drwhat posted:for example we can't even claim that brexit was a victory for the working class, according to blinkandwheeze, because the statistics aren't ironclad about it and it's possible that that isn't completely true
you realise i was addressing specifically empirical claims in this case right. that is, people were repeatedly claiming data indicated a particular class background of the voting base when this was not the case. What your conclusion here indicates is that you don't actually have a problem with people making empirical or "scientific" claims when it suits a particular political position you just think these claims being true is less relevant. irrationalist fascism ftw
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
blinkandwheeze posted:If you think it is not possible to access a real analysis of objective conditions independent from prevailing social discourse, and if you think it is not essential at every level to stake any political position in relation to this analysis, you are simply not a Marxist nor do you share any real common ground with the Marxist position
This stance risks falling into ultraleftism. Beyond the problem of simply incorrect analysis (such as with the brexit statistics) is the fact that there is still no generally agreed upon line on brexit, and that doesn't seem to come down to some people having their facts wrong
the difficulty of coming to an immediate and rigorous concrete analysis of events in the immediate wake doesn't preclude its possibility in any way
the fact that there is such a sharp disagreement regarding brexit is imo indicative of a substantial proportion of people immediately jumping to claim a particular conclusion without engaging in the necessary concrete analysis required to justify it
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
blinkandwheeze posted:if that position risks falling into ultraleftism then it's the case that marxism risks falling into ultraleftism. it is simply the case that one of, if not the most fundamental and foundational principles of marxism is that objective scientific knowledge of existent material conditions are possible and necessary to pursue outside the subjective distortions of individual agents
the difficulty of coming to an immediate and rigorous concrete analysis of events in the immediate wake doesn't preclude its possibility in any way
the fact that there is such a sharp disagreement regarding brexit is imo indicative of a substantial proportion of people immediately jumping to claim a particular conclusion without engaging in the necessary concrete analysis required to justify it
I agree that's it's possible, desirable, correct and essential, but the time required means that there's still a pause between the event and the interpretation, and in that pause other interpretations take hold. In the bullshit digital age the meaning of events in the public discourse gets shaped in the immediate aftermath -- a second after, a hour after, certainly no more than a day after; some "truth" is tacitly accepted and debated and the snowball of bullshit that is modern political mainstream discourse continues on.
In this specific case, for example, I think the only numbers we have are from Lord Ashcroft Polls, which a few have pointed out are already suspect given their source (i.e. rich man vanity polls). I haven't looked at their methodology, I'm not sure all of the details are available for it, I doubt any of us have done rigorous analysis of that. Who are they really polling? How? Why would these be more reliable than the pre-vote polls? etc., many obvious questions.
In the meantime, if the best thinkers of the left are locked away in the Analysis Monastery, figuring out if this event really does have the class character many on the left feel it does, they aren't participating in forming that essential first-flash crystallization of the meaning of the event. Surely at least "I'm not completely convinced that it is yet, but if this is a working class victory, then, ..." is better than nothing. Then, as more rigorous analysis is actually done, those ideas can be refined.
This is a lot of words to just say that I want more left writers, journalists, etc, to be in the mix of modern/social media that happens immediately during and after an event and yes it's impossible to have a correct analysis that quickly but maybe there are ways of working with incomplete analyses other than holding back. I'm not just talking to you, about this, I'm thinking about myself and a lot of other people in a variety of similar situations.
otoh, I guess arguing on the rhizzone is in a sense doing exactly what I'm suggesting, but no one can see it. After I roll out some of the template changes and general improvements, rhizzone posts and articles should be more easily integrated into the social media bullshit katamari. ... hooray?
drwhat posted:In this specific case, for example, I think the only numbers we have are from Lord Ashcroft Polls, which a few have pointed out are already suspect given their source (i.e. rich man vanity polls). I haven't looked at their methodology, I'm not sure all of the details are available for it, I doubt any of us have done rigorous analysis of that. Who are they really polling? How? Why would these be more reliable than the pre-vote polls? etc., many obvious questions.
