All Cultures are Not Equal?

[bailey_187]

This is something i am really struggling with. In school we are learning about "Cultural Imperialism". Now of course all revolutionary leftists oppose Imperialism, but what about "Cultural Imperialism" i.e. the spread of ideas, culture etc from Europe?
Is it chauvanistic to say that groups such the Kalahari Bushmen are backward? Is it a good thing is they stop being nomadic hunters and start being agriculutural workers; is that progress?
I'm trying to find a balance between supporting and wanting to see a world of science, modern technology etc (obviously not spread aorund the world by European Armies wiping out others) but dont want to be eurocentric or a social-chauvanist or pro-imperialist (i most certainly am not).
I dont really know what the correct position is.

What are peoples views on Kenan Malik's article concerning this issue?



‘I denounce European colonialism’, wrote CLR James. ‘But I respect the learning and profound discoveries of Western civilisation.’ [1] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n1)
James was one of the great radicals of the twentieth century, an anti-imperialist, a superb historian of black struggles, a Marxist who remained one even when it was no longer fashionable to be so. But today, James’ defence of ‘Western civilisation’ would probably be dismissed as Eurocentric, even racist.
To be radical today is to display disenchantment with all that is ‘Western’ — by which most mean modernism and the ideas of the Enlightenment — in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘difference’. The modernist project of pursuing a rational, scientific understanding of the natural and social world — a project that James unashamedly championed — is now widely regarded as a dangerous fantasy, even as oppressive.
‘Subjugation’, according to the philosopher David Goldberg, ‘defines the order of the Enlightenment: subjugation of nature by human intellect, colonial control through physical and cultural domination, and economic superiority through mastery of the laws of the market’ [2] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n2). The mastery of nature and the rational organisation of society, which were once seen as the basis of human emancipation, have now become the sources of human enslavement.
Enlightenment universalism, such critics argue, is racist because it seeks to impose Euro-American ideas of rationality and objectivity on other peoples. ‘The universalising discourses of modern Europe and the United States’, argues Edward Said, ‘assume the silence, willing or otherwise, of the non-European world.’ [3] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n3)
Not just for radicals, but for many mainstream liberals too, the road that began in the Enlightenment ends in savagery, even genocide. As the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues: ‘Every ingredient of the Holocaust... was normal... in the sense of being fully in keeping with everything we know about our civilisation, its guiding spirits, its priorities, its immanent vision of the world — and of the proper ways to pursue human happiness together with a perfect society.’ [4] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n4)
This belief that modernism lies at the root of all evil is so pervasive that only right-wing reactionaries, like Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher or the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, it sometimes seems, are willing unreservedly to defend James’ belief in the superiority of ‘the learning and profound discoveries of Western civilisation’.
So the real question to ask in the wake of September 11 is not, as many have suggested, ‘Why do they hate us?’, but rather ‘Why do we seem to hate ourselves?’. Why is it that Western liberals and radicals have become so disenchanted with modern civilisation that some even welcomed the attack on the Twin Towers as an anti-imperialist act?
CLR James, like most anti-imperialists in the past, recognised that all progressive politics were rooted in the ‘Western tradition’, and in particular in the ideas of reason, progress, humanism and universalism that emerged out of the Enlightenment. The scientific method, democratic politics, the concept of universal values — these are palpably better concepts than those that existed previously, or those that exist now in other political and cultural traditions. Not because Europeans are a superior people, but because out of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution flowed superior ideas.
The Western tradition is not Western in any essential sense, but only through an accident of geography and history. Indeed, Islamic learning provided an important resource for both the Renaissance and the development of science. The ideas we call ‘Western’ are in fact universal, laying the basis for greater human flourishing. That is why for much of the past century radicals, especially third world radicals, recognised that the problem of imperialism was not that it was a Western ideology, but that it was an obstacle to the pursuit of the progressive ideals that arose out of the Enlightenment.
As Frantz Fanon, the Martinique-born Algerian nationalist, put it: ‘All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought. But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission that fell to them.’ [5] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n5) For thinkers like Fanon and James, the aim of anti-imperialism was not to reject Western ideas but to reclaim them for all of humanity.
Indeed, Western liberals were often shocked by the extent to which anti-colonial movements adopted what they considered to be tainted notions. The Enlightenment concepts of universalism and social progress, the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss observed, found ‘unexpected support from peoples who desire nothing more than to share in the benefits of industrialisation; peoples who prefer to look upon themselves as temporarily backward rather than permanently different’. Elsewhere he noted that the doctrine of cultural relativism ‘was challenged by the very people for whose moral benefit the anthropologists had established it in the first place’ [6] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n6).
How things have changed. ‘Permanently different’ is exactly how we tend to see different, groups, societies and cultures today. Why? Largely because contemporary society has lost faith in social transformation, in the possibility of progress, in the beliefs that animated anti-imperialists like James and Fanon.
To regard people as ‘temporarily backward’ rather than ‘permanently different’ is to accept that while people are potentially equal, cultures definitely are not; it is to accept the idea of social and moral progress; that it would be far better if everybody had the chance to live in the type of society or culture that best promoted human advancement.
But it’s just these ideas — and the very act of making judgements about beliefs, values, lifestyles, and cultures — that are now viewed as politically uncouth. In place of the progressive universalism of James and Fanon, contemporary Western societies have embraced a form of nihilistic multiculturalism. We’ve come to see the world as divided into cultures and groups defined largely by their difference with each other. And every group has come to see itself as composed not of active agents attempting to overcome disadvantages by striving for equality and progress, but of passive victims with irresolvable grievances. For if differences are permanent, how can grievances ever be resolved?
The corollary of turning the whole world into a network of victims is to transform the West, and in particular the USA, into an all-powerful malign force — the Great Satan — against which all must rage. In Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, one of the central characters, Saladin, finds himself incarcerated in a detention centre for illegal immigrants. Saladin discovers that his fellow inmates have been transformed into beasts — water buffaloes, snakes, manticores. He himself has become a hairy goat.
How do they do it, Saladin asks a fellow prisoner? ‘They describe us’, comes the reply, ‘that’s all. They have the power of description and we succumb to the pictures they construct’. There is a similar sense of fatalism in the way that many contemporary radicals view the USA. The Great Satan describes the world, and the world succumbs to those descriptions.
In this fatalism lies a common thread that binds contemporary Western radicalism and fundamentalist Islam. On the surface the two seem poles apart: fundamentalists loathe Western decadence, Western radicals fear Islamic presumptions of certainty. But what unites the two is that both are rooted in contemporary nihilistic multiculturalism; both express, at best, ambivalence about, at worst outright rejection of, the ideas of modernity, universality, and progress. And both see no real alternative to Western power.
Most importantly, both conflate the gains of modernism and the iniquities of capitalism. In this way the positive aspects of capitalist society — its invocation of reason, its technological advancements, its ideological commitment to equality and universalism — are denigrated, while its negative aspects — the inability to overcome social divisions, the contrast between technological advance and moral turpitude, the tendencies towards barbarism — are seen as inevitable or natural.
According to this worldview, all one can hope for, in the words of Edward Said, is ‘the possibility of a more generous and pluralistic vision of the world, in which imperialism courses on, as it were, belatedly, in different forms (the North-South polarity of our time is one), and the relationship of domination continues, but the opportunities for liberation are open.’ [7] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n7) But what can liberation mean if nothing is to change and ‘imperialism courses on’? Is it not more likely that such a view will give rise, not to a ‘generous and pluralistic vision of the world’, but to a darkly dystopian and misanthropic one, where all that is left is nihilistic rage — the kind of rage that led to the events of 11 September?
The fury that drove the planes into Twin Towers was nurtured as much by the nihilism and fatalism that now grips much of Western society as by the struggle in Palestine or anywhere else in the third world. There was nothing remotely anti-imperialist or progressive about the attack; nor is there about the visceral anti-Americanism that today animates Islamic fundamentalists and Western radicals alike. There is much to deplore about American society and American foreign policy. But little of it is embodied in the anti-Americanism either of Islamic fundamentalism or of contemporary Western radicalism. Rather, they are both the products of the failure of anti-imperialism, and of a disaffection with the modern world. The irony of such estrangement from modernism is that it is as rooted in the ‘Western tradition’ as modernism itself — but only in its more reactionary and backward-looking strands.
‘Today, we are present at the stasis of Europe’, Frantz Fanon wrote. Europe ‘has shaken off all guidance and all reason, and she is running headlong into the abyss; we would do well to avoid it with all speed.’ [8] (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm#n8) Forty years ago, Fanon was issuing a clarion call against imperialism. Today he could be equally well warning us about the consequences of what passes for anti-imperialism.

