Re: Hookes and positivism

[bernie wool <bernard.wool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 9. The clear need for a mass party of the working class for socialism built by 
the
working class not for the working class by an elite group of revolutionary
know-a-lots.  Such a party will be internationalist at its core due to the 
character
of the class whose interests its pursues.


10. There are many rich opportunities for building such a party present today 
during
the intensifying crisis * the crisis of "the social metabolic processes"
to quote Istvan Meszaros [1] * of the global capital production system, its 
manifest
inabilityto create a viable future for the human species.

((((((((((((

Charles: I'm all ears, but the following discussion of positivism does not seem 
much
concerned with developing a party .  It is an informative analysis of the 
history of
positivism, but it seems to contradict its critique of the Leninist party as 
elitist
and intellectuals controlling, because clearly this is written by an 
intellectual;
and even more it fails to see that Lenin's demand to more tightly link 
philosophy
with the party rather than leaving philosophy as some elite knowledge distant 
from
masses of people is more fulfillment of the propositions above than the 
approach of
the author.  Lenin's "vulgarity" is actually his concern that philosophy be 
discussed
in a way that has at least some chance to be comprehended by masses , by others 
than
technical philosophy professors.

_________________________
Bernie:  It would be better to have Hookes answer this.  However, my 
understanding of
what he is going on about is not the old Leninist Revolutionary Party _for_ the 
class,
but some organisation outside of the present mass reformist parties, which are 
neither
for nor any longer _of_ the class, one that sets out as a distinct break with 
capital
out of necessity, and one that _emerges from the class itself_.  Now that 
sounds on
the surface like lots of hoary old anarcho-syndicalism, but it cannot emerge 
without
Marxists being in the midst of its development, starting from the _immediate 
needs of
the class_.

Making philosophy and lots more besides accessible to workers is only possible 
from
that unification of the 'heart and the head'.  Yet, it cannot be a unity unless
Marxists and socialists of other currents collectivise with workers at all 
sorts of
levels other than on matters of 'pure' theoretical discourse.  Yes there is a 
great
deal to be learned, and like you, I get irritated with 'academic' writing.  
Meszaros
is a good example, and deeply difficult, so much so that I assume he was 
writing in
the way that he did to clarify things for himself.

Can't say I agree that we are not witnessing capital in a paroxism today.  The 
market
collapse in the Far East does seem to suggest that it hangs by a fragile thread.
Sure, there are a great many oppressive things, not the least being stealthy
technologies, but I am sure that is the form not the content of matters.

BW