Marx and the Dialectic

One other thing about the Callinocos book mentioned below: he makes frequent reference to Marx's dialectical (urgh!) method. In his reading (which I'm pretty sure borrows from Alfredo Saad-Filho), the dialectic consists of Marx making an observation - say about the commodity - at one level of abstraction. Later he'll introduce another abstraction at a more concrete level of 'determination' - say, the 'law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall'. For Callinicos, the more abstract notion should 'constrain' the more concrete determination (for the purposes of intellectual discipline and evaluation only) but the latter is not in reality inferred logically from the former. It is a free-standing theory. On the other hand, Robert Allbritton does see concrete determinations of 'pure' capitalism (the object of Das Kapital's study) as being the logical working out of the 'cell-form' of capitalism, i.e. the commodity, and for him this is the dialectic.

Well, what's true? I think the latter interpretation of Marx's dialectic is more likely likely. Eighteenth century philosophical history more or less invented the idea that the present could understand the past better than contemporaries of past events could. Hegel picked this up with his Owl of Niverna being wise at twilight business, and pressed hard the idea that because reason operates through history, history was intelligible. This is surely the idea of the dialectic: tensions within history work themselves out logically, so making history, in principle, intelligible. Marx, surely, is asserting a logic of capitalism as directing history? And this logic is basic, not multiple discrete levels?

Alex Callinicos on Imperialism

I've just read Alex Callinicos' new book on imperialism. He's always good at summarising and excerpting other people's work, so worth the effort as a catch-up as much as anything. He's a pretty fair commentator on other scholars, overall, and his handling of historical and economic evidence is impressive.

I can't say I'm convinced by his definition of imperialism. He sees it as an intersection of capitalism and geopolitics, but the 'capitalism' here acts merely as an adjective and 'geopolitics' a synonym for the thing itself. In practice, imperialism seems only to refer to the actions of the 'top-dog' (the US), and regional imperialisms are regional top-dogs. It's taken for granted that imperialism must be opposed, but it's hard to see why if its defined simply as the current most powerful country and the cause and effect of of its extra-territorial action is not differentiated from case to case. It's no surprise that Callinicos excludes Marx from his discussion of the 'classical marxist' discussion of imperialism: Marx and Engels were resolutely case-specific in their discussion of the Great Powers (though their animous to Russia was, it must be said, a bit obsessive).

The 2nd International discussion of imperialism was predicated on an analysis asserting the retreat of bourgeois liberalism from about 1870 due to bourgeois economic and social entanglement with the militarised and usually socially atavistic state. Callinicos, however, rejects this attempt to define 'imperialism' as a stage in capitalism (whether 'last' or otherwise) and explicitly conflates imperialism with the history of the world market as such. Callinicos' conclusion, not explicit in the book but certainly so in SWP practice, is simply that - whatever the most powerful country is doing (currently America), he's agin it. Lots of interesting stuff in Callinicos' discussion, and I happily recommend the book, but it's no advance, I think on the classical heritage.

Myself, I reckon imperialism is pretty hard to define. At a minimum, however, I think it has to forbid or radically obstruct the exercise of self-determination by subordinate peoples who, in the absence of imperium, would be capable of bearing sovereignty. This is rather tighter that Callinicos' definition, but it's also rather easier to have a political attitude towards,.

Familialcide

So many accounts of 'family annihilation' emphasise tragedy that, in some way, is supposed to involve the perpetrator. The Mail (!) gets it right, however: latest domestic murderer Andy Copland was a 'woman-hating stalker'. As are they all, one way or another.

Why Did Marx Expect the Working-Class to be Socialist?

I've written an article on this burning subject, published by the good people at Critique.

Entitled, 'Marx, the Proletariat, and the "Will to Socialism"', it can be viewed as a pre-print here.

The phrase 'Will to Socialism' has been lifted from Karl Katutsky's 1919 polemic against the Bolshevik Revolution, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It wasn't a section that Lenin, in his famous riposte, took exception too, incidentally.

Abstract of my article:

This article examines the development of Marx's thought in its attempt to explain why the proletariat as a class were historically inclined to accept socialist ideas. For Marx, socialist consciousness arises from an innate desire to secure one's mode of subsistence. Class consciousness always idealises independent proprietorship. This holds true for proletarians. However, as capitalism makes individual proprietorship impossible, only collective ownership appears to offer secure independence.

Keywords: Marx; Class-Consciousness; Gracchus Babeuf; Flora Tristan; Karl Kautsky; Working-Class


Here's the core of the argument:

"Marx noted that the conditions of existence for the proletariat are necessarily collective. Their labour is socialised, i.e. meaningless unless pooled. The proletariat are incapable of individual subsistence - unlike artisans or peasants they can not personally own their means of survival. Individual workers contribute to the production process, but the division of labour makes each individual contribution meaningless in itself. Operating a single lathe, heaving coal, administering paperwork, answering phones or whatever else cannot in themselves provide the means for living. The proletarian does not produce the requirements of individual existence directly as might a peasant, not even indirectly, as might an artisan or a bourgeois, as the product of her labour has no marketable use-value, it is only useful as a partial input to a chain of production. Only the end-product, the fruit of many inputs, has a marketable value.

"A peasant can theoretically support himself and his family with his plot of land. He can imagine self-sufficiency and his psychological desire for security finds expression in an ideal vision of complete control over his means of subsistence. The peasant always wishes to be a proprietor. The proletarian cannot imagine similar circumstances for herself. There is no point fighting for control of her segment of the production process. What advantage could there be in owning privately one’s section of the conveyer-belt, or even one’s desk in the open-plan office? In isolation, it will produce neither food, shelter nor marketable products.

"Thus, for Marx, the proletariat is impelled by the desire for personal security to realise a program of collective ownership of the entire, integrated production process. The human instinct for control of oneself and one’s immediate environment, which for previous classes meant essentially a drive towards perfecting private control of the means of personal subsistence and wealth creation, for the proletariat is converted into a desire for collective control and ownership of the means of production. This is why the proletariat is the ‘universal class’, impelled towards some form of socialism or communism."

If you have any views on the article, I'd really like to know of them. Please drop me a line.

The Jewish Nation

Is it anti-semitic to oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? No, given one condition: a double-standard is not applied. Therefore, anyone arguing for Israel's illegitimacy as a state built upon a Jewish national community would have to oppose any measure taken by any country to insulate the national composition of its population from massive disruption. At a minimum, I should think, this would involve a western country abolishing all immigration restrictions, and opening the door to those who would dearly love to migrate for economic reasons. Equally, of course, there could be no argument for impoverished countries objecting to having their territory bought up by western expatriates, all of whom should would be given full citizenship rights. So far as a member of any state enjoyed citizenship rights, they would have no justification in questioning the unit of self-determination in which they found themselves (so, for example, Irish nationalism under the Act of Union after 1801, would have to be considered illegitimate, the Irish Revolution a a racist revolt, and the sovereign Irish republic a racist and immoral secession entity).

If one espoused a truly laissez faire approach to global citizenship, in which no state or putative state has a right to attempt any regulation of the bondedness of the sovereign community - by drawing borders or resisting colonisation, say - then I guess it would not be a double-standard to deny Israel the right to preserve the integrity of its national democracy.

Assuming one wishes to argue against the legitimacy of self-determining collectivities in this manner, then it would seem best to demand the abolition of naturalisation procedures and norms in western countries first before insisting upon Israeli compliance. In absence of this, it would seem hard to deny that Israel is being required to a standard not applied to other peoples currently thought deserving of self-determination.

I don't think most people would wish to argue for ultra-liberalisation of the global labour market, as it would conduce to a free market nirvana without democratically cohesive collectivities or sufficient solidarity even for quite minimal welfare. I think most people recognise, with various qualifications, rights to national self-determination. In that case, I don't see why a different standard should be applied to the Jewish nation compared to any other.

Said Too Much?

Hamas has been chucking rockets into Israel, in response Israel has closed the border. So it goes.

But is this not a confession to the crime of 'collective punishment':

Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the Israeli defence ministry, said. "It's unacceptable that people in [the southern Israeli town of] Sderot are living in fear every day and people in Gaza are living life as usual."

Self-Selectors De-Selected

Bad news for bitter, arrogant right-wingers and smug, nagging Decentoids - but good news for the interested reader - comments are down on Comment is Free. It's like an off switch on babbling pub-bores.