[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

That doesn't follow.  they could argue that the magic fire dragon makes the world: they could argue that there is no reality and each lives in a world of their own: they could argue that we are in a virtual environment, simulating existence and reality is determined by the programmers: they could argue that reality is unknowable: they could argue that reality is an ideal unfurling in the mind of god and each can know reality through faith alone: they could argue each person has access to direct experience of the world, but we live as we dream, alone: they could argue only non-producers can vote on reality: they could argue the vote has already been taken and can't be re-run.

Yes, 'they' could, YMS.But two points jump out:1. All these options, that you suggest, involve a 'knowing elite' (rather than a self-conscious majority) – dragon, individual, programmers, no-one (but then we wouldn't 'know'), god, individual (again), inactive non-producers, a past elite;2. None of these options, and noticeably you don't even suggest it, involve the revolutionary, class conscious, self-determining, self-developing proletariat.

YMS wrote:

Sloppy argumentation.

You wouldn't know, YMS. You certainly have no idea whatsoever about Marx, class, production or revolution.But there are others here, who do claim to know about Marx, etc., and yet they appear also to be influenced by your bourgeois, elitist 'slop'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.

Who has said this? Apart from yourself?

Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.So, amongst others, you've said this, Vin.

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

For your information the reviewer of the book has been participating in this and the other discussions on the very same subject, since the beginning. Which is one of the reasons why I mentioned it.

You don't say!I'd never have thought of that! Wow!You've got me there, mod1!Boy, are you boys bright! Tricky little Dickie! Sneaky little Beaky!But, to treat you like adults, it's apparent my strategem has failed, because the reviewer hasn't said why they argued one politics then, but another politics now, and allowed me to quote themselves in their previous political life, to themselves now.Still, whilst you are so childishly amused with yourself, the politics of the SPGB go unexamined by the membership, never mind any interested workers.Clogs on minds, rather than feet, I fear.Clip clop, mod1. Clip clop.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.

This is great news, ALB!If they are available, could you persuade the author and the reviewer to participate in this discussion?Since they wrote those words, I could quote their own words to them as an illustration of what Democratic Communists and Marxists argue, and ask them whether they still agree, or whether since that book and article were written, they've changed their minds, and now argue anti-democratic and anti-worker views, and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.Of course, I'll argue to them that only the collective producers can determine their product, and all decision-making by the class conscious workers must be democratic. If they still stand by their book/article, I'm sure that they'll agree with me.If not, we can tease out the differences between what would have to be their now anti-worker and anti-democratic position, with what they wrote then, and try to clarify what's changed, both in their own views and in the wider SPGB, regarding workers' power, self-development of our class, and the need for democracy in all social production within a future socialist society.

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

Just out of interest this article might help to settle the democratic issues being deliberated here:  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracy

I just had a quick read of that article, mod1, and it seems to fit perfectly well with the points that I've been arguing (I could give some quotes, to illustrate this, if anyone is interested).Further, this article is from 1986, so it proves that the SPGB was still arguing for the democratic control of production by workers after 1973, the date of the SPGB article that I posted to form a basis for discussion on this thread.I'd be interested if you or any other member could find a matching article in the 1990s (or even 2000s), because we might be able to identify approximately when the SPGB stopped making these Marxist and democratic arguments, and moved to the (seemingly) present position, which is far closer to Lenin's views about 'matter', 'specialists', and 'problems' with democracy, to the exclusion of any mention of class consciousness or the proletariat, or the process of self-development of our class.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Which reinforces the point made in an earlier post which is that if we can extract/salvage  anything useful at all out this surreal debate with LBird then it should be to focus minds on where the practical limits  of democratic decisionmaking in a socialist society should lie and to what extent democracy has to be counterbalanced by other considerations.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-and-democracyThis is an important subject that deserves further discussion 

[my bold]So, your concerns are the 'limits' of, and 'counterbalances' for, democracy?It certainly is an important subject that deserves further discussion – and it would help if those who are to discuss it were actually in favour of democracy (never mind workers' democracy, the concern of socialists).That doesn't appear to be the SPGB, though, does it?I think that those with robbo's concerns, need only read the texts produced by bourgeois academics over the last three centuries, to ascertain some useful advice on 'limits and counterbalances' regarding democracy.This certainly is a 'surreal debate'.

[LBird]

So ALB won't answer the social question about his political epistemology.No surprise, there, eh?

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Here's a prime example of his intellectual dishonesty

ALB wrote:

read the article on the following page on "Men, Ideas and Society":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/men-ideas-and-societyHe will see that it ,too, specifically repudiates the view

Quote:

that the brain is a kind of camera photographing the world

Dishonest Intellectual wrote:

when you have a consciousnessless access to matter.

Hmmmm…OK, let's take ALB at face value.How can you consciously know 'matter', ALB, without a vote being taken by your fellow social producers?

Let's hope ALB gets back to us, soon. Perhaps then we can all form an opinion upon just who is the 'Dishonest Intellectual'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Say 'hello' to 'matter', the next time it talks to you

Hello! from more matter

Yes, and we know from which end this 'matter' is talking through, don't we, when it comes to epistemology?The 'Engelsian End', of course!No doubt, the cruder elements from Tim's neck-of-the-woods had a more 'profound', earthy, answer.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

They all, including you, Tim, turn to abuse – and I return it. I'm a working class bloke, and when 'fools, morons and clowns' think that they can be funny with me, I'll be funnier.

so presumably that makes you the specialist when it comes to being funny. Perhaps you might even consider yourself to be amongst the elite of funny people. 

