[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But, as Joan Robinson is quoted in the article as saying, if a government (that's her term, we'd say the working class) is strong enough to impose, say, heavy penal taxation on the rich it (they) would also be strong enough to abolish the whole capitalist system.

I prefer to use her term, ALB. She says 'government', not 'proletariat'.And, in her terms, she was wrong. To take an example, a strongly 'nationalist' government, perhaps even a future more rabid UKIP one, would be 'strong enough to impose heavy penal taxation on the rich', for nationalist war aims (obviously described as 'defensive', as were the recent ones in Iraq and Afghanistan as defending us against 'terror'), without being 'strong enough to abolish the whole capitalist system'.Piketty's real message is clear enough, to me, at least.Bloody big wars reinvigorate capitalism, and the methods and consequences are acceptable to the rich.He's laying the basis, inadvertently, of course, for our case.If workers don't want to put on those uniforms, once again, and kill other workers, they have to reject capitalism.Our problem is a movement that thinks that 'material circumstances' talk to humans. Whilst it retains that philosophy, it won't take the necessary steps to build a conscious workers' movement, because it believes that ideas, propaganda and education are not the basis of the change. Whilst we keep pretending that consciousness emerges from material circumstances, we will continue to be irrelevant.

[LBird]

J Surman wrote:

"Michal Kalecki, who had shown as early as in 1937 that capital taxation, which served to reduce inequality in society, was also the best way to finance government expenditure for raising employment in the economy, had ended his essay by saying: "It is difficult to believe however that capital taxation will ever be applied for this purpose on a large scale; for it may seem to undermine the principle of private property."9 

Kalecki was wrong: the 'application of large scale capital taxation', which did not 'undermine the principle of private property', was successfully tried, as Piketty's book itself details, by fighting World Wars 1 and 2.This both 'reduced inequality' and 'raised employment'.

J Surman wrote:

"He had gone on to quote a part of Joan Robinson's remarkably insightful comment: "Any government which had the power and the will to remedy the major defects of the capitalist system would have the will and power to abolish it altogether, while governments which have the power to retain the system lack the will to remedy its defects."10  While reading Piketty we should not forget this basic insight of Joan Robinson."

Once again, Robinson was proved wrong, according to Piketty.The 'major defects of the capitalist system' can always be 'remedied', without 'abolishing it altogether', by recourse to heavy taxation of the rich, massive government spending, and full employment, all without damaging the 'principle of private property'.Piketty shows that wars achieve these ends.The rich accept the taxation of themselves, for 'national' ends, but it doesn't threaten their essential property.Piketty's book says all this; so why he didn't draw revolutionary conclusions from his own arguments, only he can know.Personally, I blame academics and their closeting: in my opinion, many are none too bright to start with, and are simply selected by the methods of society which suit their social origins (academia is not a meritocracy), and their ever-shrinking focus on ever-smaller issues, means that they simply can't see the whole picture.Has anyone here ever spoken to academic economists? I have, and it's very enlightening.Not about 'economics', but about why Piketty can't see the woods of 'political economy' for the trees of 'economics'.

[LBird]

northern light wrote:

Of course you mean non-members, who at some point , may well apply to join the party, which is partly the reason for this Forum being set up.

Yeah, the party has to expect, if it intends to get working class people to join, to allow them to test what the party actually stands for. The problem is, if working class people join, you might find the nature of the party changing.I said this, when I joined the SWP, to their members and full-timers, and they weren't happy with that suggestion at all. They regarded themselves as the ones with 'The Truth', and merely wanted working class people to accept their 'party truth'. The fact that workers might reject the party truth, because 'non-members' actually knew better than them, had never entered their heads.It's all part of the Leninist conception of 'consciousness', the belief that there is a small minority who have access to truths denied to the majority. The source of this sort of Leninist thinking is Engels' Materialism, itself a poor reflection of 19th century positivism.What would be the reaction by current members if 'materialism' was rejected? Would they simply leave, and hang onto their religion, or face up to the fact that some non-members might actually join, change the party philosophy, and be correct?

[LBird]

steven colborn wrote:

ALB, the intent of this thread is being led astray. It was to be about non-members commenting on Party issues and sites.

I'm not sure if you're alleging that I'm 'leading the thread astray', steve.I'm a non-member, and if the basic philosophy of the Party doesn't count as an 'issue', I don't know what does.The real problem seems to be, not the non-members, but the members, who either don't know their basic philosophy or, if they do know it, can't defend it from the opinions of non-members.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 That's the nature of 'science', Vin.You apparently prefer religion. You say that you prefer the evidence of your own eyes and ears, to the evidence of a majority vote. 

 This is a deliberate lie as I have never said this. How could I believe that? That would mean I don't believe Spain or Austrailia exists. You attribute rubbishy ideas to people then knock them down.  Absolute rubbish!

Here's a test then, Vin. It's the same one that ALB and DJP had trouble with.If, in post-revolutionary society, the producers voted to install a truth that 'The sun goes round the earth', what would your response be?Mine would be to accept this social truth (and all truth is social) that 'The sun goes round the earth'.Since I know that my 'individual biological senses' don't 'tell me the truth about the really existing external world', I'm compelled to accept what my society tells me.If that society is based on democratic science, and it tells me something different to what I've previously been told, then I would accept the democratic decision of my comrades. I have trust in my comrades' production methods; I'm a democrat and a Communist.This philosophical, political and scientific position is very different from those who argue for elite science (no democracy), individual sense impressions (no democracy) or that the 'physical' or 'material' tells us what it is, outside of a democratic vote (no democracy).Since I'm a Communist, and argue for the democratic control of production by the producers, then I think that I'm being entirely consistent to argue for democratic control of the production of knowledge: that is, 'truth' is a human vote.Now, you might disagree with me, but you have to tell me why, and not just call me a troll, because my views undermine your faith in Engelsian Materialism (or 'physicalism' or 'positivist science').3rd Warning:  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).User suspended for indefinite period.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

You continue to invent lies about my own opinions to elisit an emotional response. You are trolling. 

You continue to avoid the issue, mostly; and when you do comment, and I point out the epistemological consequences of your opinion, you throw a strop.I've always been willing to discuss these issues with you, Vin, but you always turn to calling me names.Perhaps it is an emotional response that you are displaying, but that says more about you than it does about me.I'm not 'trolling', and I'm not out to 'elicit an emotional response'.I've actually read philosophy of science, and so I can situate myself within an epistemological framework (or, an ideology of science). You clearly haven't (or, if you have read a bit, you clearly haven't understood it or its political consequences).Now, if this subject 'upsets' you, just leave it alone. I don't get any satisfaction from your emotional turmoil. I want to discuss science with comrades who are interested. And if you're interested, you'll engage with me, and stop calling me a 'troll'.It's not my fault if the SPGB is apparently so lacking in people who have read philosophy of science, that it can't respond appropriately to critical discussion of the 'religion' of Engelsian Materialism.What I find most curious of all is not your personal issues, but that the 'faith' that I'm pushing, that is, Marx's 'theory and practice', suits the SPGB's declared political strategy better, than does Engelsian Materialism.Truly astonishing.Oh well, back to the religious wars.2nd Warning:  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

It is not tolerence of non-members expressing their views that is the problem, it is the tolerence of trolling and having to listen to the same thing being repeated ad nauseum  And on every thread.

That's the nature of 'science', Vin.You apparently prefer religion. You say that you prefer the evidence of your own eyes and ears, to the evidence of a majority vote.That's a religious stance, Vin. And science has dicredited the stance of the 'inductive individual' using an 'empirical method of their senses' which allegedly produces the 'positive truth' for some individuals.Science has shown that societies by employing their own theories produce knowledge, and not special individuals using their own senses or their own minds.We're all part of our society, produced by our society, and our 'senses' are part of a social perception system, not mere biological sensations, and theories are produced by societies, not special individual geniuses. Scientists, too, are part of, and produced by, society.As Communists, we should argue for democracy within all social production, including scientific knowledge.Only the religious sects oppose producers' democracy.1st Warning:  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

…I worry that some members regard any persistently critical non-members as infuriating as has sort of been alluded to in respect of Lbird.

Yeah, you're right to 'worry'. The religious are always 'infuriated' by the 'persistently critical' non-religious.And the fury has been a lot more than 'alluded to'!My advice to the party is to weed out the 'religious': the followers of the outdated 19th century religion of 'materialism'.The 'material' is their 'God', and they consistently insist that their god 'talks to them'.Since ordinary workers cannot hear what their 'material circumstances' apparently say to them, they are compelled to follow the religious sects of Engelsian Materialism, who 'helpfully' tell the workers what the 'material conditions' are telling them. Thus, society is divided into two parts, one superior to the other. Charlie warned us against this.Proper Communists insist that there cannot be this division in society, and that everything produced by the producers (including knowledge) must be under the political control of the producers.The Engelsian Materialists deny this, and say that they have a way of producing knowledge that is done only by an elite, of experts, academics, the 'more able', 'proper scientists', etc.They say that their method is a better guarantee of 'truth' than is producers' democracy. Communists disagree with the Engelsian religious sect, and insist that the best scientific method of producing truth is a vote by the producers. The religious insist that their scientific method is better than the democratic method, but they won't tell us what their method is. We producers apparently have to take it on trust, that the sect is simply to be believed.If that's not 'religious' behaviour, I don't know what is.Right, back to 'alluding' by the furiously faithful physicalists, eh?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

We've been here before, DJP. We know we can't solve our problem by simple appeal to scriptural authority. We can both find evidence from Marx to support our claims. I've said this many times previously.

You made a claim that Marx saw himself as belonging to the Idealist tradition. I showed that he did not. There is no where in Marx, after the German Ideology if not before, where he says "I am an idealist" whether you like it or not…."Monism" is fine for our purposes, but if the argument is "what Marx said" he never used that term – though he would have obviously know what it means.

Ok, DJP, stick to materialism.It's your party that's not getting any bigger.I'm trying to help, but clearly I'm not.If you're happy telling workers that the 'material' determines their thoughts, don't be surprised when they take you at your word, and assume that, since the material determines their thoughts, that they way they think now is the correct way to think, because the material tells them so. And the material world they live in is capitalism.Unless Communists introduce a philosophy that is critical of what exists, in other words, ideas that contradict the material existence that workers lead (and thus argues that ideas are required to change the material), then Communism will continue to shrink, as it has been doing throughout the last 100 years, since the Engelsian philosophy took centre stage.It's a crying shame that Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (or, critical realism) is being ignored. But, then, there you go. My best clearly isn't good enough.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

…you have to accept that Marx did see himself as belonging to the idealist tradition…

I don't because he didn't

Marx wrote:

my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm

Whatever happened to 'Monism'? Now you're returning to only material at the expense of ideas.We've been here before, DJP. We know we can't solve our problem by simple appeal to scriptural authority. We can both find evidence from Marx to support our claims. I've said this many times previously.Unfortunately, no matter what he wrote in polemics, Marx was also an idealist. The Theses make that clear, as does the content of his other work, which never simply point to the 'material'. He more often points to 'production'.The real solution is for us, in the 21st century, to clarify what, for us, is the best term to employ.The term 'materialism' is tainted by association with Lenin, but, more importantly for us today, implies… well… 'materialism', which it isn't.If any worker comes to read these debates, knowing nothing of the arcane issues involved, which term better describes the philosophical basis of the SPGB, which has a political strategy of developing 'ideas' (ie. education, propaganda, class consciousness and workers' self-development)?'Materialism'or'Idealism-Materialism'?For the first time, perhaps since the First International, a workers' party will describe their philosophy as matching their politics.Whilst they hide behind 'materialism', they'll always have recourse to YMS's elitism.That is, they say one thing in politics (democracy), but another in philosophy (the material talks to an 'able' few, in YMS's terms). And as sure as eggs is eggs, the 'political' will follow the 'philosophical', in practice.Engels' materialism leads to political elites.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

So, we're agreed that human beings produce knowledge, and that is an active process that occurs under historically specific conditions.  We're agreed that in a democratic society people need to be informed and have free access to information, and that everyone will contribute according to their ability.  From here we may diverge, but I think this is a problem you need to resolve.  The more able members of the community, whom you label an elite willl necessarilly consume more data (to each according to their needs) and scientific resources (including study time), they will develop new propositions, which will enter into the social arena for debate and discussion, as a minority seeking to become the majority view.   I think you need to account for why that will not happen if you want to remove the elite, with or without votes.

