspring [Lukacs trained] Lakatos and the absurdist Feyerabend.For 18th century Kant, we humans can never know what’s out there beyond our untrustworthy mental representation of it.You might recall that it was precisely such Kantian critiques of Marx that laid the foundations of anti-Marxian revisionism in the 1890s, although Bernstein courteously waited decent months after Engels died before he blurted out the revisionist truth that Marxian materialism was bunkum.Marx’s materialist science [as outlined in #77] is the practice of the critique of appearance: “All science would be superfluous if appearance [phenomena] and essence coincided”.For Marx, essence determines appearance — base determines superstructure; social being determines consciousness.We conceive appearance as a process.We abstract determinism from processes to conceive their unifying dynamics — the changing fluidity of the persistent thing.We abstract categories from processes to categorize their unifying statics — the persistent thingness of the fluid change.We develop abstract theory [concept] of processes in which our determinism operates abstractly upon our categories and produces abstract appearance [phenomena].We can test in practice our abstract appearance against the phenomena of the world.This is merely a systematic form of the way each of us comprehends and navigates the world on a daily basis. It is what gives us the confidence to avoid falling down holes in the pavement or of walking into closed doors.I am quite prepared to engage with you further, but first please answer #77.[Note to admin — the # numbers are unreliable when you are writing/editing. I had formerly written #80 for what now is labelled #77.]
I’ll get to the substantive issue in due course, since it was over this substantive issue, you might recall, that LBird lost his Idealist virginity and transformed himself into a lascivious Materialist–Idealist.For the moment, you two [robbo and bird] might ponder the following account by Marx of his scientific method, and then show me the courtesy of answering one really important question for socialists that arises out of your contrary view to Marx’s.Proximity is Not IdentityFirst consider this. Hegel and Marx are almost identical in their scientific method and their method of development, and especially in their joint recognition of the truism that “we are part of the very thing we study”.Though very close, they were actually diametrically opposite, and Marx upturned Hegel to set him right side up. You guys may think you’re close to Marx, but you are still standing on your heads. You mistake proximity for identity—the most embarrassing gaffe of them all.Marx’s Scientific MethodNow consider this. Marx explained his scientific method with absolute clarity in Capital Volume 1, and there is no room for misunderstanding him.I therefore quote Marx’s account of his scientific method in full, but break his single paragraph into numbered lines for easy reference. We can thus consider these lines separately, as necessary, at our leisure.“Vico says, human history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not the latter.”“Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them.”“Every history (even the history of religion) that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical.”“It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion, than, conversely, it is, to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations.”“The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific one.”“The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality.”Question: Is Capitalist Exploitation Actual?For your brand of Idealism, capitalist exploitation is mere working-class ideology. [Capitalists shouldn’t hold it, but in practice more capitalists seem cognizant of the source of their revenue—exploitation—than members of the working class.]Since capitalist exploitation is mere working-class ideology, capitalist exploitation needn’t actually be taking place in society!Please then explain to us:how you ideologists can ever know that capitalist exploitation is actually taking place in society?
“Explanation”. Robbo, your “explanation” boils down to: The working-class’s moral outlook is capitalist because it supports a system that works against its own class interest. That doesn’t explain why it does either thing.“Hegelian Jargon”. “In itself” and “for itself”.“Hysteria”. If you choose to play the voluntarist demagogue, what else can whipped-up indignation incite the mob to apart from hysteria or violence?Engels. I thought we had agreed that “his equation of working-class indignation with working-class morality holds precisely for us socialists [and is not universally applicable at all at present]. And that, I take it, is the moralist case being supported in this thread.”“Priceless”. I stand by “Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion”. On one desperate occasion, Marx was throwing in the towel to save his family from abject degradation. But he couldn’t forgive himself for leaving the working class in the lurch, and persisted in holding family, health and happiness tenuously together, while continuing to create an objective science for the emancipation of the working class. It brought on his untimely death. Yes, priceless, beyond measure.“Indignation”. Marx’s science survives precisely because it is objective and is not indignation. Indignation emerges naturally enough from it as a consequence.“Bloodless and Dry-as-Dust”. The whole of Marx’s scientific study of the circulation of capital [Capital Vol. 2] strikes David Harvey as “boring (and that may be an understatement)” precisely because it is, for him, bloodless and dry-as-dust.Harvey sympathizes with the Penguin-edition translator, David Fernbach, who seeks to distance his own literary efforts from those foisted upon his luckless self by Marx’s Volume 2 style: “The subject matter is to a far greater extent technical [than the technical parts of Volume 1], even dry … renowned for the arid deserts between the oases … it has caused many a non-specialist [= non-science] reader to turn back in defeat.”For others, Marx’s Volume 2 is the reverse of boring. It is pregnant with new science [e.g., Rosa Luxemburg’s Accumulation of Capital.] Had Volume 2 been overtly based on indignation, it would have been intellectually suspect, bereft of moral integrity, and scientifically sterile.“Revolutionary Socialists, not Academics”. That is a nonsense charge in the context of a discussion forum. Revolutionary socialists adhere to our DOP and Obj, which always strike our opponents as “bloodless and dry-as-dust”. You aren’t proposing to make them less bloodless, less dry-as-dust, less academic and more morally indignant for “revolutionary socialists”?
Robbo. While I await LBird to substantiate his accusations that #48 and #51 are 19th century materialist…Just reread what you wrote, stripping away the verbiage — the working class’s view is pro-capitalist because it supports capitalism. As explanation that is priceless!You fully agree with Engels’s view, which is ultimately a direct implication of the materialist conception of history, though you dressed it up in Hegelian jargon.As to moral indignation. There are more morally indignant know-alls out there than you can poke a stick at, and none of them is socialist. Marx gave his life to get beyond relying upon emotion. Socialism is not going to be achieved through hysteria, but chaos can.As to persuasion. Any leader can easily persuade a mob against its own deep conviction, but it’s a fickle unconvincing feat. Socialism is not going to be achieved by political persuasion, but its opposite can.Perhaps we might acknowledge what a weak lot we 21st century folks, even the best, have become!Socialism doesn’t rely on indignation. Indignation, like all emotion is impermanent. It must be feigned to be kept alive, and then it becomes a mere self-serving pose. Our opponents are expert poseurs at this. We despise their subterfuge.Before getting carried away with indignation, first ask the indignant person just exactly what he is indignant about and then, from his reply, judge his sincerity and his socialism. Typically he merely seeks to parade his sincerity in order to persuade you to accept his politics. Such indignation is insincere but persuasive, and that’s why the dishonest resort to it. Most indignation surrounding us both misses the true mark and is the reverse of “morality”.When Marx and Engels died they left us a science that could bring about world socialism by conviction through simple scientific comprehension of socialism and its implications. That’s the only surefire legacy we have.Our opponents are persuasive indignant voluntarists. They need to be. They lack science. They lack conviction.
