[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Perhaps socialism to you is merely an administrative task, and the workers should keep their ignorant noses out of administration and out of science?

Workers already run the administration of capitalism from top to bottom, why should they stop when we have socialism?

LBird wrote:

YMS fears 'the mob' ruining his science, and them not becoming class conscious, but passively following a demagogue. Perhaps you do, too.Whatever, there's no sign of any socialism I can recognise in YMS's bourgeois bluffing. Or robbo's individualist concerns.

I was simply asking, which one is more likely to be elitist, a philosophy of the world in which the word of a king can be contradicted by evidence, or one where the king can demand a vote to recognise that he can turn the tides?  Also, note, I said nothing about mob rule, but organised mobilised dictatorship of the Leninist type.

'Kings' in workers' councils?'Leninist consciousness' in workers' councils?Boy, you do have a low opinion of those thick workers, YMS!Unlike all those clever elitists, who have been busy fucking up the planet for 300 years, and happily supporting, not just bourgeois rule, but the fuckin' Nazis! Not just Mengele, but Heisenberg. And who was the WW1 German physicist who developed the poison gas to massacre workers?I wonder why no physicist ever said 'Physicists have known sin'? And the Eugenicists in the USA and UK, cutting bits out of unwashed workers…No, there is no 'elite sin' for you, is there, YMS?They know what they're doing, without the grubby workers intervening, in their 'Objective Search for The Truth' [TM bourgeoisie, 1660]

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

As to the SPGB, not one single member or supporter has come out against 'materialism', so I think we can safely say that the whole party is infected with the hidden disease.

There is around three to four hundred members of the SPGB and only four or five have ever commented on materialism on this forum in topics you have also commented in. At most that is about one tenth in a hundred.

And this circumstance, of course, is mere coincidence!Let's see, let's use maths, so beloved of the physicalists!In favour of materialism: 1%.Opposed to materialism: 0%.Ignorant of philosophy: 99% ? (readers alone, or whole wider party?)Given what I've read, and what support I've conspicuously lacked, I'll bet that materialism is rife!It's just like the SWP! Except, then I was ignorant, and talked the same shite that's been talked here, which is why I can recognise it as such.But, just like the guy who was turned into a newt by the witch in MP, at least I got better.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But you don’t, that is my problem.

But I do, and the fact you can't recognise that, is your problem. It's a product of your unacknowledged materialism. I keep saying this, and you continue to fail to address the question of your ideology, and continue to affect a disarming 'but, but… I'm ignorant… I'm a simple soul just dealing with 'reality', as I see it…'. Of course, this is materialism, so you won't address it.And now, you'll wring your hands, plea ignorance of "big boys' philosophy", and feign mystification, and lament my failure to answer you.

ajj wrote:

This is like saying there is an SPGB Illuminati 

Hmmmm… how close you are, alan!The Materialist Illuminati! Brilliant! I'll remember that one for future use, when I'm warning workers about the SPGB's secret intent to deny workers' democratic control of production.

ajj wrote:

DENIES any such group any social power to thwart democratic control of society. No commissar or intellectual can allot ones share of the collective wealth, this is self-determined…

But the materialists define 'the collective wealth' not to include physics and maths! Buttons only, for the workers.So, a materialist intellectual will determine, and the class will not self-determine.Of course, this is all still going over your head, isn't it, alan? Y'know, the politics of science, the power to determine. After all, these are political issues, and apparently, like philosophy, it's of no concern to you.Perhaps socialism to you is merely an administrative task, and the workers should keep their ignorant noses out of administration and out of science?YMS fears 'the mob' ruining his science, and them not becoming class conscious, but passively following a demagogue. Perhaps you do, too.Whatever, there's no sign of any socialism I can recognise in YMS's bourgeois bluffing. Or robbo's individualist concerns.As to the SPGB, not one single member or supporter has come out against 'materialism', so I think we can safely say that the whole party is infected with the hidden disease.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But these ideas have not produced a Party dictatorship either existing in the present or aspiring for the future. Nor does our interaction and engagement with fellow workers betray such a tendency to a hierachy of intellectuals, hoarding social knowledge to exert and apply control for whatever personal advantage you think they could have for such behaviour.

As I've said, alan, you will not acknowledge your materialism, and so you can't 'see' what's in front of your eyes.Don't you think YMS, robbo, twc, etc., etc., are 'aspiring to a future' physics that workers don't control? How you keep missing this baffles me, because they keep saying that they 'aspire' to a democracy-free production of knowledge.Don't you think, by what the materialists have said, that have "a tendency to a hierachy of intellectuals, hoarding social knowledge to exert and apply control"? Well, I can see it, alan, even if you can't. And that difference between us is a result of our differing ideologies: I'm a Marxist, you're an Engelsist. I look to 'socio-historical production', you look to 'eternal matter'.

Quote:

I keep showing how our principles do not support such claims and are doing the opposite – building the  foundations of an autonomous not authoritarian society.

But your Party has the 'secret clause', the 'hidden principle', that it pretends doesn't exist: 'Religious Materialism'.A simple way to reveal the adherents to the Secret SPGB Principle would be to take a vote about workers' power, about democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge, and the Secret would be revealed! The very idea of workers' power! If this happened to be rejected by newer members, they materialists would desert the party which no longer adheres to their secret, anti-worker, bias.

ajj wrote:

I knowi must be off on a limb because nobody but me seems to think this is of any importance to get an answer from you

Well, I keep answering your question, alan, but you apparently don't recognise an answer.What part of "Workers will not control physics and maths" do you see as 'democratic' or non-elitist?You seem to be saying, 'Trust us, workers, we say one thing (no democracy), but in power, we'll do another (workers' democracy). We haven't been in power, yet, so no-one can prove the opposite.'Yeah, right! Pull the other one, alan, it's got bells on it!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

You can find matter for yourself…

Of course you can, and bollocks to socio-historical production, eh?Individualist and bourgeois crap. No wonder robbo and you espouse materialism.No need for science, when biological individuals can 'touch matter', and, like hippies "Find it for yourself, maaaannn!".And finally, you admit that 'you have to know, prior to change' – the complete opposite of Marx, who argued that 'we know by changing', 'we are active producers of our knowledge'. It doesn't simply 'sit out there', 'waiting to be known', but is produced by active workers.It's laughable bourgeois nonsense, your ideology, YMS.No wonder you NEVER mention democracy in the 'finding' process. Unlike Democratic Communists, who always mention democratic production.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The point is that we can all look to the world, look to the data, confirm our theories.

Not implement our theories.Passively 'look to the world, to data, to matter', you workers! Don't change your world!The elitist materialists will surreptitiously provide the 'theories to be implemented' and pretend that they aren't.Beware, workers. The elite 'know matter'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

That is my quandary. If you are correct, LBird, then why is this anti worker democracy not visible. Are you saying we are ideologically blind to it, and if you are saying that, then it should be apparent to you, yourself so please present the actual appearance of the anti-workerism in what the Party says and does. If possess a diseased philosophy, then what are the symptoms of it that we are showing? Once you have done that then we can settle down to the treatment and the cure.

[my bold]Any worker reading this thread alone (never mind lots of others) can read what SPGB members and supporters have written.One can find plenty of statements of 'anti worker democracy', so it is entirely visible, to those who would see.Of course, 'materialists' are 'ideologically blind to it': the thread is full of 'the anti-workerism in what the Party says' (I can only go by what is said, I'm not a member and never have been, so only current or ex-members can tell me if there is a tendency within that argues for and organises around 'democratic science', though I suspect not).As to 'what are the symtoms of it that you are showing?'Look at YMS's ideological inability to understand what I'm writing – he can only understand it from the perspective (which he hides) of Engels' 'materialism'.I write time and time again that 'inorganic nature' has to be transformed by socio-historical theory and practice into 'organic nature'. Again, and again, and again…So, is there 'differentiation' in 'organic nature'? Of course there is – socio-historical differentiation, that's why we have modes of production.But, YMS can't understand this reply, because it is meaningless to his ideology, which is concerned with 'inorganic nature', or, as Engels termed it 'matter'. YMS wants to discuss 'matter', not Marx's socio-historical production of 'organic nature'.This category of 'matter' is supposedly outside of consciousness, that is, not in any relation to a consciousness, and is a concern of materialists.Marx was concerned with a social product, not an ahistorical, asocial 'matter'.

