What makes Marxism a Science?

[trivas7]

Sometimes I cringe when I hear comrades blithely toss off the phrase "Marxism is a science..." I wonder what they mean by that other than to give legitimacy to what they have to say next.

Having read a little Hegel, especially his Prologue to The Phenomenology of the Spirit, I conclude that what Hegel -- and Marx -- means by science, Wissen in German, is more akin to "holistic knowledge" than 'science' in English. I.e., it is a conceptual and historically-mediated grasp of the totality of human understanding up to the present.

[BobKKKindle$]

The claim that Marxism is a "science" is indeed problematic. Karl Popper argued that a scientific theory or system of analysis is scientific because it can be disproved - arguably Marxism does not meet the criterion of falsifiability because whenever opponents of Marxism present evidence that contradicts the predictions which have been derived from Marxism (for example, that the overthrow of capitalism is inevitable, a prediction based on Marx's analysis of capitalism's economic laws which give rise to periodic crises and a tendency towards material immiseration) Marxists have adapted the original theory of Marxism to account for the failure of predictions to become reality, or have argued that the predictions will be verified at some point in the future even if trends suggest that this is not true. This means that Marxism could potentially never be falsified, because there is always "room" to evade criticism, and so Marxism cannot be categorized as a science.

[trivas7]

Karl Popper argued that a scientific theory or system of analysis is scientific because it can be disproved - arguably Marxism does not meet the criterion of falsifiability [...]
I find Popper's argument unwarranted. Science isn't merely re predictions and many theories -- in biology and physics, e.g. -- cannot be empirically tested. Science has as much to do with categorization and description as it does with prediction.

[apathy maybe]

However, Popper was not and is not the be all and end all to what science actually is. If ComradeRed were around he would be spouting off about paradigms, for example.

I personally think that for many cases falsifiability is a useful rule of thumb. However, predictably, being able to predict what will happen in the future, and what happened in the past (before you actually know). (This is why evolution is so powerful, it can be used to predict changes into the future, however, you can also predict that (for example) there were intermediary species between an extinct species and one around today, and then go and find the fossils to show that you were correct.)

If you weigh Marxism against being able to predict things into the future... Well Marx did not do so well with many things (there were people predicting a massive war between the European powers before 1914, and then again after 1919), I can't recall if Marx predict WW1, though I do think that certain Marxists predict WW2, whether it was Marxism that enabled them to do that or not I don't know.)

So yeah, if you can use Marxism to predict things, then well and good. Otherwise...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ignore Popper's 'falsifiablity' criterion, comrades. It has never been used by scientists, and would in fact have stymied the development of science had it been used.

Trivas, for once we agree -- or rather, you have just caught me up, for I have been arguing here since I joined that Marxism is a science in the German sense (even if we do not need to appeal to that confused idiot Hegel to justify that ascription).

[trivas7]

Communists take a scientific approach to things, as opposed to the utopian socialists that proceeded us. This is why the "scientific socialism" pioneered by Marx and Engels stands in stark contrast to the wellwishing/moralist utopian socialism that existed before them.

Socialism is not "an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes — the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine the historico-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict."
Well, it can be argued that most bourgeois scientists also try to take a "scientific approach to things", albeit for the sake of their cappy overlords.

IMO Marx says in Capital that nothing can construed as a "necessary outcome" in history. By the end of the 3rd vol. I read Marx as saying capitalism ends either in socialism or barbarism.

[trivas7]

Trivas, for once we agree -- or rather, you have just caught me up, for I have been arguing here since I joined that Marxism is a science in the German sense (even if we do not need to appeal to that confused idiot Hegel to justify that ascription).
Perhaps you're being overly premature re our reconciliation, for it's Hegel more than anyone who presented exactly what that "German sense" of the meaning of science is.

Isn't the irony for the Marxist that the more delimited English implies the more social practice, rather than the German?

[Trystan]

I think a better question would be: what makes any "social science" a science? Clearly the field is not as objective as biology, physics, etc. Personally I think of all social "science" as philosophy rather than as science, Marxism included.

[tiger-argentina]

Perhaps you should read Anti-Dühring from Engels to understand why marxism and dialectic are science.

[trivas7]

I think a better question would be: what makes any "social science" a science? Clearly the field is not as objective as biology, physics, etc. Personally I think of all social "science" as philosophy rather than as science, Marxism included.
Are you saying that Marxism is a social science? Is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat a social science?

[Trystan]

Are you saying that Marxism a social science? Is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat a social science?

Yes.

[redwinter]

Marxism is indeed a science, because it encompasses a systematic framework and methodology that is based on objective reality. While there is always the fact that we are only going to have relative knowledge of objective reality (ie we are incapable of knowing everything), Marxism is precisely not falsifiable because, as Avakian gets into in his polemic with Karl Popper (in Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity: Marxism as a Science—Refuting Karl Popper, Marxism’s “falsifiability,” Popper’s falsehoods, and a scientific approach (http://revcom.us/a/110/makingrevolution06-en.html)), the main and essential aspects of the theory remain true, even as secondary aspects or conclusions are proven wrong as we learn more about the world (through the overarching dialectical process of practice-theory-practice, though not a linear, determinist, or reductionist understanding of that process).

[trivas7]

Marxism is indeed a science, because it encompasses a systematic framework and methodology that is based on objective reality. While there is always the fact that we are only going to have relative knowledge of objective reality (ie we are incapable of knowing everything), Marxism is precisely not falsifiable because, as Avakian gets into in his polemic with Karl Popper (in Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity: Marxism as a Science—Refuting Karl Popper, Marxism’s “falsifiability,” Popper’s falsehoods, and a scientific approach (http://revcom.us/a/110/makingrevolution06-en.html)), the main and essential aspects of the theory remain true, even as secondary aspects or conclusions are proven wrong as we learn more about the world (through the overarching dialectical process of practice-theory-practice, though not a linear, determinist, or reductionist understanding of that process).
I agree that Popper's falsifiability criterion re science is unwarranted. Nevertheless I find it hard to agree with Avakian when he says:
For example, dialectical materialism. If the world were made up of something other than matter in motion—if that could be shown—then clearly Marxism in its fundamentals, in its essence and at its core, would be falsified, proven wrong. Or, if it could be shown that, yes, all reality consists of matter, but that some forms of matter do not change, do not have internal contradiction and motion and development — that too would be a fundamental refutation of dialectical materialism. But none of that has been shown."

IMO philosophic statements such as these are neither provable nor unprovable. By the time Marx writes Capital he is neither a philosopher nor an economist but solely a Communist revolutionary theoretician. Likewise it's an open question for me whether or not two other core elements of Marxism Avakian refers to -- historical materialism and Lenin's analysis of the state -- are falsifiable. It's their explanatory power that makes them valuable, not whether or not they can be falsified. Like religious dogma, how exactly does one go about falsifying philosophic statements that are by their nature non-empirical?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Marxism never has been, nor will it ever be a science. Is any political vision a science? Claiming the mantel of science usually only works for the more dogmatically insane Marxists. It covers up their complete inability to understand reality.

[redarmyfaction38]

Marxism never has been, nor will it ever be a science. Is any political vision a science? Claiming the mantel of science usually only works for the more dogmatically insane Marxists. It covers up their complete inability to understand reality.
marxism is a method with which to determine the balance of forces within capitalisy society, with which to determine POSSIBLE outcomes given the "political awareness" of the subserviant class.
it is also an analysis of past history that led to our present bourgeouis democratic society, an analysis that includes, rather than denies the role of the "masses" in human evoluton.
it includes within its analysis the economic demands and relationships that drove social and economic revolution.
it allows for the strenght of an idea.
if it is a "science" which i think it is, it is a "science" that allows for the fallibility of human beings.... there are no certanties regarding the future of human kind....just options, the success or failure of which are based on the willingness of the working class to determine their own future or not.
all marxist analysis clearly states, "given the right conditions, given a revolutionary working class party, the world wide socialist revolution is possible".
marxists work towards the creation of a revolutionary party imbedded in the world wide working class.
the future is unwritten...... joe strummer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I find Popper's argument unwarranted. Science isn't merely re predictions and many theories -- in biology and physics, e.g. -- cannot be empirically tested. Science has as much to do with categorization and description as it does with prediction.

"Marxism" is actually a paradigm, not a science (a social science, perhaps, but not on the same level as a "hard science" - then again, neither is the "dismal" pseudo-science of economics :D ). You should check out Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm" refutations of Popper.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

"Marxism" is actually a paradigm, not a science (a social science, perhaps, but not on the same level as a "hard science" - then again, neither is the "dismal" pseudo-science of economics :D ). You should check out Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm" refutations of Popper.

I would agree with this Jake. Marxism is a paradigm from which to view and analyze events. It utilizes scientific tools, like mathematics, reason, case studies etc. But it is not a verifiable, repeatable science.

[trivas7]

"Marxism" is actually a paradigm, not a science (a social science, perhaps, but not on the same level as a "hard science" - then again, neither is the "dismal" pseudo-science of economics :D ). You should check out Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm" refutations of Popper.
Even as the meaning of science as a methodology gets challenged a lot these days, my sense is that Kuhn's 'paradigm' is passé (déclassé?). Is the old-fashion word for this 'ideology'?

[mikelepore]

Anything that has some regularity or repeated patterns can be investigated scientifically. We can identify the observed patterns, classify them according to type, and identify the conditions under which they occur.

[Ramachandra]

If we gonna depend on popper's "falsification" then no social science can be claimed scientific.Marxism is a science but not in the sense of natural sciences.Actually it is the science which describes the motion of the society.It reveals the contradictions in the society and gives a vivid explanation about the social behavior of the man.dialectics is a creative and a successful method to understand + predict social character.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Perhaps you're being overly premature re our reconciliation, for it's Hegel more than anyone who presented exactly what that "German sense" of the meaning of science is.

I doubt this for several reasons, the most important being that Hegel is far too confused for anyone to able to attribute him with a single clear thought.

Independently of that, I'd like to see your evidence for this rather bold assertion.

Tiger-Argentina:


Perhaps you should read Anti-Dühring from Engels to understand why marxism and dialectic are science.

We have already debated this execrable book at length, and concluded that as far as the first half is concerned it is one of the worst books ever written by classical Marxist:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-duhring-t80412/index.html

In which case, we are unlikely to learn anything from it.

