[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird, yes.Yes, when Engels is investigating society — from pre-historical primitive communist modes of production (of which he is a pioneer), through pre-capitalist social-class modes of production, the capitalist mode of production (of which he is a pioneer, before Marx) and a future socialist mode of production (of which he saw clearly before anyone else) — he is talking about the implications of ‘social production’. Always without exception.Yes.  Engels’s celebrated account, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, of the materialist conception of history, which is effectively his popularization for workers of Marx’s Preface to the Critique (which I excerpted for you, in continuous sequence, above) is social.Yes. I have affirmed this, and have always affirmed it, and have no need to re-affirm what I’ve never denied.I stand by my word.

[my bold]So, as you clearly affirm, and have always affirmed, and quite reasonably see no need to re-affirm yet again, when the term 'materialist' is used by both Marx and Engels, it always means 'social production'.That's what I've always affirmed, too. That 'material production' is synonymous with 'social production'.Now, we can stand by our word, twc.And move this discussion forward. Let's hope no-one reverts to claiming that Marx was talking about 'matter', something that 'exists' outside of our 'social production'.Since we 'socially produce' what the bourgeoisie call 'matter', we can change the concept, as Marx argued, to 'inorganic nature'.And discuss how humans, being consciously active, labour upon 'inorganic nature' to socially produce 'organic nature'.Although, it's odd that Engels seemed to think, at times, that 'inorganic nature' meant 'matter'. But we've put that all aside now, haven't we? And realised that Engels was really talking, just as Marx was, about 'social production'.We could even start a new thread (which no doubt would please the ever-forbearing mods) about who, when and why humans socially produced 'matter'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.

LOL the irony of ironies –  LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided"  without so much as a single  working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands  of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird?  Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary.  Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical?  Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom  on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?

That's right, robbo – I've already decide that 'democratic socialism' can only mean 'democratic socialism', and not alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism'. I'm a worker that's had experience of a form of 'democracy' a bit like alan's (ie. 'democratic centralism').I'm quite willing to put this to a vote of workers – do they want 'democratic socialism' (within which they decide) or do they want 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism' (within which it's been pre-decided by an elite, that somethings cannot be decided by the workers themselves).I already know that this issue is of no interest to you – at least alan wants some sort of 'democratic socialism', whereas you just want 'robbo individualism'.So, we can expect, during the struggle to build socialism by workers, for those workers to be confronted by this question. Perhaps they'll vote for the SPGB's and alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism', perhaps for 'democratic socialism'… perhaps even for 'robbo individualism'.I'm prepared for their decision. Unlike you or alan, apparently.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird, you are the only person to state here that Engels thought the materialist conception of history was about matter.Read (above) what Engels wrote about the materialist conception of history in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. It’s clear enough.So far you have decided on matter,  Nobody else has.  Surely that’s clear enough.

So, for the third time, will you confirm what you wrote earlier, that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'?What's the problem with simply confirming what you wrote earlier?

[LBird]

MBellemare wrote:

Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large??? 

Given that you've not followed a very long political, ideological and philosophical discussion here, over years, you don't know the context of this debate.But, having said that, perhaps you can answer a question that the SPGB seems incapable of doing.If you are a 'democratic socialist' (and I'm assuming that you are, for now, but you can correct me later), who or what would determine 'truth' within a democratic socialist society?To make you aware of the central issue (and so more careful of your answer), this is a question about political power and who wields it.I'm simply asking, if not society employing democratic methods, which elite is going to make decisions about 'truth'?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird. i'm not going to enter into any long exchange since i'm off the grid right now and sitting in a Starfucks at 2 quid a cup of tea.But i think Tim answered for me and you really shouldn't read into messages what you want to read. I think its called confirmation bias.

I still think my assumption was correct – you discussed "workers' democracy" in the context of the Soviet Union. Why would you discuss "workers' democracy" and supposed potential problems surrounding it, by reference to the political practices of the Stalinists, if you weren't making some link between them? Surely, if someone were to discuss 'socialism' by reference to 'National Socialism', you'd assume that that person saw some link between 'socialism' and 'Nazism', which we'd both be quick to reject. In the same way, I reject any political link between "workers' democracy" and the non-democratic SU. I wanted to know why you brought up the comparison – if not to damn "workers' democracy" by linking it in some way to the SU.

ajj wrote:

Lee Harvey Oswald quickly learned that the Soviet Union was not socialism and that there existed an elite in control that used the pretence of workers' democracy as a cover. We see it in our own trade unions…The accusations against the Trots of making union meeting so fucking boring no-one attends and therefore they get what they want passed is well documented.

I agree entirely, alan. But, "the pretence of workers' democracy" clearly isn't "workers' democracy" (as you know), so why link my arguments for "workers' democracy" with a non-democratic, elitist, Leninist political regime? I had to assume that you're savvy enough to have realised what you were doing, within the context of a political discussion about 'democracy'.

ajj wrote:

I think we can have TOO MUCH democracy and anyone who has been a member of the SPGB for any length of time will recognise what i mean.We implement decisions with the speed of a glacier. 

Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.Well, that's a good start, when trying to attract interested, curious, workers to 'democratic socialism' – tell them that the 'democratic' part is problematic, and you are part of the elite that has pre-decided that, even before workers themselves get a chance to employ their own 'social theory and practice', to see if they themselves can make 'democracy-for-them' work or not.For you, membership and experience of the theory and practice of the SPGB has shown that the theory of 'full democracy' doesn't work, and produces 'glacier-like' practice.Have you never considered that the 'theory' of the SPGB is not actually 'democratic'? That the SPGB, when challenged by me to talk about its 'democratic theory' in social production, either can't answer, resorts to 'elite experts', resorts to 'individuals', or resorts to personal abuse?Given that the SPGB's version of 'democratic theory' is so questionable, it would come as no surprise to find that the 'democratic practice' based upon that flawed 'theory', doesn't actually work.Couln't that account for your experience of 'democracy'? That your experience is much the same as workers in the SU? That both sets of workers have met a load of elitist bluffers, who use 'democracy' as a 'cover' for their own elite theory and practice?Even when I ask you 'who in socialism would produce 'truth', if not the social producers by democratic methods?', you can't (or won't) answer.I suppose it's easier to blame Democratic Communists and Marxists for arguing for 'TOO MUCH democracy', and to tell workers now that, in effect, the SPGB 'knows better' than the world proletariat. Isn't this much the same approach, as that of the Leninists towards the workers in the SU?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

Once we've clarified … that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production' (and not 'matter')…

If the passages (which you mocked) from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific can’t change your opinion about whether Engels was saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution, then my opinion can’t.Since, in your idealist–materialist [sic] view, thought can never break free from opinion, the onus falls squarely on you to explain, in your opinion:Why your idealism–materialism [sic] misled you to your former opinion — that Engels was not saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution?Why, in idealist–materialist [sic] terms, you have now changed your mind?

I'm a bit confused now, twc.All I asked is for you to confirm what you wrote – that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'.I can only try again – twc, do you agree that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'?Once we've clarified that political issue, we can move on to a discussion about to what extent Marx and Engels, as writers, built upon that understanding, and to what extent, either or both of them, confused the issue for future generations of democratic socialists (by allowing the myth to grow that they were talking about 'matter', and not 'social production').There's a chance for a real political discussion here – why not take it?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

Engels said something different to Marx.Marx was talking about 'social production', not 'matter'.

Engels is saying the same thing as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution.So is Engels.

[my bold]This is a promising development, twc – your opinion.Right, now we're getting somewhere!So, twc, in your opinion, is this 'same thing', that you argue that Marx is talking about and Engels agrees, either:a) 'social production'; or,b) 'matter'?Once we've clarified that you agree that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production' (and not 'matter'), which you seem to be doing above, then there's great scope for further discussion. A development about which I'm very pleased.

[LBird]

Tim, I only got to Question 1, and since I've answered this time and time and time again (to you, Vin, robbo, YMS, etc.), it appears that you either can't read or won't read what I write.When you've gone back and read what I wrote in answer to this question the last few times, I'll then take your request seriously. Until then, I can't treat your post as a serious attempt at political discussion.So, post a quote of mine, answering that question the last time it was asked, and we might start to make progress. From Question 2.

[LBird]

But all you've showed, twc, is that I (along with many other Marxists) am correct.1. Engels said something different to Marx.2. Marx was talking about 'social production', not 'matter'.I've shown this time and again, but you won't discuss it. Posting long passages, stripped from political context, and without our critical historical appreciation of their meaning, is not a discussion.All you're doing, is following the religious method of priests, and quoting uncritically from your interpretation of an allegedly infallible scripture.Unfortunately for the medieval priests, once the Bible was published in English (and other languages readable by the vast majority), their interpretation of 'The Holy Word' was shown to be debatable.Thus, we have revolutions.It's not enough to imperiously present 'The Holy Word' before us, as if that elite act is enough.Hitting workers over the head with Capital, to prove its 'Truth', will prove 'the truth of its materiality' through their headaches, but not necessarily 'the truth of its conscious content'.Discussion and persuasion are vital, if we are to build a democratic socialism, twc.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdMaybe the problem is you need to bring a short quotation from Engels.

