LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The bank testhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070It'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.
Tim Di Muzio wrote:…proper research…based on evidence rather than conjecture…actually do research rather than pontificate out of conjecture…empirically confirmed…given the evidence…In an honest world, after you've actually considered the evidence…Tim doesn't seem to know anything whatsoever about 'scientific method' or our openly expressed method, of 'theory and practice'.He doesn't mention which political ideology he's using to do 'his research', which political ideology determines his parameters of selection for 'his evidence', which political ideology he uses to 'empirically confirm', or which political ideology gives him his views of 'honest'.Scientific method follows Marx: theory and practice.It's incumbent upon any 'scientist/research/gatherer of empirical evidence' to openly state their standpoint, from the outset. This applies to physics as much as economics.So, Tim's fundamental scientific failure is to omit his perspective, and then to pretend that he doesn't have one. He appears to believe that a he's being 'honest', when in fact he's actually pulling the wool over his readers' eyes, and perhaps even his own.From his mythical 'objective/honest/empirical' position, he then precedes to condemn socialists for openly stating their ideological starting point for research, whilst hiding his.At least our 'Biblical Marxism' and 'Church of Marx' warns workers of the 'faith' inherent in any human activity, including research in physics. So, we don't hide our perspective, unlike Tim.If anyone's 'spreading confusion', it's those, like Tim, who believe in the bourgeois myth of 'objective research', conducted from a position outside of human society, and its theory and practice.Tim embodies the outdated scientific method, pre-Einstein, of pretending to produce 'The View From Nowhere'.We're always 'Somewhere', comrades, and we should openly admit it to other workers, and help to disperse the 'confusion' sown by the bourgeoisie for 300 hundred years, that they (and Tim, apparently) have a objective, politically neutral method, for understanding our world, physical and social.
Vin wrote:Then why do you call 'communist ideology' 'bourgioues science' when I use it to understand class? Or when I see 'class' as an exploitive relationship am I seeing it through bourgeois positivism?You're just confused, Vin.I've tried to help, like a good comrade should, but you don't seem to like me or my ideas. C'est la vie.
alanjjohnstone wrote:How often have we heard the refrain …pensioners…they are just same as capitalists living idle lives off investments of their occupational pension funds (or private annuities)…We're bound to 'hear' this, because it's crude bourgeois ideology.As if a worker who's worked their entire life selling their labour, and has eventually retired on a decent occupational, even final salary, pension, can be compared to an exploiter.They might as well identify billionaires with terminal cancer patients dying in hospital, because neither is working, and both are living off other workers.Only those ignorant of the system of socio-economic exploitation called capitalism could think pensioners are comparable to capitalists. Unfortunately, many are ignorant of just that, and so are open to crude propaganda.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:We must use Communist ideology: ….We do and we always have done.
Except when you want to understand science, and the production of 'truth', eh, Vin?For that human activity, bourgeois ideology seems to completely suffice!Ooops… 'science' isn't an 'ideology', is it, it's an asocial, ahistorical activity done by apolitical elite physicists employing a neutral method to produce eternal, universal 'Truth'?Pull the other one, Priest-Physicists!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Now there are 9 classesAnything to pretend to be an intellectual, eh?It's just a variation on the usual liberal sociology: 'income' defines 'class'. And they only focus on 'earned income'.He muddies the water with a bit added about political power.We must use Communist ideology: 'class' is an exploitative relationship.If one knows the difference between vampires and victims, and recognises the flow of exploitation, then one can understand our definition of class.It's nothing whatsover to do with 'income' (most of the exploiters don't earn their income), or clothes, accent, cultural preferences, education, etc.One can wear a flat cap and keep whippets, and be an exploiter.One can earn £100,000 a year, and watch ballet and opera, and be exploited.It's not 'appearances' that count, but 'relationships'.Bosses and workers both come in all shapes and sizes.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It maybe that your own insistence upon "not having read either Marx or Engels regarding 'materialism'." may be imposing academic Marxism…for instance , i have never read Engels Dialects of Nature, although i have seen many references to it…should i wear sack-cloth and ashes and self-flagellate because of that ignorance?I think that the reason to read Marx and Engels is to criticise them! They certainly don't represent some 'academic ideal'! Lots of what Engels writes is nonsense, and lots of what Marx writes is incomprehensible!But, my opponents about 'materialism' argue from a position of profound ignorance, having read almost nothing whatsoever about 'materialism', and just push their 'faith', like a religious sect.You yourself have never claimed to have read or understood about science/materialism, which is fine by me, because you don't attempt to claim that I'm wrong. So, I have no problem with you not reading D of N. My advice? Don't bother!
