The Worship of Individual Thinkers

[Victus Mortuum]

I don't understand.

Why do you call yourself a Marxist?
Why do you call yourself a Marxist-Leninist?
Why do you call yourself a Trotskyist?
etc.

If you consider yourself one of those (or some other sort of name-based ideology), why do you describe yourself as such?

Why don't you call yourself a "Libertarian Socialist" or "Council Communist" or "Democratic Socialist" or "Revolutionary Communist" or "Soviet Socialist" etc. etc.?

I have a problem with this figure worship, and I'd like to understand it.

Yes, these figures were significant thinkers. However, they are not infallible. We should be addressing them in their relevance to today and their particular takes on particular issues. I've seen far too much Scriptural quoting of these individuals (and others) in discussions and not enough critical individual thinking.

I'm tired and not fully...here right now, but this seemed relevant.

Is this an issue, or am I totally missing something?

[BIG BROTHER]

Is not a worship of an individual, its just a label happens to be useful and is named after the leading theorists that develop them, but that doesn't mean we see them as gods or anything like that.

I could say and do, that I am a Communist but even that means a lot of different things to different people so that is when this type of labels come handy.

You can be completely uncritical of someone and be a blind follower with an ideology that is named after someone, such analysis is very superficial.

[Lucretia]

I describe myself as a Marxist because I think Marx's method of understanding the individual and society is effective, as is evidenced in how his many conclusions accurately describe the way the social world actually operates. That method entails constant revision, critique, and research, so it is always in motion, as is the social world the method is intended to describe. So Marxism is both method and substantive ideas arrived at through said method. But is it worship? Ha! The old man would be turning over in his grave.

[BIG BROTHER]

for example INGSOC is not named after anyone but....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VM:


Why do you call yourself a Trotskyist?

1. It's no more hero worship than it is when scientists call themselves Darwinians or Newtonians.

2. It identifies the individual concerned with a revolutionary tradition. In relation to Trotsky, this connects that individual with revolutionary internationalism and with the belief that only the working class can free itself from oppression and exploitation. That distinguishes this tradition from the exact opposite repesented by the sort of top-down 'socialism' one finds in Stalinism/Maoism.

[Paulappaul]

I consider myself a Communist first, a Marxist second. I don't have any problem working with Anarchists or other Revolutionary Socialists. I think Marx agreed with this and didn't want himself made into any sort of Dogma or Religion. In the First few paragraphs of 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, he does much to the effect of showing why living in the past and with old ideas is bad for a revolutionary movement.

[ZeroNowhere]

"But the position reconquered upon the Anarchists after 1873 was now attacked by their successors, and so I had no choice. Now we have been victorious, we have proved to the world that almost all Socialists in Europe are ‘Marxists’ (they will be mad they gave us that name!) and they are left alone in the cold with Hyndman to console them. And now I hope my services are no longer required."

In either case, if any movement has been dogmatic and worshiped its namesake as infallible, it is certainly not Marxism.


We should be addressing them in their relevance to today and their particular takes on particular issues."The decontamination to which we dedicate 90% of our humble work will be continued a long time after us and be realised only in the distant future. This decontamination combats the epidemic - always and everywhere dangerous, of those who - in all places and at all times - innovate, bring up to date, renovate and revise."

This stress on 'particular issues' is also somewhat strange. When thinkers work within overall systems, without simply pulling issues out of a hat and commenting on them, then it's hardly a matter of simply 'particular issues'.


Why don't you call yourself a "Libertarian Socialist" or "Council Communist" or "Democratic Socialist" or "Revolutionary Communist" or "Soviet Socialist" etc. etc.?I call myself lots of things, I just find the whole aversion to names rather strange and pointless. I certainly wouldn't attack a Ricardian or Sraffian on the basis of them 'worshipping' Ricardo or Sraffa.


I've seen far too much Scriptural quoting of these individuals (and others) in discussions and not enough critical individual thinking.I've seen the opposite.

[graymouser]

I would say the answer is because "revolutionary socialist" doesn't make a clear enough delineation. The term Trotskyist cuts through a lot of bullshit - I'm not a Stalinist, but I'm also not a "left communist," a social democrat, an anarchist or anything else. It has nothing to do with "worship" of Trotsky, but rather with embracing his legacy as the best and clearest expression of revolutionary socialism that we have.

[The Idler]

For the sake of brevity it is quicker than saying I agree with these ideas but not the others.

[Victus Mortuum]

Alright, alright. I have a concession to make. I was drunk and frustrated with a friend of mine who is more like what I described than I’m sure many of you are. I was simply expressing my frustration on the boards, I apologize.

Regardless, I think I have a better question to ask and a better discussion to make out of this.

If you are using the descriptive name-term as an indicator of a philosophical alignment with an individual, what is the particular philosophy of that individual that you agree to? Can you describe your “political” beliefs independent of that philosophy? Can you describe you "philosophical" beliefs independent of their name?

If you are using the descriptive name-term as an indicator of a political alignment with an individual, how does your political alignment really differ so dramatically from all of the other non-name terms?

Do you use the name-term in public when explaining to other people what you think? If so, what kind of reactions do you get? If not, what do you describe yourself as and why?

A Speculative Side Note:

I think we’ve academized ourselves so much that we are inaccessible to most working class people. A person who was curious about getting interested in the ‘socialist’ movement (in the abstract, since there is no strong actual movement right now, at least where I’m at) would likely be bombarded with an incredible barrier. Just a thought. What do you think?

