[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

2) Why create new democratic structures when perfectly functional ones exist?  Local councils and parliamentary bodies exist and we will need something of their like …

I think that this is where we disagree, YMS.I don't regard 'local councils and parliamentary bodies' as 'perfectly functional' 'democratic structures'.I think that the root of this disagreement is in our views of the level of mass activity required to produce a proletarian revolution.I regard class consciousness as not merely the realisation that politics is important (and so one must actively discuss and vote on political issues, after which 'local councillors' and 'parliamentary candidates' will implement those decisions), but the realisation that politics, physics, culture, art, maths, etc., etc., are all important, and that we'll spend our lives actively participating in the production of knowledge in all these areas.That is the democratic control of the means of production.Not electing local councillors or parliamentary candidates.Now, not everybody as an individual will be entirely interested in every aspect of human affairs, but the vast majority must be interested in the vast majority of affairs, that affect them as humans.I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, and then arguing that most people are not capable of this level of active engagement in their own lives…… but if someone does argue this, I don't see how that view is compatible with the notion of democratic control of the means of production. In fact, to me, that view is incompatible with Communism, as I understand it, and will lead to continued passivity in the majority and the emergence of a new, expert, elite, who rule by undemocratic political methods.I define Communism as massive active engagement by the vast majority in their socially productive lives.It's certainly not electing a councillor or candidate, and then lying in bed all day, or shopping, or eating fast food.Passivity, whilst it lasts, spells elite activity in all areas, including science.Consciousness means activity.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

In that there will be a growth in the principle of Direct Participartory Democracy (DPD) being adopted by all manner of social organisations.

Including the social organisation of all 'science', including physics.The social production of 'truth' must be by means of DPD.The only alternative is a pretence by an elite that they, and only they, have a politically neutral method which gives them, and only them, access to 'reality' as it is.That pretence is the basis of any ruling class' ruling ideas, whether priests, physicists or cadre.The religious, professors and Leninists all claim to have a 'knowledge' of 'reality' which we don't and can't have access to.They all deny democracy in their specialist spheres of influence.Physics is identical to economics in method, and deals with a similar 'reality': our knowledge of reality, rather than reality in itself.Knowledge is a product of society.If we are to have a democratic society, we must have democratic production of knowledge.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I found this of interest, an article by the political commentator Chris Hedges, on the oft-forgotten Blanqui and the quotes from Blanqui.http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/25/our-mania-hope-curseAnd perhaps to feed LBird's interest, Chrus Hedges on knowledge

Quote:

Knowledge does not lead to wisdom. Knowledge is more often a tool for repression. Knowledge, through the careful selection and manipulation of facts, gives a false unity to reality.

Chris Hedges wrote:

Wisdom is not knowledge. Knowledge deals with the particular and the actual. Knowledge is the domain of science and technology. Wisdom is about transcendence. Wisdom allows us to see and accept reality, no matter how bleak that reality may be. It is only through wisdom that we are able to cope with the messiness and absurdity of life. Wisdom is about detachment. Once wisdom is achieved, the idea of moral progress is obliterated. Wisdom throughout the ages is a constant. Did Shakespeare supersede Sophocles? Is Homer inferior to Dante? Does the Book of Ecclesiastes not have the same deep powers of observation about life that Samuel Beckett offers? Systems of power fear and seek to silence those who achieve wisdom, which is what the war by corporate forces against the humanities and art is about. Wisdom, because it sees through the facade, is a threat to power. It exposes the lies and ideologies that power uses to maintain its privilege and its warped ideology of progress.Knowledge does not lead to wisdom. Knowledge is more often a tool for repression. Knowledge, through the careful selection and manipulation of facts, gives a false unity to reality. It creates a fictitious collective memory and narrative. It manufactures abstract concepts of honor, glory, heroism, duty and destiny that buttress the power of the state, feed the disease of nationalism and call for blind obedience in the name of patriotism. It allows human beings to explain the advances and reverses in human achievement and morality, as well as the process of birth and decay in the natural world, as parts of a vast movement forward in time. The collective enthusiasm for manufactured national and personal narratives, which is a form of self-exaltation, blots out reality. The myths we create that foster a fictitious hope and false sense of superiority are celebrations of ourselves. They mock wisdom. And they keep us passive.Wisdom connects us with forces that cannot be measured empirically and that are outside the confines of the rational world. To be wise is to pay homage to beauty, truth, grief, the brevity of life, our own mortality, love and the absurdity and mystery of existence. It is, in short, to honor the sacred. Those who remain trapped in the dogmas perpetuated by technology and knowledge, who believe in the inevitability of human progress, are idiot savants.“Self-awareness is as much a disability as a power,” the philosopher John Gray writes. “The most accomplished pianist is not the one who is most aware of her movements when she plays. The best craftsman may not know how he works. Very often we are at our most skillful when we are least self-aware. That may be why many cultures have sought to disrupt or diminish self-conscious awareness. In Japan, archers are taught that they will hit the target only when they no longer think of it—or themselves.”Artists and philosophers, who expose the mercurial undercurrents of the subconscious, allow us to face an unvarnished truth. Works of art and philosophy informed by the intuitive, unarticulated meanderings of the human psyche transcend those constructed by the plodding conscious mind. The freeing potency of visceral memories does not arrive through the intellect. These memories are impervious to rational control. And they alone lead to wisdom.

