Marxism as an art form

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

After a discussion with a comrade, I have become receptive to the problem that Marxism, as espoused by contemporary Socialists, is rapid becoming a topic of intellectual masturbation. Many of the debates, if one looks on a website such as RevLeft, are so abstract as to not have the potential to relate to praxis.

Yes, intellectualism underpins Marxism - as an ideology and a body of academic works it is more complete, logical and impressive than any of the Capitalist/Fascist schools of thought - however, the simple truth that cannot be ignored is that Socialism, in terms of it's sure aim of handing political and economic power and emancipation to the workers of the world, is failing, despite there being - as evident if one trawls through the videos of various Communist meetings, events, websites, forums and so on - a vast number of impressive debates being had, ideas being raised, and conclusions being drawn. Despite this, the effort put into theorising has simply not translated into results for the working class or for revolution. To this end, one must accept that leftist 'debate' is fast taking on the characteristics of intellectual masturbation.

Sectarianism is Socialism, we must accept that, but it is wholly unacceptable that the self-indulgent ideological beliefs of individual tendencies undermine the Socialist movement, and the improvement of the lives of workers.

[Drace]

Many of the debates, if one looks on a website such as RevLeft, are so abstract as to not have the potential to relate to praxis.

Examples?

[cenv]

After a discussion with a comrade, I have become receptive to the problem that Marxism, as espoused by contemporary Socialists, is rapid becoming a topic of intellectual masturbation. Many of the debates, if one looks on a website such as RevLeft, are so abstract as to not have the potential to relate to praxis.

Yes, intellectualism underpins Marxism - as an ideology and a body of academic works it is more complete, logical and impressive than any of the Capitalist/Fascist schools of thought - however, the simple truth that cannot be ignored is that Socialism, in terms of it's sure aim of handing political and economic power and emancipation to the workers of the world, is failing, despite there being - as evident if one trawls through the videos of various Communist meetings, events, websites, forums and so on - a vast number of impressive debates being had, ideas being raised, and conclusions being drawn. Despite this, the effort put into theorising has simply not translated into results for the working class or for revolution. To this end, one must accept that leftist 'debate' is fast taking on the characteristics of intellectual masturbation.

Sectarianism is Socialism, we must accept that, but it is wholly unacceptable that the self-indulgent ideological beliefs of individual tendencies undermine the Socialist movement, and the improvement of the lives of workers.
This could be a result of the crisis of praxis that we're experiencing right now. It's painfully obvious that the our movement's paradigm and its old formulas are inadequate, so it's easy to retreat into a world of abstract intellectualism or historical obsession.

But I don't think the problem is theorizing per se. Rather, I think it's theory divorced from life, ideas determining human activity instead of vice versa. Instead of rejecting theoretical debate in favor of blind practice, we need to shift the context of our debate. We need to frame our discussions in terms of understanding our lives and transforming them.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Examples?

Compare the activity in the History and Theory forums to say, the Workers' Struggles forums.

Historical voyeurism pertaining to formerly important figures on the left is also a subject of discourse - this introverted speculation does little to advance our movement. 80 years after the power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky ended, people are still arguing. Can they not see that the issue here is not whether Stalin or Trotsky were right, or whether 'it is more complicated than that', but that the salient point here is that both are wrong, unequivocally, for focusing so much time, and investing so much ideological dogma, in such an historically minor event (I say historically minor - I would not say that a power struggle between two Marxist-Leninists constitutes a significant historical event).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Thank you for the post cenv. I agree entirely. I guess some of my emotions came to the fore in the OP. I am not saying that we should become a movement based on populism and intellectual regression. Merely, as you seem to imply, the focus on a small cadre of Socialists talking about dialectical materialism with some incandescant obsession strikes me as somewhat counter-productive, in that it is a current that is already accepted in our movement, and also in that it is precisely the sort of talk that turns off the currently uneducated (generally) working class from engaging with our movement and our people.

[ckaihatsu]

it is wholly unacceptable that the self-indulgent ideological beliefs of individual tendencies undermine the Socialist movement, and the improvement of the lives of workers.


You're just being glass-half-empty here. Certainly it's better *to have* several organizations of Marxism than not, even if they don't happen to merge endlessly like corporations with falling equity values.

Besides, what's your proposed alternative? Do you have some kind of plan for society's future that you've been keeping to yourself?

[ckaihatsu]

We need to frame our discussions in terms of understanding our lives and transforming them.


This is *problematic* -- as long as we can generically agree that we'd be relatively better off *without* capitalist exploitation (and ownership) than *with* it, then we have a solid political basis for struggle in common.

