[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Personally, i believe there can be a quite constructive debate with LBird when this "workers democracy" is discussed in practical terms, rather than high-faluting philosophical terms….(yes, i know, philosophy has importance but theory is often over-ridden by practice and implementation)

One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start.I, too, 'believe there can be a quite constructive debate with' the SPGB, but bringing this 'key problem' to the fore has to be the initial step.That is, as always, your appeal to 'practical terms' (and your denigrating of theory as 'high-faluting' is the obverse of this).As I've said before, this is not simply your 'personal opinion', but a political ideology – and a political ideology with conservative, not radical, implications. It is, to simplify, 'practice and theory', the ideological belief that 'practice' precedes 'theory', and that 'theory' emerges after successful 'practice'. That is, in your words, (unsuccessful) 'theory is often over-ridden by practice and implementation' (successful practice).This ideology can be contrasted with 'theory and practice', which is the ideology that I hold to, and which I argue that Marx held to, too.For this ideology, any 'practice' is always the result of some pre-existing 'theory', even if the 'theory' is hidden, unknown or uncomprehended. For this method, if a 'theory' is 'over-ridden by practice', then the 'open theory' has been surreptitiously replaced by another 'theory' – but an 'undeclared theory', which the supposed 'practitioners' are hiding, either from only others or also from themselves, too. All 'practice' requires 'theory', and the denial of this is a political act, which is intended to pretend to the unaware that the 'practitioner' doesn't have a 'theory', but is simply 'dealing with reality as it is'.For those with an 'individualist' ideology (like, for eg. US Pragmatists like James and Peirce), then the supposedly 'isolated' actions of a biological being (outside of any social considerations) are simply 'practical'. This ideology can pretend to itself that they are simply 'individuals dealing with reality as they find it' (and so ignore any socio-economic, historically-created reality, which exists because of the exercise of previous political power). Thus, it is conservative, because it accepts 'what is' as a basis for 'practice', rather than 'theoretically' criticise 'what is', and so plan to change 'what is' into 'what should be'.

ajj wrote:

Perhaps, some will consider all this idle speculation over blueprints but exchanging opinions over concrete manifestations or embryonic expressions of social democracy/industrial democracy need not be a sterile exercise

The only people who 'will consider all this idle speculation over blueprints', are either those with something to hide (elitists) or those who are ignorant of the political aspects of social knowledge production. Whichever it is, this conservative view will prevent, from the start, the proletariat developing its own self-conscious awareness of its building of its world, already, to interests, purposes and plans (ie., 'theory') which are not of its own making.Class consciousness includes the realisation that we workers build, now, by 'theory and practice', and we have to replace another class' 'theory' with that of our own conscious design and decision.The exploiting class has always pretending that the world just came to be, by accident, by 'practice', and that they simply draw 'theoretical' conclusions from 'what exists', and so conscious change is unscientific.Marx argued otherwise: to change our world, we have to theorise that change, first: democratic social theory and practice, by which we build our world to our plans, in our interests, for our purposes.This debate certainly isn't a 'sterile exercise' – it's fundamental to building class consciousness in workers, and developing their self-confidence.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In defence of LBird, i think he has a fundamental difference with the SPGB and may suffer a form of "OCD" when it comes to repeatedly discussing his views on this forum at every opportunity regardless of the relevance to the thread, imho.

There is some truth to what alan says: my experience of coming to revolutionary politics through Trotskyism, especially my time in the SWP, has given me an "OCD"-like reflex to those who aim to lie to workers about "workers' democracy" within socialism.This issue does seem to be my 'fundamental difference with the SPGB', because, perhaps unknowingly, the SPGB espouses exactly the same 'materialist' ideology as do the Leninists.

ajj wrote:

Thus i do think he should be monitored a bit more stringently to ensure that he is following the guidelines and i do believe he has been suspended on occasions by the moderator.

Yes, I've been suspended several times, for defending "workers' democracy" before hostile 'materialists': only to be expected, I'm afraid. 

ajj wrote:

 A Troll he is not, however, no more than those who regularly engage him in debate and discussion, and who are perhaps equally culpable for the distraction, are guilty of being Trolls. 

Indeed, I'm not a 'troll' (unless political persistence and advocating workers' power is a vice for the SPGB), as my many references to many Communist writers' books and sites, dating back to 1896 up to the present, show. I'm just better read than the others, and who I would say do manifest 'troll'-like behaviour. 

ajj wrote:

A few of my recent messages has raised the issue whether this engagement in polemics has well and truly run its course and no longer resulting in any benefit for the contributors. Until they acknowledge this, i fear there is little that can be done. 

Well, I'm not about to reject my commitment to Democratic Communism, and whilst the SPGB claims to be in favour of democratic socialism, the ball is in the court of the SPGB to show why they reject democratic epistemology, which is the only method of knowledge creation open to a democratic society. Of course, 'materialism' does reject this – that's the problem, as Marx pointed out, and as Engels didn't comprehend.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Ah, so we agree materialism isn't inherently elitist?

Yes, because you've said that it's democratic, and that's fine by me.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

At a guess I'd say an objective world is open to democracy, as people will directly access and understand it themselves, without needing an elite, as I've suggested before, so your question seems to support my cas more than thine. 

[my bold]Then we agree, YMS.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Well here's a simpe enough question to ask L Bird. In your vision of unfettered democratic socialism, will there be limits to who votes and who doesn't?

That's a democratic decision.I know that this answer doesn't fit in with your elitist vision of 'fettered undemocratic socialism'.Why not read the LibCom article?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

You have yet to prove that the existence of an objective world means that it is only accesible to special consciousness, and thus necessitates elitism.

So why isn't this world accessible to democracy?

