[LBird]

You're partially right, and partially wrong, YMS.

YMS wrote:

What I am sayiong is that our propaganda won't make socialists, we're just holding up a sign to let workers who have come to socialist ideas themselves know we're here.

In this sense, you're right: workers have to start criticising the lives they lead. We can't make them critical.

YMS wrote:

The revolution will not happen because workers have or have not been exposed to our case.

If by our 'case', you mean 'Communism', then you're wrong. All sorts of 'revolutions' can happen because workers reject capitalism, but they won't necessarily be the sort we Communists want to see.

YMS wrote:

Propaganda, whilst it does exist and is useful to the ruling class, cannot overrule the lived experience and capacity of workers to think.

No, 'lived experience' will not necessarily produce 'Communist' ideas. Those ideas already exist, within the working class (we are evidence of that), and 'propaganda' is not only 'useful to the ruling class', but is essential for us to spread the 'idea' of Communism ever wider within our class.The dynamic that must come to be is: workers become critical, and worker-communists provide ideas.If neither workers become critical, nor 'communist ideas' are widespread, then there will not be a communist revolution. We Communists can't make other workers critical, and workers can't make 'lived experience' tell them how to take their criticism forward.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Im not quite sure what you have in mind here. In practical terms, how would a can of baked beans, say, find its way off the shelf of a distribution centre and into the stomach of the empirical individual in a socialist society without that involving an actual decision by that individual to select such an item off the shelf, as opposed to some other item?

But that’s not ‘shopping’, is it? ‘Selecting off a shelf’, I mean? ‘As opposed to some other item’. Why not both?What I said was:

LBird wrote:

The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism…

‘Shopping’ is the antithesis of ‘selecting off a shelf’. You try walking into Asda or Tesco and ‘selecting off a shelf’ as much as you deem necessary for your needs, and then walking off back to your car.The small matters of the amount of money in one’s wallet, payment at the till and security guards will intervene to ensure that you don’t ‘select off a shelf’ whatever you need. ‘Shopping’ is not ‘selecting’. ‘Shopping’ is being forced not to select what one wants. One must ‘weigh up’ the contradiction between one’s wants and one’s lack of resources.As other comrades have said, the organisation of this ‘selecting from a shelf’ requires, not ‘empirical individual’ decisions, but ‘democratic collective’ decisions, about production, distribution and consumption.

robbo203 wrote:

If so, that seems to me to be venturing perilously close to the crackpot idea of "society wide central planning"…

I’m not sure why you consider ‘society wide central planning’ to be a ‘crackpot idea’. Clearly, some decisions at least will require ‘society wide central planning’ because of the nature of our world society. As long as any ‘central planning’ is under the democratic control of all of us on this planet, then it sounds to me to be entirely sensible.You might now say, ‘Ahh, I see, no money, democratic controls, the same freedoms for all to select from shelves… why didn’t you say so?’, and we’d be in agreement.But, given that fact that we’re on a Communist site, why the emphasis on ‘empirical individuals’ and the insinuation that ‘society planning’ is tantamount to a ‘crackpot idea’?To me, ‘empirical individuals’ smacks of ‘greedy graspers’ who will satisfy their own desires, outside of any social considerations. And calling ‘social planning’ a ‘crackpot idea’ sounds like propaganda from the Adam Smith Institute! We will be social individuals, who will recognise the need for prior theoretical consideration ahead of our ‘selecting from a shelf’.That’s not ‘shopping’.From the content of the rest of your post, I’m know you don’t mean this, robbo, but I often get the strange feeling from some comrades that they regard ‘socialism’ as the realisation of the bourgeois wet dream of everyone becoming like ‘a billionaire going shopping’, and no-one being able to say ‘No’ to them about any item that takes their fancy. I definitely got this impression from some contributors on LibCom.It's a subject worth discussing, I think, especially with regard to Parecon and the others in that tradition, of some sort of 'market socialism' which stresses 'individual consumer choices' which take place at the end of a unconscious process, as opposed to 'collective production decisions' which take place at the start of a conscious process.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

"Externalities" are costs / benefits that are not included in the price of a good or service.It is precisily the type of information above that is not included in the pricing mechanism.Productive decisions in socialism would not be made by isolated "consumers" choosing products as the appear at the end of the production process. Everyone would both a producer and consumer and directly involved in the productive process in one way or another, remember "producers" and also "consumers".

