Very interesting discussion. It would be interesting to see whether there is any connection between "What is Orthodox Marxism" and the debates which were happening in the Soviet Union in the twenties about whether there is a socialist theory of warfare, or socialist science, or socialist literature.
How do you feel about the notion that there’s fundamental epistemological similarities between standpoint theory and market liberalism a la Hayek (mainly the latter’s insight about the inherent fragmentation of knowledge in society). This argument is made in full by Pills and Schoenegger in a paper of that name (“on the epistemological similarities between market liberalism and standpoint theory”). If that argument’s correct, would that mean that lukacs’ workerism fails to constitute a meaningful break from liberal assumptions (leaving aside the question about whether or not that’s a “good” or “bad” thing, I’m mostly just asking to see if you think the overlap here has any meaningful implications for socialist politics insofar as it raises the question of to what extent socialism is or tends to be indebted to liberalism.)
I am reading Brain of the Firm and there Beer talks about how every logical language (or system) needs a higher order logical language to describe or judge elements of the first language that cannot be described within the first language. This seems to be the very same thing you two describe about there being no Marxist critique of Marxism as no logical system has the means for judging itself in totality. We need to use a different standard for judging Marxism than can be found in or derived whole cloth from Marxism.
This seems to also be where Marx was with respect to Liberalism and Clasical Economics. He was able to critique these schools of thought because he came at them using rational that was not entirely imbeded within them. The same could be said about Marx and the Utopian Socialists. This is a bold claim to make and I don't know enough about classical political economy to defend it but Marx strikes me as the classical economist to end classical economics. He understood classical political economy, contributed insightes that could be useful to classical economists and at once was able to transcend the field.
Maybe I'm a dirty revisionist, but aren't administrative roles being eroded away slowly through technological developments? (I find people find the contrary if one only examines particular wealthier economies, but not the production relationships as a whole, internationally). Isn't this part of the process of proletarianization that more and more of the labour force overall gravitates towards a common position because of the concentration of capital? The question of individual workers self administering the labour process, seems unlikely if the task that they do is so segmented. I understood it as the work process itself develops to the extent that a management task becomes a role that is not substantially different in bargaining power or interests to the broad swath of workers, not that each worker can also do management. The latter seems to suggest a reversal of worker alienation to an artisanal form and there is nothing to indicate this is feasible in a more cooperative, complex and interdependent production process. It also seems to imply some sort of workerist identity politics, that individual workers can do everything, rather than their power coming from what they do together. Either the role will be eliminated by technology (mostly automating coordination activities, potentially based on democratically determined policy) and / or it will first be degraded to the point that it loses its ability to demand a higher wage than most workers. I suppose technology can deskill this role to a large extent, so it is a job like any other and would be as accessible as any other unskilled labour task, with a minimum of training and experience. I am unclear how this can be done politically, unless we are at the point where this is already potentially feasible and more efficient than traditional corporate organization, but those with capital lack the creativity or incentive to try it. I have done bullshit jobs, but I think these are more a product of relative monopolistic bloat, which can be eroded under greater competition.Thoughts?
Great discussion. Thanks Varn.
Very interesting discussion. It would be interesting to see whether there is any connection between "What is Orthodox Marxism" and the debates which were happening in the Soviet Union in the twenties about whether there is a socialist theory of warfare, or socialist science, or socialist literature.
That is what Lukacs was trying to settle in many ways.
How do you feel about the notion that there’s fundamental epistemological similarities between standpoint theory and market liberalism a la Hayek (mainly the latter’s insight about the inherent fragmentation of knowledge in society). This argument is made in full by Pills and Schoenegger in a paper of that name (“on the epistemological similarities between market liberalism and standpoint theory”). If that argument’s correct, would that mean that lukacs’ workerism fails to constitute a meaningful break from liberal assumptions (leaving aside the question about whether or not that’s a “good” or “bad” thing, I’m mostly just asking to see if you think the overlap here has any meaningful implications for socialist politics insofar as it raises the question of to what extent socialism is or tends to be indebted to liberalism.)
Complicated
"My body is ready"
-RFA
I am reading Brain of the Firm and there Beer talks about how every logical language (or system) needs a higher order logical language to describe or judge elements of the first language that cannot be described within the first language.
This seems to be the very same thing you two describe about there being no Marxist critique of Marxism as no logical system has the means for judging itself in totality.
We need to use a different standard for judging Marxism than can be found in or derived whole cloth from Marxism.
This seems to also be where Marx was with respect to Liberalism and Clasical Economics. He was able to critique these schools of thought because he came at them using rational that was not entirely imbeded within them. The same could be said about Marx and the Utopian Socialists.
This is a bold claim to make and I don't know enough about classical political economy to defend it but Marx strikes me as the classical economist to end classical economics. He understood classical political economy, contributed insightes that could be useful to classical economists and at once was able to transcend the field.
Maybe I'm a dirty revisionist, but aren't administrative roles being eroded away slowly through technological developments? (I find people find the contrary if one only examines particular wealthier economies, but not the production relationships as a whole, internationally). Isn't this part of the process of proletarianization that more and more of the labour force overall gravitates towards a common position because of the concentration of capital? The question of individual workers self administering the labour process, seems unlikely if the task that they do is so segmented. I understood it as the work process itself develops to the extent that a management task becomes a role that is not substantially different in bargaining power or interests to the broad swath of workers, not that each worker can also do management. The latter seems to suggest a reversal of worker alienation to an artisanal form and there is nothing to indicate this is feasible in a more cooperative, complex and interdependent production process. It also seems to imply some sort of workerist identity politics, that individual workers can do everything, rather than their power coming from what they do together. Either the role will be eliminated by technology (mostly automating coordination activities, potentially based on democratically determined policy) and / or it will first be degraded to the point that it loses its ability to demand a higher wage than most workers. I suppose technology can deskill this role to a large extent, so it is a job like any other and would be as accessible as any other unskilled labour task, with a minimum of training and experience. I am unclear how this can be done politically, unless we are at the point where this is already potentially feasible and more efficient than traditional corporate organization, but those with capital lack the creativity or incentive to try it. I have done bullshit jobs, but I think these are more a product of relative monopolistic bloat, which can be eroded under greater competition.Thoughts?