Does not look very nice to read in my post; read it here: http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm

[whore]

all cultures are not equal.
sexism, racism, homophobia (and other reactionary ideas) are all part of "culture". and culture which has those aspects, is, at least to that extent, not equal to a culture which doesn't include those reactionary ideas.

end of story

[black magick hustla]

i think people who buld a political platform around "culture", whether being a patriot, a "multiculturalist", etc are missing the whole point. let the liberals and nationalists talk about this shit

[bcbm]

Is it chauvanistic to say that groups such the Kalahari Bushmen are backward?

probably.


Is it a good thing is they stop being nomadic hunters and start being agriculutural workers; is that progress?

i doubt it.

[black magick hustla]

all cultures are not equal.
sexism, racism, homophobia (and other reactionary ideas) are all part of "culture". and culture which has those aspects, is, at least to that extent, not equal to a culture which doesn't include those reactionary ideas.

end of story

yea but the "cultures" were this is the lowest (i.e. first world countries) have a very high level of suicide rates and have spawned some of the biggest mass murderers. what is the "benchmark" we us to compare this stuff? your post strikes me of silly identity politics

[Revy]

Comparing societies based on technology alone is ignorant.

Industrialization does not make an "advanced" culture. The difference is economic.

[jake williams]

There are so many different responses one could take to the question. There's sort of a pseudo-Marxist response that at the same time is not totally vacuous - our judgements of the "value" of a given culture are based on the particular culture and material situation we come from. So in that sense it is a problematic question.

My more honest gut response though is this: there are a number of cultural characteristics we'd (really) like to have, and others we'd (really) like not to have. Almost any culture I've been made aware of has some of both. The notion that X culture is better than Y culture because of Z, especially when X culture is the dominant culture, is typically a racist or at least a chauvinist view. This is the case even if Z is important.

The framing of this too, however, is problematic: it leads too easily to the notion that what we need is "multiculturalism" or "cultural compromise", that if we just all come together and are Tolerant, then we can just pick and choose. While in some ways these are positive values, they run against a serious understanding of where culture actually comes from. It's bourgeois idealism to assume that we just pick the culture we want. Culture comes in large part from material circumstances.

With this in mind, however, it's important to recognize that in a socialist society (or even a society where socialism is an important force), the collective wishes of workers become a dominant force, and thus have the capacity to affect society in real ways. For me to a significant extent, socialism is about the ability for people to determine the culture and society they want.

[whore]

yea but the "cultures" were this is the lowest (i.e. first world countries) have a very high level of suicide rates and have spawned some of the biggest mass murderers. what is the "benchmark" we us to compare this stuff? your post strikes me of silly identity politics
so, sexism, racism and homophobia are good because countries which have high levels have low suicide rates and fewer mass murderers? fuck that. besides, i've never heard of anything like that.

wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate) says the top five countries by rate of suicide per 100000 people per year are all ex-soviet. hardly countries renowned for their anti-racist attitudes and tolerant behaviour of sexual deviance. yes, according to that same article, a lot of "latin" american countries have low suicide rates, but iran, syria and egypt are very low as well. (most african countries aren't listed)

a different article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) discussing murder rates goes on to list a bunch of central, south american and african countries as having the highest murder rates from around the world. iraq is not even in the top 15 (perhaps they don't count war as murder?) having a quick peruse of the list, most "developed" countries seem to have a rate of less than 5 murders per 100000 people per year. Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) and latvia appear to be the only eu countries above that number. of course, that doesn't list "mass murders".

so, what does all that tell us? not much actually. it does show that going around making up shit like "low rates of sexism, homophobia and racism correlates to high levels of suicide and murder" (correlation does not equal causation).

i would suggest that those factors aren't related. liberalism and other ideas of the enlightenment reduce the rate of sexism etc. in more "developed" countries. but, something else, perhaps economic factors, influence other aspects, including suicide.

anyway, if you can't agree that less sexism, racism and homophobia (etc.) is a good thing, what the fuck are you doing on a revolutionary forum? it isn't "silly identity politics" to object to bullshit like that. and it isn't "silly identity politics" to say, "to the extent that those aspects of a culture exist, that culture is not desirable".

as jammoe said, we want x (perhaps a culture of cooperation) from this culture, and y (great art) from that culture. but we don't want z (sexism, racism etc.) from any culture. because those things are not desirable for a free society. they prevent a truly free society from coming about.

[whore]

Comparing societies based on technology alone is ignorant.

Industrialization does not make an "advanced" culture. The difference is economic.
there is no such thing as an "advanced" culture using an objective measurement. subjectively, we can say (as i said earlier), less sexism etc.

using economics though, i reject that as a good measure of a societies culture. it is an aspect, but you can look outside the economic sphere and find better measurements.

basically though, from our perspective, as socialists, surely any culture where people treat each other with respect and understanding is "good". that is surely what we are aiming for. the economics is merely one aspect of that. communism will only work if everyone is willing to treat eachother with respect, and reject bullshit (sexism etc.)

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Of course in an "objective" sense, extracting from how the term of phrase is usually meant, there are more advanced and less advanced cultures. Leftists shouldn't make the mistake of going in for "multiculturalism", or any of that other liberal crap.

Problem is that classifying cultures as "more advanced" or "less advanced" is generally intended to signify some innate superiority of one culture (read; race) over another, where, the leftist position would be that less developed culture would be due to a less advanced economic structure, and not some innate "African" quality or whatever.

As far as things like dress, or music, I don't think you could say one culture was more advanced than another, but its utterly nonsense to say that stoning as a punishment for adultery is no more barbaric than the view of "western" culture on it.

[Dimentio]

All cultures are not equal, because culture is a consequence of material factors (geographic conditions, climatic conditions, technological level, administrative organisation of society and so on).

Just compare the current, capitalist Europe with the medieval, feudal Europe. During that time, public torture and humiliation were popular entertainment. People were burned at the stake and children watched. When they had no people to execute, they executed animals.

[Sogdian]

I agree, as most Marxists would, with Dimentio(above) in saying that culture reflects material conditions of society. In this sense it seems not all cultures are equal. They are "temporarily unequal", meaning their differences are not based on genetics, but on historical development of societies. Today, European civilization might be dominant in the world, but it was not always like this. Egypt, China et al. have given great civilizations to the world in the past. That is to say that ideas and knowledge are very transparent and can be adopted universally.

Though this doesn't mean that we all should listen to certain music, wear certain clothes or behave in certain ways... Contemporary Western "civilization" is dominated by the bourgeoisie, that is exploitative of the masses. It is a backward civilization in itself. One aboriginal activists' slogan says:If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. Those "liberals", "progressives" or whatever they call themselves who want to "develop" and "liberate" the world from all sorts of tyranny and backwardness are only destroying it.

[black magick hustla]

so, sexism, racism and homophobia are good because countries which have high levels have low suicide rates and fewer mass murderers? fuck that. besides, i've never heard of anything like that.
i did not say that.




a different article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) discussing murder rates goes on to list a bunch of central, south american and african countries as having the highest murder rates from around the world. iraq is not even in the top 15 (perhaps they don't count war as murder?) having a quick peruse of the list, most "developed" countries seem to have a rate of less than 5 murders per 100000 people per year. Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) and latvia appear to be the only eu countries above that number. of course, that doesn't list "mass murders".

Yes, yet "enlightened" european countries started the two world wars. the two most barbaric episodes in the history of mankind.



so, what does all that tell us? not much actually. it does show that going
anyway, if you can't agree that less sexism, racism and homophobia (etc.) is a good thing, what the fuck are you doing on a revolutionary forum? it isn't "silly identity politics" to object to bullshit like that. and it isn't "silly identity politics" to say, "to the extent that those aspects of a culture exist, that culture is not desirable".


THe problem is that comunism stands as the negation of all civilization as it is known. there is little value in comparing the worth of different cultures when all of them must be destroyed.

[bailey_187]

damn, why did all the replies come on today, i had my exam on this today. Still interesting anyway.

[Dimentio]

I agree, as most Marxists would, with Dimentio(above) in saying that culture reflects material conditions of society. In this sense it seems not all cultures are equal. They are "temporarily unequal", meaning their differences are not based on genetics, but on historical development of societies. Today, European civilization might be dominant in the world, but it was not always like this. Egypt, China et al. have given great civilizations to the world in the past. That is to say that ideas and knowledge are very transparent and can be adopted universally.

Though this doesn't mean that we all should listen to certain music, wear certain clothes or behave in certain ways... Contemporary Western "civilization" is dominated by the bourgeoisie, that is exploitative of the masses. It is a backward civilization in itself. One aboriginal activists' slogan says:If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. Those "liberals", "progressives" or whatever they call themselves who want to "develop" and "liberate" the world from all sorts of tyranny and backwardness are only destroying it.

Well, I could enjoy medieval music and architecture a lot and yet don't condone the public torture of animals for the amusement of spectacles. I think it is culturally absolutistic to think that certain kinds of music and architecture are superior to others in their aesthetic appeal. What a culture should be judged from is its treatment of people and other living beings, its class relations and its relationship with organised religion.

[whore]

Yes, yet "enlightened" european countries started the two world wars. the two most barbaric episodes in the history of mankind.
i never said that european countries were enlightened. i said that their values are influenced by the enlightinment.

i would also suggest that sexism, racism, homophobia etc. were all quite common (even institutionalised) in most european countries until the last thirty to forty years. universal suffrage for all adults over 21 years of age was not achieved until 1928 in the uk. homosexuality was illegal in the uk until at least 1952 as well. i'm pretty sure similar dates would apply for most other countries in western europe.



THe problem is that comunism stands as the negation of all civilization as it is known. there is little value in comparing the worth of different cultures when all of them must be destroyed.
well, when you put it like that, i can't disagree...

well, actually i can. there is worth in comparing different cultures in the present system. if nothing else, it provides one means of determining which country is more desirable to live in (if one has the means of choosing). as such, i would rather live in europe, australia or new zealand, compared to the usa, partly because of the fact that these countries tend to be more tolerant of differences (as far as i can tell from the media and internet anyway). other factors include that the usa has a much more commercialised culture, and the lack of government regulation in various industries (such as cell phones). i would also really not want to live in saudi arabia, partly because of my impression of the culture (religious etc.) there.

[the last donut of the night]

I just think it is as silly to impose the concept of equality upon cultures as to impose the concept of equality when one compares oranges to apples.

Why?

As we all know, cultures are the byproducts of class-relations, so they're all different in many ways. However, most cultures do carry the exploitative natures of racism or sexism today as a byproduct of capitalism. So fighting against these things is not 'racist', as some liberal bullshitters at the lip service of nationalism may say -- it is just people fighting for a better society.

Cultures will be changed when socialism comes. Not through outside imposition, but by the inherent economic changes.

[black magick hustla]

i never said that european countries were enlightened. i said that their values are influenced by the enlightinment.

i would also suggest that sexism, racism, homophobia etc. were all quite common (even institutionalised) in most european countries until the last thirty to forty years. universal suffrage for all adults over 21 years of age was not achieved until 1928 in the uk. homosexuality was illegal in the uk until at least 1952 as well. i'm pretty sure similar dates would apply for most other countries in western europe.


Of course they were. However in relation to the third world, these countries where miles ahead.




well, actually i can. there is worth in comparing different cultures in the present system. if nothing else, it provides one means of determining which country is more desirable to live in (if one has the means of choosing). as such, i would rather live in europe, australia or new zealand, compared to the usa, partly because of the fact that these countries tend to be more tolerant of differences (as far as i can tell from the media and internet anyway). other factors include that the usa has a much more commercialised culture, and the lack of government regulation in various industries (such as cell phones). i would also really not want to live in saudi arabia, partly because of my impression of the culture (religious etc.) there.

