[LBird]

Chris Gaffney wrote:

From the time of the Greeks through to modern philosophy, which is but a continuation of the Greeks, a major question has been how is reality known?The answer given divides into two principle viewpoints, the materialist and the idealist. These terms are not related at all to the popular meanings of the terms namely the person who values only material things we call materialist and the person who pursues loft ideas is an idealist. We speak only of philosophical methods here.The materialist method stands sat one end and the idealist view at the other. It makes a mockery of the person who says that they are Marxist or materialist and yet believe in God. That is, the two viewpoints are opposites.

I've done the response to this nonsense to death, by now.It's Engels' erroneous dichotomous taxonomy from Ludwig Feuerbach, p. 17.It's nothing to do with Marx, who in the Theses on Feuerbach, moved towards Historical Materialism. This is NOT simple, mechanical 'materialism', but a blending of the 'active' from idealism with the 'practice' from materialism.Are you deliberately stirring things up again, ajj?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think that was exactly what Marx was saying, LBird …a social product.

Yeah, I learned a lot from you on LibCom, in the debates with various ‘market socialists’ (PARECON, IOPS, ID, etc.), if you recall!

ajj wrote:

Vin said his opponent claims to be some Marx expert, i simply suggest he demonstrates his protagonist's knowledge of Marx is limited and his interpretation of Marx is wrong by using Marx.

In many ways, though, it is just simpler to point out that his protagonist isn’t a Communist.I suspect they’re just an individualist who’s read Marx, and can quote chunks, but doesn’t get ‘Communism’ and its view of ‘value’.They probably think that ‘value’ is simply something that is ‘valuable’, and thinks that an individual can determine what’s ‘valuable’ for oneself. This ‘individualist’ reading of ‘value’ is what is behind the ‘market’: the notion that individuals can have an objective measure of ‘valuability’ (ouch!) embodied in ‘money’. Whilst anyone thinks that they are ‘an individual’ and can recognise ‘value’, they don’t understand Marx and are not a Communist.Simply put, ‘individuals’ can’t see/observe/recognise/touch ‘value’, because it’s not a ‘thing’, and it isn’t embodied in ‘money’.‘Value’ is an expression of an exploitative relationship (that is, of the ‘social blood’ sucked by a vampire from its victim, of a ‘class’ relationship).Marx must be read from the perspective, the vantage point, of Communism. Non-communists of necessity can’t understand ‘value’ or Marx’s Capital. There is no objective observation point in the world, neither for physics nor economics. One has to choose.Vin’s protagonist should be made to expose their ideological view of ‘value’. My advice to Vin is to probe their ideology, because otherwise they’ll go round in circles, with neither understanding the other.If Vin’s protagonist believes in ‘individual identification of value’ (usually through ‘money’), they should have it pointed out to them that that’s not Marx’s view. If they’re an American professor, I think it unlike that they are a Communist, of our sort (ie. ‘free access’, rather than ‘individual worth’).

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Vin , go to Marx and Gotha and i think he explains there that it is impossible for the worker to get back 100% of his value in a wage.

Surely 'value' is a social relationship, not something any worker can 'have'?Isn't the belief that 'money' (ie. a wage) represents 'value' (and so the 'market socialists' assume individuals can use money to 'get back 100% of the value' they produce in a wage) the crux of the ideological problem?My advice to Vin is to simply point out to his opponent that he (his opponent) isn't a Communist. That's why Vin's opponent doesn't 'get it'.

[LBird]

Socialism with wages?It's the same as Auschwitz with roses.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I think that's slightly better than hoping for telepathy from our EC members.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Now you wish the EC to be a mind-reader!!

I know that many in the party are not aware of the influence of Einstein, but I rather thought that Alexander Graham Bell's invention (or, and I know this thought will definitely blow your minds, 'emails and the internet') was in use by now within the SPGB.So, it's the considered opinion of at least two party members that SocialistPunk and I are arguing in favour of 'telepathy'?Boy, do the 'materialists' hate 'idealists', with their talk of 'ideas', 'spirit' and 'telepathy', never mind that entirely idealist construction, 'democracy'.What a novel ‘idea’: the EC communicating with the party.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…frankly I feel it's more than a little insulting to two EC members in suggesting they can't make their own minds up on a situation.

