>For Marx, "socialism" is the penultimate stage in the development of
>rational self-consciousness. The central role given to the labour process
>in this development results from Marx's sublation of Hegel's account of
>this development in the Phenomenology. This explains the claim in The Holy
>Family that:
>>It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole
>>proletariat, at the moment _regards_ as its aim. It is a question of _what
>>the proletariat is_, and what, in accordance with this _being_, it will
>>historically be compelled to do.
>><http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm>
>This is the claim that the capitalist labour process works to develop the
>degree of rational self-consciousness required for its transformation into
>a labour process from which all barriers to the full development of this
>self-consciousness will have been removed. So, even though "the whole
>proletariat" may not now have the degree of rational self-consciousness
>this will require, it is of the essence of the wage labour/capital relation
>that it develops this.
So where do we go with this in the real world? It sounds as if capitalism must be allowed to simply "run its course" (within moderation, one hopes) so the labour process can work to develop that degree of rational self-consciousness. I think I can understand and empathize where this is coming from, but what happens should something unexpected happen, like, say, what happened in Tsarist Russia that got the Bolsheviks into power? So, should a "good" Marxist eschew power if "the time isn't right"? I'll grant there are better and worse times for something like that, but it's not like we can choose those times.
. . . .
>Penultimate social relations (those constituting "socialism") have to be
>brought into existence self-consciously by the vast majority of individuals
>whose relations they are to be.
What does "brought into existence self-consciously" mean? It's obviously something different from a "vanguard" in your eyes.
Isn't this "chicken-egg" logic? We can't have socialists until there are socialists? Granting there is ongoing "education" and persuasion, how does socialism come about? Rational individuals vote socialists into power and voila?
I'd like to see this sort of thing happen, but how can it outside of a logical exercise?
>They must be its architects and builders. This necessity derives from the
>essential character of such relations. They can't be created _for_
>individuals by a "vanguard." (In one sense, this is obvious from simple
>inspection of the essential features of such relations pointed to in The
>Civil War in France). This truth doesn't originate with Marx. It can be
>found expressed poetically, for instance, in the last part of Goethe's
>Faust.
So vanguards are never useful, always bad, must be avoided at all costs, etc, right? So what happens if something along those lines happens? A left "vanguardist" party comes to power out of some violent happening; what then?
State that, as a "vanguard", it has no place, no authority, no nothing and . . . what? Ignore it? Foment revolution against it? Demand it hand power back to the bourgeois?
>In the third thesis on Feuerbach, Marx associates the mistaken idea that a
>"vanguard" could do this with the mistaken idea of "materialism" the theses
>are rejecting. His own answer as to how the vast majority acquire the
>degree of rational self-consciousness required for the penultimate
>transformation - "revolution" - of their social relations is "revolutionary
>praxis" where "praxis" means human "activity" within internal "relations of
>production." For the reason given above, this activity is taken as
>developmental of the requisite degree of rational self-consciousness in the
>individuals making up this vast majority. The interpretation of "praxis"
>as a pragmatic doctrine of truth (e.g. Lenin proved his ideas through
>"practice") is mistaken.
Curious that Marx never uses the term "vanguard" in that particular thesis. Nor does he say anything about relations of production.
He does say, "it is essential to educate the educator himself". He also finishes off the thesis by stating simply, "The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." So that tells me that changing human activity, human consciousness, and human circumstances can be done at the same time; no need to "wait" for "the educator" to tell us what to do and we do it. But at the same time nowhere does it say that "vanguards" and seized power are the epitome of evil and must be avoided at all costs.
Seems to me all he's pointing out is how self-reflexive revolutionary activity has to be for it to be revolutionary activity. Always good advice.
>The idea that Russian peasant self-consciousness could create "socialism"
>is, for these reasons, mistaken. The idea that this self-consciousness
>could develop the degree of rationality required for "socialism" through
>the policies of Lenin and Stalin is also mistaken.
Was anyone actually arguing that last one? Thought this thread was about the search for what defines a "Leninist" as opposed to a critique of Lenin's and Stalin's actual policies.
>The initial policy of land redistribution, for instance, reinforced the
>material basis of peasant social relations and the self-consciousness
>associated with them. This was the ground of Marx's objection to such a
>policy.
So is that what makes a Leninist? How one treats peasants? And a Marxist is, by contrast, someone who doesn't "hit peasants over the head"?
(Stay away from the peasants, Doug, and you're safe from being a true Leninist!)
>Marx's own suggested policies (which are, in contrast to Lenin and
>Stalin's, at least consistent with the ideas I've just elaborated) would
>themselves have been inadequate because they underestimate the obstacles in
>the way of transforming peasant self-consciousness. They do this because
>they are based on a very inadequate understanding of the process required
>for the development of rational self-consciousness.
<shrug> Maybe they would have. Ok. Marx never had his ass in the hot seat of governmental power (never mind a truly revolutionary government), so we'll never know.
>To avoid treating texts as "bibles," they need to be approached as making
>arguments. The first, itself very difficult, task is to figure out what
>the texts mean i.e. what are the arguments they make.
Ok, but is a government policy, brought forth out of "material conditions," an argument? You're comparing Marx's apples and Lenin's (or Stalin's) oranges, no?
>This itself requires a fairly well developed capacity for autonomous
>thought.
Mm-mm-mm. Won't find any of THAT around heee-rrre . . . .
By the way, is that ("autonomous") a Freudian slip? !{)>
>You have to allow texts to put your own foundational ideas in question.
Never a bad idea.
One should never allow oneself to read too much into texts or take them out of context.
>Failure to do this produces e.g. Marx interpreted as a Leninist.
<polite look of anticipation> So what's a Leninist and what's a Marxist?
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines