[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

I don't think that Robbo is so simplistic. He always gives profound and detailed explanations. You are monothematic, and now you are riding on top of your favorite little horse

Another one who apparently can't read what Marx argues, and hates a Democratic Communist pointing that out.The real problem is the 'monotheme' of the SPGB, if you're anything to go by, of anti-democratic Engelsian Materialism, just what Lenin supported and put into practice.So, yeah, my hobby horse is exposing anti-democrats who pretend to workers that 'thinkers' like Marcos and robbo 'know better' than 7 billion workers, and so set out from the very start to ensure that workers will not be allowed to vote on issues that the 'materialists' claim to know already, because the 'materialists' supposedly have a 'special consciousness' not available to all workers – hence, no democracy.Why can none of you argue about politics?Bluffers.

[LBird]

robbo, why don't you change your anti-democratic tune -"Wahhhh, boo-hoo, LBird's exposing my selfish elitism again, and wants to talk about the politics of workers' control, rather than Thatcher's 'Free Individuals' ".You wouldn't know 'socialism' if it bit you on the arse, you long-winded clown.Not a bit 'disingenuous', now, eh?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

The main problem I have with the article is that though it talks of the need to  have a plan about how to get to socialism, it  doesnt really define  socialism.  That is the the problem with the left in general.  You cant really move forward unless you have some clear  idea of where you want to move forward to – your end goal

Well, I've tried to discuss this with you and the rest here, and when I define 'socialism' as 'the democratic control of social production', your response is 'why is there a need for democracy in social production?'.I've got no problem with someone arguing that 'the democratic control of social production' is a bit vague, and needs more detail, but the challenging of 'democracy' itself, leaves me baffled.As far as I can tell, 'your end goal' seems to be 'free individuals', but this tells any worker asking nothing about 'social production' or, indeed, 'socialism'.To most, the ideology of 'free individuals' is a bourgeois ideology of "I'm alright, Jack", whereas at least 'democracy' stresses co-operation, society, and a form of decision-making.

[LBird]

meel2 wrote:

… he talks about “belief” and “morality” as being important components of the struggle.  He clarifies that what he means by “belief”, isn’t necessarily a belief in a religion, but rather a holding on to a belief in such values as justice, truth and compassion – the way “good draws to the good”.  …  I know both these words are anathema to many people on this list, as they do not fit in with what it means to be a “materialist”. 

Well, if one's starting point is the 19th century concept of 'matter' (which supposedly precedes 'consciousness'), then 'belief' and 'morality' are secondary concerns, at best.Materialists have Faith in Matter, not Faith In Humans, and their social production and its possibilities.

meel2 wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, I also think that everything in the world can ultimately be explained in terms of sub-atomic particles – however, the whole is often “greater than the sum of its parts”.

Oh dear… I think you've answered your own question, meel2.Good luck with finding 'consciousness', 'belief' and 'morality' in 'sub-atomic particles'.FWIW, Marx (unlike the 'materialists') started from both consciousness and being, and their relationship, and thus social production. It was Engels who had the 19th century bourgeois fetish for 'particles'. Why you also have this fetish, given the advances even in bourgeois physics, god only knows.I suspect that you, too, are an ideological 'materialist'… but you can get better from it, if you want to.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,“Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual.”(Marx)

Yes, Alan, I know Marx's views about 'the democratic control of production by the direct producers' quite well.But I'm asking you about your views.Or are you interpreting Marx to be arguing for a 'Robinson Crusoe' society?It's an easy question to answer, really. Do you think that there is a fourth alternative, 'democratic socialism', to the three that you outlined earlier – individualism, elitism or chaos?If you are arguing for individualism, and calling it 'Robinson Crusoe socialism', that's fine by me – I just disagree with you politically, if that's the case, because I'm a 'democratic socialist', as I think Marx was. If you disagree, too, about Marx and democracy, that's OK by me.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,You left some more comments.Thank you.Here’s the answer.Very broadly, *we can think of just 3 ways* to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market. ….Now if what you mean by socialist democracy is Crusoe’s way–full scale then what? Then very broadly, *we can think of just 3 ways* to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market.Or are you sure that, there is an option 4), socialist democracy versus Crusoe’s way then what?  Then please prove it.Thank you. 