ajj wrote:i now hazard to suggest another mistake is expecting such a comprehensive knowledge when only a relatively few ideas are really necessary…The real issue is that the knowledge is necessary, if we're to run physics, and the rest of production.But, the real problem is that the academics won't explain in plain language to us, and pretend that we can't understand what they do.This is always robbo's problem with democratic science: he really believes that science should be conducted in 'latin-maths', rather than in plain English (or whatever daily language workers use).So, your 'mistake', alan, is not 'expecting such comprehensive knowledge', but failing to regard physics as 'only a relatively few ideas'.You must start from the political position that 'the physicist must explain to you in the way you understand'. If the physicist can't do so, don't vote for them next time!This bourgeois notion that the elite-experts can continue to speak maths-latin to us, just as priests spoke latin to the peasantry to baffle them, has to be rejected.If you don't have 'comprehensive knowledge', alan, blame the bourgeoisie, not yourself!First 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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:As he says [particularly directed at for LBird )“Socialists welcome critical and searching questions. Thinking is not and never has been a violation of socialist discipline. Socialists are not dogmatic sectarians who are blindly and religiously faithful to socialist conclusions despite the lessons of unfolding experience.[my bold]They are 'dogmatic sectarians' and 'blindly and religiously faithful', almost every last one, to the religion of 'materialism'.We've had comrades arguing with me, who admit to not having read either Marx or Engels regarding 'materialism'. They've picked up some vague 'understanding' of 'matter', which is 'fixed and unchanging', and that this 'matter' is 'reflected' in 'consciousness', and which view just happens to fit both with Engels' piss-poor philosophising, and with bourgeois 19th century views about what 'science' is.If anything in the socialist movement, for over 100 hundred years, demonstrates the dogmatic, blind faith of religious sectarianism, it's the adherence to 'materialism'.Even the bloody thinkers of the bourgeoisie have dumped it, starting with Einstein and Bohr.'Matter', for the 'materialists', is simply 'God'.And He shall not be argued with.The 'lessons of unfolding experience' are that Marx wasn't a 'materialist'. If our 'knowledge' reflects matter, then once reflected, it can't change. So much for development, change and history.As our ideas change, so does our practice and thus understanding. This is 'theory and practice' or 'idealism-materialism'. And if human ideas are involved, those ideas are subject to democratic accountability.The notion that 'material conditions' determine consciousness is nothing but conservatism. In fact, it's a religion.Waiting for the 'material conditions' to have their effect, is just waiting for the day of revelation. It'll never come.The day socialists wake up to the recogition that physicists and mathematicians are ignorant liars, rather than an expert-elite who must be meekly followed, then we'll start to make some advance. They are the priests of the bourgeoisie.Think 'physicist-mathematician', think 'medieval monk'.That’s the ‘critical and searching’ attitude for socialists to have.
