LBird

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,361 through 3,375 (of 3,671 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Karl Marx in London: Owen Jones on Marxism #97917
    LBird
    Participant
    alanjjohnstone wrote:
    According to Matt on Spopen, it seems like Owen Jones has recommended one of Socialist Party blog posts. .His Twitter feed provides a link.In reply to someone who says,"It's stretching it a bit to suggest that Marx anticipated a parliamentary road to socialism @OwenJones84. Can we have the reference please?"He just says, "Read This" and links tohttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/marx-and-engels-on-power-of-vote.html

    Even if we agree with Marx and the SPGB that ‘a parliamentary road to socialism’ can at least play a part in the process of revolution, isn’t it also true that workers will in parallel organise their own structures, as the SPGB concedes that some strands of the Communist workers’ movement will construct ‘non-parliamentary councils and committees’.

    SPGB pamphlet wrote:
    …the non-parliamentary councils and committees that anarchists advocate as instruments of social revolution.

    http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliamentAnd not just ‘anarchists’, but ‘council communists’ (and perhaps some pseudo-Leninist groups) also advocate such Workers’ Councils (or soviets).My question is:‘What would be the power relationship between an SPGB majority in parliament and those Workers’ Councils?’Obviously, SPGB members would also be involved, like most workers, within the Workers’ Councils, because the revolutionary process would involve both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary elements. But, where would sovereignty lie?In simple terms, who would control the weapons?On achieving a parliamentary majority, at least in theory (if not practice, given coup-organisers within the military and wider state (The Curragh, ‘Clockwork Orange’, Column 88, etc.)), the state weaponry would be under the control of workers’ delegates within parliament, but Workers’ Councils will also clearly have their own armed Workers’ Militias, which will have developed to defend Communist meetings, picket lines, buildings, etc., during the revolutionary process.The potential for clashes between these ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ armed groups clearly exists, given the realities of political power and disagreements between various Communist strands.If I was asked that question at the moment (ie. ‘who should control the arms?’), I would be inclined to answer ‘The Workers’ Councils’. That is, at the moment of achieving a parliamentary majority, the SPGB (and any other party’s delegates within parliament) would transfer political control of the armed forces to the Workers’ Councils, so that the army and airforce especially would be subordinate to Workers’ extra-parliamentary control. We don’t want any jiggery-pokery and manoeuvres within parliament that re-transfers ‘legitimate’ control of the military back to the ‘previous owners’, and allows the officer corps to reclaim ‘legitimacy’ at a moment of crisis. If the majority of SPGB delegates was slender, MI5 hit-squads could assassinate a few, and (before new elections could be called to replace the dead Communists) precipitate a re-run of the ‘transfer’ vote which then returns a majority for the reactionaries, who then immediately ‘legitimately’ use the armed forces to suppress the Workers’ Councils and their armed militias. The ruling class won’t dither, in these circumstances.I suppose I’m asking does the SPGB have a ‘twintrack strategy’, of being elected to both parliament and any emerging Workers’ Councils, but on the understanding that the ‘parliamentary track’ is always the subordinate one. That is, that fundamentally the SPGB favours Workers’ Councils as the location of sovereignty and legitimacy for workers’ power, and that the ‘parliamentary road’ is a mere supplementary tool to help to achieve that aim, the castration of parliament.Or, is an SPGB-dominated parliament to be the controller of the weapons?

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97487
    LBird
    Participant
    Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
    But, the opposite of the above would amount to a rejection of Marx's claim that the ruling ideas are always those or the ruling-class. If that makes me an elitist, then so was Marx.

