LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Hmm. well I guess I thought my focus included and required democratic discussion instead of lacking it. Maybe we have a different idea of "democratic discussion". If you use this google document and simply write in to the document "I plan on planting potatoes next fall, Anyone want to vote yes or no on my plan", then you've met the requirements for free access and for anyone to vote on it. So to me as soon as even one person opens that google document and adds a comment saying "I agree you should plant potatoes next fall", then it's become a democratic decision. exactly what form of democracy, is undefined and probably up to the person planting the potatoes how to count the votes. Maybe the potatoe farmer weights some people who farm nearby as more influential in the decision than someone in another nation on the other side of the world? maybe the potatoe farmer just wants a minimum of 15 votes and majority of them for any single crop. It's really up to the potatoe farmer what form of government and decision making to use for her or himself. Probably the potatoe farmer gives him or herself a veto option so if most of the people suggest she plant mushrooms in the desert she doesn't have to. Instead of writing "I agree you should plant potatoes next fall", you or I couild write, "I think you should plant corn next fall" and then we have a democratic discussion in addition to the vote for a democratic decision making. There would be uncertainties and difficulties with such as system, such as how do you find out about the url for google doc to vote, which is analogous to the uncertainty of the old school "where do I vote for what should be in the general store" type question.
Yes, I agree with you that 'we have a different idea of "democratic discussion"', Steve.In terms simple enough for our joint 5 year old, you use 'I' where I would use 'We'.'Democratic discussion' is not individuals voting without first discussing, but voting after collective discussion.Your example seems to imply an individual making an individual decision, without any collective input. For you, the 'collective' is a simple aggregation of individual votes from minds already made up, whereas for me the 'collective' is a discussion, where any individual might change their mind.As I've said before, these differing views of ours are rooted in our ideological views.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I reather enjoyed and appreciate your willingness to explain to me like I'm 5 sometimes. You seem to actually understand most of the concepts I put forward and your agreements or disagreements I find enlightening. I see a lot of other posters as not being as good at understanding the concepts in plain engllish and I think a lot of them end up loading their political terminology with a lot of political bias and personalized definitions. I wonder how many of these discussions are definition disputes and framing arguments? Anyway thanks for your time for the reply worth reading.Steve, I wish a few more 'Marxist' writers would 'explain to me like I'm 5' all of the time!In fact, I've already argued that much of what passes as 'academic' thought is simply a way of not explaining. Most academics try to avoid explaining simply because if most workers ever get to understand what academics believe, think and write, they'd fall about laughing. To put it in the vernacular, having been myself an uneducated adult worker who eventually got to talk to academics, most of them are as thick as pigshit! [is that 'plain English' enough?] They are not even Democratic Communists, so they've got a lot further to go than we have in their socio-political development! I've had many more thoughtful, stimulating and happy conversations in pubs than I've had in universities. As a consequence of these proletarian experiences, I think that workers are going to have to set up their own educational structures, with a focus on democracy within them. I had hoped to develop these very initial thoughts by discussing with the SPGB, but from what I can tell here, the SPGB seem to be cheerleaders for the right of bourgeois academics to be 'disinterested elite individuals' who have a 'special educational consciousness' which entitles them, and them alone, to dictate to workers. Of course, this is all hidden under the bourgeois ideological cover of 'Academic Freedom' and 'Free Thought', which 'democratic control and accountability' will destroy.I've had a read of your post, and once again I'll simply say that I'm a Democratic Communist, and so your focus on 'individuals' and your lack of any 'democratic discussion and decision-making' leads me to think we are quite a way apart in our political views and ideological beliefs. Perhaps one key issue with which I'm closer to the SPGB is the issue of 'exchange', which plays a part in your views. I believe in 'free access' Communism, with any uncertainties and difficulties in that concept being cleared up by democratic discussion by the future class conscious revolutionary proletariat.Thanks, too, for your comradely words.
