LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Refering to humans as 'workers' or 'producers' in communism/socialism is what leads to Lbird's confused condition, he cannot escape left wing thinking. What if I choose the right to be lazy, will that mean I will be excluded from the democratic votes? I may even choose to be an elite scientist. Will that mean I am not a 'producer' and therefore excluded from the democratic process?The means of production will be under the democratic control of the community – of us all, not 'workers' or 'producers'. Why refer to us all as 'workers' or .'producers' or It could be misleading and co by implying 'non-producers' and 'non-workers'
You don't understand Marx, Vin. For him, all humans are 'producers'. We collectively produce our world.It's just that under class societies, this social product is under the control of the exploiters, and not the direct producers.These issues of 'activity/labour' are philosophical issues – I've tried to explain the depth of what you're getting into, and help you out, but you won't accept my help.In your terms above, 'the community' is the 'active side'. And I agree with you – its social production must 'be under its democratic control'.Note – 'democratic' is not 'each individual separately', as YMS and robbo insist. You have to decide whether you agree with Marx or with the 'individualists'. Who is the 'active side' in epistemological terms – 'the community' or 'each individual'?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?No reason at all why they can't, they're free to do so. They're free to rename the moon. Free to decide gravity doesn't exist.
Yeah, you're right – it's entirely possible that Newton's concept of 'gravity' doesn't really exist. It's up to us as the democratic producers to determine whether 'gravity' suits our needs, interests and purposes, for our social production, or whether a different concept is more suitable to explain our nature.
YMS wrote:Of course, as a free association, this only applies to the willingness of the members of the association to comply without coercion.This sounds like you're going back on all your talk about 'community', 'in common', 'combined', and simply reverting to 'free individuals'. This is what I explained to alan, earlier – the SPGB says things that it has no intention of allowing to happen.This is the whole political point, YMS. There is no 'Robinsonade' world of 'individual gravity' which you alone know, to the exclusion of the society in which you collectively produce.As to 'coercion', since your kids will be brought up in an education system determined by the 'community', 'in common', 'combined', then they'll be taught the best that society 'knows'. And if their education is telling them that 'gravity' was a concept that is now outdated, and has been replaced one that suits us all better, your 'individual gravity' will have the 'existence' to them, that 'angels', 'grace' and god' has to us.If you regard 'social education' as 'coercion', then you'll be off to the backwoods of Montana, with the rest of the 'free individuals', armed and dangerous.
I should point out the political importance of this question of 'matter'.If one follows Marx's ideas about democratic social production, then the class can always say to the party 'Only we can know our nature'. When the The Party claims to already 'Know Matter', the class can insist 'but we haven't produced our social theory and practice, yet, so how can an elite party claim to already know what we haven't yet produced?'.This is the political problem that Engels didn't realise, when he amended Marx's concept of 'inorganic nature' to become the contemporary bourgeois concept of 'matter'.For the bourgeoisie, 'matter' is the correlation, within their physics, with 'property' within their social production. That is, both concepts must predate any conscious control of them. 'Matter', like 'property', just 'is'.For Marx, 'inorganic nature' is something we consciously change, into our 'organic nature', a 'nature-for-us', a social product that we can change. We have democratic power over our product.And as I've said before, Marx was well aware of this problem with 'materialism' – it must posit a 'knowing elite' who know the 'material' prior to society as a whole. It's an ideology for an elite, as Lenin well realised.
Young Master Smeet wrote:There will be no proletariat in the future society, but it will be organised by the free association of producers, democratically.or, put another way "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."Yes, I know the 'words' as well as the SPGB, as I've told alan.So, here we go again.Can this putative 'free association of producers, democratically' decide to get rid of 'matter' and replace it with something else?If not, why not, and who decides this?Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I'll take your latest post as one of waking up on the wrong side of the bed by its relatively uncomradely tone and patronising language, LBird.No, I'm fine – I'm only reflecting the SPGB's 'uncomradely tone and patronising language' to workers, alan, but, as I keep pointing out, just like the SWP, the SPGB doesn't like workers talking to The Party in the same way it talks to them!
