LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Has this book turned up on your reading list, LBIRDhttps://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560257482/dissivoice-20A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and Low Mechanicks BYClifford D. Conner
Yeah, I've often recommended Chapter 6 – Who were the winners in the scientific revolution? (pp. 349-421) for comrades to try to get to grips with the socio-historic roots of bourgeois science, but the Religious Materialists who follow Engels don't read much history, do they?Faith In Matter can't try to locate 'matter' in history and society, and so allow us to change it (because it is, as Marx argued, our product and so amenable to our changing of it), but Faith In Matter Knows Matter As It Eternally Is.I know that you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about, alan, as you've admitted many times, but take the well-meant advice of a Democratic Communist and Marxist – try to read further about Marx and his differences with Engels and the Religious Materialism that Lenin and other elitists, like the SPGB, espouse.You could do worse than starting with Conner's chapter – although I no longer expect anyone on this site to follow up, since most clearly haven't even read Marx or Engels.
robbo203 wrote:ALB wrote:In any event, the disappearance of money was discussed by the Bolsheviks in the early days after their coup.Yes, I wouldnt dispute that. Didnt Stalin in his 1906 work on Anarchism say something similar – about a socialist society being a moneyless society?However, the question is whether the period of "war communism" represented a genuine attempt, as some have claimed, to institute a moneyless communist society.
It's not the simple issue of 'the disappearance of money' that is at issue – the real issue is 'what replaces money after its disappearance'.The only answer which allows us to equate a 'moneyless society' with 'socialism' is democratic production.There can be a 'moneyless society' which is not 'socialism'.From this Marxist perspective, "war communism' was nothing whatsoever to do with 'socialism'. The associated producers never democratically controlled production in Russia, pre- or post-1917.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Yes, like Engels, I used to 'hope it will not come to that', but 'there is nothing left for us' Democratic Communists, who insist, like Marx, that only the producers can democratically create their world, 'than to speak out against it publicly'.Then surely you are proposing that the "truth" is decided upon by an elite, i.e. the producers. what about the non-productive, people with disabilites, those who have retired from productive taks, etc. "democratic communists" exclude them fromt his process?
I'm not sure what ideology you're using to understand the concept 'producers', Tim, and why you think that 'production' is done by an 'elite', alone. If you do believe this, but you've kept it hidden all this time, then it will explain a lot about your difficulty in understanding Marx.For Marx, all humans are 'producers'.If you're serious about discussing this, I'll do so, but if you're just taking the piss, as usual, then I'll have to just ignore you, as usual.The ball's in your court.
As I expected, there's no reply to political questions by YMS.But then, I already knew, from years of asking, that there wouldn't be, from any of the Religious Materialists. They can't answer these political questions, because their ideology prevents them doing so.But, there must be SPGB members and supporters out there who can see that there is a genuine political issue at stake, here. And really, it's to those who I'm addressing my posts.That is, to critical thinkers, not Religious Materialists. Those who think that any power in Socialism will be under democratic control, and not under the control of an elite of 'Specialists', who supposedly have a 'Special Consciousness' that the rest of us don't, and supposedly have a 'politically neutral' method which is available to 'Special Individuals', who are 'politically disinterested', and pretend to be concerned with 'The Truth' of 'Out There'.It's all bourgeois ideology, and can be located socio-historically.The Religious Materialists, of course, don't talk about society or history – social production, and its changes over time.For the Religious Materialists, 'Matter Is Eternal'. 'Matter' is their god, and they have Faith.That's why democracy provides so great a problem for them – they claim to already 'Know Matter', and won't have workers having the power to tell them otherwise.Whereas, Democratic Communists insist that the 'existence', or not, of 'matter' is an issue for the democratic producers who produce 'matter'. They can change 'matter', if their needs, interests and purposes change. Science is social production, not 'revelatory discovery by an elite'. What humans create, they can change.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:But the SPGB 'openly claims' that only an elite can determine 'truth',No, it odesn't Lbird would be unable to provide any evidence that it does.
Well, let's try once again.For the SPGB, 'who' or 'what' determines 'truth'?My answer, as a Democratic Communist, is that only the democratic, revolutionary, class conscious proletariat can determine its 'truth'.Every time that I've asked, the SPGB, which employs 'materialism', answers 'matter'. You openly state that you won't allow a vote on 'matter'.
