LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marcos wrote “Calling elitists to members of the SPGB, and saying that you know more than them, is not an abuse? I do not suffer from historical amnesia”
But you all admit that you’re ‘materialists’, and MARX himself called this 18th century ideology elitist.
And I rather think you do ‘suffer from historical amnesia’, because you’ve read Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, and yet have forgotten what Marx said therein.
And because if you read them (again), and remember what you’ve just read long enough, you’ll be forced to re-think, critically, your present ideology of ‘materialism’ – and so, since you won’t do that, and argue your case, you revert (as do all ‘materialists’, always) to abusing those workers who do follow Marx, read his works, and then think critically about what they’ve read.
So, you ‘abuse’ (as this thread shows), whereas I don’t abuse you, but ask you to account for your politics.
alan wrote “We’ve given our answers on numerous occasions which you decline to accept which is your prerogative to do since there is no absolute truths, is there? 😉”
But ‘your answers’ are that non-democratic methods are acceptable. Obviously, any proponent of workers’ democracy has no option but to ‘decline to accept’ them. And Lew didn’t say that, Lew said the opposite, that he won’t allow a vote to workers on ‘truth’.
As for ‘practical parameters’ and ‘something concrete and pragmatic and practical’, can you really not see the inherent conservatism of refusing to criticise what exists (ie., to begin from an ‘abstract, philosophical, theoretical exercise’, as you dismissively call it), and to disregard the ‘practical, concrete’ in a determination to change it. The ‘existing’ must be criticised and destroyed, not ‘accepted’ and used as a starting point. It’s simply the difference between revolution and reform, alan. Revolution requires ‘theory and practice’, whereas reform argues for ‘practice and theory’, or often, just ‘practice’, and bollocks to ‘idealist’ theory!
As I’ve sorrowfully said before, alan, you might be a decent bloke, good comrade, and very pleasant to have a drink with, but your lack of awareness of the political and philosophical basis of your ‘practical, pragmatic’ method seems to be widely shared within the SPGB, and so makes it a hostile environment for any workers who are democrats and Marxists. They are opposed by the other posters who openly express hostility to workers’ democracy, and espouse Engels’ destruction of Marx’s ideas.
Dave B, Marcos
It’s always open to either of you, or any other SPGB member/supporter, to come up with political answers, rather than to turn to abuse.
What’s ‘shit’ to Dave B and ‘crap’ to Marcos is “workers’ democracy” to Marxists.
patreilly wrote “LBird my old foe, we have been here before and some of us are still awaiting answers.”
Ever the ‘practical’ person, eh, pat?
That’s the bourgeois ideology in you – no need for criticism, theory, philosophy, epistemology, political ideas in general – just ‘practical’, ‘common sense’ questions.
Ruling class ideas, eh? What was it Marx said about those?
Anyway, whilst you think (practically, of course) that humanity will obviously fail to come up with a democratic method of determining ‘truth’ for themselves, I suppose you’ll have to leave ‘truth production’ in the hands of the old elite.
That’s gone well for workers, so far, hasn’t it?
Lew wrote “
- In socialism truth will be decided by voting (false).”
At least you’re being completely open, Lew, about your attitude to workers’ democracy!
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to get SPGB members/supporters to deny democracy, especially given the SPGB’s hard-earned reputation for democratic methods.
The bitter fruits of a ‘materialist’ ideology, I’m afraid.
I hope as many SPGB people attend Carver’s lecture on Engels as possible. Perhaps Carver will succeed in opening your eyes to the ‘anti-democratic’ nature of this ideology.
Anyway, until the scales fall from your eyes, Lew, make sure you continue to be completely open, with any workers who ask about socialism, about your intention that an elite will continue to tell humanity what ‘truth’ is.
But don’t be surprised that you don’t get many takers for your elitist version of ‘socialism’. We’re 135 years after Marx’s death, and it still hasn’t dawned on the Engelsist Materialists that they are the reason that workers always leave the parties that they hopefully join.
Lew wrote “
L Bird wrote:
“… the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat …”
The victorious proletariat might also reject your assertions about “materialists”. They are assertions because, according to your own criterion, they have not been voted on (and passed) by a class conscious proletariat.
“Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’. The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.”
If truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means, then we will have to wait to find out what is true and what truth is – including, presumably, the claim that truth is determined by a vote. Until then, again all you have, according to your own criterion, is opinion.”
Well, Lew, what you say is correct – only the class conscious proletariat can decide to use democratic political methods for all their social products.
But, given what you’ve said about my assertions (ie. I argue that ‘democracy is a must‘), you must have some conception of why, and in what political circumstances, the class conscious proletariat would choose a non-democratic political method.
That is, either you think that the building of socialism can be non-democratic, or even that socialism once achieved can be non-democratic.
So, that leaves me to expect that my assertions, of the democratic control of production, would be voted for by any workers’ political organisation, from its inception.
It also makes me wonder what such organisations would make of your implied view, that non-democratic methods would be acceptable.
I’m not sure if you’re a member or not of the SPGB, but I certainly wouldn’t want to join an organisation that has members who would argue against ‘my assertions’, since I would consider that organisation not to be attempting to help self-develop the proletariat.
My opinions are democratic, my criteria are democratic. That, indeed, is all we have.
alan wrote “And if you did read my earlier post, i would like your answer to why capitalism continues to be supported.”
Because the alternative to capitalism, ie, socialism, would require a class conscious revolutionary proletariat organised upon democratic lines, to socially produce it.
EVERY ‘materialist’ party tells workers that they can’t change ‘matter’.
Then, underhandedly, those parties propose an elite to take control of the social production of physics, maths, logic, truth, reality, etc., etc.
It’s obvious to any worker who joins those parties that they don’t intend to let workers determine ‘science-for-workers’.
Hence, 135 years after Marx’s death, capitalism is going strong, and will continue to do so, because supposed ‘Marxists’ (ie., ‘materialists’) prevent the self-development of any workers who show any interest in overthrowing capitalism.
Capitalism continues to be supported because it works, and the capitalists don’t pretend that they’re going to hand over control to workers, and then don’t, which is what EVERY ‘materialist’ party that has gotten into power has done.
It’s very clear to all workers, that capitalism is the preferred mode of production for their own interests. There is no alternative to a minority in control of ‘truth’, as the ‘materialists’ keep telling them.
Workers might as well have a competent elite in charge, rather than an incompetent ‘materialist’ elite, who can’t even account for the social and historical development of ‘science’, and wish to drag us all back to the 18th century, before Marx wrote.
Any ‘materialist’ party might as well put Rees Mogg in control.
ALB wrote “Calling all Engelsists:”
I recommend that all who are interested in these vital political issues, and who live near enough, to attend this lecture.
This will help those who confuse Marx’s and Engels’ views, to understand their profound differences.
I’d also recommend having a read prior to the lecture of Carver’s 1983 book “Marx & Engels: The Intellectual Relationship’, especially chapters 4 & 5.
alan wrote “My understanding has always been that two requisites were required for the establishment of socialism, the productive capacity and a mental development, both complementing one another”
So, how can ‘productive capacity’ develop, without ‘mental development’ (to employ your terms)?
You’re simply following Engels here, by SEPARATING ‘material’ from ‘ideal’ factors. It was Engels who instituted this trend, of regarding ‘Idealism’ and ‘Materialism’ as in a terrific battle, from which there can only be one winner.
Marx, on the contrary, UNITED ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’ in a philosophy of ‘social production’, where HUMAN theory and practice form a whole, and neither ‘mind’ nor ‘matter’ can be addressed apart – as did the Idealists, who emphasised the activity of Divine Production, as did the Materialists, who emphasised the passivity of unconscious Material Production. It was obvious to Marx, and should be to us, that NEITHER had any place for human conscious activity – the idealists saw consciousness as divine, the materialists saw motion as clockwork, self-motivated. Marx put the ‘human’ into ‘production’.
alan wrote “Consciousness is always at the core of the Socialist Party’s analysis and it is why we place the battle of ideas at the forefront of the class war.”
So you agree that workers can determine for themselves the meaning of ‘material’?
And that the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat that reads Marx, and finds that his ideas are contradicted by Engels’ interpretation?
I never miss your contributions, alan, but you contradict yourself (as did Engels, even within his own short letters).
EITHER ‘technology’ (industry, ‘forces of production’, ‘matter’, ‘the material’, etc.) CREATES ‘the possibility of socialist ideas arising’ (Engels’, Lenin’s, and all ‘materialist’s’ argument), OR ‘socialist ideas’ self-consciously CREATE a class conscious proletariat (Marx’s argument, which as you say, when you contradict your other view, ‘the battle of ideas’ is at ‘the forefront of the class war’).
‘Matter’ (or ‘material’) doesn’t ‘create ideas’ or do ‘social production’. Only HUMANS do this – we are the ‘active consciousness’, the creators of our own social theory and practice.
If we wait for the ‘material conditions’, a party which doesn’t wait will replace the class conscious proletariat as the agent of change. This party will claim to ‘know’ the ‘material’, in a way that the workers cannot change, so that the party can provide ‘leadership’ (and a ‘scientific’ approach, mere ‘neutral advice’, which, of course, it demands that workers take). The party doesn’t wait for the ‘material conditions’ to decide – the party supplants the class.
I’ve asked this political and philosophical question of you (and the SPGB) before, alan – ‘Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’.
The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.
‘Materialists’ deny this, and argue that ‘truth’ is not a social product, and so we workers can’t change it.
The ‘materialists’, of course, retain for themselves the power to change truth. They call this ‘science’, and ‘scientists’ constantly ‘change truth’, as anyone who reads the about history of science, especially since Einstein, knows already.
‘Scientific Socialism’ and ‘Materialism’ (Engels’ social products, influenced by 19th century bourgeois science) aim to prevent workers determining for themselves their own social products, which is why Lenin espoused these ‘ideas’, in his battle against workers’ democracy.
Unfortunately, alan, ‘technological wonders’ which ‘provide a decent standard of living for everyone on the planet’, is not ‘socialism’.
Your ‘materialist’ approach to this issue echoes Engels in philosophical approach, and Lenin in political approach.
Unless your account of the emergence of ‘socialism’ fundamentally involves the conscious activity of the democratically-organised proletariat, then it won’t be any sort of ‘socialism’ that you, I, Marx, ALB or Bijou Drains, envisage.
Many Marxists have pointed out this political problem, since before Lenin. Put simply, either ‘matter’ or ‘conscious humanity’ builds ‘socialism’. Engels interpreted ‘material’ to be ‘matter’, whilst Marx interpreted ‘material’ to be ‘humanity’ (in opposition to ‘ideal’ meaning ‘divine’).
‘Material conditions’, for Marx, simply means ‘social conditions’. Marx’s fundamental concern was ‘social production’, not ‘matter’. That’s why all his core concepts involve terms like ‘social’ and ‘production’ (eg. ‘social individual’, ‘mode/relations/forces of production’). ‘Material production’ means ‘human production’.
‘Material’ meaning ‘Matter’ (the physical, hard stuff, tangibility, etc.) is Engels’ misunderstanding of Marx’s rejection of ‘divine creation’, of Marx’s attempt to make any ‘production’ a ‘profane production’.
So, alan, your ‘technological wonders’ and their achievements can be made by other political means than by the democratic direct producers. The danger is, that EVERY ‘materialist’ party ALWAYS turns to non-democratic, elite, ‘specialist’, ‘scientific’ politics, and rejects the argument that only self-determination by the class conscious proletariat can build ‘socialism’.
Of course, IF that is what one believes, that there is an alternative to workers democratically determining for themselves what ‘material’ means, then simply say so to all workers who ask you who will control social production. If you think that the SPGB should determine ‘material’, then say so. ALB and Bijou Drains will support you, as I already know their political beliefs, whereas you always avoid this political question.
It might be useful for GeneKrupa to know that Bijou Drains and ALB are both ‘materialists’, and followers of Engels.
As such, they place all their hopes in ‘matter’ (which is what they think Marx meant by ‘material’), to the detriment of workers’ productive activity.
If they have to choose between ‘matter’ and ‘workers’, they’ll always choose ‘matter’.
Marx warned that they would. They see themselves as part of an elite, who ‘know’ what workers can’t, which is why they won’t have workers voting to replace ‘matter’. All ‘materialists’ deny democracy, in the service of ‘matter’.
This was, of course, also Lenin’s viewpoint, as he too was a ‘materialist’, and a follower of Engels.
My understanding was that socialism was only possible because of what has been achieved under capitalism, or even because capitalism came into existence first. That’s why I said “the conditions in capitalism.” Then, after some developments occurred, there was no longer a need for a transitional period but could now be accomplished overnight.
That was not Marx’s opinion.
In Marx’s opinion, socialism was possible without capitalism, if only under certain conditions.
Also in Marx’s opinion, nothing could be ‘accomplished overnight’, in any conditions, but only after a growth in class consciousness, sufficient to allow the direct producers to take control of production.
I think that you’ve been reading the wrong sources. My advice is to stick to Marx, and avoid Engels, or any self-proclaimed ‘materialists’. It should go without saying that anything tainted with Lenin’s or Trotsky’s views is destructive of Marx’s own view that ONLY the self-emancipation of the proletariat within capitalism could bring socialism, and NOT any ‘materialist party’ that claims to ‘know’ what workers supposedly can’t themselves.
Marx himself clearly warned of the dangers of a ‘materialist’ elite.
Hello! I am a newcomer to this forum. I remember reading that the conditions for capitalism to make socialism possible over night happened a certain amount of years after Marx’s death. What were these conditions that made this possible?
No, it’s not ‘the conditions for capitalism’ that ‘make socialism possible’, but ‘the conditions for socialism’.
The fundamental ‘condition for socialism’ is the revolutionary class consciousness of the proletariat, and this has never yet existed. Socialism is only possible when this condition has been fulfilled.
You’ve probably read something written by the followers of Engels, who claim to be ‘materialists’, and who ignore Marx’s views about the self-determination of the proletariat, and who claim that ‘material conditions’ will unconsciously bring socialism for the proletariat, and so those ‘materialists’ can ignore the proletariat itself.
Of course, workers who get involved with ‘materialist’ parties soon come to realise that the party has no intention whatsoever of allowing workers themselves to determine for themselves the nature of any ‘conditions’ that are required, and so those workers soon leave the ‘materialist’ party.
All ‘materialist’ parties insist that they, and they alone, have a special insight into ‘material’ factors, PRIOR TO workers themselves determining these factors. That is, the ‘materialist’ parties claim the ‘material’ in itself precedes workers themselves producing of the ‘material’, and so workers can have no productive democratic control of the ‘material’. Hence, workers MUST passively accept the determination of ‘material’ by a small elite who claim to know already what it is.
