[LBird]

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 Engels

You, 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.

[LBird]

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’-ideology

mcolome1 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'.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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).

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 There is another option.  What if the you had an individual centric decision making process in the WWW.  everone gets their own personal sphere of influence that intersects with others for decision making.  Basically what we have in face to face in person exchanges and decision making in a small community seems the idea, but scaled up.  There's several forms of government and busines and economic power and decision making solutions that to some degree distribute decision making power in a dynamic ever changing fashion.or so it seems to me.  and more relevant to the discussion at hand, perhaps something like this is what is intended by the great hall of unicentric decision making.  Just consider the great decision making body to be made up of everybody to various degrees on various decisions and it exists in information space on the web for convenient worldwide access or in other forms offline with slower speed. Or so it seems to me.  but then I don't debate authorities, I debate ideas as I understand them so maybe I'm missing your point or rhetoric style.  Good day to you, and thanks for the intellectually worthy read of the thread so far.  Lots of great thinking to read from you SPGB group.  I forgot how much I missed intellectuals and deep thinkers since I've been spending more time fighting low intellegence GMO and Monsanto trolls on social media lately. 

Yeah, in your example, the WWW is the 'uni'.Thanks for your tribute to the SPGB site.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

an introduction to fuzzy logic on youtube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r804UF8Ia4cI have not read the book you mention but it is of interest to me and this conversation.  I think the video primer I linked to is a good summary of my understanding of the fuzzy logic princples.  can you confirm for me the book is consistent with this video and the video is a fair and worthy summary of the science?

I've had a quick look at this video, and it's a useful introduction to the subject of 'degrees of truth', 'truth' as a sliding scale, 'truth', as not a boolean 'true or false'. 'Truth' is a judgement by people.Only a vote by humans can determine 'truth-for-them'. There is no 'Truth' simply waiting to be 'discovered' by a 'disinterested academic elite'.'Truth' is a product of 'power'.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I have not read the book you mention but it is of interest to me and this conversation.  I think the video primer I linked to is a good summary of my understanding of the fuzzy logic princples. 

The key political point being made here, Steve, is that 'logic' is a social product, and various 'logics' have been produced, including 'classical/traditional' and 'n-valued'.mod1 is using the usual conservative political trick to pretend that 'logic' is actually 'Logic', so that mod1's political logic is pretended to be 'Objective' and 'The Truth' and 'Eternal', and so can't be argued with.Within socialism, it would require a democratic vote by the producers to determine which 'logic' is employed in any intended social process of theory and practice, which produces social knowledge.So, 'logic' is not an ahistoric, asocial, 'truthful' process, which any individual or elite can simply use outside of the democratic control of the producers, but is an integral part of a political process.Any attempt to appeal to 'Logic' is a conservative political act, intended to hide its own ideological beliefs, and to denigrate the political stance towards which it is aimed.That is, one ideology's 'logic' is another's 'illogic', and vice versa. We must consciously choose our 'logic', and be aware of the political implications of our particular choice of a 'logic'.

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

Unicentric = Having a single centre.Polycentric = Having many centres.

Perhaps you're missing the point, Matt. I'm sure we all know the difference between 'uni' and 'poly' as words. It's the political meaning that you seem to have missed.'Uni' = 'democracy', whereas 'Poly' = 'individual'.robbo is a 'poly' individualist, whereas Democratic Communists are 'uni' democrats.This is a question of 'power' – 'power' is either a collective phenomenon ('uni', centralised upon a social decision-making process, in which individuals participate and then obey) or 'power' is an individual phenomenon ('poly', decentralised amongst individuals, who can ignore other individuals).Socialism requires collective decision-making, not 7 billion decisions which ignore each other.I'm a democrat, whereas robbo is an individualist – that's why we disagree. This is a debate about where 'power' will lie within Socialism/Communism – distributed amongst 7 billion biological and sovereign individuals, or with a collective World Socialism where democracy is sovereign.

[LBird]

If anyone can translate the political meaning of robbo's post, I'd be obliged to the translator.

[LBird]

Well, Capitalist Pig, it seems that I'm about to employ you as a sock-puppet-by-proxy. Since the rules don't allow sock-puppets, and yet when I keep answering certain posters who keep asking the same political questions, and yet I, and I alone, get banned, I'm forced to answer those political questions, but to pretend to address them to an entirely new poster, who is new to these debates, and thus it is legitimate for me to say the same thing for the thousandth time.So, CP, you're now my sock-puppet-by-proxy! I hope you'll accept your new critical role in the proceedings – if you don't, let me know, and I'll publicly apologise to you, and try to find a new technique to prevent my silencing.Here goes!CP, you'll notice a poster named robbo203, who pretends to be a democrat, but is actually an individualist. robbo wants 'socialism' to be the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any political control, which would obviously be the case with a society which insists upon democratic production.robbo's chosen political method to denigrate 'democracy' is to equate it with 'centralisation'. Thus:

robbo203 wrote:

Clearly L Bird supports this totalitarian and ultra-centralised mode of decision-making.

