[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So I sugest in the interests of simplicity, and I know some people look down their noses at such a suggestion, we use the word ideology to refer to political belief etc and the word creed to refer to religious belief etc.If we all agree (democratically of course) to stick to some basics maybe a productive discussion can be had.

It all depends on what comrades think that the 'basics' are.I've presumed, on all threads that I've entered, that I'm discussing with Communists, and that the word 'ideology' would be totally unproblematic, as would 'class', 'ruling ideas', 'Marxism', etc.If other comrades are seriously suggesting we should begin with an overview of political events and ideas since the French Revolution, or are still at the developmental stage of needing to be convinced of the case for Communism, then I don't think that what this thread set out to do is possible.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

All along i have been repeating ..so what if the book is a fine piece of research and according to one the best thing since slice bread, it was… not assisting the socialist case but was a disservice, and merely confirmed what we already knew without any requirement of equations…the rich get richer, the poor get poorer…… And this book ensures that capitalism goes on and on with another forlorn hope…

This is just about my estimation of the book, too, ajj.Academically, perhaps 'a fine piece of research'.But… it doesn't 'assist the socialist case', it 'merely confirms what we already knew', and the most acute of your observations, Alan, 'this book ensures that capitalism goes on and on with another forlorn hope'.Piketty's book provides what we would estimate as 'forlorn hope', for the reformists, that is, yet another deckchair re-arrangement on the Titanic. Us lot in steerage have little to learn from studying the Titanic's First Class, return trip, seating plan.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk, post #34, wrote:

Of course if anyone wants to they can seek out long academic tracts on the philosophical nature of ideology, but there is little point in doing so unless confusion is your goal.

'Confusion is your goal'? Could be the name of a socialist band!

SocialistPunk wrote:

Why keep it simple YMS, when obfuscation is so much more helpful?

Yeah, it does begin to look like this, doesn't it, SP? Confusion and obfuscation as a deliberate policy.As if the philosophy of science isn't confusing and obfuscatory enough, already!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

More the reason to expose the weak policy that Piketty advocates, his inconsistency as ALB pointed out, and perhaps we could call it what it is, political cowardice, that he won't take his own findings to their logical conclusion and condemn capitalism per se.

I don't think the term 'political cowardice' is correct, ajj.The 'weakness, inconsistency and illogic' are simply fundamental features of 'reformism'.And the whole purpose of reformism is to avoid the condemnation of capitalism.I think many reformists are brave politicians (on a personal level), even though clearly some are liars and war criminals (step forward, Blair!), but, simply, they are not Communists.What makes people Communist? Well, that's the $64,000 question, and has been since Charlie and Fred were writing.If I was to proffer a reason for Piketty's lack of understanding, I'd just put it down to him not being too bright – I've met professors, you see!  

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

Perhaps I need telling: the SPGB is not a Communist organisation. Then it will be shown quite clearly that I’m the ‘naïve innocent abroad’, and should go back to my books and playing alone with my intellectual ‘mud pies’, and leave the world of politics to adults, like Vin.

Vin wrote:

But, LBird, what is 'mud'? What are 'pies'?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

You wish to discuss science and ideology. How is my post off topic?You have derailed a lot of  threads with your views on 'science' but when challenged you cannot define simple terms.What is 'ideology' what is 'science'?  I do not consider myself an expert, I too am learning but  if we cannot or you will not define the terms we use there is little point in discussing the matter. 

This is just getting pathetic. "What is ideology?" You're supposed to be a socialist.You'll wait until I've spent six months discussing it, and then say, 'but, LBird, I can't read, and can't understand your posts'.Then I'll explain the alphabet, spelling, grammer and syntax, and you'll say, 'but, LBird, I'm blind, and can't see your posts'.If you want to know what a computer and the internet is, Vin, this isn't the thread to ask.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

You have become very personal and abusive towards me and I see no reason for that apart from the usual smoke screen you hide behind. I suggest you withdraw your remarks, and undertake that in future you speak to me and others in a reasonable manner.