Marxism *is not* -- and *should not* *try* to be -- "life-emancipatory", or some kind of a program for the living of life. One's relationship to one's own life (and life history) is a *philosophical*, *humanistic* matter, *not* a (mass) political one.


Chris



--


--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Taking jadedness far beyond the gemstone industry --

[cenv]

This is *problematic* -- as long as we can generically agree that we'd be relatively better off *without* capitalist exploitation (and ownership) than *with* it, then we have a solid political basis for struggle in common.

Marxism *is not* -- and *should not* *try* to be -- "life-emancipatory", or some kind of a program for the living of life. One's relationship to one's own life (and life history) is a *philosophical*, *humanistic* matter, *not* a (mass) political one.


Chris
Marxism isn't "a program for the living of life" -- it's a method of transforming it. Capitalism shapes the way we live our everyday lives, and our ideas make a lot more sense to people when explained from the perspective of their own lives. We will never make revolution by handing out pamphlets on abstract theoretical issues. And the idea that "politics" and life are separate is the same outlook that keeps the working class voting for bourgeois politicians.

I have to ask: if the goal of communism isn't to transform our lives, what the hell is it? If we stop looking at communism in the context of life and human activity, if we confine ourself to detached theoretical critiques instead of critiquing our living experience of capitalism, then we cease to be revolutionary workers and really become ivory-tower intellectuals. Grasping communism isn't about understanding dialectical materialism or being able to explain the labor theory of value -- it's about seeing how we are exploited, realizing how our activity is alienated, understanding how capitalism shapes our existence, and fighting to transform our lives. We understand communism in relation to our everyday experiences, or we don't understand it at all.

[ckaihatsu]

Marxism isn't "a program for the living of life" -- it's a method of transforming it. Capitalism shapes the way we live our everyday lives, and our ideas make a lot more sense to people when explained from the perspective of their own lives.


Agreed.





We will never make revolution by handing out pamphlets on abstract theoretical issues.


Hey -- that's a *dis* against the intellectual capabilities of working class people. There's nothing to say that the average worker walking down the street is *not* receptive to Marxism at a conceptual level. Some political literature is better written, and more accessible, than others -- that's all....





And the idea that "politics" and life are separate is the same outlook that keeps the working class voting for bourgeois politicians.


This is an *inaccurate comparison* -- certainly bourgeois politicians *benefit* from cleaving ruling class politics from any input from workers. Bourgeois political power is *institutionalized* and cleanly insulated from working class lives -- its politics serve to show who's "in" and who's "out" on a daily basis.

But politics *is not* life itself -- it is about the *mass management* of life and of the world's resources. How one person lives their life tells us *nothing* about their politics -- though there are some demographic correlations, no doubt, overall -- and how political people live their lives tells us *nothing* about their politics.





I have to ask: if the goal of communism isn't to transform our lives, what the hell is it?


It's to *overthrow* bourgeois rule -- *that's* what it's for. In the meantime we still have to live our lives *without* the benefit of a classless society.





If we stop looking at communism in the context of life and human activity, if we confine ourself to detached theoretical critiques instead of critiquing our living experience of capitalism, then we cease to be revolutionary workers and really become ivory-tower intellectuals.


No, not necessarily -- it's not nearly as black-or-white as you make it out to be. Certainly we *can* address the more humanistic aspects of life under capitalist rule, through literature, art, discussions, etc., but a social scene does *not* a revolution make.

No one's "confined" to one thing or another, but in terms of politics, we can't afford to be too casual or informal about exactly what steps are required to bring sufficient political force against our oppressors.





Grasping communism isn't about understanding dialectical materialism or being able to explain the labor theory of value


Yeah, well, it *doesn't hurt* to be able to understand these concepts, either...! They *are* *very related* to communism...!





it's about seeing how we are exploited, realizing how our activity is alienated, understanding how capitalism shapes our existence, and fighting to transform our lives. We understand communism in relation to our everyday experiences, or we don't understand it at all.


I agree that using one's own life as a point of reference can be an *entree* into an understanding of capitalism and communism, but one should *also* understand that aside from being explicitly political one's own life has *no effect whatsoever* on whether the world features capitalism or communism.

[cenv]

Hey -- that's a *dis* against the intellectual capabilities of working class people. There's nothing to say that the average worker walking down the street is *not* receptive to Marxism at a conceptual level. Some political literature is better written, and more accessible, than others -- that's all....
It's not a dis. It's a realization that Marxism is relevant to most people as a method for understanding their lives and fighting to transform them -- not as an abstract theoretical system. Most people will embrace Marxism because of its power to help us change the world, not its intellectual elegance.

And it's not just a question of accessibility. It's a question of what context the ideas are presented in and whether they are related in a way that speaks to workers' personal experience.


