LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
moderator1 wrote:Its not a case of "whether there will be limits" but rather the majority recognising and acknowledging there will have to be limits on democracy in order for society to functionally produce needs.
[my bold]You've gone back to your earlier elitist formulation, mod1, which is why we disagree politically.The SPGB should tell workers what 'limits' they have to accept to their own democratic decision-making, according to the SPGB.If these 'limits' on workers' democracy 'have to be', why can't the workers themselves vote about whether these 'limits' exist or not for the producers? If the 'limits' 'have to be', as you argue, then surely workers too (and not just the SPGB elite) will 'recognise and acknowledge' these 'limits'?If the SPGB argues that 'limits' exist, but also argues that these 'limits' are recognisable only to an elite (like the SPGB) and are unrecognisable to 'the majority', then this has implications for the SPGB's concept of 'World Socialism'.'World Socialism' becomes, not something built by a self-conscious revolutionary class of producers, the proletariat, 'the majority', but something that only an elite, like the SPGB, can determine.Thus, 'World Socialism' becomes the product of 'Specialists', an elite with a 'Special Consciousness' who already know social 'functions' and 'needs'.I politically disagree with this elitism. I argue that only 'the majority' can self-consciously determine its own 'needs', 'functions' and 'limits'.
moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:It seems that I've hit a sensitive spot!I'd always assumed that 'World Socialism' was a democratic concept for all socialists, but it appears my assumption is being corrected. If 'World Socialism' involves 'Limited Democracy', just who are the 'Specialists' who will determine those limits, prior to, and to the exclusion of, the producers themselves? Is it to be the SPGB?No you have not hit a sensitive spot. World Socialism still is – not was – a democratic concept for all socialists. It will be the majority, not the so called specialists socialists, like yourself, calling the shots prior to the transformation, who'll decide what the limits on democracy will entail. As its their democratic right to do so, and if they decide your pet theory is an abberation of democracy they'll vote accordingly.
[my bold]Then we have no political disagreement, mod1.Clearly, given your formulation, 'the majority' can decide whether there will be 'limits', and if so, what those 'limits' will be.This is at odds with what you've argued previously, though.Unless you wish to modify what you've just said, and return to your previous stance, that 'limits' exist prior to their social production by the democratic producers?The ball's in your court, mod1.
It seems that I've hit a sensitive spot!The political concepts of 'Limited Democracy', 'Elite Specialists', and the nature of 'Limits' which are to be determined by this unelected elite, should really be explained more fully by the SPGB.I'm inclined to think that these concepts are necessary political requirements, of those who share Lenin's epistemological views, that is, Religious Materialism.And the concept of 'World Socialism' also seems to be very far from the political framework of those arguing for Religious Materialism.I'd always assumed that 'World Socialism' was a democratic concept for all socialists, but it appears my assumption is being corrected. If 'World Socialism' involves 'Limited Democracy', just who are the 'Specialists' who will determine those limits, prior to, and to the exclusion of, the producers themselves? Is it to be the SPGB?
As I've said several times now (and will probably get banned for repeating myself), if anyone is interested in my ideas (and those of Marx), I recommend that they read what I write (and what Marx wrote).But probably of more political importance now, also to ask robbo and YMS to explain why the SPGB argues for the political concept of 'Limited democracy', and that an elite of 'Specialists' will predetermine the nature of those 'Limits'.It throws a whole new light of the SPGB's 'Parliamentarianism', doesn't it?
Ah, but I'm not allowed to respond to your insults, mcolome1, so it's not the same at all.Here we can see the political relationship between workers and the SPGB 'specialists' that will be produced in any future version of 'socialism' that the SPGB apparently intends to build.
So, mcolome1, your reply is to continue with personal abuse?I wonder why the SPGB is so reluctant to enter into political discussion. Whatever the reason, it doesn't look like I'm going to get any sense out of you, either.
mcolome1, I can only appeal, once again, for you to read what I write, rather than to use your imagination.I agree with your political criticisms of Lukacs, Gramsci, Kautsky, Lenin, Dunayevskaya, etc.I've never told anyone to agree with everything that those thinkers have written.What I've tried to do is to get you lot to actually read what these thinkers have written, as a basis for a discussion about Engels' 'materialism'. Many of the books they've written shed much light on the differences between Engels and Marx.But, because they are often critical of Engels, doesn't mean that their own political recommendations are any better.