On to respond to what a couple of you said:

1. It's no more hero worship than it is when scientists call themselves Darwinians or Newtonians.
Yeah, but I've never seen Darwinians argue about some small aspect of Origin of Species tossing scriptural references around debating whether or not Darwin thought something about some 200 year old aspect of natural selection (regardless of whether they should and whether it fits new evidence). I see Marxists and all the rest do this a lot (and, I must admit, I have been guilty of this too).


2. It identifies the individual concerned with a revolutionary tradition. In relation to Trotsky, this connects that individual with revolutionary internationalism and with the belief that only the working class can free itself from oppression and exploitation. That distinguishes this tradition from the exact opposite repesented by the sort of top-down 'socialism' one finds in Stalinism/Maoism.

Yeah, but is the Trotsky-Stalin split even relevant anymore to general socialist tradition? Do you live in a dominantly peasant country? No socialist in their right mind supports Stalin, and if they do then I don't legitimately consider them socialist (I mean that, and I think others should do the same). I think it would be far better for us to systematically ignore and isolate them. But that's just me. See what I'm saying? You are dividing along the line of one particular revolution that everyone except the stalin-worshipers agrees went awry pretty early on. I mean, it would be like the Anarchists still bickering over some stupid feud in the Spanish Revolution (or like the stupid historical feud between Anarchists and "Marxists" (State Socialists - those who believe it is necessary to use the state to transition to socialism)). Okay, maybe I'm rambling, but there are just too god-damn many tendencies divided over the stupidest little shit.


"But the position reconquered upon the Anarchists after 1873 was now attacked by their successors, and so I had no choice. Now we have been victorious, we have proved to the world that almost all Socialists in Europe are ‘Marxists’ (they will be mad they gave us that name!) and they are left alone in the cold with Hyndman to console them. And now I hope my services are no longer required."

In either case, if any movement has been dogmatic and worshiped its namesake as infallible, it is certainly not Marxism.

"The decontamination to which we dedicate 90% of our humble work will be continued a long time after us and be realised only in the distant future. This decontamination combats the epidemic - always and everywhere dangerous, of those who - in all places and at all times - innovate, bring up to date, renovate and revise."

This stress on 'particular issues' is also somewhat strange. When thinkers work within overall systems, without simply pulling issues out of a hat and commenting on them, then it's hardly a matter of simply 'particular issues'.

I frankly don't understand. You quoted too much from someone who I don't know a whole lot about. I don't know the context. This is a pretty good example. What are you trying to say? Because your quoting is only confusing and seemingly contradictory to what you are saying? But maybe I misunderstand.


I call myself lots of things, I just find the whole aversion to names rather strange and pointless. I certainly wouldn't attack a Ricardian or Sraffian on the basis of them 'worshipping' Ricardo or Sraffa.

See my above response to Rosa.


I've seen the opposite.

You haven't seen enough people quoting historical thinkers scripturally? I guess we are on fundamentally different alignments, then. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, however.


I would say the answer is because "revolutionary socialist" doesn't make a clear enough delineation. The term Trotskyist cuts through a lot of bullshit - I'm not a Stalinist, but I'm also not a "left communist," a social democrat, an anarchist or anything else. It has nothing to do with "worship" of Trotsky, but rather with embracing his legacy as the best and clearest expression of revolutionary socialism that we have.

No one is a "Stalinist" unless they say they are. In fact, if you say you are a revolutionary socialist and someone thinks you support Stalin, you should take the time to clear up the definition of socialist and explain that Stalin was in no way a socialist from the get-go. What does Trotskyist add other than anti-Stalin (which, as I indicated before, should simply be obvious from the fact that you are a socialist).


For the sake of brevity it is quicker than saying I agree with these ideas but not the others.
Okay...but how so? What ideas do you convey with whatever name-tendency you identify with?

[graymouser]

No one is a "Stalinist" unless they say they are. In fact, if you say you are a revolutionary socialist and someone thinks you support Stalin, you should take the time to clear up the definition of socialist and explain that Stalin was in no way a socialist from the get-go.
The Stalinists didn't admit that they were Stalinists at first. That doesn't change what they are at core.


What does Trotskyist add other than anti-Stalin (which, as I indicated before, should simply be obvious from the fact that you are a socialist).
1. It means I adhere to the central Leninist conceptions that the Trotskyist movement continued: the necessity of the revolutionary party, Lenin's take on imperialism as opposed to Luxemburg's, Lenin's exposition of the right of nations to self-determination, the patterns of work in the trade union movement and elections laid out in Left Wing Communism, and so on.

2. It means I adhere to the theories elaborated later by Trotsky: his explanation of the class nature of the Soviet Union, the theory of Permanent Revolution as he developed it, the Transitional Program, the opposition to the Popular Front, and so on.

3. It connects me with the movement that developed and called itself Trotskyism after Trotsky's death: Cannon called his 1943 lectures on his experiences as a leader of this movement The History of American Trotskyism, after all.

Lenin and Trotsky weren't perfect, and they changed their positions throughout their lives. But their guidance has not been beat so far.

[psgchisolm]

Revolutionary Democratic Socialist- After seeing something on the news I've changed my views that there NEEDS to be a revolution. I'm a DEMOCRATIC Socialist and not a Social Democrat. Why? I don't like people having to much power. I don't want it to possibly get out of control like in the Soviet Union during Stalins rule. So the checks and balances of Democracy in my opinion are needed. Socialism rox, all that needs to be said.

[Zanthorus]

I think the real question here is why those of us who supposedly 'worship' individual thinkers like Marx, Lenin or Trotsky should be answering to someone who calls themselves a 'social-proletocrat', talks about a 'worker-class', is an advocate of 'socio-political syndicalism' and believes in the formation of a party on the basis of 'class-strugglist social labour'. You'll have to excuse me if I 'd rather identify myself with Marx than with a tendency dreamt up out of thin air by Jacob Richter/Die Neue Zeit. What really puts the icing on the cake is that you're the one talking about us 'academicising' ourselves too much, as if people are more likely to read through the jargon that you and DNZ throw about.


I frankly don't understand. You quoted too much from someone who I don't know a whole lot about. I don't know the context.

The first quote is Engels explaining why they took up the name 'Marxist'. Zero may be able to be able to expand on the quote better than me, but as I understand it, the term 'Marxist' was first used by Marx and Engels enemies to describe them as well as some of their associates such as Liebknecht and Bebel. Bakunin, for example, frequently uses the term. In a similar way, Marx and Engels would use the term 'Bakuninist' to describe the Anarchists of the First International. The embracement of the term 'Marxist' was meant to be a raised middle-finger to the Bakuninists for giving them the name in the first place (And as an amusing side note, it seems to be Anarchists who are the most 'anti-nameist' as a general observation, which makes Engels adoption of the name Marxist one of the most cosmically witty acts in the history of the revolutionary movement).

The second quote leaped out at me instantly because it was written by none other than Amadeo Bordiga, leading figure of the Abstentionist fraction of the Partitio Socialista Italiano, first general secretary of the Partito Comunista d'Italia and the only man in human history whose thought process would lead him to criticise Stalinism as a form of nascent Proudhonism. Bordiga is particularly important in the history of the revolutionary movement because his critique of Comintern politics began not after the death of Lenin and the fifth congress, as with the Trotskyists, but with the CI's turn to the right and adoption of the United Front policy at the third congress. For Bordiga, the triumph of centrism within the Comintern had been a pressing problem since 1921. In 1930 he was placed under house arrest by Mussolini's fascist government, followed by the police everywhere and, if I recall correctly, only ever allowed to leave his house in order to do his job as an engineer. After the Second World War he was encouraged to get involved in politics again by other members of the Italian Left, which had gone something of a process of development in the time which Bordiga had been absent, and had formed the Partito Comunista Internazionalista. Initially, Bordiga actually told the Italian Left to attempt entryism into Turrati's national communist party, and when he was finally persuaded to become involved in the PCInt, it was in opposition to the party line which had in the meantime come to reject the idea of working within trade-unions to win them to revolutionary positions and accepted Luxemburg's position on the national question over Lenin's (Perhaps the worst sin of all, from Bordiga's point of view at least, was that the PCInt had participated in the post-war elections in Italy). In 1952 he and the faction around Il Programma Comunista led a split to form the International Communist Party. The quote in question comes from this later period in his life.

The general historical context was of course that the Comintern had indeed succumbed to Stalinism during the 20's, the initial legacy of the Russian revolution had become absorbed by the creation of the Stalinist economy and this same Russia had just won victory in a war against the Axis powers in alliance with France, Britain and America, a victory which did not particularly lead to an atmospher that was conducive to Communism, let alone taking up the tactical positions Bordiga was famous for. Bordiga's attitude was somewhat self-consoling. He began with the proposition that Marxism has seen it's fair share of counter-revolutions prior to the Russian experience and come out of them not only unscathed but actually stronger than ever before. Just prior to the international revolutionary wave of 1917-21 the Second International had capitulated to Imperialism and the national workers' parties had all come out in the defence of their own bourgeoisie's. The trick, he believed, was not to capitulate to the general atmosphere of counter-revolution, but to preserve the Communist programme and wait for a more historically favourable situation in order to recombine the programme with the mass movement. A somewhat similar example of this would be Marx and Engels position after the 1852 dissolution of the Communist League in which their sphere of influence had been confined to themselves and their followers in the German emigre movement in London, and when they had devoted themselves largely to theoretical work and critiquing the ideas of their various opponents.

What must be understood of course is that by Communist programme, Bordiga did not understand merely the formal programme of any particular organisation. Rather, the programme was the programme of the 'party in the broad historical sense'. The party in the broad historical sense consisted of all the members of the communist workers' movement which found it's first systematic public expression in the 1848 Manifesto. Moreover, according to Bordiga, this party and it's programme did not change, it was, to use his own expression, invariant. This idea of invariance had been an undercurrent in Bordiga's work since the 20's when Gramsci and the Stalinists in the PCd'I had use 'Leninism' to attack the Bordighisti. Bordiga had replied that 'Leninism' was useless to the extent that it was not merely the restoration of Marx's ideas. The notion of invariance may seem 'dogmatic' to those stuck in the qagmuire of 'modernism', of 'updating' or 'adapting' the programme such as yourself, but in fact it meant that Bordiga's Marxism included many unique points that put him rightly in opposition with various currents of the time. For example, he correctly asserted that there was no essential differences between the Marx of the 1844 manuscripts and the Marx of Das Kapital, they are both part of the same body of works elaborating on the unified and homogenous communist programme.

For theses reasons, he dedicated much of the latter peiod of his life to critquing those who attempted to 'update', 'revise' or in general distort the invariant programme, and to keep it alive for when the social contradictions began to develop again. This body of work is that which the quote cited comes from. I think Zero was trying to make Bordiga's point that there is simply no good reason to 'update', or 'revise' the programme in response to 'new', 'particular' conditions or anything silly like that. In general, those who assert this usually turn out to be ironically dogmatic in their beliefs that anything 'old' or '19th century' cannot possibly be entirely relevant to the modern world.

