[LBird]

Which brings me nicely to…

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I merely wished to point out that despite the statement's sentiment, our position itself is accused of passivity and always has been. 

[my bold]I will say only one word regarding their correct estimation of passivity:  'Materialism'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Don't teach your granny to suck eggs, LBird.

Sorry, alan, I didn't meant to imply that you didn't understand – I was merely trying to reinforce your position!I've always acknowledged that it was yours and ALB's excellent posts on LibCom about 'economics', during the debate with some sects that I can't remember at this moment, that did teach me to suck eggs, that prompted me to look up the SPGB.Whether that latter move has been a success or not, I'll leave to others to judge!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Passively standing by waiting for society to either collapse or evolve? Or should we consciously organise and actively replace capitalism with something else?

This is often the response i get accused of in discussions with proponents of cooperatives.They tell me to start now by building what used to be called by old timer industrial unionists, the kernel of the new society within the shell of the old. They want something better now and that is something the WSM cannot supply. 

The simple answer to this 'response' is to point out that 'cooperatives' are not 'the kernel of the new society'.Cooperatives are actually 'the kernel of the old society within the shell of the old', yet another version of 'market exchange'.This is exposed by their 'wanting something better now' (ie. within capitalist relations).All we can offer at present is a view of the future, because we're nowhere near making 'something better now', and we should concede that to supporters of cooperatives.For us, World Socialism is 'The Cooperative', not a continuation of market (or other) competition between a plurality of 'cooperatives', each concerned only with itself, but a singular world cooperative in which all social production is controlled democratically. That is, a Democratic World (not individual production by either biology or social sub-groups).If workers simply want better conditions within capitalism now, we should point them to unions or cooperatives, and openly say that we wish to build consciously for our future, a building which is critical of what exists (rather than pragmatically uses what exists).We democratic socialists have different aims to cooperatives, alan. The 'pragmatic now for accepted old' doesn't have our aim of 'critical now for created new'.

[LBird]

Ex Machina wrote:

…social revolution begins when the forces of production develop to the point that they come in conflict with the relations of production.

I think that it's important to acknowledge that Marx's theory about conflict between forces and relations of production is not a theory of 'technology being the driver of change'.Marx's 'forces of production' and 'relations of production' both involve social theory and practice. That is, it's not a theory of 'stuff' (forces) driving 'ideas' (relations).Marx is making the point that the theory and practice of our social forces comes into conflict with the theory and practice of our social relations.Without that acknowledgement, it's easy (and often has been done) to fall into 'technological determinism', where workers are regarded as passive, and have to merely await suitable 'techological development'. There are as many 'ideas' in the forces as in the relations.Democratic Socialism won't come into being without our changing of our theory and practice in all areas of social production. Social consciousness is central to change. 'Fetters' start with our ideas, which are often those of the ruling class, and we have to criticise them. Self-development of the proletariat is the key, not technological change.

[LBird]

Bijou Drains wrote:

LBird wrote:

 You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.

Dictionary definition of "Elite"" Noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"Seems to me that by selecting out infants and people with dementia, which apparently you agree with, you have selected out  a group of people, creatign a select group that by definition is an elite. Not my words, but your.I am examining your propositions, your view of things, not giving mine.

[my bold]I'd read your chosen definition again, BD, you don't seem to understand it.'A select superior to the rest of society' is an elite, not a majority.You seem to be wanting to define a 'majority' as a 'dictatorship' – the politics behind that attempt is nothing to do with democratic socialism. Perhaps your own version of 'straightness' is beginning to show, after all.

[LBird]

You still haven't given a straight answer about which areas of social production you'd deny democracy, DB. This 'straightness' of yours seems to be a one-way street.You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.I think most workers would think that that category would consist of the vast majority of humans, but perhaps you could explain how you seem to see a 'majority' as an 'elite'?I'm beginning to think that you're not really interested in the issue of 'democracy within social production' (ie. World Socialism), and simply wish to retain at least some areas (perhaps physics, logic, mathematics, etc.) as the preserve of an educational elite.How about a straight answer to the question of which areas of social production that you'd deny democracy within?