YMS wrote:LBird wrote:that only an elite of 'specialists' can control physics, maths, logic, all science, and, contrary to Marx's arguments for the self-emancipation of the proletariat by democratic political methods, that 'the workers are too ignorant' and must be 'emancipated from the top down' by 'disinterested scientists'.No it doesn't, and Lbird can provide no evidence that it does.
Why does the SPGB then keep saying that an elite of 'Specialists' must determine their 'Speciality'?For Democratic Communists, who argue that only the producers can determine what they produce, any elected 'Specialists' must explain their 'Specialism' to everybody else, and so the 'Generalists', the vast majority, must themselves determine the 'Specialism'.So, we openly state that physics, maths, logic, all science must be under our democratic control. There is no elite who know things that the rest of us can't.
YMS wrote:LBird wrote:The SPGB posters here have openly opposed the democratic control of production of truth, and have insisted that only an elite of 'specialists' have access to 'Truth', by using a 'politically neutral' method, which cannot allow voting by the majority.No party member has argued this, and Lbird will be unable to provide any evidence to this effect.
You all argue that 'science' has a politically neutral method, because otherwise you'd have to argue, as Marxists do, that 'science is a powerful social activity' and so is fundamentally political. Within a democratic society like Socialism, all 'power' would be under democratic control.It's very easy for the SPGB to agree that all production within Socialism will be democratic, but for some reason it doesn't.The best I seem to be able to get out of the SPGB is that they'll deign to allow workers to control 'widget production' in 'factories'.But once 'knowledge' and 'academia' are mentioned… well, it's just bluster by the SPGB. And poorly educated bluster, at that.That's what comes from remaining within the 19th century, and espousing 'Religious Materialism', an ideology suited to 'elite production', and as such was also espoused by Lenin.Why the SPGB does this, I don't know. But when I try to engage the SPGB in a discussion, I'm either personally abused or banned.All I can continue to do, whilst allowed, is to offer reading recommendations and links, to those who might be minded to follow up on these issues, because they are concerned that the SPGB is unable to answer my questions.The real problem is your Faith In Matter.My Faith is in the Democratic Producers, as was Marx's.If you think Marx and I were wrong, that's fine by me. Then we can progress the debate, and discover just who or what is your alternative to the Democratic Producers controlling the social production of 'truth'.
Dave B wrote:Strategy and Tactics of the Class StruggleA Private Circulation Letter from Marx and Engels, (First drafted by Engels)We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois. Should the new party organ take a position that corresponds with the ideas of those gentlemen, become bourgeois and not proletarian, …[my bold]But the SPGB 'openly claims' that only an elite can determine 'truth', that only an elite of 'specialists' can control physics, maths, logic, all science, and, contrary to Marx's arguments for the self-emancipation of the proletariat by democratic political methods, that 'the workers are too ignorant' and must be 'emancipated from the top down' by 'disinterested scientists'.The SPGB posters here have openly opposed the democratic control of production of truth, and have insisted that only an elite of 'specialists' have access to 'Truth', by using a 'politically neutral' method, which cannot allow voting by the majority.
Quote:…then there is nothing left for us, sorry as we should be to do so, than to speak out against it publicly and dissolve the solidarity within which we have hitherto represented the German party abroad. But we hope it will not come to that.[my bold] Yes, like Engels, I used to 'hope it will not come to that', but 'there is nothing left for us' Democratic Communists, who insist, like Marx, that only the producers can democratically create their world, 'than to speak out against it publicly'.The SPGB has stopped even trying to justify their anti-democratic 'materialism', and seeks instead to attack me personally, and avoid engaging with a political debate about the democratic control of science.If that's the method the SPGB wants to adopt, then fine, but I'll keep posting recommendations for reading, for those readers who wish to dig deeper into these political issues. It's up to readers to follow up on them or not. I know that the 'faithful' of Religious Materialism won't do so, and that they'll retain their faith in 'matter', rather than adopt a faith in the democratic proletariat. But to those who still retain some critical senses, the options are there.Miller is only one of many.
mcolome1 wrote:We have already discussed that conception which is the vanguard party.I'm glad that you're admitting it, mcolome1.
