What is your understanding of socialism and/or communism?

Jesus Trash Can

We (understandably) tend to think of the Russian model of communism as the template. However, this model was a reaction to the worst abuse of power, ie the Romonov dynasty which enslaved and brutalised hundreds of millions of people in Russia. But the local cooperative model of socialism without a central state is more of an anarchist idea, and in the Spanish civil war this idea was hijacked by self serving communists who butchered the anarchists and in doing so destroyed the true potential of both socialism and anarchism.

Kama

Neoliberal hegemony (imo) is in clear decline, and has been for a whiles. It's losing legitimacy, sure, but what's replacing it, and what fig-leaf do the social forces that profited from it use next? Similar to what you were saying on theory and practice, its always-already a Red Queen problem: running to keep still.

Agree on global point (though in longue duree terms we've been global for a while now ), the curious thing, to me, is that neoliberal economic ideology in a disavowed manner became the nearest thing to world sovereignty yet...

This is also to the heart of my feelings about the bailout/plunge protection/whatever, as revealing of systemic bias. Taking just the American intervention, think of the opportunity cost if invested in the productive rather than speculative economy (yes I know it's a dated distinction, but valid to an extent imo). Simply, while we cannot afford education and health, for our own people or others in the world, we can spare it in a bet on the financial system, supervised by the fine folks who oversaw the creation of said crisis.

I'm a fan of Zizek, huge in fact (have you seen the documentary, Zizek!?).

Ah cool, I know some hardline Marxists who consider him the AntiChrist; I think he's funny as hell. Yeh saw the doc, also saw him in person a few year ago...He's definitely one of the more vibrant Left thinkers, and has made some stellar interventions over the years, and the non-heavy theoretical stuff is great fun to read. He's a big fan of Badiou, but I never managed to grok Badiou. I used read a fair bit of psychoanalysis, mainly Kleinian, but I never found anyone beat Zizek on rhetorical style yet. Quite liked Laclau and Mouffe, or at least used 'em for a year

DadaKopf

Laclau and Mouffe? Doing work on populism, was it?

nesf

Jesus Trash Can wrote: »

We (understandably) tend to think of the Russian model of communism as the template. However, this model was a reaction to the worst abuse of power, ie the Romonov dynasty which enslaved and brutalised hundreds of millions of people in Russia. But the local cooperative model of socialism without a central state is more of an anarchist idea, and in the Spanish civil war this idea was hijacked by self serving communists who butchered the anarchists and in doing so destroyed the true potential of both socialism and anarchism.

A very big problem for anarchism is that you need some form of centralised mass co-operation in order to protect your anarchic state from groups who would subvert it for their own needs, be they part of or external to the anarchist state and this brings in many of the problems of centralisation that you were trying to avoid in the first place with the switch to anarchism.

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

Not really, English, History, (economics-controversial!) I'm sure if you went through each university discipline department by dept, you'd find a great many where theory and practical don't meet.

I would wager most departments update their literature based on findings in the field and research be it Commerce, Psychology, Sociology etc. Even fields of study such as History and English update their thinking based on findings in other fields so their not exempt from it either. Hard to prove obviously, but my point is that it's hardly the preserve of Marxims, though perhaps more explicitly a part of it.

DadaKopf

Earthhorse wrote: »

I would wager most departments update their literature based on findings in the field and research be it Commerce, Psychology, Sociology etc. Even fields of study such as History and English update their thinking based on findings in other fields so their not exempt from it either. Hard to prove obviously, but my point is that it's hardly the preserve of Marxims, though perhaps more explicitly a part of it.

It's amazing that when Marxist theories are modified to reflect new realities or insights, many from 'established' disciplines claim this is more evidence of an outmoded theory plugging the leaks of a sinking ship with newspaper. By contrast, when the accepted wisdom of orthodox economic or social theories break down and are consequently modified, this is just scientific method unfolding. Total hypocrisy.

It reminds me of the double-standards in the burden of proof required of evolutionists against intelligent design 'theorists'. Richard Dawkins credibly replied that if the ID theorists were subjected to the same burden of proof that evolutionists are, they's have to account for every choice and action God took, second by second, when he spend seven days creating the world. Not quite the same thing, but an entertaining example of double standards of this kind.

Another anecdote, an ICTU economist was asked to appear on RTE radio to discuss the economy. He was also asked whether he could suggest a non-leftist economist to balance his viewpoint. He reminded the radio producer that they don't really get leftists to balance the viewpoints of establishment economists like George Lee. They see what these types have to say as pragmatic, common sense. But because a TU perspective is 'problematic' (i.e. challenging the status quo) that they must be regulated and discourse disciplined by a George Lee type.

Mad. Gramsci had some insights into this.

brianthebard

I this thread so much I want to hug it. will have a more constructive post later!

Kama

A very big problem for anarchism is that you need some form of centralised mass co-operation in order to protect your anarchic state from groups who would subvert it for their own needs

Agree, its a standard theoretic knockdown; and historicaly small proto-anarchist egalitarian societies have tended to be violently subsumed by their neighbours. Iirc the pre-Maori indigenes in Aotereoa were on this model; first came on it in a old General Systems Theory model. However, it seems homologous as a criticism to the Hayekian et al stream of market-libertarian thought, again topical in current events, of selfish maximisers over-parasitising a system. The homo oeconomicus model always seemed uncannily like a anarchist utopia to me in some ways; free individuals coming together in voluntary agreements and so on. History is replete with ironies.