That has nothing to do with politics. Its akin to making a political platform out of you music tastes. By all means do what you wish but please do not politicize those choices

[Dimentio]

I just think it is as silly to impose the concept of equality upon cultures as to impose the concept of equality when one compares oranges to apples.

Why?

As we all know, cultures are the byproducts of class-relations, so they're all different in many ways. However, most cultures do carry the exploitative natures of racism or sexism today as a byproduct of capitalism. So fighting against these things is not 'racist', as some liberal bullshitters at the lip service of nationalism may say -- it is just people fighting for a better society.

Cultures will be changed when socialism comes. Not through outside imposition, but by the inherent economic changes.

Racism and sexism are partially older than capitalism. Feudal society was also sexist and somewhat ethno-centric. In fact, capitalism had served to erode away all official forms of socially sanctioned discrimination based on anything other than income.

[the last donut of the night]

Racism and sexism are partially older than capitalism. Feudal society was also sexist and somewhat ethno-centric. In fact, capitalism had served to erode away all official forms of socially sanctioned discrimination based on anything other than income.

However, it still enforces it -- partially, at least -- to defend and justify its existence.

[red cat]

Instead of describing the culture of a society as a whole, shouldn't we try to distinguish between the culture of each class?

[whore]

Instead of describing the culture of a society as a whole, shouldn't we try to distinguish between the culture of each class?
this is an interesting point. however, i would reject that. i would instead say (as i've said before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1664752&postcount=6)), that it would be better to distinguish between "radical" and "revolutionary" culture vs "status quo" and "reactionary" culture.

i would suggest that radical culture (so long as it is progressive) is better than "prol" culture that glorifies yesteryear or caters to the lowest common demonimator. i would suggest that certain "grassroots" (as it were) "culture" is pretty rubbish. i'm refering mainly to "internet memes" such as "lolcats" and that owl picture. i also think that tags are generally rubbish, but at least they are challanging property rights.

[red cat]

this is an interesting point. however, i would reject that. i would instead say (as i've said before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1664752&postcount=6)), that it would be better to distinguish between "radical" and "revolutionary" culture vs "status quo" and "reactionary" culture.

i would suggest that radical culture (so long as it is progressive) is better than "prol" culture that glorifies yesteryear or caters to the lowest common demonimator. i would suggest that certain "grassroots" (as it were) "culture" is pretty rubbish. i'm refering mainly to "internet memes" such as "lolcats" and that owl picture. i also think that tags are generally rubbish, but at least they are challanging property rights.

How should we define proletarian culture?

I have observed that (at least in my country) in general, the working class displays two opposing cultures. One is when they are oppressed totally( they are not subject to exact bourgeois relations, as I have discussed in earlier threads). Many among them will then with whatever money they can somehow save(even by starving to an extent), gamble, drink and even visit prostitutes in some, though very rare cases. At home they will beat their wife and children severely etc etc. Initially they also betray genuine trade union leaders for meagre sums.

But this very working class, these very people, at a certain stage of oppression, with or without communists organizing them, turns against the bourgeoisie. It is very surprising to notice how all the vices I mentioned above then disappear almost overnight and the workers of the whole factory act as a single body. If there is no genuine communist organizing them, then pacifiers come from outside, relax oppression to some extent, neutralize the whole thing and the workers go back to their previous state. But with a communist organization, the story turns out to be a bit different.

The point that I want to make is that, by proletarian culture we should refer to that culture which develops within the proletariat when it tends to break with the bourgeois system. This culture is inherently revolutionary.

[Dimentio]

However, it still enforces it -- partially, at least -- to defend and justify its existence.

I don't really agree.

Capitalism post-colonialism is really non-racist - even though it could evoke pseudo-racist nuances, like for example in the "war against terror". Despite that racism is still existent, most capitalist governments in Europe and North America are not condoning racism. On the contrary, many government programmes are directed towards improving the ability to compete within the capitalist system for minorities. Neither do I see any large capitalists supporting fascist parties.

If a professor would deliver a racialist lecture at a university, he would most likely lose his position. If the dominating ideology today really was conciously racist or indifferent to racism, that wouldn't happen.

Capitalism in itself tend to erode all other differences than that between the owner of the means of production and the producer of the means of production, which mean that despite some setbacks, capitalism is acting as a globalising force.

To say that capitalism today is racist, that the western governments are racist and calling the USA "AmeriKKKa" is to put inflation to the meaning of the definition of racism. While racism is existent in most western societies nowadays, it is not a part of the state ideology. In fact, racism is on the contrary - at least vocally - denounced by the elites. If the society had been openly racist, as in the USA prior to 1964 and South Africa prior to 1994, people would have been discriminated out of racial reasons and the authorities would not deny their racism, but on the contrary be proud of it.

To the extent the authorities are using racist sentiments today, they are always using some scapegoat to not appear as openly racist, instead rationalising racist sentiments with some administrative, economic, cultural or social concerns. If they had been openly racist, they would openly have worked to make life uncomfortable for minority communities, explaining it and rationalising it through racialist and social-darwinist concerns, as in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In short, if capitalism today had allowed racism to flourish, media would have aired programmes on the scope of inferiority of Africans, Arabs, Indians and Latin Americans. Debate programmes on CNN and Fox News would have discussed how to best sterilise non-white people. There would have been parties calling for segregation (if segregation wasn't in place).

To say that capitalism today is racist is more an emotional statement than a statement of fact. It is like saying that any bourgeois politician is a fascist - an expression of anger and injustice, but ultimately meaningless to define the term properly.

I am not saying that capitalism is good. But only because something is bad, doesn't mean its extremely bad to the border of the absurd. Neither am I saying that racism isn't existing in western societies today. But the only places where concious racism are thriving are in fringe communities which are composing maybe 5-10% of a given population in a western country.

If you want to find places where racism is everywhere, I advice you to check up on eastern Europe. David Duke, for example, is a honorary doctor at the university of Kiev (moreover, he was a guest of honour of the Syrian state). In the west, he's only seen as a fringe element.

Appendix: In fact, modern western societies tend to justify themselves as the antithesis of fascism. The legitimacy of western democracies (in reality oligarchic republics) is partially dependent of the mythologisation of the Second World War and of Hitler as the secular version of the medieval devil.

[Vanguard1917]

Kenan Malik is absolutely right (in the article in the OP -- also, his book The Meaning of Race is an excellent read and covers such issues in a lot of detail from a Marxist perspective). All cultures are not equal. Suggesting that they are would be to uphold an entirely ahistorical and anti-materialist perspective.