[redwinter]

For example, dialectical materialism. If the world were made up of something other than matter in motion—if that could be shown—then clearly Marxism in its fundamentals, in its essence and at its core, would be falsified, proven wrong. Or, if it could be shown that, yes, all reality consists of matter, but that some forms of matter do not change, do not have internal contradiction and motion and development — that too would be a fundamental refutation of dialectical materialism. But none of that has been shown."

IMO philosophic statements such as these are neither provable nor unprovable. By the time Marx writes Capital he is neither a philosopher nor an economist but solely a Communist revolutionary theoretician. Likewise it's an open question for me whether or not two other core elements of Marxism Avakian refers to -- historical materialism and Lenin's analysis of the state -- are falsifiable. It's their explanatory power that makes them valuable, not whether or not they can be falsified. Like religious dogma, how exactly does one go about falsifying philosophic statements that are by their nature non-empirical?

Your assertions here -- that dialectical materialism is unprovable and that "explanatory power makes them [the core elements of Marxism] valuable, not whether or not they can be falsified" -- are examples of agnosticism and "truth as an organizing principle." I think it's important to quote at length from Lenin's polemic against A.A. Bogdanov, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, in response to these assertions:



Bogdanov's denial of objective truth is agnosticism and subjectivism. The absurdity of this denial is evident even from the single example of a scientific truth quoted above. Natural science leaves no room for doubt that its assertion that the earth existed prior to man is a truth. This is entirely compatible with the materialist theory of knowledge: the existence of the thing reflected independent of the reflector (the independence of the external world from the mind) is a fundamental tenet of materialism. The assertion made by science that the earth existed prior to man is an objective truth. This proposition of natural science is incompatible with the philosophy of the Machians and with their doctrine of truth: if truth is an organising form of human experience, then the assertion that the earth exists outside human experience cannot be true.


But that is not all. If truth is only an organising form of human experience, then the teachings, say, of Catholicism are also true. For there is not the slightest doubt that Catholicism is an "organising form of human experience." Bogdanov himself senses the crying falsity of his theory and it is extremely interesting to watch how he attempts to extricate himself from the swamp into which he has fallen.

"The basis of objectivity," we read in Book I of Empirio-Monism, "must lie in the sphere of collective experience. We term those data of experience objective which have the same vital meaning for us and for other people, those data upon which not only we construct our activities without contradiction, but upon which, we are convinced, other people must also base themselves in order to avoid contradiction. The objective character of the physical world consists in the fact that it exists not for me personally, but for everybody [that is not true! It exists independently of "everybody"!], and has a dehnite meaning for everybody, the same, I am convinced, as for me. The objectivity of the physical series is its universal significance " (p. 25, Bogdanov's italics). "The objectivity of the physical bodies we encounter in our experience is in the last analysis established by the mutual verification and co-ordination of the utterances of various people. In general, the physical world is socially-co-ordinated, socially-harmonised, in a word, socially-organised experience " (p. 36, Bogdanov's italics).


We shall not repeat that this is a fundamentally untrue, idealist definition, that the physical world exists independently of humanity and of human experience, that the physical world existed at a time when no "sociality" and no "organisation" of human experience was possible, and so forth. We shall now stop to expose the Machian philosophy from another aspect, namely, that objectivity is so defined that religious doctrines, which undoubtedly possess a "universal significance," and so forth, come under the definition. But listen to Bogdanov again: "We remind the reader once more that 'objective' experience is by no means the same as 'social' experience. . . . Social experience is far from being altogether socially organised and always contains various contradictions, so that certain of its parts do not agree with others. Sprites and hobgoblins may exist in the sphere of social experience of a given people or of a given group of people -- for example, the peasantry; but they need not therefore be included under socially-organised or objective experience, for they do not harmonise with the rest of collective experience and do not fit in with its organising forms, for example, with the chain of causality" (p. 45)

Of course it is very gratifying that Bogdanov himself "does not include" the social experience in respect to sprites and hobgoblins under objective experience. But this well-meant amendment in the spirit of anti-fideism by no means corrects the fundamental error of Bogdanov's whole position. Bogdanov's definition of objectivity and of the physical world completely falls to the ground, since the religious doctrine has "universal significance" to a greater degree than the scientific doctrine; the greater part of mankind cling to the former doctrine to this day. Catholicism has been "socially organised, harmonised and co-ordinated" by centuries of development; it "fits in " with the "chain of causality" in the most indisputable manner; for religions did not originate without cause, it is not by accident that they retain their hold over the masses under modern conditions, and it is quite "in the order of things" that professors of philosophy should adapt themselves to them. If this undoubtedly universally significant and undoubtedly highly-organised religious social experience does "not harmonise" with the "experience" of science, it is because there is a radical and fundamental difference between the two, which Bogdanov obliterated when he rejected objective truth. And however much Bogdanov tries to "correct" himself by saying that fideism, or clericalism, does not harmonise with science, the undeniable fact remains that Bogdanov's denial of objective truth completely "harmonises" with fideism. Contemporary fideism does not at all reject science; all it rejects is the "exaggerated claims" of science, to wit, its claim to objective truth. If objective truth exists (as the materialists think), if natural science, reflecting the outer world in human "experience," is alone capable of giving us objective truth, then all fideism is absolutely refuted. But if there is no objective truth, if truth (including scientific truth) is only an organising form of human experience, then this in itself is an admission of the fundamental premise of clericalism, the door is thrown open for it, and a place is cleared for the "organising forms" of religious experience.

(Source: Vladimir I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, pp 136-139,http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/MEC08i.html)


I apologize for the length of the passage but I think every word is important to study and this really gets into the danger of taking up such an assertion of the value of the "explanatory power" of Marxism being the only thing that makes it true. In fact, correspondence to objective reality is what affirms or denies any truth, not the "usefulness" of any "truth." It is only this that differentiates a scientific worldview like Marxism from religious dogma (Catholicism is used as an example in the passage from Lenin).

If Jesus Christ descended from the heavens tomorrow and the rapture followed shortly thereafter, we'd be hard-pressed to explain that from a dialectical materialist framework - which would qualify as "falsifying Marxism," I think. In a more realistic example, we can look at some of the work being done by physicists to come up with a grand unifying theory (or bigger than that, a "theory of everything") to connect various different physical phenomena and if a theory actually does become proven true that negates dialectical materialism, we'd have to go back and actually test whether DM is still applicable, or maybe only under certain conditions (like how Newtonian physics, even after Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum physics have superseded it to a certain extent and more accurately reflect objective reality on a grand and minute scale respectively, still is generally applicable under a narrowed set of conditions - which is why it's still taught in physics courses). In fact Bogdanov's whole subjectivist "revelation" in Empirio-Monism was inspired by physicists like Mach whose philosophy reduced reality to "sensations" felt by humans (see his 1892 essay, The Economical Nature of Physical Inquiry (link) (http://books.google.com/books?id=M4ItHNYrs1UC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=The+Economical+Nature+of+Physical+Inquiry&source=web&ots=ctTVUnUz4l&sig=v5LN0-E8oC1zxktEYipOS35RgPI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result)), an incorrect theory but one that had deep repercussions within the Bolshevik party itself (and the communist movement internationally) around the turn of the century.

Further on in Avakian's polemic against Popper in Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity he touches on the importance of objective truth and defends it as an integral part of defending the concept of Marxism as a science:



As for communists and the scientific theory of communism, we recognize and insist upon the possibility of arriving at the truth—even with the relative element within objective truth, as spoken to here—and the importance of the search for the truth. We recognize that the way in which it is possible to continually acquire more knowledge, and to be able to determine that this knowledge in fact corresponds to objective reality, is to proceed on the basis of the store of knowledge that has been acquired—and that has been shown to be true through the application of the scientific method and its handling of the dialectical relation between practice and theory—and in this way to further engage reality, to accumulate further “raw materials” of knowledge through this process, then to synthesize this, raising it to the level of theory, and then again returning this to practice, in order to test, and to learn more about, the reality that this theory aims to concentrate. And we recognize the importance of the clash of ideas, of the struggle in the realm of ideas—and all the more so as this is unfettered from relations of class domination. The communist method and approach is to apply, as consistently and systematically as possible, scientific principles in engaging—in learning about and transforming—reality; and, as I have emphasized, this involves and requires acting on what is understood (through the application of this scientific approach) to be true, at any given time, while “being open to the understanding that you may not be right about this or that particular, or even about big questions.” (See “The Struggle in the Realm of Ideas,” in Observations on Art and Culture, Science and Philosophy, p. 6)

(Source: Bob Avakian, Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity, http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution/)


At the same time there is controversy about the difference between "hard sciences" and "soft sciences" and that Marxism is somehow less "scientific", or not so at all, because it is not a "hard science." I think this is a false dichotomy and walls off human behavior and social organization and interaction from scientific analysis, in a semi-religious manner, and opens the door to shit like "human nature" and non-scientific explanations for human behavior.

[Invader Zim]

Ignore Popper's 'falsifiablity' criterion, comrades. It has never been used by scientists, and would in fact have stymied the development of science had it been used.

Trivas, for once we agree -- or rather, you have just caught me up, for I have been arguing here since I joined that Marxism is a science in the German sense (even if we do not need to appeal to that confused idiot Hegel to justify that ascription).

Unsupprisingly historians, in attempting to define their own disipline, also made the same mis-translation based on the ninteenth century German definition of 'wissenschaft'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invader, I wasn't too clear what you were suggesting here ^^^.

Red Winter:


Your assertions here -- that dialectical materialism is unprovable and that "explanatory power makes them [the core elements of Marxism] valuable, not whether or not they can be falsified" -- are examples of agnosticism and "truth as an organizing principle." I think it's important to quote at length from Lenin's polemic against A.A. Bogdanov, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, in response to these assertions:

As I have shown in several threads in the Philosophy section, not only is dialectical materialism far too confused for anyone to be able to say whether it is true or false, it cannot explain anything at all. So, Trivas is wrong, again (and so is Avakian).

And Lenin's 'Materialism and Empirio-Criticism' is one of the worst things Lenin ever wrote, as I show here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm

Fortunately, Marxism does not need this mystical 'theory'.

[Invader Zim]

Invader, I wasn't too clear what you were suggesting here

Trivas: "Having read a little Hegel, especially his Prologue to The Phenomenology of the Spirit, I conclude that what Hegel -- and Marx -- means by science, Wissen in German, is more akin to "holistic knowledge" than 'science' in English. I.e., it is a conceptual and historically-mediated grasp of the totality of human understanding up to the present."