This is an *inaccurate comparison* -- certainly bourgeois politicians *benefit* from cleaving ruling class politics from any input from workers. Bourgeois political power is *institutionalized* and cleanly insulated from working class lives -- its politics serve to show who's "in" and who's "out" on a daily basis.
Bourgeois power also has a psychological foundation. The revolutionary project of dismantling this psychological foundation implies grasping capitalism's internal connections and the way exploitation is related to alienation is related to class dictatorship in the political sphere. The idea that political activity is something isolated and self-contained only serves to mystify the social relations of capitalism, which is why the conception of Marxist political activity as separate from the content and transformation of life is a holdover from bourgeois ideology.



But politics *is not* life itself -- it is about the *mass management* of life and of the world's resources. How one person lives their life tells us *nothing* about their politics -- though there are some demographic correlations, no doubt, overall -- and how political people live their lives tells us *nothing* about their politics.
To clarify, I'm not saying that communism has to do with leading a particular lifestyle under capitalism. I'm not a fan of elitist lifestylist crap.

I'm saying that we shouldn't see politics as an isolated sphere of activity, detached from our daily lives. If we abstract the transformation of political life and separate it from the transformation of life in general, we're setting ourselves up to overthrow the existing society without necessarily making a qualitative change in our lives.

One of the strengths of Marxism is that it does acknowledge that everything is interrelated and that "politics" isn't an independent sphere of activity.



It's to *overthrow* bourgeois rule -- *that's* what it's for. In the meantime we still have to live our lives *without* the benefit of a classless society.
As I said above, I'm not saying communism has to do with how we live our lives under capitalism. The goal is to transcend them, not improve them. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear in my earlier posts.

But saying that our goal is to "overthrow bourgeois rule" is vague. Why do we want to overthrow bourgeois rule? What comes next? No matter how you answer it, our ultimate goal is to transform both the form and content of our lives.


No, not necessarily -- it's not nearly as black-or-white as you make it out to be. Certainly we *can* address the more humanistic aspects of life under capitalist rule, through literature, art, discussions, etc., but a social scene does *not* a revolution make.

No one's "confined" to one thing or another, but in terms of politics, we can't afford to be too casual or informal about exactly what steps are required to bring sufficient political force against our oppressors.
I'm not advocating creating a social scene -- I'm advocating understanding capitalism and communism in the context of our lives. And yes, if we frame our discussions in terms of pure theory and intellectualize everything to the point that it's no longer related to our lives, we are confining ourselves to the plane of irrelevant abstraction -- and we're also confining ourselves to irrelevance, because no one will listen to us. ;)


Yeah, well, it *doesn't hurt* to be able to understand these concepts, either...! They *are* *very related* to communism...!
I agree. We just need to understand them in the proper context and grasp their relation to the whole.


I agree that using one's own life as a point of reference can be an *entree* into an understanding of capitalism and communism, but one should *also* understand that aside from being explicitly political one's own life has *no effect whatsoever* on whether the world features capitalism or communism.
I agree with you in the sense that joining a commune and growing your own potatoes/socks/computer/etc. isn't going to bring about communism. But it's also true that the personal is political. The time for "following" Marxism as an abstract theory is over. We need to grasp Marxism in the context of our lives. This doesn't mean backing away from debate and strategy; it means that we participate in the revolutionary project in the context of understanding our lives (and their inseparability from the social conditions we live under), and ultimately transforming them.

[ckaihatsu]

We will never make revolution by handing out pamphlets on abstract theoretical issues.





Hey -- that's a *dis* against the intellectual capabilities of working class people. There's nothing to say that the average worker walking down the street is *not* receptive to Marxism at a conceptual level. Some political literature is better written, and more accessible, than others -- that's all....





It's not a dis. It's a realization that Marxism is relevant to most people as a method for understanding their lives and fighting to transform them -- not as an abstract theoretical system. Most people will embrace Marxism because of its power to help us change the world, not its intellectual elegance.


And what if an understanding of abstract theoretical issues actually *helps* someone -- perhaps the more intellectually minded type -- to *comprehend* the totality of the socio-political world we live in, thus spurring life changes and a commitment to change the world, as you've described -- ?





And it's not just a question of accessibility. It's a question of what context the ideas are presented in and whether they are related in a way that speaks to workers' personal experience.


Yes, well, different *approaches* work for different people, in various contexts. I maintain that your statement,




We will never make revolution by handing out pamphlets on abstract theoretical issues.

...*is* too dismissive, because the *conceptual* approach could very well be the most *effective* one for many, while *others* would find it too didactic.





