Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Masada]

Heck, economics isn't too good at predicting things. Does that mean all of them are crap?

Yes

 

[Traitorfish]

I want to start a thread comparing an ideal* communist and ideal capitalist state, and the road to get there.

Can a Red suggest me any links that can fill me in on communism enough to start an unbiased discussion ( in less then ~100 A4 pages of text )?

The introductory guides on libcom.org are a decent short introduction to some of the basics of communist thought, and provide an overview of the main trends of libertarian socialism (anarchism and left-Marxist). I recommend these to start with:

Capitalism
Class and class struggle
Libertarian communism and capitalism

For something with more detail, try the first two sections ("1. The Task" and "2. The Fight") of Anton Pannekoek Workers' Councils (just under a hundred A5ish pages in my hard copy). It's outdated in some of the details, having been written in the 1940s (the weight of focus on factory floor organisation, for example, needs to be reassessed in regards to the current size of the service industry), but it's a pretty solid outline of council communism, and more broadly to non-vanguard communism in general. (Maybe start with the libcom introduction to that as well, to put it in historical context.)

 

[aelf]

Yes

You economist!

 

[Masada]

You economist!

Ma economic predications are not worth the paper their written on

 

[Alassius]

Alassius, I will say this again: this is an Ask A Red thread, not a place for you to carry out your dishonest and poorly-informed polemicising. If you have questions, ask them clearly and politely, without these snide remarks and this dishonest twisting of words. If you don't stop carrying on like this, I'm going to have to ask the moderators to bar you from posting in this thread.

"[D]ishonest and poorly-informed" is a pretty serious allegation. You will have to justify that. Otherwise, please, stop hiding behind this "ask a red" line. It's been used for little more than deflecting criticisms that you are unable to defend against.

I never got what the obsession with predicting things is about. Plenty of political theories have no utility for making predictions. Heck, economics isn't too good at predicting things. Does that mean all of them are crap?

Maybe there is another source of disagreement here - the difference between those with scientific pretensions and those who understand what the 'humanities' entail.

Despite what our dear comrades might have implied, Marx himself did make predictions, and he did call his theories scientific. If anything, the difference is between Popperian skepticism, which suggests you can make social predictions, but you should never think you are infallible; and Marxist materialism, which holds itself as the one and only universal truth, with a credibility on making predictions on par with physics.

Making predictions is, however awful we are at it, indispensable. A government has to understand how much taxes it can collect, how much spending it can afford, what interest rates should be, etc. You have to make those decisions, even if you don't know whether you are doing the right thing. Relying on economic theories that are sometimes right - some would say often - is better than making completely random choices.

If you read Popper, you will notice that although he maintained that absolute truth is unreachable, he wasn't a classical skeptic who claimed nothing is knowable. He proposed something called "verisimilitude", or the altitude of truth. If a theory makes a successful prediction where other theories were proven wrong, it has a higher verisimilitude, and is more trustworthy. Before you find better theories that can replace it, the best that you have is what you use.

 

[aelf]

Despite what our dear comrades might have implied, Marx himself did make predictions, and he did call his theories scientific. If anything, the difference is between Popperian skepticism, which suggests you can make social predictions, but you should never think you are infallible; and Marxist materialism, which holds itself as the one and only universal truth, with a credibility on making predictions on par with physics.

Making predictions is, however awful we are at it, indispensable. A government has to understand how much taxes it can collect, how much spending it can afford, what interest rates should be, etc. You have to make those decisions, even if you don't know whether you are doing the right thing. Relying economic theories that are sometimes right - some would say often - is better than making completely random choices.

If you read Popper, you will notice that although he maintained that absolute truth is unreachable, he wasn't a classical skeptic who claimed nothing is knowable. He proposed something called "verisimilitude", or the altitude of truth. If a theory makes a successful prediction where other theories were proven wrong, it has a higher verisimilitude, and is more trustworthy. Before you find better theories that can replace it, the best that you have is what you use.

We've been through these same points many times, but I shall repeat myself again. Has it not occurred to you that, given the large body of work produced by Marx and Marxists, it is possible for a Marxist not to subscribe to a scientific view of dialectical materialism? Certainly, for someone who professes to be anti-dogmatic, you sure love to hold on to certain beliefs dogmatically.

As others have said, it's really not worth debating this with you - not because you are absolutely right, but because it's just a case of rehashing the same things all the time.

 

[Alassius]

We've been through these same points many times, but I shall repeat myself again. Has it not occurred to you that, given the large body of work produced by Marx and Marxists, it is possible for a Marxist not to subscribe to a scientific view of dialectical materialism? Certainly, for someone who professes to be anti-dogmatic, you sure love to hold on to certain beliefs dogmatically.