And then you said: -

"for I have been arguing here since I joined that Marxism is a science in the German sense"

I maybe mistaken, but I read you as saying that Marxism is a 'science' in the sense of the term 'wissen', not necessarily how we understand the modern word 'science'. This is also an issue in modern academic history.

Marxism and history as an intellectual, academic disipline share similar roots, and the same language issue is one which has dogged academic history. A few historians I know summed up the issue in an article for a book for history undergraduates a few years ago: -

"Debates about whether history was (and for that matter is) a science have suffered ever sinse from a conceptual confusion. German Wissenschaft was mis-translated from the outset as 'science' by its would-be emulators abroad. In the context of the founding phase of professional history, the word 'scholarship comes far closer to conveying the meaning of Wissenschaft."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, thanks for that; however, I am quite happy to use the word "science" to describe Marxism, so long as it is understood in a wider sense than when it is used to describe, for example, Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Biology.

[Invader Zim]

Ok, thanks for that; however, I am quite happy to use the word "science" to describe Marxism, so long as it is understood in a wider sense than when it is used to describe, for example, Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Biology.

I can't say I fully agree. Extending the word 'science' to include Marxism, begins to open the door for people to call subjects such as history a science; which leads to all manner of confusion and silliness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Maybe so, but that does not worry me.

[trivas7]

Your assertions here -- that dialectical materialism is unprovable and that "explanatory power makes them [the core elements of Marxism] valuable, not whether or not they can be falsified" -- are examples of agnosticism and "truth as an organizing principle." I think it's important to quote at length from Lenin's polemic against A.A. Bogdanov, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, in response to these assertions:

Please tell me how dialectical materialism is (un)provable. Given that philosophies are not empirical propositions, they are neither empirically demonstrable nor falsifiable AFAIK, but I'm open to being convicted otherwise. I also see no need to equate Marxism with dialectical materialism as such.

Having said that I do hold a generally materialist attitude towards reality, but I don't see the necessity of holding it as objective truth. I also like Avakian's espousal of objective truth, it's something that Marxists have not really emphasized, and for which lack we are always lumped by the general public into the moral relativist's camp.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Please tell me how dialectical materialism is (un)provable. Given that philosophies are not empirical propositions, they are neither empirically demonstrable nor falsifiable AFAIK, but I'm open to being convicted otherwise. I also see no need to equate Marxism with dialectical materialism as such.

I can't speak for Red Winter, but it is obvious why dialectical materialism is unprovable: at best it is far too vague and imprecise for anyone to do anything with. But that does not stop comrades from clinging to it like drunks do to lampposts as a set of quasi-religious dogmas.


Having said that I do hold a generally materialist attitude towards reality, but I don't see the necessity of holding it as objective truth. I also like Avakian's espousal of objective truth, it's something that Marxists have not really emphasized, and for which we are always lumped by the general public into the moral relativist's camp.

If you hold a "materialist attitude" then why do you ruin it with all that mystical gobbledygook from Hegel?

And while you are at it perhaps you can tell us the difference between "objective truth" and truth.

[trivas7]

Ok, thanks for that; however, I am quite happy to use the word "science" to describe Marxism, so long as it is understood in a wider sense than when it is used to describe, for example, Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Biology.
Do you mean in the wider sense as compassing the "soft" sciences?

[redwinter]

Please tell me how dialectical materialism is (un)provable. Given that philosophies are not empirical propositions, they are neither empirically demonstrable nor falsifiable AFAIK, but I'm open to being convicted otherwise. I also see no need to equate Marxism with dialectical materialism as such.

Having said that I do hold a generally materialist attitude towards reality, but I don't see the necessity of holding it as objective truth. I also like Avakian's espousal of objective truth, it's something that Marxists have not really emphasized, and for which lack we are always lumped by the general public into the moral relativist's camp.

OK, so to be able to prove dialectical materialism we have to first define it. It's a materialist (that is, recognizing that reality consists only of matter in motion) approach that says that all change/development/evolution of any phenomena or object that happens in reality is the result of contradiction (the unity and struggle of opposing forces within every unity, that is, every "thing"). The "unity and struggle of opposites" is the basic law of dialectics. Engels actually put forward three basic laws based on his study of Hegel's work on the subject, the following two being "the transformation of quantity into quality" and "the negation of the negation" - Mao argued against this and for the "unity and struggle of opposites" as the essential law of dialectics:



Engels talked about the three categories, but as for me I don't believe in two of those categories. (The unity of opposites is the most basic law, the transformation of quality and quantity into one another is the unity of the opposites quality and quantity, and the negation of the negation does not exist at all.) ... There is no such thing as the negation of the negation. Affirmation, negation, affirmation, negation in the development of things, every link in the chain of events is both affirmation and negation. Slave-holding society negated primitive society, but with reference to feudal society it constituted, in turn, the affirmation. Feudal society constituted the negation in relation to slave-holding society but it was in turn the affirmation with reference to capitalist society. Capitalist society was the negation in relation to feudal society, but it is, in turn, the affirmation in relation to socialist society.

(Source: Mao Tse-tung, Talk on Questions of Philosophy, 1964: www.tomweston.net/mao64.pdf (http://www.tomweston.net/mao64.pdf))


So how would this be proven wrong (ie how is it falsifiable to go back to Popper's criterion?) Well we can go back to that passage from Avakian I think you quoted from earlier:



If the world were made up of something other than matter in motion—if that could be shown—then clearly Marxism in its fundamentals, in its essence and at its core, would be falsified, proven wrong. Or, if it could be shown that, yes, all reality consists of matter, but that some forms of matter do not change, do not have internal contradiction and motion and development — that too would be a fundamental refutation of dialectical materialism. But none of that has been shown.

(Source: Bob Avakian, Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity, 2007: http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution/ (http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution/))


Proving the existence of a god or gods - or any deus ex machina in a broader sense referring to any supernatural phenomena - that exist outside of material reality would be one way to "falsify" dialectical materialism.

As far as Avakian's espousal of the validity of objective truth, it's pretty good that you don't have beef with it - because in the international communist movement writ large it's historically been a recurring problem for even the best leaders of our movement to fall into notions of "class truth" - that there are separate "truths" out there for different classes or something like that, which flies in the face of any notion of there being an objective reality.

[redarmyfaction38]

OK, so to be able to prove dialectical materialism we have to first define it. It's a materialist (that is, recognizing that reality consists only of matter in motion) approach that says that all change/development/evolution of any phenomena or object that happens in reality is the result of contradiction (the unity and struggle of opposing forces within every unity, that is, every "thing"). The "unity and struggle of opposites" is the basic law of dialectics. Engels actually put forward three basic laws based on his study of Hegel's work on the subject, the following two being "the transformation of quantity into quality" and "the negation of the negation" - Mao argued against this and for the "unity and struggle of opposites" as the essential law of dialectics:



So how would this be proven wrong (ie how is it falsifiable to go back to Popper's criterion?) Well we can go back to that passage from Avakian I think you quoted from earlier:



Proving the existence of a god or gods - or any deus ex machina in a broader sense referring to any supernatural phenomena - that exist outside of material reality would be one way to "falsify" dialectical materialism.

As far as Avakian's espousal of the validity of objective truth, it's pretty good that you don't have beef with it - because in the international communist movement writ large it's historically been a recurring problem for even the best leaders of our movement to fall into notions of "class truth" - that there are separate "truths" out there for different classes or something like that, which flies in the face of any notion of there being an objective reality.
wish i'd kept out of this, but i didn't.
"truth".... the "truth" is, from my working class perspective, that the role played by me and mine throughout history has been denied by bourgeouis historians and politicians.
marx and engels defied the bourgeouis concept of history and demonstrated how it was class forces and economic necessity that drove historical development rather than some vague desire on behalf of the current ruling classes and established former order.
todays economic and political order was built on the mass overthrow of the previous fuedal system, the emerging "middle class/entreprenueral class" could not have done so without the support of the peasant/working class.
that "bourgeouis" revolution demanded the creation of a mass working class in order to serve its economic need.
that working class is the class that marx and engels determined would carry out the next stage of human development, born out of the bourgeouis revolution, at some stage, they would carry out the proletarian revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedWinter, thanks for all that, but we have heard this stuff a thousand times before, and none of it works.

Particulary this:


Engels actually put forward three basic laws based on his study of Hegel's work on the subject, the following two being "the transformation of quantity into quality" and "the negation of the negation" - Mao argued against this and for the "unity and struggle of opposites" as the essential law of dialectics:

On the alleged 'law' of the transformation' of quantity into quality, see the discussion here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-quality-t66709/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-materialism-t66588/index.html

where I demolish this 'law'.

On the other alleged 'laws', see here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

So, please spare us...

Trivas:


Do you mean in the wider sense as compassing the "soft" sciences?

Yes.

Now, try and answer my questions.

[trivas7]

marx and engels defied the bourgeouis concept of history and demonstrated how it was class forces and economic necessity that drove historical development rather than some vague desire on behalf of the current ruling classes and established former order.
todays economic and political order was built on the mass overthrow of the previous fuedal system, the emerging "middle class/entreprenueral class" could not have done so without the support of the peasant/working class.
that "bourgeouis" revolution demanded the creation of a mass working class in order to serve its economic need.
that working class is the class that marx and engels determined would carry out the next stage of human development, born out of the bourgeouis revolution, at some stage, they would carry out the proletarian revolution.
I take your point that Marx is shot through with the subjectivism of a member of the working class. But having just listened to David Harvey's lecture on Chap. 15 of Capital, he (David Harvey ) stresses that for Marx -- at least in that chapter -- is not an economic determinist who sees the class struggle as a mechanistic cause of social progress. Marx rather talks re an ensemble of many things -- nature, technology, social relations, the labor process, ideas, the class struggle, etc. -- any from which social change can come. This, e.g., is the kind of reading of Marx for which Henri Lefebvre leveled against the Soviet Union that got him kicked out the Communist Party.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

So, Trivas: I answer your quesrion, you ignore mine.

Now, why does that not surpise me? :rolleyes:

[trivas7]

So how would this be proven wrong (ie how is it falsifiable to go back to Popper's criterion?) Well we can go back to that passage from Avakian I think you quoted from earlier:



If the world were made up of something other than matter in motion—if that could be shown—then clearly Marxism in its fundamentals, in its essence and at its core, would be falsified, proven wrong. Or, if it could be shown that, yes, all reality consists of matter, but that some forms of matter do not change, do not have internal contradiction and motion and development — that too would be a fundamental refutation of dialectical materialism. But none of that has been shown.

