iskrabronstein: that the idea of class origin determining personal characteristics was largely of Stalinist origin, being developed as a cudgel to use against "petit-bourgeois
And as I have stated, that is incorrect. Marx already stated that personal characteristics are determined by class interests either consciously or unconsciously. Should I give you quotations out of Marx's works concerning such a belief? Off the top of my head I can naturally point out that it is littered through the Communist Manifesto in which Marx claims that the bourgeois treat their children like capital and their wives like tools. They supposedly whore out their wives amongst each other. There are bourgeois notions of property, liberty, law and so on. The whole superstructure of the bourgeois class is built upon the economic base of capitalism. That is why Marx says "A bourgeois is a bourgeois"
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Daniel Muffinburg: What was Marx's value judgement on communism?
What was Marx's value judgement on communism?
This is what Mises' had to say on the matter:For pure Marxism Socialism is not a political program. It does not demand that society shall be transformed into the socialist order, nor does it condemn the liberal order of society. It presents itself as a scientific theory which claims to have discovered in the dynamic laws of historical development a movement towards the socialization of the means of production. To say that pure Marxism pronounces itself in favor of Socialism or that it desires Socialism or wishes to bring it about would be just as absurd as to say that Astronomy wishes or thought it desirable to bring about a solar eclipse which it had predicted. We know that Marx's life and even of his writings and sayings sharply contradict his theoretic outlook and that the Socialism of resentment is always showing its cloven hoof. In practical politics at least, his supporters have long sense forgotten what they owe strictly to his doctrine. their words and deeds go far beyond what the "midwife theory" permits [1]. This, however, is of secondary importance for our study which here deals only with the doctrine pure and undefiled.Beside the pure Marxist view that socialism must come of inexorable necessity, there are two other motives which guide the advocates of Communism. They are socialists either because they expect socialist society to increase productivity, or because they believe that a socialist society would be more just. Marxism is unable to reconcile itself to ethical Socialism. But its attitude to economic-rationalist Socialism is quite different: it is possible to interpret the materialistic conception of history as meaning that the trend of economic development naturally leads to the most productive type of economy, that is to say Socialism. Of course, this view is very different from that held by the majority of Marxists. They are for Socialism, firstly because it is bound to come in any case, secondly because it is morally preferable, and finally because it involves more rational economic organization.
"It has been well said that, while we used to suffer from social evils, we now suffer from the remedies for them."
F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
iskrabronstein: I could quote plenty of bloodthirsty statements from liberal bourgeois revolutionaries, "tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots" etc. - but it would serve about as little purpose to this discussion as your enlightened contribution.
I could quote plenty of bloodthirsty statements from liberal bourgeois revolutionaries, "tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots" etc. - but it would serve about as little purpose to this discussion as your enlightened contribution.
Typical Marxian version of "logical thinking."
1. If proven they are wrong, their reply is "You are just as bad, if not worse."
2. Any sophistry is fine. After all, we are trying to bring about Heaven on Earth here, so what's a little deceit? Intellectual honesty is for the burgeoisie, anyway.
What I refer to is the blood of patriots quote. It means that The patriot must be ready to make a sacrifice OF HIS OWN BLOOD. Marx in the quotes above is saying that the Marxist is willing to kill plenty of OTHER PEOPLE. Again, "We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." And Lenin saying that the trouble with terrorism is that it doesn't kill enough people.
3. If all else fails, dismiss the relelvant as irrelevant. I'm refering to "serve little purpose to this discussion." This is the second time [that I noticed] he had to resort to this cheap trick. He did it before by dismissing relevant quotes by saying "I could toss quotes back and forth with you all night." As if Marx and all his cronies saying explicilty they are out for blood can somehow be countered by some peace loving quote of theirs [which he fails to produce, of course, just says that he could, if there was any point, lol.]
4. The poor bastard. People are born honest and right thinking. If they have to lie and deceive, it makes them feel bad deep down. So of course they have to deaden part of themselves and turn into zombies, to quiet the stirrings of discomfort within.
I wonder how he felt writing that crap about justice is not burgeoisie, but other moral values that good people the world over in every class [and iskra himjself before he became so "sophisticated"] cherish, like not mass murdering people for money, those are mistaken. How much mental tongue twisting these guys go through. [BTW rest assured that when some other thread will show justice is not on the side of the Commies, then justice will be waved of as burgeosie nonsense too].
Notice another thing. AE is so common sense! It so fits both the world as we see it, and our own feelings of what is just sound thinking. There is no appeal to authority, either. Think it through for yourself, and you'll reach the same conclusion
These poor souls, on the other hand, first thing they have to swallow the party line. Then when the party line changes because reality just doesn't fit, they have to reset and swallow new crap. They have to forget how to think, and learn how to lie. They have to stifle their sense of right and wrong. Their job in life is not to learn or discover or be creative, but to be apologists.
