[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

…L. Bird like ideology that is unaffected by the material world.

Dave, you haven't got a clue, mate.Marx argued that 'social theory and practice' changes the 'material world'.It's Engels, who you follow, who thought that 'ideology' is changed 'by the material world'.Humans are the 'active side', not 'matter'.Keep me out of your laughably ignorant debates, about 'the material world affecting ideology'.Marx would weep, that people calling themselves 'Marxists' would believe in the power of 'matter'.And because 'matter' is not the 'active side', you, like all so-called 'materialists', will deny the power of the proletariat to consciously change their world by democratic means, and will substitute an elite of experts, like you, who will explain to the dumb workers 'what matter says' when 'matter' is 'affecting' workers' 'ideology'.How the rest of you can't see this link between 'materialism' and 'Leninism' beats me. And how you think that class conscious workers will look to the SPGB for inspiration, when you're all saying the same thing, "No to workers' control, Yes to the god 'matter' ", is just as mysterious.Anyway, Dave, back to your materialist mud-pies, eh?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird's views on the SPGB which he expressed i think can be treated with scepticalism since now with his own answer it is not based on a investigation or a full awareness of the history or practice of the SPGB but limited to the responses of just a few online members. His accusations that we are Leninists can be dismissed as founded upon lack of knowledge and study…

I think that you severely underestimate the support for my criticism, alan, based on two factors:1. the continued statements of all the members/supporters of the SPGB who post here (including you, even though you still seem to be unaware of it, even given your openly stated lack of knowledge), and all those who read and fail to post against, that they will not have workers' democracy in the means of production; and2. my far wider reading and understanding of the philosophical links between Engels, the 2nd International, Kautsky, Lenin and the SPGB. All those listed have rejected Marx's views of the need for discussion about socio-historical production, in favour of a focus upon a timeless, asocial 'matter', which emerged from Engels' ignorant adoption of bourgeois materialism.Whereas the others here are using Leninism as a mere term of ignorant abuse (even 'Maoism', from twc!), I'm using it as a term of political and philosophical analysis. As you've pointed out, I don't think that the SPGB is a carbon copy of Trots like the SWP, because of its democratic structure (unlike the SWP), but that, given your ignorant adoption of Engels' materialism, if the SPGB gets anywhere near power, it will ditch the 'democratic facade' of 'socialism=workers' power', and, like the Bolsheviks, who too pretended to be a 'workers' party', the underlying philosophical materialism will come to the fore. So, my views of the SPGB are becoming ever more critical.One only has to read this thread, to get a feel for the utter hatred of any mention of workers' democracy amongst my opponents.

ajj wrote:

…just as my opinion upon this philosophical debate cannot be treated the same as those with wider understanding…

You said it, alan.I'm one of those workers with 'wider understanding' of the socio-historical development of Engels' materialism and Leninist politics, and what I read here scares the shit out of me.They might as well call me a 'Fascist', 'devil-worshipper', 'witch', 'bogeyman'… I'm beginning to wonder why you even associate with such politically dangerous people, who openly state they will not have workers' democracy… to the point, they never even mention 'democracy' in their arguments about power, even without the term "workers' ".They trust an elite, and their politics will match their philosophy.Materialism is an ideology of an elite, which emerged with the bourgeoisie, and which suits their ruling class purposes, not those purposes of the organised, class conscious, revolutionary, democratic proletariat.PS. this debate puts into perspective the support for 'parliament' amongst the SPGB members, who don't seem to think that parliament will self-disband in the face of workers' councils. The SPGB seems to think the electoral and organisational structures of parliament will survive the blossoming of workers' power.Materialism would be a perfect accompaniment to 'parliamentary power'. Both will deny wider workers' power, in science and in politics.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

You can vote till your blue in the face, but someone has to actually make the car.

