Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:57:04 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.m-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: Re: M-INTRO: Communism vs. marxism


Argus wrote:

>Rolf.m claims my comments are empty generalities, seemingly because I didn't
>point out where other (unreal?) Marxists would take issue with his
>pronoucements.  However, my comments were not simply generalities, but what I
>find in Marx.  Maybe they seem like generalities because Rolf.m has failed to
>either read or understand Marx?

Well, Argus, please don't take offence, but i think
the relevant reply to this is:

Blabla.

>With respect to the last sentence, Marx held that to understand the *concrete*
>one must be able to think ... to think in "abstraction".  Maybe it would be
>worth reading the passages on method found in *Grundrisse*.  A method which
>Marx stayed committed to in writing *Capital*.

And blablabla.

>The reason one as to develop the ability to think abstractly, is because of
>the very constitution of (social) reality itself.  Namely that reality is
>stratified and differentiated.  Or in more Marxian jargon, there is difference
>between the "form of appearance" and the essence of an object or mechanism.
>Well, of course it could be the case that Marx himself was not a ("Real")
>Marxist?

Hm. Might "blablablabla" cover this?

But you do say something concrete too:

>Now, for some specifics ... first Rolf.m maintains that "communism" will be
>based on the principle or slogan "each according to their ability, each
>according to their need", and then in response to Pucha states: "Nope! No
>exchange. You just go into the store and GRAB the stuff."  These statements
>are not at all the same, the second statement is only committed to the latter
>part of the above sentence, i.e. each according to their need.  Where would
>the "each according to their ability" enter the equation?  If a system of
>distribution is to be based on both ability and need, you can't just go GRAB
>the stuff.  In other words, those you put forth the most effort should be
>awarded.  

GRAB it is, for distribution. That is, according to your needs.
The thought is that the productive forces will be enormously
highly developed of course, and also that people won't absolutely
grab three helicpoters when two would suffice: One for yourself
and one for guests, or so.

In your quote above you missed the "from". It's "*from* each
according to his abilities". Meaning, you put in as much work
as you're capable of. The idea is, everyone will want to do that.

Absolutely no "awarding" of anyone. The distrubution system
is based *only* on need, not ability, which is the thing the
work system is based on. 

>Rolf.m seems to re-commit himself to the notion of "ability" when he claims
>that equality is not the goal of communism.  How then would the people that
>put forth the most effort be awarded? 

They wouldn't. The pious hope is that all will do as well
as they can. All are *not* equal in capacity. But it's hoped
that such a s ystem will bring out the best in all, and the
best co-operation.

>And if a person decided to set and
>watch Beavis and Butthead all day, would it be the case they too could still
>just go GRAB the stuff. 

Yes. That's the idea. The pious hope is, and I think it's quite
realistic, NOBODY would want to sit and watch those idiots all
day. They're so ugly and disgusting too, so nobody would want
to see them for one second, even. Only under capitalism can
there be such masochists! Take my word for it!

>In short, I find just going to GRAB the stuff
>extremely naive and idealistic!  We are not merely talking about simply
>necessities ... in other words, I would accept that in a more communal
>society, food, for example would be free.  But how about land, if you wanted
>to build a house on the beach could you just go GRAB the land, and if so, what
>if 1000s of people want the same peice of land. 

Land is not really a product. The theory doesn't say, how
about land, either. But please remember, the idea is that
the people, when approaching communism, will have long
traditions of socialism, and ideas of co-operation,
behind them. They'll not be moronic Beavis-grabbers or
land-lookers, presumably.

>There would be other luxeries
>which could not be distributed by the principle of just GRABing the stuff.


Why not, for chrissake? What do you call "luxuries"? What are
"necessities". We're talking communism here, not stoneage
capitalism, under which you can't even have your own
helicopter etc (or most people can). Please compare what were
"necessities" and what were "luxuries" to most people in,
say, the USA, 100 years ago or 200 years ago, to what's the
position today. My computer is no bloody "luxury", for
instance, but a necessity.
>
>Rolf.m next begins to write something of "human nature", in a typical naive
>Marxian way.  Rolf.m how can you claim that co-operation is *more* natural
>than any other natural attribute ... if it is natural it is natural!  Self-
>interest too is natural. I do not mean simply selfishness, but being concerned
>with those most dear to you is natural. 

Yes. And if you're just smart enough *not* to want to watch
Beavehead and Buttis all day (poor Argus! or was it someone you
know?), you'll see that only with co-operation will you get
that helicopter etc. Co-operation *is* in self-interest.
try to smack together just one Jumbo Jet all by yourself
and you'll see!

>Certainly it is the case that social
>elements become part of an individual's very personality, such as self-
>interested, maximizing rational behavior ... moreover, social structures can
>very much determine the action taken by individuals who live within them.  But
>I believe it very Bougeois to claim specifics about what is natural and what
>is not.  Marx himself seems to get very uneasy with this sort of reductionism.

Yes, OK. In different societies, different things "come naturally".
So better dispense with that "natural" stuff, agreed.

>I would tend to agree that technology is shaped by the social relations.
>However, technology is not merely a technological problem.  Moreover,
>technology cannot solve all the social problems.  Again I would maintain that
>this is a very naive Marxian stance. 

No, of course not. The main social problems of today can only
be solved by revolutionary war.

But technology is very much needed for all development, including
social, that's clear. Just think of your own "necessities-
luxuries" idiocy (sorry!) above. That's typical bourgeois-
limited thinking, believing technology can't be developed
practically with no limits to it.

>Rolf.m writes "then we shall need some international co-operation to kick
>those [bourgeois] bastards out of power, put them into prison, massacre the
>worst criminals among them so the rest will behave ...".  Who is the
>"criminal" here?  Besides the pathological pronoucnments of murder, this >gross
>passage demonstrates, once again, Rolf.m exterme naive view of human >behavior.

You don't even know that big crimes are being committed daily
under imperialism? You don't know our societies are basically
being run by criminals? Take just one small example: The recent
and ongoing massacres in Algeria. Those ultimately responsible
for those, that's criminals. Take the recent plans for an
armed aggression against Iraq (once more). The ruler there,
Saddam Hussein, certainly is a criminal too. But the plans
for aggression now clearly are unjust and not caused by
any real threat by him etc against Iraq's neighbours. The
war planners are big criminals. You think they'll just go
away quitely from the earth all by themselves? It's not
necesary to wage revolutionary war against them to get them
out of power?

>And because he doens't have the faintest idea of how a social transformation
>is possible, he is willing to commit murder.

*Just* killing is no murder. Take the war against Hitler etc.
Take the North American war of independence in the 18th century,
or the N.A. Civil War in the 19th. Just wars, all of them,
from tose respecive sides which won them. The Russian revolution,
the Chinese too. All just and necessary wars. What methods would
*you* have suggested instead? "No opposing Hitler, no murder!"??

> They
>are so dogmatic, that 'by any means necessary' becomes their slogan.  I am
>just urging the persons being introduced to Marxism for the first time, to
>understand this is not necessarily a fair representation of Marxism in
>general!
>
>Argus

Any fair representation of Marxism must contain the
info that it has to do with armed uprising on the
part of the oppressed masses. You wrote in one part
I snipped that "I" would "not" know what to do after
what you called the "murders". Of course I do. Have
you seen my piece on the Cultural Revolution in
China, after (armed) liberation there? It contained
massive construction.

One small thing in this context: Since capitalism fears
development today, nuclear energy, the most effective
form for energy production, is being curtailed. Some
25 years ago, 2000 reactors were planned for the year
2000, all over the world. Today there are just 430.
In the USA, hardly any are built any more. But primitive
*coal use* had *doubled* in the USA in the last 20 years!

When the bourgeosie has been beaten down - and, it
seems, *only* then - *nukes* will be built again instead,
and research for fusion, the even more advanced stuff,
will be greatly increased, instead of curtailed, as it
is today. Down with those stoneage criminals! Do you
get my point?

rolf.m



     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---