Search Results for 'democratic social productionism'

December 2021 Forums Search Search Results for 'democratic social productionism'

Viewing 15 results - 1 through 15 (of 48 total)
  • Author
    Search Results
  • #216762

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    Matthew Culbert
    Keymaster

    While consistently advocating just such arrangements,

    (The author of this book recognises this idea’s pedigree in stating that the ‘vision of post-scarcity was what “socialism” and “communism” had come to mean before later identification with Stalinist central planning and breakneck industrialisation’, and, in his final chapter, entitled ‘Necessity and Freedom’, he describes it variously as, ‘the abolition of private property and monetary exchange in favor of planned cooperation’, ‘a world of fully capacitated individuals … in which every single person could look forward to developing their interests and abilities with full social support’, ‘a world in which democratic associations of women and men replaced the rule of the market with competitive production – and taking advantage of capitalist technologies – reduced the common labors of necessity to expand a realm of individual freedom’, ‘a new form of life that does not organize itself around wage work and monetary exchange’, a society in which ‘everyone can go to the social storehouses and service centers to get what they need’, and finally ‘for most people (…) the first time in their lives that they could enter truly voluntary agreements – without the gun to their heads of a pervasive material insecurity’. In such a society ‘dis-alienating community life – by taking that life under democratic control and collective care – becomes the way to ensure that individual freedom is shared by all’.)

    The Socialist Party has never sought to put forward detailed plans of how the new society of free access will be organised, since we would not seek to dictate now to the majority of socialist-minded workers at the time how to put into practice the plans they will have previously worked out about how to organise production and distribution cooperatively and democratically.

    https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2021/no-1398-february-2021/capitalism-and-automation-progress-perverted/

    Your search on Marxists.org- "democratic social productionism" site:www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ – did not match any documents.
    However ,”democratic social production” returned these

    On SPGB “democratic social productionism”
    Sorry, but nothing matched your search terms. Please try again with some different keywords.

    On SPGB, “democratic social production”, 223 results.
    https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/?=Democratic+social+production

    On SPGB Forum Search,
    https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/search/democratic+social+productionism/

    Masses of stuff,

    Marx did not use your terms ‘democratic social productionism in science’.

    Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.

    Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.

    ___________________

    ” The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”

    (1879 Marx and Engels )

    #216760

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    robbo203
    Participant

    So, the SPGB is not democratic, nor does it ‘exemplify socialism’. And it appears that all ‘contemporary and historical’ parties who’ve called themselves ‘socialist’ or ‘Marxist’ have really been ‘materialist’, and so have nothing to do with Marx’s democratic social productionism.

    More lies from LBird

    The SPGB is in theory and practice, as a political organisation, democratic and explicitly calls for the democratic control of the means of production in socialism.

    Just because neither we nor Marx for that matter, support LBird’s insanely unhinged suggestion that tens of thousands of scientific theories should be voted on by the global population does not mean we are not democratic in our outlook and in our perception of socialism

    LBird’s philosophical idealism has nothing to do with Marx’s outlook or ours. Marx would have scoffed at the silly notion that there is no such thing as an objective reality. LBird in effect opposes Marx’s idea of social production since he denies the existence of other human beings as part of that objective reality. It is not possible to talk of “society” if other people don’t exist without being dependent on our own consciousness

    In truth, LBird is in ideological terms closer to Margeret Thatcher than Karl Marx. Didn’t Thatcher say there was no such thing as society?

    #216756

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    alanjjohnstone wrote: “My questions were as you rightly quoted

    “…can you suggest any political party, contemporary or historical, that has been more democratic than ourselves? Likewise, can you provide an example of a socialist party exemplifying socialism more than we do?”

    Your answers did not address them, LBird.

    Right, alan, I’ll try again.

    It seems that, as Marx suspected, the political ideology/movement/party known as ‘Marxism’ was nothing to do with his ideas. Again, as Marx pointed out, any ideology/movement/party rooted in the notions of ‘materialism’ would bolster class society.

    So, if you are asking me if “any political party, contemporary or historical… has been more democratic than ourselves”, then I can only judge your question based upon Marx’s democratic social productionism.

    The answer thus is, to the best of my knowledge (and I’m open to further enlightenment on the issue), there is not and never has been a ‘democratic’ party, ‘contemporary or historical’, that meets this political test.

    So, the SPGB is not democratic, nor does it ‘exemplify socialism’. And it appears that all ‘contemporary and historical’ parties who’ve called themselves ‘socialist’ or ‘Marxist’ have really been ‘materialist’, and so have nothing to do with Marx’s democratic social productionism.

    Of course, there have been thousands of individuals, over the years and across the world, who’ve pointed this out, that ‘socialism/communism’ must mean ‘democratic social production’ if it is to be worth building. But, again to the best of my knowledge, no party has emerged from these dissenters against ‘materialism’. I might be wrong on this, and would be pleased if you know differently and can point one out.

    I must admit, my experience of the SPGB and its ‘materialist’ ideology (which is so obviously at odds with ‘democracy’) leaves me feeling as if I’m unlikely to find a ‘democratic socialist’ party in my lifetime. Youse were a bit of a ‘last chance saloon’. I actually think that there’s a danger that Marx’s ideas will be completely forgotten, because it seems that the ‘materialist’ parties, like the Trotskyists and the SPGB, are doomed in the 21st century because they base themselves on a completely discredited 18th century ideology, and there is no other ‘institutional’ memory of what Marx argued. I’d like to think that a party based upon Marx’s views would emerge, and I’d join, but I’m not hopeful.

    I hope that this answers your question, now, alan.

    #216566

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    ALB quote “Robbo, now he is saying that we don’t think that “men make history” but that tools and machines do !

    Well, ALB, if ‘men make history’, you have to admit that they are conscious and make.

    So, the active side is humans, not ‘ideas’, not ‘matter’, not ‘the ideal’, not ‘the material’.

    I’m so glad that you’ve finally accepted Marx’s ideas.

    So, ‘who‘ consciously makes ‘science’, ALB, and ‘how‘?

    Or are you going to revert to ‘matter makes science’ or ‘scientists make science’, and argue against democracy within science?

    Why do you disagree with Marx’s democratic politics, ALB? Why do you want ‘the material’ to dictate to humanity? How do you know this ‘material’ if the rest of us don’t? If we all know it, why can’t we vote on it?

    You haven’t a clue about Marx’s views, have you, ALB? Your 1975 article on Dietzgen shows that then, and you haven’t developed in nearly half a century, so I won’t hold my breath that Marx’s social productionism will finally have any effect on you.

    Democratic Socialism, not ‘matter’, not an elite’.

    #216547

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    robbo203
    Participant

    There is a contradiction between the SPGB’s alleged ‘democracy’ and ‘materialism’. One has to give way to the other.

    Here we go again. Yet more misrepresentation from LBird. Are you ever going to stop with this relentless misrepresentation?

    There is nothing “alleged” about the SPGB’s adherence to democracy both in principle and practice. As an organisation, the SPGB is unrivalled in the way it runs itself along democratic lines: Leaderless, no secrets, all it’s business conducted in the open, the rigorous control exercised by the membership as a whole over the Party via Conference, ADM and Party Polls …..

    Democratic control is also fundamental to our objective – socialism – as stated in our literature: The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

    Just because we don’t go along with your ludicrously impractical and pointless suggestion that tens of thousands of scientific theories should be subjected to a democratic vote by the world’s population does NOTmean we reject democracy

    Where did you get the silly idea that

    Democratic socialism will require a democratic science, and Marx can give us some pointers how this can be so.

    What are these pointers indicating that Marx suggested scientific theories should be subjected to a democratic vote? Name a single one.

    According to you

    Marx reconciled both idealism and materialism, into a third philosophy – social productionism (in effect, part-idealism-part-materialism).

    So that presumably means you advocate part-materialism alongside part-idealism. But if there is a contradiction between materialism and democracy as you claim then your advocacy of “part materialism” implies by your own reasoning that you too must accept there is some limit to the scope of democratic decision-making in any society, including socialism. Or do you expect a global socialist society will have a vote on what I can eat for breakfast or what I can wear to work?

    I would argue that you are not even “part materialist” but are an idealist through and through.

    Marx was critical of the kind of views you express. In his Theses On Feuerbach, he attacked the kind of mechanical materialism to which the SPGB is also opposed, as follows

    The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.

    The reference to idealism here precisely sums up your position. You make no allowance for the influence of material factors. They don’t even exist from your standpoint. There is no sense of a two-way interaction between brain and mind, or between individuals and society. Dinosaurs for you don’t exist outside our idea of them even though the fossil record tells us that dinosaurs preexisted human beings and their ability to think human thoughts, by millions of years. For you the fossil record means nothing.