But this rather assumes what needs to be demonstrated, no?

Trivas:
If you hold a "materialist attitude" then why do you ruin it with all that mystical gobbledygook from Hegel?

Clearly I don't think Hegel is "all that mystical gobbledygook".


And while you are at it perhaps you can tell us the difference between "objective truth" and truth.
Where do I make that distinction?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Clearly I don't think Hegel is "all that mystical gobbledygook".

Ok, which bits aren't?


Where do I make that distinction?

Here:


Having said that I do hold a generally materialist attitude towards reality, but I don't see the necessity of holding it as objective truth. I also like Avakian's espousal of objective truth, it's something that Marxists have not really emphasized, and for which lack we are always lumped by the general public into the moral relativist's camp.

Clearly, had you not thought there was a distinction you would have said:


Having said that I do hold a generally materialist attitude towards reality, but I don't see the necessity of holding it true. I also like Avakian's espousal of truth, it's something that Marxists have not really emphasized, and for which lack we are always lumped by the general public into the moral relativist's camp.

For metaphysical realists, and for Lenin, there is a distinction between 'objective truth' and common or garden 'truth'.

Of course, if you just spoke carelessly, fine. If not, then perhaps you can explain the distinction, since I cannot see one.

In short, the word 'objective' here is pleonastic.

[trivas7]

Ok, which bits aren't?

The bits which aren't mystical goobledygook. If Marxism is a science, why not Hegelianism qua philosophy?


For metaphysical realists, and for Lenin, there is a distinction between 'objective truth' and common or garden 'truth'.

This would have to be demonstrated to me. While I grant that objective truth is redundant, because of the past abuse of 'class truth' and the widespread acceptance of relativism I appreciate Avakian's opposition to these. Having said that my reading of Marx is that he is shot through with subjectivism. How this is compatible with the objectivity of science I couldn't say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


The bits which aren't mystical goobledygook

Either you cannot say, of there are none.


This would have to be demonstrated to me. While I grant that objective truth is redundant, because of the past abuse of 'class truth' and the widespread acceptance of relativism I appreciate Avakian's opposition to these. Having said that my reading of Marx is that he is shot through with subjectivism. How this is compatible with the objectivity of science I couldn't say.

The word 'objective' is redundant, that is all.

[redarmyfaction38]

I take your point that Marx is shot through with the subjectivism of a member of the working class. But having just listened to David Harvey's lecture on Chap. 15 of Capital, he (David Harvey ) stresses that for Marx -- at least in that chapter -- is not an economic determinist who sees the class struggle as a mechanistic cause of social progress. Marx rather talks re an ensemble of many things -- nature, technology, social relations, the labor process, ideas, the class struggle, etc. -- any from which social change can come. This, e.g., is the kind of reading of Marx for which Henri Lefebvre leveled against the Soviet Union that got him kicked out the Communist Party.
in my earlier post, i thought i covered that when i talked about the variables i.e. political consciousness, that prevented marxism being an "exact" science.
this is part and parcel of marxist "thought", surely?
or am i missing something here?

[trivas7]

in my earlier post, i thought i covered that when i talked about the variables i.e. political consciousness, that prevented marxism being an "exact" science.
this is part and parcel of marxist "thought", surely?
or am i missing something here?
No, I don't think you miss anything. I just wanted to emphasize that social revolution isn't a causal process, rather, it is more like the evolution of ecological forces.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas: once more: Either you cannot say, of there are none.

I take it that your silence means one or both of these is correct.

[trivas7]

Trivas: once more: Either you cannot say, of there are none.

I take it that your silence means one or both of these is correct.
Well, no -- these two don't exhaust all possible choices.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


these two don't exhaust all possible choices.

Let's see what the others could possibly be:

1) You won't say.

2) There are some diferences but you do not know what they are.

3) You are floundering, again.

1) is unlikely, since you'd be quite happy to put me in my place -- for a change -- if you knew.

2) is possible, since we already know that you "do not think about things you don't think about".

In that case, I think 3) is the most likely option, with 2) as a back-up.

Unless, of course, you know differently...

[trivas7]

3) You are floundering, again.

2) is possible, since we already know that you "do not think about things you don't think about".

Clearly we differ re who/what is valuable in philosophy. Do you have another point?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Clearly we differ re who/what is valuable in philosophy.

Inded, you differ from Marx.

But anyway, how does that answer my question: which parts of Hegel are not mystical gobbledygook?


Do you have another point?

Several:

1) You are a dogmatist who cannot defend his ideas, because you "do not think about things you don't think about".

2) You like to ignore stuff you can't answer.

3) You do not know what a 'dialectical contradiction' is. [Not really your fault -- no one does!]

4) You, in line with other dialectical mystics, like to pontificate about things (especially logic) of which you are almost totally ignorant.

They will do for starters...

[redarmyfaction38]

Trivas:



Inded, you differ from Marx.

But anyway, how does that answer my question: which parts of Hegel are not mystical gobbledygook?



Several:

1) You are a dogmatist who cannot defend his ideas, because you "do not think about things you don't think about".

2) You like to ignore stuff you can't answer.

3) You do not know what a 'dialectical contradiction' is. [Not really your fault -- no one does!]

4) You, in line with other dialectical mystics, like to pontificate about things (especially logic) of which you are almost totally ignorant.

They will do for starters...
oh dear, comrades, we are descending into the realms of "coffee shop" or "pub" politics here.
look. i'll freely admit, i'm not the most learned "revolutionary" on here, i've read loads of marx and lenin and trortsky, i think nietsche was funny etc. i've read the prophet risen etc by some german guy duestcher i think.
i definately do not have a degree in politics or anthropology etc.
but i did all this after i decided "something was wrong".
*****ing about what hegel said or trotsky said or lenin or nietsche said is a total turn off.
i didn't engage in revolutionary politics, despite being an unconscious socialist, from the age of 11, until i was 22 years old.
why? you might ask, cos i, like most of my working class comrades, thought marxism and revolutionary politics was for university students, the children of affluent middle class parents etc.
it is this kind of eventually meaningless debate quoting dead people who are not on hand to comment on the present political and economic situation that leads to these kinds of preconceptions amongast the working class.
for people like myself, it is only through the class struggle itself we realise our need for a political party of our own, that our trade unions alone cannot deliver.
abstract philosophy which most of what is being debated is, is meaning less imo.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedArmyFruitcase:


*****ing about what hegel said or trotsky said or lenin or nietsche said is a total turn off.

So, turn your computer off, and do us all a favour.

[JimFar]

Cornell University philosopher Richard W. Miller addressed the issue of the scientific status of Marxism among other things in his 1980s book, Analyzing Marx. In that book he drew a distinction between what he called the technological interpretation of historical materialism which had been articulated and defended by many writers of the Second International (i.e. Kautsky, Plekhanov) and which was cast into an especially rigorous form by the Canadian/British philosopher. G.A. Cohen, in his Karl Marx's Theory of History, and what he calls the mode of production interpretation which abjures the technological and economic determinism of the latter.

Miller drew a link between these two different interpretations of historical materialism and different philosophies of science. The technological interpretation, Miller linked to positivist philosophies of science with their covering law models of scientific explanation and their presupposition of Humean notions concerning causality. Here, Miller does not draw a very sharp distinction between positivism and Popperism. While Popper clearly did not see himself as being a positivist, he nevertheless, still had many notions in common with them. In Miller's view Popper's hypothetico-deductivism placed him within the positivist camp. In any case, Miller contended that the technological interpretation of historical materialism does represent the sort of theory that can be regarded as falsifiable from a strictly Popperian standpoint. Hence, it is scientific by Popper's criteria. The only thing that is wrong with it is that history has indeed (as Popper had contended) falsified it, and the other thing that is wrong with it, is that in Miller's view it represents a distorted interpretation of how Marx undertook the study of history and political economy.

The mode of production interpretation in Miller's view offers us a view that is closer to the spirit of Marx's actual methodology. But it is not falsifiable in the strict Popperian sense. One might then think that Miller would propose to throw away falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation between science and non-science but surprisingly enough he did not. Instead, he attempted to reconstruct the notion of falsifiability, drawing upon the work of Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. He embraced their historicist approach to the philosophy of science and he developed a reconstructed version of the notion of falsifiability. The mode of production interpretation of historical materialism while perhaps not falsifiable in Popper's sense, is nevertheless falsifiable in Miller's sense and that justifies retaining the label of science for it.

Miller also BTW contended that the positivist (and Popperian) analysis of natural science is fundamentally flawed so that while the positivists were quite correct in seeking a unified science which would assimilate the social sciences into the natural sciences , they misunderstood the nature of natural science. For Miller, the antipositivists were correct in attacking positvism for trying to force social science into a narrow mold centering around the covering law model and deductive-nomological models of explanation and Humean causality, but the same flaws also applied to their analysis of natural science. In reality such an analysis, in Miller's view is not properly applicable to either natural science or social science.

[JimFar]

One Marxist school that attempted to deal with, if not answer Popper were the Analytical Marxists, who flourished from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. It is interesting to note Popper's influence on the Analytical Marxist school, both positively and negatively. G.A. Cohen in his Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence makes no mention at all of Popper, and yet his book reads to me as a kind of reply to Popper, since Cohen attempted to reformulate historical materialism (or at least historical materialism as understood by the Second International) as a rigorous empirical theory of history. William Shaw (in Marx's Theory of History) and Dan Little (in The Scientific Marx), on the other hand, did attempt to answer directly Popper's criticisms of Marxism, and they both drew upon Lakatos' critiques of Popper, in doing so.

Jon Elster in Making Sense of Marx presented a version of Analytical Marxism that was actually quite Popperian in tone, including an embracing of Popper's methodological individualism and rational choice approach to social science. Curiously enough, Elster made no mention of Popper, and yet it is hard to imagine that he arrived at his views without having drawn upon Popper

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Jim.

Miller's subsequent and much better book, Fact and Method, proposes a quasi-realist/Wittgensteinian account of science. It is hard not to see him extending that to cover Marxism. Indeed, he hints at this in that book.

