LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:This is a question which was sent to me on Quora and I replied to: https://www.quora.com/How-relevant-is-the-Marxist-theory-in-the-twenty-first-century/answer/Brian-Johnson-429 Would appreciate users opinion on this forum regarding this subject.
The first step would be to define 'Marxist'.It must be obvious, given our exchanges over the last few years, that there has been an ongoing debate since the late 19th century about whether 'Marxism' is anything to do with Marx's views about democratic socialism, or has been simply a re-run of elitist politics and philosophy (ruling class ideas about nature and humanity), which has its orgins in Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's views.That is, what most thinkers since the late 19th century have called 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'. Any reading of Kautsky, Plekhanov or Lenin, shows that their views were elitist, and anti-proletarian power.As I've also pointed out, this problem predates the Leninist view of 'Marxism' and the Bolshevik Revolution, so predates the foundation of the SPGB. Thus, the SPGB itself is contaminated by this 'Engelsism' (which is synomymous with 'Materialism' or 'Physicalism').That's one user's considered political opinion, Brian.
jondwhite wrote:… but what role would democracy play in your 'alt-socialism'? You don't mention it under 'state', 'authority' or even 'political unit', even in your description of our definition of socialism!But be open about the SPGB's version of 'socialism', too, jdw!You won't say either, 'what role would democracy play in your 'socialism', for physics, logic, mathematics, science generally, etc., etc.Apparently, you completely separate 'state, authority, political unit' from the central theoretical core of social production within society.That is, your 'socialism' shares a lack of democracy with Ike's 'alt-socialism'. Both avoid discussing 'social power'.
Vin wrote:I hope I don't sound like a little Bird here but the working class needs to define the Truth of poverty.That's what 'power' is all about, Vin. The power to 'define'. Without that power, someone else will 'define'.Where we differ is not in this view of sociology, but in that Marxists extend your insight to physics, too.Simply put, someone socially produces 'definitions', in all areas of production.
jondwhite wrote:Submissions aren't limited to those topics so feel free to submit something.Perhaps you're missing the point.
jondwhite wrote:Quote:The Russian journal “Epistemology & Philosophy of Science” (http://journal.iph.ras.ru/) announces a call for papers for a special thematic issue devoted to the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. The submissions are welcomed in terms of but not limited to the following topics:Marxist tradition of constructing a scientific philosophy and the modern naturalization trendMarxist understanding of science as an intellectual activity and a social institutionMarxist ideas of the social nature of cognition and the contemporary science and technology studiesScientific revolutions and the role of metaphysics in scienceDialectical materialism and the varieties of realismEpistemological theory of reflexion and its alternativesRepresentation and construction in knowledgeRelativism revisited and Lenin’s critique of relativismThe individual and collective cognitive agent: difference, identity, reductionN. Bukharin, B. Hessen and the science policy todayMarxism, Russian cosmism and post-humanism about the prospects of science, technology and humanityjdw, I think that it's very revealing that not one of those topic titles feature the political term 'democracy'.The fact that a discussion can be had about Marx's views without mentioning 'democracy' at the very forefront, shows how far any current academic notion of 'Marxism' is from Marx's own views about our world.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:@ LBirdYou are correct, though a paradox arises in that I may ask myself by what measure or standard I consider you correct and we are then back to ideological materialism. So I will say you are right. Either way, I agree.Thanks for your agreement with Marx's Democratic Communism, Ike.Of course, 'measures' and 'standards' are always social products (it's a bourgeois myth that they don't impose their own ruling class measures and standards upon the world that they have created for their interests and purposes, including within physics, maths, logic, indeed, all 'science'), and so for a democratic socialist society all 'measures' and 'standards' would be our creation, and so subject to our democratic controls.Apparently, the SPGB disagree with Marx, and the SPGB wishes to remove the power to determine, eg., physics, from our democratic control, and to simply allow to continue the ruling class physics that were instituted with the emergence of the capitalist class (again, eg., the 'mathematisation of nature', the supposed 'objectifying of reality' to allow 'objective measurement').Marx argued that we create our world, a 'nature-for-us'. Thus, we can change our world. Bourgeois physics insists that, once supposedly 'discovered', their supposed 'objective world' can only be contemplated.Bourgeois 'science' is inherently conservative, and 'contemplation' preserves the status quo. From our perspective, of Democratic Communism, science must be revolutionised, and thus democratised.
Marcos wrote:Vin wrote:gnome wrote:Marcos wrote:They must be removed. That would be the best solutionNo, Marcos – the best solution would be for you (or any other member) to answer the political questions that I posed to you, quite properly, earlier.It's simple – tell us workers, why you won't have workers' democracy in all social production, including science.Hiding, ignoring, insulting or banning, are not political answers.