An example: is the culture of the revolutionary bourgeoisie of the 18 and 19 centuries equal to that of, say, the culture of feudal Europe in the Middle Ages? Of course it isn't. The great social and economic advances brought about by that revolutionary movement gave way to a culture which was far superior to the culture of the backward, rotting historical epoch which preceded it.

Certain liberals and cultural relativists may take offence, but is the culture of a sluggish and impoverished rural society really going to be able to match the sophistication and vigour of the cultural traditions of a dynamic and wealthy modern industrial society which has resources to direct towards developing and advancing those traditions in the first place? No. It would be anti-materialist to say otherwise.



How should we define proletarian culture?


First you need to ask: can there be such a thing as a 'proletarian culture' in a society where the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas of society in general? Will there ever be such a thing as a proletarian culture, even in a socialist society? Will the working class -- a class which seeks to get rid of classes and build a society in the interests of humanity as a whole -- have any historical motive in forming a unique class culture?

[Vanguard1917]

THe problem is that comunism stands as the negation of all civilization as it is known. there is little value in comparing the worth of different cultures when all of them must be destroyed.

But that's wrong. We don't want to destroy all bourgeois culture. We want to reclaim, develop and revolutionise the best and most advanced cultural forms and traditions which bourgeois society has produced -- just as we want to do with the means of production developed under capitalism.

[bcbm]

is the culture of a sluggish and impoverished rural society really going to be able to match the sophistication and vigour of the cultural traditions of a dynamic and wealthy modern industrial society which has resources to direct towards developing and advancing those traditions in the first place? No. It would be anti-materiali

i don't know how sophisticated they were, but the "sluggish and impoverished" rural communities of the middle ages were dominated by an extremely communal culture that was the base for most of the medieval insurrections that prompted the ruling class of the era to enact a counter-revolution against the poor and working classes- the development of capitalism, spearheaded by the enclosures, criminalization of the poor and a massive attack on women and colonized peoples. by most accounts the members of those communities worked less than most do today, enjoyed far more days off that were taken up by festivals and were very conscious to attacks on their class and prone to do something about it. i wouldn't say their culture was worse than that of the "revolutionary" bourgeoisie who destroyed all of these things and forced millions of rural (and urban) workers into abject poverty, vababondage, criminality, slavery and, eventually, industrial wage-slavery.

[Vanguard1917]

by most accounts the members of those communities worked less than most do today, enjoyed far more days off that were taken up by festivals

Any evidence to back up this rosy vision of serfdom and much other labour under feudalism? I think that it would be far more accurate to say that life for serfs and most other labourers in the Middle Ages involved day-long backbreaking manual labour.

It is true that industrialisation saw the impoverishment and proletarianisation of certain sections of society that were previously more comfortable -- artisans, craftsmen, some small producers, etc.

But what does that have to do with any superiority of the latter's culture? These people were thoroughly immersed in the culture of feudalism. They were god-fearing, highly patriarchal, preoccupied with their own petty self-interests, could not read, could not write, and were cut off from the town and had little interest in what was going on outside of their own vicinity.

Compare that cultural existence to the culture of the Enlightenment, which challenged religious authority, was universalist in outlook, celebrated the pursuit of reason, liberty, equality, etc. For us, socialism stands in that tradition. It could not have come into existence without the advances which the Enlightenment represented.

Engels put it really well in the introduction to his book Condition of the Working Class in England. The third paragraph is particularly important:



"Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried on in the workingman's home. Wife and daughter spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not work it up himself. These weaver families lived in the country in the neighbourhood of the towns, and could get on fairly well with their wages, because the home market was almost the only one and the crushing power of competition that came later, with the conquest of foreign markets and the extension of trade, did not yet press upon wages. There was, further, a constant increase in the demand for the home market, keeping pace with the slow increase in population and employing all the workers; and there was also the impossibility of vigorous competition of the workers among themselves, consequent upon the rural dispersion of their homes. So it was that the weaver was usually in a position to lay by something, and rent a little piece of land, that he cultivated in his leisure hours, of which he had as many as he chose to take, since he could weave whenever and as long as he pleased. True, he was a bad farmer and managed his land inefficiently, often obtaining but poor crops; nevertheless, he was no proletarian, he had a stake in the country, he was permanently settled, and stood one step higher in society than the English workman of today.

"So the workers vegetated throughout a passably comfortable existence, leading a righteous and peaceful life in all piety and probity; and their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, and yet earned what they needed. They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbours, and all these games -- bowling, cricket, football, etc., contributed to their physical health and vigour. They were, for the most part, strong, well-built people, in whose physique little or no difference from that of their peasant neighbours was discoverable. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and, if they could help their parents at work, it was only occasionally; while of eight or twelve hours work for them there was no question.

"What the moral and intellectual character of this class was may be guessed. Shut off from the towns, which they never entered, their yarn and woven stuff being delivered to travelling agents for payment of wages -- so shut off that old people who lived quite in the neighborhood of the town never went thither until they were robbed of their trade by the introduction of machinery and obliged to look about them in the towns for work -- the weavers stood upon the moral and intellectual plane of the yeomen with whom they were usually immediately connected through their little holdings. They regarded their squire, the greatest landholder of the region, as their natural superior; they asked advice of him, laid their small disputes before him for settlement, and gave him all honour, as this patriarchal relation involved. They were "respectable" people, good husbands and fathers, led moral lives because they had no temptation to be immoral, there being no groggeries or low houses in their vicinity, and because the host, at whose inn they now and then quenched their thirst, was also a respectable man, usually a large tenant-farmer who took pride in his good order, good beer, and early hours. They had their children the whole day at home, and brought them up in obedience and the fear of God; the patriarchal relationship remained undisturbed so long as the children were unmarried. The young people grew up in idyllic simplicity and intimacy with their playmates until they married; and even though sexual intercourse before marriage almost unfailingly took place, this happened only when the moral obligation of marriage was recognised on both sides, and a subsequent wedding made everything good. In short, the English industrial workers of those days lived and thought after the fashion still to be found here and there in Germany, in retirement and seclusion, without mental activity and without violent fluctuations in their position in life. They could rarely read and far more rarely write; went regularly to church, never talked politics, never conspired, never thought, delighted in physical exercises, listened with inherited reverence when the Bible was read, and were, in their unquestioning humility, exceedingly well-disposed towards the "superior" classes. But intellectually, they were dead; lived only for their petty, private interest, for their looms and gardens, and knew nothing of the mighty movement which, beyond their horizon, was sweeping through mankind. They were comfortable in their silent vegetation, and but for the industrial revolution they would never have emerged from this existence, which, cosily romantic as it was, was nevertheless not worthy of human beings. In truth, they were not human beings; they were merely toiling machines in the service of the few aristocrats who had guided history down to that time. The industrial revolution has simply carried this out to its logical end by making the workers machines pure and simple, taking from them the last trace of independent activity, and so forcing them to think and demand a position worthy of men. As in France politics, so in England manufacture and the movement of civil society in general drew into the whirl of history the last classes which had remained sunk in apathetic indifference to the universal interests of mankind."