Bourgeois power also has a psychological foundation. The revolutionary project of dismantling this psychological foundation implies grasping capitalism's internal connections and the way exploitation is related to alienation is related to class dictatorship in the political sphere.


Agreed.





The idea that political activity is something isolated and self-contained only serves to mystify the social relations of capitalism, which is why the conception of Marxist political activity as separate from the content and transformation of life is a holdover from bourgeois ideology.


Okay, you're differentiating between *bourgeois* "activity", or politics, and a working class / Marxist politics, or collective self-activity.





To clarify, I'm not saying that communism has to do with leading a particular lifestyle under capitalism. I'm not a fan of elitist lifestylist crap.


Okay.





I'm saying that we shouldn't see politics as an isolated sphere of activity, detached from our daily lives.


This would vary depending on the individual -- if you try to argue this point further you *will* be making a lifestylist argument.





If we abstract the transformation of political life and separate it from the transformation of life in general, we're setting ourselves up to overthrow the existing society without necessarily making a qualitative change in our lives.


This -- to me, anyway -- is really a peripheral concern, because it's not *directly political*, by *any* conception of the term. Let's overthrow the existing society *first* and *then* we'll do stubby-pencil surveys on how things worked out....





One of the strengths of Marxism is that it does acknowledge that everything is interrelated and that "politics" isn't an independent sphere of activity.


I dunno about this.... Marxism is about the *class division* in society -- what you're describing now sounds more like religion....





As I said above, I'm not saying communism has to do with how we live our lives under capitalism. The goal is to transcend them, not improve them. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear in my earlier posts.


Okay, so you're saying that we can overcome some acquired psychological boundaries that have been conditioned into us by life under capitalism -- fair enough. But we're still *stuck* in the limitations *imposed* on our respective objective realities, because of capitalism's overall political repression.

(For example, I couldn't just move into a place of my choosing and not pay rent and expect to continue to live there -- I would be kicked out regardless of where my political consciousness was at.)





But saying that our goal is to "overthrow bourgeois rule" is vague.


It's *not* vague *at all* -- it's about ending the nation-state-based political system of power, and the private-property-based system of commodity production.





Why do we want to overthrow bourgeois rule? What comes next?


What comes next is the control of the state by the world's working class so that it can be dissolved and replaced by mass workers' control over the means of mass production.





No matter how you answer it, our ultimate goal is to transform both the form and content of our lives.


Well, let's do that by overthrowing bourgeois rule.





I'm not advocating creating a social scene -- I'm advocating understanding capitalism and communism in the context of our lives. And yes, if we frame our discussions in terms of pure theory and intellectualize everything to the point that it's no longer related to our lives, we are confining ourselves to the plane of irrelevant abstraction -- and we're also confining ourselves to irrelevance, because no one will listen to us. ;)


Now you're being patronizing, defeatist, and pessimistic.

You're ignoring that capitalism is *independent* of our individual lives. We can *only* discuss large-scale dynamics, like the economic system of capitalism, with abstractions / generalizations. These generalizations themselves *exclude* our *individual* lives.





Grasping communism isn't about understanding dialectical materialism or being able to explain the labor theory of value





Yeah, well, it *doesn't hurt* to be able to understand these concepts, either...! They *are* *very related* to communism...!





I agree. We just need to understand them in the proper context and grasp their relation to the whole.


Agreed.





I agree with you in the sense that joining a commune and growing your own potatoes/socks/computer/etc. isn't going to bring about communism. But it's also true that the personal is political.


I'll agree that our daily, ground-level interactions with people have *real social effects* depending on what we say and do -- in that sense it's better to be as consistent as possible in how we are as individuals with what we espouse politically. For example we wouldn't want to offend people we come in contact with unless it was warranted.





The time for "following" Marxism as an abstract theory is over.


By this I assume you mean over-intellectualizing -- ?





We need to grasp Marxism in the context of our lives. This doesn't mean backing away from debate and strategy; it means that we participate in the revolutionary project in the context of understanding our lives (and their inseparability from the social conditions we live under), and ultimately transforming them.


Okay -- enjoy.

[cenv]

And what if an understanding of abstract theoretical issues actually *helps* someone -- perhaps the more intellectually minded type -- to *comprehend* the totality of the socio-political world we live in, thus spurring life changes and a commitment to change the world, as you've described -- ?

If we want to move beyond contemplating reality and actually change it, we need to grasp Marxism on more than a purely conceptual level. This is true for anyone, no matter how "intellectual" they are.


Yes, well, different *approaches* work for different people, in various contexts
Communism is not an intellectual project. Purely theoretical critiques will lead to purely theoretical solutions -- or no solutions at all.



