[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

The point is that in 1906 Stalin was … a democrat.

You're not really telling me, are you, Dave, that you really think that Stalin was a democrat in 1906?Y'know, in any sense meaningful to a discussion about workers' democracy?I have to believe that you're letting your hyperbole get away with you… otherwise, you'll probably go on to claim Hitler was a socialist and an advocate of workers' power, because his party was the NSDAP.

[LBird]

Well, I never thought to get the Religious Materialists within the 2017 SPGB to openly display their support for the position that 'Stalin was a democrat'!No defence of workers' democracy, just a continued defence of 'Matter'. Not only have you lined up with Lenin on this issue, but now workers' democracy is slated as Stalinist!And robbo keeps up his elitist claim that the 'science' done by a minority outweighs the opinions of the majority of producers.Oh, I do wish it was 1973, when the SPGB apparently had thinkers who could do Marx justice. But the 20th century is over now, so it's back to the 19th, where 'democracy' in both science and politics was just where the SPGB of today would have it again!No doubt, this is what passes here for 'Historical Materialism'. 'Matter' going backwards in time!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The truth is, Stalin did argue for democratic workers power…

I'm beginning to think that you're unhinged.

[LBird]

Is this what passes for political debate in the SPGB?Accusing those who argue for democratic workers' power as being Stalinists? That Stalin was a 'democrat'?This is the most effective answer to Tim Kilgallon, who asked earlier, as to why I won't be joining the SPGB in 2017.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Just checked and it seems that the famous article was not in fact written by Barry McNeeny. He didn't join the Party till 1974. The article was signed B.M. There was another member with these initials who wrote articles for the Socialist Standard. So BM will be Brendan Mee ( I think he was a member of our then Bolton branch). ….PS These misattributions will have to be corrected on on archive site.

Can the mods change the name in the title of this thread, to correct the misattribution?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…it's always been noticeable that philosophies that deny the realness of the real world tend to be highly reactionary…

Marx does not 'deny the realness of the real world'.Marx argues that we create our reality. 'Realness' is 'realness-for us'; the 'real world' is 'our real world'. The 'objective world' is the one we create, by our social theory and practice.

YMS wrote:

The idea that power structures eality (and allows it to restructure reality) tends to stem from those wishing to deny the experience of living in the world people have.

Ahah! 'Experience', the old standby of the US pragmatists and Dewey's instrumentalism. Of course, this is 'individual, biological, personal sense experience', not anything whatsoever to do with Marx's 'social production', which argues that 'individuals' in different productive societies have different 'sense experiences' (our senses are social products, too), so that 'experience' is always a 'socio-historic experience', rather than just something 'people have' [notice, YMS never refers to any socio-historical subject, just ahistoric and asocial 'people'] 

YMS wrote:

Look how much Stalin loved such thinking, the history fo Bolshevism was that by will alone we culd reshape the world, a far cry from Marx' description of his own method…

The old trick of all anti-Marxists, anti-Communists, anti-Democrats: sully those ideas by associating them with Stalin.Stalin never argued that workers could (or should) democratically control their production.I always (unlike YMS or the SPGB generally) always emphasise democratic control of production, which doesn't intend to 'reshape the world' (itself a bourgeois concept, 'in itself'), but 'reshape our world'.

YMS wrote:

The greatest trick the devil ever invented was pursuading people they could change the world just by thinking about it hard enough.

The 'devil', eh?And him 'persuading people' (all those thick workers, I presume, unlike you and your elite). Revealing turn of phrase, 'devil', for a supposed 'socialist'.And there we have it: YMS's bogeyman (garnered from Engels) – The Idealists, and their 'just by thinking'!Of course, Marx never, ever, argued that workers 'could change the world just by thinking about it hard enough'.Marx always argued for social, democratic, THEORY and PRACTICE.The 'highly reactionary' are the Religious Materialists – they will always deny democratic production of our world, and will always argue for a 'knowing elite'. That's why Lenin had faith in 'matter', too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Just for ALB to read, once again.