Marcos wrote:If you have so much faith in the workers, Why aren't you a member of a workers party? I know the answer: They are all Leninists, Engelsians and StalinistsYou're correct here, Marcos.The SPGB (and the ICC) are not "a workers party".If I ask you (as a representative of the SPGB) to give me a political answer to the question 'who or what has power to determine reality within socialism', you won't answer 'the revolutionary proletariat', but you'll answer 'matter'.This 'materialist' ideology (a bourgeois ideology for an elite) was not Marx's view, and he warned that it would split society into two: a small elite who pretend to 'know reality' and are thus 'the active side', and a majority who can't, and remain passive.Politically, this incomprehension by Engels led to Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc., thinking that 'matter determined thought' for the passive majority, whilst they, as members of an elite whose thought was not determined by 'matter' (but had the freedom to be creative), were to provide 'leadership' for the passive workers.As we've seen on this site, when I've previously asked this political question, I've received the political answer that 'reality' is not, and will not, be created by the majority.As Marx claimed that humans create 'reality-for-them' (and different modes of production and classes socially produce different 'realities'), then 'the active side' will remain a ruling elite, whilst there is not workers' democracy in all social production, including 'academic knowledge' and 'science'.Socialism means the majority can vote for their own reality, a 'nature-for-humanity', by our own creative social theory and practice.The SPGB, like the Leninists, deny this, and see an elite (including themselves) as the determiners of a 'reality' which the majority cannot change.The SPGB never addresses Marx's concerns with change, but instead argues that the proletariat must only contemplate a 'reality' which already 'exists', and is 'objective'.Marx argues that we humans create our 'objects'.You are not 'a workers party', but a party of 'elite materialism', as are the ICC.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Now, if i was you, LBird, i would be asking myself is there anything in the style of my debating rather than the substance of it that could be improved to help convince others.Have you found any receptive audience in your cyber travels?It's impossible to 'convince' materialists, alan, because they worship their god 'matter'.They have Faith In Matter, not Faith In Workers.That's why they always turn to insults and bans, because they can't put together a political argument that involves democratic controls on the social production of our world.Marx was right – 'materialists' can't have majority rule.
ALB wrote:Why didn't we let sleeping dodos lie!? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.The SPGB is a 'sleeping dodo, lying' inactive, ALB. If even your party members have recognised this, perhaps you'll stop being 'materialists', and your own worst enemy.
moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:For those Democratic Communists with any real political interest in these issues, about "Workers' Power" and about why 'materialists' will always ban Marxists (as indeed did the SPGB), please read this ICC thread regarding 'Do stones talk to us?'.http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/baboon/14363/do-stones-talk-us
Correction. You have never been "banned" from this forum and its likely you never will. But nevertheless, when a user continually breach the rules they will face a suspension. And you have received five to date, which in my opinion is nothing to be proud of.
Well, I've been 'banned' in exactly the same way here, that I've been 'banned' by the ICC, so if the SPGB mods think that those acts are something that the SPGB and ICC should be proud of…The real political problem, affecting both 'materialist' parties, is why they should ban a Democratic Communist and Marxist, for quoting Marx, and showing that the political and philosophical basis of all of their arguments are nonsense, rather than themselves explain to workers why and how, according to Marx, workers must build for themselves their 'nature-for-them'.Why do the SPGB and ICC never mention workers, democracy, socialism nor Marx, when the SPGB or ICC are discussing nature, matter, science, physics, epistemology, ontology, reality, existence, maths, logic, etc., etc.?The simple answer is that 'materialists' don't have to include those social factors in any discussion, because for them 'matter' is the root creator of The Universe. This is not Marx's viewpoint, and 'materialists' ignore Marx's views.It would be more politically honest for the SPGB and ICC to be straight with workers, and tell them that workers will not democratically create their own universe.You 'materialists' know something that workers can't (allegedly). In politics, 'materialism' is simply 'Leninism'. And its roots go back to at least 1859, with Engels' mangling of Marx's views.It's nothing to be proud of, moderator1, that your party can't argue with these political and philosophical views, which have their roots in Marx's Democratic Communism.SPGB? Dead from the neck up, since 1904?
Vin wrote:"The problem that LBird has presented is not therefore, his formal political positions, but the way he approaches debate and the resulting impact on the discussions that he becomes involved with.The first question is his use of continual ad hominem attacks. LBird’s constant refrain is that his debating opponents are “materialist” and therefore “Leninist” with the ultimate implication that they are Stalinist.Were his opponents defending Stalinist (or “positivist”, “Leninist” or “Trotskyist”, for that matter) positions (nationalism, state control of the economy, imperialism, party rule, repression of the working class, etc.) this might be a legitimate charge." ICCSounds familiar:
Why am I not surprised that Vin takes the statement of the Leninist ICC to be an 'objective' statement of the exchanges between me and the ICC?Vin should also read the other link that I've provided, which gives a better feel for the reasons I was banned.I'm a Democratic Communist, who argues that only workers themselves can determine whether 'matter' is a suitable category for changing our reality, for changing our 'nature-for-us'.'Materialists', like Vin and the ICC, will not have workers deciding democratically for themselves.Hence, Vin's political agreement with the ICC's statement.
For those Democratic Communists with any real political interest in these issues, about "Workers' Power" and about why 'materialists' will always ban Marxists (as indeed did the SPGB), please read this ICC thread regarding 'Do stones talk to us?'.http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/baboon/14363/do-stones-talk-usYou'll notice that, as usual, I quote from Marx himself.Marx warns that 'materialists' will divide society into two, with the smaller part (the 'materialists') always dominating the larger part (the proletariat).That's why 'materialists' will not have workers deciding for themselves about 'matter'. The 'stones' thread explores this further.Oh yeah, Merry Christmas, and have a 'Materialist New Year'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:You show me a 'social' which doesn't have 'mind', and I'll show you a liar. Or a bourgeois academic fantasist, determined to 'prove' that we can't have democratic production, but we must rely on bourgeois experts, an 'elite who know reality'.FFS, 'social' and 'conscious' tell you what Marx is talking about. It's not fuckin' 'matter'. It's 'activity'. Labour. Production.I entuirely agree, the mind is entirely material…
'Agreement' and 'Opposition' are also entirely foreign concepts to you, too, aren't they, YMS?You can only 'agree' by writing "the mind is entirely material and the material is entirely mind".You keep separating the two. You're opposing 'material' to 'ideal'.You can only 'agree' with Marx if you, like he did, unify the two.Perhaps you're best left to your own dream world. At least Engels was confused only some of the time…
