[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

June 2nd to 4th 2017

Quote:

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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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).

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[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…

[Author]

Posts