Dada: I was digging through discourse theory at the time, and wandered into the post-Marxist Lacanians. Can't stand Lacan, like some Lacanians, dislike reading much Marx, quite interested in a lot of Marxists.

I would wager most departments update their literature based on findings in the field

Yes, but research programs can be highly self-confirming, academia like forums can go circle o'jerk with little effort by inertia; even in 'harder' sciences people are less inclined towards falsification than the Ladybird account of science would have one believe; what Iain M Banks called 'outside context problems' can be avoided to some extent. Interventions like the Sokal Hoax pranked this quite humorously in postmodernism, but (imo) no field is innately immune. Much as Marxists will read more Marx, and have their RSS feeds and aggregators sucking Moar Marx towards 'em, so do (Insert Disciplinary SubHeading Here).

Apropos of findings, one of my favourite college moments was when a lecturer mentioned a trend towards 'evidence-based research' for policy-making...walked out thinking 'good lord, what was it before?'. Answer in the Irish case being predominantly ad-hoc, politically-motivated, populist etc.

Earthhorse

DadaKopf wrote: »

It's amazing that when Marxist theories are modified to reflect new realities or insights, many from 'established' disciplines claim this is more evidence of an outmoded theory plugging the leaks of a sinking ship with newspaper. By contrast, when the accepted wisdom of orthodox economic or social theories break down and are consequently modified, this is just scientific method unfolding. Total hypocrisy.

Kama wrote: »

Yes, but research programs can be highly self-confirming, academia like forums can go circle o'jerk with little effort by inertia; even in 'harder' sciences people are less inclined towards falsification than the Ladybird account of science would have one believe; what Iain M Banks called 'outside context problems' can be avoided to some extent. Interventions like the Sokal Hoax pranked this quite humorously in postmodernism, but (imo) no field is innately immune. Much as Marxists will read more Marx, and have their RSS feeds and aggregators sucking Moar Marx towards 'em, so do (Insert Disciplinary SubHeading Here).

So you agree that there is nothing unique about Marxism in respect of it updating its theories to reflect practise, even if it comes in for special criticism for doing so and that the process involved for it, or any other field, is imperfect.

Kama

So you agree that there is nothing unique about Marxism in respect of it updating its theories to reflect practise, even if it comes in for special criticism for doing so and that the process involved for it, or any other field, is imperfect.

Hmm...I don't think it's unique, no. Part of the issue imo is that since inception, Marxism has a self-confessedly motivated or interested theory. There's a clear problem here in terms of natural-scientific conceptions of objectivity, and as again is common, there can be a conflict of interest between interests, aims and results.

Dada's point hangs more to the second part of your question though, the 'special criticism' compared to other disciplines, that Marxism needs to be 'balanced' while orthodoxies don't, that there's a prejudice against. But perversely I'm alright with this; there's few things worse for a disciplinary health than dominance in one sense, whether the discipline is Marxist or Neoclassical. The 'groupthink' effect of self-confirmation, whether we are Leninist or NeoCon, can be a significant barrier against the rest of reality...It also touches on the (political) definition of what is 'moderate' and therefore naturally 'balanced' and what is 'extremist' and needs to be managed, who's in, who's out.

It also raises a problem for a Marxist, Left or critical position, which Zizek has written a lot on; being 'critical' is dangerously addictive in its safety, yoiu have the innocence and 'objectivity' of a outsider looking in, while getting involved is necessarily a less pure, more dirty-hands affair. He quotes Saint-Just, that 'it is impossible to rule innocently'. Maslow made a 'critique' of the Frankfurt School once in 3 words: 'high-IQ whiners'. Something similar came up with the Greens before the election: the German Greens sent an embassy with a pretty simple message: 'If you're not ready to compromise, on core principles, you're not ready for power'.

Kama

Apropos of Zizek, recent talk on his new book Violence here. Lovely quality. Covers some of the ground in 'Violence', but mainly a Zizekian ramble in usual form.

Little disappointed he didn't do the liberal communist spiel, gven that was @google.

SkepticOne

DadaKopf wrote: »

It's amazing that when Marxist theories are modified to reflect new realities or insights, many from 'established' disciplines claim this is more evidence of an outmoded theory plugging the leaks of a sinking ship with newspaper.

I don't think there's any problem with this so long as we recognise the Soviet Union and other totalitarian states as one such modification. When you do this, of course, the usual objection is that it is not what Marx himself intended.

Kama

I don't, but I'm not a Marxist hehe. Most social systems or ideologies have had authoritarian manifestations at some point, who tend to go on broadly similar sprees of butchery and general killing...

Which among other things is why broadly speaking I'm libertarian. Concentrated power seems to lead to unwholesome developments; which isn't to say diffuse power doesn't, but the scope of abuse is more curtailed.

brianthebard

Libertarian communism-crisis in terminology?

http://libcom.org/notes/about