    [my bold]Errr… no, it would amount to regarding Marx's words as often totally one-sided and rhetorical, and would amount to realising that you're taking his words at simple face value.Marx wasn't a god. We can argue with his words. We can change his words, to those that we think fit better with his intended meaning, given the whole body of his work. So, when he says that 'the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class', to modify it to fit with reality. Clearly, 'ruling ideas' are not always 'those of the ruling class'. Most of the time, yes; the vast majority of the time, yes; almost always, yes. But 'common sense' tells us that Marx was employing political rhetoric during the 19th century to stress what had never been acknowledged until then: we workers are under constant ideological pressure to see the world from the viewpoint of the ruling class. There are also oppositional, minority, hidden, ideas in the exploited classes. We have to cultivate them. That view is more in keeping with what Marx meant to say.So, I'd say that Marx wasn't an elitist, but just a bad writer when it came to explaining his ideas clearly. There's something to his ideas, but we have to dig and interpret and rephrase (and, simply, ditch some).But, although I don't think Marx was an elitist…

    RL wrote:
    Moreover, workers change their ideas in struggle; propaganda has very little effect…

    This is a philosophical assumption, and one I don't share.Workers don't simply change their ideas in struggle; in fact, often, 'in struggle', they continue to employ ideas that they've previously learnt, to their own detriment. There is no truth in the philosophical assertion that you make, that struggle alone changes ideas.I think that to argue so is an elitist position. It's used by Leninists to justify them providing 'new ideas' for workers who are struggling and so to hijack the 'struggle'.But… 'propaganda' alone, too, 'has very little effect', as you say.We have to merge the two: propaganda, education, organisation, struggle, wider prop., ed. and org., more struggle, etc., a process which allows workers to develop themselves and their ideas, to allow workers to become the 'ruling class' with their own 'ruling ideas' which increasingly confront the existing but now failing 'ruling class ideas'.The class must develop itself: which is what we're all trying to do.

    RL wrote:
    Not really; you all disagree with me over the much more fundamental ideas I have developed about philosophy in general (how many will agree with much I have posted above?). Sure, you disagree with the Diamat crowd, etc., (and you did this long before any of you had even heard about me); but, then again, you have your own philosophical opiates to depend on — it's just a different brand from theirs.

    [my bold]But this reads like the words of an elitist. 'We' use narcotics, whilst 'you', presumably don't.How come only you are able to overcome philosophy and 'ruling class ideas'?

    RL wrote:
    Even so, how many here would completely agree with me about philosophy in general; that it is just ruling-class hot air (and in that I include philosophical materialism, and all the stuff one reads here about 'brain work', and 'sensation', etc.)?Very few, if any.

    Well, I agree with you about DiaMat, but don't agree with your elitist rejection of workers' ability to philosophise (or, to adopt your common sense language, 'dig the Suez Canal').You clearly have a philosophy, but either you don't recognise it, or wish to hide it.Given the hard work that you've already done which benefits workers, I'm still not sure which of the above applies. I hope that it's the former, and you join in helping to explain the world to workers, like all of us, and yourself, rather than denigrate your class.

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97482
    LBird
    Participant
    Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
    L Bird:"Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you?"The point was: the label doesn't matter, the content does. And if that content is just a reprise of ruling-class ideology, you can count me out.

    But if the 'content' is just 'ruling class ideology', you can count us all out, can't you?Surely we're all trying to get at what 'content' is suitable for Communists, whatever the 'label', as you say?

    RL wrote:
    Here is what I wrote about this in that Interview…

    Yes, I think I agree with your arguments against DiaMat – what I'm interested is the Communist content of your views/philosophy/Suez Canal digging. You've already won us over on DiaMat.

    RL wrote:
    So, I don't expect the majority to agree with me; in fact, just as soon as they did, I'd instantly know I had gone wrong somewhere.I'm not trying to change comrades' opinions, since I know I can't in the main do that.

    I find this a strange claim for a Communist to make – surely 'a majority' is precisely what we aim to come to agreement with us Communists? The latter part reads like the protestations of an elitist: 'the majority are always wrong, and that is the guiding thread of my philosophy'.Why don't you think you can't change comrades' opinions? Isn't that, in itself, a ruling class idea?

    RL wrote:
    If per impossible I could change their ideas, that would be tantamount to admitting that the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, or have stopped ruling. Until workers get rid of that class, those who are into philosophy and 'dialectics' are just going to have to suffer from the consequences of their own misguided theories.

    Well, the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, do they?There are always oppositional ideas, even if at times only held by a tiny minority. Surely part of 'getting rid of the ruling class' is also changing workers' ideas – a role for Communists, as part of the process of revolution? Of course, education alone can't do it, but it's part of it.As for 'dialecticians suffering the consequences of their misguided ideas', isn't that why many of us agree with you?

    RL wrote:
    Finally, I only engage on forums like this to sharpen my own ideas. I expect to be disbelieved by the vast majority, if not all, of you.

    But perhaps a majority here actually agree with you – that will become clearer as the discussion advances. But to expect to be always in a minority (of one?) is to be too dismissive of the ability of other workers, like yourself, who try to understand this world of ours.

    RL wrote:
    And bless you, you lot haven't disappointed me!

    This is uncalled for, given that at least some have openly said they agree with your views on dialectics, and does your argument no favours.In fact, if pushed, I'd say it smacks of Leninist philosophical elitism.I, for one, am not a Leninist. If you are, that's fine, but then we can start to unpack your views, if they don't seem to be related to those expressed by the majority here.

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97472
    LBird
    Participant
    Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
    LBird:"If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers."Indeed, I could call it re-digging the Suez canal, but who would that fool, except Simon?

    Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you? Surely you want to influence (and indeed help) comrades to come to some understanding of, errm… 're-digging the Suez canal', but if the terms are so flexible and unrelated to the matter in hand, why not use 'philosophy' just as much as 'historical materialism'?I mean, you could use all three terms interchangably at various times during a discussion, but wouldn't that just confuse all comrades, rather than just the (alledged) 'fools'?What would be the point?

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97471
    LBird
    Participant
    Morgenstern wrote:
    First … Sorry, LBird, misread your last post entirely, and drew the wrong conclusions. I think you're quite possibly potty, but I reserve myself the same right, and that's entirely within the spirit of enquiry. Shine on you crazy diamond, and all that.

    Thanks for the apology, Morgenstern – my problem is that I'm a sensitive little soul.

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97466
    LBird
    Participant
    Morgenstern wrote:
    Are there actually two of you having a parallel conversation on this board? If so, you're both whacko.

    Am I one of the 'two' that you're referring to?And 'whacko' seems a bit unfair, especially as no-one said anything untoward about your… err… 'ideas' expressed earlier.Perhaps I should leave my co-'sock puppet' to revisit them?

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97464
    LBird
    Participant
    Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
    L Bird:"Rosa, doesn't all this discussion just depend upon how we define 'philosophy'? If it's taken as a 'love of wisdom', I can't see a problem. If it's taken as 'speculative ideas in the service of the contemporary ruling class', then I'm with you!"The problem with that is that speculative metaphysicians also 'love wisdom'But, I can see no 'wisdom' coming from philsophers, can you? Sure, they might have come up with a few trite maxims that contained good advice, but we can get that from the religious, too — as well as from a good novel, and, indeed, from poetry!And what is wrong with Historical Materialism providing us with 'wisdom'?

    Yeah, I agree that 'wisdom' can come from novels or poetry, indeed, from any art form; and I also think that Historical Materialism can cover all these, too, so I'm with you there!And, on the whole, I think I line up with ALB's reply to you:

    ALB wrote:
    This said, I agree with you that most philosophy is useles (I don't even like the word "philosophy" in relation to socialist ideas: "theory" is the more appropriate term). I'm just pointing out that you are historically wrong about what you claim Marx meant by "philosophy". In fact, accepting that Marx meant Hegelian philosophy and its radical offshoots strengthens your case that Marx wasn't a Hegelian (except in his early days, mainly before he became a socialist).

    If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers.

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97456
    LBird
    Participant
    Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
    DJP:"LOL. You're doing philosophy again. I thought that stuff was useless and 100% nonsense."You can 'LOL' all you like, but until you can show, as opposed to assert that I am doing philosophy, that is all you comments will ever be — a joke.And I say that with all due respect.


    Rosa, doesn't all this discussion just depend upon how we define 'philosophy'?If it's taken as a 'love of wisdom', I can't see a problem.If it's taken as 'speculative ideas in the service of the contemporary ruling class', then I'm with you!

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97451
    LBird
    Participant

    As a follow-up to some quotes I provided from Marx on the ‘Pannekoek’ thread, here's another quote from him, which I think backs up the assertion that ‘science’ is not a ‘neutral method’ but a social activity, and thus science currently plays a part in our lives similar to religion or law. That is, it is an authority above us, and uncontrolled by us. Humans are at the centre of all these social activities, and science must be brought within our democratic control. We must resist the notion that scientists are an acceptable elite, a priesthood who have an esoteric knowledge (like a ‘dialectical method’ which can’t be explained, or understood except by those who have an insight denied to the rest of us), and we must ensure that ‘science’ will be treated similar to how we will treat ‘private property’: it must be communised.

    Marx, EPM of 1844 (Collected Works 3, p. 297), wrote:
    Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law. The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, [law, morality, science, art,] etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence.

    [my bold and repeat]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97436
    LBird
    Participant
    ALB wrote:
    Surely he just meant that scientists get on with their research without worrying about the theory of what they are doing just as birds get on with their lives without worrying about what ornithologists say about them? Which is probably the case irrespective or not it should be.

    So, scientists accept that they should be caged, and trained, and fed on our whim? Just like a pet bird, and not 'worry'?Or, do scientists see themselves as 'free birds', soaring high above the mass, not needing to reflect upon either their 'flight' or the 'pedestrians' below?Perhaps they're happy just shitting upon us? Mengele, genetics and eugenics?No, scientists, like any authority, need to be under our democratic control."Roadrunner, roadrunner…" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmHgnPPkkQ%5BAcknowledgements to Jonathon Richman and The Modern Lovers]Another version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRYncR1Nog

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97433
    LBird
    Participant
    ALB wrote:
    I agree that Marx rejected speculative, metaphysical philosophy such as still survives especially on the continent. Although I don't think he says so explicitly, I think he took the view that it had been replaced by science. Certainly the 19th century German Social Democratic movement did. But in this case, a theory of science is needed of which "epistemology" (as the "theory of knowledge" will be a part, science being a form of knowledge).  Or are you agreeing with Richard Feynman's well-known quip that

    Quote:
    Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

    Yeah, Feynman might as well have said:

    Our intellectual betters wrote:
    Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as education is to workers.

    I wonder why Feynman doesn't want workers examining the activities of scientists?

    in reply to: Do We Need the Dialectic? #97427
    LBird
    Participant
    Morgenstern wrote:
    Dear JonWhite, read the first half or so of the Lichenstein. suffers from the same problem as Johnson centuries earlier who on hearing Berkeley's theories, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock.

    This is incorrect.Whatever one thinks of Rosa Lichtenstein, they aren't simply saying 'I refute' or merely 'kicking a rock'.They've spent 30 years studying and arguing with Dialectical Materialism, and from my few followings of some debates, have kicked the arse of every DiaMat-ist that they've crossed.This doesn't mean that RL is right about everything (not least their Leninism/Trotskyism), but they are worth reading and serious consideration.

    in reply to: Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign #95116
    LBird
    Participant
    alanjjohnstone wrote:
    I believe LBird was violence was directed at myself and was accepted in the humourous spirit it was posted in. i don't believe LBird has any anger management issues, but if you read his posts on other threads ypou may find his pschological problem is OCD

    Yeah, you're spot on, aj, I'm afflicted with Obsessive Communist Disorder!The good news is that it confers an evolutionary advantage, so one day we'll all 'have it', and it 'affects' all skin colours!

    in reply to: Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign #95112
    LBird
    Participant
    Hrothgar wrote:
    …this is directed at me, … I have no problem with the remonstration and I accept the 'telling off'.

    Tut, tut, Hrothy! Caught out by the mod, naughty boy!Try and keep your cool, though – we don't want any displays of 'Aryan Superiority' [sic] on here. We all know just where that leads!

    in reply to: Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign #95106
    LBird
    Participant
    Hrothgar wrote:
    Maybe you shold speak to Alan Johnstone about it – he knows a lot about mental disorders.

    Nah, 'e just sez I'm a fuckin' nutter!'Takes one to know one', I just shout back, when I grab 'im by the froat!

Viewing 15 posts - 3,361 through 3,375 (of 3,671 total)