LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wez wrote “Perhaps you should change your pub James – such conversations are ‘de rigueur’ in the pubs where I drink. Leaving it to others to figure it out can be very dodgy. The mind/reality duality is one of the oldest philosophical questions and deserves some consideration. We all have consciousness and it is not unreasonable to inquire as to its nature.”
This is one of the most important political/philosophical/ideological posts that an SPGB member has made for a long time. Any socialist that can’t explain their political position on the ‘mind/reality duality’ won’t be able to persuade any politically-curious worker of their view of the future.
James would be well-advised to, at the least, become conversant of the political outcome of holding any particular view of this ‘duality’, even if James feels unable to participate in a detailed discussion.
I’d go so far as to claim that this subject being a common and important ‘pub conversation’, would be an indicator of the nearness of socialism. Whilst most workers freely admit to being baffled by philosophy, we’ll never be able to build a democratic socialism. It’s our job as socialists to make these types of ‘conversations’ both understandable and relevant.
Philosophy, like all social production, must become under our democratic control.
James Moir wrote “Subjective, in my dictionary, is defined as adj based on personal feelings.”
But in regard to philosophy, the ‘subject’ is the conscious part of the ‘subject-object’ relationship.
So, for those who choose ‘object-in-itself’ (ie. physicalists, materialists, most bourgeois physicists), the ‘subject’ is essentially passive, and the ‘object’ dominates by the sense impressions it makes upon the ‘subject’.
But, for those who regard the subject as active, as the creator of its own ‘object’ (as did Marx and the US Pragmatists), there is the further choice of this ‘subject’ either being a ‘biological-individual’ (as for Pragmatism) or being a ‘social-individual’ (as for Marx).
Regarding the Labour Theory of Value, both one’s choice of ‘object-in-itself’ or ‘object-for-subject’, and ‘biological-subject’ or ‘social-subject’, will determine one’s view of ‘value’.
For Marx, ‘value’ was a social product (ie. it wasn’t an ‘object-in-itself’ nor a product of an individual ‘biological-subject’), and so it was an historical product which we can collectively change.
Materialists regard ‘value’ as ‘matter’ (an ‘object-in-itself’, which is the whole point of ‘materialism’, a world of ‘objects’ which we don’t create), whereas Marxists regard all our objects as products of social relations, which we can thus change. That’s why Capital is scientific, and produces an objectively true account. Which we can change, of course, if we are so minded. We workers have no gods but ourselves. We certainly don’t bow down to ‘matter’, an 18th century ideology which Marx scorned.
The real issue here is a philosophical one.
By ‘objective’, what is meant?
Either ‘object-in-itself’ or ‘object-for-subject’.
If one (like the vast majority of contemporary physicists) wants there to be ‘something-out-there’, a ‘something’ which we didn’t create, then one will choose ‘object-in-itself”. Of course, for this choice, is the downside of then having to come up with a ‘creator’, which is not humanity. This choice always leads to ‘god’.
If one follows Marx, though, one wants us to be able to change our world, and so must choose (as did Marx) the ‘object-for-subject’. We create our own objects, as an ‘object-for-us’. The plus of this choice, of course, is the end of religion, because we are the creators of our universe.
Those who’ve read their philosophy will see the role of German Idealism in producing this way of thinking – Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, etc., ending in Marx’s unifying of the two opposed strands of philosophy in his ‘Idealism-Materialism’, his ‘social productionism’.
Thus, there is an ‘objective world’ (don’t listen to the ‘individual-biological subjectivists’, who adhere to an ideology of bourgeois physics), and this ‘objective world’ is our creation, produced by our social activity, our theory and practice.
Since it is our product, our objects can be democratically produced. ‘The World’ or ‘The Universe’ is a bourgeois construct, which the ruling class claim we can’t change. But ‘Our World’ or ‘Our Universe’ is our product and we can, as Marx claimed, change it.
[edit] The concept of ‘object-in-itself’ implies human passivity, whereas ‘object-for-subject’ implies human activity.
