[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Again i think you overlook the umpteen times that we say that the emancipation of workers must be by the workers themselves and to echo Dietzgen…" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." 

[my bold]So, why can't you bring yourself to agree that workers themselves can emancipate themselves from 'matter'?There are many other concepts, like Marx's 'inorganic nature', which could be democratically chosen to replace the ruling class concept of 'matter'.Why do you uncritically accept a concept chosen by a ruling class, which prevents democratic theory and practice, rather than a concept that is suitable to democratic controls?Not least, because the bourgeoisie themselves have moved on from 'matter', through 'mass' to 'energy'. They have rejected their own choice in one period, and have rethought their concept, for their own needs, interests and purposes.Why does the SPGB cling to a concept, outdated even for the bourgeoisie, and yet claim to have anything political to say to workers in the 21st century?Why, on one hand, can you personally see that the SPGB has problems, yet, on the other hand, you too defend 'matter', which is the root of the party's irrelevance?'Matter' is Victorian – it was outdated when the party was formed.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

Matt wrote:

Ultimately the people will decide…

I agree, Matt. That's why I think that the SPGB has the potential to develop workers' consciousness, in a way that the SWP, for example, hasn't. You're saying something that the Leninists don't.All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".If you do agree, we're plain sailing.If you don't, who or what  decides truth?It's a simple question, Matt. Why won't the SPGB answer this political question?

Yes ultimately the people will decide " .. … in which applications of findings is the most appropriate, for their local, regional or global circumstances."  Such an edit fits in well with your lack of understanding on democracy and truth.

Well, you've had your chance, Brian.But you still refuse to confirm that you agree with democratic workers' power. Why is that?Who or what determines 'most appropriate'?Why can't you, Matt, alan, … answer a simple political question?Who or what determines 'x'?'x' is any determination you wish to claim that workers can't determine.Why doesn't the SPGB defend the democratic right of the revolutionary working class to determine its own 'x'?Is it to be you who determines 'x', Brian?As posters on a political site, and members of a political party, you must have some idea of who or what has the political power to determine.

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

Ultimately the people will decide…

I agree, Matt. That's why I think that the SPGB has the potential to develop workers' consciousness, in a way that the SWP, for example, hasn't. You're saying something that the Leninists don't.All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".If you do agree, we're plain sailing.If you don't, who or what  decides truth?It's a simple question, Matt. Why won't the SPGB answer this political question?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I know it has been raised before, but why the attraction of the SPGB for you, LBird?There has been a long absence until the other day. I assumed you moved on but it seems it was just a holiday from posting and that you continue to monitor the forum.Do you hope you can instigate change within the Party? If so, what actual concrete proposals do you present to ourselves. How should we shift our propaganda and campaigns towards a positive direction? In what way should it be conducted. A return to those articles on materialism from our past that you approve of overall, even if they appear too heavy on theory that no longer connects with our fellow-workers?I think i keep asking…you may well be right on our wrong Engelsian emphasis, but i always seek flesh on the bone.How do we translate our ideas into action and make our Party a vehicle for change?(As for this democracy dispute you have with Robbo, i think i have put forward a reasonable compromise between you and him….the world will vote with their feet, so to speak,  on scientific issues that require clarifying, ballots and referendums are a very clumsy way of expressing opinions on such nuanced topics although they are powerful tools for capturing political power for the majority).

[my bold]The attraction? A party that claims to be democratic socialist and Marxist. The problem, though? A party that denies "workers' democracy" and is Engelsist. The hope? That discussion can encourage the SPGB to become what it claims to be.Here's an example of the problem, in bold. Your ideology tells you that 'the world will vote with their feet'. This is a conservative ideology, that claims that 'consciousness' and 'theory' do not precede human actions.According to Marx, humans 'vote with their theory and practice', and their 'feet' will thus 'vote' according to the 'consciousness' associated with those 'feet'. So, whilst the SPGB is expecting 'the world to vote with its feet', what will happen is that 'the world's state of consciousness will determine what those feet vote'. And since the world is presently driven by bourgeois consciousness, so the 'feet will vote' accordingly.Your claim is a claim of defeat and despair – but you apparently have no understanding of that, notwithstanding your membership of the SPGB.So, whilst you 'translate your (current) ideas into action', your party will support the bourgeoisie. Your 'ideas' are counterrevolutionary, and so you haven't helped one jot in 113 years to develop any workers' consciousness and action.Can you change? That's what I'm trying to find out. That's the 'attraction' of talking to a democratic party. If that's what it is, at heart, even if not in physics (but we can change that).

ajj wrote:

I think the present situation between climate change "truthers" and climate change deniers shows that global discussion and debate can take place in a delegatory manner to come to a consensus of which is scientifically valid or not. It maybe specialists and scientific elites but they are being driven by a social movement and are part of it…they are feeding the facts which are only possible by a division of labour…workers in universities and think-tanks with access to data and information confirming what we can see happening around us…changing weather patterns and increasing extreme weather events. A friend who is a gardener noticed such changes in his work…how the seasons are changing and his timetable of work requiring adjusting, not by days but by weeks and even months. A professor of ecology merely gives dedicated and specific research support to my gardener's friend own experience. I would not consider him being an elitist, imposing any superiority upon my "humble" gardener because one has a PhD and the other does not.