No, an 'elite' is not a democratic minority, but a group who claim to be 'more able' than the rest, and thus this 'ability' is outside of a democratic vote.You're still hung up on 'elites', YMS.I thought that you'd got over that, but it seems that you are still just paying lip-service to democracy in all areas of life.Why don't you just say that you're an elitist?The SPGB doesn't seem to mind them.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'm fine with you calling it idealism-materialism, so long as you and the rest of us realise you're just using that to desribe Marxian Materialism.

Or the word "materialism" could be avoided and it could just be called "Marxian Monism", but you have to accept that Marx did see himself as belonging to the materialist tradition… 

Yeah, Marxian monism, but, in turn,……you have to accept that Marx did see himself as belonging to the idealist tradition…That's what the Theses on Feuerbach is all about.Why do you still feel the need to emphasise 'materialism', to the exclusion of 'idealism'?I don't exclude one, I'm quite happy to stress both.'Marxian Monism' is 'Marx's idealism-materialism'. Marx wanted to blend the best of idealism and the best of materialism into your term 'monism'.I don't have any problem just saying it: Monism, neither just materialism nor just idealism, but a unity. Theory and practice.Why can't we say that to workers? Why do we stress 'materialism', when it isn't?The problem originated with Engels, and was carried forward by the Second International, and Lenin.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'm fine with you calling it idealism-materialism, so long as you and the rest of us realise you're just using that to desribe Marxian Materialism.

Yes, I'm fine with that, YMS.My scientific ideology is Marxian Materialism.And since Marx emphasised the control of the means of production by the producers, and science is produced by human producers, all aspects of production should be democratically control by the producers.So, the human products of science (ie. scientific results) must be subject to a democratic vote.There is no elite, expert, 'neutral method' ouside of human social production.We must vote upon 'scientific truth'.The world does not tell us what it is.Knowledge is produced by societies, not elites.We must all have a say in determining 'truth'.What's your ideology of science, YMS?

[LBird]

YMS, DJP and Vin:I'm not ignoring your posts, but we've been on this merry-go-round for over a thousand posts, on this thread alone, and I don't propose to re-do it all, again.The answers to all your questions have been given already.But, none of you will answer mine.Why call your philosophy 'materialism' (however defined, Vin), and oppose it to 'idealism', if your 'materialism' contains 'ideas'?If it does contain 'ideas', why not call it 'idealism-materialism', which 'does what it says on the tin', and so make it easier for workers coming new to these issues, to get a handle on socialist philosophy?Why persist with 'materialism' (which is drenched in Engelsism), to the detriment of 'idealism', which Marx didn't do?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But we know that Marx's "materialism" is not the same kind of "materialism" as those he critised in The Theses of Feurbach.

No, it isn't.So, why call it the same name?Marx argued for the need for the 'active side' of idealism.

DJP wrote:

"Materialism" and "Idealism" represent two different strands of thinking in the history of philosophy, what we are talking has a history going back to the Greek atomists…

So, why did Engels, on the next page, mention a third group?Why did Marx think he had overcome this age-old dichotomy about 'being' and 'conscousness' with his amalgam of 'theory and practice', which requires both? That is the revolutionary significance of the Theses on Feuerbach.While the only choices available to us are 'idealism' or 'materialism', we're lost.We have to move on from the 19th century way of thinking of Engels, and adopt Marx's forward looking approach of 'theory and practice'.'Physical things' do not do 'theory and practice', only humans.'Dialectics' can only exist as an interplay between humans and their external environment. The notion of a 'Dialectics of Nature' is simply nonsense, because 'dialectic' means 'to talk through' or 'discuss', and 'material' without consciousness does not discuss.Reality does not tell us what it is. We inescapably require social theory and practice. In a nutshell, alongside material, also IDEAS.

[Author]

Posts