Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:I can only reiterate that I can't see why you think we disagree, on the substantive issue of 'social production'.Perhaps we'd argue about Engels, if we had to, but I'm content to register my general agreement with your position, which I take to be that there is no 'neutral method' of science, which is only available to an elite, and so the social production of 'scientific knowledge' is amenable to workers' democracy. That is, the class conscious workers (pre-rev.; post-rev, the associated producers) can elect their 'truth' and determine their 'reality'.
At long last we seem to be getting somewhere positive, in that we've reached an agreement that the actual design of the democratic structure and the decision making process will be down to the majority in socialism and this well eventually determine the system analysis. And also Marx and Engles had reached an understanding that their methodology was incomplete.Ok now lets put this reasoning into the historical context of how Marx reached this conclusion earlier than Engels. To do this you need to take a step back and take a further look at your claim, gained from the quotes of Marx that in actual fact he was an idealist-materialist. And I'm sure you will find that Marx was just making tentative suggestions on what elements provided a complete picture of system analysis.And knowing Marx I'm also sure he was not foolish to put himself in the dogmatic position of claiming that idealism-materialism was the key methodology. He explored that possibility but eventually he reached the conclusion that there was far, far more to a system analysis than even he, Engles, et al (and since) were able to uncover. And only a socialist society would be in a position to discover what this system analysis involved and consisted of.Right let's now fast forward to socialism to try and visualise how a complete system analysis will work in theory and practice or practice and theory for when you use system analysis it's constantly evolving and eventually it becomes immaterial which comes first – the chicken or the egg!. For the point is to utilise all the productive forces at your disposal to uncover what is and what isn't.So what do these productive forces consist of? Well firstly there's the division of labour, then there's technology and the capacity for critical thinking and critical reasoning to go off the scale. There are of course other elements of the productive forces but just these elements alone imply and suggest that there will be millions of people who will only have a sectional interest on fitting the jigsaw together to arrive at a system analysis, in the knowledge this is a social task of such huge proportions that team work and project management, plus constant scrutiny of the findings are essential requirements to arrive at a conclusion which is acceptable and appropriate to the rest of society via the decision making process for establishing what is and what isn't. Obviously, all the contributory factors uncovered by Marx and Engles will be taken into consideration when a conclusion is reached and an outcome is arrived at but these alone will not be the ultimate and only contributionary facors taken into consideration.Hence, robbos dig at the impracticalities of your claim for theory and practice. The truth of the matter is we'll all be doing our little bit to bring about a system analysis which a majority are comfortable with. Until that day arrives the constant wangling between party members and non-members will only be scratching at the surface appearances and revealing nothing of a substantial nature and even less on fundamentals.Hope this helps.
LBird wrote:Once again, Brian, I'm not sure why you think we disagree.Engels and 'ultimate' I have a problem with (elsewhere he talks of 'finality'), but I don't want to sidetrack yet again into the detail of Engels' mistakes (and his contradictory assertions), since most of what you've written seems to me to be incompatible with 'materialism', which is why I think I agree with what you've said.Like I've mentioned, I knew this would be no easy task. You need to unpick what Engels means by ultimate and only. He like Marx were on a learning curve when they originally took on the MCoH and the LVToV and combined them into a methodology for an analysis of "production and reproduction of real life", albeit when investigating a political economy. With time they came to realise this methodology was incomplete and it suggested they had the answer to everything.In effect what they both admitted in later life (it took Engles a bit longer to catch up with Marx) was the actual methodology or system analysis would only become a complete whole once the majority were in a position to decide for themselves what is and what isn't without the hinderance of ideology. Or like when Marx hinted at 'the demons of the past weighing like an incabus on the present'. Obviously, this all harks back to the philosophers becoming proactive rather than reactive.Personally, being a generalist and not a specialist, I could not care two hoots what is and what isn't in the present. For my end goal is that essential change where I can decide what is and what isn't. And to that end I not only seek fundamental change by democratic methods but also am ultimately determined that the future decision making process will not be constructed by a party elite, or any other elite for that matter, but by the majority.For more on this see#27.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:LBird wrote:The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.I completely disagree. In actual fact the death of party control and the roots of class control lies not in 'materialism' or any other 'ism' for what it matters, but in a majority putting into practice their understanding of democracy and what the decision making process will consist of. When a majority allows a political party to establish the democratic framework of the decision making process it follows, that all outcomes, by default are going to be a reflection of what that political party deems to be truth and reality.For the guidelines and rules for debate and discussion have been predetermined by a minority. Therefore, all methodology, including the scientific method, will have been pre-determined by an elite.On the other hand, when the democratic framework and decision making process is introduced and established by a politically concsious majority it's they and they alone who deem what is truth and reality and not any political party. In this regard, the WSM have consistently stated that once socialism is attained its the majority who will decide the framework of democracy and the decision making process and not the party. This being the case the claim that a party elite consisting of 'materialists' will continue to dominate the decision making process after the revolution has succeeded fails at the first hurdle. For the purpose of a revolutionary party will have disappeared on the eve of the revolution and not after the revolution has taken place.This essential part of the revolutionary process, the democratic framework and the decision making process, will of course be worked out in the pre-revolutionary period and not post-revolutionary period. In essence it means the understanding of what democracy and the decision making process actually means in 'reality' will be determined by the majority and not a political party.And in reality will be the first step in the demise of a political party and political party discourse. And subsequently, the true beginnings of real political discourse, and not party political discourse.