[trivas7]

One Marxist school that attempted to deal with, if not answer Popper were the Analytical Marxists, who flourished from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. It is interesting to note Popper's influence on the Analytical Marxist school, both positively and negatively. G.A. Cohen in his Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence makes no mention at all of Popper, and yet his book reads to me as a kind of reply to Popper, since Cohen attempted to reformulate historical materialism (or at least historical materialism as understood by the Second International) as a rigorous empirical theory of history.
Nice post. My understanding is that G.A. Cohen himself is (was?) one of those very Analytic Marxists. David Harvey (http://davidharvey.org/) in his last lecture Class 8, on Chap.15 of Capital, gives a very nice analysis of how Marx explains social change. He calls the mechanism of such change an "ecological ensemble" that resembles Darwin's evolutionary theory.

[JimFar]

Concerning Analytical Marxism, in Poland a rather similar approach to Marxism had been taken by the Poznan School which sought to adapt the analytical philosophy that had already been developed in Poland by the Lwow-Warsaw School to the elucidation of Marxism, see the articles by Francesco Coniglione:

www.fmag.unict.it/%7Epolphil/PolPhil/Poznan/PoznanEngl.html
www.fmag.unict.it/~polphil/Polphil/LvovWarsaw/LvovMarx.html

also see:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/poznan2.html

The Poznan School, in Poland, rejected humanistic interpretations of Marxism (as promulgated by such people as the Frankfurt School, Lukacs, Sartre etc.) in favor of one that emphasized Marxism's scientific character. In this respect their approach was bit similar to that of the Althusserians, but in contrast with the Althusserians, they looked to analytical philosophy, as represented by Poland's Lwów-Warsaw School, many of whose leading figures had remained in Poland through the Second World War and the subsequent Communist takeover of that country. Among their leading figures were Leszek Nowak, Jerzy Kmita, and Jerzy Topolski. Not unlike what G.A. Cohen would attempt to do, the Poznan School tried to use the methods of analytical philosophy to elucidate Marxist methodology including the materialist conception of history. They attempted to analyze what they considered to have been Marx's methodology as represented in his mature works like Capital. For the Pozans, Marx's methodology was best understood in terms of what they called "idealisation" and "concretization" which involved the use of models that were abstracted from experience.

The Poznan School also developed an "adaptational" interpretation of historical materialism that was not unlike G.A. Cohen's

[JimFar]

Nice post. My understanding is that G.A. Cohen himself is (was?) one of those very Analytic Marxists. David Harvey (http://davidharvey.org/) in his last lecture Class 8, on Chap.15 of Capital, gives a very nice analysis of how Marx explains social change. He calls the mechanism of such change an "ecological ensemble" that resembles Darwin's evolutionary theory.

It should be noted that one writer who has placed great effort at interpreting historical materialism in quasi-Darwinian terms is the British sociologist Alan Carling, who is an Analytical Marxist, who draws heavily upon G.A. Cohen's earlier work on historical materialism. Cohen in his Karl Marx's Theory of History argued that materialist explanations of social change can be given what he called "elaborations" which might be either Darwinian, Lamarckian, or intentionalist in character.

Alan Carling has attempted to build upon this to develop a a qausi-Darwinian selectionist version of historical materialism. This sort of thing is not totally unprecedented, since writers like Kautsky and Plekhanov, and before them, even Engels, attempted to apply quasi-Darwinian models to understanding how one mode of production can evolve into another. For that matter, even Trotsky, sometimes invoked analogies with Darwinian explanatory models as well.

Carling has presented his ideas in such writings as his book, Social Division (Verso, 1991), "Analytical Marxism and historical materialism: the debate on social evolution,“ in Science & Society, 57/1 (Spring 1993), pp. 31-65; and "The strength of historical materialism: a comment,“ in Science & Society,58/1 (Spring 1994), pp. 60-72

Also, on September 12, Alan Carling presented a paper at the Marxism Conference 2001 of the Political Studies Association in which he presented a synopsis of a then, yet to be published book, in which he attempted to develop and defend his selectionist version of historical materialism, and relates his theorizing concerning historical materialism and Darwinism with the work of various bourgeois thinkers who have been attempting to relate Darwinism to the human sciences including the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, Karl Popper with his evolutionary epistemology, the social evolutionism of F.A. Hayek, and memetics as proposed by folk like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and Daniel Dennett. Carling discussed and critiqued these folks' work and attempted to make a case as to why his own selectionist historical materialism represents a superior approach to the problems that these other people have been attempting to deal with.

Carling's paper can be found online at

http://tinyurl.com/64ko2e

[JimFar]

Concerning Analytical Marxism, in Poland a rather similar approach to Marxism had been taken by the Poznan School which sought to adapt the analytical philosophy that had already been developed in Poland by the Lwow-Warsaw School to the elucidation of Marxism, see the articles by Francesco Coniglione:

www.fmag.unict.it/%7Epolphil/PolPhil/Poznan/PoznanEngl.html (http://www.fmag.unict.it/%7Epolphil/PolPhil/Poznan/PoznanEngl.html)
www.fmag.unict.it/~polphil/Polphil/LvovWarsaw/LvovMarx.html (http://www.fmag.unict.it/%7Epolphil/Polphil/LvovWarsaw/LvovMarx.html)

also see:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/poznan2.html

The Poznan School, in Poland, rejected humanistic interpretations of Marxism (as promulgated by such people as the Frankfurt School, Lukacs, Sartre etc.) in favor of one that emphasized Marxism's scientific character. In this respect their approach was bit similar to that of the Althusserians, but in contrast with the Althusserians, they looked to analytical philosophy, as represented by Poland's Lwów-Warsaw School, many of whose leading figures had remained in Poland through the Second World War and the subsequent Communist takeover of that country. Among their leading figures were Leszek Nowak, Jerzy Kmita, and Jerzy Topolski. Not unlike what G.A. Cohen would attempt to do, the Poznan School tried to use the methods of analytical philosophy to elucidate Marxist methodology including the materialist conception of history. They attempted to analyze what they considered to have been Marx's methodology as represented in his mature works like Capital. For the Pozans, Marx's methodology was best understood in terms of what they called "idealisation" and "concretization" which involved the use of models that were abstracted from experience.

The Poznan School also developed an "adaptational" interpretation of historical materialism that was not unlike G.A. Cohen's


BTW Professor Lesezek Nowak's homepage is at:
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~epistemo/Nowak/welcome.htm

The material there is not, too surprisingly in Polish. However, using Google one can be read crude translations of his pages into English by going to:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~epistemo/Nowak/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DProf.%2BLeszek%2BNowak%26hl%3Den%

[redarmyfaction38]

RedArmyFruitcase:



So, turn your computer off, and do us all a favour.

unfortunately for you "comrade", you need people like me.
you may be part of the "vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat", but it doesn't make you any better than any of the other "wage slaves", who might not have reached the level of "political understanding" that you and i enjoy.
the difference between me and you "comrade", is that i'm quite happy with the fact that "experience is worth a ton of theory" cos i know it to be true.
i'm a worker and proud of it.
"comrades" like yourself think it is something to be ashamed of.
maybe that is why you always distort criticism of groups like the swp and their "top down" notion of socialism as "sectarianism"?
maybe, you really, just want to be the "new boss, just like the old boss" like uncle joe stalin, convinced of your superior knowledge and intellect and hungry for power.
not gonna switch off my computer, not gonna bow to the "super brain" or the "burning sky".
i'm gonna do on here what i do every day of my life in the real world.
question every know it all, every apologist for capital , stalinism and liberalism, take a workers stance based on workers interest and workers ambition.
in which case, i'm guaranteed to piss you off and all the coffee shop revolutionaries like you.
viva la revolucion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedArmyFantasist:


unfortunately for you "comrade", you need people like me.

Yes, indeed we do: you are a warning to us all about the deleterious effects of sectarianism.


you may be part of the "vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat",

I am in fact on the subs bench.


i'm a worker and proud of it.

Me too.


maybe that is why you always distort criticism of groups like the swp and their "top down" notion of socialism as "sectarianism"?

Ah, the sweet smell of sectarianism -- we can always rely on you.:rolleyes:


maybe, you really, just want to be the "new boss, just like the old boss" like uncle joe stalin, convinced of your superior knowledge and intellect and hungry for power.

I see the next check-up with your psychiatrist is overdue.:(


not gonna switch off my computer, not gonna bow to the "super brain" or the "burning sky".

Seriously overdue!:(:(


i'm gonna do on here what i do every day of my life in the real world.
question every know it all, every apologist for capital , stalinism and liberalism, take a workers stance based on workers interest and workers ambition.
in which case, i'm guaranteed to piss you off and all the coffee shop revolutionaries like you.
viva la revolucion.

Or maybe you are beyond help...http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/1087.gif

[redarmyfaction38]

RedArmyFantasist:



Yes, indeed we do: you are a warning to us all about the deleterious effects of sectarianism.



I am in fact on the subs bench.



Me too.



Ah, the sweet smell of sectarianism -- we can always rely on you.:rolleyes:



I see the next check-up with your psychiatrist is overdue.:(



Seriously overdue!:(:(



Or maybe you are beyond help...http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/1087.gif
you're such a sweetie, enveloped in your own blanket of self superiority, insulated from the real world by tons of texts and dead people that did your thinking for you.
comforted by helpful littleboxes you can put any one that disagrees with you and your political and social prejudices into.
uncle joe stalin did that, his boxes were usually in siberia or in front of an execution squad though.

AND you ave the cheek to continue to use religious terms like "sectarian" in a political argument and pretend it makes you right.
fuck me, you've missed your calling, you should be working for george bush.
it never ceases to amaze me, how people like yourself, with all the information and accumalated experience of generations and class fighters, continue to fall into the petty minded bourgeouis rut, they call, and you've succumbed to, called party politics.

you canno0t change the past, but you can change the future, anyone that tells you different, is a lethargic devil.
viva la revolucion.

coffe burnt your lips rosa?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedFacedFantasist:


you're such a sweetie, enveloped in your own blanket of self superiority, insulated from the real world by tons of texts and dead people that did your thinking for you.
comforted by helpful littleboxes you can put any one that disagrees with you and your political and social prejudices into.
uncle joe stalin did that, his boxes were usually in siberia or in front of an execution squad though.

What are you rambling on about now?


AND you ave the cheek to continue to use religious terms like "sectarian" in a political argument and pretend it makes you right.
fuck me, you've missed your calling, you should be working for george bush.
it never ceases to amaze me, how people like yourself, with all the information and accumalated experience of generations and class fighters, continue to fall into the petty minded bourgeouis rut, they call, and you've succumbed to, called party politics.