[Rafiq]

I agree there are many here who take everything Marx said as divine word.

However, what do you call someone who believes almost all of Karl Marx's works? (This is a fucking rhetorical question, so to people on here, don't reply and say "An idiot" or something stupid like that).

[TC]

If you think worshiping someone just means calling the political theory they developed and popularized after them...you have a very strange understanding of religion and worship! :rolleyes:

[Rusty Shackleford]

scientific socialism doesnt roll off the tongue easily.

[gestalt]

I call myself a worker, first and foremost, the rest follows logically.

[Victus Mortuum]

Fair Enough. You're right, Zanthorus. I accept your correction.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VM:


Yeah, but I've never seen Darwinians argue about some small aspect of Origin of Species tossing scriptural references around debating whether or not Darwin thought something about some 200 year old aspect of natural selection (regardless of whether they should and whether it fits new evidence). I see Marxists and all the rest do this a lot (and, I must admit, I have been guilty of this too).

Indeed, they do, and they deserve our contempt. I have, however, explained why many do, though, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1716221&postcount=1

But not all Marxists do this. So, you can't infer from anyone calling themselves a Marxist that they take this 'scriptural' view of Marx, as you can with a fundamentalist Christian, or Muslim with their holy books.


Yeah, but is the Trotsky-Stalin split even relevant anymore to general socialist tradition? Do you live in a dominantly peasant country? No socialist in their right mind supports Stalin, and if they do then I don't legitimately consider them socialist (I mean that, and I think others should do the same). I think it would be far better for us to systematically ignore and isolate them. But that's just me. See what I'm saying? You are dividing along the line of one particular revolution that everyone except the stalin-worshipers agrees went awry pretty early on. I mean, it would be like the Anarchists still bickering over some stupid feud in the Spanish Revolution (or like the stupid historical feud between Anarchists and "Marxists" (State Socialists - those who believe it is necessary to use the state to transition to socialism)). Okay, maybe I'm rambling, but there are just too god-damn many tendencies divided over the stupidest little shit.

Well, you seem rather confused to me. If you are going to convince me that what I said above is wrong, you are going to have to be 1) much clearer and 2) far more persuasive.

[NGNM85]

This is a totally legitimate criticism, and a very prescient one, that I, myself, raised just the other day.

Some more food for thought;

"CHOMSKY: I'm completely opposed to that. First of all, Marxism, in my view, belongs in the history of organized religion. In fact, as a rule of thumb, any concept with a person's name on it belongs to religion, not rational discourse. There aren't any physicists who call themselves Einsteinians. And the same would be true of anybody crazy enough to call themselves Chomskian. In the real world you have individuals who were in the right place at the right time, or maybe they got a good brain wave or something, and they did something interesting. But I never heard of anyone who didn't make mistakes and whose work wasn't quickly improved on by others. That means if you identify yourself as a Marxist or a Freudian or anything else, you're worshipping at someone's shrine.
If the field of social and historical and economic analysis was so trivial that what somebody wrote a hundred years ago could still be authoritative, you might as well talk about some other topic."

-Noam Chomsky, Anarchy in the USA, Rolling Stone 1992

"My views on social and political issues have not changed in essentials since my first independent political thought. These views fall within what is sometimes called "libertarian socialism." I have been much influenced by work of anarchists and non-Bolshevik Marxists (e.g., Rudolf Rocker, Anton Pannekoek). In general, I think that anarchosyndicalist conceptions -- worker's control, voluntary associations, decentralization and federalism, dissolution of hierarchic and authoritarian structures, and so on -- are quite appropriate for the next stage of industrial society. I should add that I have never considered myself a "Marxist," and in fact regard such notions as "Marxist" (or "Freudian," etc.) as belonging more to the domain of organized religion than of rational analysis. Marx was a serious person, not a God. He had significant insights, of lasting value. Like anyone, he made mistakes, and much has happened in the past century that has escaped his vision."

-Noam Chomsky, 1980

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NGNM85:


CHOMSKY: I'm completely opposed to that. First of all, Marxism, in my view, belongs in the history of organized religion. In fact, as a rule of thumb, any concept with a person's name on it belongs to religion, not rational discourse. There aren't any physicists who call themselves Einsteinians. And the same would be true of anybody crazy enough to call themselves Chomskian. In the real world you have individuals who were in the right place at the right time, or maybe they got a good brain wave or something, and they did something interesting. But I never heard of anyone who didn't make mistakes and whose work wasn't quickly improved on by others. That means if you identify yourself as a Marxist or a Freudian or anything else, you're worshipping at someone's shrine.
If the field of social and historical and economic analysis was so trivial that what somebody wrote a hundred years ago could still be authoritative, you might as well talk about some other topic.

"My views on social and political issues have not changed in essentials since my first independent political thought. These views fall within what is sometimes called "libertarian socialism." I have been much influenced by work of anarchists and non-Bolshevik Marxists (e.g., Rudolf Rocker, Anton Pannekoek). In general, I think that anarchosyndicalist conceptions -- worker's control, voluntary associations, decentralization and federalism, dissolution of hierarchic and authoritarian structures, and so on -- are quite appropriate for the next stage of industrial society. I should add that I have never considered myself a "Marxist," and in fact regard such notions as "Marxist" (or "Freudian," etc.) as belonging more to the domain of organized religion than of rational analysis. Marx was a serious person, not a God. He had significant insights, of lasting value. Like anyone, he made mistakes, and much has happened in the past century that has escaped his vision."


