[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Some quick theories. ….

These read like US underestimates of the Vietnamese in the 60s.Whatever happened then, when the 'militarily weak' weakened themselves militarily even further, and instead of 'staying alive', they got the overwhelming majority killed in action.The 'Tet Offensive', which was a military disaster for the Vietnamese.These wars are political wars, and a focus military issues always misses the point.The main political reality is that the capitalist powers of the US, UK, France and Russia constantly destroy the societies of the Middle East, and have been doing so, sometimes by themselves, sometimes by indigenous proxies, constantly since WW2. This societal destruction in the name of oil is the key political issue.The source of the instability, and thus the solution, lies in the US, UK, France and Russia, not in Syria.The source of the instability will always replenish ISIS (merely the current manifestation of the problem), no matter how many 'weak Rape/Murder gangs' are bombed.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

See Message #8, LBird, 

My apologies, alan, I didn't see your earlier post when replying to robbo's. Good to see that someone else has historical perspective.

ajj wrote:

But when police over-react and murder, it is not terrorism and not to be remembered 

My point entirely.Whilst robbo calls only one side 'scum', we should be aware that both are, and that the same 'security forces' now being lauded as 'our protectors', will be the same ones who toss innocents into the Seine after torture.Workers like us will be the ones trying to swim with broken arms.

[LBird]

Where these sort of events have led before:

Quote:

The Paris massacre of 1961 was a massacre in Paris on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the French National Police attacked a forbidden demonstration of some 30,000 pro-National Liberation Front (FLN) Algerians. Two months before, the FLN had decided to increase its bombing in France and to resume the campaign against both pro-France Algerians and the rival Algerian nationalist organization, the Algerian National Movement in France. After 37 years of denial, in 1998 the French government acknowledged 40 deaths, although there are estimates of over 200.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961So, possibly the French police murdered 'over 200'. Puts the recent outrage into perspective.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

These scum seem to have lost the power of reasoning altogether.  Even in terms of their own sick agenda, this is stupidity in a grand scale.

I think that you're wrong here, robbo.These are pretty much 'standard guerilla tactics'.They know that, no matter how many innocents they murder, the response of The Real Terrorists in our world will be to murder even more of those from whom the 'guerillas' originate. Since that potentially supportive population will have already experienced much worse violence and many more deaths from murderous policies of The Real Terrorists, than happened in Paris, they will have little sympathy for those murdered in Paris.From this perspective, from that of the world proletariat, they are not any more 'scum' than are the French ruling class, their 'reasoning' is as sound as that of the French ruling class, and 'sick agendas' and 'grand scale stupidity' describe nothing more than capitalism itself.Capitalism is recruiting for a war. Calling only one side 'scum' is dangerous, and shows a bias to the ruling class.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…capitalism throws up socialist/communist ideas independently of us.

This would be better phrased, ALB, as "…other workers themselves produce socialist/communist ideas independently of us already socialist/communist workers".Otherwise, it can seem to mean that something other than critical, creative workers produce 'ideas'.It allows Leninist (read 'materialist') interpretations of 'reality' (ie. 'capitalism speaks to them alone') to come to the fore.Of course, 'capitalism' does not speak to workers, and other ideas of it, other than socialist/communist ones, can just as easily be, ahem, 'thrown up'.There are plenty of hidden 'throwers' waiting in the wings for unwary workers. That's why workers who are already socialist/communist must propagandise actively amongst our class.'Capitalism throwing' is part of the class struggle, not a passive wait for being thrown a material bone.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

ALB wrote:

Yehudi Webster argued that the appeal to establish a world without commodities (goods produced for sale), wage-labour and money should be addressed to all humans appealing to their reason, not just to a section of them such as the working class (however defined).

I think there is some merit to this since some issues such as the degradation of the environment, threat of nuclear war and social alienation are cross-class issues. But that said, seeing as it is the working class that forms the vast majority and it is this class that reproduces capitalist socialist relations, it is still the workers that hold the pivotal position.

[my bolds]Webster seems to hold to the bourgeois ideological belief that 'reason' is a universal, eternal principle, shared by 'all humans'.But, DJP is much closer to the truth that, according to Marx, different modes of production, and differing classes within those modes, produce their own 'reason'. What is 'rational' to one class or society, is not 'rational' to another.We Communists must insist that only the 'vast majority' of humans (ie., the revolutionary, class conscious, proletariat) can be the determiners of 'reason', by means of a vote.Any other stance leaves 'reason' in the hands of an elite. We have that now, and look at their 'reasonable' results to our world, both social and natural.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If 'free will' means the ability to break free from the casual laws of the universe and makes choices regardless of ones past, desires and inclinations then yes there is no such thing. But then the question is, if this where what 'free will' entails would we want such a thing anyhow? What's the freedom in randomly flapping about like a butterfly from one situation to another without any reason for our action?When we consider what people really mean when they talk about "free will" are they really talking about some proposed freedom from the laws of physics? For the most part it turns out that they are referring to nothing more than the capacity to regulate our behaviour and to act freely, without coercion, according to our desires, beliefs and values. I think this is the only meaningful way to go.

[my bold]DJP, you talk about 'the laws of physics' as if they are separate from the consciousness that creates them.Marxists disagree with that ideological belief.

Anton Pannekoek wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

[my bold]The 'laws of physics' have a social origin, and are historical, because they change as society changes.If by 'free will' we mean the freedom to change our understanding of 'natural phenomena' (or, for Marx, metabolise 'material substratum' or 'inorganic nature'), then we have 'free will'. Without this, we cannot 'change', but can only 'interpret'.The 'laws of physics' are the social result of human 'theory and practice'.Unless one starts from the inseparable connection of 'being and consciousness', then one is lead astray, and is forced to depart from Marx and Pannekoek, and ends up with 'materialism', which is 'discovery science', not 'humans making their world'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 the view that 'consciousness' is an 'objective condition', which not only must exist, but also Communists must help to develop within the working class.

As a materialist I agree with this statement

The issues for you to figure out, Vin, are1. why call 'consciousness' material, when to any worker, ideas are not material? It only confuses workers, rather than helps them to develop; and2. why use material when that is the very term that the comrades you disagree with, use themselves? Can't you see that there is a connection between the use of that term and the opposition to your (and mine) position?

Vin wrote:

I cant understand why your post was flagged as it is very pertinent to the discussion. I continue to be disturbed by SPGB members trying to control and prevent open debate and rather than flag your post they could have explained the problem they have with it.

If 'matter' talks to them, who am I to say it doesn't? Clearly, I'm just a troublemaker who must be silenced, rather than a worker experienced in showing charlatans up, for what they are.

Vin wrote:

The objective conditions for socialism do not exist while class consciousness is absent

Yes, because the only meaning that 'objective' can have for humans is 'socially objective'. The alternative is 'physical, outside of being, objective', which is precisely what you are arguing against, Vin: the notion of 'materialism'.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Then why come out with the following eye opener, in the first place?

Young Master Smeet wrote:

5) It would not move socialism one step nearer, nor improve the class struggle, objective conditions and class relations outweigh anythign we could add to the fight.

[my bold]Because YMS wishes to avoid the view that 'consciousness' is an 'objective condition', which not only must exist, but also Communists must help to develop within the working class.YMS, like the rest of the 'materialists/physicalists', holds to the bourgeois ideology that 'matter' will, one day, talk to humans, and that 'material conditions' will convince workers.It's the belief that 'rocks talk to humans', and that no social consciousness is involved in 'knowing' the 'material'.Thus, the nasty issue of "workers' democracy" can be neatly sidestepped, by the 'knowing elite' who supposedly have access to 'Truth' in physics and maths.This is the belief and method of Lenin, out of Engels. It is essentially a bourgeois and anti-worker view of 'reality', a 'reality' that can't be changed, and denies Marx.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Such a set up would have meant visitors would only be exposed to views favourable to the SPGB position and be unable to debate with party members.

It's ironic that visitors are being exposed to my views of scientific method which are favourable to the SPGB position about proletarian democracy, whereas SPGB members posting here are debating from an anti-democratic viewpoint: they won't have workers' control of physics or maths, for example.That is, a 'no debate' site would 'objectively' () favour an anti-SPGB elite. No wonder DJP 'saw little benefit in a discussion forum'!DJP 'knows The Truth', and won't have uppity workers challenging his elitism and demanding that if their views outvote his, that they are right.DJP has a 'special consciousness' that allows him, to the exclusion of all of us, to 'know nature'.How other Communists can't see the Leninism inherent in this ideology, beats me!The real political question is 'Who controls physics?'. Unless the answer for 'democratic socialists' is 'society by democratic means', then something is wrong with that 'materialist' philosophy.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Collecting only facts that support a certain point of view is what psuedo science does.To be scientific it should also collect facts that (at least seem to) go against the argument.

Sorry, I can't resist challenging this mystification of the so-called 'scientific method'.This is bourgeois ideology, that 'facts' exist outside of 'a certain point of view'.The bourgeoisie broke the 'being-consciousness' link (or, 'subject-object') because it favoured their own class practice, based upon the philosophical separation of 'private property' from any supposed 'social controls'. For them, 'physical nature' must be completely separate from 'human society and its consciousness'.The proper 'scientific method' is to expose one's 'certain point of view', so that the so-called 'facts' selected from that viewpoint can be compared with 'facts' selected from a differing viewpoint. To collect 'facts opposing' would be to make no selection, and to have to collect everything, an impossibility.Sometimes they will 'match', sometimes they won't.The solution, for the class conscious proletariat, is to vote to determine which 'fact' is to their liking.The bourgeoisie cannot adopt the democratic scientific method, because it will lead to their loss of property. Thus, they must pretend that an elite to their liking has a 'neutral method' for ascertaining 'facts' favourable to their class interests.Physics and maths both fall into this class viewpoint, never mind sociology or politics.

[LBird]

Socialist Punk wrote:

A confident, reasonably knowledgeable party speaker can probably come across quite well at a traditional physical meeting/debate. Online is a whole different ball game. It's often more like being circled by a pack of hyenas.

Speaking as an 'attention seeking, troublesome, moaning, hyena' [thanks for the list, Vin], I can reassure any passing onlookers that the corpse of the 'traditional' SPGB has been well and truly gutted.'Physically' and intellectually.[Ooops… they only recognise the 'physical', but don't mention Marx, and they're happy, passing onlooker]

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

Lbird while i acknowedge our party has remained an insignificant influence, let's be blunt, your reflect the views of a party of one, as you yourself are fully aware.

My views reflect the views of Marx, (Engels at times), Dietzgen (in part), Pannekoek, Korsch, Hook, Avineri, etc. etc. (I've given lists of names who've influenced me many times). Your party's refusal to recognise that my views are widely held, is part of the problem. Marx held them.Whereas your views reflect an uncritical acceptance of Engels' 'materialism', which influenced the Second International, Lenin, SPGB, etc. etc.

ajj wrote:

Nor have we touched the forelock to our "intellectual betters" who frequently advocated and promoted ideas that could not withstand deeper scrutiny. We have not been slaves to the sociologists and economists and historians and philosophers who sought to interpret that world.

Yes, the party has.The unscrutinised forelock-tugging to 'elite experts' is here for all to see. Ask how many members agree with the democratic control of physics and maths? ….. [extended silence]I've even given you the pamphlet name and page number, so you can check where Engels started all this 'materialist' nonsense. You are all slaves to a defunct 19th century ideology, called 'positivism', which Engels called 'materialism'.

ajj wrote:

This is as far i have ventured to declare. What we can do, we should endeavor to do and not try and accomplish the unachievable.