[my bold]robbo pretends that 'democracy' leads to 'centralisation', by which he means 'totalitarian' (a concept employed by post-war Cold War warriors, but we'll let that pass).Any Democratic Communist would of course reply that 'democracy' does imply 'centralisation'. There has to be a central location, at which is based a central organisation that obeys the orders of the voters. The losing voters then obey the orders of the 'central' majority.We can see this in practice in the parish, village, town, city, regional and national elections of even bourgeois democracy.The 'parish' democracy is centralised upon the 'parish hall', at which a central bureaucracy counts the votes and announces the results of the democratic vote, taken by all the parish residents. Of course, the central parish bureaucracy is also elected using democratic methods. And so on, for all levels, from parish to national. The new feature of democratic World Socialism will be a central 'World Hall'.This, robbo insists, is 'totalitarian', and a blight upon the 'freedom of individuals' to insist that votes are 'decentralised'.In robbo's parish polity, each individual vote will be taken in an individual cottage, far away from the 'Totalitarian Parish Dictatorship', and each voter will announce their individual political decision, far away from the 'Totalitarian Parish Hall Bureacracy' (ie. the elected Mrs. Smith, Mr. Jones and Ms. Brzozowski – of course, known as the 'Evil Troika' in robbo's world).So, CP, you can now understand politically why robbo has to equate 'democracy' with 'totalitarian centralisation', to help protect and cover up his own bourgeois individualist politics, while still claiming to be a 'socialist'.I hope my hand up your metaphorical arse, as my sock-puppet-by-proxy, didn't hurt too much, CP! If it did, perhaps I can introduce you next time to the benefits of a little 'proletarian grease'?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

In short all decisions – important and unimportant – will be voted on by the community.  That's a logical fallacy.

Who (or what) determines 'important and unimportant', if not the democratic producers, in your version of 'socialism'?Your 'logic' is a political logic, within which the use of the concept of 'logic' is pretended to be a non-political, objective, asocial, ahistoric 'logic', which any individual (or an elite) can employ, outside of the interests, purposes and plans of the majority.Thus, from the perspective of Democratic Communism, it's your logic that is a 'logical fallacy'.Of course, also, from your elitist perspective of the political rule of the powerful specialists, the despised and powerless 'generalists' will have to bow down before the 'logical fallacy' of your own elite production.You pretend that 'logic' is outside of 'politics'.I don't. Only the democratic producers within socialism can determine their 'logic' and their 'fallacies'. There is no academic elite which has a 'special consciousness', which ensures that they, and they alone, have access to 'Logic'.'Logic' is a powerful social product, and must be under the political control of all society, within a democratic society like socialism.In fact, we could call your version of 'logic'… Leninist Logic.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

hi Lbiiiiiiiird. you are awesome

Thanks for your appreciation, CP!Though, you should remember, that I'm criticising the SPGB from the political position of Democratic Communism, which is, I think, the opposite pole from your views.On the other threads, where you've challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.Most obviously, I'm not a supporter of 'bourgeois individualism', but of collective, democratic, social production, which includes the production of politics, laws, morals, laws of physics, logic, maths, truth and 'individuals'. These are all social products, and my political position is that Communism/Socialism equates to the democratic control of their production.Clearly, some here, claiming to be 'socialists', are actually politically closer to your 'individualism', than to my Democratic Communism.In fact, you're probably a better candidate for membership of the SPGB than I am!

[LBird]

Bergman, p.2, wrote:

"All traditional logic," wrote the philosopher Betrand Russell, "habitually assumes that precise symbols are being employed. It is therefore not applicable to this terrestrial life, but only to an imagined celestial existence."

[my bold]Merrie Bergman (2008) An Introduction to Many-Valued and Fuzzy Logic Cambridge University Press

mod1 wrote:

Alas your closed mind wont accept or acknowledge this logic.

You're right, I don't accept 'this logic' of yours, which is an ideological logic, a political logic, which you (perhaps unknowingly) pretend comes from the Planet Logic, a supposedly 'Objective' source, which we humans can't argue with.That's what an open-minded worker argues to a closed-minded moderator.All 'logic' is a social and ideological product, which we can change. Just like maths and physics.

[Author]

Posts