my point is that you are being severely inconsistent with this. you apparently had no issue with people drawing from bourgeois pseudo-analysis to support a position you are seemingly sympathetic to - asserting a particular class character of the voting base - but immediately draw objection when the inadequacy of such an argument is highlighted
this is an inherent issue with what you're suggesting. there is no consistent metric that determines wether a position is "good enough" for the case of rhetorical expedience - only to what degree it aligns the arbitrary pre-conceived positions of whoever the rhetoric is coming from
abandoning or circumventing concrete analysis of material conditions in order to make concessions toward the framework of liberal discourse is actively harmful in pretty much every conceivable way. even if you manage to secure a rhetorical victory in staking out your position with immediacy, what possible benefit does that have if its based on nothing? what trust can anyone rightfully place in you when you subordinate the demands of truth and clarity to rhetorical expedience in the field of bourgeois discourse?
that's not to say i am adverse to proliferating marxist analysis or perspectives in any particular field, but marxist analysis is only ever valuable insofar as it is correct
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
Although my assertion, "No investigation no right to speak", has been ridiculed as "narrow empiricism", to this day I do not regret having made it; far from regretting it, I still insist that without investigation there cannot possibly be any right to speak. There are many people who "the moment they alight from the official carriage" make a hullabaloo, spout opinions, criticize this and condemn that; but, in fact, ten out of ten of them will meet with failure. For such views or criticisms, which are not based on thorough investigation, are nothing but ignorant twaddle.
of course that's not to say that there aren't choices in bourgeois politics that don't have "correct answers" from the standpoint of a materialist analysis. "bomb syria: y/n" would be relatively straightforward, but under capitalism, if the destruction of the government in syria is seen as necessary, there is always the possibility that the events that are deemed necessary will occur through other channels, perhaps much less visible ones. this is why it's necessary to actually have some strong measure political control of a situation before you can talk about it being a possible loss for the bourgeoisie.
blinkandwheeze posted:even if you manage to secure a rhetorical victory in staking out your position with immediacy, what possible benefit does that have if its based on nothing? what trust can anyone rightfully place in you when you subordinate the demands of truth and clarity to rhetorical expedience in the field of bourgeois discourse?
that's not to say i am adverse to proliferating marxist analysis or perspectives in any particular field, but marxist analysis is only ever valuable insofar as it is correct
what room are you leaving for marxists to ever take a position, then, in the lead up to events such as brexit, or for that matter, any vote under capitalism? the material consequences of these processes are of enough concern that it is not enough to refuse to take a position (by which i do not mean one has to pick a side or engage in lesser evilism).
and at what point after an event can we decide the dust has settled well enough for us to be confident we have the facts we need to produce a correct analysis? expedience is, after all, not merely a concern in terms of keeping up with the bougies. and it seems we struggle to speak with confidence about current events unless there are clear historical parallels to draw from.
glomper_stomper posted:le_nelson_mandela_face posted:Please do not sully the good name of misanthropy by associating it it with these fishfaced tardos
i recognize that at least a few of those people published books on philosophy and none of them seem to have familiarity with the is-ought problem
Petrol posted:what room are you leaving for marxists to ever take a position, then, in the lead up to events such as brexit, or for that matter, any vote under capitalism?
the same room they have always had at any other point in history? i am confused by your framing of "investigating before speaking" as somehow an alien idea as opposed the position that was asserted at every point by every significant revolutionary leader in the marxist tradition
there is obviously not going to be a universal prescriptive account of how much or how long investigation is required - obviously this is going to vary based on what is being accounted for, what resources are available, etc. - but it is bizarre for you to somehow believe coming to a conclusive position based on concrete analysis of conditions is not a practical and actionable path in the immediate sense. if you do not believe that to be true, why even be a marxist at all? what would marxists have to offer to anyone?
of course there is value to expediency, but if expediency circumvents or diminishes consistency and reliability in analysis then what is this expediency for? i am genuinely unsure what you think the alternative is. what possible utility do you think promoting a message ungrounded in investigation has? even if you manage to beat prevailing liberal discourse at its own game, what are you left with to take its place?
You can' t solve a problem? Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past history! When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it. Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to "find solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation. It must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to arrive at a wrong solution and a wrong idea.