Although I've had my differences with DJP on some subjects, I have to say that on this issue I agree 100% with DJP.The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism, as would 'a single hunter-gatherer heading off alone to hunt a dangerous prey' would be to a tribal group of hunters. Just as 'hunting' was a social activity, with far more cultural significance than just 'filling one man's belly', which required co-ordination and co-operation, and respect for the hunted animal, so 'bourgeois consumption' will appear unfeasably individualist, selfish and archaic to our a future society.Our choices will be as 'producers-consumers', and will involve such factors as 'happiness' (for an example amongst many). Why would anyone choose a 'commodity' produced without happiness? Of course, there is no way for a 'consumer' (the individual shopper) to see 'happiness' in an isolated tin of beans, in any commodity. But this knowledge would exist for the 'producer-consumer', the 'whole-person', the 'social-individual' of socialism.We producers won't be 'externalities' any longer for the disregard of the rich bourgeois 'consumer'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

LBird,Having already provided quick descriptions of materialism, idealism and marxism I also provided a definition of epistemology. I'll also note I pointed out that your blank page description of idealism was just plain wrong, so of no use to workers whatever.

Thanks for your informed opinion, YMS.If you could just supply Brian, and any other reader who's interested, with the post number in which you provided these explanations of the three epistemological viewpoints, then they can compare our respective explanations, and give their opinion about which is the most helpful, to allow any worker who is very unfamiliar with these three viewpoints to orientate themselves, and begin to ask questions of the both of us.PS. as I said above, mine is post #59 on page 6.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

Not quite.  I would re-phrase so it reads 'Epistemology is the study of how we come to understand stuff.'

I would appreciate your opinion, Brian, of my attempted explanation of the three versions of epistemology that gave in my post #59 on page 6.Does the explanation capture the essence of these three, to allow workers, who know nothing about epistemology, to orientate themselves towards these issues?Or can you think of how the explanation could be improved (or replaced entirely with better explanation), to help workers start to understand the options they are faced with in epistemology?I have already said that I think that ALB's 'strategy' of saying to workers that they should just carry on employing 'naive realism' (whether they understand the term and its political implication or not) is not acceptable, if we wish to help develop the class consciousness of the working class.In my opinion, 'naive realism', because it "takes things as seen by individuals themselves", is a conservative epistemology. To me, it's tantamount to saying either 'accept the reality of capitalism' (and so no revolutionary consciousness develops) or saying 'let the SPGB deal with philosophical issues, because workers shouldn't have to worry their tiny minds about 'difficult' philosophical issues' (and thus reintroducing Leninism).So, I think workers do need to understand something of epistemology, and my explanation is an attempt to allow workers to start to wrestle with these issues for themselves. The method chosen has political implications, and the sooner workers are aware of this, the better.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That make sense. That's what I'd do, but how can you, with your position, tell workers they are wrong to follow some set of ideas if a majority support them?

My position? You mean 'democratic controls on power'? I think it's called a 'minority position', but perhaps you're not au fait with the details of democracy?

ALB wrote:

Or is there a difference between saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?

