[LBird]

Thanks for the links, jondwhite.

LibCom article wrote:

Now the SPGB -loudly and consistently proclaims from the housetops its scientific basis, its scientific method and attitude. Thus, in the Party pamphlet "Socialism and Religion", we are told:"The word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who on all such questions takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation. (p.46).Anyone who had the slightest justification for that claim would not hesitate for one moment, in the face of such signal lack of success of theory, to overhaul their whole theoretical position – to examine in the light of scientific criticism and rigorous logic their most dearly held and confident assumptions.

[my bold]It's not only me who can see a need for the SPGB 'to overhaul their whole theoretical position – to examine in the light of scientific criticism and rigorous logic their most dearly held and confident assumptions'.In a phrase, that 'assumption' is Engelsist Materialism.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…continuing the ideology of minority control…

But don't forget that the SPGB continues the ideology of minority control, in regard to science.If you ask any SPGB member if they are in favour of a workers' majority deciding what the 'material' consists of, they will answer 'No!', and will further allege that they have a way to decide what the 'material' is, but they won't share it with workers.Otherwise, they'd quite happily share this method for discovering what the 'material' consists of with all workers, and allow it to be put to a vote.That is, the 'material' would be under democratic control.But the SPGB does not have faith that the mass of workers would come to the same decision as the membership of the SPGB about what comprises the 'material'. It must regard workers as less able than members.Thus, like the Leninists, the SPGB is an elitist organisation.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

"thus the political need for democratic methods being used throughout that society, including science."

That was the reason…a jury of your and YMS peers deciding democratically who is correct – the test of the vote. 

But if our peers decide 'democratic methods' are the answer, my position is thus deemed 'correct' already, prior to any personal debates.Unless comrades separate out 'society' from 'science' (that is, they accept democracy within society but not science), at which point they disagree with Marx.In that sense, my position can't be denied.The only alternatives to Marx's desire for a united and democratic method is either non-democracy or disunity.The choices are:1. democracy within society and science (unity)2. democracy only within society (disunity)3. no democracy at all (unity)4. democracy only within science (disunity)I argue for choice 1, as does Marx.YMS et al argue for choice 2, as does Engels.

ajj wrote:

Plus now you mention it, the prospect of on platform fisticuffs is also appealing, too, now.

No, I'm happy to leave YMS et al to their Engelsian party. It has no future.Any worker I'm speaking to in the future will be told that the SPGB does not want democratic methods to be adopted by the proletariat in its control of the means of production (which includes, obviously, science), and instead that the SPGB argues for discreditted 19th century elite science, and that in that sense the SPGB is identical to the Leninists and their party model, of an elite telling workers what they must believe.From that conclusion about science, questions will flow about 'parliament', which is yet another political arena in which the SPGB wishes to impose its views above workers' councils.Only those who argue for democratic workers' control over all aspects of human production, that is, Communists, have a consistent case.One only has to read YMS's self-appointed individualist epistemological views about 'knowledge' to know what he desires. It's not democracy, it's elitism.For YMS, the elite scientists and political experts will tell us the 'Truth'. That's why they can't accept humans making the decisions about what 'reality' is. They believe that they have a neutral method that tells them what 'reality' is, but they won't tell us what this method is, because they can't. This belief was shot to ribbons by Einstein, and even the bourgeoisie and the religious know this.But not the Engelsian 'materialist' parties, like the Stalinists, Leninists, Trotskyists… and the SPGB. They are all cut from the same philosophical cloth.Materialism? Dead.Marx was an Idealist-Materialist.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

But then, you don't seem to believ in debate, do you?

I was going to say something very unpleasant, but in fact I'm past caring.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The reason i ask is that i think a face-to-face encounter with YMS would be both educational and entertaining and an extremely worthwhile venture.

