The paradox some Marxists face

[Zhi]

I'm certain we have all heard Marxists, socialists and the left pretty much describe capitalism as being either a amoral economic system or an immoral one, yet at the same time sustaining the idea that all morality is from the superstructure etc. How can Marxists seriously critique capitalism on such absolutist grounds while criticising bourgeoisie morals as being moral relativism and constructed?

Something I have yet to solve.

[Dodo]

the classical argument against capitalism isn't that it is an immoral system...the humanistic side came in later as ideology started to be viewed as a more dominant factor.

The struggle is two-sided, its both ideological and at the level of production relations.

But you are right in it that many Marxists miss the point that moral is a historically relative thing. Thats why I am obsessed with seperating "ideological socialists" and "marxists"...though the two are within each other, sometimes people fall too heavily on the ideological bit without the Marxist bit which turns them into a dogmatics.

Thats where dialectics come into play, under normal circumstances a Marxist is supposed to judge things in their historical place...even the opposition movement they are trying to organize and build a consciousness for its ideology.

[Rafiq]

I'm certain we have all heard Marxists, socialists and the left pretty much describe capitalism as being either a amoral economic system or an immoral one, yet at the same time sustaining the idea that all morality is from the superstructure etc. How can Marxists seriously critique capitalism on such absolutist grounds while criticising bourgeoisie morals as being moral relativism and constructed?

Something I have yet to solve.

Generally Marxists do not engage in a serious criticism of capitalism solely on moral grounds. I think you're attributing Marxism responsibility for much of the sentimentality on the Left - this is a grave mistake. I would most certainly assert that most Leftists are either not Marxists, or have a very poor understanding of Marxism. Likewise, any serious critique of bourgeois morality cannot be constituted solely as it being "relative" - as this is a given. Communist morality too is relative.

While moral criticisms of capitalism often take an ideologically weak or bourgeois character, and while morality is a product of our relations to production: You have to remember that there are more relations to production, more classes than that of the bourgeoisie. A better paradox you should have asked was: How is Communism as an idea possible if all ideas are derived from the existing order? The point is that capitalism digs its own grave. The character of moral-criticism of capitalism is entirely dependent on the state of the class struggle.

[PhoenixAsh]

There are several ideas about morality, the kinds of morality, the origins of morality and the systems governing morality.

One of the conflicts you mention seem akin to the morality of duty vs morality of virtue...or in some way the subjective (contextual) morality vs objective morality

[Rafiq]

it is possible to consciously identify with Communism by grounding it's justification in ruling morality. Phoenix, among others, bases the entirety of their views based on the post-industrial logic emphasizing individual choices and individual identities. Though this isnt entirely accurate. It's more complicated, though, as their opposition to the state is solely petite-bourgeois.

Also I wouldn't take him that seriously as far as talk of morality goes. This is a guy who calls everything "petty bourgeois morality" without even knowing what that means.

[OzymandiasX]

I think the entire Leftist movement and Capitalist critique is rooted fundamentally in morality. I doubt we'd be here if we did not believe that there was something wrong with the current structure of global economics which leaves billions impoverished. Having said, of course morality is relative. And the morals manufactured by this society serve very much to uphold their interests.

I don't see from where the conflict arises here.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am still pissed at you for calling me out for fervently defending petit-bourgeois morality about sexuality and women, implicit sexism and reducing women to prostitues and vice versa. And I still feel ashamed knowing next to nothing about the subject I was "prophesizing" about when I, as a man, called women's agency, their ideas and concepts and wants and needs inconsequential and you whiped the floor with my insane ramblings

Here Rafiq...I fixed that for you

***

In the mean time Marx did offer a moral critique about Capitalism...just based on the morality of virtue rather than duty. Or if you want, though these are not synonimous with the previous, the morality from class, culture, group vs the morality based on reason and empirical research. Morality is not a monolithical concept. And multiple systems of morality can co-exist at the same time within the same group and within the same time frame.

[Rafiq]

Here Rafiq...I fixed that for you


Is that what you actually think? That's how I would summarize your argument sarcastically, as a form of mockery. You actually think that?

[RedWorker]

yet at the same time sustaining the idea that all morality is from the superstructure etc.

The ruling morality is ultimately determined by the superstructure. In other words, if the ruling morality has an element which challenges capitalism, then it adapts immediately, for example by a re-interpretation of the social construct, to fit in with capitalism.


How can Marxists seriously critique capitalism on such absolutist grounds while criticising bourgeoisie morals as being moral relativism and constructed?

Marxism doesn't criticize capitalism on such grounds, although people may become Marxists because of analyzing the ethics of the capitalist system. But this is not a contradiction.

Additionally, ethics often just form part of propaganda. For example, someone becomes a leftist out of his social background, and he makes propaganda against capitalism by making use of ethical arguments.

Furthermore, there are contradictions between the capitalist superstructure, e.g. which proclaims equality for all, and realities. Whenever communist ideas enter into bourgeois space, they do so in a bourgeois form, taking advantage of one such contradiction.

[OzymandiasX]

Additionally, ethics often just form part of propaganda. For example, someone becomes a leftist out of his social background, and he makes propaganda against capitalism by making use of ethical arguments.

I don't think propaganda is the right term there. We don't represent power structures, therefore we can't spew propaganda. On our worst day, we might lie. But I think propaganda requires a certain degree of vastness. Not to mention manipulation.

And I think a distinction should be made between out right manipulation, in the form exercised by broadcast news and a particularly provocative flier distributed by an anarchist in a social rally.

[Fakeblock]

Ideology is a material force. Even the recognition of its existence, of its illusory character, does not undo its effects. Acknowledging that morality is, in the last instance, class morality, does not make us any less moral (ideological) beings. There is no such thing as a moral nihilist. What Marxists can do, via theory, is reveal the origins of this moral schism, and how a certain moral narrative rises to domination in a social formation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It depends where the argument is coming from.

I would admit that, coming from my position within the working class (but probably a social and geographical section of the working class that is not as impoverished as others), my philosophical ideas have at least something to do with ideology & morality as much as they are born out of self-interest.

However, the whole idea of socialism seems to have been placed in the context of self-emancipation, i.e. revolution by/of/for the working class itself. The idea here being that workers do not seek to replace capitalism with socialism because of abstract morality or petty ideology, but because of necessity and self-interest.

It is definitely one of the ironies and contradictions of socialism as a political philosophy that many of its ideas come from people like me, and even academic types far richer than me and definitely not rooted in the working class [even by the broad Marxian definition of working class], when really the intention is that emancipation is carried out by the class in and for itself, not by petty bourgeois revolutionary types.

[Zhi]

The point is, is that real life Marxists do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The point is, is that real life Marxists do.maybe subjectively, but this is not what a marxist critique of capitalism is based on. I think you can look at video of a cop beating or killing someone and be morally outraged (while others may feel that it is morally justified on the basis of "law and order") but this is not a critique... Or at least not a full one, and the moral outrage alone is subjective (cops would say, no this isn't an outrage, it was someone trying to do their job and the suspect was 'too jumpy'). So that moral understanding can be countered, but it also dosn't give a sense of why this happens regularly and therefor how it might be stopped.

So if a marxist says, "walmart's profits or abuses" are disgusting (as long as their understanding dosn't end there) there's also no contradiction to say marxist critiques of capitalism are not based on morality.

[RedMaterialist]

I'm certain we have all heard Marxists, socialists and the left pretty much describe capitalism as being either a amoral economic system or an immoral one, yet at the same time sustaining the idea that all morality is from the superstructure etc. How can Marxists seriously critique capitalism on such absolutist grounds while criticising bourgeoisie morals as being moral relativism and constructed?

Something I have yet to solve.

No, it's bourgeois morality that is part of the capitalist superstructure. When the proletariat assume control the controlling morality will be working class morality (scary thought, no?) Under communism it will be human, social morality.

Marxists don't critique capitalism on any absolutist grounds. Marx was very clear in saying that his critique was based not on morality but on economics. He believed the system and capitalist society were immoral, but his analysis was strictly economic.

I think you are right on the moral relativism argument. But in my view the moral relativism has developed from the relativism of the market conception of late stage capitalism. Marginal utility is the idea that all economic value (and, therefore the value of morality) is based on individual subjectivity. Moral relativism is only one step away from this economic theory.

As far as constructed morality, isn't that what a superstructure is all about? It's constructed on top of the foundation.

[Zhi]

But how can you seriously, objectively speaking justify proletarian morality? What if it is reactionary? This is my issue, especially when morality in most cases is a structural means of controlling people and their behaviour bourgeios or not.

[Dodo]

this last one is a valid question actually. Although Marxism in-itself does not base an argument on morality, or a pure timeless morality, each anti-capitalist movement brews up in its own context with its own morals. And most of the movement is supposed to be built by the lower classes which, especially by 21st century not only lack in education department but had been subjected to so much bs(in ideological make-up) in collective memory throughout the last century.

What many Marxists romanticize and not realize is that when all power actually is given to the masses through direct democratic processes, they might come up with things we deem reactionary for the ideological-institutional transformation is something that takes up more time than changing social order(hence the Leninist vanguard party elitism). This is why I am watching Rojava with lots of worries and excitement.

It is something to think about.

[PhoenixAsh]

Working class morality is still a (by)product of class society and capitalism. Working Class interests are more abstract; more objective and supercede individual interests.

Where the difference is is personal morality/interests vs class morality/interests. One is subjective...the other one is a generzalization.

The class interests & morality can conflict with personal interests & morality. They can also exist at the same time.

[Hit The North]

But how can you seriously, objectively speaking justify proletarian morality? What if it is reactionary? This is my issue, especially when morality in most cases is a structural means of controlling people and their behaviour bourgeios or not.

We need to remember that this will be a working class which has transformed itself in the process of transforming society.

[Tim Redd]

What many Marxists romanticize and not realize is that when all power actually is given to the masses through direct democratic processes, they might come up with things we deem reactionary for the ideological-institutional transformation is something that takes up more time than changing social order(hence the Leninist vanguard party elitism)...

How is a Leninist party that opposes implementing reactionary morality therefore "elitist"?

A Leninist party that intervenes to educate the masses to proper revolutionary morality and then makes an effort to implement that morality even when most of the masses don't support that stance is not therefore automatically elitist.

Yes it's nice when both the masses and party agree on a moral position, but inevitability there will be differences. And that in and of itself doesn't make the party elitist.

[RedMaterialist]

But how can you seriously, objectively speaking justify proletarian morality? What if it is reactionary? This is my issue, especially when morality in most cases is a structural means of controlling people and their behaviour bourgeios or not.

It's not a case of justification, morality is a material, historical product of the class and production relations of society.

Working class morality would only be reactionary if it tried to return to capitalism. I think you confuse reactionary morality with the moral force of a dictatorship of workers. Morality is certainly a means of controlling some people: workers will control and suppress the bourgeois classes. That control will also extend to people the dictatorship suspects of being bourgeois or of being an enemy of the revolution. It can be extremely stupid and brutal, as in the case of Stalin and Trotsky.

But the difference for communism will be that when the bourgeois classes are completely eradicated worldwide, the need for a controlling, class based morality will disappear because there will no longer be any classes. The working class will be the last class in history.

[Hit The North]

How is a Leninist party that opposes implementing reactionary morality therefore "elitist"?

A Leninist party that intervenes to educate the masses to proper revolutionary morality and then makes an effort to implement that morality even when most of the masses don't support that stance is not therefore automatically elitist.


Forgive me, but that sounds like the very epitome of paternalism, if not elitism. The term "revolutionary morality" is also a tad worrying, as is any label with the term "morality" in it.

If the revolutionary proletariat need lessons in being revolutionary then we might wonder who is the true mover of the revolution. For Marxists is should be the self-organisation of the workers organised as a class-for-itself. The idea that one element of that self-organisation, such as the "Leninist party", will be the sole arbiter of what constitutes "revolutionary morality" is a recipe for elite rule - even if it does come from within the proletariat.

[Tim Redd]

How is a Leninist party that opposes implementing reactionary morality therefore "elitist"?

A Leninist party that intervenes to educate the masses to proper revolutionary morality and then makes an effort to implement that morality even when most of the masses don't support that stance is not therefore automatically elitist.

Yes it's nice when both the masses and party agree on a moral position, but inevitability there will be differences. And that in and of itself doesn't make the party elitist.


Forgive me, but that sounds like the very epitome of paternalism, if not elitism.

How? In what way?


The term "revolutionary morality" is also a tad worrying, as is any label with the term "morality" in it.

What, you don't think morality exists?


If the revolutionary proletariat need lessons in being revolutionary then we might wonder who is the true mover of the revolution...The idea that one element of that self-organisation, such as the "Leninist party", will be the sole arbiter of what constitutes "revolutionary morality" is a recipe for elite rule - even if it does come from within the proletariat.

"Hit the North", assuming you agree from the above that morality does exist, most people are not born with, or do not spontaneously have, revolutionary morality. That is something that is learned. From that it should be apparent that not everyone is going to know initially the moral stance that is most conducive to the revolutionary struggle at any one time. Heck I don't know in every instance what the proper moral stance is to push forward revolution. It requires study and a lot of hard thinking. Ditto for the masses of people, they should study and do hard thinking in order to be capable and qualified to pass judgement in a matter having to do with morality. And a revolutionary party (for me Leninist), which may not have the correct morality for a situation itself, should help itself and everyone else to arrive at the proper moral position for any given state of affairs.

In everything a party does it should be trying to draw the masses to agree with it. In many instances the masses will initially agree with the party, in others they will be neutral and in still others they may be mostly opposed. In the latter 2 instances the party should try to win over the masses before the society has to act based on a moral position, but there may be cases where a decision about whatever is going to happen must be made before the masses mostly agree (and in this case what is it 51%, 55%, 65%, 80%, etc. in agreement that can allow you to say the masses agree?). And even in this case where the party acts without having most of the masses agree, that doesn't mean the party won't continue to win over the masses to its position. And in fact the party may change it's position due to the masses later.


For Marxists is should be the self-organisation of the workers organised as a class-for-itself.

I doubt that revolution will ever occur due purely or mostly to self-organization of the working class. The anarchist Bakunin made the case for a hierarchy of organization during an uprising. He found that if each neighborhood of Paris rose up without city wide organization that uprisings where more likely to fail.

History has shown in the Russian revolution that knowledge about the world has to brought to the masses by the revolutionary leadership in order for the masses to take actions that will actually facilitate having a successful revolution. It was also found that the masses require party leadership to lead their activities in order to have a successful revolution.

Hey, I'm all for the masses taking things into their hands to the maximum extent, but that doesn't that mean that spontaneously the masses are able to acquire the knowledge and expertise to make revolution without that knowledge coming revolutionary intellectuals. And further, making the initial seizure of power during a revolution requires centralized leadership that has a nationwide intelligence network and can coordinate the actions of disparate units taking military action against the bourgeoisie. Note, I'm not saying the masses should be led by bourgeois intellectuals. What we want and require for success is a party that consists of *revolutionary intellectuals* who are dedicated to and fighting for the masses, not a party consisting of toadies, or instinctually negative, auto motor posters (as some are on Revleft), who serve the bourgeoisie.

[PhoenixAsh]

So what the people think is basically only relevant when they agree with the party because the party is always correct and in all other cases the people will eventually understand even if they do not agree.

Check.

And you do not see how this is entirely elitist?

[Zhi]

"It's not a case of justification, morality is a material, historical product of the class and production relations of society."

It is a case of justification. Everything must be justified in order for it to exist, all values, all systems all structures must be justified. I find it extremely dangerous going down the path of unjustified action, as it implies arbitrary ideological stances. Not killing myself is because I can justify my existence, drinking coffee is because I can justify it.

[socialistlawyer]

Can I cite a case of Marxist paradox. I am a card carrying member of the Communist Party of Canada. I plan to brew beer with labels and crowns of CPCanada pasted and fit on the bottle. I just fancied doing them. If the expenses amount to 3 dollars a bottle, can I sell it for 6 or 7 dollars a bottle? If they confront me with a 2 dollar profit, I intend to tell them that I, a copycat of Yugoslavia's market socialism, would spread the profits to worthwhile activities that support the Party. Is this opportunism-Rightism? In good faith, socialist lawyer.

[Fakeblock]

"It's not a case of justification, morality is a material, historical product of the class and production relations of society."

It is a case of justification. Everything must be justified in order for it to exist, all values, all systems all structures must be justified. I find it extremely dangerous going down the path of unjustified action, as it implies arbitrary ideological stances. Not killing myself is because I can justify my existence, drinking coffee is because I can justify it.

The point is that all moral ideology is deeply tied to the class struggle. Just as all moral statements carry with them a class viewpoint, so do all moral justifications. One cannot therefore justify one's actions objectively, i.e. from outside the class struggle.

Can one morally justify, for example, the existence capitalist production, even with a knowledge of its workings? Of course, but as Communists, we cannot accept the legitimacy of such a justification. Instead, we must devise our own justifications for our own principles, based on the conditions and the tasks of the proletariat in the conjuncture. We can pretend and even believe whole-heartedly that these justifications are true and eternal and unbiased, but they will always be class ideological.

[Tim Redd]

Ideology is a material force. Even the recognition of its existence, of its illusory character, does not undo its effects.

I don't understand how you claim ideology to be illusory, especially since you also said it's a material force.

[Fakeblock]

I don't understand how you claim ideology to be illusory, especially since you also said it's a material force.

Where is the contradiction?

[Tim Redd]

Ideology is a material force. Even the recognition of its existence, of its illusory character, does not undo its effects.


I don't understand how you claim ideology to be illusory, especially since you also said it's a material force.


Where is the contradiction?

For me and many others saying something is "material" means that it exists in space-time. For a thing to exist in space-time means for me and others that it also exists outside of the mental. The mental is the only place the "illusory" can exist.

If as you say "ideology is a material force", how can a material force be illusory? How can it can it only exist mentally and not in space-time?

From another perspective even something that exists mentally is not illusory. Ideas exist as a material (time-space) innervation in the brain. In that sense even a mental idea exist in space-time and thus in an objective form. Thus this further undermines your assertion that ideology is an illusion.

If ideology exists as innervations in the brain then it also is not illusory. The distinctions that can be made are 1) that an idea exists an as innervation in the brain and through the action of individuals the idea is made objectively manifest in space-time and 2) an idea exists only as an innervation in the brain, but nevertheless is not illusory because it is an objective innervation in the brain.

In neither case is an idea "illusory" in the sense that it is absent from space-time.

[Tim Redd]

So what the people think is basically only relevant when they agree with the party because the party is always correct and in all other cases the people will eventually understand even if they do not agree.

Not sure how you can get that idea from this statement of mine in this thread:
"And even in this case where the party acts without having most of the masses agree, that doesn't mean the party won't continue to [try to] win over the masses to its position. And in fact the party may change it's position due to the masses later."

[PhoenixAsh]

...yes...I get that from the use of the term later.

This indicates that in the first place the party dictates and perhaps later adjusts if the people disagree....perhaps.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm certain we have all heard Marxists, socialists and the left pretty much describe capitalism as being either a amoral economic system or an immoral one, yet at the same time sustaining the idea that all morality is from the superstructure etc. How can Marxists seriously critique capitalism on such absolutist grounds while criticising bourgeoisie morals as being moral relativism and constructed?

Something I have yet to solve.
I don't think that a meaningful criticism of the capitalist mode of production rests on ascribing immorality/amorality to it. In fact, I think Marxism is based on a broad opposition to such an, admittedly, broad stance.

[RedMaterialist]

Can I cite a case of Marxist paradox. I am a card carrying member of the Communist Party of Canada. I plan to brew beer with labels and crowns of CPCanada pasted and fit on the bottle. I just fancied doing them. If the expenses amount to 3 dollars a bottle, can I sell it for 6 or 7 dollars a bottle? If they confront me with a 2 dollar profit, I intend to tell them that I, a copycat of Yugoslavia's market socialism, would spread the profits to worthwhile activities that support the Party. Is this opportunism-Rightism? In good faith, socialist lawyer.

You produced your own surplus value by adding your labor to the raw materials, so its your profit and you can do whatever you want with it. However your project is a hobby, a fancy as you say. I doubt whether a modern, complex economy can function as a hobby. Micro breweries could work but you have to strangle the giant monopolies. And they are going to put up a fight.

The paradox is not that you make a profit or surplus value, but that you want the advantages of modern social conditions (to sell your beer) without the "struggles and dangers" necessarily resulting from those conditions.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Not to be pedantic, but the distinction between morality and ethics is important here.

Communism is all about "the good life"!

[Comrade #138672]

I'm certain we have all heard Marxists, socialists and the left pretty much describe capitalism as being either a amoral economic system or an immoral one,The morality of capitalism is not the point of Marxism. Even when Marxists talk about the immorality of capitalism, they are merely doing this to appeal to the working class. It has nothing to do with Marxism, however. It is all about material interests.


yet at the same time sustaining the idea that all morality is from the superstructure etc. How can Marxists seriously critique capitalism on such absolutist grounds while criticising bourgeoisie morals as being moral relativism and constructed?

Something I have yet to solve.The "paradox" can be solved by seeing that Marxism is not moralistic.

[socialistlawyer]

You produced your own surplus value by adding your labor to the raw materials, so its your profit and you can do whatever you want with it. However your project is a hobby, a fancy as you say. I doubt whether a modern, complex economy can function as a hobby. Micro breweries could work but you have to strangle the giant monopolies. And they are going to put up a fight.

The paradox is not that you make a profit or surplus value, but that you want the advantages of modern social conditions (to sell your beer) without the "struggles and dangers" necessarily resulting from those conditions.

Thank you for enlightening me, comrade RedMaterialist.

[RedMaterialist]

Thank you for enlightening me, comrade RedMaterialist.

Don't mention it.

[Tim Redd]

So what the people think is basically only relevant when they agree with the party because the party is always correct and in all other cases the people will eventually understand even if they do not agree.

Not sure how you can get that idea from this statement of mine in this thread:
"And even in this case where the party acts without having most of the masses agree, that doesn't mean the party won't continue to [try to] win over the masses to its position. And in fact the party may change it's position due to the masses later."


...yes...I get that from the use of the term later.

This indicates that in the first place the party dictates and perhaps later adjusts if the people disagree....perhaps.

Initially any party operating in the interest of the masses would seek to know the position of the masses on an issue. The party after internal discussion may or may not agree with the masses' position. At that point depending upon the significance and how the position fits into overall strategic stances by the party, the party may or may not carry out the position it favors.

If a good party acts partially or fully contrary to the masses position, it would still want to canvas the masses and might still carry out what the masses want later. At times if the party holds to its position, it will attempt to win over the masses in a theoretical engagement with them. But the whole dance that is going here between a good party and the masses is for the party to do what most links up with the masses thinking insofar so that is consistent with what the party is aware of as a body that is formulating theory on a scientific basis over the people.

Simply because the majority of the masses want something doesn't make that the best stance in terms of advancing the revolutionary struggle. That should be obvious to anyone who takes 5 minutes to understand the difference between what is right as a result of empirical and theoretical study and that the masses may or may hold the same position based simply upon living in a society without the same kind of empirical and theoretical study as found in the party.

A revolutionary steeped in Marxist and other scientific theory should be ashamed of appealing to the masses decisions as correct solely based upon the fact that it's the masses thinking.

An actual scientist would disdain taking up a position solely, or mainly on the basis of polling the masses thinking. A party may temporarily adopt a position they have trouble with, or they think is false based upon where most of the masses are, but it continues to try to win the masses over to what the party perceives as a better position.

[Tim Redd]

The morality of capitalism is not the point of Marxism. Even when Marxists talk about the immorality of capitalism, they are merely doing this to appeal to the working class. It has nothing to do with Marxism, however. It is all about material interests.

The "paradox" can be solved by seeing that Marxism is not moralistic.

You are mistaken to think that genuine Marxists talks about morality because they "are merely doing this to appeal to the working class."

For epochs including class based epochs in human history there are morality that on the one hand springs from, and facilitates that class epoch and on the other hand there is morality that opposes that class epoch.

There is a morality in this capitalist epoch that runs counter to the morality that springs from and facilitates the operation of the global capitalist economic base and ideo-political infrastructure that stands on top of that economic base. In addition there is the struggle of the revolutionary proletariat that strives to overthrow the capitalist base and superstructure that has a morality that springs from that struggle and facilitates that struggle against capitalism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoenixAsh http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2809819#post2809819)
So what the people think is basically only relevant when they agree with the party because the party is always correct and in all other cases the people will eventually understand even if they do not agree.

Initially any party operating in the interest of the masses would seek to know the position of the masses on an issue. The party after internal discussion may or may not agree with the masses' position. At that point depending upon the significance and how the position fits into overall strategic stances by the party, the party may or may not carry out the position it favors.

If a good party acts partially or fully contrary to the masses position, it would still want to canvas the masses and might still carry out what the masses want later. At times if the party holds to its position, it will attempt to win over the masses in a theoretical engagement with them. But the whole dance that is going here between a good party and the masses is for the party to do what most links up with the masses thinking insofar so that is consistent with what the party is aware of as a body that is formulating theory on a scientific basis over the people.

Simply because the majority of the masses want something doesn't make that the best stance in terms of advancing the revolutionary struggle. That should be obvious to anyone who takes 5 minutes to understand the difference between what is right as a result of empirical and theoretical study and that the masses may or may hold the same position based simply upon living in a society without the same kind of empirical and theoretical study as found in the party.

A Marxist theoretical steeped intellectual should be ashamed of appealing to the masses decisions as correct solely based upon the fact that it's the masses thinking.

The resulting dogma cooked up by the party is then one of force without learning and debate within the masses. The "correct" line is not based on empirical study but on the political will of the few at the expense of open debate. Saying that it is based on empirical study would imply that the masses are without knowledge or means and method. That is worrying.

This will always unfailingly end in elite dictatorial rule where the party has the monopoly on morality....as indeed it always has with vanguardism. And unfailingly this has always led to the breakdown of socialism and the failure of the revolution.

The fact is that revolutionary struggle does not originate within the party political apparatus but outside it. It does not originate from any party but from the people who are struggling and because of that struggling become class conscious and revoluionized....and often this happens inspite of the party. The course of action the party takes is only in the best interest of the party where the goals is that the party remains the dominant force out of the mistaken believe that they and only they are representative of the revolutionary ideal. This nis not empirical study but politically motivated power politics and justification.

[Tim Redd]

To be clear on who said what, I'll post this with proper attribution:


So what the people think is basically only relevant when they agree with the party because the party is always correct and in all other cases the people will eventually understand even if they do not agree.


Initially any party operating in the interest of the masses would seek to know the position of the masses on an issue. The party after internal discussion may or may not agree with the masses' position. At that point depending upon the significance and how the position fits into overall strategic stances by the party, the party may or may not carry out the position it favors.

If a good party acts partially or fully contrary to the masses position, it would still want to canvas the masses and might still carry out what the masses want later. At times if the party holds to its position, it will attempt to win over the masses in a theoretical engagement with them. But the whole dance that is going here between a good party and the masses is for the party to do what most links up with the masses thinking insofar so that is consistent with what the party is aware of as a body that is formulating theory on a scientific basis.

Simply because the majority of the masses want something doesn't make that the best stance in terms of advancing the revolutionary struggle. That should be obvious to anyone who takes 5 minutes to understand the difference between what is right as a result of empirical and theoretical study and that the masses may or may not hold the same position based simply upon living in a society without the same kind of empirical and theoretical study as found in the party.

A revolutionary steeped in Marxist and other scientific theory should be ashamed of appealing to the masses decisions as correct solely based upon the fact that it's the masses thinking. [formerly was: A Marxist theoretical steeped intellectual should be ashamed of appealing to the masses decisions as correct solely based upon the fact that it's the masses thinking.]


The resulting dogma cooked up by the party is then one of force without learning and debate within the masses. So here you've called what the party outputs as "cooked". Why is it "cooked", when as I explained above that before the party begins to formulate a position, it begins first by attempting to understand what the masses think on the issue.


The "correct" line is not based on empirical study but on the political will of the [qfew at the expense of open debate.If as is what a genuine Marxist party does when formulating policy/line, the party begins by taking into account what the masses think, how is that not empirical study?


Saying that it is based on empirical study would imply that the masses are without knowledge or means and method. That is worrying.If the party's assessment of what the masses think is based upon empirical study, how does that necessarily "imply that the masses are without knowledge or means and method"? The masses may, or may not be aware of the specific empirical methods used by the party, but that doesn't mean that the masses thinking and opinions are being overlooked.


This will always unfailingly end in elite dictatorial rule where the party has the monopoly on morality....as indeed it always has with vanguardism. And unfailingly this has always led to the breakdown of socialism and the failure of the revolution. Well given that we have not established any untoward activity by the party, I don't see how a "breakdown of socialism and the failure of the revolution" occurs.

In the above outline of how I have explained how the party formulates line based upon the explained concrete reciprocal interaction between the party and the masses, I don't see were the party has performed a negative "vanguard" activity.


The fact is that revolutionary struggle does not originate within the party political apparatus but outside it. It does not originate from any party but from the people who are struggling and because of that struggling become class conscious and revoluionized....and often this happens inspite of the party.

Certainly many if not most revolutionary struggles begin outside not inside the party. Some of the masses spontaneously raise their class consciousness due primarily to such struggles. However even with such struggles it's often the case that the class consciousness of many if not most involved in such struggles advances due to the educative activity (create public opinion) of the party. Additionally there will be key struggles that will originate mainly from the party based upon the party introducing certain ideas to the masses and based upon thinking within the party.

That is so distasteful to some types of intellectuals. However I think it has to do with the psychology of some intellectuals that freedom means doing whatever you wish to do, rather understanding that freedom means attempting to understand what objective necessities are required to be fulfilled in order to reach a desrired outcome.


The course of action the party takes is only in the best interest of the party where the goals is that the party remains the dominant force out of the mistaken believe that they and only they are representative of the revolutionary ideal. This nis not empirical study but politically motivated power politics and justification.

A genuine revolutionary should indeed understand the key aims of the struggle in their locale and globally. In fact the global necessities should drive what is best locally. And yes as codified by Bakunin, the need for centralized intelligence and planning are required in order for revolutionary movement to be successful. A genuine party never thinks is it has each and every answer to all questions. However for the revolutionary proletariat to be victorious, it needs to build policy that involves taking into account the views of the masses per the process I have explained in this and the previous post in this thread.

It is the petite bourgeois anarchist fantasy that disdains the need for and operation of a vanguard party that has caused many reversals for the proletariat (e.g. the Spanish Civil War in the mid 20th century). Why shouldn't the revolutionary masses have vanguard party that draws together the best intellectual minds and that works with the masses a la the process of the mass line to formulate line and policy? This is the most effective way to formulate revolutionary strategy and tactics for any given local proletarian movement.

[Comrade #138672]

You are mistaken to think that genuine Marxists talks about morality because they "are merely doing this to appeal to the working class."

For epochs including class based epochs in human history there are morality that on the one hand springs from, and facilitates that class epoch and on the other hand there is morality that opposes that class epoch.

There is a morality in this capitalist epoch that runs counter to the morality that springs from and facilitates the operation of the global capitalist economic base and ideo-political infrastructure that stands on top of that economic base. In addition there is the struggle of the revolutionary proletariat that strives to overthrow the capitalist base and superstructure that has a morality that springs from that struggle and facilitates that struggle against capitalism.Still, this morality is derived from class interests.

[Tim Redd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Redd http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2811414#post2811414)
You are mistaken to think that genuine Marxists talks about morality because they "are merely doing this to appeal to the working class."

For epochs including class based epochs in human history there are morality that on the one hand springs from, and facilitates that class epoch and on the other hand there is morality that opposes that class epoch.

There is a morality in this capitalist epoch that runs counter to the morality that springs from and facilitates the operation of the global capitalist economic base and ideo-political infrastructure that stands on top of that economic base. In addition there is the struggle of the revolutionary proletariat that strives to overthrow the capitalist base and superstructure that has a morality that springs from that struggle and facilitates that struggle against capitalism.

Still, this morality is derived from class interests.

And your problem with this is what?

Classes will exist until abolished by communism. Bringing about a class free world where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated involves society initially operating according to socialist morality which then leads to society that operates according to communist morality (of course communist morality will be the basis for socialist morality).

[Ravn]

The resulting dogma cooked up by the party is then one of force without learning and debate within the masses. The "correct" line is not based on empirical study but on the political will of the few at the expense of open debate. Saying that it is based on empirical study would imply that the masses are without knowledge or means and method. That is worrying.

That's more like paranoia. A line is correct only if it is a reflection of objective reality. Whether it's correct or not, open debate about it can't be stopped by a party or wannabe dictators on message boards. The people in the party are not separate from the masses. They come from the masses. They can only become alienated from the rest of the masses if they disconnect themselves from everybody else.




This will always unfailingly end in elite dictatorial rule where the party has the monopoly on morality....as indeed it always has with vanguardism.

This above line is inevitably defeatist. Without an organized vanguard, there can't be a revolution. The whole idea is to overthrow the DOTB by a DOTP. All morality is a reflection of class interests. If morality under a so-called or a would-be socialist state is not a reflection of working class interests, then it will be a reflection of a rising reemerging capitalist class. Now, if you're saying that this is inevitable then a proletarian revolution is impossible. You might as well just say that capitalism is omnipotent.








The fact is that revolutionary struggle does not originate within the party political apparatus but outside it.

So what? That struggle has to organize itself & that requires a vanguard party. Look, if a party degenerates, it doesn't follow that therefore parties are superfluous. It just means people have to build another party.