jondwhite wrote:'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'But… 'facts' can't be 'changed', can they? Otherwise, to this way of thinking, they wouldn't be 'facts'.Marx is correct – 'philosophers have only interpreted the world'.Our task, as worker-philosophers, is to both interpret and change the world.That revolutionary task requires both ideas and something which can be changed, both theory and practice.Changed interpretation of the so-called 'facts' is the guide to actually changing them in practice.In short, new theory put into practice produces new facts.Thus, 'facts' have a temporal origin, in a society's thinking and activity, and can be ended, with the production of new 'facts' to replace earlier, now outdated, 'facts'.'Truth', whether ideal, material, maths or physics, has a history, and a social producer.In a democratic society, as socialism is claimed to be, how can anything produced by humans not be under democratic control?Unless one starts from the presumption that 'workers' are too busy, stupid, uninterested, incapable, etc., to change their world, both natural and social. If that assumption is true, even democracy is a non-starter. And so, we're back to an elite, in science and politics…
alanjjohnstone wrote:…an extraordinary platform for you to full expound on your idea, Lbird…The problem is, I don't have any 'idea' that's 'full' – that's the reason I started posting here, so that I could get some help in developing both my ideas and others' ideas, together, so that we could come to some understanding of 'knowledge', and how we create it, and what that implies for a future socialist society.I've been disappointed though… I've had to do the work as an isolated individual (ironic, eh?), and so critically read all sorts of rubbish, a task that might've been circumvented with some help and direction by other comrades, and so considerably shortened for all of us.I don't want an 'extraordinary platform' (I'm not a religious guru, seeking adherents), just a worker trying to make sense of my experience of 'revolutionary politics' and 'Marxism', both of which seem to end up repelling workers who hold democratic ideals, just like I experienced in the SWP.I've come to the conclusion, after a lot of reading, thinking and arguing, that the 'philosophy' of 'materialism' is the root cause. And those 'parties', like the Leninists and Trotskyists, that espouse 'materialism', can't allow democracy. They won't have it in politics, they won't have it in science. Elites with a special consciousness spouting mystifying gibberish to the uncomprehending masses – cadre-physicists-priests with elite-expert-knowledge talking in dialectics-maths-latin to the class-demotic-reading-laity.
ajj wrote:I may be wrong but you have no right to resign…a resignation has to be accepted by the EC…and sometimes the Form F is deferred….Form X for Expulsion…oh, you are kafkaesque…'No right to resign'? 'Has to be accepted'? 'Deferred'?Perhaps Kafka was nearer the 'truth', and I should stay safely outside of the hands of the party-bureaucracy!
Vin wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:As i said on the other thread, yes it is a fair criticism and the truth sometimes hurt. Facts are facts and in the words of Burns "Facts are chiels that winna ding” [Trans. – facts are fellows that will not be overturned,/And cannot be disputed]I don't see any contradiction between Burns and LBird. Burns does not say how the 'facts' came into existence. Perhaps Burns meant to say "Facts (as socially constructed and agreed upon) are fellows that will not be overturned and cannot be disputed.
Perhaps he did, Vin.But, that's not what most people think a 'fact' is.For some reason, they think a 'fact' can exist outside of a vote…I'm with the Marxist poet Rabbie Perhaps-Burns, on this one.
alanjjohnstone wrote:For my pitiful efforts…I think my 'efforts' on this site have been a damn sight more 'pitiful' than yours, if the response that they've been met with, is of any measure!
ajj wrote:…our guidelines for new members is surprisingly broad…I'm sure your replies to the new entrants questionaire will not lead to a rejection….The Form A awaits youI'm inclined to think that most members would prefer Nigel Farage, the well-known exponent of 'common sense facts' about immigration, than would prefer my party-wrecking beliefs, about democracy.I mean, 'Truth' is common sense, ain't it? Who'd accept a vote on 'Truth'? Cor blimey, expecting workers to take an interest in their world…What's the expulsion form? Form X? I'm sure that would follow on swiftly, to any Form A!
Vin wrote:I hope this thread doesn't turn into a discussion about the usual.alan expressed an ideological position that I disagree with.You agree with alan, as far as I can tell, Vin.Why can't this ideological belief be challenged, whenever it is expressed?Why should an expression of 'common sense' be allowed to stand, just because it is actually 'common sense' to the majority?At present, 'capitalism' is also 'common sense'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Facts are facts and in the words of Burns "Facts are chiels that winna ding” [Trans. – facts are fellows that will not be overturned,/And cannot be disputed]It's hard to believe that any socialist who aspires to play a part in a world-changing, critical, creative human revolution, can think that Burns' words are of any scientific or political use to us workers.I'm no poet, and I don't know the artistic context of Burns' statement (which might be ironic or somesuch), but, if taken at face value, it means that we cannot criticise the existing and create the new. Change, when faced with 'facts', is impossible.Any party based upon a philosophy of 'facts' is essentially a conservative party.You should be criticising science, physics, maths and 'facts', alan. But the philosophy that doesn't make these crucial criticisms, is 'materialism'.