You have a touching faith in 'professors', alan. You seem to think that there is 'an elite who know', and the rest of us don't, and can't.This is the political method of an ignorant peasant trusting a priest who claims to know the bible, and accepts that the bible must be in a foreign language.And 'experience' producing 'knowledge' is a 19th century ideology. Marx claims 'theory and practice' produces knowledge, but it seems you're completely tied into bourgeois empiricism. But you don't know this (even though I've explained this dozens of times to you).

ajj wrote:

One does have access to communication though, to talk for and to the population as a whole. This is perhaps where we must consider our respective views on democracy. In the past the mass political party had this role…but as we see, this too is a disappearing phenomenon.

Well, 'mass political parties' will either 'disappear' or be run by an elite (as they always have, like the Labour Party).But what is the SPGB doing to turn this around – when you (and it) keep telling workers that they can't elect truth?Who does the SPGB suppose will produce truth in their version of 'socialism'? And who will the SPGB be telling workers, is the source of truth whilst they are trying to self-develop in preparation for taking over social production?If the SPGB starts by telling workers that 'you won't be the authority on truth', why would workers listen, and how would that help them self-develop? Your current party ideology is not fit for purpose. It's not fit for 'democratic socialism'. It's fit for 'elite experts' directing the producers.That's what Lenin claimed and did.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/socialism-and-materialism-1926.html

I've had a brief look at this article, jdw, and it seems very good.No mention of 'matter', but focussed entirely on social production, working class standpoint, class war, the mass of the population, "the individual…and the social forces of which he is the product" (my italics), "consciously co-operating", exploitation, "private owners" as "parasites", "for workers…individualism is a bankrupt creed", "social ownership", "social plan", etc.I couldn't see the word "democracy", but I'm prepared to accept that as an oversight, given the rest of its content.In any case, it's fuck-all to do with Engels' 'materialism', 'matter', bourgeois 'free individuals', 'Specialists' and their elite 'special consciousness'.It's a shame that the SPGB doesn't seem to live up to articles such as this.Where did the SPGB go wrong, and turn to the Leninist ideology, drawn from Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's democratic social production, of 'Faith In Matter', and the 'Specialists' who claim to 'know' it, and the downgrading of our class as mere 'generalists', who can't be trusted with having developed the intelligence to vote for their own self-determined interests, purposes and needs?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.

That may be so and it may not be so, LBird.But the fact is that Robbo was obliged to resign from the SPGB because his ideas were not agreed and accepted by it. His circulars to all branches were discussed and debated by them and by the Party as a whole where they were voted upon by conference and subsequently rejected. 

My apologies to the SPGB then, alan. Since no-one has advised me otherwise, and robbo's anti-democratic ideology has gone completely unchallenged by other posters here (and I presume at least some must be party members), I've assumed that robbo is both a party member and thus speaking in some official capacity.But the political problem still remains for the SPGB. Why doesn't it officially (or even one member!) make a stand for workers' democracy in social production? If it has rejected robbo's anti-democratic ideas, why hasn't it declared what it is for?

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Nevertheless, he is on the forum still able to freely offer his views, just as you are.

I've got no problem whatsoever with robbo peddling his anti-democratic shite openly – it should help to provoke thought amongst democratic socialists. What concerns me is that I'm the only one here openly challenging him, and defending democracy in social production.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Surely, this must give you pause for thought in your accusations concerning the non-democracy of the SPGB.(As a caveat, i was not a member at the time so i may be over-simplifying the controversy) 

Well, I've apologised for my assumption – but it only throws into sharp relief even further, your (and other members) failure to defend democracy in the face of robbo's individualist, elitist, 'materialism'.But… perhaps that's the real problem – you and the other members still cling to Engels' (anti-democratic) 'materialism', and so you are ideologically hamstrung from politically answering robbo's dangerous elitist ideas.Perhaps I should end this, given my apology to the SPGB, with giving the SPGB (or even just one member) the chance to correct my misunderstanding of the SPGB's attitude to democracy in social production.So, here goes – does the SPGB (or even just one member) argue for the democratic production of social truth? If not, who or what is to be the social producer of social truth within the 'socialism' that the SPGB envisages?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'.