Unless we accomplish the 'unachievable', we won't have had a revolution.Why the party has got anything whatsoever against either Corbyn or religions, baffles me. By 1904 the die was cast. The SPGB isn't a revolutionary party. It's based upon Engels, which even Engels tried (unsucessfully) to repudiate.What's more, the religious overtones of the replies to my detailed discussions, arguments, quotes are clearly those of the faithful.No quote from Marx, where he says things which contradict the religious belief of the faithful in 'matter', ever have any effect.They know The Truth, and they're not going to have workers criticising it, and undermining their own importance as elite thinkers, who are there to tell workers The Truth.At least I think my views should be under democratic control, but the 'elite experts' do not think that theirs should be.For them, 'physics' comes from 'out there'.For them, 'maths' comes from 'out there'.For them 'rationality' comes from 'out there'.No room for workers' democratic control in anything with real power. Because the 'elite experts' have a special method, based upon their special consciousness, which tells them, and only them, what 'out there' says.Just like Lenin and his party.

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

Socialism hasn't happened because its time has not yet come to paraphrase that well known saying. Why is not an easy question to answer but if the objective conditions now exist for its establishment then there are subjective reasons why it has not occurred. In defence of the Party, we have always been a negligible influence so how can it be said we are culpable. This can be widened to the Left as a whole.

Not least of the reasons that 'it has not occurred' is because so-called 'revolutionaries' have been telling workers for 130 years that 'the rocks talk to the revolutionaries'.I was shocked to find that the SPGB also does this.If workers can't democratically control physics, why should they be able to democratically control politics?Unless maths, physics and all scientific knowledge production, which is always social, is under our class' control, then we can't control 'the means of production'.Whilst the 'revolutionaries' are telling workers that 'workers can control the factory production of widgets, but not the clever stuff', why should workers have any faith whatsoever in either themselves or the 'revolutionaries'?It's elitism, pure and simple. And so anti-democratic.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think we should identify and emphasise in our language our membership of a common humanity (DannyL does this effectively) and not just the working class. How many of us cringe when we hear that term "proletariat" used…

But I'm not a 'member of a common humanity', alan.I'm a worker (proletarian) who, together with the rest of the working class on this planet (the proletariat), is in an exploited relationship with a boss (bourgeois) who, together with the rest of the boss class on this planet (the bourgeoisie), is in an exploiting relationship with workers.This is a social structure, not a collection of individuals, and the structure is internally divided, not a commonality.I think that anyone stressing 'common humanity' and cringing at the term 'proletariat' is blind to exploitative social relationships, and is essentially some sort of liberal.

ajj wrote:

No i am not advocating the rejection class politics or class analysis but for us to consider the way we express it. Occupy was successful in avoiding the "working" v "middle" class red-herring…we are the 99%…"Power to the People" as John Lennon sang.

If you wish to argue that 'we are the 99%' or that you wish to see 'power to the people', we have no politics in common, alan.I'm not part of any 99% (the proletariat is probably about 80%, with the petit-bourgeoisie 15% and the bourgeoisie 5%), and the term 'the people' just hides this exploitative structuring of humanity.I wish to see the 80% physically and ideologically destroy the other two classes. This doesn't mean destroying the 'individuals' in those classes, but destroying the exploitative relationships that allows 20% of humanity to exploit 80%.I'd rather be open about this revolutionary and democratic position (80% will tell 20% what is going to happen), and stop pretending that changing terms or phrases will change the world.I'm a Communist, Marxist, Proletarian Democrat.Whilst the rest of the proletariat isn't, my politics will remain sidelined, and capitalism will continue.Unless class consciousness develops in the proletariat, then the bourgeoisie will remain in power. And talking about '99%' or 'the people' only harms that development.

[Author]

Posts