Hedges contrasts his individualist and elite 'wisdom' with social 'knowledge'.We Communists, on the other hand, should contrast the historical and social class basis of science. That is, 'bourgeois science' versus 'proletarian science'.For the bourgeoisie, their science produces wise knowledge; for the proletariat, their science produces wise knowledge.'Wisdom' is always from a class perspective, not from individual intuition or elite revelation.Hedges is merely a religious bluffer. There is no 'unvarnished truth'.'Truth' is a social, and thus class, construction. And for the proletariat, 'truth' must be a democratic construction.Hedges has no more access to 'reality' than do the positivists. His 'transcendence' mirrors the positivists' mythical 'neutral method' of bourgeois science.Both are lying to us, for their own undemocratic purposes.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Lbird, I am merely stating the position of the SPGB since 1904. Your post, I'm afraid is full of confusion. Chile has nothing to do with socialism. There will be and cannot be workers' councils in socialism. The means of production will be held in common by all.

It's not 'full of confusion', Vin, but an attempt to delineate a more complex analysis than your 'either/or' post earlier.You also don't seem to understand about the 'Chile' example. In Chile in 1973, during the military coup, many senior officers, including top generals, stayed loyal to the Allende government, because of the officer corps' sense of duty to the democratic state. This example is nothing whatsoever to do with 'socialism in Chile', but is to do with the need to strengthen our appeal to those state officials who wish to remain 'legitimate', in their own eyes, during the revolutionary process.Further, you have shown ceaselessly on other threads that you won't have the word 'Workers' associated with the post -revolutionary society, even though Marx used the term, too. OK, call them 'Producers' Councils', if you wish. The real point is, they are not 'parliament', which is the real issue being discussed, not your fetish for 'correctness'.So, 'Producers' Councils' (which everyone else refers to as 'Workers' Councils') will be the political form, not parliament. That is position 2, which I outlined above. You don't share it, and remain wedded to position 1.That's what separates us, politically, not some difference in the use of a word.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. the immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position…

I think that the issue is a bit more complex, Vin.I would argue that Marxists who look to Council Communism would 'immediately abolish the state' by ensuring that political power is transferred to Workers' Councils.But this political form of democratic workers' power is regarded by anarchists as just another name for a 'state', because they correctly see that 'individuals' will be still under some form of democratic compulsion.So, the three positions might be regarded as:1. Convert the state (still a state, but used by workers, perhaps 'temporarily');2. Destroy the state (and replace it with Workers' Councils, which can democratically compel 'individuals'). Destroy the state (and replace it with 'Free Association' for individuals, who can ignore democratic controls).On these threads, perhaps Vin argues for option 1, I argue for option 2, and robbo203 argues for 3.FWIW, I think that there is confusion within the SPGB between options 1 and 2.I have before characterised my position as 'Parliamentary Suicide', where the whole purpose of parliamentary activity (ie., getting votes in elections) is to display a legitimate claim, to those in our society who remain wedded to bourgeois forms (like many state officials, police and military officers), that the handover to Workers' Councils is 'legitimate' even in their terms.Of course, many will attempt a coup, but many will be loyal to their parliamentary ideals, as Chile in 1973 perhaps showed. We should attempt to strengthen the numbers of the 'loyal idealists' who come over to our side, because they value democracy over military rule.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Brand is now calling on all his 'followers' on twitter to vote labour, …This has probably been planned all along

