Socialism and Change
- This topic has 86 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:Matt wrote:Ultimately the people will decide…
I agree, Matt. That's why I think that the SPGB has the potential to develop workers' consciousness, in a way that the SWP, for example, hasn't. You're saying something that the Leninists don't.All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".If you do agree, we're plain sailing.If you don't, who or what decides truth?It's a simple question, Matt. Why won't the SPGB answer this political question?
Yes ultimately the people will decide " .. … in which applications of findings is the most appropriate, for their local, regional or global circumstances." Such an edit fits in well with your lack of understanding on democracy and truth.
Well, you've had your chance, Brian.But you still refuse to confirm that you agree with democratic workers' power. Why is that?Who or what determines 'most appropriate'?Why can't you, Matt, alan, … answer a simple political question?Who or what determines 'x'?'x' is any determination you wish to claim that workers can't determine.Why doesn't the SPGB defend the democratic right of the revolutionary working class to determine its own 'x'?Is it to be you who determines 'x', Brian?As posters on a political site, and members of a political party, you must have some idea of who or what has the political power to determine.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Again i think you overlook the umpteen times that we say that the emancipation of workers must be by the workers themselves and to echo Dietzgen…" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself."[my bold]So, why can't you bring yourself to agree that workers themselves can emancipate themselves from 'matter'?There are many other concepts, like Marx's 'inorganic nature', which could be democratically chosen to replace the ruling class concept of 'matter'.Why do you uncritically accept a concept chosen by a ruling class, which prevents democratic theory and practice, rather than a concept that is suitable to democratic controls?Not least, because the bourgeoisie themselves have moved on from 'matter', through 'mass' to 'energy'. They have rejected their own choice in one period, and have rethought their concept, for their own needs, interests and purposes.Why does the SPGB cling to a concept, outdated even for the bourgeoisie, and yet claim to have anything political to say to workers in the 21st century?Why, on one hand, can you personally see that the SPGB has problems, yet, on the other hand, you too defend 'matter', which is the root of the party's irrelevance?'Matter' is Victorian – it was outdated when the party was formed.
Quote:All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".No I do not. It is absurd to say that 'truth' can be decided. There is no such thing as scientific or philosophical 'truth'. I already indicated there may be several conclusions which are applicable in local, regional, or global situations. You can't impose a dictatorial straightjacket upon discovery of which is appropriate, by wielding a centralist dictat upon them in mock democratic disguise.Democracy will function locally regionally and globally. They will decide upon the most appropriate application of knowledgeable findings at the time, for the production of utilities in the most efficacious way to satisfy human needs, not on the production of 'truth' obsessions.I am with Robin and my comrades on all of this, with plenty of comradely disagreement at times, but we won't know of sure until we get there, what particular weight will be given to results from forms of specialisation in knowledge, or exactly how democratic functions will perform, only that there will be no elites and the ethos which informs discovery and the pursuit of science, its utilisation, will be immediately practical, as well as investigatory ongoing research, to facilitate this end, which my signature below indicates.
I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.So we democratically vote on this incomplete "truth", 60% declare it is "truth"…40% don't. Is it still a "truth" for that dissenting 40%? Can i fly because 60% declare the law of gravity is false?..(silly i know…but some more sophisticated people can put it better)I am sure i am expressing this clumsily but voting has consequences and ramifications.Just how often do we return to the question of "truth" is another matter? Is it eternal?With all its flaws and anomalies i think we have already addressed how scientific "truth" is determined…it isn't, we just go by a general consensus that keeps getting challenged and "truth" keeps on getting re-defined.I just had an exchange with LHO conspircist…2015 technology on the authenticity of the backyard photos does not supersede his half-century old conclusion on shadow and light discrepancies. His "truth" remains intact.
The only who has made a blueprint of the socialist society were the Bolshevik
Aaah! This is where you Armchair Marxists have ventured to. The pub down the street, Socialism and Change!Bolsheviks, a blue-print? There only idea was to shoot half the country! And let the other half die of stavation!I wonder if Russia would have made the same choice in Lenin, knowing where they are today under Putin.The way to anarcho-socialism is through micro-revolutions, little mini-insurections in the micro-recesses of everyday life, which may possibly blossom into a full-fledge people's revolution. (Think May 68 in France). It begins with the students and spreads from the campuses, outwards, making the whole super-structure wobble.A genuine revolutionary rabble, no party, no polit bureau, just a rabble, comprised of people from all social stratums wanting radical social change! A new socio-economic formation.