No, where I come from, Tim, being funny isn't a 'specialism'. It's a common-or-garden 'generalist' ability we all have.No doubt, your categorising of 'funny' as something that only belongs to an 'elite', says more than I could about your 'people'. I can't say that I'm surprised at this, though, having read what passes for 'humour' from you. If you are amongst your 'elite'… [snigger]…… I suppose that your 'materialism' ensures that your 'humour' is a simple, honest, 'pies-in-the face', physical, slapstick, sort of 'humour'.You really should try 'consciousness', sometime, Tim. Y'know, ideas, wordplay, inventiveness… there's a whole world waiting out there for you, to go alongside your 'materialist' reality. Perhaps, after the revolution, we Marxists can bring some levity into your dour 'material existence'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Here's a prime example of his intellectual dishonesty

ALB wrote:

read the article on the following page on "Men, Ideas and Society":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/men-ideas-and-societyHe will see that it ,too, specifically repudiates the view

Quote:

that the brain is a kind of camera photographing the world

Dishonest Intellectual wrote:

when you have a consciousnessless access to matter.

Hmmmm…OK, let's take ALB at face value.How can you consciously know 'matter', ALB, without a vote being taken by your fellow social producers?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Tim, and he's intellectually dishonest with it. He's just now accused us of being sympathetic to Trotsky's politics. Imagine.

Imagination requires an active consciousness, ALB, and according to you Religious Materialists, there is no need for that, when you have a consciousnessless access to matter.Just like Trotsky and Lenin argued to the workers who wanted a democratic say in their own production.Trotsky argued for a politics which separated a 'specialist' elite from a 'generalist' mass, with power being held by the former.'Accusing the SPGB of being sympathetic to Trotsky's politics'?Imagine. Indeed.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…L Bird talks extensively about the need for Socialists to be anti-elitist, yet as soon as anyone disagrees with him he accuses them of being fools, morons and clowns, of being his intellectual inferiors and not being worthy of taking him on in argument (I have been target of L Bird's elitist ire on many occasions)

More re-writing of history by a 'materialist', eh?I've tried many times to raise the debate to a philosophical level, about the post-Kantian relationship between subject and object, which informed Marx's ideas, but the 'materialists' really hate this, because it questions their 'faith in matter', a 'matter' which supposedly has no relation to 'faith' or any other 'conscious activity'.They all, including you, Tim, turn to abuse – and I return it. I'm a working class bloke, and when 'fools, morons and clowns' think that they can be funny with me, I'll be funnier.

TK wrote:

The term hypocrite comes to mind.

And the term 'Religious Materialist' comes to the mind of any Marxist, who unlike Trotsky, Lenin, Kautsky, et al, argues that only the producers can determine their product.I don't expect you to understand this, though, Tim. Back to the 'materialist' mud pies and rocks for you lot, eh? Say 'hello' to 'matter', the next time it talks to you, Tim.Pre-Kantian!Take that for an insult!

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

This article in the Socialist Standard at the time of his assassination indicated a more sympathetic view of Trotsky by the SPGB."So ends the amazing career of one of the outstanding men of to-day.""It is curious, therefore, that a man so gifted as a writer as Trotsky undoubtedly was, has left little, if any, literary trace of his Marxist education.""Trotsky's personal qualities are of minor interests to Socialists. As a political pamphleteer he was outstanding and he was also a first-class orator. But unless the world-proletariat can harness such gifts to serve the struggle for Socialism, they will be wasted and even harmful to workers' interests, although, and as in the case of Leon Trotsky, there is no doubt that his whole life was sincerely dedicated to their cause."

[my bold]The reason, isn't so 'curious' as the SS wrote, Vin.The reason there is 'little, if any trace' of Marx left in Trotsky's works, is that it wasn't there in the first place.And we can also doubt the 'sincere dedication of his  whole life'. It wasn't to the class conscious proletariat, the producers of their own reality. Trotsky's 'dedication' was to 'matter'.Which, he alleged, he and Lenin, to the exclusion of the workers, just 'knew' it, 'as it is'.So, I would argue that the SS was too sympathetic, even in 1940, to Trotsky's politics.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

Whether or not Stalin was personally a sincere democrat or  Marxist for that matter, in 1906, is a different question.I think not.

I agree with you, Dave. Stalin was never a democrat.And neither was, I think you'd agree with me, Lenin.The 'different question' that you allude to, though, is also a fundamental question.What united Stalin, Lenin, all the Bolsheviks, Kautsky and all the Second International, was the issue of why they weren't democrats.They all sincerely believed that the fundamental determinant of 'reality' was 'matter'.Of course, once 'matter' determines 'reality', then clearly there can be no question of producers determining their reality, because there is no such thing as a 'reality' that is produced, a 'reality' that is socio-historical, a 'reality' that is a product of a specific mode of production, a 'reality' that is determined by the producers as their reality.Stalin, Lenin, etc., etc., as sincere believers in 'matter' were 'materialists', and as such opposed Marx's views. They wouldn't agree with what I've said in this post, and regarded themselves as 'democrats and Marxists', but we workers should know better, in the 21st century.Oh, one more thing……since Marx was right, that modes of production do consist of producers who produce their own reality, the 'materialists' had to come up with the 'active side', the conscious agent of production. They had to lie about 'matter' determining, and replace Marx's 'active side' (the class conscious proletariat) with an elite minority who had a 'special consciousness' who could determine the production of 'reality', a 'reality-for-them', within which workers had no power to determine their own product.Why the SPGB identifies with this essentially bourgeois ideology of 'materialism' beats me. But, we can see the same developments happening in the SPGB, too, as happened in the early 20th century. The SPGB has started to argue for 'specialists', who are not under the political control of the 'generalists'.This is Leninist politics by another name.

[Author]

Posts