LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wez wrote “…Marx’s apparent belief…I believe Marx thought…“.
My best advice, Wez, is to read what Marx actually wrote.
I’ve often tried to stimulate discussions here, based upon what Marx wrote, and his democratic politics, but these debates usually descend into name-calling, by people who clearly haven’t read Marx, but just assume what he must have said – or, rely on (parts of) Engels instead.For example, Marx never argued for ‘the praxis of Scientific Socialism’ for either ‘replacing philosophy’ or anything else, especially not for building a socialist society. Marx never thought that ‘philosophy’ (in itself) ‘created an elite’. Marx never thought that ‘science’ (in itself) was ‘democratic’. For Marx, all human production was socio-historic, so any ‘philosophy’ or ‘science’ would have to be specified by class and period, to determine for who and when it was ‘elite’ or ‘democratic’.
Wez wrote “LBird – perhaps it would be more correct to say that material conditions have created consciousness…”
No, Wez, Marx never argued that ‘material conditions create consciousness’. If you think that ‘more correct’ than Marx’s argument that humanity creates its own consciousness, and thus can change it, then I disagree with you.
Waiting for ‘material conditions’ to do anything whatsoever is total alien to Marx’s activist philosophy. Marx regarded ‘materialism’ as passivity, and an ideology which took ‘change’ out of the hands of humanity. Indeed, he argued that ‘materialism’ placed this power to ‘change’ into the hands of an elite. As we all know, Marx was proved correct, by the career of Lenin. Lenin was a materialist because it was anti-democratic, and placed power into the hands of a ‘conscious’ elite. His ‘party’, of course.
Or, “material conditions” equal “some magical ‘praxis’ “, as you put “the concept” so well.
The ‘magical praxis’, which is outside of democratic control, of course, is the praxis of an elite (‘conscious’, of course, outside of ‘material conditions’ – because otherwise their elite ‘magic’ would also be subject to ‘material conditions’, as Marx pointed out).Wez wrote: “…the idea that there is a universal ‘method’ that, like a magic spell, can be used to discover truth.”
Without this myth, there is an opening for what Marx called ‘revolutionary science’, which is the democratisation of ‘science’.
‘Truth’ is not ‘discovered’, but ‘produced’. Socially. Historically.ALB wrote “so many went over to Bolshevism and Leninism … as doctrines which attributed a key role to an active minority as a “vanguard” or “spearhead” (to use their terminology). A position we have always rejected and opposed.”
That’s not a true statement, ALB, regarding the SPGB and social production.
The SPGB only argues for democracy in the social production of ‘widgets’ (or ‘stuff which can be touched/sensed’).
Regarding the social production of ideas, the SPGB still attributes ‘a key role to an active minority’.
That’s why the SPGB does not agree with democracy in science, or any other social activities based upon ‘ideas’.
Marx, on the contrary, argued for all social production to be under democratic control, employing ‘theory and practice’. If the associated social producers don’t control their own ‘theory’, they’ll be compelled to ‘practice’ based upon the ‘theory’ of ‘an active minority’.twc referred to me as ‘jackass’.
Isn’t the moderator ever going to censure those who abuse other posters? This often includes ALB, and others.
The same moderators who ban me for referring to these abusers in their own unacceptable terms?
Why aren’t all posters treated in the same way when their abuse is posted, or why isn’t there a free-for-all, in which I can descend to the depths, too?
L.B. Neill wrote: “It is about time we asked one another what that we or I means to us all.”
Let’s ask ‘all’ then, L.B.
That’s precisely what I’m arguing – ‘all’ have to be involved in democratic social production. To me, that is what democratic socialism would be.
robbo203 wrote: “He or she may know more about physics than anyone else on the planet…”
robbo, I’ve tried to pick a small part of your post, in the interests of a focussed discussion, and ‘bite-sized’ posts.
The problem is, whose ‘physics’?
For example, many Catholic theologians ‘knew more’ about ‘god’ ‘than anyone else on the planet’.
But this ‘god’ wasn’t politically, socially, or ideologically relevant to the revolutionaries of the bourgeoisie. So they ditched these ‘experts’.
You’re assuming that, for example, Hawking or Einstein, ‘knows more’ than me and you about what sort of ‘nature’ we wish to produce.
Now, if you wish to continue with this belief, and are prepared to argue it as we build for democratic socialism, fair enough. If you can take society with you, your belief will become the ‘truth’ of that society.
However, I don’t share that belief (I’ve read enough about Einstein, for example, to recognise his mistakes, as have many of his contemporaries and later physicists), and, being a democratic communist, I’m committed to arguing for democratic control of all social production (including physics) within democratic socialism.
The upshot of this, robbo, is that current ‘physicists’ don’t know their arses from their elbows when it comes to the politics of social production.
I’d argue for a ‘physics’ relevant to our democratic revolution.
L.B. Neill wrote “I…“.
I’m a democratic communist, so I always refer to ‘we’.
Anything you’ll have access to as an individual, we’ll have access to as a collective; and vice versa.
This includes: rights, responsibilities, training, ethics, practices, support, reviews, safety, health, guidelines. If I’ve missed any of your concerns, just add them to this list.
We’ll be deciding our future list by democratic methods.
Unless one believes that ‘democracy’ will necessarily involve ‘unjust individual restrictions’, which is a fear continually expressed by the bourgeoisie, then ‘democratic socialism’ is our collective answer to our political problems.
I don’t share that ideological belief, because I’m a democratic communist, and influenced by Marx’s social productionism.
YMS wrote: “LBird, So, if “we the collective producers”, ask some scientists to go off and develop multiple, conflicting theories (given ethics guidelines, a “budget”, service level agreements, standards, etc.), all is well and good with you, and there’s no need to vote on the truth?”
If ‘we ask‘, YMS, how will we know that ‘we’ve received‘, without a vote?
If we’re collective producers, we produce a collective truth.
YMS wrote: “And we’ll have resources so people can use “private time” to pursue their own researches, and try to get their ideas published?”
‘We’ll‘ have whatever we want – it will be up to us.
That’s the whole point of ‘democratic socialism’, YMS.
L.B. Neill wrote: “LBird, I see democracy in science as making its study accessible to all who wish to do it, not sure it be based on uninformed opinion…”
I’ve never argued that ‘democratic science’ should ‘be based on uniformed opinion’, L.B.
Part of the problem is that you’re reading what ‘materialists’ say LBird says, rather than asking me, what I say.
From Lenin onwards, ‘materialists’ have had as a central part of their political method, the confusing of their opponents’ arguments, to make the arguments seem absurd, assisted by personal attacks on their opponents’ motives, characters, intelligence, etc.
I think it impossible to build democratic socialism upon uninformed opinion, because part of the revolutionary process will involve the masses becoming informed.
Of course, if you were to argue that ‘most people are thick as pigshit, and can’t become informed‘, I’d disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of people can understand ‘physics’, for example, especially if its theories and concepts were not hidden from view by a refusal to actually explain them in a way that the majority can understand. It’s part of the role of workers to make themselves collectively able to take control of our social production. We can find ways to explain to each other. The elite have a vested interest in keeping ‘knowledge’ hidden their own hands. I’m sure your own reading about ‘scientists’ (given some of the thinkers that you’ve mentioned) has already made you aware about this social problem of ‘experts’ keeping the rest of us ‘uninformed’.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “He has been told this innumerable times. That socialism will be an <b>advanced , democratic, post-capitalist</b> society, run by <b>us all</b>, locally, regionally, globally…”
And I’ve agreed with ‘this’ innumerable times, Matthew.
‘All’.
Not ‘some’.
YMS wrote: “I don’t see how you can agree with me, I was saying we’d give…”
Yes, I agree with you, YMS.
“We‘d give…”
‘We’, to any democratic socialist, is ‘us’. ‘Us’ meaning the social producers.
Unless… by ‘we’ you really mean ‘them’. ‘Them’ meaning an elite separate from the social producers.
So, as long as you mean ‘humanity’, we agree, YMS.
YMS wrote: “That is, we’d mandate a diversity of views…“.
I entirely agree with you, YMS, as I said earlier.
‘We’ being ‘democratic humanity’, of course, not an elite.
L.B. Neill wrote: “I think what you’re finding is we do support the democraticisation of Maths, Physics, etc.”
Yes, I really am beginning to think that there’s been a sea-change in political thinking on the part of some posters here.
It remains to be seen, however, just how widespread this conversion is. I’ll be very happy if the SPGB put out an ‘official’ statement about this. After due democratic consideration, of course!