And for what? To get a little money when the historically inevitable finally comes. There are honest and satisfying ways to make money, you sad misguided souls.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Andrew Cain: iskrabronstein: that the idea of class origin determining personal characteristics was largely of Stalinist origin, being developed as a cudgel to use against "petit-bourgeois And as I have stated, that is incorrect. Marx already stated that personal characteristics are determined by class interests either consciously or unconsciously. Should I give you quotations out of Marx's works concerning such a belief? Off the top of my head I can naturally point out that it is littered through the Communist Manifesto in which Marx claims that the bourgeois treat their children like capital and their wives like tools. They supposedly whore out their wives amongst each other. There are bourgeois notions of property, liberty, law and so on. The whole superstructure of the bourgeois class is built upon the economic base of capitalism. That is why Marx says "A bourgeois is a bourgeois"
Which is exactly true, but NOT the line of argument you made earlier. Your earlier criticism was directed specifically at Marx's social origin as a contradictory factor in his advocacy of socialist policy. Marx would never disagree with the assertion that the social class and milieu one is brought up in has a direct and important influence on the personal development of an individual - what he would disagree with is the idea, implicit in the argument you put forward, that class origin has a definite and immutable character, one necessarily expressed throughout any component individual of that class. THAT particular elaboration is Stalinism, as I previously noted. If Marx was so set on the pure class-origin of the Marxist labor movement, wouldn't he have attempted to build his own socialist parties rather than attempting to organize the various currents, reformist and revolutionary, Owenite and syndicalist, into the First International?
@SmilingDave - having thus far refrained from ad hominem attacks, I see no reason to indulge yours.
iskrabronstein: @SmilingDave - having thus far refrained from ad hominem attacks, I see no reason to indulge yours.
Why am I not surprised? Sure, I understand that you ignore the good sound personal advice I wrote you, [like a good father to his erring son], that's your privilege.
But you seize upon that part of the post to ignore the non personal part as well.
When in doubt, slander and name call. Ignore the actual logical argument. It's the Commie way.
Mises had you guys pegged a long time ago. I'm sure the more erudite here can find the quote, where he writes that Marx taught all his disciples to ignore logic [because you can't win, marxism won't hold up to logic], and throw mud instead.
BTW my post was not an ad hominem attack. It was a logical analysis of what you poor fellows suffer through. I was assuming Marxism to be claptrap, relying on the great scholars who already proved it. My interest was to explore what happens to people who live this lie.
If your ideology is so definitively superior, then engage me on an intellectual level. Don't engage in a gross and frankly insulting generalization about the universal bloodthirstiness and obtuseness of Marxists - it might score you some points on the Internet, but in actual discussion you are doing nothing differently than the Stalinists you are criticizing.
I don't engage in patronizing remarks about your lack of social empathy, or some other ridiculous personal characterization.
If you want to talk down to people like an adult, try acting like one.
iskrabronstein: If your ideology is so definitively superior, then engage me on an intellectual level. Don't engage in a gross and frankly insulting generalization about the universal bloodthirstiness and obtuseness of Marxists - it might score you some points on the Internet, but in actual discussion you are doing nothing differently than the Stalinists you are criticizing. I don't engage in patronizing remarks about your lack of social empathy, or some other ridiculous personal characterization. If you want to talk down to people like an adult, try acting like one.
They are bloodthirtsy. They are proud of it. I provided some of the quotes, and you provided some. Show me some peace loving anti violence quotes. Tell me about how Marx was just a lil ole Mahatama Ghandi.
Obtuseness? I didn't say you are stupid. I said you are intellectually dishonest. And you are. Proof: you do not reply to the evidence I present. Quote my earlier posts throughly, line by line, and show how they are in error.
I like this line: "you are doing nothing differently than the Stalinists you are criticizing." Here you admit that indeed Marxists are all I have said they are. It's just that I got the names wrong. It isn't the pure holy Marxists, it's the dirty rotten Stalinists. Well sorry Comrade. The quotes were from Marx, not Stalin.
I dunno, someone who wants to see the world reddened by rivers of blood is indeed lacking in social empathy, in my humble opinion. Now maybe you personally are not into that. I'm very glad to hear. But Marx was. He loved it and said so.
I wasn't giving a personal characterization. I was, like Marx before me, dispassionately showing the inevitable consequences of a certain way of acting. Except that I'm right and he's wrong.
iskrabronstein:If you want to talk down to people like an adult, try acting like one.
Can anyone see the humor in that line?
Iskra, truth be told, I think part of you knows I'm right. I hit a nerve, something you have vaguely sensed for a while but have not yet dared put into words. We love you. You are smart, caring, a valuable person. The world needs guys like you. Don't let those silly Marxist fairy tales send you up a cruel blind alley.