Here we see, once again, YMS's continuing tactice to prevent any advance in our discussions. I can only presume that, with it being employed so often, that it is a deliberate obfuscating tactic.We'll state 'the bleedin' obvious', once again, after so many times, just for those unwary workers who are reading, and are confused by YMS's ideological materialism.Marx argues that our method is 'theory and practice': that we determine, by prior ideas, what our purposes and aims are, then put those ideas into practice, by changing inorganic nature into organic nature. We can only know if our social process of production has been a success, when we decide it has been a success.So, we decide, for example, that we want 'an integrated free transport system' alone, and not 'individual cars' (it could be otherwise, of course, but this assumption will suffice for this example).So, our 'purpose' (free transport for all, within the environmental constraints of our planet) is made plain in our plan, an 'idea', freely chosen by democracy.We then put our plan into action, by democratically producing our product, 'an integrated free transport system'. This is our object, created by our labour upon inorganic nature.When constructed, though, we might think that it now doesn't realise our purposes, and decide to change the plan, and retry. Only we can decide ourselves, by a democratic vote, whether the IFTS suits our purposes.Thus, we, and we alone, will have voted into existence our IFTS, our object, our creation.We can now see that YMS, having had all this explained many times, and pretending not to remember, tries to pretend that workers' democracy is a form of idealism, and that democratic production is 'things out of nowhere'.Be wary, any workers reading, the materialists constantly do this, because they cannot answer the question 'If not workers, who?', when asked about production.They pretend that any Democratic Communist that espouses Marx's democratic method of 'theory and practice' is an 'Idealist', which for them plays the role of 'The Bogey Man'. They got this dichotomy from Engels, and I've given the pamphlet and page number many times.NB. YMS will now plead ignorance, and deny everything that has been said, time and again, on these threads, about democratic production.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Just as you cannot vote a car into existence, you cannot vote scientific knowledge into existence.

What an odd statement to make – of course we can.You heard it first here, workers!The SPGB intend to deny you the right to decide whether to vote cars for individuals into existence, or to vote an integrated free transport system into existence!Or, a bit of both, Or, neither.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Get robbo to give a detailed plan of socialism

Well the nearest a socialist model to my knowledge he has posted has been thishttps://libcom.org/files/CommonVoice3.pdfSo feel free to critique the "democratic control" it proclaims …i am sure he would be interested in where you find it in error or where his socialist ideas are badly expressed.  Fire away your broadside. LBird…you have the first shot…then Robbo can return fire…

I think that you miss my point, alan.We can't offer detailed plans of democratic production – my point was, anything that robbo argues about 'widgets' can be argued about 'knowledge'.That is, academia is much the same as a factory or office.All must produce for the purposes of the producers: purposes, of course, in a society which claims to be democratic, as I presume socialist society will, can only be 'democratic purposes'.The real debate, here, is not 'the future', but why some argue 'now' that 'knowledge' is an elite product, and so can't be voted upon.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I did try one time to study philosophy but it did make my head sore. But who i tried to read was Dietzgen…"the workers philosopher" as i think Marx called him on one of his better days when discussing people and Pannekoek's summaries of him. 

Quote:

“Mind is as real as the tangible table…Mind is material and things are mental. Mind and material are real only in their interrelations”

As he did in actual politics, blurring the differences between socialists and anarchists , his philosophy tried to join together ideas and matter and end a false dichotomy dissolve things into one big giant melting monism pot…So …perhaps i can offer an alternative to your challenge here 

Quote:

If I could quote just one example of a member saying 'I agree with Marx and not Engels', I would revise my views.

"I agree with Dietzgen…and by extension, Pannekoek…rather  than either Marx or Engels" 

You should ask me for help, alan. To me, that's the whole point of being a Communist – to help other workers to develop, by shortening the time it takes for them to achieve one's own depth of knowledge, which took so long, so that we all get up to the same speed as fast as possible.On Dietzgen: he's spot on about looking to 'interrelations', rather than mind and matter as 'separate' things.But… his big failure is to look to 'induction': this, in simple terms, means 'practice and theory'.This is a contradiction: 'induction' implies starting from 'matter' (outside of 'mind'), rather than mind and matter in their socio-historical 'interrelations'.So, he ends the 'false dichotomy', on the one hand, and then introduces a 'false dichotomy', on the other.Read Dietgen further, in the light of my comments, and ask me further questions, if necessary (on a new thread, I think).

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

…he fails to understand totally why the SPGB relegates so much of the actual mechanisms of how socialism works to the future and to the people living in socialism…

So, why is the very same argument, that I've made before, not valid?

Quote:

…alan fails to understand totally why LBird relegates so much of the actual mechanisms of how democratic science works to the future and to the people living in socialism…

What's good for the SPGB goose is good for the LBird gander!Get robbo to give a detailed plan of socialism, and I'll take the same plan, and add 'democratic science' every time he mentions 'democratic production'. Widgets and knowledge are of the same order: products produced by society.Unless, he doesn't actually mention 'democratic control of the means of production'…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

When he explained his ideas on materialism and ideal-materialism they were valid for all i know but when he was asked how ideas were to be democratically controlled and asked just how that control of scientific ideas be accomplished then he dug himself into a hole and instead of stopping digging, he dug deeper.