    Actually, the construct you have come up with – idealism-materialism – is what would sum up the position of the SPGB. Although the terminology is misleading I get what you are trying to say. Except that you actually reject “idealism-materialism” in favour of pure idealism since you do not allow the “materialism” part of this construct to have any role or influence whatsoever. It’s a purely one-way relationship in your view – from ideas to matter (which becomes itself just another idea)

    The SPGB view is quite different. As our Historical Materialism pamphlet notes:

    The Materialist Conception does not deny the influence of ideas on history. In fact, there would be no revolutionary changes if ideas did not play a part. What it does is to trace the source of the ideas, but to deny the power of ideas alone

    Note that last word, “alone”

    You assert in response to my comment that the “SPGB’s materialism IS Marx’s materialism.”:

    I’ve shown time and time again that this is an untrue claim. Marx was a democrat, Lenin wasn’t. The SPGB currently espouses the same ideology as Lenin did. But… the SPGB can change itself – unlike the SWP.

    This is about as wrong as you can possibly get and, no, you have not once shown my claim is untrue. I recently came across an interesting review of Anton Pannekoek’s Lenin as Philosopher in the Western Socialist (Fall 1976), a previous journal of our companion party in the United States, which was actually written by ALB himself whose views you have been constantly misrepresenting

    Pannekoek talked of there being two kinds of materialism – 1) the mechanical or middle-class materialism endorsed by some of the early advocates of capitalism in their struggle against religion and the aristocratic state and 2) the historical materialism of Marx and others. The review article very clearly comes down on the side of Pannekoek in his critique of Lenin’s middle-class materialism

    Your own brand of idealism, LBird, is the exact mirror image of Lenin’s mechanical materialism. You both have an over-deterministic view of the relationship between “ideas” and “matter” seeing it as an essentially one-way movement rather than interactive. The difference is that whereas Lenin saw matter determining ideas you see ideas determining matter, (despite you pretence at adopting a part-materialist stance). The “materialism” part in your formulation is completely stripped of any determinative power

    Marx and the SPGB would unquestionably oppose both you and Lenin!

    #216532

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    robbo203 wrote: “I wish you would stop misrepresenting what you call the SPGB’s “materialism”. You know very well by now it is emphatically not the 18th-century mechanical materialism espoused by the likes of Lenin and co

    But that’s the entire political and philosophical point, robbo.

    There is a contradiction between the SPGB’s alleged ‘democracy’ and ‘materialism’. One has to give way to the other.

    I’ve asked the materialists within the SPGB (and they don’t have to adhere to materialism, but at present they do) do they accept Marx’s views about democratic social production, or not. Marx was clearly writing about all social production, physical and academic, ideal and material, social and individual. So, a Marxist would expect the answer that all social production within a socialist society would be democratic. Seems simple.

    But you and the other materialists insist that there are areas of social production that are not amenable to democratic production, like ‘science’. Marx famously warned that materialists would do this, that they would claim that within human society there exists an elite of specialists who would determine ‘the material’ for the majority. And this would divide society into two.

    This is precisely the answer that you, as a materialist, give. You deny that democracy is required in certain areas of social production. Lenin did this, too. Thus, the SPGB seems to espouse the same politics as Lenin – that of a ‘special consciousness’ within a cadre, separate from the majority of the associated producers.

    And just as Lenin did, materialists (holding to the ideological belief that there is only two basic philosophies) claim that anyone who argues against this ‘materialism’ that Marx condemned, is an ‘idealist’. It’s not a term of analysis, but simply abuse.

    Marx reconciled both idealism and materialism, into a third philosophy – social productionism (in effect, part-idealism-part-materialism).

    robbo203 wrote: “The SPGB/s materialism IS Marx’s materialism.

    I’ve shown time and time again that this is an untrue claim. Marx was a democrat, Lenin wasn’t. The SPGB currently espouses the same ideology as Lenin did. But… the SPGB can change itself – unlike the SWP.

    #215971

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    robbo203
    Participant

    lBird’s latest charm offensive…
    Anyone who refuses to sign up to his “democratic social productionism in science” must be a closet dictator.

    TWC

    If anything is a recipe for a fascist dictatorship its LBird’s abomination of a scenario dressed up as “democratic social productionism” in science, truth, maths et al. Its amusing that he prattles on about Marx but is reduced to complete silence when asked to show where Marx supported the crackpot and insanely impractical idea that tens of thousands of scientific theories should be subjected to a democratic vote by the whole population

    LBirds view of democratic socialism is a complete distortion (or perhaps I should say abortion) of democracy. This is not what democracy is about. What he is calling for is more suited to hierarchical ant colony than a democratic human society

    Imagine if 8 billion of us were asked to vote on some “Truth” (yes “truth” is also something that would be subject to a democratic vote according to LBird). Since, it would be wildly optimistic to suggest that anything more than 0.00000057 percent of the global population would even bother to vote in such a ludicrous referendum what would happen once the “democratic will of the people” had been asserted. Would those of us who disagree with this ..er. .”socially approved” version of this particular truth, be rounded up and incarcerated? If not what was the point of the exercise?????

    The whole point of democratic decision-making is to arrive at decisions that are inherently implementable. So your local community decides between two of three options for building a new local school or hospital. It selects one and rejects the rest and goes ahead with implementing this democratic decision

    How is a democratic vote on some obscure scientific theory which most of us have never heard of – the mating habits of aphids, say – going to be enforceable? If it is enforced this will spell the end of science as a self critical enterprise. We will back to the days of the Holy Inquisition, when a tiny elite – and of necessity it will be a tiny elite because the vast majority are not going to bother to vote on the matter – will determine what ideas are deemed to be socially acceptable and the rest of us will just have to conform whether we like it or not

    Talk about 1984 and all that..

    #215956

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    twc
    Participant

    lBird’s latest charm offensive…

    Anyone who refuses to sign up to his “democratic social productionism in science” must be a closet dictator.

    Never forget.

    On a previous charm offensive, lBird threatened to expose the SPGB as a closet dictatorship — a charming tactic, cognate to the psychological blackmail that “a true radical can’t possibly refuse to support the ‘democratic republic of <you-name-it>’.”

    * * *

    Given the circumstances, humans enthusiastically engage in collaborative activity.

    • Experimental research in physics and astronomy is allocated a time share on expensive experimental equipment. The resulting scientific papers regularly parade a vast tribe of specialist authors. Theoretical research in physics and mathematics also regularly proceeds by collaborative teamwork.
    • Volunteer science is an unsung social resource. It includes amateur astronomy, natural history, geology, mineralogy, palaeontological and archeological digs, specimen collection, preparation and cataloguing — often for no other recompense than the pleasure of personal achievement and contribution.

    * * *

    Here is a practical example of communal science in action. It is a collaboration between high-school students and mathematicians, attempting to replicate Isaac Newton’s 1665 computation of π to 16 digits precision, by the method outlined in post https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/gnostic-marxist/page/19/#post-215922

    Take note lBird that the community never resorts to ‘democratically electing the Truth’. Instead it holds, with Marx, that “man must prove the truth … in practice”.

    In this fun exercise, the community effort falls short of Isaac Newton’s achievement.

    lBird might gain some respect for Newton’s towering intellect. Likewise for the towering intellect of Marx (whose achievement we will one day be able to discuss rationally as we do Newton’s).

    Here’s the video… Communal science

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by twc.
    • This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by twc.
    • This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by twc.
    #215949

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    Matthew Culbert
    Keymaster

    Marx did not use your terms ‘democratic social productionism in science’.

    Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.

    Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.

    An adequate theory of history and social change is what Marx was to contribute to socialist theory, providing it with a scientific basis.

    The Socialist Party has further developed Marx’s theories, and has made plain where it disagrees with Marx. We do not endorse Marx’s ideas regarding struggles for national liberation, minimum reform programmes, labour vouchers and the lower stage of communism.

    On some of these points the Socialist Party does not reject what Marx advocated in his own day but rejects their applicability to socialists now. There are other issues upon which the Socialist Party might appear to be at variance with Marx but is in fact only disputing distortions of Marx’s thinking.

    For example, the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is usually understood in its Leninist interpretation.

    Indeed, it is a tragedy of world-historical proportions that Marx has been Leninized – what is basically a method of social analysis with a view to taking informed political action by the working class, has had its name put to a state ideology of repression of the working class.

    Instead of being known as a tool for working class self-emancipation, we have had the abomination of ‘Marxist states’.

    Undeterred by these developments, the Socialist Party has made its own contributions to socialist theory whilst combating distortions of Marx’s ideas. In the light of all the above, the three main Marxist theories can be restated as:

    The political theory of class struggle
    The materialist theory of history
    The labour theory of value

    These are tools of analysis, which have been further developed and modified by socialists, to explain how the working class are exploited under capitalism.