The obsessive refuser has just shot himself in the foot again. I read that article long before he did as I was a member of the editorial committee at the time and can assure him that it went in with the full approval of the committee. He should also 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

On the other hand, some people's brains seem more like a gramophone record.

I see that you still can't tell workers why they can't create their reality?Clearly, either you never understood what you 'fully approved' in the '70s, or you've simply got older and more conservative.Whichever it is, it's clear that the present SPGB has nothing whatsoever to do with any revolutionary thought, in politics, philosophy or physics.Which is a real shame, since even bourgeois physics seems to be coming to Marx's conclusion about us creating our reality – they've started to consider we might be the creators of time and space, never mind 'physical stuff'.Time-for-us, space-for-us, rocks-for-us. Marx's social productionism, where we, the social subject, are in a creative relationship with our world, 'nature for us', our social product, which can we thus change.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Although he says that we 'create' our objects.What does that mean if it doesn't mean we create our objective reality?

Yes, we create our objects as objects, but not as Things, we objectify them through our relationship with them.  We create our objects, but not by thought alone, but by being in the world.

So, according to your 'theory', we workers don't create our physical world?For you, 'objects' are not 'physical', but just some philosophical mutterings from the 19th century?Wow!So all the revolutionary stuff about taking control of world production, doesn't include 'physical things'? So, it's clearly best that workers leave all this 'discovering the physical' to their betters, eh?And this is what the SPGB has descended to, from its insights of the 1970s?It makes one wonder, if the 2017 SPGB is correct, what all the fuss was about, when Marx wrote about his revolutionary ideas for a democratic movement of class conscious, self-determining, workers, who will proceed to create their world.

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/marx-alienationSome extracts:

SPGB wrote:

…For Marx, what distinguishes man from other species is that man has the ability of self-creation…man has the ability to produce in excess of these needs and to do so consciously, thereby creating his own environment…It is in the working-over of inorganic nature and the practical creation of an objective world…Man's essence therefore lies in his conscious and creative activity in creating a world of objects…It can be seen, therefore, that Marx's ideas on the nature of man were in total contrast and opposition to the mechanical materialism whereby man is seen as an object of nature…There is a two-way relationship between man and his environment, and between his consciousness and his activity…It is man's ability to labour, to objectify his creative capacities in the world of things, which makes him human….

[my bold]

Just for ALB to read, once again.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter'

Why do we continue to entertain this obsessive who continues to tell lies about us despite us repeadtedly refuting them.

You're the 'obsessive', ALB, who keeps 'telling lies about the SPGB' to workers.No matter what Marx says, you're not going to have workers voting about whether 'matter exists' or not, are you?You're an 'obsessive' Engelsian Materialist, and it allows you to argue that the class cannot change 'reality'.For 'materialists', 'matter' is 'out there', and not a product of social labour. You have Faith in 'matter', as do all Religious Materialists.What's more, your constant resort to abuse, even when I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, is very telling.You could try explaining why, according to you, workers cannot be allowed to 'create their reality' – but this would be politically disastrous for a party that claims to want to help develop workers to build their world.You haven't 'refuted' this charge against 'materialism', because it can't be done.You should try reading the SPGB's '70s publications, ALB.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…when Marx says we make our objects, he isn't refering to the creation of the physical thing, but the relationship of subject to object…   

Although he says that we 'create' our objects.What does that mean if it doesn't mean we create our objective reality?It's only 'materialists' who insist that 'physical things' are 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'.The 'physical' is only 'physical for a subject'. That's the whole point of Marx's social productionism.As I've said before, you're following Engels' 19th century ideas, inspired by bourgeois science, that 'physical' (or 'matter') is not 'created by a subject', and that it can be 'physical' outside of any relation to a subject (by which Marx means 'social subject', not an 'individual').The simple question is 'physical for who?'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

your views aren't the same as everyone's in the SPGB, but we don't all agree with each other on everything. 

I think the real problem is that (as far as I can tell) no-one in the SPGB of 2017 agrees with me.My point is that, from those articles, it seems possible that in the SPGB of 1973 some-one would've agreed with me.I suppose that I'm arguing that the present SPGB is very different from the past SPGB, and that it's been a change for the worse, as far as the debate about Marx's and Engels' differing views of epistemology goes.From what I can tell from posters on this site, the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter' ('matter' is an 'object' which is 'out there', waiting to be 'disinterestedly discovered' by the elite who have a 'special consciousness' and a 'neutral method'), whereas in 1973 at least one member was agreeing with Marx, that we humans 'create our object' (that 'matter' was socially produced in the 19th century, but now we socially produce 'energy' – it's our object to change).It's not too difficult to see that the former requires 'contemplation', whereas the latter allows for 'change'.Really, it's a debate about the social meaning of social concepts, like 'inorganic nature'.For Marx, 'inorganic nature' is a philosophical category, something external to an active consciousness, that is transformed by the activity of that consciousness, into an 'object-for' that active consciousness.This is all a bit baffling for those who couldn't give a flying fuck about philosophy, and so Engels' 'translation' of 'inorganic nature' into 'matter' (a bog-standard bourgeois science concept of the 19th century, hence its ease of adoption) was very welcome.Now, every individual could understand Marx's mysterious and frankly baffling 'philosophical' woffle – 'matter' could be touched by an individual's hand, so that cleared up that problem.Except, that Marx wasn't talking about 'matter', so Engels in effect ditched Marx's insights, about social production which we can control and thus change, and returned to bourgeois science, and its individualist and elite concerns. I've said before, in effect, 'matter' is the 'scientific' reflection of 'property'. Both can be 'owned' by individuals, and neither are subject to democratic controls. 'Matter', like 'property' just 'is', a 'thing in itself', an Eternal Truth of human existence, to which we must genuflect, as a 'Fact' to be contemplated.And don't get me started on 'material'…

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

McNeeney wrote:

two-way relationship between man and his environment

Yes, I quoted this.Perhaps you didn't read my post.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

There's also this, also drafted by Barry McNeeney:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist

Thanks for that, ALB.This point stood out for me:

SPGB wrote:

The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.

[my bold]The only issue (which perhaps can be cleared up) is the division between 'organized, instrumental working class' and 'revolutionary scientists'. I think that the 'revoutionary scientists' would be a subset of a class of 'revolutionary workers', rather than a separate group (ie. a group that has a power which is not under the control of the wider class).That is, 'science' would become a product of the majority, rather than remain, as it is now, a product of the minority.In other words, like all sources of power in a socialist society, 'science' would be democratised.I should also add the McNeeney is suitably critical of Engels' outdated formulations.This bit is also suitably critical of some conceptions of science and its relation to 'truth' and supposed 'objective knowledge':

SPGB wrote:

There is a long-standing row in some left-wing circles, which takes science as described above, in such matters as genetic population control (eugenics), IQ testing and the like; considering that science should be purged of these excrescences or abuses, leaving a pure residue of truth. The aim of such a. programme is the construction of a science which would be in harmony with a future socialist society. This hardly seems possible. For if you take away the influence of capitalist society then, until socialism is created, that new science would need to be created in a vacuum. While we might agree that socialists, to some extent, can create personal relationships which escape the boundaries, scientific or otherwise, of this society; we cannot see the effectiveness of trying to convert the scientific community to the radical science position. For even were this to be done, they would still remain unsocialist. Worse still, the radical science position assumes that a science could exist in the form of a perfect objective knowledge; which was the common sense assumption of the first part of this bulletin from which we were unable to prove that the V/alsby Society argument against socialism was wrong.

[my bold]There's still plenty for class conscious workers to discuss about these issues, though.

[Author]

Posts