It's not a 'proof', Alan, but a political definition. That is, a starting point, a foundation of building a new society, democratic socialism.If you want to define 'democracy' (a social concept about power) as 'Robinson Crusoe' (an individual concept about solipsism), then I think that we don't share the same politics.It would probably be better, for common understanding, if I call the new society 'democratic socialism', and you call it 'Robinson Crusoe socialism'. Then everyone reading will be clear about your view of 'power' as a individual property, and my view of 'power' as a social property.It's politically important that we expose our political axioms to the common gaze.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,No the alternative is not just democracy as such. The alternative to the market is in Marx’ Capital here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133

As elaborated on in this article "A World Without Commodities" in this month's Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1357-september-2017/world-without-commodities

Thanks for the link, ALB,I can find mention of 'everything is social instead of individual', 'members', 'common holders of the wealth and resources of society', 'social relations', and,

SPGB article wrote:

This is what Marx sketches in his next example, where he describes an ‘association of free men’ who are ‘carrying on their work with the means of production in common’ so that the ‘labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community’.

Yeah, 'association', 'production in common', 'combined' and 'community'… all fine.The only thing that I can't find is the word 'democracy'. Going by Alan's definition, these words and terms are just paying lip-service to 'social' concepts, because without the inclusion of Marx's democratic political underpinnings, the words are politically meaningless.Without any mention of democratic socialism, as the politically-binding method for all these social concepts, we're left, indeed, with Alan's trio of individualism, elitism or chaos, as our political choice of organising 'social', 'community', 'members', 'production in common', etc.That's my point. Alan seems to have confirmed what I thought that he meant, and you appear to be also confirming this lack of 'democratic socialism'. Unless you don't agree with the article, of course.Am I missing something?

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,No the alternative is not just democracy as such. The alternative to the market is in Marx’ Capital here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133

So, to be clear, you don't accept that democratic socialism is a fourth alternative to your threefold definition of social production as either individualism, elitism or chaos.I was just giving you the chance to correct your definition (if you thought it was mistaken), but you appear to be clear that you believe that there are only those three, and democratic socialism is not one of them. Cheers.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

Democracy is allowing the market to do its work better than dictatorship can.

Must be my mistake – I was assuming that by 'democracy' you'd understand 'socialist democracy', rather than, as you appear to have, 'parliamentary democracy' (ie. 'not-democracy').

Alan Kerr wrote:

But no the alternative to the market is not just democracy as such.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain how 'democracy as such' differs from 'socialist democracy'.Clearly, I'm saying that 'socialist democracy' is a fourth alternative, to the three that you proposed, and I'm not sure why you apparently discount it by definition. If you define the possibilities as your three suggested, then you remove the alternative of socialism. If you want to do that by definition, then that's fine, but it's probably best that you say openly at the start of any political debate about social production that you discount democracy, and simply want either individualism, elitism or chaos (which is another way of describing your three alternatives).

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

That’s great Michel. Very broadly, we can think of just 3 ways to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market.

[my bold]Can't we think about a fourth option? That is, 'democratic'?

[LBird]

if only Vin wrote:

I was brought up a strict Materialist and at the age of 54 I realised there is no Matter and no such thing as objective. As an ironic gesture, I looked up to the sky and said FUCK OFF YOU CUNT. I have had nothing to do with it ever since.

We're on the same trajectory, mate  – I was brought up a Catholic, too, and had to go to mass every Sunday until I was 16. I just seem to have got to the second 'Fuck Off' point, a bit earlier than you, after my time in the SWP.Perhaps the SPGB doesn't educate workers as well and as fast as the SWP, about the Party's 'nature', ironically enough!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Been offline for a few days so missed many of the posts but just to comment on the latest post

Quote:

I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).

As just an exercise, LBird, why not submit your answers to the membership questions which would be the basis of accepting or rejecting any membership application and see if your critics can fault you responses.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-application

I've had another look at the form, alan, and I still think that I'd fail.For example, I don't think that any party has a monopoly over thinking, so I'd be fine with numerous workers' parties helping to build a class consciousness amongst workers. To me, the more debate, the better.Plus, I regard 'Faith in Matter' as an example of religiosity, so I'd laugh at the question about religion, because I consider Engels' 'materialism' (or, certainly as it was developed by 'Marxists' in the 19th/early 20th centuries) as a religious ideology about 'The Real World', which workers haven't created.So, it's clear to me that I'd be rejected, both by the current open rules and the covert beliefs, of the party. In fact, from the responses on this site, I'd be in a minority of one, because I haven't read one response in four years that seems to agree with my notions of socialism, democracy, Marx, science, etc. There seems to be no basis for me to join – neither I nor current members would be happy about that circumstance. It's better to discuss from the outside, for now, whilst I'm allowed.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Thanks for an honest reply, I appreciate it.The point of this forum, at least as I see it, is to help in the process of enabling people to develop Socialist consciousness and to debate issues that relate to that.