Yeah, this, though, is a 'problem' that I'll be prevented from addressing on this thread, since I've addressed this 'problem' over several years, over probably a hundred other threads, where I've provided in great scholarly detail all the 'proof, sources and references'. So, although, on this thread, my remarks might appear as mere 'assertions', I have copiously quoted Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Kautsky, Labriola, Brzozowski, Bogdanov, Lenin, Lukacs, Gramsci, Korsch, Pannekoek, a list which only takes us up to the 1930s. There are even more sources from since the 1930s, but I think that you'll have got the gist of what I'm saying.If you're interested, you could have a look at some of those threads; if not, and you're already satisfied with Engels' 'materialism', that's fine by me, and I'll let you continue to discuss these issues in the way that you see fit.As for me, I'll stop before the mod feels compelled to intervene.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If it is workers' democracy we want, …workers were discouraged not by lack of consultation but the amount of it…after meeting every day and every week…many compulsory…

So, alan, you're arguing that the Soviet Union's version of 'consultation' amounted to "workers' democracy"? Wow!

Previously I have tried (sometimes by your own admission successfully) taking the piss out of you, but I think after reading the above I have to admit that at times I'm beat,L Bird you really are beyond parody, your ability to misconstrue any statement made by another is an absolute marvel of the modern world. I would go as far as to say, and I don't say this lightly, your ability to misrepresent any comment made in a negative and derogatory way goes beyond that of my late mother in law, and that is my friend very great praise.L Bird, a one man mixture of misunderstanding, misrepresentaion and misconstruction, I salute you sir!

Tim, you could try reading the political discussion, and then making some political comment, about both sides, but you regard yourself as a 'Genius Jester', whose 'witty quips' keep us all in tucks of laughter, 'The Joker'.Perhaps 'A Joke' would be more accurate for your knowledge, if only you had Rabbie's power.Anyway, back to the grown-ups' political discussion…

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx was talking about how we collectively control our own natural production, which we are compelled to do by our natural existence.  This ‘compulsion’ isn’t a trick by the bourgeoisie…  We can’t ‘retire’ from it, as a species.

LBird’s natural compulsion operating upon ‘our species’, independent of our will, is the foundation that opens up the (otherwise closed) possibility of a deterministic science of society.A science that comprehends external necessity has no choice but to recognize that thought is not the determiner of the necessity, but is the determined, just as LBird asserts against ajj.LBird acknowledges that social reproduction is subject to external necessity, from which he has abstracted a deterministic social law, and that society (as a whole, despite some members of it) isn’t free to practice just as it desires nor to think just as it pleases.And herein lies the germ of Marx’s materialism and Marx’s deterministic science of society which investigates the social forms that arise under the compulsion for social practice to reproduce society:“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.  The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.  The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.  It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” [Marx, A Contribution…].

There is much I agree with in what twc writes – I've tried to engage with twc, many times, and discuss these issues, but twc, like the rest of the SPGB, seems to prefer personal abuse to answering political questions.For example, as twc point out, Marx wrote "their social existence that determines their consciousness".This is not 'matter determines thought'.It is 'social theory and practice of production determines social theory and practice of political/ideological consciousness'.Because, for Marx, there is 'social' in both 'existence' and 'consciousness', there are clearly 'ideas' in both 'existence' and 'consciousness'.It's Engels who made the mistake of reading 'material' to mean 'matter', and Marx always referred to 'production' (ie., social theory and practice), in which humans were 'the active side'. This is nothing whatsover to do with 'matter' determining 'ideas'.For Marx, we determine. That's why we can change our social product.'Matter' does not 'determine'. But 'materialists' wish to find something which determines, outside of workers' consciousness, but they themselves claim to have a 'special consciousness', which allows them alone to 'know material conditions' which the workers don't and can't.This 'material' must always be something that workers must be unaware of, and that an elite of 'materialists' are aware of.Marx specifically warns against this 'materialism', which he realises will lead to a division in society, between a minority and the mass, over whom the minority rule.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

Workers become aware of ENGELS’ MATERIAL CONDITIONS and establish Socialist Production.

