Neo Marxism
- Thread starter Shevek
- Start date
Stay Beautiful
Well-Known Member
Autonomism? There has been a thread on that recently.
lobster
Well-Known Member
Lets not forget the world socialist movement which from the beginning were against what Lenin was doing in Russia.
http://www.worldsocialism.org
lobster
Well-Known Member
That's more or less the impression i get.
Although I think some forms of anarchism support Federalism, which does have a central government.
I think the key thing is about how much democracy there is in the system. If people have control over their own workplaces and their own lives that is good. As regards a central state even Chomsky (in Chomsky on Anarchism) arues that the state can be a positive force, where it curtails the worst execesses of capitalism such as the welfare state. Chomsky argues that at least the state is open to some democratic involvement whereas big business is 'totalitarian' in structure with a strict hierarchy. That is partly why I have been involved in the Lib Dems because I believe reform of the current state could in many ways be a good thing. In my view some form of syndicalism would be the ideal with workplace and neighbourhood/regional unions organising society with mass democratic involvement. One thing that troubles me is how you might have certain powerful unions (such as nuclear industry) which could hold the others to ransom. I think nuclear technology is deleterious to a truly democratic society given the secrecy and security aparatus needed to underpin it.
lobster
Well-Known Member
that right, centralism provides free health care, education , housing and so on that can happen on without it , accept what if one area is not doing so well , i think a central place would ensure the whole country gets at least get a b and c..
Security and secrecy is one of those topics the left have not really talking about so much , i don;t mean stuff like transparency , the movement against ID cards and so on but like national security. Lets be realistic if England turned socialist , there would be countries trying to dismantle us , its way too early to think about this sort of stuff though. Personally We are such a small country that we could very well be isolated early on and suffer.
I think world socialism is the only way for socialism to succeed as outside interference from reactionary forces would not happen.
Security and secrecy is one of those topics the left have not really talking about so much , i don;t mean stuff like transparency , the movement against ID cards and so on but like national security. Lets be realistic if England turned socialist , there would be countries trying to dismantle us , its way too early to think about this sort of stuff though. Personally We are such a small country that we could very well be isolated early on and suffer.
I think world socialism is the only way for socialism to succeed as outside interference from reactionary forces would not happen.
lobster
Well-Known Member
In regards to Chomsky , i find he is great at explaining the world,however I have seen no alternatives .
as Marx once said
Chomsky is really just a philosopher .
I find his criticism of intellectual property hypocritical as his very own books use traditional copyright licenses . If he did what he wrote, the would have been under Creative commons or public domain by now.
as Marx once said
Chomsky is really just a philosopher .
I find his criticism of intellectual property hypocritical as his very own books use traditional copyright licenses . If he did what he wrote, the would have been under Creative commons or public domain by now.
Ive just been for a walk, thinking about what I wrote on reformism. I think the Liberal Democrats on their best days do espouse a great zeal for reform. I think proportional representation could breathe new life into politics, as in Scotland and Wales. The only place where I differ from the Lib Dems is that I think democracy should be introduced into the corporate world aswell. My partner is an avid Lib Dem and this exerts a strong pressure on me to do the same. I am also a passionate anarchist and I am not sure whether I can square being a member of the Lib Dems with being a member of the IWW or the anarchist federation, maybe there is no conflict of interest. I don't know. It all boggles my mind.
On the issue of proposing alternatives. This used to preoccupy my mind a lot. I used to be unable to picture what an alternative to capitalism would look like. I don't know but for some reason this issue doesn't seem to preoccupy me as much as it used to do. Chomsky for example points to the examples of workers control in revolutionary Spain or Yugoslavia. There are lots of examples to choose from and lots of nascent democratic structures in our own society, such as trade unions etc... I think it is about dismantling those structures that are oppressive and nurturing those that are participatory and libertarian.