Okay, you're differentiating between *bourgeois* "activity", or politics, and a working class / Marxist politics, or collective self-activity.
If we see Marxism as nothing more than a new kind of politics divorced from our everyday lives, we're paving the way for a new set of political specialists and enlightened intellectuals to exploit us in the name of Marxism -- with no qualitative change occurring in our lives.


This -- to me, anyway -- is really a peripheral concern, because it's not *directly political*, by *any* conception of the term. Let's overthrow the existing society *first* and *then* we'll do stubby-pencil surveys on how things worked out....Transforming our lives is a peripheral concern? :confused:

Overthrowing bourgeois society without bothering to change our lives in the process isn't a very convincing strategy.



This would vary depending on the individual -- if you try to argue this point further you *will* be making a lifestylist argument.

Okay, so you're saying that we can overcome some acquired psychological boundaries that have been conditioned into us by life under capitalism -- fair enough. But we're still *stuck* in the limitations *imposed* on our respective objective realities, because of capitalism's overall political repression.

(For example, I couldn't just move into a place of my choosing and not pay rent and expect to continue to live there -- I would be kicked out regardless of where my political consciousness was at.)
You continue to assume that when I talk about transforming our lives, I'm advocating this as a path to revolution. But I'm saying it's the goal, not the method. I'm advocating understanding Marxism in the context of our lives, which has nothing to do with lifestylism -- in fact, the two are diametrically opposed. As I said in my last post, I'm talking about transforming our lives through revolution, not making revolution by transforming our lives. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.



I dunno about this.... Marxism is about the *class division* in society -- what you're describing now sounds more like religion....
Marxism is about the class divisions in society. And when it comes to politics, this means seeing that the overarching class relations inherent in capitalism shape the political structure. Already, this is acknowledging that politics is not an isolated sphere of activity.

It's funny that you bring up religion, since the strict separation between theory and life you're advocating really resembles the separation between belief and life that religion entails.



What comes next is the control of the state by the world's working class so that it can be dissolved and replaced by mass workers' control over the means of mass production.
And why do we want mass workers' control over the means of production?

No matter how you slice it, if you take this logic to its end, our goal is to transform our lives.


Well, let's do that by overthrowing bourgeois rule.

Sounds good to me. ;)





I'm not advocating creating a social scene -- I'm advocating understanding capitalism and communism in the context of our lives. And yes, if we frame our discussions in terms of pure theory and intellectualize everything to the point that it's no longer related to our lives, we are confining ourselves to the plane of irrelevant abstraction -- and we're also confining ourselves to irrelevance, because no one will listen to us. ;)

Now you're being patronizing, defeatist, and pessimistic.

Yeah, same on me for being so negative. You're right: by confining ourselves to pure theory and intellectualizing Marxism to the point that it's no longer relevant to people's lives, we are totally going to make a revolution!

Is that optimistic enough for you?


You're ignoring that capitalism is *independent* of our individual lives. We can *only* discuss large-scale dynamics, like the economic system of capitalism, with abstractions / generalizations. These generalizations themselves *exclude* our *individual* lives.
Like what? Class divisions? Exploitation? Alienation? Anyone can see these "generalizations" in their lives. In fact, it's impossible to grasp the essence of these concepts without seeing how they manifest themselves in our lives.


I'll agree that our daily, ground-level interactions with people have *real social effects* depending on what we say and do -- in that sense it's better to be as consistent as possible in how we are as individuals with what we espouse politically. For example we wouldn't want to offend people we come in contact with unless it was warranted.
Again, what I'm arguing has nothing to do with changing the way we live our lives under capitalism. I'm saying that we need to recognize our goal as the transformation of our lives through revolution and frame our discussions in terms of this goal. I have literally run out of ways to try to explain this.


Okay -- enjoy.
Thanks. I will.

[ckaihatsu]

Marxism is about the class divisions in society. And when it comes to politics, this means seeing that the overarching class relations inherent in capitalism shape the political structure. Already, this is acknowledging that politics is not an isolated sphere of activity.


Agreed -- it's not necessarily a *formal*, *institutionalized* sphere of activity, especially for the (militant) working class.





If we want to move beyond contemplating reality and actually change it, we need to grasp Marxism on more than a purely conceptual level. This is true for anyone, no matter how "intellectual" they are.




Communism is not an intellectual project. Purely theoretical critiques will lead to purely theoretical solutions -- or no solutions at all.




If we see Marxism as nothing more than a new kind of politics divorced from our everyday lives, we're paving the way for a new set of political specialists and enlightened intellectuals to exploit us in the name of Marxism -- with no qualitative change occurring in our lives.




Overthrowing bourgeois society without bothering to change our lives in the process isn't a very convincing strategy.