The trouble is, JDW, we've discussed Walsby's views before, and whatever they represent (even if they are critical of the SPGB), his views are nothing to do with the views that I've put forward, or of Marx, Gramsci, Pannekoek, etc., etc.Unless someone takes note of what I'm writing, rather than a 'myth' of robbo's making, or a 'Walsby' that I've already dismissed, then I'm still entitled to draw the conclusion that the SPGB are adhering to Engels' 'materialism' (whether Walsby opposed it from his own particular viewpoint or not).
Young Master Smeet wrote:It is a key feature of elitism to assume that your audience is at fault for not understanding your arguments, don't you think?But I do think that you understand my arguments, from your anti-democratic, Engelsian, Religious Materialist perspective.That's what I keep telling you, that you need to examine your own ideology.The reason you don't like my arguments, is that they are democratic, and you all seem to want 'specialists' to make our social production decisions for us.So, YMS, read this post, and stop making up stories about what I'm supposedly writing. As for robbo's "Outraged Individualist!" account of 'my ideas', I've given up trying to correct him. If you and the others want to attack robbo's account, be my guest.The problem is, as anyone who's reading these exchanges, and has read Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Pannekoek, etc., is that they can see why I'm writing what I do, and why I'm critical of the SPGB, as its supporters represent its ideas here. I'm inclined to think that I'm justified in thinking that these online views represent the wider SPGB, because not one other SPGB-inclined poster has shown any critical awareness of the 'mainstream' SPGB view of science, epistemology, maths, logic, etc.
mcolome1 wrote:It is strange, the Socialist Party is an undemocratic organization and they brought you back again after they threw you out. How many times have you been suspended from this forum ? I do know forums where they will throw you out forever, and they will send messages to others forum to keep you out. You are right, I have seen most of the members of this forum supporting ultra-right wings conceptions, supporting xemophobia, supporting nationalism and patriotism, and rejecting the international working class, or have you seen the opposite ? Is that what you call individualism ? We have many topics concerning issues related to the working class, and you have not said a word about them. We have workers around the world suffering form hungers, terrorism, and wars, and you have not said anything. Your main interest is the SPGB and EngelsYou, like robbo, YMS and the others, mcolome1, should actually start to read what I write, and not live in a mythical world of outrage, ignorance and misunderstanding.
LBird wrote:On the other threads, where you've [ie. CP] challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.You're right on one thing, though – my fundamental criticism of the SPGB is its Religious Materialism, a faith that it has picked up from Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's ideas, and its a political and ideological criticism that's been getting made since the late 19th century.'Shooting the messenger' is never a wise political tactic, mcolome1.
mcolome1 wrote:Don't you use and think thru the bourgeios logic which is illogical and false ? It is also known as bourgeois ideologyhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1349-january-2017/‘bourgeois’-ideologymcolome1 link wrote:Although there is much talk of ‘bourgeois science’ it is hard to recognize an ideological element within mathematics or geometry;…This is a typical statement made by someone who doesn't recognise just how much under the influence of ruling class ideas they are themselves.I've shown a number of times just how ideological is this belief, that 'science' generally, maths, geometry, physics and logic are 'non-ideological'.I think that mcolome1, WEZ (the article author) and the other 'materialists' here underestimate just how much the 'science' we know today is a bourgeois product, especially that form of 'science' that popular 'common sense' holds to be 'true'.
moderator1 wrote:You do realise that your unwillingness to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle places you in an undemocratic and dogmatic position? For the logic of your position means you are actually denying the voluntary associated producers the democratic right to decide on which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions.No, I'm insisting that only the democratic producers have the right to determine "which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions".You wish for an elite to predetermine this. Preferably the elite of 'materialists'.