Smiling Dave: iskrabronstein: If your ideology is so definitively superior, then engage me on an intellectual level. Don't engage in a gross and frankly insulting generalization about the universal bloodthirstiness and obtuseness of Marxists - it might score you some points on the Internet, but in actual discussion you are doing nothing differently than the Stalinists you are criticizing. I don't engage in patronizing remarks about your lack of social empathy, or some other ridiculous personal characterization. If you want to talk down to people like an adult, try acting like one. They are bloodthirtsy. They are proud of it. I provided some of the quotes, and you provided some. Show me some peace loving anti violence quotes. Tell me about how Marx was just a lil ole Mahatama Ghandi. Obtuseness? I didn't say you are stupid. I said you are intellectually dishonest. And you are. Proof: you do not reply to the evidence I present. Quote my earlier posts throughly, line by line, and show how they are in error. I like this line: "you are doing nothing differently than the Stalinists you are criticizing." Here you admit that indeed Marxists are all I have said they are. It's just that I got the names wrong. It isn't the pure holy Marxists, it's the dirty rotten Stalinists. Well sorry Comrade. The quotes were from Marx, not Stalin. I dunno, someone who wants to see the world reddened by rivers of blood is indeed lacking in social empathy, in my humble opinion. Now maybe you personally are not into that. I'm very glad to hear. But Marx was. He loved it and said so. I wasn't giving a personal characterization. I was, like Marx before me, dispassionately showing the inevitable consequences of a certain way of acting. Except that I'm right and he's wrong. iskrabronstein:If you want to talk down to people like an adult, try acting like one. Can anyone see the humor in that line? Iskra, truth be told, I think part of you knows I'm right. I hit a nerve, something you have vaguely sensed for a while but have not yet dared put into words. We love you. You are smart, caring, a valuable person. The world needs guys like you. Don't let those silly Marxist fairy tales send you up a cruel blind alley.
"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error." - Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (1927)
Tu quoque is a sword that cuts both ways. I have as little desire or inclination to be an apologist for failed Marxist policies as you presumably do to be an apologist for fascism. I think personally that the opposite sides of the spectrum would do well with more open discussion of ideas
Regarding your quotations from Marx - I have never once argued that many Marxist factions, drawing their inspiration from Marx himself, do not openly advocate and practice violent revolutionary practices. What I do insist is that these practices be understood in context, not to minimize their effects or importance within the doctrine, but in order to clearly distinguish between the existing ideological currents within Marxism. Many factions differ so greatly in policy that they don't even consider the other party socialist - Maoists and Stalinists, for example - or Trotskyists against virtually every other current. You can argue for the essential equivalence of all forms of Marxist ideology, but I think you will find that such an argument is borne out neither in political and economic theory or practice. The fact is that Marx was not responsible for much of the actual policy implemented by so-called Marxist governments. This is not an apologia for Marx, but a simple statement of fact - the only political organization Marx ever successfully maintained leadership of (the First Workingmens' International) was not in any real sense connected with either the revolutions of 1848, or the Paris Commune. The political practices of modern Marxism are the inheritance of Leninism - and despite clearly bearing the imprint of German Marxism, Leninist policy clearly diverges from Marx's analysis in several key places.
This is an excellent summation of the core features of basic Marxism, and the elements introduced later by Lenin and others (strangely, does not include ant left Communists, like Luxemburg, Liebknecht, or Trotsky) - http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/marxism.html
Your concern for my welfare is very touching though, I must say, and is reciprocated haha
iskrabronstein: Which is exactly true, but NOT the line of argument you made earlier. Your earlier criticism was directed specifically at Marx's social origin as a contradictory factor in his advocacy of socialist policy.
Which is exactly true, but NOT the line of argument you made earlier. Your earlier criticism was directed specifically at Marx's social origin as a contradictory factor in his advocacy of socialist policy.
iskrabronstein: I think you'll find that the majority of the focus on class consciousness as a deterministic factor in personal development comes from Stalinism. Marx viewed class consciousness as a continually shifting tableau of opinion and policy, made concrete and definite only by the historical experience and perspective of its constituents. It is a collective consciousness, one that can influence people but not determine them entirely.
I think you'll find that the majority of the focus on class consciousness as a deterministic factor in personal development comes from Stalinism. Marx viewed class consciousness as a continually shifting tableau of opinion and policy, made concrete and definite only by the historical experience and perspective of its constituents. It is a collective consciousness, one that can influence people but not determine them entirely.
Andrew Cain:No that is actual incorrect. At the beginning Marx did believe that history is determined to develop along the lines of alienation and class consciousness would be a product of such alienation.
Where did I talk about Marx's contradictory nature in advocacy of socialist policies?
iskrabronstein:Marx would never disagree with the assertion that the social class and milieu one is brought up in has a direct and important influence on the personal development of an individual - what he would disagree with is the idea, implicit in the argument you put forward, that class origin has a definite and immutable character, one necessarily expressed throughout any component individual of that class.
No he wouldn't. Did you just gloss over my comments about bourgeois behavior? It is not as if bourgeois can suddenly become proletariat workers. Class mobility only occurs with petite-bourgeois in which they either become full bourgeois or proletariat. A proletariat can't become a bourgeois and vice versa. What class you are born into is the class you remain in. If it was possible that proletariat could actually better their conditions of life then there would be no immiseration clause.
iskrabronstein:If Marx was so set on the pure class-origin of the Marxist labor movement, wouldn't he have attempted to build his own socialist parties rather than attempting to organize the various currents, reformist and revolutionary, Owenite and syndicalist, into the First International
Not if he thought that it was historically inevitable.