Yes thats quite true. I dont support the "democratic production of truth"  …

So, you are quite openly making a political decision without, and prior to, the organised, class conscious, working class.Why this doesn't ring massive alarm bells with those in the SPGB who really believe that they are democrats, I don't know. Perhaps no-one gives a shit.

robbo203 wrote:

…The idea is totally impractical as well as totally unneccessary.  That is not what democracy is for.  Democracy is about practical decisons… 

Here, again, is an ideology that has pre-decided for workers, what is impractical, what is necessary, what democracy is for.Surely, for anyone hoping to build for democratic socialism, only the workers themselves can determine these issues, not The Great Man robbo, who has as much regard for workers' democracy as Uncle Joe, never mind Lenin.And, once again, 'practical' is put ahead of 'theoretical' in robbo's political method – and this is the exact opposite of Marx's social method of 'theory and practice'.This means, in political terms, according to Marx's method, that robbo himself will supply the 'theory' that precedes his 'practice' – he's hiding his 'theory', and pretending that it's all just 'practical' stuff (and by this he means 'individual practice').robbo is lying to workers, when he denies having any theory. He has a theory, and it's an elitist one. Workers, beware.'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.

[LBird]

Whilst what you are saying is true, Marcos, you're still not addressing the core political problem here.There are plenty of Leninists who can see that there are problems with Engels, which is why I quote them about problems with Engels. You seem to think that because I agree with them about this issue, that I support them completely, politically. Why you can't separate this out, I don't know.I've told you this many times, especially regarding Dunayevskaya, but it doesn't seem to make any impression on you – perhaps you are just following the 'materialist' method, of slandering your opponents, and making up lies.Whatever the case, you still have (never) addressed the key political issue which is facing the SPGB – how can 'matter' be 'democratic'?Simple fact is, it can't – which is why Marx didn't employ the concept, and Engels was politically mistaken to have translated 'material' to mean 'matter'.I'm not slandering you when I call you a Leninist – it's a term of political analysis, for a 'materialist' who claims to know 'matter' through a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the class as a whole. This ideology leads to a refusal to grant democratic control to the working class – you do this everytime you argue that only a minority can determine 'truth'.Unless the initial political concept of democracy is employed, to found a philosophical concept which is inescapably democratic, and leaves power in the hands of 'conscious activity' which is not individual or elite, then there will be no democracy for workers, no matter what any party claims.Marx started from 'inorganic nature' – this is not 'matter'. Engels is the origin of this idea that 'matter determines consciousness'. Marx, on the contrary, always argued that any 'nature' we know was 'nature-for-us', a social product of our conscious activity, of theory and practice. Thus, 'matter' exists for some societies, but not others. There are many other concepts, dating back to the Ancient Greeks, that suit the democratic theory and practice of the revolutionary proletariat far better than the concept of 'matter'.Now, I'm treating you like an adult, so please respond in the same terms – FFS, answer the political questions surrounding 'matter', and why anyone would choose a ruling class concept, and expect it to be useful to the exploited class, when it sets out to challenge the exploiting class. 'Matter' is a conceptual mirror of 'Private Property'.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

…  we also published  a thread proving that the SPGB was not a Leninist party like he is claiming all the time…

So, if the SPGB is not 'Leninist' in its ideology (even I'll grant that the SPGB's is not a 'democratic centralist' organisation, like the SWP, of which I have personal political experience), why does it publish documents and threads that claim to support 'democracy', but it doesn't support democratic social production (including ideas, of course)?When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'.When I dig further, to find out why you always give this anti-democratic answer, I find that, like Lenin, you follow Engels (not Marx) and his 'Materialism' (not Marx's 'social productionism'), and have Faith In Matter (like Engels and Lenin), rather than Faith In Humans (like Marx).There are dozens of thinkers that understand the difference between Marx and Engels, not just Lukacs and Gramsci, but also Labriola, Brzozowski, Bogdanov, Pannekoek, Hook, Dunayevskaya, Kolakowski, Avineri, Carver… and others, too many to list.Unless the SPGB starts to question its kneejerk anti-democratism, and finds some answers to these political questions (which have been getting asked since before the SPGB was founded), then it will not prosper (or, only amongst 'materialists', rather than amongst Democratic Communist workers, its intended class audience).Terrell Carver places the origin of the problem in 1859, in Engels' review of Marx's Preface and Introduction. That would be a good place, for anyone interested, to start – 45 years prior to the founding of the SPGB.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

This was written over 50 years go…what does it tell us about the progress we have achieved as a class …and also as a party…For sure, we still are an extant socialist party but have we grown? And if we haven't, then are we suited for the task? Has understanding grown among our fellow workers? Are they more class conscious? Or possessing even trade union conscious?Am i being needlessly negative…or am i asking realistic questions that has to be answered by ourselves?