I think it would be a waste of time. Why?It'd be just the same as a Communist trying to explain value to an audience of neo-classical economists. In that discussion, any talk by us of 'socio-economic relationships' would be interpreted by them as 'money transactions between individuals'.For whatever reason, the neo-classicalist has to come to some critical understanding of the uselessness of their own views, prior to them then asking questions about Marx and Capital.It's the same for this issue of 'science'; if I explain the problems with Engels' materialism, contrast it with Marx's emphasis on material production (in which human ideas are as important as 'material'), and outline Critical Realism, but I'm met by people who already 'know' that I'm wrong, that the superhuman named 'Marx-Engels' cannot be faulted, and that the 'material' determines the 'ideal' (or, the 'physical' is the basis of 'ideas'), and that anyone who questions 'materialism' is ipso facto an 'idealist', then there is no point.I've always thought that Communists, who've already been through the process of coming to question something we're all told, that capitalism is natural, and then coming to reject this 'truth' which everyone 'knows', would find it easier to imagine the same process happening again to them elsewhere.If I was to put it simply, I would say that YMS, you and anyone else who's reading, will have to begin to question 'science' for themselves, before discussing it with me.Whilst one is happy with the market and science (and they are twin pillars of the ruling class), then one is happy with them, either singly or together.What's so frustrating for me, as a Communist, is that probably 90% of what I say would be totally uncontroversial to most bourgeois thinkers. The bit they'd disagree with is my ideological belief in the ability of workers to run society, and thus the political need for democratic methods being used throughout that society, including science. But they'd quite happily agree with the epistemological stuff that I've been arguing.However, so called Socialists/Communists here disagree with almost 100% of what I say. They argue for 19th century positivism, empiricism, physicalism, induction, individualism, and they do this under the influence of Engels, not Marx.So, you think it would it be "educational and entertaining and an extremely worthwhile venture". I think it would be a carcrash, as if I were to stand up in front of a roomful of rabid Thatcherite yuppies and proceeded to denigrate their wonderful market.Either I'd get a kicking by Maggie's Believers, or I'd strangle some dickhead economist who tried to tell me that the 'material market conditions' can't be questioned, and they determine that we must take a pay cuts and live in poverty, while they get a pay rise and buy more Porsches.One can't question the 'material market conditions', can one?

[LBird]

At least Vin admits that he's not in favour of workers' democracy.steven colborn, for all the bluster, still won't tell us why he's a 'materialist', which means that workers can't vote on what constitutes the 'material'.Look, comrades, this issue isn't going to go away, whether I stop posting (or, am stopped from posting) or not.There's a philosophical problem at the heart of Engelsism. That of 'materialism'.And its political effect is to deny workers' democracy.Surely someone reading can glimpse this fundamental problem?I'll tell you what – if no-one mentions me in their responses, and no-one wants to take this problem forward in discussion with me, I'll leave this thread alone to develop as the others decide.I hope that satisfies Vin.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

All threads inevitably return to on subject  

Yeah, I know, that pesky issue of workers' democracy.I should just give it a rest, and let the elite like you, as Walford calls you, tell me what 'reality' is, eh?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

What specific organisational features would a party in favour of proletarian democracy that was not a sect look like? How would it treat non-members?

Well done!Avoid the difficult philosophical issue of Engels 'materialism', and get onto day-to-day, practical issues.That's the conservative method: ignore theory, and move straight to dealing with 'practical issues'.Unfortunately for your conservative method, the philosophical implications of following the religious creed of 'materialism' determine whether one favours democracy or not.If you're a 'materialist', then my answers will appear to be impossible.However, if you are a follower of Marx and his 'material production' (ie., human, social production which requires ideas), then democracy is unavoidable.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

What else is the answer to charges of sectarianism? Or the charges put by George Walford herehttp://gwiep.net/wp/?p=387As you can imagine, it takes a good deal to leave me speechless. But that did, the first time I heard it. The blind, unthinking conceit of that answer! If you disagree with the Socialist Party that shows you don’t understand them. They have nothing to learn from anybody. There is no possibility of anybody knowing more than they do and no possibility of them being wrong.

Pretty impressive case, from Walford.He even points out that the SPGB quote Engels as an authority!The SPGB are in effect a religious sect. What's worse, not even a modern sect, but one the looks to the 19th century for its fundamental ideas.I think that the 'Science for Communists?' thread displays this sect-like inability to accept a simple answer: proletarian democracy.Of course, the SPGB pays lip service to this ideal of 'democracy', but in any manifestation of social power, they reject democracy, and turn to an elite of experts for their answers, rather than to the democratically-organised proletariat.Much the same as the SWP, Militant, CPGB, WRP, etc., etc.They all have the same god to follow: 'materialism'. Workers can't argue with the 'material', can they? 'Reality' can't be subject to a vote, can it? So, we have the experts tells us what 'reality' is, whether in science or politics, physics or sociology.Until a Socialist/Communist organisation puts 'proletarian democracy' at the heart of all their theories and activities, we'll remain on the sidelines.Engels argued for 'materialism'; Marx argued for 'production'.And since 'production' is social, it can be subject to democratic methods, unlike 'materialism'.It's odd, isn't it, that 130 years after Marx's death, there isn't a single political organisation that puts workers' democracy at its heart. The fruits of Engels' version of 'Marxism', and the dead hand of 'materialism'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…it determines what we can say about it…

[my bold]This is the 19th century positivist ideology, followed by Engels.Naive Realism.Empiricism.Why won't you discuss epistemology, YMS?You're not following Marx (and his rejection of 'materialism'), but simply repeating that which science has proved is untrue.Rovelli.You won't tell us the 'method' that you employ that allows the external world to talk to us.You can't, without being anti-science.Science is a human activity, not the passive contemplation of 'it'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Chuckie wrote:

is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.

the above does not invalidate the notion that there is an exterior world, merely that the interior, the thoughts and ideas are part of the lived material world as well. Realism commits you to a real empirical world.

No-one says there isn't an 'exterior world'. Critical Realism or Historical Materialism or Idealism-Materialism all state that. Why do you, after more than 1000 posts, return time and time again to the accusation, constantly disproved, that anyone is arguing that the 'exterior world' does not exist? That accusation is a straw man.And once again, in dismissal of all that I write, you return to 'realism'.That's the 'Engelsian Step'.Marx wasn't a 'materialist' in the Engelsian sense. For Marx, 'materialism' was inextricable linked to human production. Thus, 'critical', 'historic' and 'ideas'.Critical Realism, Historical Materialism or Idealism-Materialism.Not 'Realism' or 'Materialism'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Critical is the adjective, realism the noun, you are still committed to all the tennets of realism.  Especially as the existence of an exterior world is an essential premise of realism.

Your move to grammar doesn't change the epistemology of it.Call it 'realistic criticalism', if you wish.And your continued use of 'realism', on its own, shows that you're ignoring what I write.

[LBird]

Marx, Theses, 1, wrote:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmTo talk of 'material' or 'real' outside of humanity is an epistemological error.So, 'critical realism' or 'historical materialism' (or, even, 'idealism-materialism').Not, 'realism' or 'materialism'.For Marx, to talk of 'material' outside of humans and their practice, is a 'defect'. In fact, the 'chief defect'.Engels reverted to 'materialism'.Thus the problem of 'being' and 'consciousness' reappeared.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Which, as a critical realist you also hold to, that's what realism means, that thre is matter outside of human consciousness.

[my bold]Can't you see what you're doing here, YMS?You start off with the term 'critical realism' and then equate it to 'realism'.Engels does the same to Marx.

[LBird]

Y’know, YMS, Marx used ‘materialism’ as a synonym for ‘production’. It was Engels who came up with philosophical doctrine named ‘the materialist conception of history’. Marx merely referred to the ‘material forces of production’, ‘the mode of production of material life’ and ‘the material productive forces of society’. In this form, the concept ‘material’ production is human and social, and thus clearly contains ‘ideas’ as well as ‘things’.It’s as if you and the other followers of Engels have read about his insistence that ‘chocolate’ forms the basis of the canine world, and so when I want to talk about the proper treatment of dogs and insist that they should be kept warm, you insist that when Marx mentioned ‘Chocolate Labradors’, he really meant that dogs were made of chocolate, and so they should be kept in the fridge, so that they don’t melt. And I’m then taunted with accusations that ‘LBird wants dogs to melt!’ It’s a bizarre conversation that I’ve been having here.When Marx and Engels mention ‘material’, they are talking about different things: Marx is talking about humans producing their environment, whereas Engels is talking about ‘matter’, outside of human consciousness.In effect, Engels resurrected the old philosophical distinction between ‘being’ and ‘consciousness’, which Marx thought that he had overcome with his insistence upon ‘practice’ and ‘changing’, which require both ‘being and consciousness’; or, in terms we’ve been using, ‘reality and ideas’.Next time you hear someone claiming to be a ‘materialist’, think about Cadbury’s ‘Dialectical Milk’ chocolate bar. And then laugh at the simple sods.It really is that stupid to argue for ‘materialism’.

[Author]

Posts