>[WS:] Your are right. The abject poverty of Marxist thought is it giving up
>on 'subjective' factors for primitive rat-choice economism - everything is
>explained in terms of economic self-interests and if it does not fit that
>mold I t is either dismissed as "false consciousness" or ignored altogether.
>With all the babbling about "the people" and "materialism"- there is no
>serious attempt to understand ho real people actually think and behave. In
>that context, "materialism" means its exact opposite - the highest form of
>idealism, Orwellian newspeak indeed. No wonder that pomos like Marxism.
That's a perhaps simplistic view of "Marxist thought". Even I, someone who doesn't know exactly what "Marxist thought" is, hence not qualified to be a Marxist myself, can see that.
Personally, I do make a serious attempt to understand how people behave, but I guess like a lot of people, Marxists included, you included as well, its an awfully complicated subject. One of the problems of course is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so perhaps whatever particular strand of "Marxist thought" that you are thinking of has fallen into that trap. That is, you solve part of the puzzle and, without even realising that there's more to it that you can't even see, think you have solved the entire puzzle.
Every time you turn around and work out a bit more, you suddenly discover a whole new aspect. For me anyhow.
>I think that the biggest mistake of Marxist analysis is a failure to
>understand that people almost never rebel in defense of their wallet (except
>perhaps of a few very rich) - if they rebel at all, they do so in defense of
>their dignity.
Yes and no. I think people do often "rebel in defense of their wallet" in the sense of rebelling to defend an obvious affront to their economic interests. However its perhaps a bit more difficult getting people to rebel in order to effect a radical *advance* their economic interests. Sometimes the former leads to the latter though.
Its all a bit complicated, I don't pretend to understand how it works. In fact I don't think I fully understand what you are saying.
> And their dignity is grounded in their upbringing, cultural
>norms, values, and notions of what is legitimate. The Vietcong learned that
>the hard way in Cambodia - they could not understand why peasants who live
>in abject poverty still revere their king, who screws them economically
>every which way, and have zero interest in communist mumbo-jumbo.
>
>Social order and legitimacy it bestows is the backbone of individual
>consciousness. Most people will do - or attempt to do - what is legitimate
>and right, rather than what is profitable. Even if they do something wrong,
>they never say "I did it because I profited from it." They say "I did it
>because I thought it was right, it was justified by the circumstances, I had
>no other choice, etc." Even the very rich who admit doing for a profit in
>fact do it because profit making is a legitimate rule of conduct in their
>social network rather than utilitarian benefit.
Exactly, the ruling class exist in a completely different social context, with alien (to the working class) social norms. An important point to keep in mind.
>People will never rebel against the status quo that they know, unless they
>internalize an alternative to it order and accept its legitimacy. All that
>you have nothing to lose but your chains talk is primitive and misguided rat
>choice talk.
There's a lot of truth to that. Objectively, most people understand that they do have a lot to lose in the event of a complete breakdown in social order.
An interesting thing is that these days a majority seem to have at least a dim awareness, or perhaps instinct, about the objective materialist limits to the potential for reform of the capitalist system. Whereas many decades ago the public had an enthusiasm to elect reformers keen to implement quasi-socialist reforms of the capitalist system, nowadays there seems to be an unspoken materialist caution. My own theory is that the working class recognises, at some level, that some reforms are so alien and incompatible with the way capitalism has to operate that they shy away from such risky changes which they perceive as likely to create chaos and disorder.
If this is correct then that solves one old problem for the socialist, that of having to compete with insipid reformers in the war of ideas. The reformers more or less won that war and had their chance, like the Leninists they failed, their programme just didn't work.
As you say, a practical alternative is necessary. The majority of people won't just run with some vague nonsense along the lines of "you have nothing to lose". People more than a slogan to work with. History demonstrates that people do have something to lose, economic chaos isn't an attractive alternative to capitalism.
On the other hand, there are material reasons why certain alternative social changes aren't viable, it isn't just subjective. So dismissing of materialist explanations out of hand also seems to go too far.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas