‘Materialism’ is the perfect ideology for elitists

[alanjjohnstone]

In defence of LBird, i think he has a fundamental difference with the SPGB and may suffer a form of "OCD" when it comes to repeatedly discussing his views on this forum at every opportunity regardless of the relevance to the thread, imho.Thus i do think he should be monitored a bit more stringently to ensure that he is following the guidelines and i do believe he has been suspended on occasions by the moderator.  A Troll he is not, however, no more than those who regularly engage him in debate and discussion, and who are perhaps equally culpable for the distraction, are guilty of being Trolls. A few of my recent messages has raised the issue whether this engagement in polemics has well and truly run its course and no longer resulting in any benefit for the contributors. Until they acknowledge this, i fear there is little that can be done. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In defence of LBird, i think he has a fundamental difference with the SPGB and may suffer a form of "OCD" when it comes to repeatedly discussing his views on this forum at every opportunity regardless of the relevance to the thread, imho.

There is some truth to what alan says: my experience of coming to revolutionary politics through Trotskyism, especially my time in the SWP, has given me an "OCD"-like reflex to those who aim to lie to workers about "workers' democracy" within socialism.This issue does seem to be my 'fundamental difference with the SPGB', because, perhaps unknowingly, the SPGB espouses exactly the same 'materialist' ideology as do the Leninists.

ajj wrote:

Thus i do think he should be monitored a bit more stringently to ensure that he is following the guidelines and i do believe he has been suspended on occasions by the moderator.

Yes, I've been suspended several times, for defending "workers' democracy" before hostile 'materialists': only to be expected, I'm afraid. 

ajj wrote:

 A Troll he is not, however, no more than those who regularly engage him in debate and discussion, and who are perhaps equally culpable for the distraction, are guilty of being Trolls. 

Indeed, I'm not a 'troll' (unless political persistence and advocating workers' power is a vice for the SPGB), as my many references to many Communist writers' books and sites, dating back to 1896 up to the present, show. I'm just better read than the others, and who I would say do manifest 'troll'-like behaviour. 

ajj wrote:

A few of my recent messages has raised the issue whether this engagement in polemics has well and truly run its course and no longer resulting in any benefit for the contributors. Until they acknowledge this, i fear there is little that can be done. 

Well, I'm not about to reject my commitment to Democratic Communism, and whilst the SPGB claims to be in favour of democratic socialism, the ball is in the court of the SPGB to show why they reject democratic epistemology, which is the only method of knowledge creation open to a democratic society. Of course, 'materialism' does reject this – that's the problem, as Marx pointed out, and as Engels didn't comprehend.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In defence of LBird, i think he has a fundamental difference with the SPGB 

What is his fundamental difference with the SPGB?He refers to Spgb members as 'liars', 'Leninist' 'Stupid' 'Thick' ad nauseam. We put up with this from non members but not from members?

[Young Master Smeet]

Just to prove the deabte isn't static, today is the day we celebrate Lbird agreeing that materialism isn't inherently elitist:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/materialism-perfect-ideology-elitists?page=1#comment-39683

[alanjjohnstone]

Personally, i believe there can be a quite constructive debate with LBird when this "workers democracy" is discussed in practical terms, rather than high-faluting philosophical terms….(yes, i know, philosophy has importance but theory is often over-ridden by practice and implementation)LBird being more a traditionalist worker councilist than some of us in the SPGB who having had the history of debating syndicalism and industrial unionism and sovietism feel that democracy of the work-place stops short of community/society control and our concept of socialiisation of production and distribution.I think Robbo in his writings elsewhere and ourselves have a very valid case that we are not for adding additional layers of administration but for promoting a much more automaticity in decision-making and consumption, removing the necessity of constant voting.I also know that YMS and ALB (or at least i think they do) favour various modification to present bodies such as local councils and even Parliament/State organs which is worth expanding upon.Democratic communism will have a structure that can be detailed with broad brush-strokes and while some lessons can be deduced from the past, too often these examples were built upon historic necessity of the times and can be judged as bastardised forms of democratic communism in action…starting with the Paris Commune and all those well-known later events, Russia Germany Itay Spain HungaryPerhaps, some will consider all this idle speculation over blueprints but exchanging opinions over concrete manifestations or embryonic expressions of social democracy/industrial democracy need not be a sterile exercise 

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

 Yes, I've been suspended several times, for defending "workers' democracy" before hostile 'materialists': only to be expected, I'm afraid. 

Correction: You have never been suspended "for defending "workers democracy" before hostile materialist" and indeed never will be.  In fact, its a matter of record that every time you have been suspended is due to you deliberately breaching the rules.  The guidelines and rules have been democratically agreed to by the party membership and your presence on this forum means you have also agreed to abide by this form of democracy.Yet you have persistently and purposely breached them on numerous occasions.  Which effectively indicates – not just to me but all users – you are a serial breacher of democratic discussion and places your democratic credentials and integrity under suspicion.Despite your claim to be a defender of "workers democracy" you have yet to spell out what this term means in practice.  Also, your behaviour on this forum is not what socialists would expect to be democracy in practice.I have no intention of killing the messenger, far from it, otherwise you would have not been allowed back on this forum.  However, I have every intention to rebut your claim that you are a "defender of workers democracy" when the evidence of your undemocratic behaviour proves the opposite is the case.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Personally, i believe there can be a quite constructive debate with LBird when this "workers democracy" is discussed in practical terms, rather than high-faluting philosophical terms….(yes, i know, philosophy has importance but theory is often over-ridden by practice and implementation)

One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start.I, too, 'believe there can be a quite constructive debate with' the SPGB, but bringing this 'key problem' to the fore has to be the initial step.That is, as always, your appeal to 'practical terms' (and your denigrating of theory as 'high-faluting' is the obverse of this).As I've said before, this is not simply your 'personal opinion', but a political ideology – and a political ideology with conservative, not radical, implications. It is, to simplify, 'practice and theory', the ideological belief that 'practice' precedes 'theory', and that 'theory' emerges after successful 'practice'. That is, in your words, (unsuccessful) 'theory is often over-ridden by practice and implementation' (successful practice).This ideology can be contrasted with 'theory and practice', which is the ideology that I hold to, and which I argue that Marx held to, too.For this ideology, any 'practice' is always the result of some pre-existing 'theory', even if the 'theory' is hidden, unknown or uncomprehended. For this method, if a 'theory' is 'over-ridden by practice', then the 'open theory' has been surreptitiously replaced by another 'theory' – but an 'undeclared theory', which the supposed 'practitioners' are hiding, either from only others or also from themselves, too. All 'practice' requires 'theory', and the denial of this is a political act, which is intended to pretend to the unaware that the 'practitioner' doesn't have a 'theory', but is simply 'dealing with reality as it is'.For those with an 'individualist' ideology (like, for eg. US Pragmatists like James and Peirce), then the supposedly 'isolated' actions of a biological being (outside of any social considerations) are simply 'practical'. This ideology can pretend to itself that they are simply 'individuals dealing with reality as they find it' (and so ignore any socio-economic, historically-created reality, which exists because of the exercise of previous political power). Thus, it is conservative, because it accepts 'what is' as a basis for 'practice', rather than 'theoretically' criticise 'what is', and so plan to change 'what is' into 'what should be'.

ajj wrote:

Perhaps, some will consider all this idle speculation over blueprints but exchanging opinions over concrete manifestations or embryonic expressions of social democracy/industrial democracy need not be a sterile exercise

The only people who 'will consider all this idle speculation over blueprints', are either those with something to hide (elitists) or those who are ignorant of the political aspects of social knowledge production. Whichever it is, this conservative view will prevent, from the start, the proletariat developing its own self-conscious awareness of its building of its world, already, to interests, purposes and plans (ie., 'theory') which are not of its own making.Class consciousness includes the realisation that we workers build, now, by 'theory and practice', and we have to replace another class' 'theory' with that of our own conscious design and decision.The exploiting class has always pretending that the world just came to be, by accident, by 'practice', and that they simply draw 'theoretical' conclusions from 'what exists', and so conscious change is unscientific.Marx argued otherwise: to change our world, we have to theorise that change, first: democratic social theory and practice, by which we build our world to our plans, in our interests, for our purposes.This debate certainly isn't a 'sterile exercise' – it's fundamental to building class consciousness in workers, and developing their self-confidence.

[alanjjohnstone]

Hmmm…did i try to disguise my "ideology"?

Quote:

One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start.

"Personally, i believe…I think…or at least i think"…yup, i'm prejudiced alright for declaring my very own thoughts on the matter…As i said before, it is time to move on….your own ideology has been done to death on this forum.I'm sure you, yourself, will have thoughts that feature the words brick wall and head banging.Let us go through the application of our theories…our philosophies… and see just how in conflict they are when we analyse workers democracy being taken from the realm of ideas and implemented as political policy or how we wish them to be exercised. I think we will find we have much more in common and this hurling of Leninist invective back and forth when placed into actual context of reality." Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them – for it is dialectic." =DietzgenWas it Vin or Mod1 who asked …what is workers democracy?…Let us answer this without the esoteric espousing or should i say posturing  and permit us all to join in 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Hmmm…did i try to disguise my "ideology"?

Quote:

One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start.

"Personally, i believe…I think…or at least i think"…yup, i'm prejudiced alright for declaring my very own thoughts on the matter…

[my bold]You don't seem to realise what you're saying, alan.You are not 'declaring my very own thoughts', but spouting an ideology.Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows that you are unaware of it.

ajj wrote:

As i said before, it is time to move on….your own ideology has been done to death on this forum. 

No, wrong again, alan.It's your own ideology that 'has been done to death on this forum', and it still is being, by you and the other 'materialists', and it will be in the future, whether I remain here, criticising it, or not.You seem to regard yourself as a non-ideological individual, outside of any socio-political influence. That's why you are a 'materialist', because that ideology feeds the illusion of 'individual', biological engagement with 'The Real World' of personal sensation.Since you are probably the most sincere poster here, who has defended me almost uncritically, a number of times, and who has shown at least some interest and willingness to learn about these issues, it pains me to have to point this out, all over again.Unless you stop pretending to be 'non-ideological', then you can't advance.But… the central ideological plank of 'materialism' is that it is not ideological, but deals with 'Real Matter'…Is there a way forward? Not, I think, until (for whatever reason) comrades come to reject their 19th century 'materialism'. If they don't, then the die is cast: irrelevance.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Hmmm…did i try to disguise my "ideology"?

Quote:

One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start.

"Personally, i believe…I think…or at least i think"…yup, i'm prejudiced alright for declaring my very own thoughts on the matter…

[my bold]You don't seem to realise what you're saying, alan.You are not 'declaring my very own thoughts', but spouting an ideology.Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows that you are unaware of it.

ajj wrote:

As i said before, it is time to move on….your own ideology has been done to death on this forum. 

No, wrong again, alan.It's your own ideology that 'has been done to death on this forum', and it still is being, by you and the other 'materialists', and it will be in the future, whether I remain here, criticising it, or not.You seem to regard yourself as a non-ideological individual, outside of any socio-political influence. That's why you are a 'materialist', because that ideology feeds the illusion of 'individual', biological engagement with 'The Real World' of personal sensation.Since you are probably the most sincere poster here, who has defended me almost uncritically, a number of times, and who has shown at least some interest and willingness to learn about these issues, it pains me to have to point this out, all over again.Unless you stop pretending to be 'non-ideological', then you can't advance.But… the central ideological plank of 'materialism' is that it is not ideological, but deals with 'Real Matter'…Is there a way forward? Not, I think, until (for whatever reason) comrades come to reject their 19th century 'materialism'. If they don't, then the die is cast: irrelevance.

Taken from here:  https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/z-marxism/iIdeology. The socialist concept of ideology can refer to (a) general claims about the nature of a society's superstructure (e.g. law, politics, religion) or (b) a distortion of thought that stems from, and conceals contradictions within, capitalist society.Marx did not invent the concept of ideology but it does play an important role in his analysis of capitalism, particularly as distortion. In capitalism profits take priority over needs, so that people starve while food rots, people go homeless while buildings are empty, people remain unemployed while needs are unmet, and so on. Because people are unable to solve these contradictions within capitalism they tend to project them in ideological forms of consciousness; that is to say, in ideas which effectively conceal or misrepresent the existence and character of these contradictions. Accordingly, profit-taking is held to be justified as risk-taking for the capitalists, so that starvation, homelessness, unemployment and the rest are the price paid for ‘good economics’. By concealing contradictions ideology contributes to their reproduction and therefore serves the interests of the capitalist class.Marx criticised capitalist economics because it is an ideology which stems from, and conceals, the social relations of production beneath the surface appearance of commodity exchange in the market. The free and equal exchange of values in the market conceals the unfree and unequal nature of wage labour in its social relation to capital. Marx believed that it was the role of scientific socialism to penetrate the surface of social phenomena and reveal capitalism's inner workings.Marx never used the phrase ‘false consciousness’, though many commentators insist that he did. Engels did once use the phrase, after Marx’s death in a private correspondence, but this usage is not consistent with his or Marx’s published writings on ideology. (See also CONTRADICTION; IDEALISM; SCIENCE.)ReadingTerry Eagleton, Ideology, 2007Ideology and False Consciousness by Joseph McCarney:http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htmIdeology Study Guide: www.autodidactproject.org/guidideo.html

[moderator1]

Nice quote from here: http://www.autodidactproject.org/guidideo.htmlPaul Szende on ideology & reification“All ideologies tend to become reified. Handed down from generation to generation, they end up having a constraining authoritarian form, from which thought can no more free itself. Abstract ideas, principles and concepts are transformed into essences and or forces that are real though invisible and that are obeyed by humans as though they were superior beings…. It is understandable that Medieval Church denounced nominalism …. Its hostility to critical positivism is based on the very same motivation.”— Paul Szende, Verhüllung und Enthüllung. Der Kampf der Ideologien in der Geschichte (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1922), p. 19ff; quoted in Joseph Gabel, Mannheim and Hungarian Marxism, translated by William M. Stein and James McCrate (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991), p. 19. 

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Hmmm…did i try to disguise my "ideology"?

Quote:

One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start.

"Personally, i believe…I think…or at least i think"…yup, i'm prejudiced alright for declaring my very own thoughts on the matter…

[my bold]You don't seem to realise what you're saying, alan.You are not 'declaring my very own thoughts', but spouting an ideology.Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows that you are unaware of it.

ajj wrote:

As i said before, it is time to move on….your own ideology has been done to death on this forum. 

No, wrong again, alan.It's your own ideology that 'has been done to death on this forum', and it still is being, by you and the other 'materialists', and it will be in the future, whether I remain here, criticising it, or not.You seem to regard yourself as a non-ideological individual, outside of any socio-political influence. That's why you are a 'materialist', because that ideology feeds the illusion of 'individual', biological engagement with 'The Real World' of personal sensation.Since you are probably the most sincere poster here, who has defended me almost uncritically, a number of times, and who has shown at least some interest and willingness to learn about these issues, it pains me to have to point this out, all over again.Unless you stop pretending to be 'non-ideological', then you can't advance.But… the central ideological plank of 'materialism' is that it is not ideological, but deals with 'Real Matter'…Is there a way forward? Not, I think, until (for whatever reason) comrades come to reject their 19th century 'materialism'. If they don't, then the die is cast: irrelevance.

Taken from here:  https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/z-marxism/iIdeology. The socialist concept of ideology can refer to (a) general claims about the nature of a society's superstructure (e.g. law, politics, religion) or (b) a distortion of thought that stems from, and conceals contradictions within, capitalist society.Marx did not invent the concept of ideology but it does play an important role in his analysis of capitalism, particularly as distortion. In capitalism profits take priority over needs, so that people starve while food rots, people go homeless while buildings are empty, people remain unemployed while needs are unmet, and so on. Because people are unable to solve these contradictions within capitalism they tend to project them in ideological forms of consciousness; that is to say, in ideas which effectively conceal or misrepresent the existence and character of these contradictions. Accordingly, profit-taking is held to be justified as risk-taking for the capitalists, so that starvation, homelessness, unemployment and the rest are the price paid for ‘good economics’. By concealing contradictions ideology contributes to their reproduction and therefore serves the interests of the capitalist class.Marx criticised capitalist economics because it is an ideology which stems from, and conceals, the social relations of production beneath the surface appearance of commodity exchange in the market. The free and equal exchange of values in the market conceals the unfree and unequal nature of wage labour in its social relation to capital. Marx believed that it was the role of scientific socialism to penetrate the surface of social phenomena and reveal capitalism's inner workings.Marx never used the phrase ‘false consciousness’, though many commentators insist that he did. Engels did once use the phrase, after Marx’s death in a private correspondence, but this usage is not consistent with his or Marx’s published writings on ideology. (See also CONTRADICTION; IDEALISM; SCIENCE.)ReadingTerry Eagleton, Ideology, 2007Ideology and False Consciousness by Joseph McCarney:http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htmIdeology Study Guide: www.autodidactproject.org/guidideo.html

 The concept of Ideology defined by L Bird is  wrong and it is not accordance with Marx definition of Ideology, Communists are against all kind of ideology, and Communism-socialism is not an ideology, and we are not going to have an ideology on a communist society. If all the prevaling ideas in any class society are the ideas of the ruling class, where are the prevailing ruling ideas of the Socialist Party ? Are we members of the Capitalist class ? Are we a capitalist class ? We are all members of the working class including the ones that are retiree, we do not have a capitalist ideology, we have a socialist theory. All those definiton comes from his idealist thinking He insisted too much on natural sciences, such as Physics, Chemistry and Mathematic, but there is trend known as Bourgeoise mateiralism based on the natural sciences, and the capitalist class needed natural sciences in order to develop capitalism, and Anton Pannkoek raised his critique against Lenin based on that type of materialism PS False consciouness was a  term used  by Engels, but he expressed that idea  to a groups of his intimate friends, he never published that idea in any of his works.  Like many concepts that Marx used they were created by others thinkers including the concept of Class struggle, the concept of ideology was not created by Marx, it was created by a French philosopher, and he took many conception from the French anarquists. It was Lenin who twisted everything including the concept of ideology and the so called petty bourgeios ideologyhttp://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20Cranston%20Ideology%20EB%202003.htm      

[alanjjohnstone]

Marx (and Engels) wrote extensively on their "ideology" and their works would have continued to be gnawed away by mice if they did not begin to discuss the application of their ideas with the real movement of the workers and to participate in the actual movement themselves, something they had done from their beginnings as passive philosophers a la Stirner but becoming active journalists reporting politics, then joining such workers organisations as the Communist League then later the IWMA.The charge you are making LBird that i deny my own ideology i think is misplaced. I prioritise it in my view of it. I did so the day i chose that agreeing 100% with 100% of the membership of the SPGB was not necessary but what i did accept was that  i had much in common with the majority of them and that the points of difference were not so vastly apart or irreconcilable that they could not be overcome by debate and discussion – something that is still ongoing as many will acknowledge from the temper of some of my posts.The need to begin to be part of the great process of social change was more vital than some of my own pet theories (ideology) and individual interpretation of the class struggle, past, present and future.It would be indeed utopian to suggest that the SPGB is the ideal vehicle for achieving socialism, but it is the best we got right now. Or can you offer a better alternative, LBird? What is ideology that remains outside practice? Religion and the belief in a non-interventionist "god"? The test of ideology is its application. Educate Agitate Organise. You may well believe the first is the prime imperative but without the pillars of the other two, then any edifice will tumble (as the Wobblies discovered, mezinks).Again some will note that the content of my posts emphasise the second principle as the one lacking most within the SPGB.While some members concentrate on party matters so to provide a home for the organise option…but i think the future of the workers movement does not rest with the SPGB as a political party and thus, i have invited the forum to discuss the various means that "workers democracy" can materialise and be expressedThe choice is yours whether you are willing to put any flesh on to the bones of your own ideology, LBird. 

[Anonymous]

It joined the WSM because I did not find anything better than this organization, and until now I have not found anything better. We do not know  what kind of organization the working class of the world will decide to form or to join, we are not the first or the  last option, but until now we are the best one. If the working class of the world decide to form something much better than the WSM and I still alive, I will join that movement

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The charge you are making LBird that i deny my own ideology i think is misplaced. I prioritise it in my view of it. 

I'm only going by what you have already said, alan.You've argued that 'practice' is the definer of 'theory', and the 'theory' is simply rejected, if it doesn't work 'in practice'.I've argued that 'theory and practice' is a unified method, and so if it fails according to the 'theory', then it has to be replaced by a different 'theory and practice'.That is, if something doesn't work 'in practice', one can't pretend that then the 'practice' determines a new 'theory'. 'Practice' is not the source of 'theory' – humans are the source of 'theory'.So, the failure of a cycle of 'theory and practice' tells us nothing about the 'practice' alone. That is, any appeal by individuals to 'practice' is simply hiding the 'theory' that they are employing which tells them whether a 'practice' is a success or failure.Only the producers of the 'theory and practice' can determine whether the 'theory and practice' is successful or not. That is, they can vote upon whether their 'theory and practice' has worked for them, for their interests, purposes, plans and desired outcomes. If the 'practice' fails, it fails for a 'theory'. It is not apparent to individual senses held by an elite with a special consciousness whether 'practice' has failed or succeeded.That is, only the social producers can determine the 'truth' of the outcome of their social theory and practice. This 'truth' is not simply apparent to some few, but can only be apparent to the collective.This is where 'materialism' falls down, because it argues that the source of 'truth' is 'The Material World', and any sequence of 'theory and practice' is measured (by individuals/elites) against their senses within 'The Material World'.  But Marx's 'social productionism' argues that we create our world (ie. 'material-for-us', if you like), and so all can judge whether this 'World-For-Us' is true or false. True or falsity, success of failure, can only be determined by social theory and practice, which can only be democratic.If 'failure' of 'theory' is apparent to individual senses, science would be superfluous. It's not necessarily clear what constitutes 'failure' of a 'theory', and if it is clear, then all can clearly see this, and would vote accordingly.The denial of democracy within epistemology is itself a political act, which is intended to reserve the decision on whether a 'theory' has 'failed in practice' to an elite of 'scientists' who have a 'special consciousness' that the masses cannot develop, and that these 'scientists' have a politically-neutral method, and they are 'disinterested' passive observers (ie. that they don't create the 'Reality' that they are 'observing'), and so this elite are the ones to determine the 'practical failure of a theory'.Put it this way, alan. If you can tell a 'theory' has 'failed in practice', so can I, and all the others here. We can vote upon that outcome.If you can't tell, and don't expect those who claim that they alone can tell to openly explain in a way that you understand, then you are in the power of this 'special elite'.Within socialism, physics must be explicable to all of us – it must be explained, openly, so that a vote can be taken on whether the 'scientific knowledge' it produces is 'True-For-Us'. But 'materialism' claims that 'matter' tells us its 'truth', and so from the start undermines any attempt to democratise science, which is a key social tool in building our world. In fact, 'materialism' puts power into the hands an academic elite, who claim to have special powers to Know Truth, to discover Eternal Knowledge, which once discovered, can't be changed. If they admit it can be changed (which is what Marx argued we should be aiming to do with our social reality), then they'd have to admit that their 'scientific knowledge' is not 'True', but only 'true-for-us' at a given socio-historical point in our social production.

ajj wrote:

I did so the day i chose that agreeing 100% with 100% of the membership of the SPGB was not necessary but what i did accept was that  i had much in common with the majority of them and that the points of difference were not so vastly apart or irreconcilable that they could not be overcome by debate and discussion – something that is still ongoing as many will acknowledge from the temper of some of my posts.

I pay tribute to your openness, alan, and to your constant reasonableness under the extreme provocation of my arguments. In many ways, we are 'not so vastly apart'.But on this issue, the ideology of 'materialism', it's a deal-breaker. I'm arguing that any socialists who espouse 'materialism' will turn away from democracy within social production, and will turn to 'rule by specialists', who will be autonomous within their 'specialism', and so out of the power and control of the majority (or, 'generalists').For my version of Democratic Communism, only the 'generalists' can decide whether the 'specialists' know what they are talking about – the 'specialists' are not the source of 'truth', they are only the source of 'options' for our votes. We might accept one option, or two or more, or reject all those currently supplied. That is, 'truth' is not necessarily singular, and certainly isn't 'Eternal Truth', a myth of bourgeois science. 'truth' is a social product, and we can change it, and within a democratic society, that changing of truth can only be a democratic decision. There isn't an elite who 'Know Reality'.

ajj wrote:

The need to begin to be part of the great process of social change was more vital than some of my own pet theories (ideology) and individual interpretation of the class struggle, past, present and future.It would be indeed utopian to suggest that the SPGB is the ideal vehicle for achieving socialism, but it is the best we got right now. Or can you offer a better alternative, LBird? What is ideology that remains outside practice? Religion and the belief in a non-interventionist "god"? The test of ideology is its application. 

I've always argued for the method of social theory and practice, alan, and only those who wish to hide this say that I only talk about 'theory'. Again, this is a political move to undermine what I'm saying – to call me an 'Idealist' who wishes to 'ignore practice'. The 'materialists' got this move from Engels, when he divided all philosophy into either 'materialism' or 'idealism', and so gave the 'materialists' the power to call their opponents, like me, 'idealists'.

ajj wrote:

Educate Agitate Organise. You may well believe the first is the prime imperative but without the pillars of the other two, then any edifice will tumble (as the Wobblies discovered, mezinks).Again some will note that the content of my posts emphasise the second principle as the one lacking most within the SPGB.While some members concentrate on party matters so to provide a home for the organise option…but i think the future of the workers movement does not rest with the SPGB as a political party and thus, i have invited the forum to discuss the various means that "workers democracy" can materialise and be expressedThe choice is yours whether you are willing to put any flesh on to the bones of your own ideology, LBird. 

I'm all for putting flesh on to the bones of Marx's ideology, alan. I don't pretend to be an individual, and I openly declare my ideological underpinnings.I'm all for Educate Agitate Organise , but this process will be based upon an ideology, and I'd rather expose, examine and determine which it is to be from several, prior to 'doing stuff'. I don't place 'practice' first, and pretend that a correct 'theory' will then emerge from this supposed 'non-ideological practice'.If democracy isn't at the centre of this process of Educate Agitate Organise then it can't produce socialism. And within the ideology of 'materialism', democracy isn't central – 'matter' is. 'Materialism' denies that humans produce 'matter' and can thus change it – 'materialism' places 'matter' first, not democratic production.Apologies for the length of my post – your enquiring post and comradely attitude deserved a full reply.

[Author]

Posts