So, Brand is now calling for austerity to be continued?I don't think that it's 'been planned all along', Vin. I think that it just shows that Brand knows nothing about politics or economics. Those who look to him will be disappointed, whether now (comrades here) or later (workers who vote Labour will find austerity continuing).I place him alongside Piketty, in his influence and longevity. Shallow and short-term.Capitalism marches on, discarding academics and comedians.The solution really is in our own hands.Final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Paddy Shannon  on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)

 I wish someone would tell me who Paddy Shannon is. I have heard him mentioned with  reverence a few times. Is he famous?If he is, he is not as famous as our LBird 

Surely you mean 'infamous', as a troublemaker, Vin?That leads directly to…Infamy, Infamy! … They've all got it in for me!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Paddy Shannon  on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)

Yeah, someone (you?) mentioned that Paddy recommended Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, which I bought and read, and Lee seems to confirm many of the problems with the myth of physics that we need to discuss. Lee is a working physicist, but not a Commie, like us.

ajj wrote:

Can the basics of this bpplied to society/science…i think so. Perhaps the division of labour as Robbo has indicated may have a fuller role but any specialised committees/organisations making recommendations can be judged and challenged by communities who possess overall control of the committees.

Yeah, I too think that whatever 'basics' of political control are applied to 'society', not only could, but must be applied to 'science', too. The rest is a discussion of 'how', rather than 'is it possible?'.

ajj wrote:

I guess i'm a utilitarian, at heart….what works the best is proof of correctness …

The problem is, alan, that 'utilitarianism' is an ideology, and one not compatible with 'democracy'. It is an individualist ideology, a bit like US Pragmatism, that argues 'if it works for the individual, that it's true'.But philosophers of science, and physicists, already know that something 'working' is not proof of its 'truth'.The geocentric system of Ptolemy 'worked', but we no longer regard it as 'true'. Apparently, according to priests, praying for grace in the eyes of the Lord works too, but I have my doubts.I know that you're reluctant to go too far into something that you're very unfamiliar with, alan, and I can't make you look deeper.I can only offer the warning that 'science' is a social activity and doesn't produce 'The Truth', and that science has an authority and legitimacy that the bourgeoisie use to bamboozle workers.If we workers don't take an interest in science and try to develop our understanding, we might as well leave the bourgeoisie in charge of production, too, and retain their scientific economics and market system for individual consumption, too.Oh yeah… it 'works', alan

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Obviously this new thread sprung up as i busied my response on the existing thread so i refer you to this as there appears to be some similarity of themehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/russell-brand?page=6#comment-22705

And from alan's post on the other thread:

ajj wrote:

Hope the above elucidation goes a way to show where i stand on how i consider the revolutionary process should be like….giving you a blueprint of my political stance …my ideology, Lbird

That's great alan – one's ideology determines how one sees 'science'.If you are like me, and consider socialism to be 'the democratic control of production', then we can move to discussing how, perhaps, possibly, being suggestive, we can democratically control the production of knowledge.robbo's problem is that he doesn't agree with workers' control of physics, which anyone agreeing with 'the democratic control of production' would obviously agree with, and so he's not concerned with how to do this, but to prove that we can't do this.So, the first point would be for those wanting to participate to declare their ideological basis regarding democratic production.If they define 'democratic production' to be 'control of widgets', but not 'control of knowledge', then we also have a problem.So, we have three potential starting points:1. those who want 'democracy in socialism' – meaning everything, including physics;2. those pretend to want 'democracy in socialism' – but really don't mean it, and restrict it in practice to 'democracy in widget production'. those, like robbo, who have no time for 'democracy in socialism', and define 'socialism' as 'free individuals'.I'm inclined to point out, to help those comrades unaware, that those who adopt position 2 are very likely to agree with the separation of 'natural' from 'social' science, whereas those who adopt position 1 are very likely to agree with Marx, and wish to unify 'science'.Well, here goes: my position is number 1.What about you, alan?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Predictably LBird will decline to answer this question because he knows in his heart of hearts that even to attempt to do so will expose once and for all the folly of his whole position

The TRUTH!robbo does have a neutral method!Congratulations, robbo!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Wasn't that Robbo who said LBird was bullshitting because he doesn't explain the way we vote on such questions as correctness of ideas….

By the same token, then, any worker can criticise the SPGB for not explaining how socialism will work.The SPGB, quite rightly in my opinion, follows Marx's lead, and insists that the actual functioning of socialism must be a future decision for the class conscious workers, and refuses to give a 'blueprint' for socialism.It's the principle that 'socialism is democratic' that is insisted upon.If robbo wants to know how 'democracy in science' will work, let him suggest some ideas.The real problem is not 'the working', for robbo, but the very principle.He's not a democrat, but an individualist; he doesn't want workers' power, but 'free individuals'; he doesn't want democracy in science, but wants to rely on those special individuals, the elite-experts, who pretend to have a special method, that is not democratic, that tells them the truth.What's more, I, like Marx, talk about 'theory and practice', not about 'correctness of ideas'.But robbo's elitist, individualist smoke-screen is doing its job.I can't say it clearer: as a point of principle, any questions about 'truth' in a Communist society must be determined by that society. And as that society will be a democratic society, it follows that those determinations of 'truth' must be democratic.Once this principle is established, the discussions about 'how' are on the same footing as those about the 'how' of socialism.2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Btw the guy (Lbird?) who lumped the SPGB in with all the other arseholes calling themselves socialists is wrong. The SPGB  has never bulshitted a worker in its 111 year history. It's is the anthithesis of bullshit mate. You're the bullshit artiste.

And you're the member of a party that still thinks that rocks talk to humans?I'm the non-member desperately trying to reason with the 'materialists' who argue this, and who refuse, on the grounds of bourgeois scientific principle, to allow workers to elect knowledge." 'Democracy in the production of scientific knowledge and truth'? That's bullshit, LBird!"My 'bullshit', Oz, involves radical democracy within all productive activities of humans.Your 'bullshit' consists in pretending to be a democrat, like the SPGB, whilst having already decided that you won't have workers determining the truth of reality. Because 'reality' speaks to the party.The key here is for workers to decide who's the bullshitter – whilst I'm "the bullshitter", materialists like you will continue to infect those within our class, who come to some form of disquiet with capitalism, with the myth of materialism.111 years and counting, Oz.1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[LBird]

Victor wrote:

I think it's useless pretending that you are typical just so as to appear 'nice' or politic.  If you're typical or, to use your own turn-of-phrase, 'no different to most other workers', then why doesn't the SPGB have more members?

