Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Philosophical idealists rarely prove capable of consistent idealism.
Here is lBird unconsciously lapsing into the “materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing”:
- “socio-historical circumstances (Liverpool being port city with intensely close contact for thousands with American 50s music development, together with the general prosperity post-war, better education beyond 14, more free time to think for many workers, and widespread music scene).”
Against his will, his idealist interpretation of Marx’s Thesis IV “divides society into two parts, one of which is superior to society” and — consistently — forces him to choose:
- “great men with genius inspiration (a few, very unusual, musical lads, ‘elite art school’ attenders)”.
An incautious lapse into materialist synthetic thought exposes the shameless insincerity of lBird’s elitism slanders against the SPGB, its members, its Object and its Declaration of Principles.
Yes, Robbo, he really has scored an own goal with that statement that future socialist society can democratically decide when a referendum would not be needed to decide some issue. Of course. That’s our case conceded.
Obviously the democratic decision-making and administrative structure of socialist society — its “constitution” if you like — will be decided democratically. Personally I don’t think it likely that it will be decided that referendums should be the only or even the main way of making decisions on social natters. Most issues are not of a simple yes-or-no nature and would be better decided by some council or committee which can go into the matter in more detail. Also, the procedures for choosing the members of such councils can be expected to be different in different parts of the world depending on their political traditions (elections, by lot, citizens assemblies, etc). But however chosen they will be answerable to the community concerned.
I can’t see people deciding that issues such as the definition of “matter” or whether the Sun goes round the Earth or vice versa should be decided by a world referendum. Of course someone might propose this but they probably wouldn’t find a seconder and would be laughed out of court.
I think what is being said to you, L Bird, is that in any Socialist society, what is decided by voting will be decided democratically (by voting and other means) and given that there will be (like all societies) lots of decisions to be made it will probably (not certainly) be the case that a degree of decision making will be made by democratic means other than voting.
Examples of this maybe the election of individual delegates, appointment by ballot to various committees, selection by lot, etc.
What we are also saying (and in this case this is crucial) that it is certainly for us as a party, who are a tiny minority, to decide the level or format of such democratic organisation, for any future society. I would go as far as to say that your insistance that one aspect of that society (Scientific Theory) would be required to be decided upon by a series of plebicites is thoroughly undemocratic. Who are you (or we) to decide the democratic structures of a society where all are democratically involved, before the democratic involvement of those in that society.
BD, I know that you’re trying to give me genuine advice, but you’re still not arguing with what I’m saying, but with the straw man built by ALB, robbo, twc, etc.
For example, to equate Marx’s ‘democracy’ with ‘plebiscites’ is a straw man that no-one (certainly not me) is arguing in favour of.
lBird says he not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by plebiscite.
Are we supposed to infer that he is instead “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by referendum?
By way of explanation…
The Australian government, since Federation, has held 19 referenda (on 44 proposals) and three plebiscites, and the Australian states hold their own referenda. What’s the technical difference?
- referendum — a binding ballot. A proposal passes into law upon majority affirmation.
- plebiscite — a non-binding, or purely ‘advisory’, referendum.
Naturally, Australian governments always frame their proposals politically subject to the statutory requirement for a majority vote in a majority of states. This requirement naturally leaves proposals vulnerable to defeat by concerted opposition, particularly if they are opposed by the proposing majority government, as in the case of the 1999 Australian Republic Referendum.
Perhaps, lBird is not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by either referendum or plebiscite, i.e., not by universal franchise.
Perhaps he is instead “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by limited franchise, e.g., by interested or qualified electors only.
Alternatively, maybe lBird is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by statistical sampling along the lines employed by the trusted Gallup.
In whatever case, after countless years of “arguing for electing the Truth”, lBird should finally show us — his long-suffering readers — the courtesy of enlightening us, who hang upon his pronouncements with bated breath, exactly what incredibly super democratic method of “electing the Truth” he is actually “arguing in favour of”.
lBird says he not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by plebiscite.
