Marxism: The Debates on Theories

[Denise]

In one blog, the person had written on the Transitional Worker's State as obsolete.

Dialectics was said to be discredited. would you agree?

The Labor Theory of Value on the other hand has undergone a series of separate debates on the fact that it has developed weaknesses.
-What are these weaknesses?

what do you think are the fragments of marxism that can no longer be applied? is there such thing as this, or would you say that it is the application that has changed?

[Lenin II]

In one blog, the person had written on the Transitional Worker's State as obsolete.

How is freedom from capitalist oppression obsolete when workers are still being exploited?


Dialectics was said to be discredited. would you agree?

Of course I would not--I am a socialist, and a materialist perception of the universe is essential to socialist theory. Please give us a link to this blog so I can address this person's criticisms.


The Labor Theory of Value on the other hand has undergone a series of separate debates on the fact that it has developed weaknesses.

Once again, these terms are too vague to work with. What weaknesses? How can there be weaknesses when, as I said before, workers are still not being paid the full value of their labor by the bosses?


what do you think are the fragments of marxism that can no longer be applied?

Now this is a question I can answer.
Wen addressing orthodox Marxism, it is important to remember that aside from Left Communists and Anarchist Communists, most communists today support a form of Marxism- Leninism to "patch up" the holes in Marxist theory. Leninism is chiefly marked from other Marxist schools by the idea of a centralized administration run by professional revolutionaries, but also has some important characteristics in regard to class abolition. Marx was convinced that the working class was by nature compelled to revolutionary sentiments and to abolish capitalism. Of course we know this image of the working class has changed since his day and even then was unrealistic. Whereas Marx believed in the spontaneous growth of the working class under the impact of capitalist oppression, Leninism recognizes the reality of the working man: forever doomed to insufficient cosciousness, no matter how miserable his conditions.

The salvation of the working class must come from intellectuals who possess dialectic ideas. The formation of a party and a party platform is essential to Leninist theory and socialist revolution.

[Denise]

CITE SOURCES

the thing about the weakness of the LABOR THEORY OF VALUES was raised by redstar2000. sent a message to this person, got no replies. the first three questions were based on his premises he presented in an old thread.

[More Fire for the People]

Well, if we want to ask the question, is a transitional workers’ state obsolete then I think we have to clarify what the phrase “transitional workers’ state” means.

As a state it is (a) a centralizing force; (b) the political dominance of a social aggregate; and as a workers’ state © of democratic composition; (d) composed of the working class and other oppressed elements; (e) under the political hegemony of the working class; and as a transitory social institution it is (f) operational only while it is necessary. Every one of these qualities of a transitional workers’ state is a necessary move after a revolution. Without such, the re-emergence of the bourgeoisie, attack from outside, and socio-economic stagnation are all possibilities.

In fact, when even one of these factors falters in a post-revolutionary environment we can see this happen historically: the transformation of the Soviet bureaucracy into a state-bourgeoisie, attack from the White Guard, Nazis, and the West, and the long drawn out socio-economic stagnation in the post-war Soviet Union.As soon as we have once realized — and in the long run no one has helped us to realize it more than Hegel himself — that the task of philosophy thus stated means nothing but the task that a single philosopher should accomplish that which can only be accomplished by the entire human race in its progressive development — as soon as we realize that, there is an end to all philosophy in the hitherto accepted sense of the word. One leaves alone “absolute truth”, which is unattainable along this path or by any single individual; instead, one pursues attainable relative truths along the path of the positive sciences, and the summation of their results by means of dialectical thinking. At any rate, with Hegel philosophy comes to an end; on the one hand, because in his system he summed up its whole development in the most splendid fashion; and on the other hand, because, even though unconsciously, he showed us the way out of the labyrinth of systems to real positive knowledge of the world. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm)As long as human’s are historical creatures, which by no means can we escape, we remain relative creatures. All social-human ‘truth’ is contextual and transitory. Dialectical thinking is a means of understanding the transitions from one human context or truth to another human context or truth.

;)

[mikelepore]

Some people think that the labor theory of value has weaknesses because they mistakenly assume that its objective is to predict the details of commodity market behavior, which is isn't, and they mistakenly think that it's supposed to explain the relatively minor or second order effects, which it isn't. The purpose of the theory is to explain in the most fundamental way where wages and profits come from, what determines them, such that the observed result arises from the process: that those who own wealth generally don't produce it, and those who produce wealth generally don't own it, in a steady state continuum. A first order model that ignores many details, just as the physicists' first order model of the massless rope attached to the frictionless pulley in a world without air resistance, and other idealizations, is fully sufficient to explain what the theory sets out to explain. The critics who demand that the theory try to account for the auction price of a Picasso, etc., misunderstand the basic purpose.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:15 pm
what do you think are the fragments of marxism that can no longer be applied?
In my opinion, as someone who first became a Marxist forty years ago --- Marx made the serious error of spending 99.9 percent of his time thinking about how the present capitalist system operates in minutest detail, and how we got to this point, from ancient history through all of the intermediate ages. In other words, he paid no attention at all to what are really the most important two questions: what kind of new system should we establish in place of the present one, and what kind of political and economic strategy of organization is necessary in order to establish it. We should now recognize that these questions are vital because it's extremely easy for a revolutionary or critical moment in history to bring about a new kind of bureaucracy or undemocratic leadership. The new political and economic system, and a clear program for constructing it, must be planned in considerable detail before any attempt is made to change society in a fundamental way.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:15 pm
Dialectics was said to be discredited. would you agree?

Dialectics is useless for trying to answer any specific question, such as, "There is a disagreement among us about what the workers' tactics should be -- who is right?" As for those who claim that it does answer questions specifically, I find it suspicious that the answer tends to be the same as their personal preference. It reminds me of an observation made by Susan B. Anthony: "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires."

Dialectics is useful as an idea generator, a brainstorming device. That's because it consists of such platitudes as: don't forget that the right answer usually end up being in between two given extremes, don't be surprised if we later find out that everyone was half-right and half-wrong, what was true yesterday may not be true today, etc. But that is neither logic nor science. Any results derived from any brainstorming approach should be verified by some other means.

Just my humble opinion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Denise, dialectics is systematically and completely dismantled at my site; begin with the Beginners' Guide linked to below.

RedStar did not reply because he had a stroke last year and is still recovering.

[Denise]

thank you, rosa

sorry to hear about rs2k having a stroke.

[Denise]

FOR THOSE WHO DISCREDIT DIALECTICS:
would you consider this as a fragment of Marx's philosophy which hinders Marxists from attaining a fuller sense of being 'Marxist'?

the same question goes for other post-ees. if you have an element in mind, pls feel free to express yourselves.

THANKS!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by mikelepore+December 29, 2007 10:26 pm--> (mikelepore @ December 29, 2007 10:26 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 03:15 pm
what do you think are the fragments of marxism that can no longer be applied?
In my opinion, as someone who first became a Marxist forty years ago --- Marx made the serious error of spending 99.9 percent of his time thinking about how the present capitalist system operates in minutest detail, and how we got to this point, from ancient history through all of the intermediate ages. In other words, he paid no attention at all to what are really the most important two questions: what kind of new system should we establish in place of the present one, and what kind of political and economic strategy of organization is necessary in order to establish it. [/b]
Mike,

As you know, Marx explicitly rejected the perspective of those Utopian socialists who believed that the future society could spring pure and whole from the minds of great intellects. For Marx, the authors of history are social classes. It is the revolutionary proletariat of the future which will shape the new society, dealing with all the contradictions that reality throws at them. Marx had faith in the ingenuity of a revolutionary class in action; so, I think, must we. On the other hand, he, Engels and other contributers to the 1st Working Men's International laid out some basic proposals for socialist organization - the position the communists should assume to other proletarian organizations - - orientating the communists, for the first time, in support for trade union strike action (against the Proudhonist opposition to strikes) - the attitude towards the organs of bourgeois power, etc. Also, I think you underestimate the clarity and inspiration to the next generation of communists which can be found in Marx explicitly political writings.


We should now recognize that these questions are vital because it's extremely easy for a revolutionary or critical moment in history to bring about a new kind of bureaucracy or undemocratic leadership.

Yes, the experiences of the 'really existing socialisms' of the Soviet Bloc, China and elsewhere should continue to alert us to these dangers. Nevertheless, Marx had no examples to work with, so it's hardly his fault that he neglected such issues. Whether the degeneration of these states is due to strategic organizational questions is another question, though, and one which deserves its own discussion.


The new political and economic system, and a clear program for constructing it, must be planned in considerable detail before any attempt is made to change society in a fundamental way.

Is reality so neat and society so malleable that the future can be planned like a new kitchen?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:15 pm
Dialectics was said to be discredited. would you agree?

Dialectical thinking is proposed by the founders of Marxism as a way out of polarized discussions regarding a number of dualisms which human thinking is confronted with. Amongst these dualisms are found:

Matter - Mind

Nature - Man

Society - the Individual

Persistence - Change

Social Structure - Social Action

Theory - Practice

A general proposal is that these dualisms intersect with each other at necessary points and therefore exist as a totality of opposites. Neither can be properly accounted for without taking into account its opposite. This relation is generally also assumed to be dynamically reciprocal in that changes in one half of the dualism will effect change in its opposite.

Mikelepore argues that dialectics may be useful as a form of brain storming, and it does offer a heuristic value. It is also useful in attempting to make sense of data in the process of integrating new knowledge with existing knowledge.

Mikelepore writes:
Any results derived from any brainstorming approach should be verified by some other means.

Yes. This is what Marx does in Capital and he continues to describe his book as the first attempt to apply the dialectic to political economy. By this, I believe he is referring to the manner in which he interprets and combines the empirical data which he is dealing with. Marx has no unique access to empirical data which other political economists could not access. So why is Capital considered such a triumph? Why is it unique? I believe its due to the dialectical approach which Marx utilised.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z ought to begin his posts on dialectics (especially the comments he makes about Marx) with a more honest "Once upon a time...", since he has seen these and other such mystical nostrums demolished many times over in countless threads in Philosophy.

But, he continues to advance them; so, no change there.

In fact, he is living proof that not all things in reality change. :o

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 09:03 pm
In fact, he is living proof that not all things in reality change. :o
And your post, likewise :P

[Dros]

Despite Rosa's assertions, dialectics has not been discredited. I have taken this up with her in several philosophy threads. You can read them yourself to see what the various possitions are here.

There are lot's of people who find dialectics very useful and would diagree with Rosa's position. So no. Dialectical materialism is still very much applicable.

[rouchambeau]

Do your own homework.

[kromando33]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 03:23 pm
Denise, dialectics is systematically and completely dismantled at my site; begin with the Beginners' Guide linked to below.

RedStar did not reply because he had a stroke last year and is still recovering.
Lol, more naive defeatism and capitulation to the bourgeois I see, soon you left opportunists will have become soon disheartened and so far to the right that you are indistinguishable from the bourgeois.

Classic teenage utopian quotes:

'Socialism was never tried properly'

'Stalin was a state capitalist'

etc etc, more liberal idealism and stupidity.

[rouchambeau]

Get over yourself, kromando33.

[mikelepore]

Denise, I don't understand the meaning of the phrase "attaining a fuller sense of being 'Marxist'". A person doesn't become a Marxist for the sake of being a Marxist. For a person to become a Marxist, that means that certain objective processes in the world are to be understood, such as history, economics, and government, Marx did useful research in those areas, and we use his results. It the same as a biologist being a Darwinian. Until Einstein's papers of 1905 every physicist was a Newtonian. It's not a self-identity or self-labeling situation, as thought I felt a need to be a Marxist. It's the recognition that someone's discoveries provide explanations of how thing operate. Reference: marxists.org, Engels' 1883 address delivered at Marx's grave.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 30, 2007 05:12 pm
so malleable that the future can be planned like a new kitchen?
It's unfortunate that Marx didn't adopt a couple of the most necessary "design principles" for socialism.

The democratic nature of the goal is the first thing to mention.

If the workers' own workplace-based organizations become rubber stamp approval bodies, while a political party that claims to rule "in the name of" the workers appoints the industrial managers, forming a top-down pyramid of authority, then, although the system may be called "socialism", socialism has been aborted. Don't let it ever come to this.

If the system has a repression of civil liberties which goes on for years, far beyond an understandable and brief period of martial law needed to quell counter-insurgencies by the deposed ruling class, socialism has been aborted.

Marx didn't realize that it could go wrong. As a Hegelian offspring, Marx believed that human history glides in a fixed track toward the necessary outcome.

Marx didn't even write a couple sentences about guaranteeing freedom of speech in a socialist system. I wish that Marx could have had the benefit of being influenced by John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

Denise asked about what elements of Marxism are no longer applicable. I answer here that it his failure to recognize that a revolution leads to undemocratic results without certain precautions.

In speaking of what the new system shall look like, above I focus on democratic principles, but I also mention the nuts-and-bolts of management. As for planning the future like a new kitchen, yes in a certain sense. If the revolution is to occur on a particular morning, then, by the previous evening, there must already be an exact understanding by the participants of what production departments there are going to be, and how they are going to be managed. Is the electric power plant going to have nineteen departments or twenty? Does every truck driver have a route planned out? The new administrative system must be fully assembled offline and then switched into place abruptly within an hour. If that isn't done then we are throwing out structure only to replace it with vacuum, the kind of chaos that tends to be remedied by the arrival of a dictator who will rule "in the name of" the people.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 30, 2007 06:27 pm
So why is Capital considered such a triumph? Why is it unique? I believe its due to the dialectical approach which Marx utilised.
Since I can't recognize it by myself, I hope it can be pointed out to me exactly where Marx uses the supposed rules of dialectics, the interpenetration of opposites, the transformation of quantity in quality, etc. I don't mean just saying those words, then wave the hands, voilà!, and here's my result, the law of value. I mean actually showing the sequential steps of a reasoning process. Personally, I think dialectics is a hoax, just like the hoax by the people who stare at the random dots in a painting at the museum of modern art and pretend that they "can see it." Someone please show me where I'm wrong.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 29, 2007 11:59 am
Whereas Marx believed in the spontaneous growth of the working class under the impact of capitalist oppression, Leninism recognizes the reality of the working man: forever doomed to insufficient cosciousness, no matter how miserable his conditions.

The salvation of the working class must come from intellectuals who possess dialectic ideas. The formation of a party and a party platform is essential to Leninist theory and socialist revolution.
These intellectuals had better restrict themselves to playing the role of educator. No lasting change will come from an uninformed public looking desperately for someone to 'lead' them. George Orwell's Totalitarian Big Brother put it best: Ignorance is strength

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


And your post, likewise

Progress at last: we now both agree then that not everything in reality changes, and thus that the dread 'law of identity' is valid.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Drosera:


Despite Rosa's assertions, dialectics has not been discredited. I have taken this up with her in several philosophy threads. You can read them yourself to see what the various possitions are here.

1) You would not know, since you have not read my Essays.

2) Your attempts to respond to a few of my ideas (summarised in other threads) would need to be improved considerably before we could even begin to call them pathetic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kromando33:


Lol, more naive defeatism and capitulation to the bourgeois I see, soon you left opportunists will have become soon disheartened and so far to the right that you are indistinguishable from the bourgeois.

I see you, too, are incapable of responding to my complete demolition of your pet 'theory'.

Too bad, then, that Dialectical Marxism has also been refuted by history. :o

Far from being 'disheartened', the fall of 'communism' cheered me up no end. :)