(my bold)

[bcbm]

Any evidence to back up this rosy vision of serfdom and much other labour under feudalism? I think that it would be far more accurate to say that life for serfs and most other labourers in the Middle Ages involved day-long backbreaking manual labour.

sure (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html). i don't think medieval life was rosy, but it was better than what the ruling class brought about in transitioning to capitalism, and much of life under capitalism. since the development of serfdom in the 7th century or so there was constant class warfare by the serfs to improve their lot, reaching a high point in about the 15th century, if i recall correctly. things go downhill rapidly after that, not surprisingly at the same time as the transition began.


It is true that industrialisation saw the impoverishment and proletarianisation of certain sections of society that were previously more comfortable -- artisans, craftsmen, some small producers, etc.

it wasn't just certain sections, it was the entirety of the working classes of the middle ages, peasants and city workers alike.


But what does that have to do with any superiority of the latter's culture? These people were thoroughly immersed in the culture of feudalism. They were god-fearing, highly patriarchal, preoccupied with their own petty self-interests, could not read, could not write, and were cut off from the town and had little interest in what was going on outside of their own vicinity.

all of these charges are true, to a certain extent, but ignore the fact that these would all much more accurately describe the poor following enclosure and criminalization than prior. while god-fearing, the church was often a target in medieval rebellions and religion was even used to inspire uprisings. while patriarchal, women enjoyed a much higher standing in the middle ages than following. it was during the transition that the ruling classes enacted their most savage attacks on women and promoted a culture of extreme partiarchy that broke communal solidarity and led to mass murder. the charge of being occupied only in petty self-interest and nothing outside of their vicinity doesn't mesh with the massive number of rebeliions during the middle ages, with entire regions often being caught up. the serfs and other workers were very conscious of their position and struggled to improve it. the bourgeoisie who you champion as progressive were in fact a reactionary force that destroyed all of the gains won through struggle by the working classes and forced them into even worse poverty and toil.


Compare that cultural existence to the culture of the Enlightenment, which challenged religious authority, was universalist in outlook, celebrated the pursuit of reason, liberty, equality, etc. For us, socialism stands in that tradition. It could not have come into existence without the advances which the Enlightenment represented.

i think there is much more of a traditional connection with say the anabaptists or the diggers and levellers or other such groups- workers who rose up against the ruling classes to struggle for infinitely more radical versions of the virtues "celebrated" by the enlightenment.


Engels put it really well in the introduction to his book Condition of the Working Class in England. The third paragraph is particularly important:


i think this is a more ahistorical and "rosy" view of life for workers in the middle ages. it also sounds to me like he is describing life in the 18th century, by which time the counter-revolution against the working classes had been underway for centuries.

[Vanguard1917]

don't think medieval life was rosy, but it was better than what the ruling class brought about in transitioning to capitalism, and much of life under capitalism. since the development of serfdom in the 7th century or so there was constant class warfare by the serfs to improve their lot, reaching a high point in about the 15th century, if i recall correctly. things go downhill rapidly after that, not surprisingly at the same time as the transition began.


Is the implication, therefore, that serfdom -- whereby you gave up your freedoms and submitted yourself to the landowner's will -- was somehow a better existence from a socialist perspective than what came afterwards?



all of these charges are true, to a certain extent, but ignore the fact that these would all much more accurately describe the poor following enclosure and criminalization than prior. while god-fearing, the church was often a target in medieval rebellions and religion was even used to inspire uprisings.


In other words, a society in which organised religion dominated all spheres of life was preferable to a society which saw the rise of securalism and the diminished role of the Church?



while patriarchal, women enjoyed a much higher standing in the middle ages than following.


Really? Women in Britain were better off as effective full-time slaves to feudal patriarchs than they were in the 19th century, with the rise of female employment and the consequent rise of women's movements for liberation?

What have you got to gain from this pro-feudalist anti-capitalism? Where does it stem from?



the charge of being occupied only in petty self-interest and nothing outside of their vicinity doesn't mesh with the massive number of rebeliions during the middle ages, with entire regions often being caught up. the serfs and other workers were very conscious of their position and struggled to improve it.


Anything comparable to the global movement for socialism which united millions of workers worldwide and which the bourgeois epoch gave rise to?

We shouldn't, of course, take anything away from early radical movements. We should recognise that the revolutions led by the bourgeoisie against feudalism had mass movements at their base. But that does not mean that we should not accept that, due to historical change, the political culture of a radicalised worker in a 19th century factory was likely to be far more advanced and progressive than that of a radicalised peasant in a farm in the 16th century, however much we can admire the actions of the latter.



i think there is much more of a traditional connection with say the anabaptists or the diggers and levellers or other such groups- workers who rose up against the ruling classes to struggle for infinitely more radical versions of the virtues "celebrated" by the enlightenment.



If i understand correctly what you're saying here, i agree. The great bourgeois revolutions can't be separated from the aspirations of the masses which provided them with much of their backbone and political language. But they were bourgeois revolutions nonetheless, since they were led by the bourgeoisie and since the material limitations which existed at the time could only permit the revolutions to go so far in their struggle for freedom -- i.e. towards capitalism, with its creation of new forms of exploitation and class oppression.



i think this is a more ahistorical and "rosy" view of life for workers in the middle ages.


I think he's talking about English rural workers just prior to the rapid rise of industrialisation.


it also sounds to me like he is describing life in the 18th century, by which time the counter-revolution against the working classes had been underway for centuries.

Which working class revolution are you referring to?

[turquino]

i think there is much more of a traditional connection with say the anabaptists or the diggers and levellers or other such groups- workers who rose up against the ruling classes to struggle for infinitely more radical versions of the virtues "celebrated" by the enlightenment.
The True Levellers expressed the anxieties of the pauperized craftsmen and tiller. They believed wage earners had forfeited their rights by alienating ownership of their products from their work, and should be expelled from England. As Gerard Winstanley wrote “The hand of the Lord shall break out upon every such hireling labourer, and you shall perish with the covetous rich men.”

[Red Commissar]

The successes of European and Asian cultures was not so much because of their culture but more of their geographical advantages. I remember reading an excerpt from Guns, Germs, and Steel which laid out that case. With a somewhat stable economic base these societies were free to make advancements in other areas.

[YKTMX]

Well, there are few problems, as I see it. I'm interested in this topic, like the original poster.

