[LBird]

Perhaps the way to answer this to any enquiring worker, is to say:'Yes, we support the bombing of all enemies of the working class, and since we don't discriminate, we're all for the airborne assault upon the ISIS-Blair-Bush Axis.'That is, we're all for one RAF squadron bombing ISIS, as long as another one RAF squadron is bombing the Houses of Parliament and the White House.I'd add that, personally, I'd leave the bombing of ISIS until after the War Criminal Tony Blair is targetted with one of those miraculous bombs that avoid 'collateral damage' and only hit him on the head, but simultaneous bombing will do.Then, we can't be accused of favouring ISIS. Or, indeed, favouring their mirror-image. Or, being pacifists!If nothing else, it will stimulate a wider debate with the 'enquiring worker'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

What sort of 'control/power' do you think that they would 'have over you'?

but that is my question of you and I would appreciate if you can explain to me how an 'elite will be able to influence and control me in a socialist society. 

If you're a 'materialist' (and you say that you are), then you must believe that 'matter' trumps 'social consciousness'. And so, those who can tell you what 'matter' is, outside of a society's social and historical development (which clearly changes), must be accepted as telling you The Truth.If you understand the social relationship between priests and laity, then you'll understand the relationship between 'an elite' and 'you'.So, if you, as an individual, have picked up a rock, and you think it is solid, and 'materialists' tell you that 'it is solid, outside of any consciousness', you'll simply believe them.Do I need to point out the dangers of both 'starting from oneself as an individual' and 'attributing power to an object', for you to recognise the starting point of bourgeois political economy in 'individuals' and 'commodities', as told by those with 'private productive property'?Why trust bourgeois physicists, but not bourgeois economists? They both produce ideas that many simply believe in.Unless we democratise all social production, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the power of an elite.Perhaps the best way for me to 'explain' is to call the elite 'Religious Materialists'. This might give you some insight into the problem. If you believe in 'matter', it's synonymous with belief in 'grace'. 'Grace' was as real as 'matter', to a certain social consciousness.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 By your party view, that would be a 'democratic banning', and I can't argue with that. I would just stop trying to post, if I was unable to post.That would be the paradox: a democrat democratically banned.

But it is a paradox of your own creation.  At the moment, you are the minority elite it is you that suggests the majority ban the 'elite' .

A 'minority' is not necessarily an 'elite', Vin.I'm surprised that I have to explain this to you: 'an elite' is 'a minority with power'.I'm a minority in the democratic sense, which we'll always have with us, as long as we argue for democracy: I'm 'a minority without power', and so not 'an elite'.An 'elite' cannot be outvoted (so 'materialists' cannot be outvoted: they have a special access to 'matter'), but a 'minority' is always outvoted, by definition.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

We would remain the passive recipients of 'Scientific Knowledge', who would only control the production of 'factory widgets', but not the production of our universities and our research.An elite would remain in command of social thinking.

I would appreciate an explanation of how this 'elite' would have advantage over 'passive recipients' in a socialist society?Why should I fear this 'elite' and what sort of control/power  would they have over me.

If physics produces 'knowledge' that can't be voted upon (ie, that 'truth' can't be elected), then the producing elite would be the 'active side', and the workers would be the 'passive recipients'.Clearly, it wouldn't be a 'socialist society', as I think it should be defined.That is, a society that has its production democratically controlled. The production of 'ideas', 'knowledge', 'Truth', would be in the hands of an elite.What sort of 'control/power' do you think that they would 'have over you'?Are you willing to even allow the possibility? We might have our disagreements, Vin, but I can't picture you 'obeying an elite'. You're an argumentative bastard, just like me.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

It will be strange to see the majority here, supposedly 'democratic' socialists, voting for 'matter', rather than 'class conscious proletariat', as the decider of human truths.

So we, the majority, have voted for 'materialism' but you do not accept that vote. You think you are right. And you accuse us of being elitist?