There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly in office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut about, criticizing this and condemning that when they have only seen the surface of things or minor details. Such purely subjective nonsensical talk is indeed detestable. These people are bound to make a mess of things, lose the confidence of the masses and prove incapable of solving any problem at all.
"just read avoid book worship and she'll be right m8"
blinkandwheeze posted:i will gladly give up the life of myself and my countrymen if it means removing all australians from this earth
Better get to work. As Mao said, Marxism is a guide to action, not a dogma.
blinkandwheeze posted:
i basically agree with your position as you now express it. but i think it's important to leave room for comrades to make errors without snarking that they might as well not bother with marxism.
i didn't think you actually disagreed with the viability of basing political positions on investigation, which is why i was confused that your framing seemed to suggest this
I don't think those Marxist groups that advocated 'lexit', on the grounds of it being a blow to both the EU and the British bourgeoisie, were incorrect in their analysis. At the time it was surely a matter of weighing that positive potential against the negative potential. Now, looking back, many seem to think this was obviously a mistake. I think it's too soon to assess, and the more important and immediate task is to develop the strong, visible, and active anti-fascist movement needed to resist an emboldened far right. But the question remains - were the lexiters wrong?
to me, so far, it simply seems as if we are expected to accept the question of formal nonmembership in the eu is an inherent weakening of the eu and its interests. but if the participation and collaboration in and with the european union's markets - which i doubt anyone actually expects the uk bourgeoisie to divest from as a response to this referendum - continues, is that actually the case at all?
my point generally is that the formal allegiances and rhetoric of bourgeois institutions and their various proceedings should not simply be taken on face value. to identify an impact on the interests of a social class is to understand how this actually effects material conditions on the ground. i think people generally recognise the farcical and empty nature of various bourgeois political proceedings in most every other context, but people jump to take them extremely seriously in this case, for reasons i still don't really understand
blinkandwheeze posted:my point generally is that the formal allegiances and rhetoric of bourgeois institutions and their various proceedings should not simply be taken on face value. to identify an impact on the interests of a social class is to understand how this actually effects material conditions on the ground. i think people generally recognise the farcical and empty nature of various bourgeois political proceedings in most every other context, but people jump to take them extremely seriously in this case, for reasons i still don't really understand
blinkandwheeze posted:but if the participation and collaboration in and with the european union's markets - which i doubt anyone actually expects the uk bourgeoisie to divest from as a response to this referendum - continues, is that actually the case at all?
these are both key imo. there can be a full English Brexit and it won't change anything about the relations of production anywhere if they just end up being re-established as they were. similarly, actual gains for the working class either in the UK or abroad, will be gained by class struggle and not as a side effect of a referendum anyway. worker protections in britain and on the continent in europe are largely the result of local struggles and less due to the EU in the first place. so then from both perspectives the important thing is developing a class struggle and the referendum itself is something like a red herring and having strong opinions on how someone votes in it is really strange, especially so if the person having the strong opinions claims to be someone critical of the effectiveness of bourgeois electoralism.
to some extent i can understand people looking at this as a type of opening or breach in the fabric of bourgeois consensus and an opportunity for organizing some sort of gains for working people either in the UK or elsewhere as a result. i'm skeptical of this because, as i said above, how this breach or whatever gets navigated depends on the development of the class struggle. if the progressive sections of the UK working class aren't able to enforce an outcome beneficial to the proletariat then this represents an opportunity for the reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie against the liberal elements.
in real terms if the UK does not actually exit the EU fully and leaves a bunch of doors open that effectively mean no real brexit, then ok, yes, materially it doesn't matter, but will collective anger resurface then against the government that is seen to not truly exit the EU? even if it's sold by the media as an exit, if the people of the UK feel they are still getting fucked (and they will, because conditions will not change), will they continue to blame globalist projects like the EU?
i can't really accept that brexit means nothing. it isn't being treated as nothing in the discourse. it's solidifying a bunch of extremely fascist elite opinions that are somehow now ok to express (like those "the elite needs to smash the people" op-eds, or whatever the headlines were), it is triggering a bunch of public hand-wringing about globalism, etc., and there is space in there to have leftist reaction to those ideas and topics now that they are being crowbarred open by the fact that no, actually, if you put some massive liberal project to a vote, it does not just get a rubber stamp.