ajj wrote:

I’m struggling to see how its materialism is as bad a threat as you say because there are no signs of it, that I can see. So help me a bit on my problem. Where is this Leninist anti-democracy elitism exhibiting itself in the SPGB?

Well, since you still pretend to be 'ignorant' of science, philosophy, epistemology, etc., AND YET I'VE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO EXPOSE THE MATERIALISM THAT YOU HOLD, and so I can only now presume that you don't want to expose your own materialism, and will continue to 'play dumb' in these discussions.Of course, the very moment you acknowledge your own ideological viewpoint (of Engels' materialism), all this will fall into place, the scales will fall off your eyes, and you will end your 'struggle to see'.alan, simply read the thread again, and note just who argues for workers' democracy in all production, and who wants an elite to control the production of ideas. The problem is, if you continue to espouse materialism, you'll only 'see' SPGB members wanting to 'know matter', an entirely reasonable aim, for bourgeois science. But it's nothing to do with Marx's socio-historical production. Marx isn't interested in 'matter, out there', but a 'product, by us'. We can change our product, but can only interpret 'matter'.The rest have used up my patience, and I've only wrote this post for you because of your previous comradely efforts, but I think I'm close to calling it a day, even with you.

[LBird]

Oh well, it looks like 19th century materialism has won the vote.A triumph for the SPGB?Well, it'll be safe from workers demanding the democratic control of the means of production.'Matter' has the final say.I must say, though, that I'm disappointed that not one member or supporter has defended democracy.Well, that's not entirely true – the SPGB has no problem with workers controlling widget production, but won't have the important stuff 'interfered with' by workers.That's for the 'materialist' elite to determine, although they'll pretend to workers that 'matter' is speaking to the elite, alone.Congrats!

[LBird]

pgb, I've already done several threads about the inconsistencies in both Engels and Marx.So, you have to choose whether you want a philosophy that allows workers to make changes and create their own world, or one that interprets 'matter' without democracy, and leaves workers passive.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

The characteristiscs ONLY EXIST as A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN an active human consciousness in its practice of CREATING those objects that are objects-for-us, ie. 'organic nature'.

A relationship between an active human consciousness and what?

D'y'know, it's like dragging a dead horse through wet sand.I know I've said this before, and I know it will be ignored by you, again, but, hey, here goes once again, mainly for any curious workers who just might be reading.A relationship between consciousness and 'inorganic nature'.The social product of that relationship, by active humans labouring upon 'inorganic nature', is our object, the world of ideas and things that we create, and, because we are its creators, we can change.Engels mistakenly wanted to interpret 'inorganic nature', to 'know' the 'inorganic', as 'it is', without any human conscious intervention.You want to do the same. That's why you want to 'know' the 'qualities' and 'characteristic' of 'inorganic nature', because that's bourgeois materialism (which Engels ignorantly adopted), which pretends to be able to 'know' a 'reality' that humans have not created. Thus, they claim to interpret, for us dumb workers, the Truth of Reality.You, robbo, and the rest, wish to interpret 'The World' for workers, without their participation, and so you don't need the active democratic participation of the proletariat as they create their 'world-for-themselves'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird #154 wrote:

Marx, me, you (and most socialists, I think) agree that 'inorganic nature' exists external to 'consciousness'. [

Lbird #163 wrote:

No, it's the character of the hurdle in relation to a human that would limit, an individual runner, for example.