As others have said, it's really not worth debating this with you - not because you are absolutely right, but because it's just a case of rehashing the same things all the time.

Au contraire, I think we have achieved a rather great deal. Nobody is still defending Lenin, for example, or proposing that communism is inevitable.

As for dogmaticism, if you disagree with Marx's solution of how to create communism, his predictions of the doom of capitalism, his view that social democracy could not work, or even his idea of scientificity of materialism, would you have at some point stopped being a Marxist, and become a revisionist?

The trouble, of course, is not me calling you a revisionist. It is the other communists, if they ever acquire power. Given that the honourable gentlemen here have so far failed to propose something practical, and given the aforementioned need of practical policies, I highly doubt you will win against a resourceful, resolved, and underhanded autocrat, at which point what you subscribe to is no more relevant than which anime I prefer. Hence, merely saying you are not for centralism is no defence against it. That's what I've been talking about. You still need proper defences, like private property

 

[aelf]

Au contraire, I think we have achieved a rather great deal. Nobody is still defending Lenin, for example, or proposing that communism is inevitable.

Positions I never held.

As for dogmaticism, if you disagree with Marx's solution of how to create communism, his predictions of the doom of capitalism, his view that social democracy could not work, or even his idea of scientificity of materialism, would you have at some point stopped being a Marxist, and become a revisionist?

The trouble, of course, is not me calling you a revisionist. It is the other communists, if they ever acquire power. Given that the honourable gentlemen here have so far failed to propose something practical, and given the aforementioned need of practical policies, I highly doubt you will win against a resourceful, resolved, and underhanded autocrat, at which point what you subscribe to is no more relevant than which anime I prefer. Hence, merely saying you are not for centralism is no defence against it. That's what I've been talking about. You still need proper defences, like private property

Yes, I could be considered a revisionist (depending on whether you think there is orthodoxy). And we are not living in a totalitarian state, nor am I advocating the necessity of a bloody revolution to centralise power in an effort to defeat the bourgeoisie. So I don't see why I need to worry.

 

[aelf]

Given that the honourable gentlemen here have so far failed to propose something practical, and given the aforementioned need of practical policies, I highly doubt you will win against a resourceful, resolved, and underhanded autocrat, at which point what you subscribe to is no more relevant than which anime I prefer.

Now I'm going to address this sentence specifically. When you speak of "practical", I suspect you really mean "political", and I don't see revolution as primarily a political undertaking. Politics will always be relevant, but political power should not be the primary means of instigating change.

The praxis I believe in is primarily cultural, hence my insistence that Marxism is a framework for critique. It's a way of making sense of the world, of analysing and classifying phenomena - things that are but not necessarily will be. In my view, the cultural praxis aims not at a dictatorship of the proletariat, but at a benign kind of cultural hegemony. Marx knew that the only way a communist society could sustain itself was if its members got used to how it works. That is when a dictatorship, in any sense of the word, is no longer necessary. But Marx thought of this as an adaptation - culture adapts to the new relations of production.

The particular brand of revisionism that I subscribe to is the kind that questions the base-and-superstructure orthodoxy without throwing materialism out altogether. This entails a more organic view of economics, politics and culture, which opens the way for culture to spearhead change. And the cultural mission is tied up with discourses. Simply put, we have to keep up the critique and resist dominant discourses that are reactionary. We do this until the weight shifts and the prevailing hegemonic discourses no longer uphold the logic of capital as the highest form of human organisation - not because dissenting views are simply censored out, but because society has become much less receptive of them.

This is by no means impossible. Culture has changed over the last century. Part of the job is to watch for and resist attempts to shift it back inch-by-inch, as fashionable neoliberal discourses are seeking to do. It's the long road, but it's how social transformation can come about without the costs associated with the Marxist-Leninist attempts of yesteryear.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Can you recommend any good books on Marxist literary criticism? I am taking a class on literary theory right now and am considering writing my term paper with a Marxist reading of whatever text I end up choosing.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

What do you feel about neo-Nazis in today's society?

 

[aelf]

Can you recommend any good books on Marxist literary criticism? I am taking a class on literary theory right now and am considering writing my term paper with a Marxist reading of whatever text I end up choosing.

You might want to check out The Frankfurt School. I'm familiar to some extent with Adorno and Horkheimer (through Enlightenment as Mass Deception and Critical Theory), but they mostly deal with critique of culture in general. Georg Lukács is a bona fide classic Marxist literary critic. Today, there's also Terry Eagleton and perhaps Spivak if you can stand her postmodernist style and influences.