From what I can tell, Brian, I agree with what you've said here, about 'conscious majority', 'democracy', 'revolution', 'reality determined by a majority'.I'm not sure where any 'disagreement' is.
I thought you would be unable to see where the disagreement lies. You are assuming the discussion is at heart over the various claims of materialism versus theory and practice, or idealism and materialism and therefore concluding such a discussion will continue after the revolution due to the presumption that a politcal party will still determine what is and what isn't. I'm attempting, and it's no easy task, to explain this premise is false by outlining that in actual fact it's the construction and creation of the democratic framework and the decision making process itself, by the majority – and not a party elite – which will be the ultimate determing factor on deciding on what is truth and reality. Unfortunately, you have become so focused on thinking that for socialists materialism is the only deciding factor you have lost sight of the fact that Engels himself declared otherwise:According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.[Engels, Letter to J Bloch (1890)Note the emphasis on ultimately and only. In effect Engels is categorically stating that when conducting a system analysis of the "production and reproduction of real life", everything has to be taken into consideration. Not just materialism, economic, theory and practice, etc, etc but everything, and hence reiterating Marx by declaring he's not a Marxist either.How that decision is reached on what the system analysis actually consists of will be determined by the democratic machinery installed by the majority and not the eternal wangling of party and non-party members.
LBird wrote:The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.I completely disagree. In actual fact the death of party control and the roots of class control lies not in 'materialism' or any other 'ism' for what it matters, but in a majority putting into practice their understanding of democracy and what the decision making process will consist of. When a majority allows a political party to establish the democratic framework of the decision making process it follows, that all outcomes, by default are going to be a reflection of what that political party deems to be truth and reality.For the guidelines and rules for debate and discussion have been predetermined by a minority. Therefore, all methodology, including the scientific method, will have been pre-determined by an elite.On the other hand, when the democratic framework and decision making process is introduced and established by a politically concsious majority it's they and they alone who deem what is truth and reality and not any political party. In this regard, the WSM have consistently stated that once socialism is attained its the majority who will decide the framework of democracy and the decision making process and not the party. This being the case the claim that a party elite consisting of 'materialists' will continue to dominate the decision making process after the revolution has succeeded fails at the first hurdle. For the purpose of a revolutionary party will have disappeared on the eve of the revolution and not after the revolution has taken place.This essential part of the revolutionary process, the democratic framework and the decision making process, will of course be worked out in the pre-revolutionary period and not post-revolutionary period. In essence it means the understanding of what democracy and the decision making process actually means in 'reality' will be determined by the majority and not a political party.And in reality will be the first step in the demise of a political party and political party discourse. And subsequently, the true beginnings of real political discourse, and not party political discourse.
ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:And a bio may very well reinforce people's perceptions that we are predominantly a white elderly male party.If it's the perception that we are all "elderly" it's wrong. We're not all OAPs ! Of the 10 candidates we put up at the last general election only 3 fell into that category, 5 were middle aged and 2 were younger than that.