Since the truth, as any worker knows, is human activity, social production, those who argue for ‘object-in-itself’ are lying to workers, and plan for the elite themselves to be the ‘active side’, the ‘specialists’ (as Marx pointed out in his Theses on Feuerbach), who will then go on to create a world to their liking, based upon their elite interests and purposes. ‘Object-in-itself’ is an inherently undemocratic concept.
Wez wrote: “L Bird really does live in his own delusional world…”
Yet more personal insults, and yet more refusal to give political answers to political questions.
You’re determining ‘the future of the SPGB’, Wez. Well done.
marcos wrote: “…I am talking about the low participation in this forum. Case closed”
Well, I’ve given you plenty of suggestions, but perhaps it is simply your refusal to discuss politics, the ‘always-open case’.
marcos wrote: “L Bird,
I don’t think that the low participation in this forum is due to your commentaries, the problem is the low participation of the members of the Socialist Party and the companion parties.”
If I were to venture an opinion on this ‘low participation’, marcos, I’d say that there doesn’t seem to be any appetite amongst the membership of the SPGB to actually argue their political case. I don’t know why this should be the case, however, because most people who claim to be interested in politics can’t shut up! (and I plead guilty to this).
marcos wrote: “The participation in the discussion forum of the leftists and Leninist parties is very high”
But they, and the ‘anarchists’, are also unable to argue their political case. In my experience, the claim that they are engaged in ‘Science’ (as in ‘Scientific Socialism’, and Lenin’s claim to ‘Know Reality’ as it is, in itself), and so they are all unable to engage in critical thought (whether about ‘Science’, or Marx, or social production). They censor critical thought.
‘Science’ seems to trump ‘politics’.
They all pay lip service to Marx and Capital (including many ‘anarchists’, like LibCom), but actually ignore what Marx wrote, and his democratic politics, which, for Marx, also applied to the socio-historical activity of ‘Science’.
The upshot of all this seems to be sites comfortable with ’18th century materialism’, but unable to engage with the 21st century, and so have no wider influence amongst any educated workers, who now have the tools to debate and argue with their ‘betters’, unlike when Lenin was claiming to know better than the benighted masses.
Our class might have been ignorant in the 19th century, which allowed Lenin’s elitism to take hold amongst our class, but times have changed.
‘Change’, eh? Who was the thinker quite keen on discussing that?
Unless we can come up with a political solution to the problem of democratising ‘science’, then we’ll always be in thrall to ‘The Experts’.
‘Matter’ has to be regarded as a social product, that we can change, to suit our purposes when engaged in social production.
‘Matter’ is the biological/physical counterpart to ‘private property’, according to bourgeois ideology.
As you say, ‘socialist democracy is essential to ensure that every person becomes involved in decision making‘. That includes the ‘material’.
This view is Marx’s view: democratic social production by us, not by a self-selecting body of ‘experts’.
Nansir1111 wrote: “How aware are we of the limitations of the Monetary System ?”
First, we must be aware of the advantages of the Monetary System – it gives isolated individuals the belief that they, as individuals, have access to an ‘objective’ measure of ‘the value of things’.
So, even if we are all aware of its limitations, we have to come up with a new system which determines ‘the value of things’.
I’d argue that this new system would have to be both social and democratic. That is, ‘individuals’ wouldn’t have the belief that they could determine ‘the value of things’ on their own, but that we’d all recognise that any valuation that we make of ‘things’ would be made collectively and democratically.
Nansir1111 wrote: “How well do we understand how such a world would work in practice ?”
I don’t think that this is well understood at all. I think it would imply social participation by all, and so the whole bourgeois idea of ‘individuals’ making ‘their own’ decisions about ‘their personal consumption’ would have to be superseded.
I’m inclined to think that many ‘socialists’ regard ‘socialism’ as a system which would merely satisfy the bourgeois myth of ‘individual freedom’, to decide the priorities of social production by individuals.
