Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘Marcuse thought that the only way out would be for some minority to seize power and unbrainwash the majority.’
I’m surprised he came to that conclusion – where does he say that?
The transformation of a highly cultivated society like Germany in the 1930s into a murderous death cult provides all the evidence we need for the existence of the ‘death instinct’.
Robbo – I agree but the inability to distinguish jargon from ideas that reflect the complexity of experience is a problem here. The need for a ‘ready-meal’ of simplicity reflects the consumerism of our society – some things cannot be communicated without the recipients desire to work on his or her capacity to understand.
ALB – I’ve never understood your need to reduce psychology to some kind of materialistic mechanics. The libido theory of which you speak was a very early Freudian theory which he himself went on to replace with the dialectical relationship between Eros & Thanatos which was later taken up by the Frankfurt School to great effect – but, as you say, that’s another thread. Perhaps what’s at the heart of this thread is the belief that complex intellectual theories implicit in philosophy and psychology (and their dialectical synthesis) inhibits people from becoming socialists? I don’t believe this as I think it’s merely an excuse for anti-intellectual populism.
MS – ‘Again, you are missing the point I am talking about attracting future members to the socialist party…’
This implies that you believe the use of the dialectic inhibits people from joining the Party? I don’t believe this to be the case – certainly not with myself as I found it an inspiring intellectual journey. Ironically (from your perspective) it was the ‘philosophical’ work of the Frankfurt School that discovered one of the main reasons for the rejection of socialism – the ‘authoritarian personality’. The conditioned need for leaders and authoritarian social structure is our main enemy.
ALB – ‘So that’s all you mean by dialectics? Thesis and antithesis confronting each other, resulting in a synthesis?’
Having edited my articles down the years you know perfectly well that that’s not ‘all I mean by dialectics’. I was just pointing out its origins pre-date its use in Hegelian idealist philosophy.
MS – Again what’s your problem with Marx’s dialectic? As a form of logic it goes way back to ancient Greece and I can guarantee it will outlast many speculative scientific theories. In my view a rejection of it is to impoverish knowledge and I reject entirely anyone trying to impose sanctions on its use. It has been said that trying to understand the world without the dialectic is like trying to board a moving train whilst blindfolded – something you are welcome to keep trying if you so wish. As for your absurd assertion that ‘we do not understand cultural variations’ I can only point out the obvious fact that we all live within global capitalism and the experience of the working class is universal and ubiquitous.
ALB – I just get the impression sometimes that our Party is moving away from Marxism and embracing an anti-intellectual perspective. I thought the whole point was that before socialist consciousness historical development was independent of human intentions and desires and so constituted, as you say, a ‘coercive force’!
As I keep repeating, even if he lost interest in ‘philosophy’ Marx’s analysis was dependent on a dialectical critique which was, undoubtedly, philosophical in origin. The same can be said of science since logic, empiricism and materialism on which it depends are all philosophical concepts. Philosophy after Marx went from strength to strength under the Frankfurt school. You have previously poured scorn on the philosophy of science but it is only through the critique of what science is and what it is not can it be rescued from becoming an ideological religion. There has never been anything more ‘speculative’ than science’s present theory of ‘dark matter and dark energy’ which could well mark the beginning of the end of present scientific paradigms.
‘There is a big world out there that probably you do not know, there is a big world outside of the socialist party, I might ask the same question why thousands of others members of others organizations do not join the socialist party?’
MS – the answer to your query is quite obvious, they do not join the Party because they are not Marxists. I speak, of course, of the thousands who have encountered the SPGB and rejected it.
‘At times i wish Marx and Engels never ever existed…’
Alan – I wish at times that capitalism had never existed. Sometimes socialists seem to think that if Marx agreed with their specific perspectives then it is proved correct instead of occasionally using Marx’s own theory to disprove some of his conclusions.
MS – ‘thousands of Marxists’
Where are these Marxists? I wish they’d join the Party.
MC – ‘I can’t separate Marx the polymath, into discreet sections from the philospher, dialectician, anthropologist etc et al.’
I couldn’t put it better myself – one of the holistic principles of the dialectic.
MS – As I suspected, you have no evidence for your assertion that Marx abandoned the dialectic. I’m well aware of comrade Buick’s thoughts on the subject and he has every right, like you, to be mistaken. Even if Marx had thought that philosophy was of no further use the science to which he aspired was the child of philosophy in terms of its materialism, empiricism and, in Marx’s view of science, in its dialectical analysis.
MS – why all this prejudice towards the dialectic? Dialectics are fun and give us extraordinary insights that Marx used in his analysis. Understanding the dialectic is not difficult and once the basics are understood it helps to understand Marx’s method which many find inaccessible otherwise. I recommend you read Bertell Ollman’s Dance of the Dialectic which helps demystify the philosophical tradition.
LB – what do you make of Trevor Ling’s position that, with reference to the Buddha and Christ, it is the acquisition of the thoughts and values of such individuals by a State that transforms them into a ‘religion’ which inevitably subverts the meaning intended by its originators? Religion in this context is always an instrument of control and oppression.