Okay -- I don't mean to argue *against* people's own initiatives and self-motivated involvement in changing their own lives and the world around them.





Yeah, same on me for being so negative. You're right: by confining ourselves to pure theory and intellectualizing Marxism to the point that it's no longer relevant to people's lives, we are totally going to make a revolution!

Is that optimistic enough for you?


I find your distrust of theory to be strange -- my understanding is that theory is *not* merely detached abstract artificialities, as you're making it out to be. Theory is meant to be an *accurate generalization* of certain aspects of society so that we know what we're dealing with when we run into those, or like, situations in our actual experience / practice.

For example, we might learn the *theory* of playing chess -- the elements of development of the pieces, control of the center, and king safety. By keeping these *generalities* in mind we'll be able to *identify* the *manifestation* of those dynamics in our own playing of the game -- this will give us a certain understanding, or consciousness, of the game that we wouldn't have, or would realize much more slowly, if we *didn't* have that theory-knowledge upfront.





You're ignoring that capitalism is *independent* of our individual lives. We can *only* discuss large-scale dynamics, like the economic system of capitalism, with abstractions / generalizations. These generalizations themselves *exclude* our *individual* lives.





Like what? Class divisions? Exploitation? Alienation? Anyone can see these "generalizations" in their lives. In fact, it's impossible to grasp the essence of these concepts without seeing how they manifest themselves in our lives.


Okay, let me rephrase that -- I meant to say that the *mechanics* of capitalism will grind away *independently* of our own lives if we let it. However I think you're acknowledging -- and emphasizing -- that an understanding of theory ('class divisions', 'exploitation', 'alienation') will lead to an improved self-awareness, or consciousness, in one's own life.





It's funny that you bring up religion, since the strict separation between theory and life you're advocating really resembles the separation between belief and life that religion entails.


Yeah.... Again, to clarify, I'm saying that the *mechanics* of the ruling-class-dominated system will be unresponsive to the lives of those who *don't* engage with a class-conscious-based struggle.





Transforming our lives is a peripheral concern? :confused:


Well, maybe not *peripheral*, but *tangential*. The *point* is to overthrow the bourgeois control, and the benefits to individual working-class people seem self-evident once this has been accomplished.





You continue to assume that when I talk about transforming our lives, I'm advocating this as a path to revolution. But I'm saying it's the goal, not the method. I'm advocating understanding Marxism in the context of our lives, which has nothing to do with lifestylism -- in fact, the two are diametrically opposed. As I said in my last post, I'm talking about transforming our lives through revolution, not making revolution by transforming our lives. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.




Again, what I'm arguing has nothing to do with changing the way we live our lives under capitalism. I'm saying that we need to recognize our goal as the transformation of our lives through revolution and frame our discussions in terms of this goal. I have literally run out of ways to try to explain this.




And why do we want mass workers' control over the means of production?

No matter how you slice it, if you take this logic to its end, our goal is to transform our lives.





Well, let's do that by overthrowing bourgeois rule.





Sounds good to me. ;)

[cenv]

I find your distrust of theory to be strange -- my understanding is that theory is *not* merely detached abstract artificialities, as you're making it out to be. Theory is meant to be an *accurate generalization* of certain aspects of society so that we know what we're dealing with when we run into those, or like, situations in our actual experience / practice.

For example, we might learn the *theory* of playing chess -- the elements of development of the pieces, control of the center, and king safety. By keeping these *generalities* in mind we'll be able to *identify* the *manifestation* of those dynamics in our own playing of the game -- this will give us a certain understanding, or consciousness, of the game that we wouldn't have, or would realize much more slowly, if we *didn't* have that theory-knowledge upfront.
Okay, let me rephrase that -- I meant to say that the *mechanics* of capitalism will grind away *independently* of our own lives if we let it. However I think you're acknowledging -- and emphasizing -- that an understanding of theory ('class divisions', 'exploitation', 'alienation') will lead to an improved self-awareness, or consciousness, in one's own life.It's not that I distrust theory per se. Rather, I distrust theory isolated from activity (not to mention activity isolated from theory). I agree that theoretical generalizations are indispensable, but we need to understand them with reference to our lives. The relationship between theory and life is reciprocal: as you point out, understanding exploitation, alienation, class struggle, etc. helps us make sense of our lives; but at the same time, we can't understand these concepts without seeing how they manifest themselves in our experiences.

Marxism helps us make sense of our lives, and our lives help us make sense of Marxism.


Yeah.... Again, to clarify, I'm saying that the *mechanics* of the ruling-class-dominated system will be unresponsive to the lives of those who *don't* engage with a class-conscious-based struggle.I agree.