Andrew Cain: iskrabronstein: Which is exactly true, but NOT the line of argument you made earlier. Your earlier criticism was directed specifically at Marx's social origin as a contradictory factor in his advocacy of socialist policy. iskrabronstein: I think you'll find that the majority of the focus on class consciousness as a deterministic factor in personal development comes from Stalinism. Marx viewed class consciousness as a continually shifting tableau of opinion and policy, made concrete and definite only by the historical experience and perspective of its constituents. It is a collective consciousness, one that can influence people but not determine them entirely. Andrew Cain:No that is actual incorrect. At the beginning Marx did believe that history is determined to develop along the lines of alienation and class consciousness would be a product of such alienation. Where did I talk about Marx's contradictory nature in advocacy of socialist policies? iskrabronstein:Marx would never disagree with the assertion that the social class and milieu one is brought up in has a direct and important influence on the personal development of an individual - what he would disagree with is the idea, implicit in the argument you put forward, that class origin has a definite and immutable character, one necessarily expressed throughout any component individual of that class. No he wouldn't. Did you just gloss over my comments about bourgeois behavior? It is not as if bourgeois can suddenly become proletariat workers. Class mobility only occurs with petite-bourgeois in which they either become full bourgeois or proletariat. A proletariat can't become a bourgeois and vice versa. What class you are born into is the class you remain in. If it was possible that proletariat could actually better their conditions of life then there would be no immiseration clause. iskrabronstein:If Marx was so set on the pure class-origin of the Marxist labor movement, wouldn't he have attempted to build his own socialist parties rather than attempting to organize the various currents, reformist and revolutionary, Owenite and syndicalist, into the First International Not if he thought that it was historically inevitable.
You are correct, it was another poster who had made a statement inquiring how Marx could espouse socialist ideas as a bourgeois, previously. My apologies.
I didn't gloss over anything - it is self-evident that Marx regarded class as an important parameter in the development of both individual and collective consciousness. What you fail to prove, however, is that this fact precludes a bourgeois intellectual from advocating socialist policies or a working-class man from being politically conservative. Class is not some kind of monolithic political organism in Marxism - it is a group of people who live within a very definite group of social and political relationships, all hinging on their relationship to the means of production. This set of relationships has no objective ideological character - its class consciousness is determined by the social environment in which it exists. And yet again - you analyze Marx's argument in isolation as a dogmatic system, rather than an attempt at political economy. Marx argued for the lack of class mobility as a result of multiple factors, including lack of access to education and ability to create savings among the proletariat, all of which were specifically geared to the current historical stage of development of capitalism as an economic system.
Lenin answers the italicized portion of your argument above in Imperialism.
And the historical inevitability, or lack thereof, of the proletarian revolution is entirely beside the point. Why, if Marx believed that bourgeois elements were absolutely irreconcilable enemies of the working class, did he join and lead a workers' organization composed primarily of those same bourgeoisie - the Owenites, the Christian socialists, the Proudhonists, etc.?
whose new book–”Tyranny to Freedom: Diary of a Former Stalinist” is now available at
www [dot] amazon [dot] com
READER’S REVIEWS ARE ALSO AT THIS WEBSITE.
Comments will be appreciated, either at the above website or in private. Thank you in advance.
[email protected]
P.S.
The first chapter is online at
[pages.csam.montclair.edu]
I am sorry, the link to my first chapter of my autobiography (posted minutes ago) is not working. Try this:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/chapter1.html
also
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/mybook2.html
iskrabronstein:What you fail to prove, however, is that this fact precludes a bourgeois intellectual from advocating socialist policies or a working-class man from being politically conservative.
Because of their relationship to the means of production their motif of class consciousness dictates their actions. So because a person has a capitalist relationship to the economic base, their superstructure is created around that capitalist base and therefore their views on religion, law, politics, and mannerisms are all based on a capitalist relation to the forces of production.
iskrabronstein:Class is not some kind of monolithic political organism in Marxism - it is a group of people who live within a very definite group of social and political relationships, all hinging on their relationship to the means of production
If they are all bound and connected by a singular institution, then it is a monolithic political organism. If everyone is bound to the the means of production in some manner then they are all bound to a singular institution.
iskrabronstein: This set of relationships has no objective ideological character - its class consciousness is determined by the social environment in which it exists
You are making it seem like workers consciousness for the proletariat revolution is relative to certain locals. It is not as if British workers and German workers will retain a British or German consciousness. There is only one consciousness, the worker.
iskrabronstein:Marx argued for the lack of class mobility as a result of multiple factors, including lack of access to education and ability to create savings among the proletariat, all of which were specifically geared to the current historical stage of development of capitalism as an economic system.