moderator1 wrote:Even to the extent, I take it that they become the unity of opposites?I'm not an Engelsist 'Religious Materialist', like you, mod1, so I don't recognise the 'dialectical' nonsense about 'unity of opposites'.That sort of talk is only there to baffle workers, so that the elitists who use that guff can hide their anti-democratic 'philosophy' (an 'ideology' by any other name, to keep this reply relevant to the thread).Of course, Lenin was right at home with 'unity of opposites' – wasn't that the actual 'unity' between the supposed 'opposites' of party and class?Youse Religious Materialists might be still falling for this 19th century elitist bluffing, but most workers aren't any more. It's 2017, not 1917.
jondwhite wrote:Quote:In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’.Of course, the Democratic Communist answer to that academic statement is:'We have a social philosophy, we have political opinions, we have an ideology'.And we can change around 'philosophies', 'opinions' and 'ideologies', and assign to each whatever status we democratically decide.We can change 'philosophy' to 'opinion', and 'ideology' to 'philosophy'. And then change them again, to suit our purposes, needs and interests.All philosophy, opinion and ideology are socio-historic products. In a Democratic Communist society, we can change them.
jondwhite wrote:June 2nd to 4th 2017Quote:4) Ideology versus Philosophy.In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’. This reflects a position that ideology is a distorted or illusory form of thought which departs from the criterion of objectivity. If this is the case, how does philosophy differ from ideology, and how do we differentiate between concepts of ideology and philosophy? Is it a semantic difference, or is there something that fundamentally separates philosophy from ideology?And who would want to 'fundamentally separate', and why.I can tell you the answers, now:An 'elite', and 'for power'.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I guess I am not clear still. Sorry, but here's an example that maybe you can tell me if it's individual production or social production. ….Questions I want you to answer like I"m a 5 year old: Was that social production or individual production? I would have said both. ….EACH individual could individually choose not to participate.No problem, Steve, here's the answer for our '5 year old'.It's social production.The reason for this, Steve, is that all production by humans is social.To find an example of 'individual production', you'd have to find a biological individual who hasn't and doesn't take anything whatsoever from their society.This is impossible.This supposed 'individual' would, from birth, have to have no contact whatsoever with their society: no watering, no feeding, no loving, no caring, no education, no culture, etc.If someone as an adult freely wanted to choose to be in this asocial state, so that they can engage in a supposed 'individual production', we could easily grant their request.We'd remove their clothes, their access to water, food, warmth, shelter, all the 'physical/biological' stuff that society provides… and, of course, we'd have to remove all that nasty 'social conditioning' that the 'individualist' condemns so much… so, a frontal lobotomy, perhaps, anything that completely removes any trace of social knowledge that the 'individual' has taken from society.Then, we'll 'objectively observe' the naked, thirsty, hungry, cold, asocial, ahistoric, 'free individual' as they cry aloud and slowly die, not having actually produced anything 'individual', not even their own survival, and wonder just why they believed their ideologogical myth of 'individual production'.I'm sure even our '5 year old' can see that it's not really a 'free choice', and when they grow up, they won't make the mistake of seeing 'individual production' as 'freedom'.They'll be keen for us all to develop, together, as social individuals engaged in democratic production.
Prakash RP wrote:It seems clear as day that if you're to make a choice between pragmatism ( or something like the principle that end justifies means ) and your communist principles, you're all for abandoning your communist principles altogether, RIGHT ? And you're dead certain that this act of saying goodbye to your communist principles will promote the cause of communism, OK ? May I want to know what led you to your confidence that you're wholly RIGHT on this point ?Whilst I do not agree with the content of your 'communist principles', on this point you're entirely correct.'Communist principles' have to be outlined prior to 'communism'.The SPGB seems to hold to an ideology of 'Religious Materialism', that holds that 'pragmatism', or, 'practice and theory', is the correct method for building socialism. Marx opposed this with his notion of 'theory and practice', during which socialism is build according to socialist principles.So, as you say, the SPGB does not need to declare any 'principles', because it argues that 'principles' emerge from 'practice'.It's clear that 'principles' (ie. 'theory') also include ethics, morals, beliefs, etc., and these are realised in 'practice', in the process of building socialism.So, their 'confidence' is based upon an ideology that is not compatible with 'socialism', because the 'principles' upon which it will be based will be hidden, and known only to an elite minority of 'specialists' who claim to have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to all (otherwise, these 'theories/principles' would be open to democratic accountability).Their 'pragmatism' will lead in the same direction as do all pragmatist theories: 'individual' (ie. elite) rule. It's the ideological basis of Leninism.BTW, Prakash RP, this argument is so devastating to the SPGB, that if I repeat it I get banned. So I will not repeat it again on this thread. I just wanted to let you know that some can see the sense in your argument (if not in the content of your particular version).