First of all, the answer to the question set in the thread title is obviously 'No', in the sense that there is great cultural diversity amongst human beings, so one culture is never, in the strict sense, "equal" to the next.

The sense, of course, in which the question is usually meant is 'are some cultures superior to others'. That is, can we somehow grade cultures by some objective i.e. a-cultural standard and form a progressive "hierarchy" of cultural norms and values.

For the European colonialists and contemporary Western "intellectual" opinion the answer was 'Yes'. We can clearly demonstrate, so it goes, that such a standard is possible and that, not surprisingly, applying it yields the conclusions that European or 'Western' culture is superior to 'Asian' culture, which is superior to 'Middle Eastern' culture, which is superior to 'African' culture, and so on and so forth.

The relationships of Marxists to this question is more problematic, however. On the one hand, we ought to accept the basic premise of the post-modern and post-colonial critique - that no such a-cultural standard for judging cultures exist, and that judgements passed on other cultures by those living outside them, particularly those whose own culture is globally hegemonic, are always-already subjective and culturally ad historically determined.

On the other hand, it is not the case that we see no basis for useful comparison. We do see some forms of society (an important emphasis) as historically progressive. However, we would look to seperate the nature of a society from its own "cultural" affirmations. In other words, the problem of backwardness and progress is not primarily a cultural questions, but of economics and politics. In this sense, we reject completely the notion that "backward" societies are in need of paternalistic tutelage from culturally enlightened minds from the West. What these countries need, in order to escape social, economic and cultural backwardness, is a form of economic and social development that priorities social need, and not profit.

That is our answer, I think, to the problem of cultural backwardness.

[bcbm]

Is the implication, therefore, that serfdom -- whereby you gave up your freedoms and submitted yourself to the landowner's will -- was somehow a better existence from a socialist perspective than what came afterwards?

i think you oversimplify the lives that were being lived in the middle ages. life centered around collective work by most in the village and the village was daily a scene of class warfare, whether through minor acts of feet dragging and laziness or court battles over labor owed, extending as far as mass refusal of work at harvest time and open armed insurrection against the ruling classes. in the centuries following the development of serfdom, the power of the ruling class was consistently checked and pushed back, leading to a comparatively high quality of living that took a rapid downturn as the basis for capitalism was laid. village life was destroyed, millions were forced into vagabondage, serfdom as a condition actually expanded, the poor were criminalized through many new penalties and imprisoned in proto-factory workhouses, women's labor was dramatically devalued and there was a propaganda war waged to destroy the position of women, not to mention attacks on urban workers and others. the period surrounding the enclosures, colonization and the witch-hunt was certainly one of the worst in european history for the under classes, and you can see this pattern repeated today in new rounds of enclosures, this time in the third world.


In other words, a society in which organised religion dominated all spheres of life was preferable to a society which saw the rise of securalism and the diminished role of the Church?i think it would be better to say that organized religion attempted to dominate all spheres of life. the hostility towards the ruling classes from the working classes in the middle ages extended to the clergy as well. indeed, it was (again) during the transition to capitalism that the powers of the church went through a period of expansion.


Really? Women in Britain were better off as effective full-time slaves to feudal patriarchs than they were in the 19th century, with the rise of female employment and the consequent rise of women's movements for liberation?i don't think women in feudal villages were full time slaves though. their work was viewed as being just as important as men's both because there was less division of labor (women worked in the fields as well) and because tasks like housework and raising children were still viewed as "real work," and that much of the work was carried out collectively with other women (washing, tending animals, etc) built strong social networks capability of great solidarity. its no coincidence women were often at the head of anti-feudal struggles. compare this to their position after the enclosures where their work was devalued, they had no power in the courts, they could be more or less legally raped, they were not allowed to live alone or with other women, propaganda consistently denounced them and they were subjected to mass murder to fully break their social position.


What have you got to gain from this pro-feudalist anti-capitalism? Where does it stem from?i'm not pro-feudalist. i'm supportive of the workers and poor who waged an intense struggle against feudalism and were met with the harshest terror, and i don't believe that terror was necessary or that the impoverishment and death of millions is a progressive step.


Anything comparable to the global movement for socialism which united millions of workers worldwide and which the bourgeois epoch gave rise to?i think so, yes. the anti-feudal movements of the middle ages certainly shook their world to the core as much as the later socialist movements, and were the reason the ruling classes transitioned to capitalism in the first place- to break them.


If i understand correctly what you're saying here, i agree. The great bourgeois revolutions can't be separated from the aspirations of the masses which provided them with much of their backbone and political language. But they were bourgeois revolutions nonetheless, since they were led by the bourgeoisie and since the material limitations which existed at the time could only permit the revolutions to go so far in their struggle for freedom -- i.e. towards capitalism, with its creation of new forms of exploitation and class oppression. the development of capitalism began centuries before any of the bourgeois revolutions. it began with the enclosures and colonialism, around the 15th and 16th century. what i am saying is that i see the rebels of the feudal period that capitalism was developed to crush as being historical fellow-travellers more than the proto-capitalists who crushed them.


I think he's talking about English rural workers just prior to the rapid rise of industrialisation. then i would say his assessment is pretty much spot on, but what he is describing are peasants affected by three centuries of the harshest warfare against them by the ruling class to have exactly those results.


Which working class revolution are you referring to?the massive anti-feudal class warfare of the middle ages.

[Dimentio]

Feudalism began to fall apart already in the 14th century with the Black Death destroying a large part of the social fabric. The 16th century protestant revolutions served to form the first modern national states. Just look up Sweden during the Wasa Dynasty and compare it to pre-Wasa Sweden. Gustav Vasa was basically a 16th century version of a third world nationalist leader.

[Wolf Larson]

We are not social Darwinists. if one man/woman happens to be faster, stronger, smarter or better looking than another it does not give him or her the right to dominate another. This is why civilization should NOT be motivated by self interest and competition.

[YKTMX]

We are not social Darwinists. if one man/woman happens to be faster, stronger, smarter or better looking than another it does not give him or her the right to dominate another. This is why civilization should NOT be motivated by self interest and competition.

Well, yes, the point about being a 'social Darwinian' is that it can never justify the things that people want it to. In the first instance, setting up an abstract natural 'right' completely stands at odds with the process of natural selection, since that process is clearly a-ethical (that is, does not conform with some standard - "might", "right", "justice" etc).

Secondly, since almost all developed organisms are in a process of dialectical metabolic interaction with their natural and/or social environment, it is ludicrous to argue that a sole "individual" who apparently has some genetic advantages (intelligence, strength, attractiveness to the opposite sex) will automatically be "selected" for reproduction. It's easy to imagine cases where particularly strong or intelligent people are ostracized - think about the way particularly "smart" people are sometimes treated, for instance. As for the suggestion that those with genetic endowments "ought to" or "deserve" to reproduce, and that others do not, that is anti-Darwinian.