Yeah, I appreciate your response, too. And I, too, think that socialists should be helping in that process.  To me, 'Socialist consciousness' is the whole point, not 'defence of matter'.

Tim wrote:

If your ongoing contributions had been based on the idea that we were for want of a better phrase "your enemies" then I could see no fruitful point in engaging in debate with you, considering how long the debate was going on. I appreciate that you have honestly held points of disagreement with us, however I am heartened to hear that you recognise the areas where we agree.

Well, I don't regard youse as 'my enemies', but I regard youse as 'confused' about socialism, Marx , democracy, science – I think that these are all fundamentally related issues.That is, if I talk about socialism, I talk about Marx, democracy, science. If I talk about Marx, I talk about socialism, democracy and science. If I talk about democracy, I talk about socialism, Marx and science. And…. tah-dah!… if I talk about science, I talk about socialism, Marx and democracy.IMO, I shouldn't need to stress the above relationships (and I could add a few more, like class, history, production, method, but I'll assume you all get the relational gist from that list), which itself causes me some concern about 'areas where we agree'.

Tim wrote:

I also understand that you have spent time in Trotskyist and Leninist organisations and that they are very different from the way we organise politically. I hope it is clear in the discussions that have taken place that we are unlike those kind of elitist and leadership driven organisations And I can fully understand your reticence with regard to internal party democracy, considering that experience. I hope it is also clear that we are very different to organisations like that.

Yes! My typical working class experience, of being an uneducated adult, who received a late education, who then came across 'Marxists and Socialists', at college, who talked about workers, class consciousness, Marx, Engels and Lenin, democracy, etc., and who eventually joined a Trotskyist organisation, has had big effect on me. Like most (no, all) of the workers I knew who joined these organisations, I left when I realised that they were bullsitting us workers, about democracy and workers' power, and they really had an idea that they, and they alone, had the requisite 'consciousness' to effect their 'practice'. Of course,as Trotsky helpfully pointed out, 'they' moves from 'workers' to 'party' to 'party machine, to 'central committee'… It's nothing to do with Marx, workers' power, democracy, class consciousness (not 'party' consciousness), and the democratic control of social production in a socialist society.Of course, this political experience helped me to question what Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc., actually said, and actually meant. I long ago got to the realisation that many of the things that the Trots claim can be supported by reference to the genius unity of 'Marx-Engels'. I'm fucked as a class conscious worker, if I start from the god-like mythical unified being of 'Marx-Engels'. I will always lose an argument with the Trots.Imagine my surprise, when I found out that the SPGB embrace exactly the same ideology as Lenin. And for the same reasons, and with the same results. Engels' materialism is a bourgeois ideology, which is suited to 'elite consciousness' (especially the ultimate elite, of The Sovereign Individual, who has Biological Senses), and has the result, as Marx warned, of dividing society into two. You've guessed it, the SPGB talks about 'Specialists' and 'Generalists', and pooh-poohs democracy, where the Specialists do as they are told by the Generalists.So, Tim, I ask a genuine question – are you a 'very different organisation' to the SWP, Militant, etc.? On the surface, certainly, but…

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.

And here's a serious answer, Tim.I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).It's when we get to the detail of what you're claiming to be socialism, democracy, Marxism, that the problems arise. I think that if you did put some emphasis on those issues, that you have the potential to grow as a party (which is going to be needed in the future, at some point, when a Labour government fucks up).But your (and I mean all the posters here) understanding of socialism, democracy and Marxism is so far removed from, well, socialism, democracy and Marxism, that I'm forced to argue the point.I don't think that you're 'all as thick as mince', but I do think that none of you have any idea about what Marx was up to.The dominant ideology seems to be some form of bourgeois individualism, and a desire to see a 'socialism' based upon the myth of 'Individual Freedom'. It's nothing to do with democratic social production or Marx.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…you appopriate the whole house.  If you appropriate a street, you are not making slections, you're taking the whole street.  

[my bold]'Whole house' or 'whole street' is a selection between two 'wholes', YMS.'If' is the clue. Your 'appropriation' is a conscious choice by you, a part of what Marx calls 'the active side'.One could also note that you've chosen not to appropriate 'whole estates', 'whole towns', 'whole urban sprawls', and several other 'concepts' that we could take account of.

[Author]

Posts