Yeah, tell that to the Chomskyans...

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that the fact that Marx's main views were, as propositions, not nonsense in the Wittgensteinian sense is enough to put their adoption quite far away from theism. God is a picture, Marx was a person.

[NGNM85]

NGNM85:

Yeah, tell that to the Chomskyans...

Nobody describes themselves as such. I would never describe myself as a 'Goldmanist', 'Bakuninist', or yes, a 'Chomskyist', also, I would never want to apply such a distinction. Your comparisons to science are also false; there are no Einsteinians, or Hawkingists, I think the last Freudian was Fraiser.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the real question here is why those of us who supposedly 'worship' individual thinkers like Marx, Lenin or Trotsky should be answering to someone who calls themselves a 'social-proletocrat', talks about a 'worker-class', is an advocate of 'socio-political syndicalism' and believes in the formation of a party on the basis of 'class-strugglist social labour'. You'll have to excuse me if I 'd rather identify myself with Marx than with a tendency dreamt up out of thin air by Jacob Richter/Die Neue Zeit. What really puts the icing on the cake is that you're the one talking about us 'academicising' ourselves too much, as if people are more likely to read through the jargon that you and DNZ throw about.

Sometimes I use "Kautsky Revival" or "Kautsky Revival Bandwagon" for the humour, and the only alternative terms I've seen so far prior to my combinations are whole sentences. The rest of your jab is better discussed in private.


The embracement of the term 'Marxist' was meant to be a raised middle-finger to the Bakuninists for giving them the name in the first place (And as an amusing side note, it seems to be Anarchists who are the most 'anti-nameist' as a general observation, which makes Engels adoption of the name Marxist one of the most cosmically witty acts in the history of the revolutionary movement).

Why, the same logic inspires my political humour. :blushing:


Bordiga's attitude was somewhat self-consoling. [...] The trick, he believed, was not to capitulate to the general atmosphere of counter-revolution, but to preserve the Communist programme and wait for a more historically favourable situation in order to recombine the programme with the mass movement. A somewhat similar example of this would be Marx and Engels position after the 1852 dissolution of the Communist League in which their sphere of influence had been confined to themselves and their followers in the German emigre movement in London, and when they had devoted themselves largely to theoretical work and critiquing the ideas of their various opponents.

So why the "academic" counter-slur above?


The notion of invariance may seem 'dogmatic' to those stuck in the qagmuire of 'modernism', of 'updating' or 'adapting' the programme such as yourself, but in fact it meant that Bordiga's Marxism included many unique points that put him rightly in opposition with various currents of the time. For example, he correctly asserted that there was no essential differences between the Marx of the 1844 manuscripts and the Marx of Das Kapital, they are both part of the same body of works elaborating on the unified and homogenous communist programme.

For theses reasons, he dedicated much of the latter peiod of his life to critquing those who attempted to 'update', 'revise' or in general distort the invariant programme, and to keep it alive for when the social contradictions began to develop again. This body of work is that which the quote cited comes from. I think Zero was trying to make Bordiga's point that there is simply no good reason to 'update', or 'revise' the programme in response to 'new', 'particular' conditions or anything silly like that. In general, those who assert this usually turn out to be ironically dogmatic in their beliefs that anything 'old' or '19th century' cannot possibly be entirely relevant to the modern world.

You yourself should know already the difference between modernizing and revisionism. The Marx of 1844 was a mere liberal, while the Marx of Das Kapital focused too much on economics. The Marx of the IWMA and the Late Marx (Shanin) who sympathized more with the peasantry are the Marxes whom I identify with the most.

[ZeroNowhere]

The Marx of 1844 was a mere liberalAre you referring to the 1844 manuscripts? Because that would be ludicrous.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NGNM85:


Nobody describes themselves as such.

Where did I say they did? But, hard-core Chomskyans defend him like religious nuts defend Jesus.


Your comparisons to science are also false; there are no Einsteinians, or Hawkingists, I think the last Freudian was Fraiser.

Ah, but there are:

http://www.amazon.com/Newtonians-Revolution-1689-1720-Classics-Philosophy/dp/2881244009

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h541l55172371549/

http://www.jamesrachels.org/whydar.pdf

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/darwinians-look-at-rape-sex-and-war

And, as for Freud, I think you meant Frasier.

But he's not the only one:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/2/301

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/world/asia/29iht-letter.html

But, what about those pesky Chomskyans?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=311127&sectioncode=26

And there's even a Chomskyan Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Chomskyan

[Obs]

" What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

-William Shakespeare, ca. 1595

[Victus Mortuum]

Well, I've learned several things from this thread so far:

a) I need to learn about "Trotskyism" (not because I'm interested in it, but because it is a popular Rev-Soc trend I should be informed about)

b) I need to learn more about the practical things that happened on the ground during the major eras of agitation, and how those relate to the theoretical work (indeed, to read more on practice and less on theory (something I've been doing more and more in the last several months anyway))

c) I over-academize things too much (I think we all do to an extent on these boards - but I guess it's better here than on the ground)

d) Using names to describe yourself is ridiculous and unhelpful, IMO

and P.S.

e) Worship was too strong a word (as I indicated earlier) - but my intent I was trying to get across is the same. They weren't infallible and we shouldn't treat them as such.