mod1 wrote:This dogmatic position illustrates you are purely concerned with theory alone and when the practice does not fit the theory this is not a signal to change the theory but a reason to embed it in stone.No, I keep stressing Marx's social theory and practice, but the elitists like you wish I would say 'theory alone'. In turn, you place 'practice' before 'theory', and so want 'current practice' to determine 'theory'. This is a conservative political formulation.
mod1 wrote:The concept of democracy includes flexibility so the question of principle and practice is continually debated unless you are LBird.[my bold]So, at last – you do have a pre-existing 'concept of democracy' (ie. a 'theory'), so you are wrong to claim 'democracy as practice' can be followed by the producers prior to a theory of democracy. So, Marx is correct – you, too, employ a method of 'theory and practice', but simply hide it from workers, and pretend, like all 'materialists', that 'practice' precedes 'theory', so that your particular but hidden 'theory' is put into supposedly simple 'practice'.You should have the political courage to outline your version of 'democracy', rather than hide this theory.
mod1 wrote:This being the case I suspect most users will decline any further discussion with you.I suspect that you, and the others, will eventually 'decline any further discussion', because you're getting your ideological arses spanked by a Democratic Communist, who follows Marx in insisting upon a social theory and practice which is under the democratic control of the producers.Either that, or you'll ban me, again.At least any workers reading this will have had confirmed, yet again, that the SPGB will limit democracy in practice, if the SPGB in power is ever faced with a conscious class of democratic workers, who insist that only they as a class, and not any party, have the right to decide for themselves.If there are any other SPGB members reading this exchange, who disagree with mod1, they should make their opinions known now, otherwise the SPGB will be seeming to endorse mod1's political opinions, philosophy, method, and specific 'theory of democracy'.
moderator1 wrote:Or, are you willing to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle?This is the key political statement by mod1. Its prioritising of 'practice' over 'principle' is reinforced elsewhere in the post, but this simple sentence ecapsulates mod1's whole political philosophy.It's the 'materialist' philosophy of 'practice and theory'.This is opposed by Marx's philosophy of 'theory and practice'.That is, 'principle and practice' are interlinked.mod1 separates the two, and can imagine a politics where in an ideal world 'principles are unlimited', but in the real world 'practices are limited'.For socialists, their can be no 'limits' to either 'principles' or 'practice', other than the social activity of the producers themselves.This social activity can only be democratic social activity, where the producers themselves determine principles, practices and limits.mod1, like all 'materialists' who follow Engels, wishes to prevent democratic production of principles, practices and limits, and impose prior restrictions upon the social activity of the producers. mod1 wishes to have an elite who pre-decide these issues.So, politically, I'm not willing to admit what mod1 asks in their statement.This is a political debate, about questions of 'power' and 'who wields it' in a future socialism.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:I couldn't agree more, Vin.Why do the posters here continue to pretend to defend a 'democratic socialism' that they do not hold?They are really defending individualism, Religious Materialism, elite science, and their god Matter.Never a word about the democratic production of our world, and the election of our truth.I was talking about your strawmen and you know it. I have told you this before, you are a troll, but a very good one, here to waste our time and provoke emotional response from users. And you do it very well. Had you sussed 2 years ago
It's been open to you, and the others, at any point, to defend workers' democracy, in any or all of the areas that we've spoken about.Neither you, nor the others, ever mention democratic socialism – you defend individuals, Engels' Materialism (nothing to do with Marx's views), the 'science' of the bourgeoisie, and 'matter'.Then robbo creates an argument that I've never made, and the others use that as a basis of their arguments, rather than address what I actually write – read what I've written on this thread, and read what's been argued against.And, usually, after I keep defending workers' democracy, the moderator accuses me of repeating my own arguments, and bans me (but not those who refuse to read what I write, and compel me to keep correcting them – like you, Vin).
Vin wrote:When are we going to cease the futile endeavour of defending a position we do not hold?I couldn't agree more, Vin.Why do the posters here continue to pretend to defend a 'democratic socialism' that they do not hold?They are really defending individualism, Religious Materialism, elite science, and their god Matter.Never a word about the democratic production of our world, and the election of our truth.
