[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Won't the ex capitalists be building socialism?

If they are now class conscious members of the revolutionary proletariat, then yes, they will. If not, no, they won't.

YMS wrote:

My preferred term is 'the community' rather han people, the community as a whole,will that suffice?  I prefer terms that humanise, rather than metonyms.

My comments above about 'people' also apply to 'community', 'community as a whole', and 'humanising', for the same political reasons – you're trying to hide the 'social' nature of 'production', because you're an individualist.I'm not an individualist, I'm a Democratic Communist, a Marxist, and my political concerns are with 'social production', now and within socialism.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to be clear then, if there are no classes in socialism, what is the point of using any designation like 'social producers' or 'workers'?  People suffices, as you can see, the persistence in using these terms has lead to confusion, since, naturally, interlocutors inferred that there was some significance in this designation and hat there would be non-workers.So, for further clarification, "social-producers" and "people" are exact synonyms?

[my bold]Because, like Marx, I'm talking about 'social production'.alan has already mentioned the political difficulties for the class conscious revolutionary proletariat in using the term 'People'.So, no, 'people' and 'social producers' are not politically 'exact synonyms'.I suspect that your ideological wish to use the term 'people' is part of your individualist ideology, and seeks to hide the 'social' nature of 'production'.Once you get the term 'people' accepted in discourse, you'll then move to arguing that 'all people are individuals'.It would be far clearer for this political discussion if you would be open, and say why you don't want to use the term 'social producers', and why you prefer 'people'.Furthermore, I'm open about saying that the 'workers' within capitalism are the ones who will build socialism, and so the 'workers' will be the ones self-transforming into the producers of socialism. So, no, the 'people' will not be building for socialism, and no, the 'people' won't be the social producers, and the term doesn't 'suffice'.

[LBird]

The only genuine political criticism that you can make of my post, alan, ignoring red herrings, is that I'm wrong to claim that there will be 'social producers' within socialism.Is this what you're trying to say?

[LBird]

alan, why not just read my post 114?I wrote quite a long and comprehensive post, addressing as much as is possible in this format, the issues and red herring that you raised.Now, unless you tell me what I wrote about within socialism (clue 'social producers'), I'm going to have to treat you like robbo, Vin and YMS, and assume that either you're not genuinely interested in engaging, or that you simply can't read.FFS, what's the point of the SPGB having a website, and driving away those workers who express an interest?

ajj wrote:

I think you are rightly angered…

…and at the end of my tether.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

Rubbish.  You are wriggling as per usual.  You talked quite explicitly of there being a "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" in socialism .  How can you have a class conscious proletariat without this presupposing the existence of classes???

As anyone can read, in my post 114, I said that the proletariat won't exist within socialism.We're back to alan arguing with robbo's mythical 'What LBird said', as opposed to what I did say.Since this inability to engage with what someone actually writes seems to widespread within the SPGB (perhaps it's a condition of membership?), I'm not sure where this thread can go. Is there anyone reading, who can read post 114, and respond to what I actually wrote there?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? 

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. This is Marx's view, too.

ajj wrote:

"Self-determined" in my usage is that people themselves will determine the means of how. The sentence can stand alone without the use of self-determined "Democracy will not be imposed but will be the result of the … will of those in socialism." if that is more to your liking. 

[my bold]Where do you get the ideological category 'people themselves' from, alan? I prefer Marx's concept, above.

ajj wrote:

But perhaps it might be a bad choice of word since it echoes of national self-determination and we all know how pejorative terms can be when it comes to Marxist discussion

Yes, I agree. It's important not to leave ourselves a hostage to nationalist ideology about 'The People' (the 'volk'), during our building towards socialism.

ajj wrote:

Are you confusing the revolutionary period where the struggle for class power is still in progress?Whereas i am discussing an already established socialist society?

No, the 'struggle to build' will determine what is 'established', alan, so I'm not confusing the process (rather than two separate 'states of existence')

ajj wrote:

Once socialism is up and running there is no proletariat as has been pointed out to you, there is no politics of any resemblance to how we use the concept today.

If I read this constant red herring, once more, I'll scream.There will be 'social producers', because 'social producers' exist in every society. In terms of process, today's social producers (workers, proletariat) will transform themselves into socialism's social producers. It's easier just to use the term 'workers', but Vin has a bee in his bonnet about this, and now you and others seem to have jumped on the bandwagon, because I've stopped replying and explaining to Vin.

ajj wrote:

I fear it is you yourself who cannot understand the extent of change in ideas and social practice that will take place. It isn't me who is guilty of believing  'things will remain much the same as now' but yourself.

That's a good one, alan. I say that even physics, maths and logic will 'change in ideas and social practice', whereas you defend 'bourgeois science' and 'academic experts', and I don't understand the extent of change?

ajj wrote:

But you still haven't  indicate where in those posts (or the subsequent ones), i am adopting and applying Engels materialism to my views of what socialism will be.

I have done so, alan, many times, but you yourself keep saying that you don't understand what all this 'philosophy stuff' is about. I've tried to help, and the key point is that materialists deny the power of humans to ditch 'matter'.Once we adopt the view that 'matter' or 'the material' is a social product, and that we can change it, then the power of the Leninists disappears, because they claim to 'know matter' as it is, before we create or destroy 'it'. This keeps 'the material' outside of our productive powers, and yet leaves it in theirs.I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist, alan, and so I insist that only the class can determine 'it' for itself, and not a party. That includes 'nature' and 'the universe', so I'm covering all bases, eh?Unless this is all sorted out during the building towards socialism, when we get there we'll find a party of materialists in charge. And we all know that we've been there before, and it's not socialism as we would see it.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whose 'rational, whose 'reasonable', whose 'argument' and whose 'evidence', YMS?

Debate's, and consistency's.  Can the argument coherently endure, and explain what it is trying to explain: can it's moves be validated, and is the validation itself inconsistent.  Again, you attribute positions to me I don't hold.  You don't seek to try and find out.  Mere denonotative locutions cannot announce an ideology, it is an emergent property of debate.

Why not just openly say what your ideology is, YMS, rather than pretend that you don't know (and that I don't know) and that it will simply 'emerge' during, presumably, 'objective' debate.Since when have the gods Debate, Consistency, Coherence and Validation determined 'rationality', etc.?As for me 'not seeking to find out your position', can't you read? I've already asked you dozens of times, and I'm asking you again, in this post.Perhaps DCC&V will tell me – hello, hello, DCC&V, YMS tells me that I can 'seek' from you, and you'll tell me YMS's ideology?Nope, not a sausage, YMS. I'm afraid you're going to have to tell me – or, rather, just confirm what I've told everyone for years, and which you've sought to hide.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

I knew that you've give up, YMS.You won't have workers' democracy, and you're even reluctant to discuss it, and want to talk about yourself and individualism. Why not openly reveal your ideology, rather than pretend to be wanting to 'objectively' read Marx.

Nothing objective about it, but rational, reaonable, based on argumnt and evidence : if you can change the meaning of a text, arbitrarily, there is no scope for dialectic.  There are no invalid moves in your language game.

Whose 'rational, whose 'reasonable', whose 'argument' and whose 'evidence', YMS?You talk as if these are all obvious (ie. 'objective') categories.No one 'changes the meaning of a text, arbitrarily' – this belief of yours is an ideological belief, because you think you know what 'arbitrary' is.All 'meanings' are socially-produced (and so are not 'arbitrary'), and are related to the ideology of the producer. 'Invalidity' is always from a perspective.You've always refused to expose your ideology, YMS. And you refuse to do so, because as soon as you do, your ideological basis is destroyed. You have to pretend to be 'an objective individual', who already has the power to determine rationality, reasonability, arguments, evidence, arbitrariness, and invalidity, outside of their social production.I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

They'll mean what the ideology trying to understand Marx's words, says that they mean.Since I'm a Democratic Communist, concerned to build up the confidence and abilities of the class concious proletariat for their aim of building socialism, Marx's words are about 'social production', workers, and democracy.