For example, regarding Trotsky being the 'revolutionary legacy' you hold to. Why is there a 'revolutionary legacy' at all? Aren't ALL thinkers who promote revolutionary change in ways and for things that you support part of the relevant history of your 'revolutionary position'?

Again, I'm no expert on Trotskyism, but wouldn't something like Orthodox Bolshevism make more sense?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VM:


Why is there a 'revolutionary legacy' at all?

Had it been left to the Stalinists, there would be no revolutionary legacy. There is one thanks to Trotsky.


Aren't ALL thinkers who promote revolutionary change in ways and for things that you support part of the relevant history of your 'revolutionary position'?

No, and here is why:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm


Again, I'm no expert on Trotskyism, but wouldn't something like Orthodox Bolshevism make more sense?

Now, that does sound like a religious phrase.

[Zanthorus]

So why the "academic" counter-slur above?

Refusing to participate in political movements because the general historical outlook is not favourable to the creation of the party is not the same as academicism, not by an extremely long shot.


The Marx of 1844 was a mere liberal, while the Marx of Das Kapital focused too much on economics.

You mean the Marx of 1844 who declared that James Mill had gotten to the heart of the matter by defining money as the medium of exchange, since the character of money is to act as a mediator of the human social act by which men's products mutually compliment one another, a mediation which is in fact present in all commodity exchanges, although through time these commodities alienate their own essence into money, that within capitalism human social relationships become an independent power which stands outside and above the human beings themselves. This same Marx who would in 1867 describe exactly the same feature of capitalism as the 'fetishism of commodities'.

You mean the Marx of 1844 who declared that this alienation arose from the fact that mans 'species-activity', the social process of production, was carried on by private property owners. The same Marx in 1867 who described the contradiction within capitalism between labour as social labour and labour as private labour, which is the basis for the whole theory of value.

And Das Kapital focuses too much on economics?!? What the fuck? First of all, technically it's not traditional economics, but a critique of political economy. Second of all, it's supposed to be an analysis of the process of production of capital, of course it focuses on the economy.

You do not know at all what you're talking about.

[revolution inaction]

VM:



1. It's no more hero worship than it is when scientists call themselves Darwinians or Newtonians.



scientist pretty much never do this.

[Kotze]

You mean the Marx of 1844 who declared that James Mill had gotten to the heart of the matter by defining money as the medium of exchange, since the character of money is to act as a mediator of the human social act by which men's products mutually compliment one another...That doesn't explain anything. Money is for paying taxes, rest follows from that.
...a mediation which is in fact present in all commodity exchanges, although through time these commodities alienate their own essence into money...That's gibberish (and to answer the question whether I worship individual thinkers: I don't care how close your statement is to what Marx said about money).

[Zanthorus]

That doesn't explain anything. Money is for paying taxes, rest follows from that.

The Comments on James Mill are not generally regarded for their insights into the theory of money, but rather for their development of the theory of alienation or the fetishism of commodities.


That's gibberish.

It seems quite simple to me. What in particular makes a commodity a commodity for Marx is the fact that it has an exchange-value. This is it's 'essence' as it were, which comes to be 'alienated' into money, that is, money is the material existence of exchange-value.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolution Inaction:


scientist pretty much never do this.

See my reply above - post 26.

[Rafiq]

I think I agree with a lot of Marx's works, enough works to be called a Marxist.

I don't think he was always right, I don't agree with everything about him, but he added so much theory, what are we to call ourselves?

Communists who recognize Marx's contribution to the Left, and agree with the majority of his works, but do not agree with everything?

That's a pretty long name for a tendency.

What say you, Mr. Chomsky, come and Join the CWRMCTTLAAWTMOHWBDNAWE party?

[NGNM85]

NGNM85:
Where did I say they did? But, hard-core Chomskyans defend him like religious nuts defend Jesus.

It was implicit.

I’m unaware of anything Chomsky has done that really requires ‘defending.’ I mean, that implies that there’s some question of fault, some legitimate complaint.

I haven’t seen any evidence of what you describe. I admire Chomsky, but he is no more or less mortal than any of the rest of us. He is incredibly brilliant and accomplished, but he is not the greatest genius that ever was, and ever will be. Even if there is some merit to this, it is so miniscule as to be practically nonexistent next to the deification of Karl Marx. There is no comparison, whatsoever.

Ah, but there are:


http://www.amazon.com/Newtonians-Revolution-1689-1720-Classics-Philosophy/dp/2881244009 (http://www.amazon.com/Newtonians-Revolution-1689-1720-Classics-Philosophy/dp/2881244009)

You’re being disingenuous. Yes, this is a history book about the discovery and popularization of Newton’s theory of gravitation. Once science is accepted, once the data is there, it becomes a part of the discipline, in this case, physics. Today, there really aren’t any physicists that would call themselves Newtonians because the data is in on gravity.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/h541l55172371549/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h541l55172371549/)

In the opening sentence she describes herself as a ‘Darwinian.’ However, again, there are no legitimate Biologists who don’t accept natural selection. No one has ‘Darwinist’ on their business cards, you don’t get degrees in 'Darwinism', you get degrees in Biology, because Biology is actually a science.


http://www.jamesrachels.org/whydar.pdf (http://www.jamesrachels.org/whydar.pdf)

I couldn’t open this, but I can safely assume it’s the same nonsense.


http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/darwinians-look-at-rape-sex-and-war (http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/darwinians-look-at-rape-sex-and-war)

See above.


And, as for Freud, I think you meant Frasier.