ajj wrote:As i said, in my posts, it will be future society that will determine the democratic processes…Yes, and as I asked in my posts, is this 'future society' (your conceptual term for the 'active side') a 'democratic' one or not?It's a simple question, alan, that the SPGB should be able to answer.I'll spell it out for you, though.Is 'future society' an 'elite', or is 'future society' the victorious, class conscious, democratically-organised proletariat?If it's the former, this elite will decide the 'democratic processes' for the producers.If it's the latter, the decision about 'democratic processes' will itself be a democratic one.Once we've settled that, alan, we can get on to the 'practical' stuff that the SPGB is desperately trying to get workers onto, with the aim of hoping workers don't question the 'theory' that will drive the 'practice'. You simply want workers to accept, unquestioningly, your 'theory' (which is a bit rich, really, since you keep telling us that you yourself don't understand 'theory'). In fact, you want workers to be just like you, and put your trust in an 'elite' of 'theorists' who already 'know' all the 'theory', and just get on with the 'practical'.As I've said before, Marx's method is 'theory and practice'. You don't agree with this, alan, which is fair enough, but you should openly tell workers that you disagree with Marx, and that your method is 'practice and theory'.
ajj wrote:As for Hawkings, his insistence upon using a Dalek-voice machine when he could be communicating with Cary Grant clarity to convey his message is enough to make me question him.For me, it's the content, not the sound.Cary Grant spouting Religious Materialism would be much the same as Lenin and Uncle Joe doing so. And the Daleks of the bourgeoisie.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.Perhaps not in these exchanges with yourself, LBird, but they do feature very much in our promotion of socialism.
Yeah, and I think that that itself is indicative of the real problem.That is, I've read Marx (and Engels, etc.), so I know what he actually said (and can quote him), and so in your debates with me youse are all continually found out.For your propaganda for the masses, who are mostly not yet socialists and haven't read Marx, youse can say anything (including mention of workers, democracy and society) without those readers being aware of what youse actually stand for. To those who regard themselves as workers and want to see a real democratic society, it can ring a bell.But, it's become obvious to me that youse are only using these terms as bait, much as bible-bashers mention all the 'nice stuff' in the bible, and which can appear attractive to the socially concerned and unwary. That is, the bible-bashers have a hidden agenda, which only becomes obvious when subjected to critical examination. When we bring up all the Jesus stuff which is anti-rich and pro-poor, the bible-bashers scuttle away. I've had plenty of doorstep 'conversations' with Jehovah's Witnesses and US Mormons, and believe me, if they have kids and young people with them, my views tend to 'convert' them. It's not what the religious adults intended, of course, and they usually give up and go away before I close the door, probably to 'save' their young from the 'conversation'.Well, same process here. I put some meat on the bones of your claims, about "workers' power", for example, and you all shy away from the political consequences of it. For example, workers' control of production means the control of intellectual production (ie., academia, universities, research, physics, logic, maths, etc.), not just the control of factories (ie. 'widgets', the 'material' stuff the workers can touch).So, not surprisingly, regarding these terms, 'they don't feature very much in these exchanges with me'.I've read many of your archives, blogs, Socialist Standard articles going back a century, and even some specialist stuff that a comrade sent to me, like Alison Assiter's 1979 article about Engels and epistemology, so I know both your strengths and weaknesses.Unfortunately, the weaknesses prevail – there seem to be two groups in the SPGB: one group, like you, doesn't really understand what all this stuff about "workers' power", democratic production, social individuals actually means, so are quite happy to mouth the 'correct' platitudes; the other group, the Religious Materialists, can really understand the political consequences of these terms, and don't like it one bit. So, they, as you say, don't use them in our debates.So, the SPGB seems to consist of the ignorant and the religious, the former unaware, the latter faithful to 'Matter', and a Democratic Communist is running rings around youse.I'm surprised in one way, because you've set up a site to attract workers, preferably who already know Marx, and hope to encourage them to join the SPGB and help build for 'socialism'.But, asked what 'socialism' means… and it all goes to ratshit. I'm a worker and a Marxist, and I can tell quite clearly that youse are not. Youse seem to favour an elite of 'Specialists', and place your hopes in 'disinterested experts' who will give 'advice' which has to be taken. None of you have any intention at all in building a society in which the masses determine for themselves whether, for example, 'matter exists', or whether that concept can be replaced by another of our choosing which better reflects our needs, interests and purposes.From what mod1 wrote earlier, youse seem to think that 'experts' already know our needs, interests and purposes, and that their 'expert advice' is not to be gainsaid.Finally, it's ironic that in the latest edition of the Socialist Standard, the SPGB criticises Stephen Hawking about his views on psychology, but presumably accepts that he 'knows better' than us about nature and physics.Believe me, I'll know when this party is ready for my membership – when it starts criticising Hawking for his maths and physics!Well, I won't be voting for him, when we elect the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, in our socialist society!
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.Is your interpretation of 'socialism' widely held within the SPGB, even if it's not an officially declared position?In your interpretation of 'communism' there will be workers. You are not a communist if you believe there will be a working class in communism.
We've been over this dozens of times, Vin. Surely you haven't got that bad a memory? But if you have forgotten, you've only got to read what I replied to you last time.
Well, we differ about just what that famous statement of communism 'means', robbo.Anyway, I'm pretty clear about your personal views, but how far do they reflect the 'official' view of the SPGB?I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.Is your interpretation of 'socialism' widely held within the SPGB, even if it's not an officially declared position?
robbo203 wrote:You see, to talk about individuals being able to freely take from the distribution stores according to their self determined needs and to freely and voluntarily contribute to the production of wealth according their abilities is unspeakably INDIVIDUALIST, for heaven's sake. I mean, you can't really go about mouthing slogans like "from each according to ability to each according to need". Where will it all end? Next, people will be calling this Marx's "higher stage of communism"!No, people need to be democratically instructed by the ..er .."democratic global community" concerning what work we shall each contribute and what goods and services we shall each be allowed to consume. All 7 billion plus of us, Now thats "democratic communism", innit?The saddest part of this, robbo, is that you're making quite clearly my (and Marx's) argument here, very well, but without realising it.You're contrasting your 'individualist consumptionism' with Marx's 'social productionism'.The former doesn't need 'democracy', whereas the latter does need 'democracy'.For the former, Engel's 'materialism' ('matter' being touched by 'passive biological individuals') is quite sufficient.But for the latter, some ideology of 'human creation' is required, where the 'subject' is a 'social' category, a subject that creatively produces its world.For the former, individuals contemplate their choices from the existing store; for the latter, society creates both its choices and its store.
alanjjohnstone wrote:What i have is a problem of expecting everyone to know everything, LBird, and not respecting the knowledge acquired by others after much study and experience. Simple as that.As I said before, alan, you're going to have to discuss with me what I write, not with robbo's "What LBird Says". You really have to make that effort.
ajj wrote:Will it be by voting and if so, my earlier question remains…who determines the constituency and who determines the competency of those involved in the decision-making.[my bold]The simple answer, which I've given every time that you or anyone else has asked, to the question of 'who determines' is 'the democratic producers'.But, at no time at all, do you or the SPGB give your own answer.I've suggested you could answer 'an elite of Specialists', or 'Matter', or some variation upon those ('academics', 'physicists', 'the SPGB', 'True Reality', 'Eternal Knowledge', etc.). But you continue to hide your ideology.This answer of mine is in line with Marx's ideological views, that the social producers will create their world.I'm still not really sure what either your personal view is, or the official view of the SPGB.From what I can tell, the site seems to be populated by the 'ignorant and uninformed' mob, of your and robbo's ideological fear of "workers' democracy". Ironic, eh? From what you've written in the quote above, you still haven't figured out what Marx was talking about, and have been taken in by Engels' guff about 'Material/Matter'.Like the rest, alan, if you disagree with me, all good and fine, but you're going to have to read up on these issues. I'm only trying to help, and provide a bit of a shortcut. Why not read one of the books that I've recently recommended (Brzozowski, Miller, for eg.) or one that jondwhite has tried to discuss, GS Jones' Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion ?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Would workers' democracy exclude the ignorant and uninformed, or do they have the same equa right of involvement in decision-making?I think that the political answer to this, alan, is that all workers would be fully educated in any issue that they chose to vote upon.The very idea that there will be a large pool of 'ignorant and uninformed' humans, desperate to inflict their nihilistic anti-science views upon the 'decent, educated, thoughtful, minority', is really a central plank of bourgeois ideology.In some ways, it shows the still great power of 'ruling class ideas' upon our society, including over socialists like you.As a Democratic Communist, I would expect that the process of developing a revolutionary class consciousness amongst workers would remove the worry that you have expressed here.Unless you agree, with what I'm starting to suspect is widespread within the SPGB, that only 'an elite of the educated and informed' will make decisions for the dumb majority.It seems that my understanding of the revolutionary process to human emancipation is very different from the SPGB's – not least, over this issue of 'democracy'. If you've got a mental picture of the 'ignorant and uninformed' having to be 'excluded', christ knows what robbo's visions of the "hell of workers' democracy" look like.
moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.You're really not reading what I write, alan, and have accepted robbo's version of 'What LBird says'.I have no problem whatsoever with 'technocratic elites' – they simply explain their views to us, and we vote on them.That is, we make the decision, not the 'technocratic elite'.If they claim either not to be able to explain, or that we can't understand, then we'll reject them and that ideology, and replace them with experts who can explain to everyone. The 'technocrats' will be elected, and removed if they don't serve our social needs, interests and purposes.That democratic method in science will be a feature of socialism.There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.That's not socialism, alan. Socialism is we determine our 'environmental reasons'.
This begs the question, if the technocratic elite only advise and do not decide what is the purpose of electing them?
I'm always baffled as to why SPGB members (an organisation that claims to be democratic) have so much trouble with the notion that power must be under democratic control.It's as if the whole notion of 'power' causes a collective mystification, a party-wide shrugging of shouders, a sighing of incomprehension: 'Power? Power? What is LBird talking about? Why's he always banging on about power, politics, democracy? Why the hell does he come to this site, to constantly question us about who will have power in socialism?'I don't know, mod1. Perhaps it'll take a technocratic elite of eugenicists to advise that your reproductive organs be removed, because you don't match up to their advice on 'human normality', for you to start to wonder about just whose needs, interests and purposes are embodied in that advice, and why you're not allowed any say in the taking or not of the said 'expert advice'.It's as if the 20th century in science never happened for the 'materialists' – but then, being a 19th century ideology, I suppose that this socio-historical blindness is entirely to be expected. That's what comes from believing the bourgeois myth that 'scientists' are merely 'discovering' 'The Truth' of 'Reality', as embodied in 'Matter'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The issue of decision-making is an intriguing one. Robbo's local sewage plant may well be opposed by NIMBY localists against the proposals of LBird's bugbears, the technocrat elitists who have all manner of environmental reasons for the location's benefits.You're really not reading what I write, alan, and have accepted robbo's version of 'What LBird says'.I have no problem whatsoever with 'technocratic elites' – they simply explain their views to us, and we vote on them.That is, we make the decision, not the 'technocratic elite'.If they claim either not to be able to explain, or that we can't understand, then we'll reject them and that ideology, and replace them with experts who can explain to everyone. The 'technocrats' will be elected, and removed if they don't serve our social needs, interests and purposes.That democratic method in science will be a feature of socialism.There are no needs, interests or purposes that are not amenable to democratic controls. To argue otherwise, is to sanction an elite within social production.That's not socialism, alan. Socialism is we determine our 'environmental reasons'.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.Indeed. And if you claim to be a democratic socialist do you also take note of it? Do you concur with the statement I made or not. Yes or no. And if "no", in what way do you specifically disagree with it, Spit it out LBIrd. Lets hear you concrete objections to what was said in post 10 if you have any….
My 'concrete objection' is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and so insist that only workers' democracy can determine social production.I clearly state that the 'practical' can only be determined by social theory and practice, and that that method is a democratic one.My ideology is the same as Marx's. 'Theory and practice' are inescapably linked. There is no 'practice' which is outside of 'abstract theory'.Those who argue, like you do, for the precedence of 'practice', are individualists. They pretend to be outside of society and its consciousness, and pretend that 'biological sensation' gives individuals access to 'reality', without any need to address the social theory and practice behind the production of our social senses.You're simply tying yourself in knots, trying to preserve your right as an individual to ignore democracy.But 'socialism' means 'democracy', not 'individualism'.It's a 'definition', robbo (or, as you like to characterise it, an 'abstract theory').I'm a Democratic Communist, whose ideology defines 'socialism' as 'democratic socialism'.Your ideology clearly defines it as something else, so you should be open with us and openly declare your definition.You are apparently only happy with 'democracy' when it doesn't involve any power over you as an individual. And you'll reduce your parameters of the 'local' to yourself, to avoid any democratic controls over you.You'll ignore any social power that you don't agree with: world, regional, city, village, parish… by reverting to the ideology that only 'local practicalities' matter, and that only you can determine the 'local practicality'.You're an ideological individualist, robbo.
Again, what this all boils down to is whether 'democracy' is a core value, or just something employed when it's 'practical'.But, who (or what) determines the 'practical'?Democratic Communists would argue that only the producers can determine whether a political situation is to be based upon 'democratic' values, or upon the 'practice' of an elite.Religious Materialists argue that special elites (in their political/ideological terminology, 'locals') can operate outside of the democratic controls of society. They do this by arguing that 'knowledge' is 'local' to an 'elite' – that is, 'knowledge' is not a social product by society, but a product by a 'knowing elite'.The obvious 'local' elite in political history is the Party, then its cadre, then its central committee, then its leader.You can't get a more 'practical' and 'local' power than 'Uncle Joe'.
robbo203 wrote:Democracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories…[my bold]What about 'democracy for us', robbo?How do you know what is 'practical', in the absence of 'abstract theories'?Whatever happened to Marx's 'abstract theories' about 'social theory and practice' and 'democratic production'?It's simply an excuse to try to realise the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom' – you're an ideological individualist, robbo.By 'local' you really mean 'yourself'.