Yeah, yeah, I get a warning (again) from the impartial moderator, whilst the 'materialists' (of which the mod is one) call me what they like, even when I follow the rules and report it to the mod, and nothing is doneWhat I write is 'shit', according to the 'objective observer' mcolome 1, but when I suggest ignorance is a bad thing, I get a warning.Meanwhile, the dingbats come at me in squadrons, unmolested by moderation.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The charge you are making LBird that i deny my own ideology i think is misplaced. I prioritise it in my view of it.I'm only going by what you have already said, alan.You've argued that 'practice' is the definer of 'theory', and the 'theory' is simply rejected, if it doesn't work 'in practice'.I've argued that 'theory and practice' is a unified method, and so if it fails according to the 'theory', then it has to be replaced by a different 'theory and practice'.That is, if something doesn't work 'in practice', one can't pretend that then the 'practice' determines a new 'theory'. 'Practice' is not the source of 'theory' – humans are the source of 'theory'.So, the failure of a cycle of 'theory and practice' tells us nothing about the 'practice' alone. That is, any appeal by individuals to 'practice' is simply hiding the 'theory' that they are employing which tells them whether a 'practice' is a success or failure.Only the producers of the 'theory and practice' can determine whether the 'theory and practice' is successful or not. That is, they can vote upon whether their 'theory and practice' has worked for them, for their interests, purposes, plans and desired outcomes. If the 'practice' fails, it fails for a 'theory'. It is not apparent to individual senses held by an elite with a special consciousness whether 'practice' has failed or succeeded.That is, only the social producers can determine the 'truth' of the outcome of their social theory and practice. This 'truth' is not simply apparent to some few, but can only be apparent to the collective.This is where 'materialism' falls down, because it argues that the source of 'truth' is 'The Material World', and any sequence of 'theory and practice' is measured (by individuals/elites) against their senses within 'The Material World'. But Marx's 'social productionism' argues that we create our world (ie. 'material-for-us', if you like), and so all can judge whether this 'World-For-Us' is true or false. True or falsity, success of failure, can only be determined by social theory and practice, which can only be democratic.If 'failure' of 'theory' is apparent to individual senses, science would be superfluous. It's not necessarily clear what constitutes 'failure' of a 'theory', and if it is clear, then all can clearly see this, and would vote accordingly.The denial of democracy within epistemology is itself a political act, which is intended to reserve the decision on whether a 'theory' has 'failed in practice' to an elite of 'scientists' who have a 'special consciousness' that the masses cannot develop, and that these 'scientists' have a politically-neutral method, and they are 'disinterested' passive observers (ie. that they don't create the 'Reality' that they are 'observing'), and so this elite are the ones to determine the 'practical failure of a theory'.Put it this way, alan. If you can tell a 'theory' has 'failed in practice', so can I, and all the others here. We can vote upon that outcome.If you can't tell, and don't expect those who claim that they alone can tell to openly explain in a way that you understand, then you are in the power of this 'special elite'.Within socialism, physics must be explicable to all of us – it must be explained, openly, so that a vote can be taken on whether the 'scientific knowledge' it produces is 'True-For-Us'. But 'materialism' claims that 'matter' tells us its 'truth', and so from the start undermines any attempt to democratise science, which is a key social tool in building our world. In fact, 'materialism' puts power into the hands an academic elite, who claim to have special powers to Know Truth, to discover Eternal Knowledge, which once discovered, can't be changed. If they admit it can be changed (which is what Marx argued we should be aiming to do with our social reality), then they'd have to admit that their 'scientific knowledge' is not 'True', but only 'true-for-us' at a given socio-historical point in our social production.
ajj wrote:I did so the day i chose that agreeing 100% with 100% of the membership of the SPGB was not necessary but what i did accept was that i had much in common with the majority of them and that the points of difference were not so vastly apart or irreconcilable that they could not be overcome by debate and discussion – something that is still ongoing as many will acknowledge from the temper of some of my posts.I pay tribute to your openness, alan, and to your constant reasonableness under the extreme provocation of my arguments. In many ways, we are 'not so vastly apart'.But on this issue, the ideology of 'materialism', it's a deal-breaker. I'm arguing that any socialists who espouse 'materialism' will turn away from democracy within social production, and will turn to 'rule by specialists', who will be autonomous within their 'specialism', and so out of the power and control of the majority (or, 'generalists').For my version of Democratic Communism, only the 'generalists' can decide whether the 'specialists' know what they are talking about – the 'specialists' are not the source of 'truth', they are only the source of 'options' for our votes. We might accept one option, or two or more, or reject all those currently supplied. That is, 'truth' is not necessarily singular, and certainly isn't 'Eternal Truth', a myth of bourgeois science. 'truth' is a social product, and we can change it, and within a democratic society, that changing of truth can only be a democratic decision. There isn't an elite who 'Know Reality'.
ajj wrote:The need to begin to be part of the great process of social change was more vital than some of my own pet theories (ideology) and individual interpretation of the class struggle, past, present and future.It would be indeed utopian to suggest that the SPGB is the ideal vehicle for achieving socialism, but it is the best we got right now. Or can you offer a better alternative, LBird? What is ideology that remains outside practice? Religion and the belief in a non-interventionist "god"? The test of ideology is its application.I've always argued for the method of social theory and practice, alan, and only those who wish to hide this say that I only talk about 'theory'. Again, this is a political move to undermine what I'm saying – to call me an 'Idealist' who wishes to 'ignore practice'. The 'materialists' got this move from Engels, when he divided all philosophy into either 'materialism' or 'idealism', and so gave the 'materialists' the power to call their opponents, like me, 'idealists'.
ajj wrote:Educate Agitate Organise. You may well believe the first is the prime imperative but without the pillars of the other two, then any edifice will tumble (as the Wobblies discovered, mezinks).Again some will note that the content of my posts emphasise the second principle as the one lacking most within the SPGB.While some members concentrate on party matters so to provide a home for the organise option…but i think the future of the workers movement does not rest with the SPGB as a political party and thus, i have invited the forum to discuss the various means that "workers democracy" can materialise and be expressedThe choice is yours whether you are willing to put any flesh on to the bones of your own ideology, LBird.I'm all for putting flesh on to the bones of Marx's ideology, alan. I don't pretend to be an individual, and I openly declare my ideological underpinnings.I'm all for Educate Agitate Organise , but this process will be based upon an ideology, and I'd rather expose, examine and determine which it is to be from several, prior to 'doing stuff'. I don't place 'practice' first, and pretend that a correct 'theory' will then emerge from this supposed 'non-ideological practice'.If democracy isn't at the centre of this process of Educate Agitate Organise then it can't produce socialism. And within the ideology of 'materialism', democracy isn't central – 'matter' is. 'Materialism' denies that humans produce 'matter' and can thus change it – 'materialism' places 'matter' first, not democratic production.Apologies for the length of my post – your enquiring post and comradely attitude deserved a full reply.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Hmmm…did i try to disguise my "ideology"?Quote:One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start."Personally, i believe…I think…or at least i think"…yup, i'm prejudiced alright for declaring my very own thoughts on the matter…
[my bold]You don't seem to realise what you're saying, alan.You are not 'declaring my very own thoughts', but spouting an ideology.Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows that you are unaware of it.
ajj wrote:As i said before, it is time to move on….your own ideology has been done to death on this forum.No, wrong again, alan.It's your own ideology that 'has been done to death on this forum', and it still is being, by you and the other 'materialists', and it will be in the future, whether I remain here, criticising it, or not.You seem to regard yourself as a non-ideological individual, outside of any socio-political influence. That's why you are a 'materialist', because that ideology feeds the illusion of 'individual', biological engagement with 'The Real World' of personal sensation.Since you are probably the most sincere poster here, who has defended me almost uncritically, a number of times, and who has shown at least some interest and willingness to learn about these issues, it pains me to have to point this out, all over again.Unless you stop pretending to be 'non-ideological', then you can't advance.But… the central ideological plank of 'materialism' is that it is not ideological, but deals with 'Real Matter'…Is there a way forward? Not, I think, until (for whatever reason) comrades come to reject their 19th century 'materialism'. If they don't, then the die is cast: irrelevance.