These are all benign byproducts of alienation which stems from the division of labor. Marx does not care about 'education'. Sure he points to it in the Communist Manifesto but it is not a traditional interpretation of 'education' meaning the learning of a specific trade or skill. No one is suppose to have a specific trade or skill in a socialist society and education would only be used in so far as to bring about class consciousness. To say that individuals should be educated beyond worker values is to establish an implicit division of labor because you have individuals pursuing specific professions that they excel at. Being a Marxist, you should know that it isn't inequality or wages that Marx really cares about. It all stems from the division of labor. That is what alienation is, that is what the socialist revolution seeks to end. You could give workers ridiculous sums of money, give them the highest standard of living of anyone in society and it still would not remove the alienation that Marx says inevitably must come to an end.
iskrabronstein:Lenin answers the italicized portion of your argument above in Imperialism.
Are you going to give me that answer or do I have to read another dreadful socialist work?
iskrabronstein:And the historical inevitability, or lack thereof, of the proletarian revolution is entirely beside the point
It is the main point of Marxism. That is its whole foundation. People like to think it is actually the Labor Theory of Value but even if Marx didn't have that then he would still have the alienation clause. If it isn't historically inevitiable then Marx himself regulates his theories to the stature of a utopian socialist, merely appealing to the populace to embrace socialism over capitalism. The 'science' drops out, and if it is all appeals then Marx shoots himself in the foot by stating there will be bloody revolution, mass killing, mass greed and envy if his version of socialism is to be brought about.
iskrabronstein:Why, if Marx believed that bourgeois elements were absolutely irreconcilable enemies of the working class, did he join and lead a workers' organization composed primarily of those same bourgeoisie - the Owenites, the Christian socialists, the Proudhonists, etc.?
Three comments:
1. The First International was lead by a majority of Marxists. The only sect that rivaled his was Bakunin. When the differences couldn't be resolved the Marxists and Anarchists actually did break off the international into two separate factions so it was not as if Marx was buddy buddy with these people.
2. Marx did criticize these sects. Profusely.
3. This is kind of a side point but you assume that Marx isn't capable of contradictory behavior even if my first two points don't convince you.
kowalskil:But try to present such data to communist today. You will indeed receive a list of crimes committed by capitalist governments. Comparing these data makes no sense because communists promised to be much better. Brutality and violence, they say, is profit-motivated. Our motivation is very different.
The case can be made that what many communist claim as 'brutal capitalist acts' are in fact mercantilism/corporate fascism. A Marxist cannot make the claim that the result of Soviet Russia and Communist China was 'not communism.' It indeed was the beginning of what Marx called 'crude communism.'
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Andrew Cain: iskrabronstein:What you fail to prove, however, is that this fact precludes a bourgeois intellectual from advocating socialist policies or a working-class man from being politically conservative. Because of their relationship to the means of production their motif of class consciousness dictates their actions. So because a person has a capitalist relationship to the economic base, their superstructure is created around that capitalist base and therefore their views on religion, law, politics, and mannerisms are all based on a capitalist relation to the forces of production.
These two statements are where we have our divergence - you seem to be arguing that the class superstructure and social makeup dictates the actions of a given individual or collective within that society. This position is really only accepted by Maoists and Stalinists, generally as a result of its employment in the Cultural Revolution and purges in the Soviet Union - not to actually root out members of those classes, mind, but to villainize communists who failed to parrot Party Doctrine.
The classical, and most common Marxist interpretation of class consciousness is developmental, as R.J. Rummel (professor emeritus of political science at Hawaii University) explains:
"The force transforming latent class membership into a struggle of classes is class interest. Out of similar class situations, individuals come to act similarly. They develop a mutual dependence, a community, a shared interest interrelated with a common income of profit or of wages. From this common interest classes are formed, and for Marx, individuals form classes to the extent that their interests engage them in a struggle with the opposite class...
As Marx saw the development of class conflict, the struggle between classes was initially confined to individual factories. Eventually, given the maturing of capitalism, the growing disparity between life conditions of bourgeoisie and proletariat, and the increasing homogenization within each class, individual struggles become generalized to coalitions across factories. Increasingly class conflict is manifested at the societal level. Class consciousness is increased, common interests and policies are organized, and the use of and struggle for political power occurs. Classes become political forces. (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CIP.CHAP5.HTM)
Consequently, class consciousness (and necessarily the influence it bears on one’s character and decisions) ebbs and flows with the current of class struggle – it is not some kind of caste into which someone is born, lives, and dies. For Marx, the economic structure and class superstructure of a society play a central and integral role in the formation of class consciousness – but not a definitive role. Class consciousness is a constantly shifting concatenation of interests, that gains in intensity and definition as class struggles themselves grow more violent – to argue otherwise is to put words in the mouth of Marx to suit your own position.
Your other criticisms, regarding the monolithic status of a class and the local differences in development of class consciousness, are equally answered by a proper definition of the term. In times of relative peace, when class struggle slackens or is appeased by reform, the influences that enforce class separation weaken as well. In times of social crisis, classes coalesce and become more defined. This can occur on a variety of scales, from municipal (ex. Paris Commune) all the way up to national (Bolshevik revolution)
This is really all basic Marxist currency, I am frankly surprised you are so determined to challenge it.