Well, maybe not *peripheral*, but *tangential*. The *point* is to overthrow the bourgeois control, and the benefits to individual working-class people seem self-evident once this has been accomplished.Actually, the point is to gain these benefits in our lives, and the need to overthrow bourgeois control is self-evident. ;)

The problem with saying the point is revolution and the self-evident "tangential" effect is the transformation of our lives (as opposed to saying that the point is to transform our lives and the self-evident means is revolution) is that it subordinates our goal to our methods, so it's easy to lose sight of what our goal really is. I would argue that this is an influence from bourgeois ideology and mirrors the way we subordinate human activity to economic activity, instead of vice versa.

[ckaihatsu]

It's not that I distrust theory per se. Rather, I distrust theory isolated from activity (not to mention activity isolated from theory). I agree that theoretical generalizations are indispensable, but we need to understand them with reference to our lives. The relationship between theory and life is reciprocal: as you point out, understanding exploitation, alienation, class struggle, etc. helps us make sense of our lives; but at the same time, we can't understand these concepts without seeing how they manifest themselves in our experiences.

Marxism helps us make sense of our lives, and our lives help us make sense of Marxism.


Okay...!





Actually, the point is to gain these benefits in our lives, and the need to overthrow bourgeois control is self-evident. ;)


Whoa -- the factionalism here is getting overwhelming...! In order to head off imminent violence can't we just settle this with the flip of a coin?

= )





The problem with saying the point is revolution and the self-evident "tangential" effect is the transformation of our lives (as opposed to saying that the point is to transform our lives and the self-evident means is revolution) is that it subordinates our goal to our methods, so it's easy to lose sight of what our goal really is.


Okay, well, I certainly appreciate your blending of our present, individual, self-motivated realities into the trajectory towards a goal of mass revolution in the future.

I still think that this has the feel of a chicken-or-the-egg kind of differentiation -- at this point I really think we're splitting hairs to then argue which is the front side and which is the back....





I would argue that this is an influence from bourgeois ideology and mirrors the way we subordinate human activity to economic activity, instead of vice versa.


But here you're breezily carrying over a differentiation from the bourgeois context, into the current efforts / struggle for proletarian revolution -- I *don't* think it's an appropriate comparison. I say this because the *very decision* to engage in struggle *implies* a casting off of bourgeois constraints, so that the revolutionary will *not* be shackled by the goal of revolution in the same way that the bourgeois is shackled to the balance sheet.

*That's* why it wouldn't matter if we are more *self*-motivated in struggle or more *goal*-motivated -- from either point of reference the trajectories will wind up *converging* to the same goal, like paths to the top of a hill.





it subordinates our goal to our methods, so it's easy to lose sight of what our goal really is.


Methods are *always*, *necessarily* in service to a goal -- one simply (logically) *cannot* *have* methods *without* having a goal with which to use the methods *for* -- (methods towards what?).

[cenv]

Whoa -- the factionalism here is getting overwhelming...! In order to head off imminent violence can't we just settle this with the flip of a coin?

= )
Works for me. :lol:


But here you're breezily carrying over a differentiation from the bourgeois context, into the current efforts / struggle for proletarian revolution -- I *don't* think it's an appropriate comparison. I say this because the *very decision* to engage in struggle *implies* a casting off of bourgeois constraints, so that the revolutionary will *not* be shackled by the goal of revolution in the same way that the bourgeois is shackled to the balance sheet.

*That's* why it wouldn't matter if we are more *self*-motivated in struggle or more *goal*-motivated -- from either point of reference the trajectories will wind up *converging* to the same goal, like paths to the top of a hill.
Unfortunately, the reality of revolution is much more complicated than this. Just deciding to have a revolution isn't enough, and there are many different points at which revolutionary efforts can go wrong (and have gone wrong). If we don't keep in mind our goals vis-a-vis our own lives, then there are a lot of different ways the revolution could turn out -- and a lot of them aren't pretty.

Becoming a communist doesn't "imply" casting off all bourgeois constraints. Bourgeois ideology is very powerful and very complex -- we've grown up with it, and all of us have internalized it to some extent. To say that by engaging in struggle we're automatically liberating ourselves from the constraints of capitalism is shoving an important point under the rug: that even after we become revolutionaries, we can still have bourgeois forms of thought ingrained in us, and if we don't recognize them and fight them, we're jeopardizing our revolutionary project.

And one of the psychological patterns that we're at risk of inheriting from bourgeois ideology is subordinating human activity to economic activity, instead of vice versa.


