the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

To argue that 'Freedom and individual development' is not task for  'social theory and practice', under the democratic control of all, is to argue for Thatcherism.

That doesn't follow.   As, I believe has ben argued here by others, hunter gatherers are highly individualistic, but they are hardly Thatcherite in their primitive communist societies.

Sometimes I wonder if you lot deliberately put the most obscure spin on everything I write.I don't wan't to get diverted into history, sociology, modes of production, etc., but…Yes, you're right, YMS. Not every pre-Thatcherite society has been 'Thatcherite individualistic'. It's arguable that the tory party in the '50s was 'hardly Thatcherite'.But, in our present day context, of capitalist society, that we live in, the most appropriate examples in debate are ones drawn from our recent history.Unless you're some sort of primitivist, harking for 'hunter gatherer' social production, then I think that this debate on 'democracy and the individual' is best discussed by talking about the 20th/21st centuries AD, rather than BC.So, do we have 7 billion individuals each as individuals defining what their own personal 'individual freedom' consists of, or we going to democratically determine what 'individual freedom' consists of?As a Democratic Communist, I think only we, as a society, given OUR level of social production, can democratically determine (and change that 'definition' later, if we want to) what we mean by 'individual freedom'.If you are a socialist and a democrat, YMS, and live in 2016, I think you'll agree with me. On the other hand, if you're hankering to get into a pair of budgie-smugglers, and roam around the fields and woods of your local park, and return to primitive food production, and eat caterpillars, then perhaps you won't.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if you lot deliberately put the most obscure spin on everything I write.

No spin, you keep making arguments by assertion which don't logically follow.  Thatcherism is only relevent in a commodity context, and hunter gatehrers illustrated a non-commodity society of individual freedom.

LBird wrote:

So, do we have 7 billion individuals each as individuals defining what their own personal 'individual freedom' consists of, or we going to democratically determine what 'individual freedom' consists of?

I'd see it more as we agree the stage on which individuals are left free to act, and in which their self interest is in helping otehrs to be free.  Noting that hunter gatherers had such a system does not imply that I want to return to hunter gatehrer society.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird is cautious about offering the technocrats the power to decide, even though they may well be the only ones who do understand the science…

This underplays my concerns, alan.We now know (read them) that 'the technocrats' do not 'understand the science'.That's why modern physics is in such a mess (read them).'Science' is a social product, and, in a democratic society like socialism, only the ones who produce socially can determine what 'science' is.'Scientists' (your 'technocrats') are products of our society, just like you and me, and the notion, that you espouse, that there is a minority of 'technocrats' who 'understand' (while we don't, and more importantly, can't) is a BOURGEOIS MYTH.Your statement, in effect, reflects ruling class ideas.That's not a surprise, because we live in a class society, where the ruling class are always concerned to eternalise their rule, and make the masses think that only the 'technocrats' 'understand' the world we produce (oooops… 'the objective world' – another myth).Modern physicists are moving in the direction that we produce 'space and time' (read them), so Marx's ideas about us producing our object are just what's needed in physics as in sociology.Thus, revolutionaries can have an input to all science (not just 'politics'), because science is political, knowledge is political, truth is political, maths is political, logic is political…'Politics' means 'power', and the only 'power' acceptable within a socialist society is democratic power.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

This is very funny. DJP is always accusing us of being elitist and proto-Leninists, but he is  denying that in a socialist society is where we are gong to express our own  real individuality which does not contract the concept of social production, which is related to the way that human beings are going to product and produce those things needed for the survival and well living, even more, religion is going to be based on personal incumbencies. The Soviets were the one who wanted to eliminate the individuality of the human being, and Marx was not against individuality, which is something different to individualism and selfness. As Marx wrote: We shall have an association under which  The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Capitalism promotes individualism and selfiness, but it does not  provide the real free individuality of all human beings

It appears you are mistakenly misquoting DJP here.  A bit of editing would not go amiss.

I meant L Bird

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

This is very funny. LBird is always accusing us of being elitist and proto-Leninists, but he is  denying that in a socialist society is where we are gong to express our own  real individuality which does not contract the concept of social production, which is related to the way that human beings are going to product and produce those things needed for the survival and well living, even more, religion is going to be based on personal incumbencies. The Soviets were the one who wanted to eliminate the individuality of the human being, and Marx was not against individuality, which is something different to individualism and selfness. As Marx wrote: We shall have an association under which  The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Capitalism promotes individualism and selfiness, but it does not  provide the real free individuality of all human beings

It appears you are mistakenly misquoting DJP here.  A bit of editing would not go amiss.

LBird wrote:  I suspect that you're echoing robbo's concerns with 'individuals', rather than Marx's concern (and mine) with 'social production' by classes..  

[Bijou Drains]

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

A very simple and reasonable question, Tim.The answer is 'No'.Marx argues that the opposition to 'consciousness' is 'inorganic nature'.Engels thought (given his social circumstances and influences) that this meant 'matter'.According to Marx, 'matter' is a social product, which we can change, rather than, as the bourgeoisie allege, we contemplate.We could expect, if we were Marxists, that 'matter' could change (because it is a social product) to… errr… for example… errr… to… ermmm… 'energy'.So, some societies, from inorganic nature, produce matter.Other societies, from inorganic nature, produce energy.For some, 'inorganic nature' is 'matter'; for others, 'inorganic nature' is 'energy'. We have to choose.For us socialists, employing Marx's ideas, we can situate the social production of organic nature (nature-for-us) in socio-historical context. That is, we regard 'organic nature' as a social product, related to the 'mode of production' that produces it.So, to summarise, 'matter' is a social product (which we can change), and 'matter' has no 'existence' outside of our social production.'Existence' is produced.That's why we do not have to simply, passively, discover, contemplate 'matter', but can change 'it'.Bourgeois physics today is behind Marx in 1845.Theses on Feuerbachhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

LBird wants to global population of a future communist to hold tens of thousands of plebiscites on the truth value of each and every new scientific theory that comes on stream.

I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth but isn't his demand for only the right to democratically decide such issues.

I've tried talking to robbo, but he won't read what I write, and goes off on a rhetorical tangent.Perhaps you can explain 'socialist democracy' to him, alan.I define it as "workers' power", but he seems to define it as 'no individual's muscle moves without a vote', and thus condemns my wish to have workers in collective control of their production.Especially their production of our 'reality-for-us'.

 Er what? Ive gone through  everything youve  written on the subject with a fine toothcomb and Im completely baffled as to why you think otherwise.  If anything this sounds like you going off yet again on a "rhetorical  tangent" and though you accuse others of doing this I very much suspect this is an unconscious projection of your  own peculiar method to deflect attention from yawning crddibility gap in your own argument – that is, by accusing others of doing what you routinely do yourself So lets have it from the horses mouth: are you now denying that your vision of a future communist society invoives workers voting on the truth or otherwise of scientific theories?  A straightforward  YES or NO will be much appreciated  and if NO please enlighten with a simple explanation in your OWN words as to precisely what you have in mind without your customary waffle.   . 

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

A very simple and reasonable question, Tim.The answer is 'No'.Marx argues that the opposition to 'consciousness' is 'inorganic nature'.Engels thought (given his social circumstances and influences) that this meant 'matter'.According to Marx, 'matter' is a social product, which we can change, rather than, as the bourgeoisie allege, we contemplate.We could expect, if we were Marxists, that 'matter' could change (because it is a social product) to… errr… for example… errr… to… ermmm… 'energy'.So, some societies, from inorganic nature, produce matter.Other societies, from inorganic nature, produce energy.For some, 'inorganic nature' is 'matter'; for others, 'inorganic nature' is 'energy'. We have to choose.For us socialists, employing Marx's ideas, we can situate the social production of organic nature (nature-for-us) in socio-historical context. That is, we regard 'organic nature' as a social product, related to the 'mode of production' that produces it.So, to summarise, 'matter' is a social product (which we can change), and 'matter' has no 'existence' outside of our social production.'Existence' is produced.That's why we do not have to simply, passively, discover, contemplate 'matter', but can change 'it'.Bourgeois physics today is behind Marx in 1845.Theses on Feuerbachhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[twc]

This has to be Seen to be Believed TK:  “Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?”LBird:  “The answer is ‘No’” LBird’s irrelevance that “nature is matter or energy” doesn’t alter his answer ‘No’.LBird’s immaterialist “we created matter as inorganic nature” doesn’t alter his answer ‘No’.LBird’s denial of inherent properties to nature confirms his answer ‘No’.LBird’s denial of nature’s incessant dynamism—from the universal to the quantum—confirms his answer ‘No’.LBird’s assertion that only we change nature—because we create it—conclusively establishes his Berkelean reality that the ultimate philosophical answer is ‘No’.     Marxismus est Berkeleismus     —LBird [22/09/2016]
   

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird, in the past you have described yourself as a proponent of workers councils. Usually, they have been or are advocated as a delegated structure from shop-floor to all-factory to local then regional and eventually global decision-making congresses for a particular industry and related industries, taking its instructions and receiving its mandate not just from its individual members but from the authority of the the rest of society.Surely, i am not expected to vote upon each and every aspect of the  production and allocation of window-panes – that will be the responsibility of the glass manufacturers and the construction industry complying with society's request for  new houses, with  various designs asked for by different communities so not just quantity but quality is a requirement for this assortment of window-panes. There will be technological and building standards to comply with again i am not expected to vote on those but to delegate that responsibility to those with "insider" knowledge. I'm not going to quiz the science involved in the production of the different window-panes but simply expect them to match my needs and of course society's broader expectations on a few essentials…insulation for winter and heat-reflecting for the summer, for example…Those with the direct responsibility will be the architects and then the builders then the local housing association who ordered and set the initial criteria for the house and its windows. I'm not going to vote, am i ? Unless something goes wrong and the window glass technology is faulty and i begin to complain and join with others to strengthen the complaints to discover who is culpable…but even then a vote might not be required …Again i am not very good at analogies but what i am saying is that democracy doesn't require voting and i refer you to Robbo's article on allocation and Mises where there can a self-monitoring, a self-reporting, self-adjusting system of supply and demand.I don't vote on the number of cans of beans for my commune…nor do the food cooperative vote on how much to produce and send us but the bar-codes on the shelves will give that information. If the beans are too sweet or watery a sauce regular periodical consumer research survey of just a section of the bean eaters determines this and the need  to change the recipe. Not everybody will vote on it. Anyways, i suggest that voting is not necessary the only way to apply the democratic principle. Deciding scientific "fact" "reality" "truth" will make use of these non-voting processes. I don't need to be involved as a person, i delegate to others the responsibility such as the surgeon who will remove my appendix, i won't resort to demanding a vote on the medical procedure but will be assured that his workers council (the Royal College of Surgeons) have reached a conclusion on the correct manner of the operation and that the other workers council  the hospital board have kept the theatre clean having been supplied by the commune's public health committee's recommendations …so on so on so on…but it will be fully integrated and interlinked and connected in a clearer and simpler network…But again, LBird…are you saying i vote at every level, at every stage, on every point and that everybody else has to, as well…i don't think so…Even with computers, life is too complicated for that. Life is also too important to spend our time voting all the time on non-essential topics. I want the world to run with the minimum of direction …a little bit like my hopes for this forum as a moderator …

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But again, LBird…are you saying i vote at every level, at every stage, on every point and that everybody else has to, as well…i don't think so…

Only the producers can decide whether this is necessary, or not.This decision is not made by 'matter', so that we can't change our decision, but by conscious humans.I'm a Democratic Communist, and just like Marx, I can't give details of how the democratic control of, say, widget production, will work in practice.We might all want to vote on the production of every last widget in every last factory – though I can't imagine 'why' we'd want to do so, but its not my individual decision, and in fact I'd argue against such time-consuming activity.But, I argue that only the producers can decide about 'widget production'. The 'widgets' do not simply 'exist out there', and the 'widgets' don't tell us what we must do. It's our decision.A democratic society might decide to appoint a sub-committee to supervise widget production, but the members of that s-c would be delegates, and would have to report back to their appointers. Obviously, the report back would be in language and terms that the appointers understand. Their appointers would decide whether the production of widgets is in the interests and serves the purposes of the appointers; the interests and purposes of the delegates, if they differ from those of their appointers, would be over-ridden. That's political power, and it must be in the hands of the appointers, not the delegates.This is basic democracy. There can't be an elite who determine widget production, against the interests and purposes of society as a whole.Frankly, I'm surprised that the term 'democracy' seems to cause so much bafflement to the SPGB. If society determines that every last muscle movement in every individual shall be determined by a vote, then it will be. I'm a democrat, and so can't give any other answer, if I'm asked that question.Do I think that society ever would vote to do this, then I'd answer 'no'. I'm inclined to think that production would be subject to some division of labour (by choices, abilities and interests of the producers individually), by specialists (educated and elected by society), by delegates (controlled by mandates), by sub-committees (appointed from above), etc. Democracy in action. But, clearly, its society that decides if their shall be a division of labour ('matter' doesn't decide for us), or specialists (they don't select and educate themselves as an elite), or delegates (they'll do what we tell them to do) or sub-committees (they won't form themselves, outside of our social power).Does this cover the basis of 'democracy', alan? Clearly, if you had a different conception, and you and others outvoted me, your definition of 'democracy' would prevail.It seems to me, that any workers' movement being built up within capitalism would have to be built upon the principles of 'democracy', and so perhaps the first task is for workers to begin to determine just what they want from 'democracy', and to which spheres of production it would apply. I think all production should be subject to democracy, but perhaps other workers disagree, and want elites to continue to tell us things, and for workers to remain passive in the political process. I'd argue strongly against leaving any power to elites, because it leaves workers passive and thus powerless.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

So lets have it from the horses mouth: are you now denying that your vision of a future communist society invoives workers voting on the truth or otherwise of scientific theories?  A straightforward  YES or NO will be much appreciated  and if NO please enlighten with a simple explanation in your OWN words as to precisely what you have in mind without your customary waffle.   . 