If the religious cap fits, you ought to wear it with pride, and not moan quite so much.


you canno0t change the past, but you can change the future, anyone that tells you different, is a lethargic devil.
viva la revolucion.

How can you change the future if it does not exist?


coffe burnt your lips rosa?

What is "coffe"?

[redarmyfaction38]

RedFacedFantasist:



What are you rambling on about now?



If the religious cap fits, you ought to wear it with pride, and not moan quite so much.



How can you change the future if it does not exist?



What is "coffe"?
call yourself a marxist?
there is a future defined by the ruling class, they are persuing that future with determination.
we can change it, but, unfortunately, your too busy discussing what dead men think to do so.
fuck me, i missed a key, coffee.
feel better now? is your sense of superiority to us mere workers, with our spelng mistakes and smelly armpits, firmly back in place?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedBarmyFatHead:


call yourself a marxist

OK: I'm a Marxist.

Happy?


there is a future defined by the ruling class, they are persuing that future with determination.
we can change it, but, unfortunately, your too busy discussing what dead men think to do so.
fuck me, i missed a key, coffee.
feel better now? is your sense of superiority to us mere workers, with our spelng mistakes and smelly armpits, firmly back in place?

I'm sorry, I fell asleep in the first sentence. Could you repeat that?

Once more: what is "coffe"?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Rosa, please, could you just led this thread die. You've already aided in it's derailment, it is the least you could do.

In all seriousness picking on the spelling of others (let alone continuing it across multiple posts) and exacerbating the name calling this thread has degenerated into is sickeningly petty.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, the animosity between me an RAF goes back several years. When he attacks me, I respond. If you don't like that, then that is your problem.

[redarmyfaction38]

Z, the animosity between me an RAF goes back several years. When he attacks me, I respond. If you don't like that, then that is your problem.

this animosity, as you put it, goes back maybe 18 months, and, i might add, the animosity, has been mostly on your part.
me. i'm quite happy to let bygones be bygones as long as your happy to stop patronising me and agree to disagree.
i'll be honest, it's the tone of your posts that irritate me, it's the way you shove people into "sectarian" boxes, not just me but other posters.
i'll freely admit, i've been a bit naughty and enjoyed winding you up, but, if it's beginning to get on everybody elses tits, then i'm willing to sacrifice my personal pleasures in the common interest.
what do you say rosie?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I say: leave the SWP and me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

[Sam_b]

maybe that is why you always distort criticism of groups like the swp and their "top down" notion of socialism

I don't wish to hijack a thread, but you're not getting away with that one without a shred of evidence. Especially as the SWP notes explicitly that (as it should) a revolution must come from the self-emancipation of the working class - socialism from below.

So if you would like to start a new thread on this, give me a shout, or retract your bullshit. Thanks!

[redarmyfaction38]

I say: leave the SWP and me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

i'm quite happy to leave you alone, personal differences should not affect political analysis.
the swp, like every other political party, have to be questioned.
marx ..."question everything".
trotsky...."control your leaders".
i could go on but it gets repetetive.
maybe, that's why you piss me off so much, you appear to be an "apparachtnik", a party slave rather than a thinking independant socialist revolutionary.

[redarmyfaction38]

I don't wish to hijack a thread, but you're not getting away with that one without a shred of evidence. Especially as the SWP notes explicitly that (as it should) a revolution must come from the self-emancipation of the working class - socialism from below.

So if you would like to start a new thread on this, give me a shout, or retract your bullshit. Thanks!

bring it on mate, for a start, half the swps members defected to respect having had the cheek to disagree with swp central commitee on its change of attitude to gourgeous george and witnessed people being expwelled for not towing the party line.
the swps limp resonse was new respect, a party with no ploicies based in the reality or expectations of the working class it wishes to represent.
it's members, especially on these boards, seem to deny that any kind of worker based economic demands could lead to support for a revolutionary workers party, which is simply bullshit, the final program of the bolsheviks prior to the revolution was "peace, bread and freedom".
two out of three demands were economic, the third was multi interpretetational, "freedom" means different things to different people.
you actually don't have to disect the swp, it's too busy doing it to itself.
and, no i'm not a sectarian, i belong to the majority of revolutionary socialists, i'm not a member of the swp.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The Bolshevik demands were "peace, land, and bread" (for the soldiers, peasants, and workers, respectively).

[Spasiba]

Here I thought it was just the beards and glasses.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedArmySectarian:


and, no i'm not a sectarian, i belong to the majority of revolutionary socialists, i'm not a member of the swp.

As I predicted, you are back to your favourite pastime: sectarian lies and smears, backed-up by zero evidence.

So, it's gloves back on then.


maybe, that's why you piss me off so much, you appear to be an "apparachtnik", a party slave rather than a thinking independant socialist revolutionary.

I am not in the SWP.

As usual, you can't get anything right.

[redarmyfaction38]

RedArmySectarian:



As I predicted, you are back to your favourite pastime: sectarian lies and smears, backed-up by zero evidence.

So, it's gloves back on then.



I am not in the SWP.

As usual, you can't get anything right.

so why are you so vociferous in your defence of them/
and most importantly of all, what makes anybody who disagrees with them a "sectarian"?

what the fuck is a sectarian anyway?
go on give me a go, explain your addled terminology.

then, on an intellectual level, if you have one, lets discuss the role of religious belief in revolutionary socialist ideology.
or even the development of the revolutionary working class prior to marx.
or on a real level, how as a worker, more concerned with survival than politics, you can be expected to support an ideal rather than economic programe that will deliver the goods and services you desire.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedArmySectarian:


so why are you so vociferous in your defence of them/
and most importantly of all, what makes anybody who disagrees with them a "sectarian"?

I defend anyone I can against sectarian attacks.


what the fuck is a sectarian anyway?
go on give me a go, explain your addled terminology.

This will do for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism


then, on an intellectual level, if you have one, lets discuss the role of religious belief in revolutionary socialist ideology.

A fine comment coming from someone who can't explain what "coffe" is.


or even the development of the revolutionary working class prior to marx.

WTF has this got to do with anything?


or on a real level, how as a worker, more concerned with survival than politics, you can be expected to support an ideal rather than economic programe that will deliver the goods and services you desire.

And the point of this is irrelevant comment is what?

[Sam_b]

half the swps members defected to respect having had the cheek to disagree with swp central commitee on its change of attitude to gourgeous george and witnessed people being expwelled for not towing the party line.

Bullshit. First of all, the SWP was in the RESPECT coalition, and thus nobody could 'defect' to it. If you're on about renewal, the overwhelming majority of members and more importantly activists stayed within the SWP. If you can't justify these sweeping statements, then just don't make them eh?


the swps limp resonse was new respect, a party with no ploicies based in the reality or expectations of the working class it wishes to represent

Again, completely incorrect. There is no such thing as 'new RESPECT'. Renewal was the breakaway group of Galloway's faction, and seeing as they took Linda Smith with them the electoral commission forbode us to use the term at the recent elections. As for policy - If you think that campaigning for a working wage isn't in the interests of the working class......:rolleyes:


it's members, especially on these boards, seem to deny that any kind of worker based economic demands could lead to support for a revolutionary workers party, which is simply bullshit, the final program of the bolsheviks prior to the revolution was "peace, bread and freedom".


You are absolutely brilliant. If that is the case, show me quotes. It would also be nice to see what other members we have on here, as recently i've seen only Bob.


you actually don't have to disect the swp, it's too busy doing it to itself.

Really? I see a poorly written and crude mini-tirade with absolutely no evidence nor real theory to back it up.

[redarmyfaction38]

RedArmySectarian:



I defend anyone I can against sectarian attacks.



This will do for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism



A fine comment coming from someone who can't explain what "coffe" is.



WTF has this got to do with anything?



And the point of this is irrelevant comment is what?
wikipedia!!!!! that's where the bnp direct me when i point out their bullshit.

[redarmyfaction38]

Bullshit. First of all, the SWP was in the RESPECT coalition, and thus nobody could 'defect' to it. If you're on about renewal, the overwhelming majority of members and more importantly activists stayed within the SWP. If you can't justify these sweeping statements, then just don't make them eh?



Again, completely incorrect. There is no such thing as 'new RESPECT'. Renewal was the breakaway group of Galloway's faction, and seeing as they took Linda Smith with them the electoral commission forbode us to use the term at the recent elections. As for policy - If you think that campaigning for a working wage isn't in the interests of the working class......:rolleyes:



You are absolutely brilliant. If that is the case, show me quotes. It would also be nice to see what other members we have on here, as recently i've seen only Bob.



Really? I see a poorly written and crude mini-tirade with absolutely no evidence nor real theory to back it up.
do fuck off mate, the branch secretary of my union was an swp member and was part and parcel of the "respect" project.
as an individual he had my full support, even to the point of resigning from the union when he was witch hunted out of it and prevented from standing for election as regional representantive. that must prove my "sectarian" credentials, especially since the socialist party at my request printed in the socialist paper an appeal for his support against the right wing witch hunt.
that musy make me and them a right bunch of sectarians offering support to a member of a different political tendancy even though we question the tactics of his tendancies leadership.
pissed off with you swp fantasists and their apologists, i judge a worker by his or her actions, i don't give an shit what tendancy they belong to.
you lot on the other hand, with your constant quotations, your constant references to glorious leaders, leading theologists and theorists sound just like the rest of the unthinking scum, content to believe in what you've been told, allow dead men and women to think for you, debate what they said over a cup of coffee and fuck off home to your nice little consumerist life whilst real people die in the struggle.
FUCK YOU!

[Sam_b]

do fuck off mate, the branch secretary of my union was an swp member and was part and parcel of the "respect" project.

And? Do you take one member of a mass worker's party as your example for the entire project, when there was a very real split on the go? (Which, i'm still happy to say, the majority of activists and members stayed within the SWP).

But yeah, if you want to answer to any of my points, and take me up on my challenge to you on facts and evidence, go right ahead. Otherwise please excuse me if I dismiss you as an idiot who has no real revolutionary politics. "Dead men and women to think for you", Jesus Christ.

[redarmyfaction38]

And? Do you take one member of a mass worker's party as your example for the entire project, when there was a very real split on the go? (Which, i'm still happy to say, the majority of activists and members stayed within the SWP).