[LBird]

You'll do anything, and slander anyone, to avoid discussing democratic production, workers' power, and our production of our knowledge, won't you, robbo?Why not read the link I gave to the LibCom article, if you don't want to read what I write?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

 Workers do not eat with Marx or Engels materialim or your bourgoise idealism

And workers do not carry out a class conscious revolution of self-determination with your ideology of Religious Materialism, mcolome1.You're right, of course, to discuss the other subjects that you mention, but revolutionary ideas are at least as important as full bellies.We can imagine a world where workers have 'full bellies', but no workers' revolution, but we can't imagine a world where there is a workers' revolution, but no class conscious science, philosophy, physics, maths, logic, etc.My 'idealism', by the way, is Marx's: 'idealism-materialism', social theory and practice, democratic production.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

  Or are you adopting the elitist standpoint of declaring you know better what Engels thought than Engels.    

Of course we 'know better what Engels thought than Engels'!We've had over 150 years to discuss his ideas, and thousands of thinkers have gone through his works, and come to the conclusion that he didn't know what he was talking about.If this is news to you, robbo…

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ?  This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ? 

Why not try reading and learning, mcolome1?It's not too edifying to see socialists praising ignorance.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'd suggest, it is because you cannot change knowing without changing being, being in the world preceeds knowing (social being determines social consciousness, as Engels said).

[my bold and italic]You're expressing an ideology, YMS, seemingly unknowingly. Ironic, eh?You're also confused (as was Engels, regarding Marx).In bold, 'being precedes knowing';In italic, 'social being precedes knowing'.In the former ideology, that in bold, 'being' is not 'conscious' (otherwise, it could not 'precede knowing').In the latter ideology, that in italic, 'social being' is 'conscious' (so 'being' alone cannot 'precede knowing').You wish Marx had said 'being determines social consciousness', but he said 'social being'.'Being' is a concept within 'materialism'.'Social being' is a concept within 'idealism-materialism'.You follow Engels' 'materialism', YMS, which separates 'being' and 'consciousness', object from subject.I follow Marx's 'idealism-materialism', which relates 'being and consciousness', object and subject.Because you separate, you can imagine a world of 'object' without a 'subject'; or, 'being' without 'consciousness'. Having imagined this, you then believe you can 'know' being, without any 'consciousness' being involved. Thus, you argue, as do all 'materialists', that 'being' precedes 'consciousness'.I know that this will be wasted on you, from the tone of rest of your post, but perhaps others will learn.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But that when challenged, Lbird has never substantiated:1) That materialism necesarilly posits the requirement a special consciousness 2) That such consciousness is 'not available to all.'3) That it is necessarilly elitist.I have further pointed out in the past that materialism, as opposed to the authoritarian theory of truth, means that everybody can know the world without needing a special consciousness, precisely the opposite: Lbird has never rebutted that claim.

[my bold]So, if 'everybody can know', why can't they vote to change what they know?If it's because there is a difference between 'the world' and what 'they know of the world', who 'knows the world' that they collectively don't?Marx pointed this out in his Theses on Feuerbach. For 'materialism', there has to be an elite who 'know the world', who can tell the majority that they are wrong in their own determination of what 'everybody can know'.This 'materialist' elite will not have democracy within their society. They can't, because the majority would be able to impose their own 'knowledge of their world', which they elite 'materialists' hold that only they have the power to 'know'.This is why Lenin supported Engels' misunderstanding of Marx, and why 'materialism' is an ideology of an elite.

YMS wrote:

(p.s. I did read the uninteresting article – I've never maintained Lbird was unique in discussing such matters, but more pertinently that he was treading ground adequately covered by Williams and Thompson long ago and the general thrust of cultural materialism)

So, if you find the article 'uninteresting', why keep asking me to explain what you find 'uninteresting'?Just accept that you think you know better than 'everybody', and that for you, 'everybody' can't vote to change your own personal, individual 'knowledge', because you claim to 'know reality', by a biological method, and you don't agree with the social production of knowledge, which, in a democratic society like socialism, can only be a democratic product.You are a 'materialist' to protect your biological, individual right to 'know reality'. It's simple bourgeois philosophy, YMS. You're a product of a society that has told you this, all your life, and you uncritically believe it.'Materialism' is 'common sense', in a class society which abhors democratic production.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

 'Materialism' is the perfect ideology for elitists, like Lenin, because it posits a 'special consciousness', not available to all and so not democratic, by which the elite 'know matter'. 

Can I just quietly point out you have never substantiated this claim.

There are none so blind as those who will not see!If you can tell me what you haven't understood about what I've 'never substantiated', I'll try again (mod permitting).But… if you're going to stick to your (unacknowledged?) 'materialism', then these well-established 'claims' (since the late 19th century) will remain 'unsubstantiated-for-materialists'.Have you read the LibCom article link? At least it'll give you a rest and change from what I'm writing, and show that this isn't just all 'my' theory.

[LBird]

Perhaps this link will provide some food for thought, for those disposed to have a chew.Between Marx, Marxism, and Marxisms – ways of reading Marx’s theory – Ingo Elbehttp://libcom.org/library/between-marx-marxism-marxisms-%E2%80%93-ways-reading-marx%E2%80%99s-theory-ingo-elbe

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

There is, of course, also this famous circular of 1879 to the German Party signed by both Marx AND Engels (which moreover was actually written by Engels himself) which gives the lie  to LBird's, as usual, groundless speculations.   Leninist vanguardism had its orgins in part in the emergent trend towards vanguardism and elitism within the broader Social Democratic movement as a whole , to which trend both Marx AND Engels defiantly expressed their uncompromising opposition.

mcolome1 wrote:

Both Marx and Engels opposed elitism and the concept of leadership 

One day, lads, you're going to have to read what I write, rather than arguing with a myth of your own making.

[Author]

Posts