You’re right, I made a typo. Guilty as charged. However, if you’re going to be handing out demerits for spelling, punctuation, and grammar, you’re going to be very busy, and there are far worse offenders than I.


But he's not the only one:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/2/301 (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/2/301)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/world/asia/29iht-letter.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/world/asia/29iht-letter.html)

Ok, let’s cut the crap. It was completely obvious that I did not mean that you could not find one, or even several individuals who self-identified as Freudians, etc., you could probably find a support group for transsexual paraplegic circus performers if you really try, these are statistical anomalies that amount to nothing. You’re cherry-picking obscure examples that prove absolutely nothing.


But, what about those pesky Chomskyans?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=311127&sectioncode=26 (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=311127&sectioncode=26)

And there's even a Chomskyan Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Chomskyan (http://www.youtube.com/user/Chomskyan)

I can’t take responsibility for every retard on the internet. For all intents and purposes, this ‘tendency’ doesn’t exist. In fact, it can’t exist as a tendency, because there is nothing that separates Chomsky from the Anarchist tradition. It would make as much sense as being a ‘Bakuninist’, or a ‘Goldmanist.’ There is no significant deviation that would require a separate category, unto itself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now, that does sound like a religious phrase.

"Orthodox" doesn't really sound religious at all. Try "Modern Orthodox." :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Refusing to participate in political movements because the general historical outlook is not favourable to the creation of the party is not the same as academicism, not by an extremely long shot.

My situation is more like "refusing to participate in labour struggles, NIMBY campaigns, social movementism, etc."

You're the one who called me an academic here, though I am anything but a lecturer or researcher at a university/college. When I said "academic counter-slur," I meant that the original "worship of individual thinkers" was the slur and that your cry of "academicism" was counter to that.


You mean the Marx of 1844 who declared that James Mill had gotten to the heart of the matter by defining money as the medium of exchange

This was common knowledge since before feudalism. Just see the mainstream theory of money.


You mean the Marx of 1844 who declared that this alienation arose from the fact that mans 'species-activity', the social process of production, was carried on by private property owners.

OK, maybe I had the wrong year in mind when Marx broke from his earlier liberalism? :confused:


And Das Kapital focuses too much on economics?!? What the fuck? First of all, technically it's not traditional economics, but a critique of political economy. Second of all, it's supposed to be an analysis of the process of production of capital, of course it focuses on the economy.

You do not know at all what you're talking about.

Yeah, critique of political economy is the key. Just look at behavioural economics, constitutional economics, and institutional economics.

If only Marx focused on a single volume integrating capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. :(

[Victus Mortuum]

If only Marx focused on a single volume integrating capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. :(

Well, if I remember correctly, he intended to have several more volumes of Das Kapitel doing just that...but he died. Regardless, a number of "Marxian" economists have developed what they consider to be the correct scientific analysis of the economy in "his legacy".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NGNM85:


It was implicit.

It's also 'implicit' in what you post that you agree with me 100%.:rolleyes:


I’m unaware of anything Chomsky has done that really requires ‘defending.’ I mean, that implies that there’s some question of fault, some legitimate complaint.

Nevertheless, that is what the Chomskyans do.




I haven’t seen any evidence of what you describe. I admire Chomsky, but he is no more or less mortal than any of the rest of us. He is incredibly brilliant and accomplished, but he is not the greatest genius that ever was, and ever will be. Even if there is some merit to this, it is so miniscule as to be practically nonexistent next to the deification of Karl Marx. There is no comparison, whatsoever.

And there are good reasons why Marx has been treated this way. I can walk you through them if you like.

And you are right, Chomsky is often wrong; in fact his entire 'theory' of language is in error.


You’re being disingenuous. Yes, this is a history book about the discovery and popularization of Newton’s theory of gravitation. Once science is accepted, once the data is there, it becomes a part of the discipline, in this case, physics. Today, there really aren’t any physicists that would call themselves Newtonians because the data is in on gravity.

I agree that there are few physicists who'd call themselves 'Newtonians' today, but there are some. [Details supplied on request. But see below.]

And, as far as the alleged 'popularisation' is concerned, it at least refutes your rather rash claim that no one identified themselves as a 'Newtonian'.


Today, there really aren’t any physicists that would call themselves Newtonians because the data is in on gravity

And yet that 'data' has shown that post-Einsteinian cosmology is in trouble, which is why physicists have had to invent 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy', and why others look to MOND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics) [Modified Newtonian Dynamics] to account for the phenomena.

Notice, [I]it's named after Newton...


In the opening sentence she describes herself as a ‘Darwinian.’ However, again, there are no legitimate Biologists who don’t accept natural selection. No one has ‘Darwinist’ on their business cards, you don’t get degrees in 'Darwinism', you get degrees in Biology, because Biology is actually a science.

And yet, characters like Dawkins, Dennett, Gould and Eldredge do identify themselves as 'Darwinians' -- or describe others that way -- and so do many others.

For example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719965.700-charles-had-a-wonderful-idea-darwins-dangerous-idea.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jun/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/

http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/m-Ch.6.html

And even more as 'Neo-Darwinians':

http://www.scienceandyou.org/articles/edit_01.shtml

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=108082&sectioncode=26

Which title, if you look carefully, has Darwin's name in it.


I couldn't open this, but I can safely assume it’s the same nonsense.

It's good of you to take the blame. :)


However, if you’re going to be handing out demerits for spelling, punctuation, and grammar, you’re going to be very busy, and there are far worse offenders than I.

No 'demerits' handed out by me; I was merely concerned to highlight your sloppy attitude to the facts.

And there is more:


Ok, let’s cut the crap. It was completely obvious that I did not mean that you could not find one, or even several individuals who self-identified as Freudians, etc., you could probably find a support group for transsexual paraplegic circus performers if you really try, these are statistical anomalies that amount to nothing. You’re cherry-picking obscure examples that prove absolutely nothing.

In other words, you were as hasty as you were wrong in your earlier allegation that no scientist names him/herself after these characters.

Of course, I found these after only a few minutes on the internet. There is plenty more out there I did not quote.

What we are lacking from you, however, is any proof at all supporting the rash things you inflict on the good people here.

None, zippo, nada...


I can’t take responsibility for every retard on the internet.

Ah, I see. Any examples that refute your hasty comments are the responsibility of 'retards', even though you have no evidence that they are 'retards' (except they have the temerity to contradict what you have you say).

In that case, I think you have provided adequate evidence that it's not they who are the 'retards'.


For all intents and purposes, this ‘tendency’ doesn’t exist. In fact, it can’t exist as a tendency, because there is nothing that separates Chomsky from the Anarchist tradition. It would make as much sense as being a ‘Bakuninist’, or a ‘Goldmanist.’ There is no significant deviation that would require a separate category, unto itself.

Well, it wouldn't, would it, if they were genuine anarchists...:lol:

[graymouser]

Yeah, critique of political economy is the key. Just look at behavioural economics, constitutional economics, and institutional economics.
Why should Marx have focused on meaningless things like those? Marx's Capital was focused on exposing the real relations behind economic activity, and it was successful in doing so.


If only Marx focused on a single volume integrating capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. :(
But that would have been impossible given Marx's method. You don't seem to understand Marx at all - he wanted to write on all those other facets of capitalist society, but in order to do so he first needed to demonstrate clearly the laws of motion of capital. He couldn't have written about wage labor, the state and so on if he had not first finished his critique of economics, because all those other things would have had to rest on what became Capital. You're essentially saying you would have preferred he throw up a ramshackle house without finishing its foundation, when in reality that would have destroyed his legacy. Instead he realized that he had to focus on giving the best foundation he could, and letting his collaborators and successors put up a much better house upon it.

[Zanthorus]

You're the one who called me an academic here, though I am anything but a lecturer or researcher at a university/college. When I said "academic counter-slur," I meant that the original "worship of individual thinkers" was the slur and that your cry of "academicism" was counter to that.

I never said anything about you being an academic. Victus Mortum had said that we 'academicise' ourselves too much and I replied:


What really puts the icing on the cake is that you're the one talking about us 'academicising' ourselves too much, as if people are more likely to read through the jargon that you and DNZ throw about.


This was common knowledge since before feudalism. Just see the mainstream theory of money.

You have missed the point by quite a large margin.


OK, maybe I had the wrong year in mind when Marx broke from his earlier liberalism? :confused:

Marx broke from his Hegelianism and embraced socialism in late 1843. I assumed you were talking about the Manuscripts since previously you've said that Marxist-Humanism is in fact liberal Humanism.


Yeah, critique of political economy is the key. Just look at behavioural economics, constitutional economics, and institutional economics.

None of which existed in 1867, and none of which are particularly relevant to the analysis of how producers within capitalist society not only produce and reproduce material goods but also capitalist social relations.


If only Marx focused on a single volume integrating capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, international trade, and the world market.

Notes on all of these aspects are contained in the Grundrisse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx broke from his Hegelianism and embraced socialism in late 1843. I assumed you were talking about the Manuscripts since previously you've said that Marxist-Humanism is in fact liberal Humanism.

I stand corrected on the first sentence. Meanwhile, I didn't say the Marxist-Humanism is liberal Humanism, if you're referring to my "exchange" with a certain ex-boss ( :glare: ). What I said there was a complimentary response to Miles's counter to those remarks. The content of the ex-boss's post(s) reeked of liberal Humanism, and since he knows of Marxist-Humanism, I was wondering if Marxist-Humanism really broke entirely from liberal Humanism.

Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the more "humanistic" emphasis on commodity production rather than private property relations. It's just that, on the question of political strategy, they have it so wrong (i.e., they're Luxemburgists on steroids).


None of which existed in 1867, and none of which are particularly relevant to the analysis of how producers within capitalist society not only produce and reproduce material goods but also capitalist social relations.

A would-be Marx work or sub-work on the state could have been the forerunner of constitutional economics and institutional economics. Ditto with wage labour leading to labour economics and behavioural economics.


Notes on all of these aspects are contained in the Grundrisse.

Thanks. :)

[Victus Mortuum]

This thread holds an excellent example of my point:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-trots-t148155/index.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^In what way?

[Dimentio]

Some brilliant people have had stupid ideas, and a lot of stupid people sometimes have got brilliant ideas. The attitude of marxist-leninists to their house idols is not generally speaking one of scientific inquiry, but rather of unquestioned devotion. I would say that devotion in general is harmful to communism.

There are seldom individuals who are 100% right. Within science, Newton is not seen as a God, but as an individual who progressed physics very far (though he had his mistakes). The same for Einstein.

I must say that Rosa Lichtenstein is one of the few users here who has shown herself able to detach the subject from the person. Another one is DNZ.

I think that is a consequence of the fact that most people are not accustomed to analytical thinking, and this is evident within all areas of life. In general, people are viewing Darwinism as just an alternative creation myth and don't understand scientific theories.

:cool: