[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Social Democracy or Revolutionary Democracy: Syriza and Us | The Bullet No. 1149

Thu Aug 6 15:10:13 CEST 2015

very well put indeed, I read his book last november in greece,

Michel

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:13 AM, <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:

> Peter,
> thank you so much for posting this article. I really resonate with what
> Michael Lebowitz is saying here.
>
> He says:
>  *Why is it that after so many defeats so many still cannot see what Marx
> grasped in the nineteenth century – that capital has the tendency to
> produce a working class which views the existence of capital as necessary?
> ‘The advance of capitalist production,’ he stressed, ‘develops a working
> class which by education, tradition and habit looks upon the requirements
> of this mode of production as self-evident natural laws.’*
>
> This is so true. Many radicals get frustrated that others can't see what
> they see. I have been there myself. Why do working class vote for Tories?
> Incomprehensible I thought. But according to Lebowitz (and Marx) it makes
> sense. And by mode of production lets understand hierarchical
> relationships, so that it includes ICT, and all patriarchal relationships
> based on power and money.
>
> Lebowitz again:
> *It begins, in short, by grasping the ‘key link’ of human development and
> practice that Marx consistently stressed. Revolutionary democracy
> recognizes that **every activity in which people engage forms them.** (*My
> emphasis*) Thus, there are two products of every activity – the changing
> of circumstance or things and the human product.*
>
> *What's the significance of recognizing this process of producing people
> explicitly? First, it helps us to understand why changes must occur in all
> spheres – every moment that people act within old relations is a process of
> reproducing old ideas and attitudes. Working under hierarchical relations,
> functioning without the ability to make decisions in the workplace and
> society, focusing upon self-interest rather than upon solidarity within
> society – these activities produce people on a daily basis; it is the
> reproduction of the conservatism of everyday life.*
>
> This is what I was trying to say in the discussion with you and Michel, we
> have to take into account where these forces converge in the individual
> because that is where the 'alternative logic' that Michel talks about,
> arises. But what I didn't see is that what gives rise to this 'alternative
> logic', is the possibility of different practice, different activity, what
> Leibowitz calls below 'new spaces in which people can develop their
> powers...'
>
> *“Recognizing this second side also directs us to focus upon the
> introduction of concrete measures which explicitly take into account the
> effect of those measures upon human development. Thus, for every step two
> questions must be asked: (1) how does this change circumstances and (2) how
> does this help to produce revolutionary subjects and increase their
> capacities?”[5]*
>
> *Of course, it must struggle to capture the existing state from capital so
> that state can serve the needs of the working-class rather than capital.
> However, it also must “promote by all means possible new democratic
> institutions, new spaces in which people can develop their powers through
> their protagonism.” *
>
> You questioned Lebowitz use of term working class. To me the 'working
> class', is all those who never actually have a chance to think outside the
> box, who are captured by the logic of capitalism to sell their labour in
> whatever form, or who accept inequality as a natural state of affairs. I
> know these terms are very imprecise but I find the hair splitting arguments
> between old timers a real waste. Lebowitz is really addressing the question
> you raised about the 'socio-cultural processes' needed to accomplish a
> politico-economic transition.
>
> I will write more when I have finished Lebowitz article which I am in
> process of reading and would heartily recommend
>
> http://monthlyreview.org/2014/03/01/proposing-path-socialism-two-papers-hugo-chavez/
>
> Excerpt:  *This is a society centred on a conscious exchange of activity
> for communal needs and communal purposes. It is a society of new, rich
> human beings who develop in the course of producing with others
> and for others; these are people for whom the desire to possess and the
> associated need for money (the real need that capitalism produces, Marx
> noted) wither away. We are describing a new world in which we have our
> individual needs, needs for our own “all-round development,” but where we
> are not driven by material incentives to act. It is a world in which our
> activity is its own reward (and is, indeed, “life’s prime want”) because we
> affirm ourselves as conscious social beings through that activity, a world
> in which we produce use-values for others and produce ourselves as part of
> the human family.*
>
> How is this accomplished?
>
> Anna
>
>
>
>
> On 2 Aug 2015, at 09:45, Peter Waterman <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1149.php#continue
> _______________________________________________
> NetworkedLabour mailing list
> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetworkedLabour mailing list
> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>
>

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20150806/1e1bdc4c/attachment.htm 