And cut.  There is no possibility for debate in Humpty Dumpty world, eitehr words have historical, logical meanings that can be examined by their usage and assemblage in a text, or they don't.What this means is there is no point discussing Marx, and exploring his meanings with you, all we can do is judge your ideas as tand alone, based on your words (though your words, too are meaningless, if I accept what you say above).Clearly, this is how you debate, you decide what someone's position is, and then proceed to argue against that.  When asked to define terms, you fail, dismally, and resort to repeating them slowly and loudly.You might want to consider how succesful such a discoursive approach may be.  Because, although you say you are a democratic communist, I've decided in my ideology that you are an Orthodox Catholic, so how dare you support the transubstantiation of the eucharist, who are you to question the decisions of the magisterium, how can you reconcile the indivisibility of catholicism with your rejection of Vatican II?

I knew that you've give up, YMS.You won't have workers' democracy, and you're even reluctant to discuss it, and want to talk about yourself and individualism. Why not openly reveal your ideology, rather than pretend to be wanting to 'objectively' read Marx.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Democracy will not be imposed…

Of course it will, alan. That's the political point. There can be no anti- or non-democratic methods within socialism. That's the starting point for revolutionary politics.

ajj wrote:

…but will be the result of the self-determined will of those in socialism. 

Who 'self-determines', alan?Dictators can 'self-determine', narrow elites can 'self-determine'.To put it bluntly, the revolutionary class conscious proletariat will impose their democratic political methods. Any other political starting point undermines, from the beginning, the revolutionary class conscious proletariat, in favour of some other political entity, who will claim to be outside of 'democratic methods'.It's political suicide for workers to deny democracy, since they are the vast majority. This is about power and politics, alan, even though the SPGB seems to be very reluctant to discuss either.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, he's clearly saying animal being preceded conscious being.  And clearly stating that social applies only to multiple humans working together, so a being on their own can produce, is that not so?  Or do none of Marx' words mean what they say?

They'll mean what the ideology trying to understand Marx's words, says that they mean.Since I'm a Democratic Communist, concerned to build up the confidence and abilities of the class concious proletariat for their aim of building socialism, Marx's words are about 'social production', workers, and democracy.Since you are an individualist, they'll mean that you're are an individual, and that you as a biological being can 'know matter' (by touch, for example).You're not really interested in politics, ideologies, society, production, or socialism, YMS – you're just interested in confirming your existing ideological choices, that you're an 'individual', and you won't have others telling you 'what to think'. And you got this ideology from the bourgeoisie, who've dominated human thought for the last 350 years, and which Marx fought to overcome, and provide a basis for workers to liberate themselves collectively from those ruling class ideas, like 'individualism'.

[LBird]

Once again (and no doubt again, later), for Marx, 'production' is a social category.Marx is not discussing 'individual biological movement', but the 'active side', an active social consciousness that labours to produce its own product.'Nature' is a social product. That's why we can change it.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,can non-social producers create a product?

YMS, I've explained this to you, several times already. I do wish that you'd read what I write, and move on. If you disagree with what I've written, fair enough, but just say so, and move on, please.Once again… for Marx, humans are 'social producers'.It's a philosophical category, that Marx employs to explain how humans create their world. The 'social activity' of those producers he calls 'labour'.To put it even clearer, for Marx, the notion of any human, being a 'non-social producer' is meaningless.I think that you're mixing up your categories, and confusing this issue with 'classes' (ie. 'exploited producers' and 'exploiters').Now, I agree with Marx's categories, but if you don't, just say so, and we can move the discussion on, as to why you disagree with Marx's philosophical categories, and which other categories you'd prefer to employ. Of course, I'll ask you where you got those categories from (ie. their socio-historical origin).

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

No. I won't let you steer this exchange to suit your agenda. I have posted 4 message in recent days. I want you to tell me in each and everyone where they were wrong, in the sense of being anti-socialist. Where in the text of what i actually posted were they presenting a fundamentally anti-socialist case? 

[my bold]The bit where you missed out that only the social producers can determine their product, and that the only acceptable political method for that determination is democracy.It's rather simple, alan. No need for me to rub it in, post by post.But 'materialists' won't have it – because it undermines the materialists' belief that they alone have a special consciousness, and that they won't have workers telling them what the 'truth' is.Materialists are elitists, which is why Lenin clung to that ideology.Ask them, alan – can workers elect 'matter'? Which obviously presupposes that they can deselect 'matter', too, if they wish.'Materialists' won't have this political control over 'reality' being in the hands of the democratic producers.'Matter' is their 'God'.

[Author]

Posts