[LBird]

You haven't returned the courtesy, BD, and answered my question. Fair dos, eh?But, attempting to make an answer out of your post, if your list of areas which you will deny democracy really extend beyond infants and dementia sufferers (which you probably would be able to make a good political argument for, and would probably win a vote) to physics…… then you intend to deny democracy within a central part of the theory and practice of social production.If I've understood you properly, why not simply say to workers that this is what you intend, to leave political power within the hands of an elite within certain areas, and list those areas?I think that in these areas that you'd lose a vote, and the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat would make a start on making all science comprehensible to all proletarians.That is, education would be democratised. If you oppose democracy within education, then you should say so, openly, and explain why you hold these anti-democratic views.

[LBird]

Bijou Drains wrote:

Come on then, in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion, I'll give it one last go and ask you a straight question, in the hope of a straight answer.My question is:In your view does democratic decision making extend to every member of the community and to every question of social production?

I've always given a straight answer to any straight question – the problem is, some posters don't seem to like my straight answers, and proceed to attack me personally (and then complain when I reply in kind).But, since you're claiming to be asking 'in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion', I'll give it a go, too.In my view, within World Socialism, every question of social production extends to every member of the community, thus only democratic decision making is politically acceptable.If you don't agree with 'democracy' within all social production within World Socialism, that's fair enough – but the ball's in your court to explain why you oppose 'democracy', and, if not everywhere, within which political contexts you intend to deny democracy within social production.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology  followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

Your failure to address the question and make yet a further attempt to go Off-topic is in my opinion proff positive that you are unable to answer the question.

Brian's topic: "How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century?"LBird's answer: "Your 'Materialism' (which you claim to be 'The Marxist Theory') isn't relevant in any way at all to the 21st century (and never has been)".Simple enough, and direct, answer, Brian.Or do you want me to outline why your 'Materialism' isn't?The obvious starting point is that, as Marx argued, your 'Materialism' wasn't democratic in the 19th or 20th centuries, and still isn't in the 21st century.If we aspire to build a 'democratic socialism', then a 'democratic theory' is required from the start. 'Materialism' isn't democratic, and so is of no use for this purpose.I'm not making any false claim here, because you've often said in the past that you won't have democracy in all social production – you reserve at least some to elite control. The real problem is that you never explain how an elite theory can be used to build a democratic society, in the 21st century, or any other.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.

Can we stick to the question please.  I would have thought it would be easy peasy for a person with knowledge of Marxist theory.  I'm sure that answering the "How" will not prove too great a difficulty for you.

OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology  followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Oh dear in your eagerness to advertise your pet[ty] hobby horse you lost track of the fact that the question is asking "How" and not 'Is the Marxist theory relevant in the 21st Century?'  For just this once could you please stay on track by focusing on how Marxist theory is relevant in the 21st Century rather than doing yet another deliberate Off-topic distraction?For instance the "How" is deductible by ascertaining that the Marxist theory is very relevant in the twenty first century not just for its alternative outlook on the capitalist mode of production but also for the provision of a methodology that systematically induces us to investigate the revolutionary process associated with social evolution so we become aware of the past, the present and the future.You claim to be a democratic Marxist so is it too much to ask for you exhibit your democratic credentials by responding to the question and not your personal theory on democratic outcomes?

If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Is Marx just 'philosophy and sociology' (ie. the humanities, 'soft science'), or is Marx relevant to 'physics, maths, logic, philosophy, sociology, etc.', (ie. all science, whether defined as 'hard' or 'soft')?

To clarify what I was arguing, those elements of Marx' writings about philosophy, sociology, etc. were largely adaptations or syntheses of other writers, so Marx is not essential to those debates, Marx' most significant original contribution was the theory of exploitation: Marxism does not hang by it's philosophy of science (though Marx' writings on the subject are certainly interesting) but by the theory of exploitation, and all the derived extrapolations therefrom.Unless I am wrong, and there is a specific innovation of Marx' in those philosophies.

[my bold]Thanks for the clarification, YMS, because I was a little unsure if I had got the correct gist of what you were saying.To further clarify, I've bolded what I think is the heart of your post:1. Marx is largely derivative (except for economic 'exploitation');2. Outside of 'exploitation', his views on 'science' are 'not essential'.This is an opinion that I do not share.I regard Marx's views on 'exploitation' to be fundamentally related to his views about social production, and its socio-historical nature. By 'social production', I think Marx included all 'science', and the social production of 'nature-for-us'. I think that his ideas were revolutionary (ie., not simply derivative of earlier ones, but fundamentally new).It seems that, from your perspective, that if 'exploitation' (as you'd define it) were removed, then Marx's views would be superfluous to society. To put it in context of this thread, if 'exploitation' were removed during the 21st century, then Marx would become an irrelevance.From my perspective, 'social production' will carry on forever (it being a 'natural' condition of humanity, according to Marx), and so Marx's views, which are much wider than 'exploitation', would continue to be relevant, to physics, maths, logic, etc., because these are all social products, and change (as can the concept of 'matter': we don't have to employ it, there are alternatives).Again, to clarify, I think Marx is concerned with the power of social production (politics in all modes of production), whereas you seem to restrict Marx to 'exploitation' (economics in class-based modes of production).If asked to label our conflicting views of Marx, I'd call yours 'materialist' (in the 18th century, pre-Marx sense), and label mine 'social productionist' (Marx's 'new materialism', or, better as an explanation, 'idealism-materialism').

[LBird]

Bob Andrews wrote:

All of a sudden, fascism looks very attractive. Do I have to have 'social power' ( whatever that is )? After all, as things stand I just call myself Professor and everyone has to put up with it.

Well, Marx warned where 'materialism' would lead to, politically. Professors, just like you, who really believe that they know better than any 'society' of seven billion others.Apparently, according to a professor, 'everyone has to put up with it'. The bourgeois elite "I/Me/Myself" principle, as advocated by the 'Free Market', which doesn't recognise 'social power'.And to think that Brian and YMS were wondering whether Marx was still relevant in the 21st century.

[LBird]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Would it be open to me to truthfully describe myself as a professor even though I didn't get through the 11-plus? Can't see myself getting elected as one. 

Depends upon which ideology, those doing the 'voting', were employing, Bob.If it's a Fascist plebiscite, and you already personally have the social power to determine 'truth', then perhaps you would be.

Bob Andrews wrote:

Between you and me I tell anyone who will listen I am a  professor. …Professor of Microcalifragilistics, Robert Andrews.

If El Presidente, the most glorious Robert Andrews, says so… Welcome to the thread, Professor Andrews!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbirds point is sage, what part of 'Marxist theory' do we mean?… All else is just useful philosophy and sociology, but disprove that statement, then Marx is rendered redundant.

But that's the point being argued, YMS.Is Marx just 'philosophy and sociology' (ie. the humanities, 'soft science'), or is Marx relevant to 'physics, maths, logic, philosophy, sociology, etc.', (ie. all science, whether defined as 'hard' or 'soft')?If 'Marxism' is Engels' 'Materialism', then Marx is indeed 'rendered redundant' for the 21st century.But if 'Marxism' is concerned with all social production (ie. also including so-called 'academic knowledge'), then Marx is still relevant.As a Marxist and a Democratic Communist, I'd argue that the class conscious proletariat has to democratise academia – that is, all education classes become democratically controlled, all positions of power (professors, etc.) are elected, and even 'truth' is regarded as a social product, which is produced for socio-historical purposes for specific groups in society.All this 'democracy' is, of course, anathaema to the ideology which Engels unwittingly espoused, which is suited to an elite group. 'Materialism' is a ruling class, bourgeois ideology.The only 'physical' that we can have is the 'physical-for-us'. We must have the power to determine our theories and practices, and our interests and purposes, which inform our social production.Only a society can determine 'physical' – it is not in the power of isolated biological individuals to determine whether something is 'physical' or not, by their 'biological senses'. That view is simply 'the free market' installed into physics.Power is social, not individual.

[Author]

Posts