OK, so, lets call it character, rather than quality.  You accept, you accept, I repeat, you accept that inorganic nature exists "external to 'consciousness'" — your own words.  That the things in inorganic nature have characteristics (your word is character).  These characteristic only manifest themselves to us via our relations, that's fine, but at the very least, you have to accept that A≠B, that is to say, A does not share the characteristics of B, and A cannot relate to a human in the same way as B, else A=B would be true.  That is to say, at the least, there are things we cannot truthfully say about an object.I have read what you have said, it appears you have not.

[my bold]"That the things in inorganic nature have characteristics (your word is character)."I DID NOT say this, why don't you read WHAT I WRITE, rather what your ideology wants to see."These characteristic only manifest themselves to us via our relations, that's fine…"No, no, no!The characteristiscs ONLY EXIST as A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN an active human consciousness in its practice of CREATING those objects that are objects-for-us, ie. 'organic nature'.I wish you'd read what I write, and then draw the conclusions from what I write about my ideology, and stop trying to impose your materialist categories upon Marx's ideas, of the 'theory and practice' of humans creating their 'organic nature'.It's Engelsian Materialism to assume that 'inorganic nature' has 'qualities' or 'characteristics' outside of any relation to a consciousness.If you and the rest believe in 'materialism', that's your choice, but don't pretend it's anything to do with Marx's views, which are concerned with the socio-historical production of our world (and not describing/interpreting the 'inorganic').That is, the changing of our organic world, which is our creation, and thus can be changed.You're concerned with 'matter', a world outside of us and our consciousness. It's Engels' concern, not Marx's.

[LBird]

YMS, you've stopped reading what I write, and are simple repeating the axioms of your own ideology, materialism.If you're happy with the belief that workers can't vote on 'truth', then so be it.You obviously have a method that tells you what 'truth' is, outside of any socio-historical consciousness. You have the key to 'The Truth', an eternal knowledge, once discovered, forever 'True'.Thus, your ideology is not democratic, but elitist.And it's nonsense, according to any scientists working today who take an interest in epistemology, including physicists, from whom I've given many quotes.But then, I've quoted Marx, Einstein, Pannekoek, Rovelli……no reasoned argument makes a dent in the Materialist Faith.You stick to 'matter', I'll stick to workers' democracy, in questions of production, including knowledge.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, anyone who looks to active, talking, matter will deny the democratic role of workers in creating our world (which includes the production of scientific knowledge).

I am active talking matter, so are you.

If so, why do you deny that only a vote can tell us what a rock 'is'?The 'truth' of what a rock 'is' can only be decided by us, the 'active', and not by an elite of physicists, who use hieroglyphics to bamboozle us, and pretend only they 'know'.If we're 'active', we decide. Not 'matter', or the 'active elite' who keep us as the 'passive mass'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm a Democratic Communist, and so this underpins my views of the social activity of physics.

So how does 'democratic communist' differ from socialist?Can you give references where Marx differentiates between the two?

Marx was a Democratic Communist, too, Vin.So, this will inform one's view of physics, as I said to Dave.Physics, being a social activity driven by social theory and social practice, is amenable to our proletarian democratic control.We have to decide 'what matter says', as Brian said. Matter does not speak for itself, especially not to 'physicists', who are a part of our society, and whose views emanate from our society. They are not a special elite, who have some form of consciousness which is not available to us, too.Lenin argued for that, and he based his views upon Engels' materialism, which makes 'matter' the 'active side', which is a nonsense, and so, since Marx was correct that theory and practice is the human method, the elite minority provide a hidden theory, but pretend to workers that 'matter' talks to them, and them alone (through 'practice and theory').So, anyone who looks to active, talking, matter will deny the democratic role of workers in creating our world (which includes the production of scientific knowledge).

[LBird]

Dave, the issue between us is that you espouse Engels' materialism, whilst I don't.I look to Marx's idealism-materialism, and so my view of physics is different to yours.This philosophical difference between us can't be solved by appealing to physics, because one's view of physics is based upon one's ideology.So, we have to discuss our philosophical assumptions prior to discussing physics.I'm a Democratic Communist, and so this underpins my views of the social activity of physics.

[Author]

Posts