MBellemare wrote:Aaah! This is where you Armchair Marxists have ventured to. The pub down the street, Socialism and Change!Bolsheviks, a blue-print? There only idea was to shoot half the country! And let the other half die of stavation!I wonder if Russia would have made the same choice in Lenin, knowing where they are today under Putin.The way to anarcho-socialism is through micro-revolutions, little mini-insurections in the micro-recesses of everyday life, which may possibly blossom into a full-fledge people's revolution. (Think May 68 in France). It begins with the students and spreads from the campuses, outwards, making the whole super-structure wobble.A genuine revolutionary rabble, no party, no polit bureau, just a rabble, comprised of people from all social stratums wanting radical social change! A new socio-economic formation.You got all wrong, do not proclaim any victory and do not try to be sarcastic, or revolutionary. You are getting into a field where you do not have any dominion and knowledge. The previous message was in regard to Matt/s message who says that It "would be up to the people to decide", therefore, nobody can make a blueprint. The Bolsheviks preconceived a plan and it was a planned insurrection without counting with the vast majority of the working class of Russia. Period. I do know about the Bolshveiks and Lenin because I studied that for many years and I was part of that movement for several decades. I have read all the works of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. The only one in Russia who have real socialist conception was Julius MartusThe Socialist Party knows pretty well the history of the Bolshveks and we were aware of their agruments since 1903 and we rejected the Russian revolution in 1917, for us, it was not a socialist revolution, it was a coup to establish state capitalism, our stand regarding Lenin, the soviet union, Stalin, and the so-called patriotic wars created many problems for us Your respond sounds like the argument of the person who wrote the Black Book of Communism and a combination of Blanquism and Guevarism.The Bolsheviks at the very beginning probably had good intentions, but the reality forced them to exploit the only class able to establish socialism, and they were forced to create an original acumulation of capital because capitalism had not existed in Russia, it was a semif-feudal society, and socialism can not be established without high developement of capitalism. Not even Marx dares to make a blueprint.In regard to France, you also got it wrong it was a movement for reform, , it was only a revolt for reforms, the Bolsheviks always waited for a proletarian revolution in France and Germany and it did not take place, they knew that they were going to get isolated, and the others mini insurrections that you are mentioned, they are also wrong, they have been taken into practice on several occasions and they have failed, it was the daily bread and butter of the leftwingers, and I know about it, most of them are now in the cemetery, and nothing was obtained, even more it was the conception of Blanquis and the conception of Che Guevara, who is also dead, and Blanqui spent most of his life in jail. Some of those activities were guided by Mao conception of 'Picking up the theory in route ", they never picked up the theory or the routeThe Socialist Party is not an armchair organization, it has existed for more than 100 years, and I know its history pretty well, and it had been part of the socialist movement very actively, even more, we rejected all the imperialist wars, and most of our members went to jail or had to move to other countries, and we have confronted all kind of deviations presented against socialism, and we have also denounced individuals like you several times.This is our analysis of France and Germany:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/history/how-close-was-france-socialist-revolutionhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1131-november-1998/germany-november-1918That movement of students also took place in other countries, and nothing happened, and I was also part of some of those movements, the results were repression, killing and jails, even more, there were organizations who had control over the worker's unionsAnarcho-socialism-communist is a society without class, and it can not be obtained thru reforms, it must be supported by the vast majority of the workers, it can not be obtained by a minority, your idea is the conception of the leader and the cadre, therefore, you are contradicting yourselves, most of those little insurrections have been planned from the top of a central committee. The only social stratums that exist in our society is the Bourgoise and the Proletarian, there are not any middle classes, Nobody can obtain a new society thru reformism, it has been tried many times already. Check history
Matt wrote:Quote:You have a touching faith in 'professors', alan. You seem to think that there is 'an elite who know', and the rest of us don't, and can't.Professors are just workers, certainly in socialism they will be. I have a touching faith in electricians, plumbers, gas fitters, chemists and other specialists in their fields. I will contest the latter at my potential peril. I am not speaking of capitalist businesses here, those are always suspect, but the workers in them. Best practice is a continually evolving phenomena. I can contest professors' findings anytime. There will not be any elites in socialism. We will delegate, with briefings, difficult specialisations in science , medicine and so on, subject to recall. There will undoubtably be differences of opinion on what constitutes the 'correct' appoaches in the use of findings of some of those scientific fields, as there is no absolute truth in any case, so local , regional and global circumstances will figure, in the application of several of them, sometimes even contradictory applications as a consequence of contradictory findings which may indeed be 'true' in different applicatory situations.There will be specialised knowledge whether you like it or not. This does not make for elites in a commonly owned society. This will be as contested within their specialised fields then as now, without the present economic distractions of marketisation and profit making. The criteria of the 'common good' will inform the specialists just as much and as well as the decision making, local , regional and global facillitation of them.Ultimately the people will decide, in which applications of findings is the most appropriate, for their local, regional or global circumstances.
