Socialist wisdom
I know I shouldn’t laugh at socialists, but… this post contains what I think must be the most absurd example of Marxist ‘economic determinism’ I’ve ever read: “the police officer who comes to your home in response to a burglary or an incident of vandalism with a sympathetic ear and a commitment to your needs at that particular moment, is the same police officer who when deployed at a demonstration against the very institutions responsible for people losing their homes is ready, able, and willing to put a baton over your head…Social being determines consciousness, and the primary role of the police in any capitalist society is that of a weapon in the hands of a state controlled by the few at the expense of the many.” This is then followed by a commentator earnestly commanding that nobody forget “the guy whose name I’ve sadly forgotten” (I kid you not)!
Category: Asides | Tags: Politics, socialism 16 comments »
April 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Problem is that your sound bite approach to ideas becomes a form of cheesy propaganda in its own right, undercutting a rational engagement with the ideas under consideration. So what if you can cull dumb-ass remarks from the socialist press? What does that prove about an intellectual heritage about which you are quite underinformed?
April 21st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Oh do be quiet Ralph.
1. It’s supposed to be propaganda!
2. It doesn’t undercut rational engagement with the ideas (I can do soundbites and rational engagement);
3. You have no idea whether I’m underinformed.
4. Your interventions here are themselves soundbites (but I wouldn’t claim that this undercuts rational engagement with the ideas under consideration or that it shows that you’re uniformed, because I’m not going to make that mistake).
April 25th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
i have to agree with Ralph. I’m not a Marxist, but that doesn’t mean that police actions and failures of governing, policing and running a dishonest business should go without criticism. So I don’t really get the point of your post, or see what’s so funny about the pro-Marxist post. So for me you’ve failed to make an convincing point at all.
April 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
also, it looks bad when you’re commenting on the lack of intellectual rigor displayed by others, while own site is hosting banner ads for Numerology readings.
Found on your site:
Your Name is No Accident
See Why The Shocking Truth Of Your Numerology Chart Cannot Tell a Lie!
http://www.numerologist.com
(I know I know, it’s not your fault. just making a little joke!)
April 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Well Ralph seemed to suggest that stuff I cited was “dumb-assed”, so I’m not sure you do agree with him.
But, regardless, what’s funny about the remarks is the absurd idea that the policeman who rescues your cat from a tree turns into a pscyhotic monster when policing a demonstration because “social being determines consciousness” (whatever that might mean).
Morever, Ralph’s remarks are absurd because not every political intervention is to the end of making a “convincing point” that will stand up to sustained and rational scrutiny. Rhetoric is part of politics, and obviously part of what I’m doing here is rhetoric (which is partly why this is in the “Asides” section of the web site).
In other words, it isn’t supposed to be a fully worked out statement of the absurdity of Marxist materialistic determinism.
April 25th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Yes there have been a number of somewhat ironic adverts appearing.
April 25th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I think what the Socialist Unity post is saying, admittedly is a poorly constructed way, that that when you have a class-based society, with control of law enforcement in the hands of the capitalist class, you have an environment ripe for abuse… the “social being” part, I assume, has to do with the police not really being on ‘your team’ so to speak.
Some of these Marxist concerns about social class are perhaps demonstrated in Dr. Zimbardo’s famous Stanford Prison Experiment:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html
April 25th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Yes but even if one accepts the terms of a Marxist analysis which sees the police as being part of the Repressive State Apparatus (for want of a better expression), my view is that stuides such as Zimbardo’s, but also Migram’s stuff on obedience, plus Le Bon on crowd behaviour, anything on deindividuation, etc., etc., suggest that there is nothing peculiar about the actions of the policeman that requires that one resorts to an analysis that posits his institutional location as the explanans. In other words, if you get a situation such as the standoff between the police and the protestors at the G20 thing then you’re going to get random acts of violence on both sides because that’s the nature of human beings in crowds (especially where confrontation is part of the story).
And that’s if you accept the basic Marxist framework (which I don’t)!
April 25th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I don’t get the analogy. The behavior of the “police” in the Stanford Prison Experiment or the experimenter in Milgram’s experiment had nothing to do with a standoff.
April 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Sure, but both studies support the idea that human beings are highly susceptible to social and contextual pressures; and also that we are quite willing to perpetrate acts of cruelty on each other (albeit reluctantly in the Milgram case).
In other words, these studies are part of a whole lot of research in social psychology that shows that we don’t need to refer to social class, social being determining consciousness, or anything other Marxist concepts to explain why a policeman might end up battering a protestor.