Young Master Smeet wrote:You mean he died before the German Ideology was published (1932)?Yes, and before a great deal else of Marx's 'earlier works' was published.Which just goes to show, even on the basis of what Marx had published, basically Capital alone, many thinkers prior to World War 1 were able to discern where Engels had gone wrong, and why 'materialism' was proving to be an ideology for elites, just as Marx had argued in his Theses on Feuerbach.Many were on to Lenin, well before 1917. Materialism and Empirio-criticism was based upon Engels' ideas, not Marx's. That's why Lenin had to invent the unity 'Marx-Engels', to pretend that these two very different thinkers were one and the same, and thus quotes from Engels alone could be justified.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Communism means from EACH (individual) according to the ability, to EACH (individual) acording to their needs.So, who determines 'ability' and 'needs', YMS?Isolated individuals or social producers?How are these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion?
alanjjohnstone wrote:For a few years now, LBird, you have been offering a critique of the SPGB.Can i suggest you put it to the workers now by sharing it with them. Is it possible for you to re-format your case into something that is in a more readable form rather than disjointed by the cut and thrust of a forum exchange.As others have done and demonstrated on this list, it is possible to create your own web-pages and present your ideas and interpretations of other thinkers' ideas thus bring the arguments to a wider audience of workers.They will then decide exactly how necessary this debate is to them.I know that you've asked for this before, alan, and I think that I've said before that my aim when I first started discussing these political issues here, was to engage in a conversation within which we all (including me) learned together how to present Marx's ideas in a format more suitable for (what the SPGB seems to call) 'generalists'.Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, because I've, to my surprise, discovered that the main ideology within the SPGB is Engels' 'materialism'. I've tried to discuss this, but it's not possible to discuss Marx's 'social production' with those who adhere to 'materialism', because this requires a religious faith in 'matter'. I'm by no means whatsoever the first to say this – in fact, since the late 19th century, many thinkers have pointed this out. I've given direct quotes from many, and links to wider passages for context, and recommendations for reading of even more. All to no avail. 'Materialists' don't discuss why humans invented 'matter', and soon resort to insults of those who question their faith in this 'god'.[quote-alan]You know my attitude for i have said it before…if i was sitting with you, Robbo and YMS, i would have, by now, changed tables. Actually, it could have gotten to the stage where i would have gone on to switch pubs. [/quote]And there's your answer, alan.Whilst even workers like you 'switch pubs', rather than discuss why you have faith in 'matter', and who gave you that faith, anything I write here makes no impression.No 'web page' or 'wider audience' (or newspaper or pamphlet) can make you ask 'why'. The curiosity and desire to read a 'web page', or any other medium, has to come from workers like you, as they ponder why the epistemology and politics of Lenin are still so widespread amongst 'socialists'. Like, it seems, within the SPGB.If you are already convinced that either it is of no interest to you, or that I'm a 'troll', what's the point of you even suggesting I work even harder and spend more time on these issues? For me, the 'cut and thrust' of this 'forum exchange' provides suitable stimulus to keep me digging deeper and reading wider. I'd like to carry others along on the journey, but it's their choice.I can't make 'curiosity' in others. 'Matter' requires faith, not curiosity, comrade.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I humbly suggest that the "limits" being discussed seem to me internally imposed limits of information processing and nature.No, Steve, we're talking at political cross-purposes.Your 'internally imposed' is referring to 'individuals', whereas, being a Democratic Communist, I'm referring to 'social production'.If you wish to start from 'individuals', that's fine, but you can't understand what I'm arguing if you do so, because I'm starting from 'social production'.
Steve wrote:for example the limit on how many things you can vote on in a day or the limit of how many people would want to vote on some trivial decision far away. the "elite" in this case would be some sort of information scientist or logistics expert who studies questions and solves problems like "how many people should vote on this and how". In effect this does create a class of individuals with technical knowledge, but that does not necessarily make that class of individuals more influential in the decision outcome, except for decisions within their area of specialty. So a specialist might determine the number of people needed to make a quarum and count the attendees at a meeting for example.No, under Democratic Communism, 'specialists' will have to explain themselves to the majority, and then the majority takes the decision, based upon the interests, needs and purposes of the majority. 'Specialists' cannot determine those of the majority. If the 'Specialists' claim not to be able to explain themselves, or that the majority are too ignorant/incapable/uneducated to make decisions for themselves, then the 'Specialist' would be voted out of their position of power within their specialism. After all, they'd've been elected by the majority in the first place.
Steve wrote:Or so it seems to me. I suspect it's just my interpretation. No response from you is understood by me as indicating this comment was not valued as worth the time reading.No, I'm always willing to explain why I argue the way I do, and openly reveal upon which political ideology my arguments are based.If you disagree with me, it's likely to be because we don't share the same political ideology. Hope this helps.
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.
