[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@VinThank you,Yes I was wrong there.Well then,1) 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’ comes earlier.2) automation-for-the-worker comes later.Please see The Socialist Preamble.Or see anything by Marx and Engels.Is that better?

Presume your theory is 'Stalinist Stages Theory', then?I'm for class struggle, here and now, not 'later'. I find that 'later' never actually comes, for those theorists who tell workers that their 'x-for-the-workers' 'comes later'. I suspect that 'later theorists' aren't actually interested in workers' self-development.At least you've got to the view that 'automation' is actually a class issue, which, again, I suspect many reading have never even thought about. I'm talking about the 'materialists', who probably think that 'automation-in-itself' is going to bring socialism, and that they 'know' this because 'automatons' talk to them, alone. I have my doubts. I've actually read both Marx and Engels.Anyway, take a well-earned 'Well Done!', Alan. At least we're now actually talking about 'Marx and Automation', not the 'Machine Socialism' of the 'materialists'.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdOk I’m not SPGB either.Without 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’, what automation would you have to discuss at all?

Funnily enough, I'd have us discuss the other alternative that I've already mentioned.'Automation-for-the-proletariat'.Being a Democratic Communist and a Marxist, I don't recognise the non-social, non-historical, category 'automation'.As a starter, since we're all democratic socialists (well, I could name someone who isn't, but won't), we could discuss democratic 'automation-for-the-proletariat'.I suspect that those who wish to employ the category 'automation' are doing so to hide their anti-democratic intentions, and to pretend that 'automation' is nothing to do with social production, and therefore, nothing to do with democracy.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdYour comment goes beyond (adds to) SPGB Object and Principles. And yet your comment still does not go as far as The Socialist Preamble. Will you go as far as The Socialist Preamble?With The Socialist Preamble, we have a way to explain. If The Preamble is wrong then please explain. Please explain, for instance, the rise of automation. Can you do that and show where the Preamble has got it wrong? 

I'm not a member of the SPGB, Alan, so I'm not bound by its ideological beliefs, whether expressed formally in its 'Object and Principles', or expressed infomally in its adherence to Engels' 'materialism'.Any discussion of 'Marx and Automation' has to have some idea about Marx's views, and discuss just 'who' any 'automation' is for. 'Automation' is not simply about 'machines', but about social production, and who benefits. In a class society like ours, there is 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie' and 'automation-for-the-workers', and discussions about 'automation' alone simply ignore Marx's views.That's where Marx comes in – his ideas about 'social production', historical conditions, and class struggle.

[LBird]

Socialism and Change, hmmm.You stick to your 'Real World', robbo, where the very notion of 'change' is anathema.The 'Real World' where 'Reasonable People' accept the 'Facts Of Life'…I want to discuss with socialists, Marxists, democrats, who start from the revolutionary presumption that this present 'Real World' is not 'real-for-us', where 'Reasonable People' are regarded as murderous dictators, and the 'Facts Of Life' are seen as 'Social Oppression', which we can change.Socialism and Change? You want Individualism and The Status Quo, robbo, and you're going to shit yourself when faced with democratic decision-making, which contradicts your bourgeois, expert-loving, elitist worship.Why can't you envisage a society in which scientists work to democratically-chosen social concepts, within scientific institutions which are run on democratic principles, and where the results of social research are presented in a socially-acceptable language, to a democratic society, for them to decide whether the research results are 'true-for-them'?Who are these 'experts', who have a non-political method, in a non-political science, who don't have to present their findings to a well-educated, well-organised, conscious society?Who determines 'dogma', 'rigidities', and 'eternal'? Apparently, for you, robbo, the whole of humanity, left to their own political devices, will become rigidly dogmatic, for eternity, if you and your elite don't have the power to override humanity!You really think that most people are stupid naturally, don't you, robbo? You can't conceive of a revolutionary social process, whereby the vast majority of humans self-educate themselves, and engage in a revolution which will overthrow your 'Real World', and actively participate in all human research. 'Ignorance' is a social product, not a 'Human Condition', nor part of 'Human Nature'.According to you, anyone who argues these democratic socialist principles, is saying that everyone in socialism will carry out brain surgery on each other! What political ideology has such contempt for 'the masses', and their 'endless stupidity'?You're a Tory, through and through, robbo, and all your bleating is the resistance of 'common sense' to 'revolutionary activity'. And you're, ironically enough, the one who's 'ignorant' of the basics of democratic socialism.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

FFS  this is what is so infuriating  about LBird. . He never makes any attempt to defend his argument,  He just repeats it over and over and over again – like a JW arguing against evolutionIf you are trained as a molecular biologist are you bound to know more than about more molecular biology than some one who is not trained?  Of course you are!! LBird I cant believe even you are that dense as to deny  this.  Of course, the  rest of can come to know as much about molecular biology if we too were inclined to train up to become molecular biologists as well.  But thats not going to happen in the real world is it? 