I think that you might be missing the point of my criticism, at least, YMS. To me, the problem is EC members 'making up their own minds', rather than attempting to put forward the party's 'own mind'.Surely the EC should see itself as the 'mind of the party' (and attempt to discern the wider mood on any issue), rather than the rather narrower (and less democratic) mere sum of its own individual preferences?Perhaps that's what SocialistPunk and I are grasping at, the notion of a 'spirit' of democracy within both members and those elected to party bodies?Personally, I don't think that this can be captured in the words of a constitution. Perhaps the shortest form is 'comradeship'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

We can have an interesting discussion on the role of an EC Member, but it is certainly not to be a leader or a policy-maker, essentially only an administrator of routine month-to-month house-keeping matters and to implement decisions made by Conference of branch delegates or a referendum of all the members. Ideally, in my view at least, the EC should be a representative cross-section of the party membership. They could even by chosen by lot.

Thanks again for the information, ALB.And your comments are certainly to my democratic tastes. Athenian sortition!

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…the spirit of democracy…

Ahhh, yes, 'spirit', that ill-defined 'atmosphere' between comrades that always seems to be sadly lacking in all the 'materialist parties' of 'Scientific Socialism'.I presume that many members, given our discussion about science and the need for its democratic control, will take the 'materialist' line that 'rulebooks' are hard and touchable, unlike our 'idealistic' mutterings about 'spirit'! If the 'objective rules' are blindly followed, then that is 'democracy'.Shall we form an online 'Geist faction', SP?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Well LBird, it would seem most party members here are quite happy with the way this looks. To us, it looks decisively anti democratic, for an EC decision pushed forward by an EC member with a conflict of interest, backed up by Branch colleagues that happened to be a majority on the EC that day.

[my initial bold]Yeah, SP, democracy is more than voting.I suppose my problem is the way that EC members regard their role, as it appears on this thread.I would think that, in a democratic party, the role of the 10 EC members is to try make decisions based upon their understanding of the party's wishes, rather than their own individual wishes. This would involve consultation, wherever possible.So, each EC member could be interrogated by any party member as to why the EC member voted as they did, and the EC member would have to account for their vote in terms of what they thought that the membership wanted (rather than in terms of their personal opinions/predilections/biases).If the EC member gave an answer to the legitimate demand from any party member for an account of the EC member's vote that was couched in 'individual opinion', I would expect party mechanisms to grind into gear to remove that EC member.Surely the duties of the EC towards the wider party are defined, explained and followed by the EC membership?

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

It's clear to outsiders, I think, that 'SPGB democracy' has been tarnished, by all the accounts of its methods on this thread, now including yours. Put simply, shouldn't the EC be composed from the widest range of branches, rather than one or a few, even if the members from the few branches disagree between themselves on an individual basis (as you say so do)?

You make it clear that you know little about SPGB democracy.  You could improve your knowledge by referring to the party's rulebook, of which, here, is the relevant extract from Rule 12 concerning the election of the Executive Committee:

relevant extract from Rule 12 wrote:

The Executive Committee shall consist of ten members, elected annually by vote of the Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches.

It can be seen, therefore, that the onus is upon branches to make the nominations but for the membership to make their selection from those nominated.  It's difficult to see how this process could be made more democratic; perhaps you could offer suggestions?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009

[my bold]Wow! So, theoretically, all ten members could come from the same branch?Curiouser and curiouser. Clearly, I know little about SPGB 'democracy'.But, you seem happy…

[LBird]

ALB, thanks for your reply.I'll have to find out more about the constitution/structure/atmosphere of the party. The rules, bodies and received ideas of the elected members about their powers, duties and moral responsibilities, are all relevant, so perhaps it won't be as easy as just looking at published material.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

Quote:

I don't know all the details, and I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick about the complexion of the EC, but this thread puts the SPGB and its 'democracy' in a bad light.

You're right on this one at least; you don't know all the details about a dispute which has been dragging on now for at least eighteen months, not only on numerous threads on this forum but elsewhere too.  I recommend further investigation before making subsequent interventions.