But yeah, if you want to answer to any of my points, and take me up on my challenge to you on facts and evidence, go right ahead. Otherwise please excuse me if I dismiss you as an idiot who has no real revolutionary politics. "Dead men and women to think for you", Jesus Christ.
GO BACK AND READ THE WHOLE POST SHIT HEAD, i supported that worker, if i'd judged the whole respect project and the swp by his actions, then i'd be on here singing their praises.
which i'm not.
you, you're just like bthe right wing media, you take one sentance out of context and distort it enough to serve your interest.
if you're a revolutionary, then it's time i joined the dead people.

[redarmyfaction38]

GO BACK AND READ THE WHOLE POST SHIT HEAD, i supported that worker, if i'd judged the whole respect project and the swp by his actions, then i'd be on here singing their praises.
which i'm not.
you, you're just like bthe right wing media, you take one sentance out of context and distort it enough to serve your interest.
if you're a revolutionary, then it's time i joined the dead people.
and while i'm at it, you might of heard of the cnwp, apart from all those "sectarians" likr the socialist party, the socialist alliance and workers power working together to create a new workers party, ther are members of respect and the swp signed up to it!
god help those swp and respect members should their "leadership??????" ever find out.
they obviously disagree with their "leadership????s" desire to control and dictate the development of a new workers party and CHOOSE to work with us "sectarians" rather than support yet another swp/respect fuck up.
like i said, fuck you.

[redarmyfaction38]

and while i'm at it, you might of heard of the cnwp, apart from all those "sectarians" likr the socialist party, the socialist alliance and workers power working together to create a new workers party, ther are members of respect and the swp signed up to it!
god help those swp and respect members should their "leadership??????" ever find out.
they obviously disagree with their "leadership????s" desire to control and dictate the development of a new workers party and CHOOSE to work with us "sectarians" rather than support yet another swp/respect fuck up.
like i said, fuck you.
socialism made simple http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Vl0peys90

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedBarmyFantasist:


if i'd judged the whole respect project and the swp by his actions, then i'd be on here singing their praises.
which i'm not.
you, you're just like bthe right wing media, you take one sentance out of context and distort it enough to serve your interest.
if you're a revolutionary, then it's time i joined the dead people.

Ah, yet more unsupported allegations about the SWP!

Sam challenged you to substantiate your lies; you failed to do so, yet again.

In that case, the "dead people" will, I fear, reject you as far too moribund even for them.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedBarmyFantasist:


wikipedia!!!!! that's where the bnp direct me when i point out their bullshit.

You need to say what is wrong with that Wiki article, not brag about the relationship you have with the BNP.

[redarmyfaction38]

RedBarmyFantasist:



Ah, yet more unsupported allegations about the SWP!

Sam challenged you to substantiate your lies; you failed to do so, yet again.

In that case, the "dead people" will, I fear, reject you as far too moribund even for them.:lol:
i answered his post but he chose to ignore the whole post, just chose to distort one sentance, obviously a bnp soz swp member!
here's my attitude tp you and your fuck wit friend, in song, cos i'm that kind of guy.
by the way, you are the most boring and uninteresting "revolutionary?" i have ever come across.
don't purposely misinterpret that as a a sexual comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUkErRmHTc

[redarmyfaction38]

RedBarmyFantasist:



You need to say what is wrong with that Wiki article, not brag about the relationship you have with the BNP.
i have a very good relationship with the odd bnp member, it is based on sound working class principles, i'll give you the chance and the education to come back into the working class fold, after that, i'll kick your fucking head in.
they understand it, i understand it, marx, lenin, trotsky understood it, it's all about bodies of armed men.
wikipedia ffs, any halfwit can post on that and have it accepted as reality.... maybe that's why you and the bnp are so fond of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedArmyFantasist:


i answered his post but he chose to ignore the whole post, just chose to distort one sentance, obviously a bnp soz swp member!
here's my attitude tp you and your fuck wit friend, in song, cos i'm that kind of guy.
by the way, you are the most boring and uninteresting "revolutionary?" i have ever come across.
don't purposely misinterpret that as a a sexual comment.

You provided no evidence to back up your sectarian attacks on the SWP. You seem to think if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes 'evidence'.


by the way, you are the most boring and uninteresting "revolutionary?" i have ever come across.

You need to get out more.


don't purposely misinterpret that as a a sexual comment.

I didn't know you were turned on by boredom. Come to think of it, it's not really all that surprising.


i have a very good relationship with the odd bnp member, it is based on sound working class principles, i'll give you the chance and the education to come back into the working class fold, after that, i'll kick your fucking head in.
they understand it, i understand it, marx, lenin, trotsky understood it, it's all about bodies of armed men.
wikipedia ffs, any halfwit can post on that and have it accepted as reality.... maybe that's why you and the bnp are so fond of it.

This comment might get you banned:


i'll kick your fucking head in

[redarmyfaction38]

RedArmyFantasist:



You provided no evidence to back up your sectarian attacks on the SWP. You seem to think if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes 'evidence'.



You need to get out more.



I didn't know you were turned on by boredom. Come to think of it, it's not really all that surprising.



This comment might get you banned:
so fucking ban me, the comment was directed at our supposedly mutual enemy, the bnp, not you sweetie, but, fuck me, just like all the neo liberals and other politically correct servants of capital you CHOSE to take it out of context.
as an advert for the swp you re a fucking huge liability.
maybe that is actually your purpose, you are on here pretending to be a revolutionary whilst accepting the twenty pieces of silver from your capitalist bosses.
mi5 or mi6 or the fucking cia? who do you serve?
apparently, according to that sell out, bob dylan, "you gotta serve somebody, so why don't you serve me".

now, i will propose, with no evidence, apart from the actions of the swp, that they are in fact, an arm of the establishment, dividing the revolutionary working class and seeking, shouldthe revolution ever occur, to direct in down lines that would not affect the rule of the world wide capitalist corporations.
sacrificing one country ratherb than a world is good business.
oops, the swp aint in tune with the rest of us is it.
it rather persue its own political agenda rathertyhan the best interests of the working class, how fucking bourgeouis is that?

[Hit The North]

Forget it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedFascistsFriend:


so fucking ban me, the comment was directed at our supposedly mutual enemy, the bnp, not you sweetie, but, fuck me, just like all the neo liberals and other politically correct servants of capital you CHOSE to take it out of context.
as an advert for the swp you re a fucking huge liability.
maybe that is actually your purpose, you are on here pretending to be a revolutionary whilst accepting the twenty pieces of silver from your capitalist bosses.
mi5 or mi6 or the fucking cia? who do you serve?
apparently, according to that sell out, bob dylan, "you gotta serve somebody, so why don't you serve me".

now, i will propose, with no evidence, apart from the actions of the swp, that they are in fact, an arm of the establishment, dividing the revolutionary working class and seeking, shouldthe revolution ever occur, to direct in down lines that would not affect the rule of the world wide capitalist corporations.
sacrificing one country ratherb than a world is good business.
oops, the swp aint in tune with the rest of us is it.
it rather persue its own political agenda rathertyhan the best interests of the working class, how fucking bourgeouis is that?

Still no evidence to back up your wild sectarian allegations I see, just more vitriol and bile.

[Sam_b]

i supported that worker, if i'd judged the whole respect project and the swp by his actions, then i'd be on here singing their praises.
which i'm not.


One person's testimonial does not equate to real tangeable evidence that can be replicated as a rule. Sheesh.

I love how someone on an internet messageboard is also judging me on my revolutionary activity. Mega fucking huge LOLs there eh?


i answered his post but he chose to ignore the whole post, just chose to distort one sentance, obviously a bnp soz swp member!

You're an absolute idiot again, trying to equate the SWP with a real fascist party. I also love that you're on a pedestal lecturing about how unrevolutionary me and Rosa are, yet your support for the Red Army Faction shows you up - as a complete cop-out who will do nothing to build worker consciousness and instead attack groups on the left you disagree with rather than the problem of capitalism.

You have not answered anything by a one line response which gives no real evidence. So like Rosa, i'll challenge you again: where is your proof of your allegations? Or, as I suspect, you don't have any?

I eagerly await your "fuck you swippy" rebuttal.

[redarmyfaction38]

One person's testimonial does not equate to real tangeable evidence that can be replicated as a rule. Sheesh.

I love how someone on an internet messageboard is also judging me on my revolutionary activity. Mega fucking huge LOLs there eh?



You're an absolute idiot again, trying to equate the SWP with a real fascist party. I also love that you're on a pedestal lecturing about how unrevolutionary me and Rosa are, yet your support for the Red Army Faction shows you up - as a complete cop-out who will do nothing to build worker consciousness and instead attack groups on the left you disagree with rather than the problem of capitalism.

You have not answered anything by a one line response which gives no real evidence. So like Rosa, i'll challenge you again: where is your proof of your allegations? Or, as I suspect, you don't have any?

I eagerly await your "fuck you swippy" rebuttal.
ok, my argument is actually quite simple and obvious, the swp refuse to work with any other socialist or anarchist group unless those groups accept that the swp with apparently the largest membership is the leading group within that alliance.
the swp, has throughout the last 30 years of working class revolutionary politics been determined to put itself at the head of any organisation that offers it a part in the development of a revolutionary working class party.
it has done this, not in the interest of the working class, but in its determination to be the "vanguard party".
back in the 1970s, when the swp haD a member on every shop floor, in every street on a council estate, then this claim was valid. they were the vanguard party, political commentators in the news of the world, whinged about how the "socialist worker" would be the only paper to look forward to on a sunday morning.
the swp worked alongside other minority revolutionary parties to build the anl and helped defeat the nf on the streets of southall.
nobody denies this, however, times have changed, the consciousness of the working class has been thrown back to the 1950s since the defeat of the militant labour council and the miners.
we have all been on a mission to drag our class back into the political arena since then.
unfortunately, and i genuinely say this with sorrow, the swp has been more concernedwith its position as the "revolutionary party" with the most members and dictating to people who are actually its comrades and brothers, than building a widespread working class resistance.
whether you or the swp like it or not, miltant showed the way to build working class resistance to neo liberal policies, you base your demands uin the day to day concerns of working class people, housing, jobs, income, you then demonstrate how you are going to address these demands, you are then honest and tell them how none of this can be acheived without their active support, that is socialism, that is a vanguard party enabling the working class and encouraging their self emancipation.
sure, i'll freely admit, they fucked up in the end, but they've learnt.
the swp seem to be locked in the past, this isn't the 1970s or 80s, the average worker has been fucked over so many times by the false promises of both right and left that he no longer believes any of this shit.
he doesn't vote, he doesn'y even watch question time or listen to ploitical commentators on the daily news, he's convinced it's all bullshit and that anyone that tells him they have all the answers nis out to rip him off yet again.
the swps, "i'm an alternative" join me is about effective as pissing into the wind.
and, while i'm at it, which middle class half wit, thought "respect" or "renewal" was a good name for a party supposed to attract workers to firebrand class politics?
they sound like what they are; limp wristed liberal apologies for class politics.
IN MY OPINION
WHILST I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE.
go on fucking ban me.