I think that this underestimates the massive changes in both ideas and production that would have to take place amongst the vast majority of humans, to build a socialist system.
I’d put the stress on ‘social’ and ‘democratic’ production, rather than on ‘individual’ and ‘isolated’ consumption.
Well, I’m glad that my interventions don’t seem to be detrimental (but that doesn’t, of course, mean that they are regarded as useful by anyone else), but the discussion seems to have been completely one-sided, as far as any political/philosophical development goes.
By that, I mean that I’m clearer about, and more confident in arguing in favour of, democratic control within all areas of social production, which is what I’m clearer than ever in thinking that that was what Marx was arguing for, and was what he meant by Communism/Socialism.
However, the SPGB doesn’t seem to have developed its arguments in the light of what I’ve argued, but simply reiterates a position that has been dismantled by political developments since Marx’s death (which indeed have shown Marx to have been correct – no democratic control of social production, no communist mode of production).
I’m inclined to argue that the blind alley of ‘materialism’ has come to an end, and that any ‘socialist’ parties continuing to adhere to ‘materialism’ will die out.
It’s a shame that the SPGB doesn’t seem to be able recognise this, because, at least theoretically, a commitment to ‘democracy’ within a party, should allow for the replacement of an obviously deadly ‘theory’ with a better one. But, as I’ve found out on a few sites, the commitment to ‘matter’ (and the erroneously belief that this is Marx’s basic concept of analysis) is far stronger than the commitment to ‘democracy’. Further, the defence of ‘Science’ also seems to play a deeper role, than the defence of ‘democracy’.
Still, at least those having read my arguments on a number of political sites, can’t say that they haven’t been warned, that they’re not heading for any ‘democratic socialism’ worth that name. If the aim is ‘Scientific Socialism’, then a look at Lenin’s progress would be instructive.
robbo, is it possible that my interventions are driving people away from the forum?
If so, I’m truly sorry about that – it’s not my intention.
But if a party forum is simply meant to act as a ‘glue’, as a ‘reinforcement’ for the party’s existing ideological beliefs, then my fundamental and oppositional questioning (especially about the lack of democracy within your party view of ‘science’, when ‘democracy’ has always been a supposed ‘core belief ‘of the party) can only act against this purpose.
Of course, I’ve benefited greatly from my engagement – over the years, I’ve followed up all the claims made by your members, and read widely about Marx, Engels, history of ‘science’, materialism/physicalism/realism, German Idealism and Romanticism, Pannekoek and the many other 20th century ‘Marxists’, philosophy of physics, maths, logic, etc. – and so I understand both my own position and your party’s much better than I did at first.
I must say, though, I would have thought that this fundamental political debate would attract anyone interested in ‘democratic socialism’, and I’m very surprised at the party’s inability to answer critical questions, and declare openly its own ideological beliefs.
That’s the main reason I haven’t developed from an interested enquirer into an active party member. I don’t think that, as a party, you have a coherent view of politics. Whether this political confusion is the source of your ‘declining involvement’, might be worth considering.
I’m inclined to point out that people wanting ‘Science’ to be the source of their political beliefs, don’t want ‘Democracy’ to be their political solution. The two just don’t fit.
robbo203 wrote: “LBird All Matt was suggesting was bring the matter up under another topic heading.. Perhaps make a new thread if you cant find an old one that suits”
Thanks for your advice, robbo, but all I am suggesting is that it would be pointless to make a new thread with the title and topic of “The root is Leninism and Bolshevism” and actively critique that title and topic, when one already exists!
It’s a bit like in education, robbo, where you get taught to ‘criticise the essay title’ – I’m sure you remember that, from your education!
It’d be a bit strange, because I know that you’re interested in the process of education within our new democratic socialist society, for you to argue that “One won’t be able to criticise essay titles within socialism, and one will passively obey the teacher!”
I’m sure that you’ll support my democratic method, robbo, because ‘passive obedience’ as a teaching method is conservative, went out of fashion after the war! 😛
Matthew Culbert wrote: “As moderator
“The root is Leninism and Bolshevism”
This is the topic. Please stick to it. ”
Is this an order, that political disagreement with an untrue ideological assertion is not to be challenged within the SPGB?
As far as I’m concerned, I am ‘sticking to the topic’.
I’ve pointed out that the ‘root’ of Maoism is not ‘Lenin and Bolshevism’ (they are only a supporting ‘branch’), but Engels’ ‘materialism’.
Surely the whole point of a socialist politics site is to invite political discussion, in the hope that workers will take part, and teach the party about politics?
Or have youse really now gone ‘Full Leninist’… or should I say (what’s identical) ‘Full Materialist’?
Where the Party Specialists ‘know better’ than the workers that they claim to represent?
Marquito wrote: “The main purpose is to indicate and show that Maoism and Leninism and not socialist trends and the Chinese revolution was an anti-agrarian revolution or a bourgeois revolution.”
On this point, I entirely agree with you, Marquito.
Marquito wrote: “Materialism or Engels is another topic…”
On this point, however, I fundamentally disagree with you.
Maoism and Leninism both flowed from Engels’ misinterpretation of Marx’s political and philosophical views. That’s why Mao and Lenin usually quoted Engels (and not Marx), and insisted that there was a single ‘unified-being’ called ‘Marx-Engels’, to justify their omission of Marx’s political (democracy) and philosophical (social productionism) views.
Of course, Mao and Lenin built upon an existing framework of ‘Marx-Engels’, which had already been produced by Plekhanov and Kautsky – and, of course, Engels himself.
Engels was the originator of the myth of the unified being of ‘Marx-Engels’. And according to Engels, there was no need to read the difficult ‘Capital‘ whilst the easy ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific‘ would do a similar job. Hard to credit that, isn’t it?
Our real problem, Marquito, is that the SPGB was founded on the basis of Engels’ myth, and you seem unable to discuss this – and indeed, resent me for pointing it out.
In fact, given the SPGB’s commitment to Engels’ materialism, I’d go so far as to predict that if the SPGB ever found itself in a similar position of power as did Mao and Lenin, the political outcome would be very similar.
I know that that is not what you seek (nor do the other SPGB posters), but whilst you all refuse to examine the problem, it’ll remain hidden, but potent.
Marquito wrote: “You spend most of the time hiding in your ideological cave…”
At least I’m completely open about my ‘ideological cave’, Marquito, and its origins and consequences.
You, however, like all ‘materialists’, seem not to be able to explain nor even understand your own ‘ideological cave’.
The origins of my ideology are ‘democracy’ and Marx’s ‘social productionism’. So, I can argue for a politics which starts from human production of their world by democratic means, a world we have the power to change. Self-emancipation of the working class and change.
The origins of your ideology are ‘bourgeois elite science’ and Engels’ 18th century ‘materialism’. This is a politics which necessarily involves a supposedly ‘pre-existing reality’ and ‘elite knowledge’. Thus, any social emancipation is brought from outside of workers themselves, by a ‘knowing minority’, who claim that only they, the elite, have the power to change this ‘unchanging matter’.
Marquito wrote: “…you want to bring your old arguments in order to distort or deviate the real topic , by the meantime, the whole world is falling apart and you do not say anything about it.”
I’d suggest the ‘real topic’ is the politics of our attempt to build ‘socialism’, and why those arguing for ‘materialism’ have always failed, and always will fail, to convince the working class. Given that, any solution to our ‘world falling apart’ won’t be a ‘democratic socialist’ solution, but an elite one, which will clearly benefit the interests, aims and purposes of that elite.
If I had to have a guess, I’d name this supposed solution as ‘Green Science’. But it’s nothing to do with Democratic Communism, Marx, or the proletariat. And it’ll be compatible with some form of elite control of social production, whether called ‘capitalism’ or not.
