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!

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.

Actually it hasn’t, what are you talking about?

In a dialectical viewpoint, nothing is inevitable.

(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?

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.

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?

And that’s if you accept the basic Marxist framework (which I don’t)!

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