 

[Traitorfish]

"[D]ishonest and poorly-informed" is a pretty serious allegation. You will have to justify that. Otherwise, please, stop hiding behind this "ask a red" line. It's been used for little more than deflecting criticisms that you are unable to defend against.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to make it clear exactly where you deviate from what I would consider to be an honest and well-informed critique of Marxism, nor do I consider it particularly necessary; once again, "hiding" or not, I'm going to simply repeat my request that you actually use this thread as it is intended to be used, and cease your soap-boxing. This thread is what it is, and if you don't like it, clear off and start another. Simple as that.

What do you feel about neo-Nazis in today's society?

What do you mean by "neo-Nazis", exactly? There's a necessary distinction between a gaggle of white power skinheads with swastika tattoos and the British National Party.

 

[aelf]

You might want to check out The Frankfurt School. I'm familiar to some extent with Adorno and Horkheimer (through Enlightenment as Mass Deception and Critical Theory), but they mostly deal with critique of culture in general. Georg Lukács is a bona fide classic Marxist literary critic. Today, there's also Terry Eagleton and perhaps Spivak if you can stand her postmodernist style and influences.

Oh, how did I forget Fredric Jameson? Yes, Jameson fits the bill very well.

 

[G-Max]

My question:

Why don't you bother to learn anything about economics or 20th century world history?

Moderator Action: If you haven't got anything worth posting, stay out of the thread.

Red Diamond means you may be subject to double points. As you are here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aelf]

Meh. Dealt with.

 

[amadeus]

Let's assume that communism is implemented on some scale where cooperatives take the place of the present economic system.

Do you as communists support abolishing money as a medium of exchange? If you do, here's a scenario and a question. There is an iron mine and a steel mill. The steel mill needs iron ore, but the iron mine doesn't need steel. If parties are expected to barter in the absence of money, how would a steel mill get iron if the iron mine doesn't want steel?

If you don't support abolishing money, who or what controls the supply of money?

 

[GamezRule]

Communists tend to support money in the short term. Problem solved.

 

[Alassius]

Now I'm going to address this sentence specifically. When you speak of "practical", I suspect you really mean "political", and I don't see revolution as primarily a political undertaking. Politics will always be relevant, but political power should not be the primary means of instigating change.

The praxis I believe in is primarily cultural, hence my insistence that Marxism is a framework for critique. It's a way of making sense of the world, of analysing and classifying phenomena - things that are but not necessarily will be. In my view, the cultural praxis aims not at a dictatorship of the proletariat, but at a benign kind of cultural hegemony. Marx knew that the only way a communist society could sustain itself was if its members got used to how it works. That is when a dictatorship, in any sense of the word, is no longer necessary. But Marx thought of this as an adaptation - culture adapts to the new relations of production.

The particular brand of revisionism that I subscribe to is the kind that questions the base-and-superstructure orthodoxy without throwing materialism out altogether. This entails a more organic view of economics, politics and culture, which opens the way for culture to spearhead change. And the cultural mission is tied up with discourses. Simply put, we have to keep up the critique and resist dominant discourses that are reactionary. We do this until the weight shifts and the prevailing hegemonic discourses no longer uphold the logic of capital as the highest form of human organisation - not because dissenting views are simply censored out, but because society has become much less receptive of them.

This is by no means impossible. Culture has changed over the last century. Part of the job is to watch for and resist attempts to shift it back inch-by-inch, as fashionable neoliberal discourses are seeking to do. It's the long road, but it's how social transformation can come about without the costs associated with the Marxist-Leninist attempts of yesteryear.

"Politics", as Wikipedia defines it, is "a process by which groups of people make collective decisions". Whatever you use to instigate your change, the result of change is precisely such a process. A new process is the entire point of having a revolution. This process can be either authoritarian, or democratic, or something in between, or, like Marx imagined, trivial because everyone would just agree with each other, "got used to how it works". When you said "political power should not be the primary means of instigating change", you meant that everyone would have already agreed on what that change should be, so no top-down dictation is necessary.

This "more organic view of economics, politics and culture" is but a thinly disguised rephrase of the single, unanimous class consciousness, the most evil idea among all Marxist concepts. Coupled with the other idea that truth is manifest, it was the direct intellectual justification of political persecution. Truth is unique, manifest, and obviously Marxist. The "organic view" that is the proletarian class consciousness must then be the Truth. Anything against the Truth cannot possibly be valid, hence it must be "dishonest and poorly-informed", even if you cannot explain why. So a dissident must be either: 1) not a proletarian and not sharing the consciousness - but would be subject to the dictatorship; 2) a proletarian but somehow not speaking his mind, i.e. has false consciousness. Either way, the society is not supposed to be "receptive" of dissidents, because in theory dissidents would simply be reformed by 1) making them proletarian by depriving them of possessions; 2) education. As usual, this optimistic view ran into trouble when it encountered reality. The dissidents resisted reforming. What do you do about those few obstinate reactionaries, when you have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with them? Allowing them to freely subvert the revolution? Surely not. How about throwing them into "corrective labor camps" and "reeducation institutes"?