Methods are *always*, *necessarily* in service to a goal -- one simply (logically) *cannot* *have* methods *without* having a goal with which to use the methods *for* -- (methods towards what?).
This is a human question, not a logical one. You're correct in the sense that methods always arise in relation to a goal. However, over time it's easy to focus on the methods to the point that we lose sight of our goal -- and then the methods become the goal. If we say that our goal is to overthrow bourgeois society instead of having clear goals in terms of the ultimate transformation of our lives, then that's exactly what we're doing.

[ckaihatsu]

Unfortunately, the reality of revolution is much more complicated than this. Just deciding to have a revolution isn't enough, and there are many different points at which revolutionary efforts can go wrong (and have gone wrong). If we don't keep in mind our goals vis-a-vis our own lives, then there are a lot of different ways the revolution could turn out -- and a lot of them aren't pretty.

Becoming a communist doesn't "imply" casting off all bourgeois constraints. Bourgeois ideology is very powerful and very complex -- we've grown up with it, and all of us have internalized it to some extent. To say that by engaging in struggle we're automatically liberating ourselves from the constraints of capitalism is shoving an important point under the rug: that even after we become revolutionaries, we can still have bourgeois forms of thought ingrained in us, and if we don't recognize them and fight them, we're jeopardizing our revolutionary project.

And one of the psychological patterns that we're at risk of inheriting from bourgeois ideology is subordinating human activity to economic activity, instead of vice versa.


Yup -- thanks.





This is a human question, not a logical one. You're correct in the sense that methods always arise in relation to a goal. However, over time it's easy to focus on the methods to the point that we lose sight of our goal -- and then the methods become the goal.


Yes, that *could* be *one* pitfall, but, by the same reasoning, we might find certain methods that *work* and that can be counted on as positively effecting revolutionary conditions. That's not to say that the methods are necessarily *easy* to accomplish, but rather that the path is clear.





If we say that our goal is to overthrow bourgeois society instead of having clear goals in terms of the ultimate transformation of our lives, then that's exactly what we're doing.


Yeah -- you've been vacillating on this, saying that you're in agreement about the need to overthrow bourgeois society, but then you also emphasize the personal component as well. That's why, this being a *political* matter, I think it's better to focus on the *shared* goal of revolution as the means for working class people to realize a better world in which to live.

[cenv]

Yes, that *could* be *one* pitfall, but, by the same reasoning, we might find certain methods that *work* and that can be counted on as positively effecting revolutionary conditions. That's not to say that the methods are necessarily *easy* to accomplish, but rather that the path is clear.
I agree that clarifying our methods and experimenting with different methods is important. We just need to remember that they are methods and develop them with our ultimate goal in mind. Otherwise, we'll develop new methods, but these methods will lead to an entirely different product.



Yeah -- you've been vacillating on this, saying that you're in agreement about the need to overthrow bourgeois society, but then you also emphasize the personal component as well. That's why, this being a *political* matter, I think it's better to focus on the *shared* goal of revolution as the means for working class people to realize a better world in which to live.
Does it have to be either-or? I think this attitude is based on a false dichotomy between the personal and the political. This is what I was getting at when I said that Marxism helps us understand our lives and our lives help us understand Marxism. Acknowledging the way class relations shape society means realizing that there's no such thing as a purely political or purely personal issue. I agree that we need to be conscious of our shared goal. But our shared goal arises from our shared material circumstances, and our personal and political goals should inform each other.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree that clarifying our methods and experimenting with different methods is important. We just need to remember that they are methods and develop them with our ultimate goal in mind. Otherwise, we'll develop new methods, but these methods will lead to an entirely different product.


Allow me to be specific here -- I'm thinking of mass rank-and-file labor protests, citywide general strikes, the workers' seizing of their workplaces, interconnections made among worker-controlled workplaces for the continuation of production under workers' direction from their own workplaces, the takeover of major mass media channels, barricades in the streets, vehicular traffic permitted by workers' committees (for essential humane services only), and so on....





Does it have to be either-or? I think this attitude is based on a false dichotomy between the personal and the political. This is what I was getting at when I said that Marxism helps us understand our lives and our lives help us understand Marxism. Acknowledging the way class relations shape society means realizing that there's no such thing as a purely political or purely personal issue. I agree that we need to be conscious of our shared goal. But our shared goal arises from our shared material circumstances, and our personal and political goals should inform each other.


Fine -- I won't argue the point....

[cenv]

Allow me to be specific here -- I'm thinking of mass rank-and-file labor protests, citywide general strikes, the workers' seizing of their workplaces, interconnections made among worker-controlled workplaces for the continuation of production under workers' direction from their own workplaces, the takeover of major mass media channels, barricades in the streets, vehicular traffic permitted by workers' committees (for essential humane services only), and so on....Ok, I agree with all this!

Wow, I wonder if we're still on topic. :lol: