Log in

View Full Version : Alan Woods speaks at Eton.



AGITprop
7th March 2008, 03:09
Editor of Marxist.com speaks at Eton
By In Defence of Marxism

Thursday, 06 March 2008 http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/britain/alan_at_eton1.jpg Alan Woods talks to the Orwell Society
On Tuesday, March 4, Alan Woods, the editor of Marxist.com, spoke at Eton. For the non-British readers of Marxist.com who do not know, Eton is the most prestigious "public" (that is, private) school in Britain, attended by the sons of the rich and aristocratic families that have traditionally ruled the country. One of its best-known former pupils was the famous left-wing writer George Orwell, author of 1984, Animal Farm and Homage to Catalonia. The Orwell Society at Eton was formed to provide a forum for left-wing views at the school, and Alan was invited by the Society to speak on the subject "Is Marxism still relevant today?"

The meeting was well attended, with 26 students present. The room was full and extra chairs had to be brought in. Alan spoke for about 40 minutes and the interest of the audience was palpable. He opened by countering the myth of the death of Marxism: "They have been saying the same thing every year for the last 150 years. The question is: why do they bother? Why do they continue to attack Marxism if it is really irrelevant?" Alan then went on to describe the Communist Manifesto as "the most modern of all books" and justified this assertion by pointing to the fact that a book written over 150 years ago was able to predict and explain the phenomenon of globalisation.

Dealing with the argument that socialism is contrary to human nature, he said: "So-called human nature has changed many times over the centuries and millennia. Our ancestors were cannibals and they doubtless considered cannibalism to be a product of immutable human nature. Similarly slavery was regarded as completely natural and inevitable. The great Aristotle showed his genius by questioning whether slavery was moral. Nobody else even bothered to ask the question. And even Aristotle was forced to conclude that slavery was moral because the slaves lacked a soul and therefore were not real human beings.
"In the same way today people think that capitalism, its institutions and morality are something permanent. In fact, capitalism has only existed for the last 200 years. It is a relatively recent phenomenon, which has now outlived its historical usefulness."

The speaker went on to expose the failings of the "free market economy". He pointed to the fact that in 1940, when Britain had its back to the wall, with Hitler's armies at the gates, the government centralised the economy, nationalized key industries and introduced measures of planning. "Why did they do this instead of relying on market forces? The answer is very simple: because it got better results," he said.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/britain/alan_at_eton2.jpg

He went on to expose the hypocrisy of the talk about private enterprise: "It is said that the entrepreneurs take risks for which they must be rewarded. But what risks did the owners of Northern Rock run? As soon as they ran into serious difficulties they rushed cap in hand to the state, and Gordon Brown came running with an open chequebook to bail them out with public money. In the USA wealthy farmers are paid huge subsidies by the state to produce ethanol, which is driving up food prices and causing hunger worldwide."

Alan then went on to deal with the "socialism" of the USSR: "What failed in the USSR was not socialism in any sense understood by Marx or Lenin but a bureaucratic and totalitarian caricature of socialism," he explained. However, despite the crimes of Stalin and the bureaucracy, the Soviet Union demonstrated the colossal potential of a nationalised planned economy: "Tsarist Russia was a poor, backward country, like Pakistan today. Most of its people were illiterate. Yet by the 1980s, the USSR had more scientists, engineers and technicians than the USA, Britain, Germany and Japan together, and they were of a very high quality," he said.

Afterwards, there was a very lively session of questions and answers. The first question was: "Do you think that communism is inevitable?" To this Alan replied in the affirmative, but added a warning: "Marx said that the alternative before humanity is socialism or barbarism. That is still true today, with the difference that if the capitalist system is allowed to continue it will eventually signify the destruction of the environment. It is the greed for profit that is behind the global crisis that is destroying the planet and threatening the very existence of life on earth. The only solution is a rational plan of production on a global scale. The alternative will be a further decline of civilisation and culture and eventually there will be a question mark over the survival of the human race itself."

Another student asked whether Lenin was really a continuer of Marx. Alan answered emphatically in the affirmative and explained that there was nothing in common between Stalinism and Leninism. A student from Hong Kong asked about China. Was it not the case that market economics had succeeded there? Alan said that China had a vast potential, but that potential only began to be realised with the Revolution of 1949. The institution of a nationalized planned economy transformed China just as it had transformed tsarist Russia: "Where did all these qualified Chinese workers, scientists and technicians come from?" he asked. They are the products of a nationalized planned economy.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/britain/alan_at_eton3.jpg Alan explained that socialism in one country was impossible. Marx and Engels explained in the Communist Manifesto that capitalism begins by creating a national market but goes on to create a world market: "The most important feature of the present epoch is precisely the crushing domination of the world market. No country, no matter how big, can escape from the pull of the world market. That was true of Russia and it is also true of China. Mao's idea of autarky was a reactionary utopia that seriously distorted China's economic development. But now the participation of China in the world market is pulling it in the direction of capitalism.

"It is true that the participation of China in world trade has acted as a powerful stimulus to the development of the productive forces. China's economy is growing at ten or eleven percent a year. But at what cost? There are about 150 million unemployed and Chinese workers are subjected to the most brutal exploitation in the factories. There are an appalling number of accidents in the workplaces. There is a colossal increase in inequality both in town and country. There are savage cuts in health and social services. The people of China are prepared to tolerate these things temporarily because they believe things will get better. But the introduction of capitalism in China is preparing a serious crisis of overproduction (the economists are already warning about "overheating"). This will have very serious effects in China in the next period.

Another student asked about Marx's attitude to alienation. Alan replied that the fundamental form of alienation in capitalism is the alienation of the worker from the wealth he or she produces. The majority are deprived of the things they need. People's lives are dominated by this constant search for things that ought to be taken for granted. He quoted the words of Aristotle: "Man begins to philosophise when the needs of life are provided." And he added a quote from Trotsky: "How many Aristotles are herding swine? How many swineherds are sitting on thrones?"

He went on to explain that alienation underlies all social existence under capitalism: "The real God in this society is not Jehovah, Buddha or Allah. The real God is Money. In this society men and women are enslaved to these little bits of paper. People will even kill to obtain them. A young man will stab another youngster to possess a pair of trainers that the admen have convinced him are essential for his existence. These are the values of capitalist society."
In summing up, Alan said: "I do not know whether I have convinced you of the correctness of Marxism. But even if I have not, I hope at least to have aroused your interest in reading and studying these ideas for yourselves. My aim in coming here was not just to pass an entertaining evening but to make you think for yourselves, to question the society in which we live and to draw some conclusions. The question I want you to think about is this: is this really the kind of world we want to live in? Is this the best that the human race can do in the 21st century? I do not believe that it is.

"If you ask me to say what socialism really is, I will answer thus: it is to make the human race actually what it always was potentially. In order to do this a fundamental change in society is needed. In place of an economy based exclusively on the profit of the few we require an economic system based on production for the satisfaction of human needs. That is the only rational form of society, and that is what socialism is."

The talk was very well received by those present and the general interest was shown by the fact that the Marxist books on sale were immediately sold out.

-------------------------------------------------------

I have reduced the size of the font to make it easier to read. RL

Hit The North
7th March 2008, 13:23
Why the fuck is he wasting his breath on the sons of the bourgeoisie???

JC1
7th March 2008, 16:15
Because Trotskyism is a pernicious, petit bourgoise ideaology, and Alan Woods' brand of trotskyism is especialy wack.

AGITprop
7th March 2008, 16:23
No press is bad press.
And this is man who has devoted his life to Marxism. I think he knows what hes doing. Besides, these are students who are interested in the left wing. Just because they are bourgeois does not mean they cannot be Marxists. The real sectarians are the people who believe in only dealing with the working class. We know that they will lead the revolution and they are most important but there is no reason to not entertain those who are interested in Marxism. When you are in your old age and have spent an entire lifetime dedicated to Marxist principles, then you may criticize.

RedDawn
8th March 2008, 03:51
They sure look like a bunch of little shits, but pulling them away from mommy and daddy's tit will certainly help them.

I think Alan Woods did a good job of giving a Marxism 101.

That being said, we must concentrate on those layers going into struggle the most, so overreaching into the realm of bourgeoisie is not only wrong headed, its a waste of time.

Die Neue Zeit
8th March 2008, 04:47
No press is bad press.
And this is man who has devoted his life to Marxism. I think he knows what hes doing. Besides, these are students who are interested in the left wing. Just because they are bourgeois does not mean they cannot be Marxists. The real sectarians are the people who believe in only dealing with the working class. We know that they will lead the revolution and they are most important but there is no reason to not entertain those who are interested in Marxism. When you are in your old age and have spent an entire lifetime dedicated to Marxist principles, then you may criticize.

On the other hand, this "social democracy" move of his is not like Kautsky's. Naturally, proletarian principles, like a workers-only social-proletocratic party, are sold out for more "democratic" (read: bourgeois-democratic) appeal.

At the very least, Alan Woods should've targeted the more "intellectually" educated sections of the working class (like those in journalism and business school). This move of his is no different from the Avakianites renaming their Revolutionary Worker newspaper to simply Revolution. :(

Eleftherios
8th March 2008, 05:24
I really respect Alan Woods, and he is not in any way wasting his time. What he is doing it not spreading social democracy-all he is doing is explaining Marxism and Socialism in a way that ordinary people can understand, unlike so many sectarian groups which are completely irrelevant. In other words, he is spreading a genuine socialist message that is easy for ordinary people to understand and accept.

Die Neue Zeit
8th March 2008, 05:34
^^^ I was referring to "social democracy" in its original, pre-economist meaning (from Kautsky's time to the collapse of the Second International). :glare:

Hit The North
8th March 2008, 05:36
GG:
The real sectarians are the people who believe in only dealing with the working class.

Lol. You sound like someone who learned their Marxism at Eton.:laugh:


When you are in your old age and have spent an entire lifetime dedicated to Marxist principles, then you may criticize.

Fuck that. I'll criticize who I want, when I want.

Phoebus:
I really respect Alan Woods, and he is not in any way wasting his time. What he is doing it not spreading social democracy-all he is doing is explaining Marxism and Socialism in a way that ordinary people can understand, unlike so many sectarian groups which are completely irrelevant. In other words, he is spreading a genuine socialist message that is easy for ordinary people to understand and accept.

If he's so interested in reaching out to "ordinary people", I ask again: Why is he wasting his breath on the most privileged section of British society?

AGITprop
8th March 2008, 08:08
"Lol. You sound like someone who learned their Marxism at Eton."
:laugh:
I learned Marxism in books on my own and through discussion to other Marxists.



"Fuck that. I'll criticize who I want, when I want."

I retract my statement. Criticize who you want. No one cares.



"If he's so interested in reaching out to "ordinary people", I ask again: Why is he wasting his breath on the most privileged section of British society? "

Because he was invited. Alan Wood's and his organization is not sectarian. You could learn from that. And remember. Students have no class, regardless of how rich their parents are. I have a comrade who's father is bourgeois but he is one of the most solid comrades I have ever met. It is very simple for these children of the rich to be Marxists really. I think many of the people on this site have trouble dealing with that.

black magick hustla
8th March 2008, 08:40
lol i cant see a single female face

AGITprop
8th March 2008, 08:49
lol i cant see a single female face

That is quite unfortunate. Of no matter though! 26 people interested in Marxism is still 26 people.

Winter
8th March 2008, 18:20
Bah, at this rate Marxism will become but another bourgeois ideaology. If we teach our class enemies every aspect of our ways then they are going to find ways to manipulate it, like the democrats have by claiming they stand for the workers.

If Woods wanted to educate somebody on Marxism then he should have went to a community college or a union meeting. Marxism must be spread to the working class, not these little buggers.

Die Neue Zeit
8th March 2008, 18:30
^^^ Hence my thread on the word "Communist" - I was NOT surprised at all the derision I got, even the ill-informed claim that I was some sort of "revisionist" - a claim heaped at me, ironically, by those who themselves subscribe to revisionism. :glare:

Winter
8th March 2008, 18:42
^^^ Hence my thread on the word "Communist" - I was NOT surprised at all the derision I got, even the ill-informed claim that I was some sort of "revisionist" - a claim heaped at me, ironically, by those who themselves subscribe to revisionism. :glare:

And I 100% agreed with you Jacob. We can't keep terms like "Communist" as some kind of idol, it is the idea that must be preserved.

Marsella
8th March 2008, 18:46
We know that they will lead the revolution and they are most important but there is no reason to not entertain those who are interested in Marxism.

Yes, that is all it will do...entertain. :lol:

Devrim
8th March 2008, 19:00
lol i cant see a single female face

It is Eton. It is a boy's school.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein
8th March 2008, 19:04
Much as I disagree with him -- good for Alan.

One or two comrades here would not have talked to Engels or Lenin -- for they too were 'sons of the bourgeoisie'.

And in Citizen Z's case, he would not have talked to the young Alex Callinicos -- a member of a ruling-class family if ever there was one.

[Alex is a great grandson of Lord Acton!]

http://davespartblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/alex-callinicoss-family-tree.html

Hit The North
8th March 2008, 19:50
Much as I disagree with him -- good for Alan.

One or two comrades here would not have talked to Engels or Lenin -- for they too were 'sons of the bourgeoisie'.

And in Citizen Z's case, he would not have talked to the young Alex Callinicos -- a member of a ruling-class family if ever there was one.

[Alex is a great grandson of Lord Acton!]

http://davespartblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/alex-callinicoss-family-tree.html

And yet in another thread, Rosa argues:
The point is of course that such petty-bourgeois revolutionaries brought with them ideas invented by the ruling-class which have helped cripple our movement.

These individuals were not superhuman beings, and so could not rise above their class position, and their 'consciousness' was determined by that class position.So it's good to see her embrace a contradictory position. We'll make a dialectical Marxist out of her yet!

Die Neue Zeit
8th March 2008, 19:51
^^^ Rosa, so you're in agreement with Kautsky's revisionist statement that

"Socialist consciousness today can only arise on the basis of deep scientific knowledge (...) But the bearer of science is not the proletariat but the bourgeois intellectuals (...) so then socialist consciousness is something brought into the class struggle of the proletariat from outside and not something that arises spontaneously within it"

???

:glare:

Rosa Lichtenstein
8th March 2008, 23:35
Z:


So it's good to see her embrace a contradictory position. We'll make a dialectical Marxist out of her yet!

Nice try; I have no problem with petty-bourgeois comrades -- they and their ideas just need controlling by us workers.

Still: you wouldn't have talked to Alex -- I would.

Rosa Lichtenstein
8th March 2008, 23:36
JR:

Thanks for the quote -- which just shows that Kautsky too was an Idealist, too.

Die Neue Zeit
9th March 2008, 03:20
^^^ Except that said students "comrades" are proper BOURGEOIS, and NOT merely "petit-bourgeois" :glare:

By supporting Woods' blatant opportunism, you are a supporter of the very Kautskyist idealism which you condemn. :p

AGITprop
9th March 2008, 03:37
^^^ Except that said students "comrades" are proper BOURGEOIS, and NOT merely "petit-bourgeois" :glare:

By supporting Woods' blatant opportunism, you are a supporter of the very Kautskyist idealism which you condemn. :p

How is this opportunism? He was invited to speak by people with genuine interest in Marxism and the left. He did his duty as a Marxist to educate.

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 05:16
JR, get a grip man!

On that basis, you would not have spoken to Lenin.

And, once more, I have nothing against the petty-bourgeois, or bourgeois comrades among us (like Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Luxembourg, Woods and Grant, Cliff, Callinicos...).

As I said, they and their idealist dogmas just need controlling by us workers.

Die Neue Zeit
9th March 2008, 05:27
^^^ Lenin was a lawyer, and was by the traditional definition "petit-bourgeois." Ditto with Engels, since his business was small.

[In my class relations thread, he was of "Class #2" - separate from the modern petit-bourgeoisie, but the same class as that of cops, security guards, and judges.]


And, once more, I have nothing against the petty-bourgeois or bourgeois comrades among us (like Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Luxembourg, Woods and Grant, Cliff, Callinicos...).

As I said, they and their idealist dogmas just need controlling by us workers.

Just drop the two bolded words, and I'll agree with you. :(

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 10:08
And Engels, the capitalist?

Dietzgen, the capitalist?

Devrim
9th March 2008, 11:36
And Engels, the capitalist?

Dietzgen, the capitalist?

Joeseph Dietzgen was actually a leather worker.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 14:09
According to his son, he was a 'master tanner', who later became a business man, and ran the family firm.

Dietzgen, E. (1906), 'Joseph Dietzgen: A Sketch Of His Life', in J. Dietzgen (1906), pp.7-33.

Dietzgen, J. (1906), Some Of The Philosophical Essays On Socialism And Science, Religion, Ethics, Critique-Of-Reason And The World At Large (Charles Kerr).

So, that, Devrim, is just one more myth we tell ourselves.

He was as much a prole as was Engels...

Hit The North
9th March 2008, 14:46
And, once more, I have nothing against the petty-bourgeois, or bourgeois comrades among us (like Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Luxembourg, Woods and Grant, Cliff, Callinicos...).

Funny how you never place Marx in that list. Is this to perpetuate the myth that only he and you have the correct line in the whole history of Marxism?


As I said, they and their idealist dogmas just need controlling by us workers.


Given that you won't join the party because of your obsession with the 'evils' of dialectics, you have little chance of controlling anyone!


Still: you wouldn't have talked to Alex -- I would.

I've spoken to comrade Callinicos a few times (only to ask questions at meetings, though), although I once had an extremely enjoyable evening in a pub in Stoke-on-Trent with Paul Foot - another comrade who broke from a bourgeois background to dedicate himself to the workers movement. Nevertheless my admiration for those who cross over class lines out of conviction has never led me to think that starting up a Socialist Worker branch in Eton or Harrow was a very good idea. :D

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 15:03
Z:



Funny how you never place Marx in that list. Is this to perpetuate the myth that only he and you have the correct line in the whole history of Marxism?


Funny how you never contact Alex Callinicos and tell him you won't speak to him.


Given that you won't join the party because of your obsession with the 'evils' of dialectics, you have little chance of controlling anyone!


Given that you are in the party, but do not even so much as try to control these mystics, I think I am OK where I am.

And, of course, it will take more than me to control anything.

But, I am glad to note that you do not think in term of class forces here.



I've spoken to comrade Callinicos a few times (only to ask questions at meetings, though), although I once had an extremely enjoyable evening in a pub in Stoke-on-Trent with Paul Foot - another comrade who broke from a bourgeois background to dedicate himself to the workers movement. Nevertheless my admiration for those who cross over class lines out of conviction has never led me to think that starting up a Socialist Worker branch in Eton or Harrow was a very good idea.



And yet we start SWSS branches at Cambridge and Oxford universities.

Indeed, I hope you pluck up enough courage to tell Alex, next time you suck up to him, that you disapprove of this bad idea.

Devrim
9th March 2008, 15:13
According to his son, he was a 'master tanner', who later became a business man, and ran the family firm.


I didn't know he later ran a family firm, but a 'master tanner' is a leather worker.

Devrim

Hit The North
9th March 2008, 15:31
And yet we start SWSS branches at Cambridge and Oxford universities.

Yes, but Cambridge and Oxford students (despite the best efforts of those august institutions, I might add) are not exclusively bourgeois. Eton students are.

What next? Prince Harry on why I joined the IMT! :laugh:

Vanguard1917
9th March 2008, 15:59
And Engels, the capitalist?

Dietzgen, the capitalist?

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a 'working class socialist theoretician' - so there is no point arguing about whether this or that Marxist thinker was/is a worker or not. Marxism does not deny that socialist ideology is on the whole the creation of the bourgeois intellegentsia.

But:

'This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians [my emphasis], as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge. But in order that working men may succeed in this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “literature for workers” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature. It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known.'
- Lenin
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm#v05fl61h-373-GUESS)

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 17:58
Devrim:



I didn't know he later ran a family firm, but a 'master tanner' is a leather worker.



According to his son, he ran the family firm for many years.

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 18:06
Z:



Yes, but Cambridge and Oxford students (despite the best efforts of those august institutions, I might add) are not exclusively bourgeois. Eton students are.



How do you know that all Eton children are 'bourgeois'? Some are sons of lawyers, and doctors, and the like.

And, I suppose you imagine that SWSS does a background check before signing students up, do you?

"Are you now, or have you ever been in a bourgeois household..."? Poor old Engels's kids would have been kicked out of a SWSS branch run by you.

I suspect, however, that you are not aware that the majority of Oxford and Cambridge students come from Eton, Harrow, Winchester...

Given your inverse snobbery, no one would have spoken to that son of the aristocracy, Alex Calliniocos, when he was at Oxford, before he miraculously 'rose above' his class position -- but, how he managed to do that before anyone would talk to him, I suppose we should pass over in silence.

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 18:09
VG1917:



Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a 'working class socialist theoretician' - so there is no point arguing about whether this or that Marxist thinker was/is a worker or not. Marxism does not deny that socialist ideology is on the whole the creation of the bourgeois intellegentsia.



What about Tommy Jackson and Fred Casey, to name but two?

But, you are right in general about 'our' theorists, and that is why they and their ideas need to be treated with suspicion, and controlled by workers.

After 150 years of almost total failure of their idealist theories (encapsualed in dialectics), and substitutionist antics, this is even more pressing today.

PRC-UTE
9th March 2008, 18:26
It doesn't look like he was recruiting cadres, just defending Marxist ideas and countering the ruling class lie that communism is a discredited ideology.

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 18:34
PRC-Cute:

I agree, so why several comrades here are getting their dialectical knickers in a twist beats me.

Alan Woods is an excellent, working class Marxist. I disagree with him on many things, but I respect him.

Only the sectarians among us will complain...

Hit The North
9th March 2008, 18:53
How do you know that all Eton children are 'bourgeois'? Some are sons of lawyers, and doctors, and the like.It is the elite school in Britain.


I suspect, however, that you are not aware that the majority of Oxford and Cambridge students come from Eton, Harrow, Winchester...Then you suspect incorrectly, ducky. I'm fully aware that Oxford and Cambridge are major cogs in the machinery of elite self-recruitment.


Alan Woods is an excellent, working class Marxist. I disagree with him on many things, but I respect him.Except when it comes to the question of the dialectic and then you rubbish him as a petite-bourgeois mystic, so save us from your sanctimonious blathering endorsement of him now. :glare:

Rosa Lichtenstein
9th March 2008, 20:16
Z, master of the bleeding obvious:


It is the elite school in Britain.


Yes, and you can now tell us what the colour of grass is -- we are all dying to know...:rolleyes:


Then you suspect incorrectly, ducky. I'm fully aware that Oxford and Cambridge are major cogs in the machinery of elite self-recruitment.


Which means, no doubt, you would close all those class-collaborationist SWSS branches.

I trust you will be taking that brilliant idea to Party Council...:scared:



Except when it comes to the question of the dialectic and then you rubbish him as a petite-bourgeois mystic, so save us from your sanctimonious blathering endorsement of him now.


When he strays into this area of ruling-class mysticism -- where you too have been super-glued, despite the 150 years of failures over which this 'theory' has presided --, of course I criticise him for his petty-bourgeois Idealism

I did say I did not agree with him --, but your appointment with Spec Savers is overdue, so you can be forgiven for missing that.

However, he is now a déclassé Marxist, and as such, according to Marx and Lenin, is susceptible to the deleterious affects of this Hermetic virus.

Some would say that this alien organism has ravished your few remaining, working brain cells, too --, but I would not be so unkind to the afflicted...

Die Neue Zeit
9th March 2008, 21:46
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a 'working class socialist theoretician' - so there is no point arguing about whether this or that Marxist thinker was/is a worker or not. Marxism does not deny that socialist ideology is on the whole the creation of the bourgeois intellegentsia.

So you agree with Kautsky, too? :(

If any event, modern conditions allow AND NECESSITATE the existence of working-class theoreticians (and MAYBE a few token "managerial" theoreticians), which I aspire to be. :D The "bearers of science" these days MUST be of working-class background. It is the responsibility of individuals within the working class to make it so.

That is why comrades should NOT dismiss post-secondary education. On the other hand, comrades should not dive in droves to the worthless humanities (stereotypical college leftism)! [Take journalism, natural sciences, engineering, computer science and/or IT, or preferrably business school like me.]



P.S. - Most teachers in academia are proletarians ("professional workers" in my list of three types of workers), existing inside a wage-labour system, advancing the development of society's labour power and its capabilities (by way of teaching), and not having at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in and/or active control over the means of intellectual production. :glare:

The means of "mental production" are owned and controlled by the specific academic institutions themselves (universities, colleges, etc.).

Vanguard1917
10th March 2008, 00:04
If any event, modern conditions allow AND NECESSITATE the existence of working-class theoreticians (and MAYBE a few token "managerial" theoreticians), which I aspire to be. :D

But notice that Lenin does not argue that people of working class background cannot be socialist theoreticians. On the contrary, Lenin emphasises that such people can - and should - be socialist thinkers and contributors to socialist theory. Lenin's point is that, when they do this, they do it in their capacity as socialist theoreticians ('as Proudhons and Weitlings'), rather than as workers, since the working class cannot produce ideas independently, since the means of mental production are in the hands of the bourgeoisie.



The "bearers of science" these days MUST be of working-class background.