This is completely untrue, alan.I've addressed the issue time and again, but robbo refuses to accept my answer, and so keeps asking the same questions, as if by doing so, and knowing I won't bother to keep saying the same thing, he hopes to gain credibility for his allegation that I can't answer.And what happens? You take his allegations at face value! What a surprise!

ajj wrote:

For me personally as i said, this philosophical exchange is beyond my ken…

But robbo's unfounded allegations are not 'beyond your ken', alan. You've just said so.So, why are my arguments 'beyond your ken', but robbo's are 'within your ken'?

ajj wrote:

No, LBIrd isn't a Leninist but he fails to understand totally why the SPGB relegates so much of the actual mechanisms of how socialism works to the future and to the people living in socialism….a sign that we are innocent of his charge of being an elite…Even if we were a democratically elected elite we abdicate our responsibilities of rule.

No, alan, I don't 'fail to understand'. You 'fail to understand' – you keep saying so.The posters here say that they won't 'abdicate their responsibilities of rule'. They see workers' democracy as a danger to 'objective' science. They think that an elite will determine 'Truth'. You fail to understand this, even though they plainly say so.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I referred to the fact that historians could verify and document how the elite dominated the SPD and the Bolsheviks. They could refer to Party rules, Party resolutions, and describe the relationships these parties  had with workers organisations such as trade unions and workers councils and, later,  historians could detail the actions both took in their respective civil wars to impose their will by the force of the State. Can you demonstrate any conference decision or party rule that gives an elite control over the SPGB?Can you show any actual policy or action of the SPGB which undermines the independence of the workers in their organisations?

I thought that I had answered this question, alan.I can only go by what I read on here. I have already said that I'm not a member, have never been a member, nor have any knowledge of SPGB actions having been elected to control even a parish council, for me to examine.Unless you are going to take a legalistic approach (that because 'materialism' hasn't been openly declared in a policy document, that it doesn't exist or have any purchase in the party), then I think that it's enough to read what party members and party supporters say here when asked about the party's overall viewpoint (perhaps we could call these unwritten, undeclared, even hidden, 'Party rules, resolutions, policies, decisions').I could be more persuaded that this 'hidden agenda' doesn't exist, if there was clearly open debate and disagreement amongst members, which would be evidence that there is no hidden agenda. But… there is no dissent whatsoever against the open statements by members that they will not have workers' democracy in the means of production, and that their (undeclared policy in) philosophy is materialism.If I could quote just one example of a member saying 'I agree with Marx and not Engels', I would revise my views. But, the open, and also passive, support for materialism is 100%!Surely any observer who reads these threads, unsure initially of whether the SPGB looks to materialism, would be convinced by now that it does indeed: all of the members who contribute say so, and those who don't contribute, don't deny it.

ajj wrote:

Where in these policies is the intent to deny workers democratic control?  On the contrary, it is emphasising the independence of workers to determine their own democracy…

But this is simply not true, going by the contributions of members on this and other threads. When asked directly, 'will workers democratically control the production of scientific knowledge (including maths and physics) for the purposes of the direct producers?', they most emphatically deny it. They openly say that only a elite has the ability to make decisions, only an elite has the right to decide the purpose of science.

ajj wrote:

I think this secret conspiracy of the SPGB to thwart workers' democratic control of production cannot be shown to exist from the historic record to its behaviour now. And i keep asking for you to offer actual examples as evidence and you fail to do so.

'Materialism' is 'this secret conspiracy', which has affected all organisations, since the Second International and Kautsky, which look to Engels' materialism. The SPGB, founded in 1904, supped from the same philosophical sources as Lenin, and with the same results: belief that there is something called 'matter' which, outside of any relationship to human consciousness, has to be taken account of. This has its roots in bourgeois science, the history of which I've pointed to a few times.No matter how much evidence I supply, for a materialist, like you, there is no evidence. You won't even admit openly to the board that you are a materialist, but simply pretend to be 'ignorant' of philosophy, and yet hold forth about the political implications of a philosophy which you claim to know nothing. The political implications of materialism are anti-democratic, and if you knew nothing, you would at least have an open mind, and would weigh the written evidence on this thread. FFS, they keep writing it!