Do you know the Robber’s Cave experiment? Terrifying, right? But nothing to do with social class.
Or how about Tajfel’s social identity studies? If anything even more scary.
Anyway, regardless, the point is that the kind of stuff that appeared in the Socialist Unity post is just laughably simplistic (which is what I said).
Given that you seem to know something about social psychology, you surely must agree with me?
April 25th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I never heard about Robber’s Cave or Tajfel studies. I’ll check them out!
yeah, the arguments in that article are pretty silly. But why did the police react as they did in that video?
I think the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments DO have something to do with class. In the prison experiment you clearly have two classes: prisoners and guards. In the Milgram experiment you have the ‘learner’ on one side and the experimenter with the authority of the teacher on the other side. You don’t see authority/class as a factor?
You mention that some police are just prone to behave badly in such a situation, but I think there is more to it.
The situation shown here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdFBHxNjfD4), seems to demonstrate some of the Social Processes That Grease the Slippery Slope of Evil. (according to Zimbardo), including:
-Dehumanizing of Others
-De-individuation of Personal Responsibility.
-Uncritical Conformity to Group Norms
-Passive Tolerance of Evil Through Inaction, or Indifference. (other police tolerating the belligerent and unprofessional act of one of their mates…)
The police should be ashamed for their behavior, the policeman who violated this person’s rights should be punished and some oversight agency should put some rules and regulations in place to prevent this kind of behavior.
April 25th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Thing is, Max, Marxists define class in a very particular way. It isn’t simply a matter of there being distinct groups of people – you know, the powerful and the powerless, authority figures and the obedient, or whatever.
(Basically, Marxists define classes in terms of the ownership and non-owernship of the means of production, which means in capitalism you have two great classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat).
I absolutely agree with you that the dynamics between the kinds of groups you’re talking about are part of the explanation. But that’s taking you away from a Marxist framework.
“You mention that some police are just prone to behave badly in such a situation, ”
That’s not really my argument. My argument is that human beings are prone to behave badly in the situation that the police will routinely find themselves in.
I’m not arguing that one shouldn’t “punish” the policemen concerned. But I think there are complicated moral arguments to be had here. Particularly, there’s a whole lot of stuff to do with moral luck. If it’s the case that all that distinguishes the violent policeman in the G20 demonstration from many other people is that his job puts him in a situation where he might lose control, (whereas that isn’t the case with other people, though if it were, they would also lose control), then it isn’t obvious that ‘punishment’ is just.
It’s a ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ argument. If human beings are prone to these kinds of lapses, then is it right to punish people just because their job puts them in a situation which makes such lapses much more likely?
So consider, for example, the Milgram experiment. The experimental subjects in that study were willing to inflict what they thought was great pain on the people to whom they were applying electric shocks.
It’s certainly arguable that they were morally wrong to do so. However, given that almost everybody in that situation would do the same, would it be fair to punish them?
July 17th, 2009 at 9:50 am
You are misunderstanding Marxism, because it isn’t deterministic (whatever its opponents might say).
In a dialectical viewpoint, nothing is inevitable.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Thanks Mellie. That’s cleared that one up…
Actually it hasn’t, what are you talking about?
July 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I’m talking about your claim that Marxism is determinist. It isn’t.
Sorry if that was too intellectual for you.
Marxism is dialectical materialism. It is contrary to dialectical materialism to be determinist. Doesn’t fit. Not possible. Contradicts the whole thing.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Yeah Mellie, this is really hard to follow…
Interesting that you’re calling Marxism “dialectical materialism”. Because wouldn’t you reckon it was better described as “historical materialism”?
Anyway, I’ll type this really slowly in the hope that you’ll be able to follow:
The person I was criticising considers himself to be a Marxist (see his use of the phrase “social being determines consciousness” – that’s a clue!).
*He* is engaging in crude Marxist economic determinism.
I’m *criticising* that.
You see!
I don’t think Marxism is (necessarily) determinist. (I think the fella I’m criticising is utilising a crude version of Marxism – the kind of thing that Gramsci criticises when he talks about “vulgar economism”.)
But, and this is the crucial bit, I certainly think that self-identified Marxists engage in crude deterministic theorising. And this was an example of it. And that’s what I was criticising!
There – that wasn’t too difficult, was it?!
Now you’re going to respond:
“Ah yes, but that’s not real Marxism”.
Right. Fine. But I don’t care about that. Very, very tedious.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz <— that tedious!