Well, since my 'intervention' was about 'the bad light in which SPGB democracy now appears', rather than 'the details of the dispute', I'm not sure 'further investigation' of this case is required, gnome. It's clear to outsiders, I think, that 'SPGB democracy' has been tarnished, by all the accounts of its methods on this thread, now including yours. Put simply, shouldn't the EC be composed from the widest range of branches, rather than one or a few, even if the members from the few branches disagree between themselves on an individual basis (as you say so do)?Any 'further investigation' by me will be about 'party democracy', rather than 'Vin's specific case', but perhaps that requires a new thread, which would give party members a chance to outline the SPGB's political methods to 'interested outsiders', and perhaps to settle a few 'queasy stomachs'?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

There is more to democracy than simply a voting majority.

I'm not a member, and I don't know personally anyone involved in this thread.I think that I've argued vehemently (about other issues) with both sides in this dispute, so have no particular 'friendly bias' towards either.I don't know whether the 'charges' against Vin are justified, or not.But SocialistPunk is correct, the 'political methods' exposed by this dispute don't do much for the party's 'democratic' credentials.

SP wrote:

Put it this way, what is more damaging to the SPGB, a bit of bad mouthing on another political forum about moderation issues, or a majority on the EC, that happen to be from the same branch with the motion tabled by a member personally involved with a dispute, voting to reject a Form A (from an ex member involved in said dispute) accepted by the MAC?

Do the EC have the power to interpret the rules to suit their own tastes? Especially when it appears that the EC was nearly inquorate, and is 'stacked' with members who are from the same branch?I don't know all the details, and I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick about the complexion of the EC, but this thread puts the SPGB and its 'democracy' in a bad light.That, to my mind, is far more damaging than the 'content' of this dispute; that is, whether Vin is 'guilty or not' of homophobia and 'dissing' the party.I'm only an outsider looking in, but perhaps my opinions are worth something, as a comrade friendly to the SPGB.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Reviews of Piketty's (and Graeber's) book by Marxists that say "well, it's not Marx, is it?" are a bit depressing. If it was Marx, it wouldn't be worth reading, or writing, would it? Both Graeber's book on debt (which I've read) and Piketty's book (which I've started) are wonderful and informative and will be of profound help to anyone who wants to understand the modern world. 

It would be useful if someone (for us, necessarily a Communist, because there is no 'unbiased observation point' in science) who understood these issues could give an opening summary of the differing assumptions/axioms of Marx, Graeber and Piketty.I'm sure that this guidance would be helpful to all Communists who want to understand those three thinkers.Isn't there anybody in the SPGB, schooled in 'political economy', who could sum up their three 'pre-writing' idelogies? Their 'viewpoints' would tell us much about why the three focus on different 'facts' of the system, and allow us to assess the book's worth to us.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"But 'capitalism' is a 'fact', to many… that 'capitalism' is a 'fellow that will not be overturned'"Not sure if i understand correctly.No-one denies that there exists a thing called capitalism…that is, indeed, a fact…but what we declare is that additional facts about capitalist system  provides the reasons why we wish to overthrow it…and those facts cannot be disputed…Part of our task is to present these facts…they aren't opinions or claims …but simple facts, …We factually describe features of capitalism (which cannot be changed without changing the fact it is no longer capitalism but something different) that are not for the benefit of people or the planet. You may well argue that what we wish to replace it with is not a fact but perhaps a presupposition. That is another debate. I think we should recognise that there is a difference from facts and as they say "lies, damned lies and statistics". I think we would agree a statistic is not a fact. ….i never joined the party because of its philosophical basis.  It's pretty much subsidiary importance to me and despite all the overly complicated exchanges on it no-one has made any advance on Marx's comment that the issue is not analysing the world but changing the world and none of the related threads gave me any particular insight into doing that. Not just your efforts Lbird, but all your protagonists, as well.Sorry comrades. 

I think that the simplest way of putting it is that a 'fact' is always enmeshed within a wider network of other 'facts', all based upon theories.If one accepts a 'fact' (ie. at face value), and doesn't confront the so-called fact's surrounding network (which can only be done by critical thinking, because the links between 'facts' are often not apparent), then one is unwittingly dragged into seeing the world from the point of view of existing 'facts'. Do I need to stress the essentially conservative method this approach leads to, of just 'dealing with the facts'? It always means what can be seen by the individual, ('it's obvious') rather than what can be explained by social theory (by criticism of 'the obvious').Whatever, I think the problem lies with those Communists who aren't explaining these crucial issues properly (including me in that number), than with you or others who can't grasp it, yet, ajj.

[Author]

Posts