But I do 'accept the vote', Vin.The SPGB has made it clear to me, a non-member, that my view of a 'democratic proletariat' has been rejected, in favour of the view of a 'democratic party'.That's why I'm a non-member. Clearly, at any time my minority view (in party terms) can be banned, if it is believed that I'm gaining some minority traction anongst the membership, and that was seen as destructive of 'democratic party-ism'. By your party view, that would be a 'democratic banning', and I can't argue with that. I would just stop trying to post, if I was unable to post.That would be the paradox: a democrat democratically banned.Of course, the solution is 'worker's democracy', rather than 'party democracy', but we aren't there yet, are we? The SPGB argues for a 'democracy' outside of 'workers', just as it argues for 'matter' outside of 'consciousness'.That will allow the post-revolutionary regime to be one of a party elite, which is Leninism.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What you say is ideological, Lbird. There is no "truth" in what you post. My comment is just as true as yours. I demand a vote !! If what i say is not as true as what you say then i'm taking my ball home and not playing with you anymore

I'm all for your suggestion, alan!Let's vote!It will be strange to see the majority here, supposedly 'democratic' socialists, voting for 'matter', rather than 'class conscious proletariat', as the decider of human truths.Paradoxically, both I'll lose, and so too will the party. Because it will be a result that claims that the party can know something that workers can't – otherwise, they'd let workers vote on 'truth'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Bertrand Russell, my favourite liberal "socialist"

Yeah, Russell was an elitist, who thought that his 'average man', 'the majority of the population', were collectively unable to out-think him. What a knob.It's easy to show how '2+2=11', and I'm sure that the interplay of temperature and pressure makes his 'cold/freeze' and 'hot/boil' relationships much more debateable, without even introducing the question of the framework of consciousness that determines what counts as a 'relationship'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As you said …facts even of physical science can be ideological and change to suit a ruling class, eh? 

[my bold]What I, Fleck, Pannekoek and Marx actually say is that 'facts even of physical science are ideological'.The only people who argue that 'facts' are not related to a consciousness, that 'scientific knowledge' is a mere reflection of something 'out there', that 'Truth', once 'discovered', is 'True' forever, are those ideologically influenced by bourgeois 19th century science, which, most tragically, also included Engels. That is, so-called 'materialists'.The political importance of this (which is why it's so important that comrades not so interested in physics or maths must also take some interest in the discussion) is that if 'Truth' isn't a social creation, but is the product of an elite, and it's a product that cannot be voted on (so we must take the word of an elite and cannot criticise or remove that elite), then…… workers cannot democratically control the means of production.We would remain the passive recipients of 'Scientific Knowledge', who would only control the production of 'factory widgets', but not the production of our universities and our research.An elite would remain in command of social thinking.This, politically, is Leninism. That's why Lenin was a 'materialist'.Fleck's work is a good starting point for workers to begin to challenge the ideological hegemony of bourgeois science, and thus Engels' 'materialism'.The only way forward for us is to argue for 'democratic science', which clearly includes 'democratic physics' and 'democratic maths'. This can't be done if one holds to 'materialism', because 'matter', to the exclusion of 'social consciousness', is the determinant of 'Truth', and the elite claim to know what 'matter' says, and that this can't be voted upon by the majority.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm sure you being a "culprit" in the past will recognise when a poster oversteps the boundaries of the forum rules. LBird certainly recognises from his own many, many past transgressions what the limits now are and i wouldn't be surprised if he knew just exactly when to suspend himself.

But my 'suspension limit' would not be where a poster cannot get a political response from the site (posters unofficially, party officially) and persists in trying to force one.The proper result of my persistence should be a political answer, not persistent banning.That said, I recognise the difficulties of the task of the moderator, and don't put their actions down to personal reasons (dislike or exasperation with me), but down to the same political failure which is embedded in the party.That is, a political failure to face up to awkward philosophical questions, about the mismatch between the party's supposed support for democratic socialism, and its refusal to countenance, for example, 'the election of truth', or the democratic control of physics and mathematics, which are all implied by the notion of workers' control of the means of production.So, I would regard a suspension justifiable if a poster refused to move the discussion forward after a philosophical and political response, and just continued to ask already answered questions.But, I don't. I ask questions, and don't receive answers, that a democratic socialist who argues for workers' power and proletarian control of the means of production, would understand as relevent answers.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…how are we definign…

I know that I've said this before, YMS, and that you'll continue to ignore it as part of your own unexamined ideological method, but, for the interest of other readers, unless the community examines 'who' and 'why' a particular 'definition' is produced, that is, the social ideology behind the science, then the issues will remain shrouded in misunderstanding and assumptions.This is as true of physics and maths, as it is of any (so-called) 'human' science, like anthropology or sociology.I know… 'Warning 1'…

[LBird]

The important thing here, robbo, is not your inability to understand philosophical subtleties, but that other comrades get to reflect on their own understanding of 'class', by comparing their present views with our opposed theories of class.I'll leave it at that, because I keep getting banned for patiently trying to explain to you, to no avail.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

The salient factor that differentiates classes is how much capital you have in your possession.

[my bold]No.It's not an 'amount' (a quantitative factor).It's a 'social relationship' (a qualitative factor).Once more, robbo, your philosophical basis is individualist liberalism, not democratic communism.You are interested in 'personal possession' that can be mathematised, counted, quantified, by a method open to individuals, especially an elite of individuals.Social relationships, which are as much 'ideal' as 'material', can't be 'counted'.The act of estimating relationships requires social theory and practice, and so is open to democratic controls.We workers determine what 'exploitation' is: it is not 'a thing'.FWIW, this issue is also related to your mistaken views about 'science'.Science is class-based, and is also relational. Science is not an numerical account of 'reality'.There is an unacknowledged ideology behind your views, robbo, and you should examine them, the better to expose it.

[LBird]

'Income', meaning 'earnings' or 'earned income', has nothing to do with 'class'. The belief that 'income' relates to 'class' is a liberal individualist belief, and comes from bourgeois sociology.'Class' is a 'social relationship' which is 'exploitative'. So, a boss who has a poorly-performing firm, and continues to pay their workers more than they receive themslef, is in a different class from the workers, and is still exploiting those workers, even though they have more income than the boss.This example may be an extreme one, which doesn't often occur, but is used to bring out the exploitative relationship at the heart of the Marxist definition of 'class'.It is not defined by 'income', but by 'exploitative relationship'.Even if the firm is about to go down the pan, and the workers' income is greater than the boss', there are still two classes in that firm: bourgeoisie and proletariat.If I was pressed to put a % figure on classes, I would probably put it at 5% bourgeoisie, 15% petit-bourgeoisie, and 80% proletariat. Of course, these are estimates, and subject to changes in capitalism, and location in world production, but they help us to get away from the liberal nonsense that only 1% (or even less) are our enemies.That is, perhaps 1 in 5 people have a socio-economic interest in capitalism continuing, at present. That's why they are still very powerful and influential. Things will change, but it doesn't pay to underestimate the difficulties facing us at present.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Ultimately, though, all lengths would never be resolvable to all measurements.

But for any society to act, there has to be a social and historical (and thus temporary) resolution of 'length' and 'measurement'.And if this resolution is a social act, and the society doing the resolution is a democratic society (as a socialist one would be), then this necessary socio-historical resolution is amenable to a vote.The alternative is that an elite 'tells' us. We have that now.

[LBird]

[quote-Vin]If you already have an understanding 'value' you will understand the difficulty in converting or relating it to 'price'  This does not invalidate Marx's theory[/quote]But this is precisely what is at dispute, Vin.If you believe that 'value' can't be related to 'price', as I do, you are at odds with 'materialists', for whom 'value' is not a social relationship.If 'value' is a relationship, it clearly can't be 'counted', which would be required to give a 'price'.A 'relationship' can only be estimated by a consciousness, and not measured by reference to its 'material reality'.This means that 'value' can only be estimated by workers: if they democratically decide to reject 'price' as a measure of our needs/wants, then the bourgeois academic 'problem' of relating value to price disappears.It makes one wonder why any 'Marxists' think that there is a problem… unless these 'Marxists' regard 'value' as 'material and measureable' and so able to be converted to 'price'.

[Author]

Posts