Cohen and Thompson were on the same side of debate within Marxism against those who would justify political positions by the immutable laws of history supposedly grounded in Marxism. Thompson did this by arguing for the agency of workers in shaping their own their own history and Cohen did it through an analytical critique of Althusserian structuralism. I agree with Ben that Cohen seemed to appreciate Thompson, even if he disgreed with his definition of class, but at the same time, he did not seem to consider Marxist historiography outside of Thompson (and perhaps a narrow sector of the British Marxists).
an we get a brief video Althusser? had trouble following this debate between Cohen and Thompson other than the fact that Thompson tried to dismiss structural analysis and Cohen says not so fast.
King Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that? Woman: King of the who? King Arthur: King of the Britons. Woman: Who are the Britons? King Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king. Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. Dennis: You're foolin' yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class... Woman: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again. Dennis: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would... King Arthur: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle? Woman: No one lives there. King Arthur: Then who is your lord? Woman: We don't have a lord. Dennis: I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week... King Arthur: Yes... Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... King Arthur: Yes I see... Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs... King Arthur: Be quiet! Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of... King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? (Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975).
While I think I agree that class is not a structure, in the sense it is not an institution, I do tend to regard it as a product of a structure. A product of the structure of culture, perhaps? That would be a social institution, I think. Something that evolves over time from birth to death. The strongest influence of which are the wealthy.
@@Barklord When going back to the concept of rights, I tend to think there should be no such thing as geographic, or spacial property rights. This because a person takes up space. If you have no right to occupy space, you don't really have a right to life, do you? And space is finite. On the other hand, the right to the product of your effort, I think, is a different kind of property. But if we're going to get into discussing property, we still need to go back to the idea of institutions that support a social existence. Institutions are still something I'm trying to sort through. They are a major component of expansion into large social structures. But the nature of them seems to be that of having hierarchy, and, hence potentially, authoritarian roots. Libertarianism seems to have a great deal of problems with authority, so how one is to support the kind of private property with out any institution to do so tends to put them in that precarious position that seems to internally contradict their approach.
In the name USSR, the first S stands for Soviet, i.e. 'workers councils'. A central planning committee of representatives drawn from hundreds of such workers councils tried to figure out how much of everything should be produced, and how it should be priced. In the end, the project went belly up. The aftermath of this collapse was the Russian 'gig economy' of the 1990s. And one such gig participant was Vladimir Putin who drove a taxicab in St Petersberg. Russia has since dumped socialism for private and state capitalism with a resultant soaring in living standards and income levels. Capitalism has made Russia a very wealthy country. The US has taken the opposite tack. Its once marvelous and magnificent free market free enterprise society has been taxed and regulated to the tipping point. It now approximates the centrally planned economy. Its once magnificent, prosperous cities now lie in ruin, the industry which once made them so prosperous long ago shuttered by ruinous tax and regulatory policy. The gig economy appearing in the US is a manifestation of an ongoing socialist transformation of US society, a transformation which bears no relation to the free market laissez faire capitalism which for instance once made Detroit the wealthiest city in the world.
@Sebastian Giangregorio Hey I wonder if Michael Schellenberger might not be the presidential candidate who could unite both the radical Left and the radical Right ?
Thank you, Adnan Husain and Ben.
Cohen and Thompson were on the same side of debate within Marxism against those who would justify political positions by the immutable laws of history supposedly grounded in Marxism. Thompson did this by arguing for the agency of workers in shaping their own their own history and Cohen did it through an analytical critique of Althusserian structuralism. I agree with Ben that Cohen seemed to appreciate Thompson, even if he disgreed with his definition of class, but at the same time, he did not seem to consider Marxist historiography outside of Thompson (and perhaps a narrow sector of the British Marxists).
an we get a brief video Althusser? had trouble following this debate between Cohen and Thompson other than the fact that Thompson tried to dismiss structural analysis and Cohen says not so fast.
King Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?
Woman: King of the who?
King Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: Who are the Britons?
King Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Dennis: You're foolin' yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class...
Woman: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
Dennis: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would...
King Arthur: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
King Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord.
Dennis: I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...
King Arthur: Yes...
Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
King Arthur: Yes I see...
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
King Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...
King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?
(Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975).
While I think I agree that class is not a structure, in the sense it is not an institution, I do tend to regard it as a product of a structure. A product of the structure of culture, perhaps? That would be a social institution, I think. Something that evolves over time from birth to death. The strongest influence of which are the wealthy.
@@Barklord When going back to the concept of rights, I tend to think there should be no such thing as geographic, or spacial property rights. This because a person takes up space. If you have no right to occupy space, you don't really have a right to life, do you? And space is finite. On the other hand, the right to the product of your effort, I think, is a different kind of property. But if we're going to get into discussing property, we still need to go back to the idea of institutions that support a social existence. Institutions are still something I'm trying to sort through. They are a major component of expansion into large social structures. But the nature of them seems to be that of having hierarchy, and, hence potentially, authoritarian roots. Libertarianism seems to have a great deal of problems with authority, so how one is to support the kind of private property with out any institution to do so tends to put them in that precarious position that seems to internally contradict their approach.
E.P. Thompson?
I.P. Freely more like
First
In the name USSR, the first S stands for Soviet, i.e. 'workers councils'. A central planning committee of representatives drawn from hundreds of such workers councils tried to figure out how much of everything should be produced, and how it should be priced. In the end, the project went belly up. The aftermath of this collapse was the Russian 'gig economy' of the 1990s. And one such gig participant was Vladimir Putin who drove a taxicab in St Petersberg. Russia has since dumped socialism for private and state capitalism with a resultant soaring in living standards and income levels. Capitalism has made Russia a very wealthy country. The US has taken the opposite tack. Its once marvelous and magnificent free market free enterprise society has been taxed and regulated to the tipping point. It now approximates the centrally planned economy. Its once magnificent, prosperous cities now lie in ruin, the industry which once made them so prosperous long ago shuttered by ruinous tax and regulatory policy. The gig economy appearing in the US is a manifestation of an ongoing socialist transformation of US society, a transformation which bears no relation to the free market laissez faire capitalism which for instance once made Detroit the wealthiest city in the world.
@Sebastian Giangregorio Hey I wonder if Michael Schellenberger might not be the presidential candidate who could unite both the radical Left and the radical Right ?