Are we to infer that he is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by referendum?
By way of explanation…
The Australian government, since Federation, has held 19 referenda (on 44 proposals) and three plebiscites, and the Australian states hold their own referenda. What’s the technical difference?
- referendum — a binding ballot. A proposal passes into law upon a majority of YES votes.
- plebiscite — a non-binding, or ‘advisory’, referendum.
Governments frame their proposals politically, subject to the statutory requirement for a majority vote in a majority of states.
This requirement leaves proposals vulnerable to defeat by concerted opposition, particularly if they are opposed by the proposing majority government, as in the case of the 1999 Australian Republic Referendum.Perhaps, lBird is not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by either referendum or by plebiscite, i.e., not by universal franchise.
Maybe, instead, lBird is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by limited franchise, e.g., by interested or qualified electors only.
Alternatively, lBird may be “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by statistical sampling along the lines employed by Gallup.
Whatever the case, after countless years of “arguing for electing the Truth”, lBird should show us — his long-suffering readers — the courtesy of enlightening us, who hang upon his pronouncements with bated breath, just what incredibly ultra-democratic method for “electing the Truth” he is actually “arguing in favour of”.
lBird says he not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by plebiscite.
Are we to infer that he is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by referendum?
By way of explanation…
The Australian government, since Federation, has held 19 referenda (on 44 proposals) and three plebiscites, and the Australian states hold their own referenda.
What’s the technical difference?
- referendum — a binding ballot. A proposal passes into law upon majority affirmation.
- plebiscite — a non-binding, or ‘advisory’, referendum.
Naturally, Australian governments frame their proposals politically, subject to the statutory requirement for a majority vote in a majority of states. The technicalities of determining a majority expose proposals to defeat by concerted opposition, particularly if they are opposed by the proposing majority government, as in the case of the 1999 Australian Republic Referendum.
Perhaps, lBird is not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by either referendum or plebiscite, i.e., not by universal franchise.
Maybe, instead, lBird is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by limited franchise, e.g., by interested or qualified electors only.
Alternatively, lBird may be “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by statistical sampling along the lines employed by Gallup.
Whatever the case, after countless years of “arguing for electing the Truth”, lBird should finally show us — his long-suffering readers — the courtesy of enlightening us, who hang upon his pronouncements with bated breath, just what unbelievably ultra-democratic method for “electing the Truth” he is actually “arguing in favour of”.
Or refer to a committee of linguistic experts, I don’t think. Simply let people use either as both are perfectly understandable. No need to choose which one is the “true” usage.
- Whereas you claim to be “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” of Marx’s method of “arguing in favour of electing the Truth”
- Whereas you have been staking a claim on a Marxian original for nearly a decade…
… it is incumbent upon you to copy out, for our enlightenment, your oft-claimed Marxian original.
If you refuse to do so, you expose yourself as a coward.
If you can’t follow through on your claim, you convict yourself as a charlatan.Hic Rhodus!
BD, I know that you’re trying to give me genuine advice, but you’re still not arguing with what I’m saying, but with the straw man built by ALB, robbo, twc, etc. For example, to equate Marx’s ‘democracy’ with ‘plebiscites’ is a straw man that no-one (certainly not me) is arguing in favour of.
So are you now saying scientific theories will NOT be subject to a democratic vote by the population in socialist society???
Please clarify
If everyone is so opposed to democracy, and this seems to be the official stance of the SPGB, why not just say so?
You’re only fooling yourselves.
I’m keen to get to the bottom of your self-deception, and I think that your responses over years have confirmed my thesis that ‘materialism’ is only suitable for anti-democrats, such as the Leninists.
From experience of both, the SPGB has more in common with the SWP, than with workers seeking self-emancipation of their class.
You’re going to have to explain yourselves eventually, or the party will collapse. Why is the SPGB opposed to democracy?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.