On the issue of proposing alternatives. This used to preoccupy my mind a lot. I used to be unable to picture what an alternative to capitalism would look like. I don't know but for some reason this issue doesn't seem to preoccupy me as much as it used to do. Chomsky for example points to the examples of workers control in revolutionary Spain or Yugoslavia. There are lots of examples to choose from and lots of nascent democratic structures in our own society, such as trade unions etc... I think it is about dismantling those structures that are oppressive and nurturing those that are participatory and libertarian.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
Shevek! wasnt it you who couldnt decide whether to be a Lib Dem or an Anarchist?
i think if he's gone with the moniker 'shevek' he's decided on the latter...
lobster
Well-Known Member
I agree with them in that they want to abolish the undemocratic upper house and create a proportional representation , there is a lot I don't agree with though. Sure we all need to compromise to a certain extent, I will not compromise to their stance though.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
there is but a cigarette paper 'tween anarchism and libertarian version of Marxism. Anarchism is more of a tradition and practice than an actual ideology - non parliamentary communism. Some thinkers have called themselves 'autonomous marxists' or 'libertarian communists' sure, but if they are advocating a classless society and are not saying we should use the state - then they are in the anarchist tradition.
Anarchism is a bit of a blanket term really, deploy it wisely.
The questions you want to be asking as you develop your politics are not "am i slightly more of a post-bollocks thingyist or a neo-fruit?" but "what kind of action do i think is neccessary to achieve my goals?". That is how i ended up an anarchist. I had, and have, very little interest in the ideas and identity of the term, what drew me in was my belief in direct action and democratic organisations separate from the state.
I know it is a bit lame but my partner does exert some unconscious pressure on me to be part of the Lib Dems. I went to see the anarchist bookfair in Manchester a few months ago and since then I have been on the verge of going to a few Anarchist Federation or IWW meetings. But I haven't gone, not sure exactly why. There is one guy involved in my local lib dem party who has anarchist leanings but I think some of the party aparatchiks are very market orientated. I am also slightly of the pacifist persuasion (not 100%) and I have read about groups like Trident Ploughshares etc... It probably basically comes down to the fact that at this moment in time I haven't got the balls to get involved in direct action. My partner wouldn't approve and I am not sure if I could allow myself to get arrested. It basically comes down to the fact that I don't know if the whole anarchist/direct action scene is my thing. I'm not sure if I've got the commitment or stomach for it. I wish I had but I don't know if I do. I am interested in organising in workplaces but as I don't have a job at the moment that isn't really realistic. Maybe I just don't have the courage of my convictions. I'm pretty pathetic eh.
Luther Blissett
Nomadologist
Shevek, in reply to your post 27:
The article from the "spunk" link is by Perlman, and presents a supposedly 'anarcho-primitivist' viewpoint and contains mainly obsolete views on the origins and evolution of humanity. Maybe one sentence in every paragraph is a vaguely correct assessment, but this could be an exaggeration on my part. An example of 'correct' would be that yes, humans do reproduce their social conditions to an extent, however, the conclusions are dreadful, e.g. blaming the slave for slavery is verging on the obscene.
"Anarcho-primitivism" is not anarchism, it is neo-primitivism.
The neo-primitivist is an idealist. A deluded romanticist, believing in and longing for a naïve garden-of-eden which never existed and for which there is no evidence for such an existence. The neo-primitivist wants you to reject modernity and (re)turn to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which they idealise and contrast in a structuralist (i.e. dualistic) manner (in the style of Bordieu) with 'civilisation'.
The primitivist philosophy is based on mainly faulty evolutionary-style of anthropology from the 19th and early 20th centuries, which presented biased interpretations which consciously or unconsciously served colonial ideals (especially useful to nation states in supporting western colonial disenfranchisement and denial of indigenous rights).
Primitivism ignores the fact that of the living hunter-gather tribes that have been studied, had already been encultured for centuries, and in some instances, for 1.5 millenia, by contacts with non hunter-gatherer societies. Primitivists ignore the variety of subsistence modes that living hunter-gatherer tribes use. Some trade bushmeat with neighbouring agrarian/pastoralist tribes. One living hunter-gatherer tribe works in the capitalist economy and spend all their money on cake, but subsists by hunting and foraging.
The primitivist paradigm misunderstands both simple and complex hunter-gatherer societies and presents simple hunter-gatherer societies as unchanging or static. There are gross generalisations made, e.g. that the 'revolution' of pastoralism/agrarianism gave birth stratified society, whilst hunter-gather lifestyle is held up as uniquely egalitarian.