Here we have again robbo's individualist, elitist ideology, which completely ignores socio-historical production, and the future of a socialist society, which must be built, by us, employing Marx's method of social theory and practice, using democratic methods from the outset.All this political thinking means nothing to robbo – he's an individualist (he doesn't aim for the democratic control of social production, but for the realisation of the bourgeois ideal of 'free individuals') and an elitist (he assumes that academics 'know better' what 'our world' should look like, than we should). All this elitist individualism (ie. ruling class ideas) comes from robbo's belief in 'matter', which an 'individual' (like him) can 'touch' (by his 'biological' senses).I've said this, time and again, as a political explanation, and to defend the argument of democratic socialists. But, apparently, given his 'senses', robbo can't read. Ironic, eh?But, for Democratic Communists, like me, and for Marx, the defining assumption is 'democratic social production'. The earth is a common treasury, for all, and the social production by all for all, based upon our common resources, can only be realised by democratic means.robbo completely ignores the political and philosophical basis of his ruling class ideology, and so doesn't start from 'democracy' in academia.During the building towards socialism, the ideological dominance of bourgeois academics and bourgeois elitist science, must be replaced by a form of education and science more suitable to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary proletariat. So, we'll see the emergence of challenges to the assumptions of bourgeois education (which robbo ignorantly shares), so that our assumption will be that there will not be an 'academic elite' who isolatedly conduct 'science' for their own ideological purposes. Professors-for-us will be elected, and we will determine what ideological concepts the 'professors' employ in our research, in the buildings and facilities we provide, for our scientific needs, interests and purposes. If the elected can't explain in a language suitable to us, they'll be removed. There won't be any 'priests' using 'Latin' to explain 'The Bible'. Or 'physicists' using 'maths' to explain 'matter'. These are revolutionary assumptions, democratic assumptions, suitable for a revolution.robbos' assumptions, that 'scientists know better' than we do, and that this is a state of nature that can't be changed, says everything about his political ideology, which has nothing whatsoever to say to workers who wish to build towards a democratic socialism.robbo knows nothing, and always resorts to insults, of the sort typical of those who think that most workers are thick as pigshit, and can't argue with professors, like Hawking, who even the SPGB has recently corrected.I've said all this to robbo, but he never discusses 'science' as a social and historical activity, or the social production of 'matter', which we can, as Marx argued, change. robbo wants elite contemplation of 'Truth'.'Materialists' follow robbo, and follow Engels, who didn't have a clue what Marx was talking about, and thought that Marx had reverted to the 'Mind-Matter' problem. Marx unified 'Mind-Matter' as 'conscious activity', where both are required. Any discussion of 'matter' outside of its socio-historical production is a reversion to 'materialism', whereas Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', and he says so, and he criticises 'materialists' as elitists.So, Marx was right about you, robbo. 'The real world'? Conservatives unite, eh, robbo?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

You keep insisting that only a materialist minority can determine 'truth'

Can you site one instance where anyone other than yourself has said that?  For instance, I would sugest that Robbo has never said that, …

Read robbo's post following yours, YMS. And then tell me what he says. He doesn't mention workers' democracy, only elites, who are 'bound to know' better than the rest of us.

YMS wrote:

…and I certainly haven't in all our long long discussions.

Well, here's your big chance to clarify, for everyone reading.YMS, do you agree that only the class conscious, democratically organised proletariat can elect 'truth' (ie. 'truth-for-them')?If you don't agree, that's fine, but then you must tell us who or what will determine 'truth' in your 'socialist' society – and so, by extension, who else than the self-developing workers within bourgeois society, as they build for socialism.Only the class conscious, revolutionary, democratic proletariat can build socialism. Or do you disagree? If so, who are 'the builders of socialism', in your political ideology?

[LBird]

It seems to me that a thread entitled 'Marx and Automation' should have at least some reference to the question of 'Automation for who?'.Marx was interested in social production, conscious revolutionary activity by the proletariat, engaged in a democratic political process of self-development.Thus, with Marx, we must ask for whose needs, interests and purposes any posited 'automation' is referring to.'Automation' can only refer to the 'needs for automation of the workers', the 'interests in automation by the workers', and the 'conscious purposes intended for automation by workers'.Put simply, it must be 'automation for us' (not 'automation for the bourgeoisie'). There is no asocial, ahistoric, 'automation', an 'automation in itself'.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdThank you,This matters for this discussion Marx and Automation and Michel Luc Bellemare. ….The class struggle depends on economic steps.Engels was a thinker who came to this way to think independently. 

