tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1428443883168815646..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH, DEAR FRIENDSRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-42889906291769086642015-06-18T15:56:59.054-04:002015-06-18T15:56:59.054-04:00"In fact, the realm of freedom actually begin..."In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite."<br /><br /><br />The passage ends: <b>'The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.'</b> By which we assume that Marx means the shortening of the working day is the first step towards time for oneself, free of the necessity of producing for material needs. <br /><br />And there is that foot note cited at the very end of Chapter 10, quoting a Factory Inspector as saying: “A still greater boon is the distinction at last made clear between the worker’s own time and his master’s. The worker knows now when that which he sells is ended, and when his own begins; and by possessing a sure foreknowledge of this, is enabled to prearrange his own minutes for his own purposes.” (l.c., p. 52.) [the words in italics are mine because they are also the last carefully chosen words Marx picked out to end the famous chapter on the Working Day. Marx intentionally focuses on the length of the working day (labour time) as opposed to say wages, working conditions, etc, in chapter 10 for a very good reason which I leave to the reader to figure out why] <br /><br />and then there is this footnote as well:<br /><br />“By making them masters of their own time (the Factory Acts) have given them a moral energy which is directing them to the eventual possession of political power” (l.c., p. 47).<br /><br />I personally find this much more profound and useful.classtrugglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17537776267404584351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-46551385492656592162015-06-18T15:56:01.810-04:002015-06-18T15:56:01.810-04:00"break loose from the traditions of Marxist j..."break loose from the traditions of Marxist jargon and hagiography so that they can think in fresh ways about our current social, economic, and political situation"<br /><br />And the magic answer became (with all due respect) a regurgitation of the Marxist formulation with a Weberian twist. Reminds me of a line from Hegel's Phenomenology ('even as there is an empty breadth, there is an empty depth, an intensity void of content). <br /><br />[As an aside, it should be noted that Weber's method involved breaking down an extremely complex phenomenon into its components and then choosing each one in sequence as a constant, tracing its effect on the other variables. Weber also offers no method for determining the interrelation of factors, the amount of influence pertaining to each one or their temporal variations. In this sense, the ideal type method prevents the possibility of establishing time sequences. Of course, in his defense, this may have more to do with the fact that Weber, unlike Marx, felt one could only grasp segments of social reality but never its totality. Whereas Marx, in the course of his presentation, shows how individual categories are unfolded from one another (how one category necessitates the existence of another) and does not simply present categories in succession or alongside each other. Moreover, Weber's view of theory as only ideal typical as well as his employment of the ideal type method has the tendency to lead to different distortions, for example in his overemphasis of the concepts of vocation and predestination. His approach is suffused by a tendency towards idealisation, while comparatively neglecting secular factors, economic, political and technological. More on Weber -- there was nothing original about his work on the conditions permitting the rise of capitalism. It stemmed directly from Marx and was shared by many scholars in Germany at the time. Marxists as well as the economists of the Historical School discussed it at great length. The originality of Weber's approach, however, consisted in something rather simple. While other scholars studied the economic causes of the rise of capitalism by looking at the process of its industrial growth in Western Europe, Weber on the other hand, concentrated on cases where capitalism failed to develop. That is why many scholars have used Weber's argument in the PE as a way to understand why some non-Western countries have achieved modernisation while others have not) .<br /><br />To repeat some earlier points:<br /><br />The concept 'utopian socialism' was introduced and discussed in the CM by Marx and Engels as a way to describe socialist and quasi socialist intellectuals who designed imaginary blueprints or visions of a socialist future. The communists, on the other hand, including Marx and Engels, never speculated on the detailed organisation of a future socialist or communist society; concerning themselves with the sole objective of building a workers' movement strong enough to overthrow capitalism. It is not so much a matter of quoting saint Marx -- generations of communists and anarchists, especially since the formation and collapse of the IWMA, have debated these issues and have taken clear stances on them. Have you? Given that you self identify as Marxist and Anarchist.<br /><br />As Engels (and Marx following him) understood, "the condition of the working class is the starting point of all social movements today." So a discussion of socialism is not possible without looking at working class conditions and demands and their significance for the general class struggle to overthrow capitalism. <br /><br />Now despite the fact that Marx consciously took up the position not to speculate on the detailed organisation of a future socialist society (for good reasons) where he does write a little bit about socialism or freely associated labour, he (correctly) focuses on one thing: labour time.<br />classtrugglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17537776267404584351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-78552025191721000342015-06-18T12:44:45.329-04:002015-06-18T12:44:45.329-04:00This seems oddly relevant: The most powerful progr...This seems oddly relevant: The most powerful progressive force in the 1st world today seems to be the Pope. (nb: 'most' modifies 'powerful' not 'progressive'.David Auerbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612242467208247588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-20491322225267078232015-06-18T12:12:43.215-04:002015-06-18T12:12:43.215-04:00While I find the discussion rewarding, my frustrat...While I find the discussion rewarding, my frustration is two fold. On the one hand, sometimes it feels like we are in the church of Marx where the point of the discussion is to advance the correct interpretation of a particular gospel.<br /><br />The other frustration is that we have not discussed values: what values incubating in the womb of capitalism might support<br />the transition to a kind of socialism and then be further nurtured? I think the steady expansion of the franchise, the embrace of gender equality and sexual identity equality, an embrace/protection of the commons and respect for nature, a full articulation of "black lives matter," the rejection of obscene inequality, solidarity with victims of imperialism, the value-assemblage of beauty (yes, to be explicated), pleasure in work, expressivism are values that seem to steadily percolate to the surface and then collide with institutions that foster the equation of freedom with property rights and success with accumulation. <br /><br />What annoys me about these kind of discussions is that it feels like we are playing chess or having a graduate seminar among a bunch of white guys (just guessing) who's work is not alienating are who are somewhat financially secure. I'm curious what the others would point to in their daily lives as things/activities from which they need liberation. Constant networking? the organization of life around investment opportunities? the anxiety of financial insecurity? segregation? what good stuff would I and others get more of under socialism, and what bad stuff would be eliminated or fade away? Marx is great. Marxology boring.Jerry Fresiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566575038825699112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-57006445378957971332015-06-18T10:26:27.360-04:002015-06-18T10:26:27.360-04:00"I have almost completely failed to persuade ..."I have almost completely failed to persuade the commentators on this blog to break loose from the traditions of Marxist jargon and hagiography so that they can think in fresh ways about our current social, economic, and political situation"<br /><br />Speaking strictly for myself, I usually speak in Marxist jargon when I'm around Marxists, and I avoid it when I'm not. I'm not quite sure why it's problematic to use Marxist jargon on a blog whose author identifies as a Marxist. Words like exploitation, alienation, fetish, and species-being, can all be translated into more colloquial terms, but then the sentences and explanations which employ them would have to be longer.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.com