The problem now, Alan, if I continue our conversation, is that I'll be warned by the mod.All I should say is that Engels' interpretation of 'material' was not Marx's interpretation of 'material'. Those who follow Engels, like you seemingly, define 'material' as 'matter' (or, something 'tangible', not 'ideal'), whereas Marx, when he used the term 'material', was talking about humans (as opposed to when he used 'ideal', meaning divine). So, for Marx, the terms 'material production' and 'social production' are synonymous.The key difference is that Engelsist 'materialists' regard 'material' as something outside of human consciousness and ideas, whereas Marxists regard 'material' as something to do with social theory and practice, social production, which includes human consciousness and ideas.So, for Engelsists, 'material' can be discussed outside of socio-historical production, which is always production-for a social producer. For a Marxist, we can only discuss 'material-for'.So, to answer your statement, above, it's not 'workers becoming aware of' something which already exists, but 'workers producing their own product, which does not yet exist'. Engels' material conditions won't do anything, and don't make workers aware of those 'material conditions'. Any conscious 'awareness' will always come through social productive activity, by workers themselves. If workers are passive, their 'awareness of material conditions' will always be a bourgeois awareness of those same.I'll leave it at that, and hope the mod will give me the leeway, since you probably aren't aware of these issues.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdThe fact is we can’t avoid stages.Or can you for instance explain how automation could come before simple manufacture?No?Then you must accept stages.Before machines there were not even many wage workers to take part in your struggles.Struggles cannot avoid stages.

So, you'll have to define your 'stages', Alan. Are they 'technological' stages, or 'social production' stages? That is, regarding the defining characteristic of your 'stages', is it 'material stuff' or 'social relationships'?I'm with Marx, and would focus upon 'stages' of 'social production'. That is, 'class struggle' rather than 'machines'.So, any discussion of 'Marx and Automation' would be about the differences between 'bourgeois automation' and 'proletarian automation' (perhaps even some similarities).But a discussion of 'automation-in-itself' would be asocial and ahistorical.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I go away for a day and return to two threads that are meaningless to any neutral visitor. Number of angels dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind…I'll be basically offline for a week or so and will expect to return to screeds of messages after messages which in no way relate or resonate with any of my fellow-workers. If it is workers' democracy we want, then boring them stiff and so that they will not participate or get involved will be one method of keeping the elite in charge.I posted a link to Lee Harvey Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union which i doubt anybody really read and how workers were discouraged not by lack of consultation but the amount of it…after meeting every day and every week…many compulsory…

So, alan, you're arguing that the Soviet Union's version of 'consultation' amounted to "workers' democracy"? Wow!

ajj wrote:

Worker's democracy for me is all about creating a situation that will free me from work obligations and the slavery of giving my time to it. Why do you think we all look forward to retirement from it

But this is not "workers' democracy" within social production, alan. You are defining it as 'individual freedom' (much as robbo does), which is a ruling class idea. Marx was talking about how we collectively control our own natural production, which we are compelled to do by our natural existence. This 'compulsion' isn't a trick by the bourgeoisie, to prevent you 'sunning yourself on the beach'. We can't 'retire' from it, as a species.

ajj wrote:

roll on robotics when decision-making itself itself is automated,  self-monitoring and self-adjusting…and i can fully enjoy the fruits of machinery, by the beach with my pina colada…or a good malt in tree-covered, loch-speckled  hills 

But you're just talking about personal enjoyment, not social production. I'm all with you, on a personal level, robotic house-cleaner, boozy beach parties, roaming in the gloaming to visit a whisky distillery…… but workers' democracy is about how we go about ensuring that everyone on this planet gets to enjoy the fruits of our collective efforts.On the whole, your post just confirms to me what I've long suspected… many in the SPGB seem to be only concerned with 'individual freedom' (in the hippy sense), rather than building a collective social consciousness, concerned centrally with production. From your perspective, "workers' democracy" is nothing but a 'compulsion', which prevents your liberation. Whatever it is, it's nothing to do with Marx or socialism, alan.'Meetings' won't disappear in socialism, alan. It's a lie to say so to workers, now. And the idea that 'machines will make decisions' is technocracy, not democratic socialism, and will lead to an active elite controlling 'machines', and a passive mass, who can avoid 'meetings'. It sounds more like Brave New World.

[Author]

Posts