Andrew Cain: These are all benign byproducts of alienation which stems from the division of labor. Marx does not care about 'education'. Sure he points to it in the Communist Manifesto but it is not a traditional interpretation of 'education' meaning the learning of a specific trade or skill. No one is suppose to have a specific trade or skill in a socialist society and education would only be used in so far as to bring about class consciousness. To say that individuals should be educated beyond worker values is to establish an implicit division of labor because you have individuals pursuing specific professions that they excel at.
These are all benign byproducts of alienation which stems from the division of labor. Marx does not care about 'education'. Sure he points to it in the Communist Manifesto but it is not a traditional interpretation of 'education' meaning the learning of a specific trade or skill. No one is suppose to have a specific trade or skill in a socialist society and education would only be used in so far as to bring about class consciousness. To say that individuals should be educated beyond worker values is to establish an implicit division of labor because you have individuals pursuing specific professions that they excel at.
No, they are concrete realities that shape the class mobility within a society – part of the capitalist class superstructure. They have just as much influence as any other limiting factor on social mobility, and probably more than most.
Andrew Cain: Being a Marxist, you should know that it isn't inequality or wages that Marx really cares about. It all stems from the division of labor. That is what alienation is, that is what the socialist revolution seeks to end. You could give workers ridiculous sums of money, give them the highest standard of living of anyone in society and it still would not remove the alienation that Marx says inevitably must come to an end.
Being a Marxist, you should know that it isn't inequality or wages that Marx really cares about. It all stems from the division of labor. That is what alienation is, that is what the socialist revolution seeks to end. You could give workers ridiculous sums of money, give them the highest standard of living of anyone in society and it still would not remove the alienation that Marx says inevitably must come to an end.
Wrong.
"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Marx
Your original comment about the idea of historical inevitability came as a response to a question of mine:
Andrew Cain: Not if he thought that it was historically inevitable.
That is frankly a nonsensical response, totally unrelated to the question I asked. Is diversion of the line of argument a standard tactic here? But in answer to your contention – do you not suppose that labor would still have to be organized along trade and industrial lines under a socialist state?
Two things:
“The meeting was jammed with a large number of assorted radicals. There were English Owenties and Chartists, French Proudhonists and Blanquists, Irish nationalists, Polish patriots, Italian Mazzinists, and German Socialists. It was an assortment united not by a commonly shared ideology or even by genuine internationalism, but by an accumulated burden of variated grievances crying for an outlet. The English were against special privilege, the French against Bonapartism, the Irish against the British, the Poles against Russia [Poland was occupied by Russia in 1795], the Italians against Austria, and the Germans against capitalism. There was no necessary or integral interconnection among them – except what Marx later tried to provide in the organizaton that followed the meeting. Under the chairmanship of Edward Spencer Beesly, an English Positivist historian and professor at London University, radical oratory was given free rein. Marx himself did not speak. He was, as he wrote later, a ‘silent figure on the platform.’
“The meeting voted unanimously to appoint a provisional committee to work out a program and membership rules for the proposed international organizaton. Marx was appointed a member of the committee, which met a week later and, being large and unweildy, agreed on a small subcommittee to do the actual work. Marx became a member of this crucial subcommittee. The only other German on it was “my old friend, the tailor Eccarius", as Marx wrote to a communist friend in Solingen. The subcommittee met in Marx’s house, and so powerful was his intellectual ascendency and certainty of purpose – the In Augural Address – and the rules – Provisional Statutes – of the new organization. Henceforth Marx was to remain its predominant spirit and the indomitable personality that held the disparate International Association together for eight difficult and often stormy years, until it was shattered by bitter internal dissensions.” (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/f/i.htm#first-international)
“The superprofits of imperialism enable the capitalists to buy off the workers in the home country. Lenin points out that this had been foreseen by Engels in a letter to Marx as early as 1858, "The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois ... For a nation which exploits the whole world, this is of course to a certain extent justifiable." Lenin confirms that this trend had continued to develop and was accompanied by opportunism on the part of many working class leaders and socialist writers. He carefully analyzes and dismisses the opportunism of Kautsky and his followers and concludes that "the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism" (http://sfr-21.org/imp-hsc.html)
iskrabronstein:These two statements are where we have our divergence - you seem to be arguing that the class superstructure and social makeup dictates the actions of a given individual or collective within that society. This position is really only accepted by Maoists and Stalinists, generally as a result of its employment in the Cultural Revolution and purges in the Soviet Union - not to actually root out members of those classes, mind, but to villainize communists who failed to parrot Party Doctrine.
