[LBird]

ALBs link to the article wrote:

Later in the 9th party Congress Lenin denounced the “still surviving notorious democratism”, and characterised the “outcry against appointees” as “pernicious trash”. Lenin observed that “the fact that a class is the leading class does not make it at once capable of administration”. Would one be too wrong to conclude that the proletariat (in Russia) was incapable of administering its own state?

Doesn't this sound like YMS's objections to my arguments that workers should control science?To YMS, I'm displaying 'notorious democratism', and arguing that 'the leading class is capable of science' and 'capable of administering its own science'.I'm warning you all, comrades, that 'Materialism' is the source of such thinking. If 'matter' is the determinant of 'consciousness', then those who claim to have access to 'matter' (ie. 'materialists') will determine 'political consciousness', in the face of democratic objections from the class.'Matter' trumps 'democracy', according to the 'materialists'.

[LBird]

ALBs link to article wrote:

Let us now examine the author’s points. First, the idea of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The way he connects Marx with this idea shows, we are sorry to say, his very superficial reading of Marx (in his rush, it seems, to connect the Commune with the Bolshevik regime). There is no textual evidence that Marx “based his idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Paris Commune”. There is no extant text where Marx calls the Commune a “dictatorship of the proletariat” for the simple reason that Marx never thought that the communards’ revolution was a socialist revolution in his sense. He makes this very clear in his 1881 letter to Domela-Nieuwenhuis where he stressed that “this was merely the rising of a city under exceptional conditions, (and) the majority of the Commune was in no way socialist…” It was Engels who used this expression for the Commune, though more in a kind of rhetoric against the “Social-Democratic philistines”.

[my bold]Once again, as for 'science' and 'materialism', it is extremely important to separate out 'what Engels wrote' from 'what Marx wrote'.There is no god called 'Marx-Engels', as the Leninists/Trotskyists/Materialists assume.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Why would it be "elitist" to say that they were mistaken?

I haven't said that 'it is elitist for Communist workers to say to non-Communist workers that they are mistaken'.To simply hold a minority opinion, and aim to persuade the majority to change its mind, is not elitism.Elitism is arguing that the minority should have the power to impose their minority opinion on the majority.This is what 'materialists' do. They argue that they have access to 'matter', and that 'matter' itself trumps the opinions of a majority of what 'matter' is, if the majority opinion differs from the minority 'materialist' opinion.That is, 19th century positivist scientism, which confused Engels, and then infected the Second International, and thus formed Lenin's opinions, necessarily leads to 'materialists' telling workers what the 'material conditions' actually are.There are philosophical issues at stake here, which have political consequences.Furthermore, I can't see how the SPGB can hold to a democratic political strategy, without an underlying democratic philosophical strategy.To me, this demonstrates confusion within the membership.This is why I can argue for the democratic control of science, including the production of knowledge, whilst the 'materialists' object to this stance, because they follow Engels and Lenin is assuming that a minority of humans can have an access to 'matter' that is denied to the majority.The 'materialists' are mostly hidden (uncomprehending?) elitists; and in the case of Young Master Smeet, an open elitist, who openly denies democracy in the production of 'truth', which he insists should be kept within the realm of a mathematical/scientific elite.This is no basis for Socialism/Communism (of the sort I think we all mean, or I wouldn't bother my arse to argue the point). It is the basis for Leninism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Exactly. Those of us who have become socialists/communists are just members of the working class arguing the case for socialism with our fellow workers. We are not an elite from outside the working class, not even those of us who have got together in a separate organisation to do this more effectively.What in fact we are doing is trying to ensure that hearing the argument for socialism is part of the "experience" of the working class since (as all of us here know) there is no such thing as experience without thought.

[my bold]Yeah, Communists are no more than workers who argue for Communism/Socialism. They cannot be an 'elite' who 'know' better, but simply a group of workers who hold another opinion out, for the consideration of the wider class. If the wider class say they prefer capitalism, the wider class are 'correct'. There is no route allowing the 'knowing elite' to compel the class to 'understand the truth'. The class always 'knows best' what its interests are. If we can't persuade the class otherwise about their interests, then we are wrong. Simple. We are not an external elite, but a group of workers who have 'got it wrong' in the opinion of the majority of workers.On the bolded part, this is the 19th century myth of 'positivist science', that 'untheorised experience' leads to 'knowledge', that 'induction' from 'facts' is the method to produce 'theory'.The only humans who experience 'untheorised', are those ignorant of their theory. Social theory always comes before social experience, and as scientists we must expose our theory prior to our practice. That is the scientific method, not pretending to be 'objective' and having neutral access to 'The Truth', as physicists erroneously thought they had prior to Einstein. That was the bourgeois myth unfortunately followed by Engels, and then propagated by the Second International, including Kautsky and Lenin. It is simply elitism.

ALB wrote:

So the Trotskyists (and others) are wrong to argue that the working class can learn to be against capitalism through mere struggle or by the experience of failure to achieve some reform without them also hearing the case for socialism argued. Which they reject as casting pearls before swine.

Yeah, they're all from the same cast of thought – Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky – that they had access to a consciousness not available to the mass of workers, through their 'neutral scientific method', which thus gave them the right to ignore workers and their 'benighted' opinions, and thus laid the ground for Stalin.They believe that if they have the theory (which the workers don't need to be cognisant of) and push workers to have 'experiences' driven by a theory which is provided for them by this 'knowing' elite, then the unconscious workers will then develop the correct consciousness after their experiences.It's bollocks, of course. If workers 'fight for higher wages', and lose, they don't conclude that they should get rid of wages, but that since the bosses have the power to set wages, and that workers need higher wages (as the 'knowing' elite have told them, thus the need for their 'struggle'), then they need to cosy up to the all-powerful bosses, and their bosses' ideas. Thus, 'low wages are caused by immigrants'. "Everybody knows that!".Struggle without conscious theory is not only scientific nonsense, but is nothing to do with workers developing their consciousness, and realising, prior to their own struggle, that they need to destroy the wage system.Are we 'casting pearls before swine'?If one answers 'yes' to that question, how can one be a Communist/Socialist? I'm more inclined to blame us Communists, for failing to explain things like Marx's Capital and the theory of value, never mind epistemology.If workers can't grapple with theory (as the 'scientists' here argue), and make democratic decisions based upon their understanding, then workers really can't run the world.Those who argue for elite science, an activity that produces something that is outside of the democratic control of all humans, are basing their views upon outdated 19th century philosophy, which comes from Engels and ended in Stalin.Workers must vote upon the results of science. Any other theoretical position is elitism. We humans must tell ourselves what nature is. Truth must be socially controlled, not in the hands of a lying elite.And they are liars. Science tells us so!They only alternative explanation is that they are ignorant, and they don't subscribe to the view expressed by you, that I have bolded above. They probably still think that they are 'individuals', and can simply use their senses to tell them what's in front of their own eyes.The ruling ideas in any society are the ideas of the ruling class. That goes for 'socially-neutral science', 'material/physical' basis to the world, and 'we're all individuals'.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

Although this particular individual claims to be a communist he insists that the class struggle alone will be the basis for the change without the need for education by an external 'elite', by which he means, in this instance, the SPGB.What would your response to this person be?

My response would be: "Communist workers are not an 'external elite' ".The resolution of whether they are 'external' or not, is a vote.For the 'materialists' (which in effect means Leninists), they cannot accept a position where workers can outvote the 'cadre' (ie. those who know what the 'material conditions' are 'saying').Communists can accept this position: we as workers argue that the 'material conditions' should be interpreted thus; if other non-Communist workers argue that the 'material conditions' should be interpreted differently, then the 'material conditions' are as they argue, even though we disagree.We must hold to the position that our interpretation of 'material conditions' is the better one; but we have to pursuade non-Communist workers it is so. If they disagree, after a vote, their interpretation is the 'true' one. And so, capitalism continues.Any other stance must be of necessity an elitist stance. We must argue that 'the truth' depends upon a vote. The fact that we disagree with that 'truth', and will continue to argue against that 'truth', is neither here nor there.We have to win the battle of ideas, and the test of the winning is a vote.The 'material circumstances' do not talk to us alone. That would be an elitist position. And Leninism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

All the effort to get the working class to demand that the rich be taxed till the pips squeak would have been better directed to get them to abolish capitalism. Certainly the socialist movement should built itself up on this basis not of demanding reforms, unrealisable or no.

I couldn't agree more, ALB, and this is what I thought that the SPGB would have its philosophy based upon. That is, ideas are the basis of, and key to, the change.I don't want to resurrect the debate, and stir up the religious fanatics once again, but 'material circumstances' won't tell us that this is what is required. The 'rocks' don't talk to us, and unless we attempt to explain our case, rather than assuming it is 'obvious' due to 'material circumstances', then the explanation of 'material circumstances' that will be accepted, will be the louder, better organised, simpler one, of UKIP (for example).We should be able to simplify Marx's ideas, to then organise their dissemination within the working class, and then to watch our case grow louder as more workers 'come to consciousness' of their 'material conditions'.What's more, is that, if we explain what Piketty is actually saying, some bourgeois thinkers are making at least half of our case for us.The problem is, many prefer to adore Piketty as an academic, rather than to criticise his nonsensical recommendations and to slate him as a 'bourgeois thinker', and simplify his immense tome.We should be laughing at Piketty, and pitying his inability to draw proper conclusions 'from his data', rather than giving him respect as an academic. We should be consciously working to undermine the thinkers of the bourgeoisie, rather than paying them any respect whatsoever. I think most workers can soon understand that Piketty, like the rest of them, is a bluffer.Unfortunately, their bluffs put us in uniform. Piketty says as much, if read from a conscious Communist/Socialist perspective, rather than from the mythical 'open-minded' view of liberal academics.

[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.

[Author]

Posts