It's not a bad article, alan.It mentions 'material' once only, in the context of 'the interest of the working class'. Clearly, given how many times the article mentions 'social', 'society', 'class', etc., it's clear that 'material' here also means 'social', as it did for Marx (he opposed 'material' meaning 'human', to 'ideal' meaning 'divine').The clincher is that 'the material interests' of our class can only be determined by the class itself, so this 'material' can't pre-exist its creation by our class. It's certainly nothing to do with 'matter'. To claim otherwise, is put posit a 'matter' that our class doesn't control, and so is in the hands of an elite.I've tried to count that times the article specifically says social conditions, and I've counted 3. There is also political conditions, and a constant stress on democracy.In fact, if the article had replaced the one 'material interest' with 'social interest' or 'political interest', it would have been more consistent.Only the class can determine its 'material interest' (or, 'material conditions'), and that determination must be democratic. To read this article as talking about 'matter', a 'matter' that only an elite can 'know' (which is why the elite deny that the class can vote on this concept and replace it), is to ignore the entirety of the rest of the article, outside of one single word.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

If not, you'll follow the political trajectory of Lenin..

Whuch  is precisely what LBird is doing with his advocacy of society wide central planning

What did I predict?Slanders and lies, as usual, the political method of the 'materialists'. In a word, Leninism.Those who actually read what I write, and are very careful of the lies of the 'materialists', will be aware that 'society-wide democratic planning' (Marx's ideas about 'social production') has been consciously and deliberately altered by robbo to confuse the unwary as 'society-wide central planning'.robbo thus anticipates his own political regime, in which he as an individual is at the centre of his planning.Individualists, like robbo, will always deny democracy, because they have a 'fear of the mob'. Individualism is a ruling class idea, a social product of the bourgeoisie, and must start from concepts like 'matter', which all individuals claim to 'know', by their individual, biological, asocial, ahistoric, senses. Thus, they don't need to discuss social theory, social practice, or the place of democracy within the social production of socialism.Thus, he defines 'democracy' as 'centralism'.Democratic Communists / Marxists define 'democracy' as 'society-wide'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We should be addressing what is possible…adapting and adjusting our Party.Or do we abdicate any responsibility and place the blame on the incapacity of our fellow workers to learn new ways of thinking and understanding and that the hegemony of the capitalist culture is too strong to break.Did i ever mention i feel a conference would be nice to raise ideas and share them with invited like-minded observers?

Such a 'conference' wouldn't last past the opening minute, alan.The Democratic Communists / Marxists would ask for all concepts to be democratic. This would be so that all 'socialist theory' would embody democratic ideals, and so all 'socialist practice' (which follows from theory) would be inherently a democratic practice.The Materialists would then declare for undemocratic 'matter' (which is a reflection in physics of 'private property'), a class-based, ruling class idea, which expels 'democratic theory' at the outset.A split would ensue, there being no political basis for a conference.I suppose you'd need to answer for yourself, what a 'like-minded observer' is for you. Do you mean someone who claims to be a 'socialist', or do you mean, from the outset, a 'democratic socialist'? If it's the latter, you'll have to exclude the elitist, non-democratic 'materialists', whose focus is not 'production', but 'matter', and whose inspiration is Engels (and thus Lenin), not Marx.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I'm with Engels on this one, we want socialism that is scientific rather than utopian recipes for the future.

Yes, the contrast of only two options, is an Engelsian construct, not Marx's, jdw.Marx unified idealism and materialism – he says so.As you openly state, you are with Engels, and so, not with Marx.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Jon, i do feel a shiver when i see the word scientific in any discussion of socialism…the same shiver when i read the word dialectical.

A healthy 'shiver', alan. A 'shiver' that all democrats feel…… 'scientific socialism' and 'dialectical materialism' are both Leninism in sheep's clothing.Ask them… they'll deny 'democracy'. They'll claim to be 'specialists'. Anything but agree to democracy within all power relationships.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

Andrew: Marx was wrong. We need plans now.

I'm with Engels on this one, we want socialism that is scientific rather than utopian recipes for the future.

[my bold]By 'scientific', the political consequence is 'non-democratic'.Whoever employs the term 'scientific socialism' is denying 'democratic socialism'.There's a political choice to be made – does one go with Marx's 'democratic socialism', or with Engels' 'scientific socialism'?The key question is 'can you come up with a democratic science?'.If not, you'll follow the political trajectory of Lenin. Who also claimed to be a 'scientific socialist'. And, in his 'scientific' work, quoted Engels, not Marx. Read Materialism and Empirio-criticism, to find out if this is true or not.

[Author]

Posts