I've got a better suggestion, Vin.Why don't I just fuck off altogther? I'm sick of trying to reason with you.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think that there is plenty of evidence that 'reformists' will side with repression.

I agree there is plenty of evidence that, when in government, reformist politicians end up running capitalism on its terms, i.e giving priority to profits and conditions for profit-making even if this involves holding back wages and opposing strikes erven calling out the military to break them. But I thought you mean rather more than this by "repression", i.e. something like dictatorship and/or armed suppression of the workers movement.

I think this difference (British military breaking strikes in a socio-economic context where they have yet needed to open fire, as compared with foreign military breaking strikes in a socio-economic context where they have needed to open fire) is one of quantity rather then quality. I have no doubt whatsoever that British troops under a reformist goverment would open fire (they have abroad, in colonial situations).I think that it's disingenuous to pretend that 'reformists' won't shoot workers, and so draw a distinction between 'good reformers' and 'nasty repressors'.

ALB wrote:

Quite apart from the fact that socialism has never really been on the agenda, so that the choice you posit (socialism or repression) has never really arisen historically,  doesn't the evidence show rather that, faced with the prospect of repression reformists choose to opt to try and keep the reform option open, eg the Republicans in Spain, the Social Democrats in Austria and Germany? I don't think many went over to fascism did they.

I agree with this overall strategical analysis by the SPGB, that 'socialism has never been on the agenda'. I don't regard 1917/19/23/26/36 as displaying that possibility. This is part of why I'm not a Leninist/Bolshevik.On the issue of 'Fascism', 'reformists' can happily live under short-lived openly repessive regimes: isn't this what South American reformists did during the military dictatorships of the 1970s-80s? They'll await their chance to return to reform. They certainly won't become Communists because of repression.I think people become Communists because they can see that capitalism is not working for them and they come across alternative Communist ideas that make sense of their experience of capitalism.That's why the SPGB's 'propaganda/education' methods appeal to me. I don't think that workers going on strike or fighting bosses necessarily leads to Communist ideas. One can fight bosses all day, and lose, and still think that capitalism is the only game in town, and that it just needs 'reform' to level up the playing field of industrial struggle. The idea that 'failure educates' is mistaken, I think.To me, Piketty is just one more diversion away from Communist ideas, and he bolsters the 'reformist' illusion. If one is a reformist, the mirage seems real. The notion that, having read Piketty and then experiencing him being wrong will make reformists into Communists, sounds like 'Third period Stalinism' to me."After the Nazis, Us!"Dachau shattered that Communist illusion. To me, recommending Piketty to Communists is a mistake, and I think any comrades wishing to understand capitalism would be better advised to read something with more Communist content.Perhaps "The Alternative to Capitalism", by Adam Buick and John Crump?And it's a damn sight shorter…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,there's a third: that you're not explaining yourself very well.  What, exactly, do you want to say about science?

I know that this will come as a complete surprise, and it's unfair of me to spring it upon you so suddenly, without any prior warning whatsoever, but I'd like to discuss science and Communism.If you don't think that there are links between science and Communism, why bother to post on threads that try to discuss this relationship? It would suffice if you posted once, at the beginning, to register your disagreement with a thread title which presumes this relationship, and then you could leave the thread to develop.And, quite frankly, this whole schtick about "LBird, you're not explaining yourself" is getting tiresome.How about, "LBird's derailers have got cloth ears" as an alternative proposition?

[LBird]

Let’s try once more.

Vin Maratty, post #12, wrote:

I mentioned George Walford who's ;“basic premise was that people’s assumptions and identifications (the factors making up their ‘ideology’) are not explicable in terms of material conditions in general and their relationship to the means of production in particular—and are never likely to be.

[my bold]Vin quotes a non-Communist, non-Marxist ideologist, when I’ve already called the thread ‘Science for Communists’, and pleaded with those who don’t share my ideas to start their own thread, perhaps ‘Science for Non-Communists’ like George Walford (whoever he is).

LBird, post #1, wrote:

I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.

Now, given what I’ve said at the start, and presuming that Vin actually bothers to read what I write (and I’m not entirely sure that he does), what reason could there be for Vin’s posting of the ‘Walford ideology’?It seems to me there are two choices:either, Vin is trying to wind me up, by deliberately posting off-topic diversions to derail the thread (yet again, I might add, because there seems to be a history of this derailment within threads on this site which try to discuss science from a Communist perspective);or, Vin really is being honest, and really just doesn’t understand anything whatsoever about ideology, Communism, Marx, ‘ruling class ideas being the ruling ideas’, ‘material conditions’, ‘means of production’, etc.Now, perhaps I’m being too generous about Vin, and I’m wrongly assuming that he does understand about ‘ideology, Communism, Marx, etc. etc.’. That assumption of mine leads me to think Vin is a troll, and is deliberately trying to spoil these discussions, for ideological reasons of his own (in this case, I would hazard a guess that he’s employing Engelsian ideas about science).The alternative, it seems, is that I should be less generous to Vin, and use baby-talk to him about the big world of ‘politics’ and ‘economics’, and assume that he’s a naïve innocent abroad, who really does give Walford’s ideology some credence.It must be obvious to all by now, I’m really confused as to why a discussion about the relationship between science and Communism can’t get off the ground, on a site that I’m assuming is a Communist site.Perhaps I need telling: the SPGB is not a Communist organisation. Then it will be shown quite clearly that I’m the ‘naïve innocent abroad’, and should go back to my books and playing alone with my intellectual ‘mud pies’, and leave the world of politics to adults, like Vin.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds

Socialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science Finds

What has that to do with this topic? You take every thread off topic.  There is a whole thread dealing with your baseless accusations, why don't you comment on the relevant thread, where,  unlike yourself,  I have made my position clear  ?But wait you can't as you are out of your depth so you resort to pathetic sniping.Grow some and deal with your owwn thread.

That's rich coming from you, Vin!Every time I try to get a discussion going about science and Communism, you (and not just you) do your best to 'take it off topic'.At this very moment, there is a thread, at the very start of which I pleaded with you (and the others) not to derail onto your 'materialist' hobby-horse. But you have. Even when, time after time, I take your questions (against my better judgement) at face value and spend time answering, you resort to spoiling tactics.I'll tell you why I've intervened on this thread: it sticks in my gullet about the constant harping against 'religion' when you display all the same symptoms.You're a religious fanatic, Vin.They always try to reject criticism of their god (Materialism), and resort to personal abuse (just look at your childish comments, here).

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds

Socialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science Finds

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,it's a lot easier to make your point if you actually make your point.

Not with you it isn't.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The fact that they call themselves "socialists" must show that they have some criticism of "capitalism" and want to see it replaced eventually even if only as a vague ideal or far-away ultimate aim. I don't see them necessarily siding with Repression if real socialism was on the agenda.

[my bold]I still think that the issues of 'ends and means' is relevant, here. 'Vague ideals' and 'far-away ulimate aims' have been shown as 'never to come in this world with the means at our disposal'.I think that there is plenty of evidence that 'reformists' will side with repression.

ALB wrote:

If they were, then us real socialists/communists are doomed to fail.

This has crossed my mind.

ALB wrote:

By the way, Edouard Bernstein doesn't illustrate your point. Even though he was an open and self-proclaimed reformist (the archetypal one) he was one of the German Social Democrats who came round to opposing the WW1 and joined the breakaway Independent Social Democratic Party rather than stay with the pro-war Majority Social Democrats who did choose Repression.

I think he does illustrate my point. Being 'anti-war' is not being 'pro-socialist' (in our meaning). And being 'pro-parliamentary democracy' does not make one 'pro-economic democracy'.

ALB wrote:

You never can tell.

If I couldn't tell, I wouldn't be a Communist.I'm satisfied, at the moment, that both Marx and Piketty are correct, and that capitalism has a self-destructive dynamic. Hopefully, my loved ones and I will all be long dead before humanity finds out.If I come to change my mind about this dynamic, it's headfirst into the trough of 'bread and circuses', and let the reformists get on with their good works. Peel me a grape, Piketty!

[LBird]

Another thread gone to the dogs.

[Author]

Posts