I wrote:
>> Apparently then, Marx tells us very little about the architecture of what
>> is to replace capitalism. I'm interested in investigating what can and
>> should replace capitalism, in terms of political reality and economic
>> possibility; I continue to find Marx of little value in that regard.
1/08/98, Andrew Wayne Austin responded:
>Who tells you a lot about the post-capitalist architecture? What prophets
>do you have in back of you?
Haven't your guessed by now Andrew?... I'm an original thinker. Everyone
you study in your books was an original thinker: some respected, some
despised; some appreciated right away, and some later; some with valuable
contributions and some not. You can criticize me anyway you want, but not
on the basis of cited authority: I cite no authorities, only evidence and
analysis.
>> It was brilliant that Marx was able to predict so much about capitalism
>> when he did, but the objective realities of capitalism and its "takeover
>> of world construction" are now obvious facts
>You misunderstood me. There are capitalist class fractions whose
>intellectuals have figured out to a substantial degree parameters of the
>capitalist dynamic and this has permitted them some control over the
>system.
"Some" is a serious understatement, but I'll take this as a point of
agreement: there _is_ a marxism-conscious elite, of disputed potency.
>But that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the
>working class becoming conscious of the objective process of world
>construction and taking over the process.
I agree generally with this objective, except that I dispute strongly that
"working class" should define the revoltionary constituency. Globalization
has created a situation where everyone except the super-rich should be able
to perceive their disadvantage in continued capitalist globalization, and
thus the potential constituency for revolution is broader than just
"working class": this is a development that must be exploited, whether or
not Marx anticipated it at this particular stage of the dialectic process;
we need every advantage we can find.
>... This takes a system of knowledge
>and action which permits aligning intersubjectivity with objective
>reality.
Indeed, and "objective reality" includes more than materialism: it includes
as well culture, propaganda, current ideologies, politics, organizational
strategies, elite tactics, existing factionalism, etc. Certainly you must
agree that Lenin and Trotsky made unique and spontaneous contributions not
inherent in Marx.
>> Has marxism become a neo-aristotelianism? Is one to learn about flowers
>> from reading the master instead of examining real flowers?
>What does this mean, Richard? Is Einstein irrelevant because he is dead?
No, of course not. But if I was pointing out the importance of relativity
I would explain Einstein's thought experiments, and later verification with
eclipses and particle accelerators, I wouldn't just claim that Einstein
defined the "objective process of time-space construction". What I miss
from you is specific articulation of the application of materialism to
topics under discussion.
I accept the dictum experessed in "Cats Cradle" (author's name eludes me at
1.38 am) - if you can't explain a principle so a ten-year old can
understand it, then _you_ don't understand it.
>> >It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means
>> >of production and a distribution system based on effort and need.
>> This would seem to be adopting the most discredited economic agendas of
>> communism as we have seen it implemented in the Eastern block. A more
>> mixed economic solution would seem to make more economic and political
>> sense.
>When was the economic system of the Eastern block "discredited"?
Isn't it generally acknowedged that the Soviet agricultural programs were
disasters? Indeed, wasn't this largely attributable to a doctrinaire
implementation of collective ownership?
Capitalism enshrines greed and acquisitiveness as absolute "good" - this is
bad; but banning greed and acqusitiveness entirely turns out to be unsound.
The dictum "moderation in all things" applies well in this case. Even if
the dialecic pendulum wants to swing 180', that doesn't mean we can't
endeavor to moderate intelligently.
>State socialism took people to heights they never dreamed of.
I'd say "conscious national development" had considerable successes, and
without benefit of private entrepreneurhip, but there were unnecessary
inefficiencies and dictatorship: we can learn from that experience, but we
can do better.
>Since the demise of the socialist world system, the people are in terrible
>conditions.
Quite true, but _any_ system, if abruptly destabilized, would lead to
terrible conditions. What was proved is that the old system was not nearly
as bad as Western propaganda claimed.
>State socialism didn't fail because of collective ownership of
>the means of production or the goals of reward by work and need.
Agreed; in fact state socialism never did fail: it was finally undermined
by ongoing economic warfare (eg, arms race); any system would have withered
under the strain.
>What do I say? That historical materialism is the superior mode of
>historical analysis. I base this judgment on explanatory power and
>predictive validity.
>I have suggested you read the work of Bill Robinson,
>Robert Cox, Stephen Gill, and others so you may make this judgment for
>yourself, but, alas, you blow them off. In fact, you admitted not knowing
>who they were. And yet you pretend to understand the body of theory you
>decry.
I'm sorry, but I need to be motivated to read more about marxism: I simply
haven't seen any results or predictions relevant to today's situation that
were at all interesting. If I had, I'd want to find out more about what
they were based on. The only "specific" predictions I've seen are that
capitalism will collapse, and that world socialist revolution will occur:
and I question the ultimate finality of both of these predictions on a
variety of grounds.
>I may be wrong, but my impression of your posts to this list on this
>subject, given the tone of your language, amount to an effort to clear
>historical materialism out of the way so that this theory of yours you are
>always hyping can have a niche.
No, I'd simply welcome discussion of my theses on their own merits. Where
are the observations or reasoning unsound? Instead you just say "it's not
marxism".
>As you say, you want to help lead the
>world into this new system (whatever it is). If this is the case, you
>falsely flatter yourself.
For just wanting to help? Pardon me. In fact I've made concrete progress
toward my goals, and wsn critiques have been very helpful. I can only do
what I can do. But I'm not waiting to see what happens: that's _my_
absolute imperative.
rkm