[Sam_b]

the swp refuse to work with any other socialist or anarchist group unless those groups accept that the swp with apparently the largest membership is the leading group within that alliance

I think this point is a bit confused, to be honest. Because the SWP are one of the biggest parties in Britain, I think the allegations of 'hijack' are commonplace. However, if you look at the structures of these organisations, for example STW, the SWP doesn't have a majority, or would want to. Our tactics in these united fronts is to work inside it and to make arguments for our positions, such as support for the Iraqi resistance and to keep imperialism an issue high on the agenda. If having a lot of hard-working activists in these united fronts, who also happen to be party members, is some sort of despicable act, so be it.

I definitely agree with your analysis on how the working class has been thrown back: the miners strike was definitely a major blow to the worker's movement in this country. But in my opinion we are starting the slow descent back upwards: tomorrow in Scotland for example 150,000 council workers are going on a one-day strike over an under-inflation raise which amounts to a pay cut. A few years ago we had over a million local government workers on strike. I don't think we're locked in the past, for example we've been organising around the current economic crisis and have been increasing our interventions in trade unions and increasing the amount of industrial sales we do. I don't think anyone can say that we don't have a noticeable presence in Glasgow, but the challenge is to keep building all over the country, to increase our presence and make the arguments we make. For me this goes for all parties and groups, not just the SWP.

I think your mantra of 'limp wristed liberal apologies for class politics' is horriffic and unjustified. Why not show us why the SWP are apparently 'liberal'? This would imply that we are somehow apologists for capitalism, and on the question of this we have been uncompromising in our call of a worker's revolution led from below.

So I respectfully disagree.

[redarmyfaction38]

ok, my argument is actually quite simple and obvious, the swp refuse to work with any other socialist or anarchist group unless those groups accept that the swp with apparently the largest membership is the leading group within that alliance.
the swp, has throughout the last 30 years of working class revolutionary politics been determined to put itself at the head of any organisation that offers it a part in the development of a revolutionary working class party.
it has done this, not in the interest of the working class, but in its determination to be the "vanguard party".
back in the 1970s, when the swp haD a member on every shop floor, in every street on a council estate, then this claim was valid. they were the vanguard party, political commentators in the news of the world, whinged about how the "socialist worker" would be the only paper to look forward to on a sunday morning.
the swp worked alongside other minority revolutionary parties to build the anl and helped defeat the nf on the streets of southall.
nobody denies this, however, times have changed, the consciousness of the working class has been thrown back to the 1950s since the defeat of the militant labour council and the miners.
we have all been on a mission to drag our class back into the political arena since then.
unfortunately, and i genuinely say this with sorrow, the swp has been more concernedwith its position as the "revolutionary party" with the most members and dictating to people who are actually its comrades and brothers, than building a widespread working class resistance.
whether you or the swp like it or not, miltant showed the way to build working class resistance to neo liberal policies, you base your demands uin the day to day concerns of working class people, housing, jobs, income, you then demonstrate how you are going to address these demands, you are then honest and tell them how none of this can be acheived without their active support, that is socialism, that is a vanguard party enabling the working class and encouraging their self emancipation.
sure, i'll freely admit, they fucked up in the end, but they've learnt.
the swp seem to be locked in the past, this isn't the 1970s or 80s, the average worker has been fucked over so many times by the false promises of both right and left that he no longer believes any of this shit.
he doesn't vote, he doesn'y even watch question time or listen to ploitical commentators on the daily news, he's convinced it's all bullshit and that anyone that tells him they have all the answers nis out to rip him off yet again.
the swps, "i'm an alternative" join me is about effective as pissing into the wind.
and, while i'm at it, which middle class half wit, thought "respect" or "renewal" was a good name for a party supposed to attract workers to firebrand class politics?
they sound like what they are; limp wristed liberal apologies for class politics.
IN MY OPINION
WHILST I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE.
go on fucking ban me.


whoops, i missed a vitally important part of my post.

in my HONEST opinion, the reason miltant fucked up was it abandoned its HONEST and OPEN political stance in favour of "financial manouvering" in order to maintain an "acceptable bourgeouise" electoral advantage.
in truth, doing a complete "about face" to its previous, "stand or fall" in the struggle against the bourgeoius economics and politics that led to its success in liverpool and support throughout britain amongst the "politically aware working class".
a support that i may add that included the swp.
critical support on occassion, which is always welcome, but support none the less.
and, btw, being the largest party, does not in any way, stop you being "sectarians" if you reuse to accept that other comrades might have something to contribute.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And still no 'evidence' from RedBarmyFantasist, just more baseless, sectarian allegations, and not just against the SWP, but against Militant, now!

[redarmyfaction38]

I think this point is a bit confused, to be honest. Because the SWP are one of the biggest parties in Britain, I think the allegations of 'hijack' are commonplace. However, if you look at the structures of these organisations, for example STW, the SWP doesn't have a majority, or would want to. Our tactics in these united fronts is to work inside it and to make arguments for our positions, such as support for the Iraqi resistance and to keep imperialism an issue high on the agenda. If having a lot of hard-working activists in these united fronts, who also happen to be party members, is some sort of despicable act, so be it.

I definitely agree with your analysis on how the working class has been thrown back: the miners strike was definitely a major blow to the worker's movement in this country. But in my opinion we are starting the slow descent back upwards: tomorrow in Scotland for example 150,000 council workers are going on a one-day strike over an under-inflation raise which amounts to a pay cut. A few years ago we had over a million local government workers on strike. I don't think we're locked in the past, for example we've been organising around the current economic crisis and have been increasing our interventions in trade unions and increasing the amount of industrial sales we do. I don't think anyone can say that we don't have a noticeable presence in Glasgow, but the challenge is to keep building all over the country, to increase our presence and make the arguments we make. For me this goes for all parties and groups, not just the SWP.

I think your mantra of 'limp wristed liberal apologies for class politics' is horriffic and unjustified. Why not show us why the SWP are apparently 'liberal'? This would imply that we are somehow apologists for capitalism, and on the question of this we have been uncompromising in our call of a worker's revolution led from below.

So I respectfully disagree.
thank you for allowing me to stop just throwing insults, for which, i unreservedly aplogise.
you make a reasonable and understandable defence of the work the swp is doing to increase its influence and prescence amongst our class, i sincerely hope the swp as part of the wider revolutionary socialist movement continues to grow, and that is the crux of the matter, my experience of working with swp members is generally good, the comrades are hard working and sincere.
however, they seem at some point in a conversation to develop a mental block when anyone, not just me, suggests that anyone outside of the swp might have a progressive idea that does not conform to the current "socialist worker" headline, so to speak.
this is not a fault of the swp alone i might add, it seems endemic amongst rev.left organisations.
the difference i see between the swp and c ertain other rev.left parties, is that the swp seem to be content to work alone on projects like respect and renewal whilst the others, whilst still quite openly *****ing about each other are trying to find a common ground in order to build something we, as workers, desperately need, a left alternative to the capitalist parties and the bnp.
that is my opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but please consider what i've said.

[redarmyfaction38]

And still no 'evidence' from RedBarmyFantasist, just more baseless, sectarian allegations, and not just against the SWP, but against Militant, now!

as i said, in my opinion, as a former member of miltant and contributing supporter of its successor the "socialist party", the attempt to avoid a confrontation with the british state through "financial manouvering", (issuing redundancy notices in order to obtain govt. money to pay the workforces wages until the end of the financial year) was a tactical about face, up to that point, every move, every tactic had been with the consent of the workforce in general, its shop stewards and its other elected representatives.
the decision to take the "redundancy" route was taken after consultation with LABOUR PARTY HQ and COUNCIL MEMBERS only.
firstly, it was extremely naive, in fact, suicidal to think that the likes of neil kinnock and the rest of the labour party would not twist this and use it to destroy the "marxist tendancy" within the party that was showing them up as the shallow politicians they were.
secondly, like myself, the miltant central committee, had it been informed of the councillors intentions before the event, would have advised against it.
thirdly, the central commitee, in public despite its "oh my god what HAVE they done" in private, defended its members.
an admirable piece of unselfish solidarity, but politically suicide.
now, in the swp or whatever party you belong to that might be interpreted as sectarianism, it isn't, it is called critical support, it is also called freedom of speech or being educated enough to have a valid opinion of your own.

now on a personal level rosa, i'm gonna surrender, you've won, i've read through some of my posts and seen how i've let our mutual dislike affect how i treat other posters on these boards, i'm not impressed.
for my own self respect this petty personal confrontation is over.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RAF:


now on a personal level rosa, i'm gonna surrender, you've won, i've read through some of my posts and seen how i've let our mutual dislike affect how i treat other posters on these boards, i'm not impressed.
for my own self respect this petty personal confrontation is over.

Who are you kidding? You'll be back, sooner or later, with yet more unsubstantiated sectarian attacks on the SWP, among others.

[redarmyfaction38]

RAF:



Who are you kidding? You'll be back, sooner or later, with yet more unsubstantiated sectarian attacks on the SWP, among others.

if that's the way you wanna see it, that's the way it's gonna be.
like i said, you've won, the competition is over, you are the mistress of truth and socialist thought.
enjoy your victory, why try provoking another fight when your fat fingered opponent has already admitted defeat?
what more do you want from me?
should i grovel before your prescence? should i treat you as a deity? should i recant my beliefs in the face of your inquisition?
should i promise unreservedly to be a good "socialist"? should i "keep shaking the tree, boss", (cool hand luke).
or what?
what will satisfy your desire, m'lady?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RIFRAF:


should i grovel before your prescence? should i treat you as a deity? should i recant my beliefs in the face of your inquisition?

No, grovelling is quite sufficient.

[redarmyfaction38]

RIFRAF:



No, grovelling is quite sufficient.

:)