    Marxism is not only a method for criticising capitalism: it also points to the alternative. Marxism explains the importance to the working class of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use and the means for establishing it. And while it is desirable that socialist activists should acquaint themselves with the basics of Marxism, it is essential that a majority of workers have a working knowledge of how capitalism operates and what the change to socialism will mean.

    #215937

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    Matthew Culbert wrote: “Where does Marx ever use the terms ‘democratic social productionism in science’?

    Can I take that as a No, Matt?
    That is, you don’t agree with Marx’s ‘democratic social productionism in science’?

    #215935

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    Matthew Culbert
    Keymaster

    Where does Marx ever use the terms ‘democratic social productionism in science’?

    Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.

    Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.

    #215933

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    Matthew Culbert wrote: “It was all dealt with at the start.

    So, do you agree with Marx’s democratic social productionism in science?

    Simple Yes or No will do.

    #215918

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    Matthew, you haven’t mentioned Marx, or his politics, philosophy and physics.
    Please do so, because that’s what the thread is about.
    If you have a question about Marx’s democratic social productionism in science, please ask it.

    #215913

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    Well, I think that we’ve learned two things from this discussion, with reference to Marx’s own words:
    1. Regarding politics, Marx was a democrat;
    2. Regarding philosophy, Marx was a social productionist.
    It’s hard to argue with either of these, because if one argues that Marx wasn’t a democrat, one has to explain what were his politics; further, if one argues that Marx wasn’t a social productionist, one has to explain why he continuously and exclusively wrote about the ‘social’ and ‘production’ (it’s impossible to understand Marx without reference to the ‘social’ and ‘production’, as all his concepts depend on these fundamentals).

    It seemed clear to many socialists (not just me), throughout the 20th century and into this, that Marx’s physics were based upon his politics and philosophy. This can only be argued against (ie, that Marx’s physics were not based upon democratic social production), by positing a ‘physics’ that is not socio-historical, has no cultural or ethical content, and can only be done by an elite of ‘clever’ people.

    It’s a form of ‘physics’ that has nothing to do with democratic socialism, and if adopted, will prevent the self-emancipation of the proletariat.

    On the other hand, Marx’s democratic social productionism is clearly fitted for our physics, a ‘physics for us’.

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by LBird.
    #215789

    In reply to: Gnostic Marxist

    LBird
    Participant

    alanjjohntone wrote: “Karl Korsch had something of interest to say

    Marxist ‘theory’ does not strive to achieve objective knowledge of reality out of an independent, theoretical interest. It is driven to acquire this knowledge by the practical necessities of struggle, and can neglect it only by running the heavy risk of failing to achieve its goal, at the price of the defeat and eclipse of the proletarian movement which it represents.

    Doesn’t ‘democracy’ form part of Marx’s ‘practical necessities of struggle’?

    If so, the rest of the quote tells you where you and the SPGB are heading – ‘defeat and eclipse’.

    alanjjohnstone wrote: “In my own words, if it doesn’t contribute to furthering the movement towards socialism, i don’t really give a damn…

    But ‘materialism’ doesn’t, as we’ve read here, ‘doesn’t contribute to furthering the movement towards socialism’, if that ‘socialism’ is a ‘democratic socialism’, because ‘materialism’ doesn’t regard ‘the active side’ as humanity (as Marx said), but it regards ‘matter’ as the active side, and so does not require human democracy, because ‘matter’ will bring socialism of its own accord (the mythical ‘material conditions’).

    But… you do give a damn, don’t you, about ‘materialism’, because you’ve been brainwashed into thinking that the only alternative to ‘materialism’ is ‘idealism’, that is, religion and divine worship.

    The third alternative, Marx’s alternative, is ‘social productionism’, which requires human conscious activity to produce its world. This is a reconciliation of both idealism and materialism (as Marx himself wrote). Since this ‘furthers the movement toward socialism’, because it puts mass human theory and practice by democratic means at the centre of building socialism, your ‘not giving a damn’ prevents you from participating actively, and leads you to wait for, not Godot, but ‘the material’.

    Keep reading Korsch, alan, but from a Marxist perspective, not from a materialist one. It’s your choice, if you can begin to ‘give a damn’.

Viewing 15 results - 1 through 15 (of 48 total)