The notion of democracy seems to hold great difficulty for you. The majority is 'right', but any minorities can dissent.So if a scientist says 'A', and their society, after reading the scientists reasoning, decide that 'B' is the 'truth', then 'B' is the truth. The scientist can disagree, but the science books say 'B'.The role of any scientist in a democratic society would be to persuade. If they can't, they can throw a strop, insist that the 'material conditions' speak only to them and not the masses, and that the 'real truth is A', but their failure to explain themselves will be decisive. There will be no 'expert minorities' claiming 'special insight to reality' because of their 'neutral method' which is denied to the rest of society, who will determine the contents of our books. Humanity will democratically control its production of knowledge.So, the dissenting scientist can say that 'they are right, and society is wrong to hold its views', but the books say 'B'. Does that answer your question?

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?

I do so because I claim 'materialism' is anti-democratic, because it says that there cannot be a vote on 'what reality is', because the materialists have a special method which tells them 'what reality is' which the majority cannot employ. Apparently, they claim that 'reality speak to them alone' (this was the claim of 19th century science) and this claim puts 'knowledge of reality' in the hands of 'scientists', and not society.So I'd advise workers not to follow that view, because those who hold that view will not allow workers' democracy to decide 'what reality is'. Thus, it is self-defeating for anyone who wishes to see 'workers' power'.

ALB wrote:

And, on your logic, if a majority of Party members did support it (which they don't) wouldn't they be right as far as the Party is concerned?

Yes, I agree that 'they would be right as far as the Party is concerned'.And the Party would be wrong to then claim it is in favour of 'workers' control'. I would point this out to any workers who asked me.

ALB wrote:

Your position is full of contradictions.

Well, I think I've explained myself quite clearly.If only we could say the same for the SPGB, and its apparently 'materialist' majority, who can't tell us how they know something that the class can't using its democratic methods, but then in contradiction claim to be in favour of 'socialism', which is nothing but democratic control of production.No, the 'positional contradictions' are within the materialists' arguments, and inasmuch as the SPGB embraces these 'materialist' arguments, it is also 'full of contradictions'.The simple answer is for the SPGB to declare itself in favour of the future democratic control of the production of knowledge, and by that act ditch 'materialism', which rejects 'ideas' that democracy requires. The 'truth' would be subject to a vote, and not in the hands of the 'materialists'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

And that's YMS's final explanation of the three viewpoints of epistomology that we've been discussing.Well, alanjjohnstone, now you can compare my explanation with YMS's explanation, and decide for yourself which helps to orientate yourself better to the three epistemological positions of 'idealism', 'materialism' and 'idealism-materialism'.Thanks for your immense help, YMS. How alan has remained in the SPGB all these years without grasping the basics of epistemology will remain a mystery, when there are like comrades like you to help explain.

[LBird]

I'm surprised that you've got involved in this train crash, Vin.I suppose you also want to enlighten us as to your 'epistemology', too?Where would the SPGB be, without its great theorists?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

AFAICS I've answered it.  Maybe you're asking the wrong question? 

I had to chuckle, YMS.Yeah, 'what is epistemology?' is the wrong question.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.

That's what I understood your position to be. It leads to the rather absurd conclusion that the working class is right to support capitalism because, well, they do support capitalism and that we socialists are wrong to oppose it.

That's right, after a vote a minority is always the one in the wrong. That doesn't stop them arguing their case.

ALB wrote:

There must be something wrong with a line of argument that leads to such a conclusion. I think it's probably got to do with the definition of the word "wrong" that you are using. It's like the answer to the old philosophy question "Can Someone Want to do Wrong?"  by saying "No, because what someone wants is always right (by definition)".  Or, answering "Can the Workers Do Wrong?" by "No, because what the workers want cannot be wrong (by definition)".

Well, we're taking about politics here, aren't we? I'm clearly happy to state that I consider 'right' and 'wrong' to be social positions, and any Communist/Socialist movement true to its word about "workers' interests" will attempt to build towards a revolution with that view to the fore. That is, workers are always right.Of course, they won't get a chance to impose their views about 'right' or 'wrong' until they've conquered power, but we must make this stance clear from the start. Otherwise, the movement will harbour some elitists who don't really believe in the notion of "workers' power", and really believe that it is only a slogan, and that they as an elite will make decisions. I personally think this should be made very clear to 'scientists', so that they don't think they are supporting a political movement that thinks that a minority will make any decisions, outside of the control of the working class. Any decisions made by delegates, having been given a mandate to make a  particular decision, will always be subject to revision by democratic bodies. 'Truth', along with 'right' and 'wrong' are socially-produced meanings, and must be subject to collective controls.

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.

I don't know about the last bit, but if you are reluctant to tell workers they are wrong to support capitalism how do you approach them as a minority? (In fact, what right have you got to try to get them to change their mind?) Do you approach them saying; "Fellow Workers, you are right to support capitalism, but I don't think you should. I'm not saying you're wrong (I wouldn't dare) but …" But what?

I'd approach workers, just like I approach the SPGB, and say, 'You're wrong to follow the ideology of materialism' (for example). I have the same 'right' as any other dissenting opinion in a democratic movement. No-one has to listen to a word I say (and mostly they don't).In a socialist society, if humanity votes for 'materialism', then 'materialism' will be the 'right' epistemology. And by that act they will have abolished their own power to control the production of knowledge, and will have handed it over to the 'special elite' to whom 'matter' apparently talks to.I'll just be constantly pissed.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,erm. I'm sorry, I'm lost now.  I explained:Idealism: [object] is in your mind.Materialism: [object] is outside your mind.Historical Materialism: [Object] is your mind.How's about that?  Like a line drawn first into the shape of, say, a man, and then a house, and then a cat.  One continuous line.  It's the same line manifesting as several different things.

YMS, see the same question that I posed to you in my last two posts in reply to you.Sigh.

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

But how do you convey the ideas without the wording? By using telepathy, or making animal noises? Morse Code or semaphore? What have you all been doing (some of you, evidently, not very well) on this forum? I can only assume, then, that in your dialogues with other workers about socialism, you use the same wording as the SPGB does. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong necessarily, but I want to know what you actually say to other workers that is different.Examples, please, outside of this forum? You can find lots of SPGB ones on this website – let's see yours.

Have a look at either LibCom (from which I'm banned; Anarchists? ) or the ICC forum (from which, to their great credit, given some sharp exchanges, I'm not). I posted under the same name as here.You'll find many of the same arguments, and the same responses.I had greater hopes of the SPGB (not individualist Anarchists or some form of Leninists), but I found the same 'materialist' responses. The so-called 'revolutionaries' are 'religious fanatics', as far as I can tell from the furiosity of responses to my 'heretical' questions, and the working class is well-advised to steer clear of them, as far as I can see. Most workers don't need my advice, though. They join, try their best, are disappointed, and leave. My experience of the SWP, and of many other friends of Militant, Workers' Power, RCP, WRP, etc., etc.Yeah, they all quote "workers' interests" as their abiding concern.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?

I'd rather say they can be wrong when they act against their class interest.

Right, so workers can be 'wrong', with reference to their 'class interest', which is 'right'. I can follow what you're saying.So, who (or what) determines workers' 'class interest'?Surely, if we're democratic Socialists/Communists, only the working class can determine its 'class interest'?The only other answers I can think of is 'reality' determines or an 'elite' determines.If your answer is 'reality', how do you know what 'reality says'?This issue is at the heart of the thread title.To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.From my own experience of dealing with 'revolutionary' groups of a number of shades, they haven't explained anything properly to me as a worker, and on the subjects that I've chosen to dig deeper, to try to get to an answer not forthcoming from 'revolutionaries', I've found those groups to be in the wrong, regarding any 'interests' of the working class.Thus, workers can't be 'wrong'. If 'right' and 'wrong' have any social and political meaning.I'd rather that 'revolutionaries', who disagree with me, were open, and said that 'they know better' than workers. And both parties can keep going their separate ways, as they have been since the late 19th century.

[LBird]

ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Ah well, yet another thread derailed.

Ah well, yet another SPGB head in the sand.

[Author]

Posts