'Nice'? Me? Have I logged into the wrong site?Thanks, Victor… the most agreeable assessment of me ever!As for 'no different to most other workers', I'm not an SPGB member.Like most workers, I have a healthy suspicion (from experience) of 'socialist parties' who want to tell workers what the 'truth' is. In my experience, they never listen to workers. And when they recruit them, they still don't listen!In fact, my analysis of the 'failure of workers to develop class consciousness' places more emphasis on all the parties that have tried since Marx to supposedly help develop this.I think that they've been an impediment, not a help, in this necessary process.Never once, in over 130 years, has a socialist party successfully explained 'value' to workers. They've all said 'Read Marx', which is awful advice, since Marx must be one of the least understandable writers ever – perhaps with the exception of Hegel. Other explanations always involve other mysterious concepts, like 'abstract labour', which just piles on more nonsense upon nonsense. There has never been an explanation in terms of something workers already understand, so that once they grasp the general idea in non-economic terms, they can then move onto the difficulties of Marx's theories.And… you won't believe this, Victor… when I've tried to make value understandable by using metaphor, I've been roundly criticised, by all, not just the SPGB.IMO, most party members want to believe that they know more than workers, and they like it that way, and want it to stay that way. The last thing party members want is someone simplifying Marx's ideas, so that they are common currency!No, Victor, I don't place the blame on workers, who've often joined 'revolutionary' parties (for me, it was the SWP), but on the parties and their 'materialism', which is a religious approach to the world, which allows 'those in the know' to understand 'material conditions' better than workers. That's why 'materialists' won't have workers voting and telling the party what's right or wrong, whether in politics or physics.

Victor wrote:

I agree that socialism cannot work unless the majority of people have the capacity to understand it, and then choose to understand it and accept it.  I am not saying socialism won't happen, and I do hold to a democratic position similar to yours, but the issue remains of whether people (workers), on the whole, are able to understand.  (i). Is LBird special? (ii). Or are you really just typical and for some odd reason humanity has never had socialist societies…

Yes, I share your democratic position – even in physics and the production of all human knowledge. But most don't. They still look to academics and physicists, not workers, to tell them what the 'truth' of the social and natural world is.So, (i), I'm not special;and (ii) I'm a typical worker, wary of the self-appointed saviours.The reason is not odd, but that the socialist parties have made the very idea of 'socialist societies' seem like nonsense to workers.The simple fact is that, for most workers who have lived until today, the capitalist system has suited them. Even those prepared to struggle for higher wages and better employment conditions have not wanted a different society.The one thing I do agree about with the SPGB is the need to educate, develop and organise amongst our class. But no party is doing this, not even the SPGB, which, as far as I can tell, still subscribes to the religion of 'materialism', which maintains that 'knowledge' doesn't come from workers, but from 'matter'.Unless this nonsense is addressed, we'll all still be here in another 130 years… well, not 'us', but our political descendants.Parties have bullshitted workers since Marx's day, and workers aren't stupid. They might not know the answers, but they do know that the so-called workers' parties don't have them.Thanks again, for calling me 'nice', Victor. A refreshing change, comrade!

[LBird]

Victor wrote:

Perhaps I am being harsh, but at the moment the SPGB in most of its publicity asks for a level of intellectual engagement that, realistically, most people just don't have the capacity for or simply don't have time for.

I have the capacity and made the time, and assume that I'm no different to most other workers.If we want socialism, most workers have to have the capacity and to make the time. If they don't, socialism won't happen.It doesn't surprise me, though, to find robbo agreeing with Victor:

robbo203 wrote:

I would endorse every word of this…

Yes, that's why you're not a democrat, but an individualist, robbo.You think you have the capacity, but that most workers don't. You think you can be arsed to find the time, but that most workers can't.You might be correct, but then if you are, the democratic control of production (ie. workers' power) is impossible.This leads me to conclude that your vision of Communism is not mine, because I think that the only Communism is Democratic Communism.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The bank testhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070

It's laughable, isn't it?The paper's title:'Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence'should of course be titled:'Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The bourgeois theories and their respective empirical evidence'if there was any pretence whatsoever of 'social objectivity' (the only 'objectivity' that humans can produce), and scientific research.As we all know, 'data' is 'theory-laden', and so a theory provides parameters of what that theory considers to be 'honest' and 'empirical' evidence. Hence, 'respective empirical evidence', situated within one 'theory' amongst others, rather than the mythical 'empirical evidence', supposedly outside of any theoretical considerations (the conservative 'real world' falls into this fairytale category).And, of course, no mention of any non-bourgeois theories, like Marxism.And I think Mandy Rice-Davies' famous method tells us much more here.That is, assume that the author is a liar, with good reason to lie: he's a bourgeois ideologist.Bourgeois academics, eh? They're either liars or just pig-ignorant of science.

[Author]

Posts