The truth is that there is irrefutable evidence for stratified hunter-gatherer societies, especially, but not exclusively, where fishing is part of the mode of subsistence. Stratification also occurs in simpler hunter-gatherer societies, but primitivists seem to ignore this fact.
Another gross generalisation made by the primitivist paradigm is that living hunter-gather societies exemplify palæolithic hunter-gather societies, and believes that these palaeolithic socieities were without alienation.
Primitivism ignores the diversity of living hunter-gatherers and tries to systematically deduce, idealistically and romantically, a perfect past of egalitarian palaeolithic hunter-gatherers to primitivism believes that humanity must return to, else be doomed. By and large, the primitivist 'philosopher' leaves out what doesn't fit their paradigm.
Brian Sheppard explains: http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism
The article from the "spunk" link is by Perlman, and presents a supposedly 'anarcho-primitivist' viewpoint and contains mainly obsolete views on the origins and evolution of humanity. Maybe one sentence in every paragraph is a vaguely correct assessment, but this could be an exaggeration on my part. An example of 'correct' would be that yes, humans do reproduce their social conditions to an extent, however, the conclusions are dreadful, e.g. blaming the slave for slavery is verging on the obscene.
"Anarcho-primitivism" is not anarchism, it is neo-primitivism.
The neo-primitivist is an idealist. A deluded romanticist, believing in and longing for a naïve garden-of-eden which never existed and for which there is no evidence for such an existence. The neo-primitivist wants you to reject modernity and (re)turn to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which they idealise and contrast in a structuralist (i.e. dualistic) manner (in the style of Bordieu) with 'civilisation'.
The primitivist philosophy is based on mainly faulty evolutionary-style of anthropology from the 19th and early 20th centuries, which presented biased interpretations which consciously or unconsciously served colonial ideals (especially useful to nation states in supporting western colonial disenfranchisement and denial of indigenous rights).
Primitivism ignores the fact that of the living hunter-gather tribes that have been studied, had already been encultured for centuries, and in some instances, for 1.5 millenia, by contacts with non hunter-gatherer societies. Primitivists ignore the variety of subsistence modes that living hunter-gatherer tribes use. Some trade bushmeat with neighbouring agrarian/pastoralist tribes. One living hunter-gatherer tribe works in the capitalist economy and spend all their money on cake, but subsists by hunting and foraging.
The primitivist paradigm misunderstands both simple and complex hunter-gatherer societies and presents simple hunter-gatherer societies as unchanging or static. There are gross generalisations made, e.g. that the 'revolution' of pastoralism/agrarianism gave birth stratified society, whilst hunter-gather lifestyle is held up as uniquely egalitarian.
The truth is that there is irrefutable evidence for stratified hunter-gatherer societies, especially, but not exclusively, where fishing is part of the mode of subsistence. Stratification also occurs in simpler hunter-gatherer societies, but primitivists seem to ignore this fact.
Another gross generalisation made by the primitivist paradigm is that living hunter-gather societies exemplify palæolithic hunter-gather societies, and believes that these palaeolithic socieities were without alienation.
Primitivism ignores the diversity of living hunter-gatherers and tries to systematically deduce, idealistically and romantically, a perfect past of egalitarian palaeolithic hunter-gatherers to primitivism believes that humanity must return to, else be doomed. By and large, the primitivist 'philosopher' leaves out what doesn't fit their paradigm.
Brian Sheppard explains: http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism
Shevek, if you're interested in reading stuff regarding non-Leninist Marxism, then try googling Paul Mattick, Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, Karl Korsch. Admittedly it's all very old fashioned. These were Marxists who either opposed the Bolshevik model, or moved away from it. They had certain similarities with anarchists (such as criticisms of a vanguard party, working in parliaments, and working inside trade unions) but they insisted they were firmly in the tradition of Marx.
I don't know enough about contemporary "neo" or "post" Marxism, but from some of the stuff i've read and listened to, it's based too much in intellectual and academic circles and has no connection with the daily lives of the people it's talking about (the working class).
I don't know enough about contemporary "neo" or "post" Marxism, but from some of the stuff i've read and listened to, it's based too much in intellectual and academic circles and has no connection with the daily lives of the people it's talking about (the working class).
Luther Blissett
Nomadologist
why dont you dial 999
Luther Blissett
Nomadologist
People involved in direct action come from all walks of life, and of different social and political hues. In direct action, a pensioner holds hands with mother holding hands with an executive holding hands with a union member holding hands with an anarchist holding hands with a socialist holding hands with a liberal holding hands with a christian holding hands with a muslim holding hands with a jew holding hands with a sikh etc. Sometimes there might even be a conservative present.
Community-based direct action involves people from all walks off life, all religious persuasions and all ages. There isn't always the threat of arrest. Read about and around 'Save Radley Lakes' - Being arrested by the police were the least of the community's worries as their 24/7 lake-guardians were assaulted by privately hired corporate security guards (which happened earlier in their campaign). The worst of the worries in this campaign is that the lakes would be filled with ash-waste from npower who would override the will of the community to whom these lakes are deemed precious and worth saving from destruction.
http://www.saveradleylakes.org.uk/srl_campaign/SRL_Campaign.htm
I don't understand your reticence to get involved in direct action and stand up for what you believe matters.
"Anarchy is not a thing of the future, but of the present; not a matter of demands, but of living". – Gustav Landauer
Luther Blissett
Nomadologist
I think this thread really belongs to Theory/Philosophy, not UK Politics.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Shevek, what you may find interesting is ecosocialism, that attempts to reconcile the experience of socialist efforts over the last 150 years with current ecological understanding and libertarian left critiques of "actually existing socialism".
See here - http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/Docs.htm
In Britain there are individuals and groups from across the left and Green spectrum involved in this development. (Green Party-Green Left, Alliance for Green Socialism, Red-Green Study Group, Socialist Resistance etc)
A key text is Joel Kovel's Enemy Of Nature.
See here - http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/Docs.htm
In Britain there are individuals and groups from across the left and Green spectrum involved in this development. (Green Party-Green Left, Alliance for Green Socialism, Red-Green Study Group, Socialist Resistance etc)
A key text is Joel Kovel's Enemy Of Nature.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
LB - nice post on primitivism in #44
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Hang on a sec, i've no problem with any of those criticisms of primtivism (primitivism of any sort), but that Perlman piece was written at least a decade before he came into contact with primtivist ideas and whilst he was still pretty much an uncomplicated non-leninist marxist. The opening lines just make it sound like it was one of his later writings, when it's actually a fairly straightforward reading of some of the ideas of the early marx and how they operate in the modern world. The slaves bits were simply used to show that at different historical conjunctions different social organisations based aorund humanities collective capabilities took on the appearance of nature, it wasn't a moral condemnation of their failure to revolt.
It's a useful intro text untainted by primitivism.
It's a useful intro text untainted by primitivism.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
Not really. A soundbite answer would be that it's smash the state versus conquest of the state.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Perlman's main Primmo text (imo) was "Against His-story, Against Leviathan", which whilst I'm pretty sure is heavily flawed, I do remember as a decent read (unlike the terminably dull Zerzan).
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Oh, well, you did ask.
I'll leave the floor open to my libertawian chums to talk about that
You don't have any "libetawian" chums, Fidel!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I was going to ask whether you meant "terminally" or "interminably".
Then I realised that both applied.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
Murray Bookchin wrote some very sharp criticisms of primitivism and deep ecology that are worth checking out, his concept of social ecology that problems of nature are essentially related to the exploitation of human beings by human beings is useful.
Joel Kovel, I quite liked his earlier psychoanalytic work on racism, but to be frank I've always thought he is a bit woolly and sloppy as a writer on ecosocialism with no clear idea of class struggle and class. Much better and more rigorous is John Bellamy Foster.
Joel Kovel, I quite liked his earlier psychoanalytic work on racism, but to be frank I've always thought he is a bit woolly and sloppy as a writer on ecosocialism with no clear idea of class struggle and class. Much better and more rigorous is John Bellamy Foster.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nonsense, he has a rock hard class analysis and a totally clear conception of what capitalist accumulation is and entails.