re the topic of expediency vs investigation, i don't disagree with you really blink i just wanted to hash it out a bit.
drwhat posted:it's solidifying a bunch of extremely fascist elite opinions that are somehow now ok to express (like those "the elite needs to smash the people"
reading the first part of this i thought it was going to end with something like 'like those "britain first" fascist slogans' lol. point being i guess that there are sections of the bourgeoisie (and hence fascism) that think each option is beneficial i guess.
c_man posted:point being i guess that there are sections of the bourgeoisie (and hence fascism) that think each option is beneficial i guess.
That's sort of what I've been thinking. 80% (or more to a number out of my ass not empirical sorry BlinkNWheeze) of people who voted for either remain or leave are voting our of labor aristocracy on up class interest either way...
MarxUltor posted:what direct impact this event may have regarding some of the human rights protections the EU may have supported for vulnerable groups
Unlikely to have much of an impact at this stage. The European Convention on Human Rights (involving all 47 member states) and the European Court of Human Rights are completely separate from the EU Court of Justice. Brexit doesn't affect the ECHR.
drwhat posted:i can't really accept that brexit means nothing. it isn't being treated as nothing in the discourse. it's solidifying a bunch of extremely fascist elite opinions that are somehow now ok to express (like those "the elite needs to smash the people" op-eds, or whatever the headlines were), it is triggering a bunch of public hand-wringing about globalism, etc., and there is space in there to have leftist reaction to those ideas and topics now that they are being crowbarred open by the fact that no, actually, if you put some massive liberal project to a vote, it does not just get a rubber stamp.
the fact that it is treated as such by bourgeois outlets and institutions does not indicate that it actually is indicative of anything substantial. again, i feel like you or anyone else engaging in this side of the argument would entirely recognise this in any other context. you are simply ceding too much authority to bourgeois discourse to determine interpretation of events on the ground, and confusing rhetorical reaction with a genuine shift in the interests of a productive base
we routinely have seen that fascism is not in fact a real opposition to the interests of the liberal elite, but a protection of liberal interests in times of crisis. illiberal political perspectives are every much as bourgeois and imperialist in character as the liberal projects they ostensibly reject - the difference is merely a question of rhetoric and formal process
i do not understand how this political gamble - adhering to and advocating bourgeois-democratic tendencies toward illiberalism directed and framed by the far right - in the minor chance it might open a rhetorical space for communists is anything but an accelerationist gesture. this question would be different if there was a consolidated communist leadership and mass movement to immediately take advantage of these kinds of situations, but in their absence, advocating for a political manoeuvre already dominated by the far right because it might open up future opportunities for a communist rhetorical victory is irresponsible at best
in any case it should be recognised that claiming this as already a victory for the working class or a blow against imperialism because it might possibly be one in the future maybe, as opposed to it actually being one in a material sense, is a ridiculous position to uphold. amilcar cabral told us to "claim no easy victories" for a reason
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
The new fascism is, in effect, "anti-imperialist" right now. It is opposed to the big imperialist bourgeoisie (unlike Mussolini and Hitler earlier, who wanted even stronger, bigger Western imperialism), to the transnational corporations and banks, and their world-spanning "multicultural" bourgeois culture. Fascism really wants to bring down the World Bank, WTO and NATO, and even America the Superpower. As in destroy. That is, it is anti-bourgeois but not anti-capitalist. Because it is based on fundamentally pro-capitalist classes.
Fascism, in this slowly accelerating global crisis of transformation, believes in what we might call basic capitalism, o.g. capitalism. It is the would-be champion of local male classes vs. the new transnational classes. Enemy of emigrant Third World labor and the modern supra-imperialist State alike, fascism draws on the old weakening national classes of the lower-middle strata, local capitalists and the layers of declassed men. To the increasing mass of rootless men fallen or ripped out of productive classes – whether it be the peasantry or the salariat – it offers not mere working class jobs but the vision of payback. Of a land for real men, where they and not the bourgeois will be the one's giving orders at gunpoint and living off of others.