Yes. (ie. workers will vote on 'truth')If you don't agree, robbo, you have to say who does determine 'truth'.I suspect that you'll argue that 'truth' is 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered', but then that puts power in the hands of 'out there' and we can't change it.Can you please give me a similarly simple answer, to my reasonable political question?Who determines 'truth'?

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[my bold]You'll have to read my post again, Tim.I was giving an answer to a political and philosophical question about 'power' within epistemology.You seem to want to persevere with your 'bourgeois individualist' concerns, like 'I' and 'me', and your biological notions of 'perception'.Since I specifically said that 'existence' is socially-produced, I don't know how you can read that as 'your existence is in my head', but I suppose with your bourgeois ideology, those sorts of beliefs are basic.But those ideological beliefs of yours are not mine (nor Marx's).And who told you that you are made of 'matter'?And why not 'energy'? Your ideology is 19th century, Tim. As are your 'assumptions'.

[alanjjohnstone]

I really don't see any real big difference of viewpoint here and we all these years been arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead. Any bafflement, LBird, i think has been the avoidance of clear questions and clear answers. 

Quote:

We might all want to vote on the production of every last widget in every last factory – though I can't imagine 'why' we'd want to do so, but its not my individual decision, and in fact I'd argue against such time-consuming activity. If society determines that every last muscle movement in every individual shall be determined by a vote, then it will be. I'm a democrat, and so can't give any other answer, if I'm asked that question. A democratic society might decide to appoint a sub-committee to supervise widget production, but the members of that s-c would be delegates, and would have to report back to their appointers. I'm inclined to think that production would be subject to some division of labour (by choices, abilities and interests of the producers individually), by specialists (educated and elected by society), by delegates (controlled by mandates), by sub-committees (appointed from above), etc. Democracy in action.

The above patching of your answer is i think will find little contention from the SPGBHowever these two statements will need elaborating upon

Quote:

I argue that only the producers can decide about 'widget production' There can't be an elite who determine widget production, against the interests and purposes of society as a whole.

You have to clarify those two contradictory statements.The SPGB long ago decided that one of syndicalism's (and cooperatives) failing was that it was not common ownership and collective control but sectional ownership and sectional control. "ONLY the PRODUCERS" excludes the community and society as a whole. It isn't social ownership, nor social control.What about pollution of the environment by a production unit. See my earlier post on contamination via GM as a highlight of the consequences of decision-making and how it may still result in undemocratic as seen by the out-voted. Isn't it going to be the wider community out-with the producers who determine how much to produce, when and where to send it.  But even how to produce (my GM argument again on inadvertent "pollution")Regards your following statement – isn't the producers themselves functioning as an elite against society as a whole if they claim ownership of the production and of the production process. No SPGBer will ever disagree when you say “…I can't give details of how the democratic control of, say, widget production, will work in practice”…Apart from offering some generalisations as you have done.Nor when you say the interests and purposes of the delegates: “…if they differ from those of their appointers, would be over-ridden. That's political power, and it must be in the hands of the appointers, not the delegates…although we expect the appointees to possess a mandate from its constituents whatever that might be… clearly, its society that decides if their shall be a division of labour ('matter' doesn't decide for us), or specialists (they don't select and educate themselves as an elite), or delegates (they'll do what we tell them to do) or sub-committees (they won't form themselves, outside of our social power)…”Isn’t this something the debate we are already currently and perhaps a bit clumsily having within the forum on moderation and which as a non-member you are seeing develop and evolve into some sort of consensus?“…Clearly, if you had a different conception, and you and others outvoted me, your definition of 'democracy' would prevail…” The SPGB has said that there are around the world different versions of democratic structures already exist based on local traditions and history, so perhaps, there will be many times that you and ourselves will get out-voted on the form, but not the essence, of democracy.When we separate the wheat from the chaff, LBird, all this global voting for every scientific law or hypotheses that you are being accused of promoting, isn't what you really expect to happen and if it was suggested you would argue against it  in practice as wasteful energy…

[Author]

Posts