LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hud955 wrote:LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.
You just can't help yourself, can you, Hud?You feign an 'interest', but won't discuss it.But, in reality, because you can't discuss it, through ignorance, you feel compelled to denigrate my attempts to discuss your philosophy as 'dogmatism'.Why not just say that you don't understand what I'm saying, and so don't feel able to discuss it, rather than pretend to 'have an interest' in your own 'philosophy', of which any criticisms are offhandedly dismissed as 'dogmatism'?Who are you fooling? Not me.
Hud955 wrote:I note LB, that you have once again attempted to disguise your evasion by launching an attack. I don't buy it.My earlier post was to actually support your position, with one small caveat. No 'attack' of any sort. Simply a disagreement about your underlying philosophy.You responded, not by either ignoring something that you consider unimportant (which is fair enough) and simply noting my support of the bulk of your post, nor by giving a considered response to my minor disagreement, but by attacking me for 'dogmatism'.If you're not interested in your own philosophy, I can't make you so.But, if so, you can't just call someone 'dogmatic' because of your lack of interest in philosophy.
Hud955 wrote:…the niceties of your brand of philosophical dogmatism are not. The fact is that these issues will be resolved by the working class on practical grounds and with reference to current circumstances when the time comes to implement them…Why not be open about your own brand of philosophical dogmatism, Hud?'Practical grounds' is a philosophical dogma.The fact that you won't acknowledge that, is neither here nor there.Since you're ignorant of the basis to your own views, you find it easy to condemn comrades who do know about your hidden brand of philosophical dogmatism.If you won't discuss your dogma, it's to your loss, and continued ignorance.If you don't wish to discuss, just don't anwer.But if you wish to think that you are exposing my 'dogma' alone, I'll keep putting you right.I'm open about my 'dogma', whereas you hide yours.
Hud955 wrote:There is no such thing as purely material action for human beings. All human action has ideal content. That can be assumed.Unfortunately, we've been bamboozled since Engels by the term 'material'. Most people actually think that the term means 'material', rather than, as you say, ideal-material. The same has happened to 'concrete'. Most people think it actually means 'physical', rather than ideas and material. So, it's not 'assumed' at all. We need to spell it out, and rescue Marx's ideas about 'material production' meaning human ideas interacting with the 'material substratum', to produce our world, both ideal and material.
Hud955 wrote:I agree with the point, LB. But it is a pedantic one.No, not pedantic, but philosophically vital, one still not understood by even socialists, never mind the mass of workers.
Hud955 wrote:Our case is founded on a class interest…Who or what determines 'class interest'?The Leninists claim that 'matter' does, that they can tell what our 'material interests' are.We, following the point you made above, regarding our class interest as ideal-material, is based upon actively created concepts and practice, rather than passively accepted from the 'material'.
Hud955 wrote:There are no 'proper' or 'correct' positions for the working class – or indeed, for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the claims of authority.But that's an anarchist or individualist belief, Hud.Our authority is class authority, determined by the democratic proletariat.Truth is elected, either by us as a whole, or by the bourgeoisie as an elite. Though, they pretend to be told by 'matter' itself. That's where the Leninists get their views from.
I agree with what you've said, Hud, with the exception of your last sentence:
Hud955 wrote:To my understanding, the primary act of revolution lies in the material action of the working class and not in taking control of a gassing shop.[my bold]The proper formulation is "the primary act of revolution lies in the ideal-material action of the working class ". That is, in theory and practice, not in practice alone. Practice and the material do not produce 'ideas'. Only humans produce ideas, and the working class must produce its ideas prior to action.Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', not a 'materialist'. He uses the word 'material' to mean 'human production', which clearly includes both 'ideas' and a 'material substratum'.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
I just could not let this one past. "There are times when even the educator needs educating" Marx. Which with all due respect illustrates its a two way affair. Always doubt to avoid the dogma.
[my bold]That's not what Marx said, Brian.He didn't say 'there are times'.He said 'essential', which means 'always'.
Marx wrote:…it is essential to educate the educator…For us, this can only mean proletarian self-education, and the removal of 'educators' as an elite. The latter is the only way society could be divided into two parts, one superior to the other.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Lbird, i have to cite Luxemburg…So, whatever happened to Red Rosa, and the so-called "Workers' Councils" in 'revolutionary' Germany of her period?
LBird wrote:"… 'Assuming responsibility' before we have our democratic ideas in place will lead, as usual, to workers' tears…"1919 Germany. "Workers' Councils" (supposedly); no 'democratic ideas' within the proletariat concerning physics; someone else (The SPD) provides the 'ideas'; … not just workers' tears, but Rosa's murder, amongst many others.I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Those "concrete things" are the things that constitute the class struggle for those people in those countries at this time …i would have thought "concrete things" could well be in different conditions and situations the actual creation of those workers councils you often express sympathy for.Right. I get it, now!So, not 'concrete things', but workers actively creating new social structures by the method of 'theory and practice', that, as Marx said in Capital, must be theorised in ideas first, prior to the construction of any 'concrete things', in the sense that the vast majority of workers understand by the term 'concrete things'.For a moment, there, I thought you wanted 'practice and theory', that well known ruling class idea, that ensures that 'hidden theory' precedes the so-called initial 'practice', and which allows, as Marx said, a minority above society to covertly insert their 'theory' first, and then pretend it's 'practice and theory'. It's Leninism in science.
ajj wrote:We educate ourselves when we assume responsibility for ourselves…No, no, no!!!That is 'practice and theory' – if we 'assume responsibility' prior to educating and criticising in words, then we'll find ourselves following the existing practice, supposedly 'learning on the hoof'. In fact, there is no 'practice' without 'theory', and 'on the job' learning simply means recreating in ideas what exists in practice.Marx argues that we must raise the structure in our ideas first, prior to building.'Assuming responsibility' before we have our democratic ideas in place will lead, as usual, to workers' tears.
ajj wrote:Did you have a knee-jerk reaction to the words rather than read the meaning and intent that lay behind their use? If not, as i said, i can't see the relevance of either of your comments to the article and they seem not at all in line with some of your previous observations.I refer you to:
ajj wrote:I may well be wrong but your two replies, are way above my head…No, you're not wrong, they are 'way above your head', you won't discuss science, because you consider it 'way above your head'. Whilst you refuse to engage in discussions about democratic theory and practice in science, then you'll remain prey to the next lot who argue that they're merely doing 'class struggle' in practice. Without theory.They're bluffing. Quoting articles which 'sound good' is not a good method. You must clarify your theory, and criticise from that conscious position.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We need to educate not with words but with “concrete things.”Who educates us about the 'concrete things'?
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach III, wrote:The 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'Concrete things' do not talk to us. They are not obvious. They are not amenable to 'individual senses'.That is the myth of 'objective science', of 'positivism', of the bourgeois method that ensures, as in Venezuela, that 'society' remains 'divided into two parts', and ensures the persistence of classes.The revolutionary method is:"We need to educate not with “concrete things" but with words."Openly espoused 'Theory and practice' is the way. We must discuss, criticise and create with 'words', first.'Practice and theory' (ie. 'concrete' first) is the method that hides 'words' and ideas, and is the method of Leninism.Because all humans employ 'theory and practice', the 'concrete things' method allows the minority to hide their 'words' and ideas.Unless the phase of 'theory' (words, ideas) is open to democratic control, then the 'concrete' will always be constructed by the 'part of society' that is 'superior'.Marx warned about this.We workers must educate ourselves. The rocks do not talk to us. The 'concrete' is already in existence and created by another class. To look to 'the concrete' is a conservative method. We must criticise 'the concrete' with new words.
Marx, Capital, wrote:Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htmTheory and practice.Words, ideas, imagination, purpose, will. First.The 'concrete' is the 'material substratum' upon which humans employ 'theory and practice'.If we accept the existing 'concrete', we live in a world not actively constructed by us. The 'theory and practice' of the exploiting class produced this 'concrete', and we must first of all criticise the 'concrete', not work from it.'Words' first. We educate ourselves, we don't 'listen to the rocks'.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.I think that these can be summed up as "Workers' Councils" versus "Democratic Parliament".No, that's not the division of opinion here. It's between (a) those like yourself who seem to want to abolish all the institutions of the machinery of government, including essentially administrative ones, and create a completely new administrative structure from scratch, and (b) those who don't see the point of this and favour adapting, fully democratising the useful administrative parts of the existing machinery of government. Between, if you like, the utopian system-builders and the pragmatists.
Use different names if you like, but you're just reproducing my analysis: your (a) is identical to Workers' Councils, and your (b) is identical to Democratic Parliament.
ALB wrote:Being pragmatic myself, I can accept that some of the democratic organisations thrown up in the course of the struggle for socialism will no doubt be merged with the democratically-reformed existing structures to create the democratic administrative structure of socialist society.Yes, 'pragmatists' like you will follow the lead of 'theorists' like me! That's why Marx argued for 'theory and practice': it's the scientific method, which 'pragmatism' isn't. Your method is not scientific.
ALB wrote:Nobody has yet made out a case as to why the health service, the postal service, local government, etc should be completely destroyed as part of the socialist revolution and replaced by newly-created institutions to perform the same functions.Have you never heard of Mengele and his academic professor, for whom his research was done?Or Harold Shipman? Or Beverley Allitt? John Stonehouse? T Dan Smith? There are thousands of criminals, psychopaths, liars, corruptors, elitists, snobs, etc., sown throughout the management of institutions that you name, and they created and structured those institutions for bourgeois purposes, just as they did academia and science.The case is, we need new revolutionary institutions for revolutionary purposes. And the 'functions' will be different, too. Many of their present functions will be not needed, and there are many functions that workers will require which those institutions are not suited to function for. Not least, democratic organisation and critical thinking from below.
Brian wrote:It seems you have got the wrong end of the stick again….Pity is that you have not figured this out yet, and that is your headache not ours!I can only go by the answers given on this site, Brian.'Evolutionary and adaptive' is not 'revolutionary and creative'.FWIW, your post seems much closer to what I have identified as the "Workers' Councils" position, than ALB's.
Brian wrote:But give it time and no doubt you will.Whilst there is such a lack of clarity between, for example, yours and ALB's posts, I doubt that I will 'figure this out'. If anything, the longer I remain here, the more mystified I become about the politics of the SPGB.It all seems to be a bit of a mish-mash.
ALB wrote:Anyway, it's not how social (as opposed to merely political) change takes place — it's evolutionary and adaptive.[my bold]This has only reinforced my view that within the SPGB there is a strand of thought that restricts the 'revolutionary' to the 'political' (and so the final seizure of parliament by election is the only 'revolutionary' act).Thus, given that, this view sees all other change as 'evolutionary and adaptive': social, cultural, ideological, scientific, mathematical, artistic, etc.I think that this is a massive underestimation of the 'revolutionary and creative' that will take place in all human activities.Perhaps we're now getting to the root of the reason why my arguments for 'the democratic control of truth production' are causing so much heartache.It seems that the SPGB really does see 'revolution' as only a narrowly political act, and so can satisfy itself with the 'taking of parliament'.And physics and maths (as two examples only) will remain outside of any 'revolutionary' change, because, apparently, neither physics nor maths are political.Needless to say, this 'evolutionary and adaptive' approach to social activity in all its forms, is, to me, entirely unrevolutionary.
Hud955 wrote:LBird wrote:I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.I think that these can be summed up as "Workers' Councils" versus "Democratic Parliament".I disagree entirely. I am not specifically arguing for workers councils, and I do not think there is a necessary opposition here.
'Entirely'? I'm surprised.
Hud955 wrote:…a new administrative system altogether…What would be the political nature of this 'altogether new admin. system', if not a structure built by class conscious workers, on democratic principles, from the bottom up? It sounds like "Workers' Councils", to me.If you "do not think there is a necessary opposition here", between the old parliamentary structure and your new admin structure, how would they operate together?If there is no opposition, and given the present nature of 'parliament', how would the two be reconciled? The only way I can see is to retain a "Democratic Parliament" as the top body, grafted above your 'new admin system', where political power is retained at the top, and not diffused throughout your 'new admin system'.On the contrary, I think the 'opposition' is fundamental, and necessary, because it is an opposition between the creativity of two different, opposed, classes, who create structures for their own political purposes.Still, if you think a third position, between what I've called "Democratic Parliament" and "Workers' Councils", could exist, could you perhaps give it a name and outline the commonalities of this third 'middle' view, with the other two?
