I’m behind on some of that reading I proposed to do a while back. I read the Marx, made some notes. On that, Eric’s notes and Barry’s notes are online too, which I need to respond to after reviewing my own notes again.
I read the Lenin but got very little except I had the thought that Lenin’s remarsk on idealism applies to at least a lot of bad marxism. I misplaced the printout I wrote on so I can’t recall exactly what passage gave me that impression, if I find it I’ll post that here.
I just read Mao’s On Practice as preparation for On Contradiction (hope to read that tomorrow or Monday then get to rereading the Althusser texts). I also got very little from this. What’s striking is the bad epistemology/philosophy of mind, and how unnecessary it all is, plus bad philosophy of history. [Note to self, post link to the Mao piece.] It’s also notable that Mao thinks class struggle, politics, science, and art are “practical” but are not “material” - that gets reserved for production. It’s also notable that diamat serves the proletariat but is not of the proletariat. A bit disturbingly, one of my favorite lines was a Stalin quote - “Theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected to revolutionary practice.”
hey there’s some new Badiou translations that you might be interested in esp. one called “The Factory as Event Site” to be found on page 171 of the following uber-kuhl journal:
http://www.prelomkolektiv.org/eng/08.htm
Comment by tzuchien — January 9, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
how the fuck are you anyways? how are uk plans (or lack thereof ) going, any definite decisions?
Comment by tzuchien — January 9, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Stalin is stealing from John - Faith without works is dead.
Isn’t that quote exactly what Badiou thinks is wrong with Stalinism? I think he says something about confusing the political with philosophy or something. Is that right? And if so, is it right?
Comment by Anthony Paul Smith — January 10, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Nate, been rubbish at this too, having moved in December (books still in boxes) and been away on holiday … just got back to work today … zzzz …
take care, B
Comment by Barry — January 23, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
from the preface:
organization and democracy
mutual trust and confidence between leadership and rank and file
contradictions within an organization
needs and wishes of ‘the masses’
spirit of criticism and self-criticism
non-antagonistic vs/becoming antagonistic ones
correct relationship between members and between leadership and members, dependent on composition of leadership [not being opportunists and carreerinsts, this is moralism
“Those who wish to rule and control others wish to keep them ignorant but those who wish to free the masses wish to keep them enlightened.” That’s a nice quote. Anyone know where he said it?
Ideological unity is the basis of all unity. [Not convinced on that.]
From Mao:
Meeting procedure sounds good - distribute material, invite comment, amend based on comments, give and explain the report. I like that he recognizes the factor of time in meeting procedure. I’ve been to so many fucking long meetings, and people don’t always realize that that’s also a democracy issue - say for people who have to get home to kids and such.
Mao talks of “the present conference” - where and when was this talk given? He also talks of the “working experience of 12 years”, what’s the a reference to? Who is he addressing?
“Contradictions among the people can’t be resolved by curses or fists, still less by knives or guns. They can be resolved only by discussion and reasoning, criticism and self-criticism. In a word, they can be resolved only by the democratic method, by letting the masses speak out.”
Presumably ‘the people’ here means ‘the working classes’, not ‘everyone’, as there are enemies with whom discussion won’t suffice. Later on he equates proletarian dictatorship with people’s dictatorship, specifying that it will be “let by the proletariat and based on the alliance of the workers and peasants.” The peasants, then, presumably are a subsidiary sector of the people. The communist party is the mechanism for proletarian leadership of the peasants, since the party is the vanguard of the proletariat. (As in, the party is the vanguard, or whatever is the leading sector shall function in the role as the party? I’m pretty sure it’s the former.)
I like the point that under socialism errors will persist.
I find it interesting that the role of the party in being open to criticism is to explain to the masses and the cadre what the situation is, and then allow them to speak out in response.
Centralism=discipline, democracy=freedom. The former is more important for overcoming difficulties but can’t exist without the latter. (”Without a high degree of centralism it is impossible to establish a socialist economy.”)
Centralism requires nondivergence of views, unity of understanding, shared correct ideas. Democracy is a means for producing these conditions that make up centralism (like removing a blockage such as unexpressed opinions or unvented anger). The leadership ‘merely’ process the results of democracy in order to produce the unity of centralism and the formulation of lines, principles, policies, and methods. Democracy is also a means for knowing what’s happening at the base. The base is/provides raw material that the leadership work over, as in a factory.
The topic of the conference he’s addressing is ‘opposition to decentralism,’ ’strengthening centralism and unity’. What does decentralism mean? Who were its proponents?
I like the comparison of inflexible people in leadership roles with a government who will get overthrown, but it’s interesting that it’s an overthrowing in the form of conquest by a different state, not a revolt from below.
Exploitation no longer exists in China, according to Mao. I’m not convinced.
New bourgeois elements continue to emerge in socialist society. Classes and class struggle still exist. (But not exploitation?) On what basis do these exist/emerge?
Comment by Nate — April 18, 2007 @ 4:16 am