The simple truth is that an ideal communist society cannot tolerate dissidence, because dissidence is theoretically impossible. All your claims of how communism would not require centralised coercion is based on the assumption that everyone will magically, perpetually agree with you. Your process has no way to deal with disagreement. The moment disagreement occurs is the moment your system is thrown into disarray, until someone comes up with a process that can actually resolve conflicts. Guess what kind of process is the most expedient?

 

[aelf]

"Politics", as Wikipedia defines it, is "a process by which groups of people make collective decisions". Whatever you use to instigate your change, the result of change is precisely such a process. A new process is the entire point of having a revolution. This process can be either authoritarian, or democratic, or something in between, or, like Marx imagined, trivial because everyone would just agree with each other, "got used to how it works". When you said "political power should not be the primary means of instigating change", you meant that everyone would have already agreed on what that change should be, so no top-down dictation is necessary.

Perhaps, though I don't know why anyone would imagine that one vision could be unanimously held. Democratic consensus is by and large wishful thinking and is anyway quite incompatible with the notion of a dialectical process. That is to say collective decision-making does not constitute one single neat development. This is basic knowledge in what is called the social sciences.

This "more organic view of economics, politics and culture" is but a thinly disguised rephrase of the single, unanimous class consciousness, the most evil idea among all Marxist concepts. Coupled with the other idea that truth is manifest, it was the direct intellectual justification of political persecution. Truth is unique, manifest, and obviously Marxist. The "organic view" that is the proletarian class consciousness must then be the Truth. Anything against the Truth cannot possibly be valid, hence it must be "dishonest and poorly-informed", even if you cannot explain why.

Presumably you say this because you never disagree with anyone?

As always, you display a complete lack of knowledge of dialectics. One of the very important ideas in Hegelianism is that of the conflict of moral forces, which is inherited by Marx. In fact, the latter explicitly says that "Between equal rights force decides". If this isn't a clear statement of the validity of opposing views, then I don't know what is. At the same time, I think this statement shows that Marx acknowledges and accepts the existence of hegemony (force). But that does not imply some kind of thought police. Hegemony exists today, but there is nothing that fundamentally stops me from having a different view, clearly.

The Marxism you know is a caricature that is cobbled together from popular knowledge and convenient sound bites, without any of the philosophy on which it is actually founded. I also appreciate how you so readily interpret my views as some kind of totalitarian ideology as if it's obvious. Really, the only kind of dogmatism that is becoming increasingly evident is yours. Any Marxist worldview has to be totalitarian and "evil".

So a dissident must be either: 1) not a proletarian and not sharing the consciousness - but would be subject to the dictatorship; 2) a proletarian but somehow not speaking his mind, i.e. has false consciousness. Either way, the society is not supposed to be "receptive" of dissidents, because in theory dissidents would simply be reformed by 1) making them proletarian by depriving them of possessions; 2) education. As usual, this optimistic view ran into trouble when it encountered reality. The dissidents resisted reforming.

Do you also apply the same criticism to present notions of "development" or "economic progress"? Do you think that, in the capitalist worldview, such notions are free from the need for "education" in the virtues of material progress, and a particular way of progressing at that?

Frankly, Marxism-Leninism and capitalism are no different in this. But, as I have made plain, I'm not going to deny that induction into hegemonic ways of thinking can simply be done away with. In fact, it is as necessary for the institution of a communistic society as it is for contemporary capitalistic societies. It's simply a fact of mass social organisation.

What do you do about those few obstinate reactionaries, when you have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with them? Allowing them to freely subvert the revolution? Surely not. How about throwing them into "corrective labor camps" and "reeducation institutes"?

As I said, I love how you make assumptions like that. It's like you are having a conversation with yourself.

The simple truth is that an ideal communist society cannot tolerate dissidence, because dissidence is theoretically impossible. All your claims of how communism would not require centralised coercion is based on the assumption that everyone will magically, perpetually agree with you. Your process has no way to deal with disagreement. The moment disagreement occurs is the moment your system is thrown into disarray, until someone comes up with a process that can actually resolve conflicts. Guess what kind of process is the most expedient?

An ideal communist society is at least as tolerant as contemporary capitalistic societies are. There is as yet no fundamental reason to believe otherwise, unless you somehow believe that hegemony does not presently exist and that everyone simply agrees to disagree and to go about doing things their own way.

Frankly, I don't see any way in which anyone can bring you out of the particular fantasy you are trapped in. It's about the same as debating with anarcho-capitalists. All we will see is endless repetitions of essentially the same axioms. It's boring.