No you are just a revisionist Marxist who is trying to save the doctrine from self-imploding. If you admit that actions & beliefs contained within the superstructure which is supported by the economic base are dictated by the relations of production then you would be forced to admit that a bourgeois cannot possible understand or encourage proletariat revolution since they themselves are member of the class that is suppressing the proletariat. The majority of socialist theorist are bourgeois, not proletariat so it would look foolish if this whole theory about how class conflict is played came under the purview of a bourgeois. Even orthodox Marxists knew this right after Marx's death. Karl Kautsky had to make up this ridiculous justification for why a bourgeois intellectual like Marx announced this whole theory about socialistic class conflict since our belief structure is dictated by our class interests. His justification was that intellectuals float above class conflict therefore allowing them to see it making it seem that Marxists intellectuals have discovered the act of levitation. Of course the counter argument to that is: If Marxist intellectuals can do it, why can't everyone else? Of course there is no rational answer to this so we get revisionists who start watering down the Marxist theory in order to sustain its every decaying foundation. They try to warp it into a relativist notion in order to better increase the ambiguity of Marx's writings.
iskrabronstein:For Marx, the economic structure and class superstructure of a society play a central and integral role in the formation of class consciousness – but not a definitive role.
If the economic structure and class superstructure doesn't play a definitive role, then what does? What is not economic is contain in the superstructure itself. It contains all facets of human interaction which do not deal with economic relations of production. So if not those, then what? Some invisible, unannounced, unnamed structure?
iskrabronstein: Wrong. "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Marx
Well we have to get pass the simplistic pronouncements of a propaganda pamphlet. In the German Ideology, Marx openly states:
'Individuals have always regarded themselves as the point of departure; their relations are part of the real process of their lives. How can it be, then, that their relationships become independent of them, that the forces of their own lives gain control over them? The answer, in a word, is--the division of labor, the degree of which depends on the extent to which productive forces have developed.'
That is alienation. The inability for man to dominate nature and the social institutions which they create. That is the whole root of why the negation of capitalism is communism. That is the driving force behind historical development, the onward and upward motion towards the culmination of private interest and public interests, of humanity becoming a species being. Now not only have I just shown you that the division of labor is the root of alienation but also that human relationships and forces become independent of the individual actor therefore meaning that bourgeois superstructural institutions gain control over the minds and actions of bourgeois individuals. A bourgeois cannot help but act like a bourgeois. Since he is alienated, he cannot control the social institutions which forced him into a class interest.
iskrabronstein:That is frankly a nonsensical response, totally unrelated to the question I asked. Is diversion of the line of argument a standard tactic here? But in answer to your contention – do you not suppose that labor would still have to be organized along trade and industrial lines under a socialist state?
Arrival at alienation is a spontaneous event for the worker which happens at the full culmination of the capitalist system. It's called 'aufhebung', a transcendence. It just poof, happens. There is no planning to bring about class consciousness. It is self-discovery concerning the concept of alienation. Thus like I said, it is historically inevitable. It will just happen. Nobody knows when exactly, its just suppose to be at the end of capitalism.
iskrabronstein:“The meeting was jammed with a large number of assorted radicals. There were English Owenties and Chartists, French Proudhonists and Blanquists, Irish nationalists, Polish patriots, Italian Mazzinists, and German Socialists. It was an assortment united not by a commonly shared ideology or even by genuine internationalism, but by an accumulated burden of variated grievances crying for an outlet. The English were against special privilege, the French against Bonapartism, the Irish against the British, the Poles against Russia [Poland was occupied by Russia in 1795], the Italians against Austria, and the Germans against capitalism. There was no necessary or integral interconnection among them – except what Marx later tried to provide in the organizaton that followed the meeting. Under the chairmanship of Edward Spencer Beesly, an English Positivist historian and professor at London University, radical oratory was given free rein. Marx himself did not speak. He was, as he wrote later, a ‘silent figure on the platform.
Right, large assortments of diverse opinion and Marx shutting up. What wonder romanticism.
iskrabronstein:“The meeting voted unanimously to appoint a provisional committee to work out a program and membership rules for the proposed international organizaton. Marx was appointed a member of the committee, which met a week later and, being large and unweildy, agreed on a small subcommittee to do the actual work. Marx became a member of this crucial subcommittee. The only other German on it was “my old friend, the tailor Eccarius", as Marx wrote to a communist friend in Solingen. The subcommittee met in Marx’s house, and so powerful was his intellectual ascendency and certainty of purpose – the In Augural Address – and the rules – Provisional Statutes – of the new organization. Henceforth Marx was to remain its predominant spirit and the indomitable personality that held the disparate International Association together for eight difficult and often stormy years, until it was shattered by bitter internal dissensions.”
This doesn't contradict anything I stated. I stated that Marxists largely ran the First International, something you are confirming by saying that Marx himself made the rules for the organization, and that Bakunin's ilk were the main source of tension for the Marxists, something you implicitly confirm with the 'bitter internal dissensions.'
iskrabronstein: “The superprofits of imperialism enable the capitalists to buy off the workers in the home country. Lenin points out that this had been foreseen by Engels in a letter to Marx as early as 1858, "The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois ... For a nation which exploits the whole world, this is of course to a certain extent justifiable." Lenin confirms that this trend had continued to develop and was accompanied by opportunism on the part of many working class leaders and socialist writers. He carefully analyzes and dismisses the opportunism of Kautsky and his followers and concludes that "the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism"
This is an insulting snide comment thrown at Kautsky. It's not as if they REALLY are bourgeois. They are mirroring them like a parrot would a person's voice. The parrot doesn't really talk, it mimics. It's obviously one of the most insulting comments you can throw at a Marxist. That they are a bourgeois and also calling them a revisionist after Lenin's time.