Besides which appearances can be deceptive. Mirror, mirror on the wall whose the fairest of us all …..?Not me for sure when it comes to looks. But on the other hand my looks conceal my age and confuse even some socialists and always confuses the media presenters.
lindanesocialist wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?Vin said: It's becoming so pretty pathetic, Tim. Have a look at other party videos, debates etc. ALL criticisms could be applied yo them. Brian and YMS have kept silence until nowI recieved permission from all concerned except Bill Martin, if he wishes to sue, that will be up to himVin was appointed at the time of video making by NERB to produce audio visual material and open Internet accounts The Socialist Standard prints pictures of many politiciians and logos of other parties and extracts from other newspapers and BBC reprorta etc etc
Every edition of the SS contains a box of picture credits to cover the party against copyright issues. I see no such box in the video.
lindanesocialist wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?It's becoming pretty pathetic, Tim. Have a look at other party videos, debates etc. ALL criticisms could be applied yo them. Brian and YMS have kept silence until nowI recieved permission from all concerned. The Socialist Standard prints pictures of many politiciians and logos of other parties and extracts from other newspapers and BBC reprorta etc etc Sour grapes and nonsense
You have not received permission to use the party logo. Yet you continue to use it? Is that sour grapes and nonsense? By continuing to use the logo you are deliberately misleading the working class that the video is a party production. It contains no diclaimer to this effect, neither does it state its your independent production. If you are so proud of your efforts how come you are not claiming ownership but seeking a free ride on the back of the party?You have dug yourself a hole which only you can backfill.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The Small Party of Good Boys returns to the frayWhat happened to the 'good girls'. That particular phrase is now illegal I'd have you know.
I put this exact argument by robbo in a private email to LBird many months ago. I pointed out to him that the majority of the population prefer to be generalists while a minority choose a specialist role. But he took no heed on the implications and consequences of putting every theory to the vote.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?Ever heard of copyright law? If the holder of the copyright is informed by one of the viewers that they spotted a piece or snippet of their work they can take legal action against cde Maratty and the party. Even if they request Youtube to remove it under the law the damage has already been done.
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists areHave it ever crossed your mind that several of these viewers could be considering to sue you for breach of copyright by using snippets of their efforts without permission? They might try also try and sue the party seeing you have retained the logo for there's more prospects of a settlement there rather than raiding your bank account.
Ah yes, of course – the likes of ALB, DL, BM and JS are more than likely to do that. Tut, tut, fancy overlooking that prospect. As far as the logo is concerned it's the property of the party and in particular of those members who use it quite legitimately in the furtherance of their committee activities. In the meantime we'll look forward to receiving even more encouraging observations from members like yourself who favour Positive Socialist Activity.
Cde Maratty is not on any committee or have you forgoten? Also, are you willing to represent the party in court in the event of a legal action? Such action would be cool but it's hardly positive.
lindanesocialist wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists areHave it ever crossed your mind that several of these viewers could be considering to sue you for breach of copyright by using snippets of their efforts without permission? They might try also try and sue the party seeing you have retained the logo for there's more prospects of a settlement there rather than raiding your bank account.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:that's really interesting. A quick edit for the WSP US would n't be too difficult, would it?They would probably hav to provide their own voice over, but again that could be done quite easily with a script and a sound file from a US comrade who was ok to do it.Are you going to contact them and sort it out?Interestingly, if you posted it as an official WSM video, who would make the decision about that, the WSM has no EC.YFSTimWhoa just before anybody reaches any hasty conclusions (again) just consider this is a suggestion from an individual member of WSPUS. He's only representing himself not the US companion party.Caution is the watchword here in all due respects.
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Well, the disappointment came a lot sooner that i wished. All the interesting articles were just introductions…had to pay for the "premium" articles…grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…. Reality in this world is that you rarely get anything for nothingWell I've just ordered it, alan, and the 'bourgeois reality' is that it costs £5.54, inc. p&p.Of course, in 'socialist reality' we'd all have free access.Thanks for the tip about its publication!
Is this just for the article or the content of the magazine?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I look forward for some leisurely few hours to read through the new edition of New Scientist on what is reality. I am sure there will be a few points relevant to the socialist understanding of the universe that others might wish to discuss. https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/metaphysics/Register for free access to the articlesSorry to disappoint you Alan it's not free access. Except that is the tantalising introduction. Not to worry I'm sure LBird will reveal those bits which suit his narrative for democratic control of the means of production.