In this way, Eugenicists working under the assumption that their theories about who "ought" or who "deserves" to survive are based on Darwin (!) are paddling without a boat.

[red cat]

We are not social Darwinists. if one man/woman happens to be faster, stronger, smarter or better looking than another it does not give him or her the right to dominate another. This is why civilization should NOT be motivated by self interest and competition.

To me it seems that Darwinism applies in a different way to the society. If you consider the fact that various classes compete for control over he means of production, then you will see that ultimately the one with the greatest production capability, the proletariat that is, takes over and the other classes cease to exist. I think that this is a kind of natural selection acting over the whole society, so that organizations of a far greater complexity than individuals do become extinct over time.

[Vanguard1917]

For...contemporary Western "intellectual" opinion the answer was 'Yes'.

Don't underestimate the prevelance of pomo cultural relativism in 'contemporary Western "intellectual" opinion' (if by contemporary you're referring to today). In fact, i'd say that it is far more influential in the mainstream Western intellengtsia than the old-fashioned Eurocentricism you describe.


In other words, the problem of backwardness and progress is not primarily a cultural questions, but of economics and politics. In this sense, we reject completely the notion that "backward" societies are in need of paternalistic tutelage from culturally enlightened minds from the West. What these countries need, in order to escape social, economic and cultural backwardness, is a form of economic and social development that priorities social need, and not profit.

Absolutely. Well put.



i'm not pro-feudalist. i'm supportive of the workers and poor who waged an intense struggle against feudalism and were met with the harshest terror, and i don't believe that terror was necessary or that the impoverishment and death of millions is a progressive step.



So you reject outright the Marxist notion that the rise of capitalism was historically necessary for forming the necessary pre-conditions for an international working class movement for socialism?

The core of our disagreement lies there, i think.

[ComradeOm]

the massive anti-feudal class warfare of the middle ages.In which case you are not referring to the 'working class' (ie, the proletariat) at all but the more generic 'toiling classes'

[Durruti's Ghost]

In which case you are not referring to the 'working class' (ie, the proletariat) at all but the more generic 'toiling classes'

"Toiling" is a synonym of "working".

Each form of society has a working class. The working class in capitalism is the proletariat, and the working class in feudalism was the serfs. What is different about the proletariat is not that it is "working" rather than "toiling", but that capitalism, unlike feudalism or slave society, tends (both as it is established and as it decays) to concentrate all people (including first the members of the old middle classes--the artisans, for example--and later the members of the modern middle classes that capitalism creates--i.e., the petit-bourgeoisie, the professionals, etc.) into one of two primary antagonistic classes--the proletariat and the bourgeoisie--thus creating a situation in which the vast majority of society has the common interest of abolishing private ownership of the means of production. In pre-capitalist societies, the tendency was not to push everyone into either the working class or the ruling class, but rather to strengthen the middle classes by drawing some of the serfs (in slave society, slaves) and even some of the nobility into them. In this sense, and in this sense only, is capitalism necessary to the creation of socialism--it forms the conditions needed for a successful socialist revolution, while pre-capitalist societies did not (as evidenced in part by the failure of proto-communist movements in feudal society).

[whore]

So you reject outright the Marxist notion that the rise of capitalism was historically necessary for forming the necessary pre-conditions for an international working class movement for socialism?

The core of our disagreement lies there, i think.
i suggest that this marxist notion is merely an examination of one case (namely europe). if we could run the whole thing over, science like, we might be able to come to the conclusion more, mmm, conclusively. as it is, there is no evidence to suggest that given different circumstances, a socialist movement couldn't have come about in a "pre-capitalist" society.

of course, communication and transportation technology is important. it was shown, however, by for example the roman empire, that modern technology is not essential to hold together a large "civilisation".




In which case you are not referring to the 'working class' (ie, the proletariat) at all but the more generic 'toiling classes'
they are all enemies of the ruling classes.

[ComradeOm]

"Toiling" is a synonym of "working"The term has a specific context. Essentially it is a sop that distinguishes between the proletariat alone and some heterogeneous collection of downtrodden masses. This is a significant difference that is often overlooked


they are all enemies of the ruling classes. Indeed, all that unites them is their negativity. Different classes - formed in different circumstances and with different relations to capitalism and the state - have different material interests. To brush these under the carpet might suffice when discussing opposition to the "ruling classes" but is absolutely of no use when imagining a post-revolution society. At best this is an alliance of convenience

The same applies to projecting revolutionary ideals back through history. There was no mass working class movement arrayed against feudalism because the working class (ie the proletariat) was either non-existent or extremely weak. What there was is a range of peasant and artisan movements designed to further their own interests

[Durruti's Ghost]

The term has a specific context. Essentially it is a sop that distinguishes between the proletariat alone and some heterogeneous collection of downtrodden masses. This is a significant difference that is often overlooked

My reading of Marx doesn't support this, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. It's true that he asserted the existence of only one working class in capitalist society, the proletariat, but I don't think I've read anything where he denied that the serfs and slaves were working classes.


Indeed, all that unites them is their negativity. Different classes - formed in different circumstances and with different relations to capitalism and the state - have different material interests. To brush these under the carpet might suffice when discussing opposition to the "ruling classes" but is absolutely of no use when imagining a post-revolution society. At best this is an alliance of convenience

Of course.


The same applies to projecting revolutionary ideals back through history. There was no mass working class movement arrayed against feudalism because the working class (ie the proletariat) was either non-existent or extremely weak. What there was is a range of peasant and artisan movements designed to further their own interests

The serfs were the working class under feudal relations of production. To quote Engels:



What working classes were there before the industrial revolution?


The working classes have always, according to the different stages of development of society, lived in different circumstances and had different relations to the owning and ruling classes.



In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.



In the Middle Ages, they were the serfs of the land-owning nobility, as they still are in Hungary, Poland, and Russia. In the Middle Ages, and indeed right up to the industrial revolution, there were also journeymen in the cities who worked in the service of petty bourgeois masters. Gradually, as manufacture developed, these journeymen became manufacturing workers who were even then employed by larger capitalists.

[bcbm]

So you reject outright the Marxist notion that the rise of capitalism was historically necessary for forming the necessary pre-conditions for an international working class movement for socialism?

i believe that the possibility of communism has always existed for humanity and reject as necessary the deaths and suffering upon which capitalism continues to be built.


The same applies to projecting revolutionary ideals back through history. There was no mass working class movement arrayed against feudalism because the working class (ie the proletariat) was either non-existent or extremely weak. What there was is a range of peasant and artisan movements designed to further their own interests

no one is projecting ideals backwards. there was no mass movement in the sense of a large, unified force operating on an international level, but there was certainly mass resistance to feudalism from the working classes of the era.