I have known many factories workers who knew more about socialism and Marxism that any academic proffessor
Matt wrote:Quote:All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".No I do not. It is absurd to say that 'truth' can be decided. There is no such thing as scientific or philosophical 'truth'.
So, according to your own political logic, 'matter' is not a 'truth'.So, you must be open to replacing 'matter' with another concept more suitable to democratic social production.So, why can't this replacement of 'matter' be a democratic decision, taken by our class, based upon their own needs, interests and purposes?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.So, according to your views, since 'truth' is 'always being questioned' in science, why can't 'matter' be 'questioned', and, if necessary, replaced by, for example, Marx's 'inorganic nature', or some other concept, which is more suitable to democratic social production?
Marcos wrote:I have known many factories workers who knew more about socialism and Marxism that any academic proffessorYeah, and only workers can determine what 'socialism' will be, and what 'Marxism' is, not any academic elite.Or any 'materialist' elite, 'professors' or not.
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.So, according to your views, since 'truth' is 'always being questioned' in science, why can't 'matter' be 'questioned', and, if necessary, replaced by, for example, Marx's 'inorganic nature', or some other concept, which is more suitable to democratic social production?
The Christians say that they hold the truth
Marcos wrote:LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.So, according to your views, since 'truth' is 'always being questioned' in science, why can't 'matter' be 'questioned', and, if necessary, replaced by, for example, Marx's 'inorganic nature', or some other concept, which is more suitable to democratic social production?
The Christians say that they hold the truth
But we're not Christians, and we don't argue that workers should become Christians, do we, Marcos?We're supposed to be democratic socialists, who argue that only our class can self-determine its own 'truth', its 'truth-for-itself'.
MBellemare wrote:Aaah! This is where you Armchair Marxists have ventured to. The pub down the street, Socialism and Change!Possibly, but most of this all this doesn't represent the the World Socialist Movement (SPGB). Have a look at our Intro Video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3WI_N4YmY&tMember of the World Socialist Movement (SPGB)
MBellemare wrote:Aaah! This is where you Armchair Marxists have ventured to. The pub down the street, Socialism and Change!Bolsheviks, a blue-print? There only idea was to shoot half the country! And let the other half die of stavation!I wonder if Russia would have made the same choice in Lenin, knowing where they are today under Putin.The way to anarcho-socialism is through micro-revolutions, little mini-insurections in the micro-recesses of everyday life, which may possibly blossom into a full-fledge people's revolution. (Think May 68 in France). It begins with the students and spreads from the campuses, outwards, making the whole super-structure wobble.A genuine revolutionary rabble, no party, no polit bureau, just a rabble, comprised of people from all social stratums wanting radical social change! A new socio-economic formation.Oh wow, it's another proclamation from right on, trendy anarchist Michel Luc Bellemare, the man who is so radical and revolutionary and anti elitist that he spends half his time making sure that every one knows he's got a PHd. (like anyone in the SPGB would give a flying f@ck)So the revolution starts on the student campus, that's right mate, when they've finished playing candy crush!Oh and it's going to be headed by a disorganised rabble. I can really imagine the agencies of the state are really shitting it, a whole load of disorganised students with no organised idea of how they want to achieve change, or what they want to achieve by that change, charging on to the streets, just like France in '68.I recall the late, great Cde Dick Donnelly refering in his rich Glaswegian Brogue to the "so called revolutionaries" being defeated by "something akin to a municiple street sweeping device, christ only knows what would have happened if the full resources of state repression had been unleased on these romantic fools".It was a disorganised rabble that tried to overthrow Assad, it was a disroganised rabble that over threw the Tunisian regime, it was a disrganised rabble that over threw Louis XVI. They all worked realy well for the working class, didn't they. Can I suggest that if you aren't willing to learn from the lessons of history, you bugger off back to your cosy world of modern art and paint some more of your bonny pictures and stop posing as a windswept and interesting revolutionary. The SPGB is a serious political organisation, not a passing fasion statement, to look back on in embarassment in old age.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.