> CB: Then you are making up your own esoteric meaning for the word
> "liberal".
Andie: What is esoteric or idiosyncratic about associating liberalsim with:
(a) A defense of a political system characterized by reprersentative government, competitive elections and extensive social and political liberties, and
(b) a philosophical acknowledge that in a free or even a not free but divided society differences on ultimate values run too deep for them to the basis of political action -- political decisions have to be decided on the basis of political accommodation or conflict, not philosophical or religious authority.
^^^^^ CB: It is idiosyncratic to claim that liberalism does not support and require a "free" market economy; and to deny that liberalism espouses the above described political ideals of freedom in necessary connection with the one most important "freedom" , free trade.
"It (the bourgeoisie) has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade."
It is inaccurate to claim that, liberalism , as commonly understood, is consistent with historical materialism, the theory of Marx and Engels as set forth in _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ and elsewhere.
^^^^
> How many other people, besides extreme rightwingers, equate liberalism
> with anti-capitalism or socialism ?
Andie: I didn't say liberalism is the same thing as socialism, I said they're consistent.
^^^^^ CB: No , liberalism means pro-capitalist. Liberalism and socialism are not consistent.
^^^^
Andie: How many people besides sectraian leftists equate liberalsim with pro-capitalism? (In America -- in Europ and S. AMerica the term has a different meaning.)
^^^^^ CB: Most people equate liberalism and pro-capitalism. Is the Liberal Party in Canada pro-capitalist ? How about the Liberal Party in Japan ( I believe)? Name a Liberal Party in the world that is anti-capitalist. Liberalism is for a free market, which means pro-capitalist. The first capitalists were liberals vis-a-vis the ancient regimes. The current neo-liberals are today's leading capitalists.
Liberalism
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise ( emphasis - CB), and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property (emphasis -CB). In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over individual rights ( emphasis - andie)
^^^^
Andie: Call it what it you like, then. I advocate the abolition of private property and the control of the means of production by the workers. You may call it capitalism. I doubt if the capitalists would.
^^^^ CB: So the market u advocate would not be in the basic means of production ?
^^^^^
Andie: That's part of why I'm not a Marxist anymore, aside from not seeing the point in the label, I got tired of arguing about who's a real Marxist. However, let's ask: what do you think, Doug? am I real socialist? Does it matter?
^^^^^^^ CB: So you are a historical materialist,but not a Marxist.
The issue is not what somebody "really" is , but whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between the ideology of liberalism ( in the commonly understood sense) and Marxism. There is because liberalism means support of a free market private enterprise system and Marxism means a public enterprise system and abolition of private property. Marx and Engels specifically and explicitly developed historical materialism in contradiction to liberalism , the ideology of the bourgeoisie. They regularly mock liberalism's claim to champion "liberty" ,including the freedoms you list above, because in fact liberalism always means subordination of all other freedoms to the one "unconscionable freedom - Free Trade."
" The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "
> ^^^
> CB: Is liberalism consistent with abolition of private property in the
basic means of production , i.e. historical materialism ?
Andie: That's not what HM is, in my view, although I do advocate the abolition of private property. HM is roughly a view about social explanation, that the economy has some sort of explanatory primacy in accounting for social phenomena.
^^^^ CB; Marxism/Historical materialism doesn't work like that. There is unity of theory and practice. There is no part of historical materialism that is just for contemplative analysis divorced from action. When Marx says his materialism includes practical critical activity he's talking about _historical_ materialism. ( See First Thesis on Feuerbach). When Marx says the thing is to change the world ,not just interpret it, he's speaking to people like you. He doesn't want his historical materialism to be used only to "account for or explain social phenomena" i.e. for interpretation of social phenomena only.
I do think it is important that historical materialism not be liberalized , even in discussion. That is worth fighting for, preserving Marx's meaning for the materialist conception of history. Get another term, like _liberal materialism_
^^^^^^
>> CB: Lets just keep track of this. You are claiming
> that there is some kind of historical materialism that does not imply
communism.
Andie: Right.
CB: I rest my case.
^^^
You do know that
> historical materialism is the theory of _The Manifesto of the
> Communist Party_ , don't you ?
Andie: Yeah, the document where Marx talks about class conflicts leading to the "revolutionary transformation of society or the common ruin of the contending classes," that one?
CB: Any "historical materialism" that does not aim to win communism is no longer historical materialism.
> ^^^^^^
Andie: Well, it's a weaker HM,
^^^^ CB; Weaker than what ? The original HM ?
^^^^
andie: and, btw, yours is an even weaker HM -- "imply" suggests an inevitability thesis, that history must produce communism.
^^^^ CB: I don't know what you are talking about. "Mine" is the same as Marx and Engels'. I'm taking the same position as they do on inevitability. What is inevitable is the end of capitialism. It can end in communism or catastrophe for the human race, including with the technological developments after Marx and Engels, the possibility of nuclear holocaust that could extinguish our species. My thesis is Luxemburgian: Socialism or Barbarism ! In other words, "history" , i.e. the human race, better produce communism or else. Communism is not so much inevitable as it is mandatory. Actually, that's a stronger HM, because the "or else" has become more catastrophic than it was in Marx and Engels' day, given the "advances" in the means of destruction, the increase in anthropogenic pollution.
^^^^^ Ande: You say here just that HM aims to win it. Depending on what you mean by communism, I might agree with that.
^^^^ CB: You are a historical materialist , but you don't know what I mean by communism ? Anyway, it's "from each according to ability; to each according to need " and "a free association of free producers", humanized nature and naturalized humanity.
"Aims to win it" is practice. Communism won't come automatically, without the conscious effort and aim of humans to bring it about.
Marx doesn't just contemplatively analyze. He writes _Capital_ as part of a project to change the world ( See the 11 Thesis on Feuerbach , by Karl Marx)to communism. His aim in developing historical materialism is to contribute to changing the world from capitalism to communism.
Mass digestion of Marx's ideas is a necessary premise to winning communism. If Marx's ideas don't grip masses, we will not win communism. Things like contaminating Marx's theory with "liberalism" could undermine establishing the mass consciousness necessary to actually bring about communism.
^^^^^
Andie: As an aspiration, anyway. In fact I'd subscribe to a stronger HM: that the predominance of the economic in history makes socialism or communism possible.
^^^^ CB: More specifically, it is the inevitability of struggle by the exploited and oppressed in response to exploitation and oppression that makes socialism and communism possible.
>andie: As for revolution, so one has the faintist idea what that means
today. I support and particpate in socialist struggles as much as I can,
though again it is hard to know what to do in the circumstances.
> ^^^^^
> CB: Speak for your self. Check out Cuba and Venezuela to regain,
> maybe, a faint idea of what revolution is .
Andie: Third worldist fantasies.
^^^^ CB; Socialist oriented, national liberation realities, actually existing.
^^^^
Andie: I wish the Venzualians and Cubans lots of luck and am pleased to see them do well. I support their struggles. The news from Bolivia seems good too. How does that translate into any useful prescription for action in the advanced industrial countries?
^^^^
CB: Act in your country to keep U.S. imperialism off their backs. Historical materialism is proletarian _internationalism_ and solidarity.