No, "the class struggle depends on" conscious activity by the proletariat. If, by 'economic', you mean 'social production', then you agree with Marx. But if by 'economic' you mean 'matter', then you agree with Engels.Engels didn't understand Marx, and it was Engels who created what we now know as 'Marxism'. Engels certainly 'came to this way of thinking idependently' of Marx – who was dead, when Engels created 'Marxism'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

MBellemare wrote:

As for May 68, any idea of a Leninist, vangard party, armed-revolution and/or a storming of the winter-palace, is super-problematic to me, as they tend to lead down dark, bloody, rabbit holes. 

I think you will find that that is precisely what  the SPGB has been saying for 100 years now,  Vanguardism can only have one outcome – to reproduce a class based society as the vanguard steps into the shoes vacated by the old ruling class

But you support 'Material Vanguardism', robbo.You keep insisting that only a materialist minority can determine 'truth', and you openly say that you won't allow workers to democratically decide whether to employ the ideological concept of 'matter' (which you pretend contains 'truth'), or whether to replace 'matter' with (as the bourgeoisie suggest) 'mass' or 'energy', or with (as Marx suggested) 'inorganic nature' (which is his rendering of Ancient Greek concepts like 'hupokeimenon' or 'prote hule').Whilst the SPGB doesn't challenge Engels' 'materialism', it will remain, in effect as a "Leninist, vanguard party", which MB succinctly analyses in political terms. 'Matter' is a 'dark, bloody, rabbit hole'. 'Matter' can't be voted upon (it supposedly 'just exists', whereas 'hupokeimenon' is simply a passive ingredient into social labour), whereas the product of our work upon 'inorganic nature' can be voted upon.The only answer is Marx's: workers' democracy, and social theory and practice, in our production of our world, 'organic nature'.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdI did read both Marx and Engels. I do not see that you’re right. 

Well, I've long since realised that Engelsian 'materialists' will read both Engels and Marx from their Engelsian perspective, and giving quotes containing Marx's words won't have any effect on their 'materialist' beliefs.I presume that you also, as do the 'materialists', like Lenin, identify the 'unified-being' Marx-Engels as the source of your estimation of 'rightness'?In case I'm doing you a disservice, and you're not an Engelsian, I could give you some further details – but it would be a waste of my time and yours, if you self-identify as an Engelsian.Just let me know your ideological perspective, if you wish to continue. I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

At the risk of straying from the topic, MB's latest offering on Dissident Vocehttps://dissidentvoice.org/2017/09/the-limits-and-deficiencies-of-dialectical-and-historical-materialism/#more-71852The article  "The Limits and Deficiencies of Dialectical and Historical Materialism (An Abstract of the Principles of Anarcho-Historical-Relativism)"is a very lengthy, very wordy one and i still have not given it a proper read.

Basically its yet another attempt to reiterate Descartes hypothesis 'I think, therefore I am' by clumping the whole cabdoodle of dialectic, historical and materialism in one wordy mishmash so it attains the desired result by swamping the intellect.LBird better get in there quick he's got a supporter to bring to the table.

The only supporter for my ideas that I need is Marx, Brian.That is, 'social theory and practice'.You, as a 'materialist', adhere to the ideology of 'practice and theory', as erroneously followed by Engels. And as an Engelsist, you must divide the world into 'idealists versus materialists', and so you must condemn Marx's unified method as 'idealist'.Read them both, and you'll see that I'm right.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.

So, according to your views, since 'truth' is 'always being questioned' in science, why can't 'matter' be 'questioned', and, if necessary, replaced by, for example, Marx's 'inorganic nature', or some other concept, which is more suitable to democratic social production?

The Christians say that they hold the truth

But we're not Christians, and we don't argue that workers should become Christians, do we, Marcos?We're supposed to be democratic socialists, who argue that only our class can self-determine its own 'truth', its 'truth-for-itself'.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

I have known many factories workers who knew more about socialism and Marxism that any academic proffessor

Yeah, and only workers can determine what 'socialism' will be, and what 'Marxism' is, not any academic elite.Or any 'materialist' elite, 'professors' or not.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.

So, according to your views, since 'truth' is 'always being questioned' in science, why can't 'matter' be 'questioned', and, if necessary, replaced by, for example, Marx's 'inorganic nature', or some other concept, which is more suitable to democratic social production?

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

Quote:

All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".

No I do not. It is absurd to say that 'truth' can be decided. There is no such thing as scientific or philosophical 'truth'.

So, according to your own political logic, 'matter' is not a 'truth'.So, you must be open to replacing 'matter' with another concept more suitable to democratic social production.So, why can't this replacement of 'matter' be a democratic decision, taken by our class, based upon their own needs, interests and purposes?

[Author]

Posts