That is why comrades should NOT dismiss post-secondary education. On the other hand, comrades should not dive in droves to the worthless humanities (stereotypical college leftism)! [Take journalism, natural sciences, engineering, computer science and/or IT, or preferrably business school like me.]


But isn't this an idealist view? Surely, as a result of its material supremacy, because it has the means of economic as well as mental production under its control, the 'vehicle of science' in capitalist society will always be the bourgeoisie (specifically its intellengentsia)?

Die Neue Zeit
10th March 2008, 00:35
^^^ Most teachers in academia are proletarians ("professional workers" in my list of three types of workers), existing inside a wage-labour system, advancing the development of society's labour power and its capabilities (by way of teaching), and not having at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in and/or active control over the means of intellectual production. :glare:

The means of "mental production" are owned and controlled by the specific academic institutions themselves (universities, colleges, etc.).

Rosa Lichtenstein
10th March 2008, 01:05
VG1917:


But isn't this an idealist view? Surely, as a result of its material supremacy, because it has the means of economic as well as mental production under its control, the 'vehicle of science' in capitalist society will always be the bourgeoisie (specifically its intellengentsia)?

You need to read Clifford Conner's: A People's History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And "Low Mechanicks" (Nation Books, 2005).

There you will see that this view of yours is, to coin a Hegelian phrase, 'too one-sided'.

And it is precisely the idealism that dominates the minds of the section of the 'intelligentsia' you mention that needs the control of workers -- otherwise these 'intellectuals' tend to come up with screwy ideas, like dailectical materialism, just to take one idea off the top of my head.

Unless, of course, we want another 150 years of going nowhere slowly...

Vanguard1917
10th March 2008, 12:06
The means of "mental production" are owned and controlled by the specific academic institutions themselves (universities, colleges, etc.).

And these aren't bourgeois institutions?

AGITprop
10th March 2008, 15:11
And these aren't bourgeois institutions?

That is the point. They are. As are all means of production.

Die Neue Zeit
10th March 2008, 15:37
And these aren't bourgeois institutions?

I was under the impression that you labelled the "intelligentsia" bourgeois. That above would be obvious (the institutions).

Immanuel Kant
26th January 2009, 20:46
Hi. I'm the guy on Woods' left in the bottom picture. My name is Vincent (I shall not reveal my surname for obvious privacy reasons but if you need confirmation of my identity then feel free to PM me).

I'm not sure you comrades understand what you're talking about. My mother was a historian in the Hungarian People's Republic; my father was a worker. I went to a state school beforehand. I am fully funded by Eton; I pay nothing to be here. That does not seem bourgeois or alienating to me.

If the Marxist movement is going to be stuck in the past then so be it. That is the public view of communism -- if you want to deny it then again: so be it. Eton is no longer a member of the Hegelian thesis but is taking part in its synthesis.

I'm glad you think I'm a "shit" -- that is the general attitude that has come to be expected of the fringes of the communist movement. Marx himself was not exactly badly off; Lenin's father was a middle-class school inspector. Engels was a textbook "grand bourgeois".

Marxism is attaining its own false-consciousness if it worships dogma rather looks at the reality of the material world.

iraqnevercalledmenigger
27th January 2009, 02:33
Lenin, that idiot. With all his crap about focusing on the most oppressed layers of the proletariat. It's all about the children of the bourgeoisie. But hey if Woods is proud to shake hands with Venezuela's capitalist head of state why not make efforts to find the next George Orwell in this period of struggle.

ZeroNowhere
27th January 2009, 06:31
Bah, at this rate Marxism will become but another bourgeois ideaology. If we teach our class enemies every aspect of our ways then they are going to find ways to manipulate it, like the democrats have by claiming they stand for the workers.
Right, because people who study at Eton are 'class enemies'. :laugh:

Zurdito
27th January 2009, 07:48
As much as I think Alan Woods is a traitor and worthless because of his politics, it's completely correct to try to win over the sons of the bourgeoisie to marxism, and marx and engels statement that in times of crisis sections of the bourgeoisie will change sides and support the proletariat remains true.

To say that Engels was "petit bourgeois" is rubbish and makes the phrase meaningless. A small or medium capitalist is not the same as petit-bourgeois. Incidentally Jacob this is something the last one of your works which I read does not take into account.

Led Zeppelin
28th January 2009, 19:33
Please don't necro threads.

Closed.