Mr Cain, you are totally MVP
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
This time around you get to share Good show Cain!
I best tone it down or else he may leave. Then I will be allllll alone again.
nirgrahamUK: Mr Cain, you are totally MVP
Thanks! And I learned all of this at my local library!
Andrew Cain:I best tone it down or else he may leave. Then I will be allllll alone again.
It's truly been informative by both iskrabronstein and yourself. I agree with you, I hope it continues at least a little bit longer.
wilderness:It's truly been informative by both iskrabronstein and yourself. I agree with you, I hope it continues at least a little bit longer
Sadly, it looks like our dreams are crushed. I hope I at least got to him/her and brought about a seed of doubt which would lead to bigger, more pressing questions about the legitimacy of Marxism. I will say that such a thing is what I wish to happen but I know probably won't.
Andrew Cain: wilderness:It's truly been informative by both iskrabronstein and yourself. I agree with you, I hope it continues at least a little bit longer Sadly, it looks like our dreams are crushed. I hope I at least got to him/her and brought about a seed of doubt which would lead to bigger, more pressing questions about the legitimacy of Marxism. I will say that such a thing is what I wish to happen but I know probably won't.
I came across this in my reading today. It is Mises on Marxism:
"They assume without hesitation that whatever is demanded by one’s class interests is always immediately evident and unequivocal. The comrade who is of a different opinion can only be a traitor to his class." - Mises; Epistemological Problems of Economics
Made me wonder if knowing Marxism better than a self-promoting Marxist might mean they are a traitor to Marxism. You would appear the real Marxist and place such an individual outside of Marxist ideology as said individual thereby holds a different opinion (saying this with that quote in mind). Of course I don't think a Marxist now a days, but one never knows, would think they are a traitor. Yet either they awake to knowing they are not of the real Marxist school and need to learn more of it and/or thus doubt is created because how could a Marxist really have such a differing opinion of what Marxism really is? It would be counter to their way of thinking inherent class logic. I don't know. I thought it was an interesting tid-bit from Mises.
What do you think?
The essence of communism is in the idea of proletarian dictatorship. But proletarians today, at least in the US, England, Sweden, etc., are not the same as in 1848. Slow reversible changes (reforms) are often desirable alternatives. That is what I think.
Ludwik Kowalski
whose new book–”Tyranny to Freedom: Diary of a Former Stalinist,” and review are now available at
THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING. 100% ROYALTIES AUTOMATICALLY GO TO A SCHOLARSHIP FUND.
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/chapter1.html
wilderness:Made me wonder if knowing Marxism better than a self-promoting Marxist might mean they are a traitor to Marxism.
Well if they don't know then they could just be experiencing false consciousness. I think that if a worker were educated on Marxism and rejected it then they might call him a class traitor. Which is strange because consciousness is suppose to be dictated by the relations of production so if a worker can reject the proletariat mentality then how effective is the economic base in dictating how we perceive the world?
wilderness:Yet either they awake to knowing they are not of the real Marxist school and need to learn more of it and/or thus doubt is created because how could a Marxist really have such a differing opinion of what Marxism really is?
Well I just got involved in the second volume of Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism which deals with the theorists after Marx up until Lenin. Right after, I mean right after the passing of Marx his whole system began to break up in what can be called 'the golden age of Marxism.' I'll have to get back to you. I've actually been thinking about trying to get into the Mises daily with an article on this. I've only seen a few articles on Marx yet it seems to interest people when it comes up.
Leszek Kolakowski is a good source. Prompted by unexpected interest, I read his books three years ago. But that is not my field. At the age of 79 I often asks myself if time investment to study something profoundly is justified.
Andrew Cain: wilderness:Made me wonder if knowing Marxism better than a self-promoting Marxist might mean they are a traitor to Marxism. Well if they don't know then they could just be experiencing false consciousness. I think that if a worker were educated on Marxism and rejected it then they might call him a class traitor. Which is strange because consciousness is suppose to be dictated by the relations of production so if a worker can reject the proletariat mentality then how effective is the economic base in dictating how we perceive the world?
Ah! I get it. Good point. It's really thought to be tied that close.
Andrew Cain: wilderness:Yet either they awake to knowing they are not of the real Marxist school and need to learn more of it and/or thus doubt is created because how could a Marxist really have such a differing opinion of what Marxism really is? Well I just got involved in the second volume of Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism which deals with the theorists after Marx up until Lenin. Right after, I mean right after the passing of Marx his whole system began to break up in what can be called 'the golden age of Marxism.' I'll have to get back to you. I've actually been thinking about trying to get into the Mises daily with an article on this. I've only seen a few articles on Marx yet it seems to interest people when it comes up.
Thanks for getting back to me on this.
wilderness:Thanks for getting back to me on this.
No problem.