ajj wrote:

Not once has anyone ever said the importance of ideas people hold is not the prime one. Ideas are very much part of the material conditions that will help build socialism…

No, no, no, alan!'Ideas' are not 'material' (ie. being, or 'matter'); they are 'ideas' (ie. consciousness).They are part of (to use terminology contemporaneous with Marx) the 'ideal-material conditions'.By 'material', Marx did not mean 'matter'; that was Engels' viewpoint, ignorantly influenced by the powerful bourgeois ideology and its apparent successes of his time. Marx meant 'social production', and social production contains 'ideas'.To argue that 'theory and practice' is something to do with timeless, asocial 'matter' is nonsense. Marx was interested in socio-historical production of our world, which, because we produce it, we can change.Whilst you keep (apparently ignorantly, from your own testimony) using the phrase 'material conditions' (and thinking this is something to do with 'matter' telling us 'what it is'), then you'll unavoidably take the side of an elite who claim to 'know matter', and won't allow a vote on 'what matter is'.Notwithstanding SPGB policies, to you, if matter speaks in the future, you'll be forced to ditch the 'policy of democracy' and turn to the 'experts'. After all, that's precisely what all your party comrades openly argue here, with no dissent, so me predicting what you and your party are likely to do in the future, is not me reading a chrystal ball. You say it.You all look to materialism, either openly like some, or 'ignorantly', like you. 'Matter' is your 'active side', not 'social consciousness'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I could troll you and say maths is the only truth in society? I just read a comic book called Logicomix about Bertrand Russell's quest for truth in mathematics. Unfortunately that is about my level of contribution to this debate.

You could read Godel and 'incompleteness theorem' on maths, JDW. He destroyed Russell.The upshot is, there is no 'Truth' in maths, and Gallileo was talking through his arse, when he claimed that 'maths was the language of nature'.Funnily enough, maths turns out to be a socio-historical invention by humans, and those boards full of symbols, beloved of physicists, are written by humans! Matter never even picked up a stick of chalk!Marx was right, once again.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Apologies for the maths, that is my own stupidity and I have edited the post. Five in three hundred is of course closer to two per cent not 0.01 percent. Apologies.

No problem, JDW!You had me racking my brains for a moment, wondering why I couldn't figure it out!The first challenge on this thread for me, even if because of an error, so go to the top of the class!Let's hope 'talking shite' doesn't catch on with the rest of the party, eh?Oh…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, wrote:

IIIThe materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

Standing superior to society does not mean that they get to dictate, but that they standard apart as if they were not effected by the happenings of society, and 'above the fray'.

A novel political interpretation of 'superior to society', YMS. Perhaps Charlie had better things to do, that day, than go on about politics and power, yet again.Matter speaking to you, again, perchance? Indeed, for you.

[LBird]

Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, wrote:

IIIThe materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

[LBird]

JDW wrote:

being generous, five out of three hundred make 0.01% not 1%.

My maths must be really shit.I always thought that 1 in a 100 was 1%, y'know, one per cent, one in hundred.So, 3 in 300 would be, errmmm…. yeah, 1%, too.So, 5 in 300 makes about, roughly, nearly 2%.So, not being generous at all, JDW, but vastly underestimating the support for materialism in the SPGB.Not 0.01%, but nearly 2%. That's about 200 times bigger than your estimate, isn't it?I thought that 'the material facts' spoke to you guys, and consciousness played no part?Perhaps 'matter' has had an active week this week, and is now tired out and taking a well-earned rest from advising the materialists 'what to say', on this very thread?Poor old matter, eh?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

A ruling class defends itself through obscurantism…

And they don't come any more 'obscurantist' than 'materialism'.Its adherents pretend that 'matter' tells them, and them alone, what 'it is'.It's elitist, through and through, which Marx warned about. The materialists will always divide society into two, the smaller part dictating to the larger part.Many of the physicists seem to think that they know better than us! Imagine that, a handful of bourgeois ideologists think that they will know better than billions of organised workers! As if!Although, some admit that they're no more than plumbers.And, most crucially of all, they're not Democratic Communists (ie. class conscious workers).But, this plays no part in the concerns of the Religious Materialists, who look to their god, Matter, and its divine offspring Differentiated Matter, who walks amongst us, here, on Earth.

[Author]

Posts