LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It comes to something when I can quote the earlier SPGB in support of my political positions, and the membership still refuse to read them, and merely heap insults on what I write.No wonder youse won't read Marx, or any of the other dozens of thinkers that I've referred to.
SPGB, 1932, wrote:The choice is before you; only knowledge, desire and self-confidence are needed to realise the free society of the future. Place not your trust in others, but be assured that the work there is to do must be done by yourselves.That was the SPGB, in 1932."Place your trust in experts, and be assured that the work there is to do must be done by specialists"This is the SPGB, in 2017.
So, neither of you can read your own party's publications?No wonder you can't understand what the issues are.Heads back in sand, eh?
SPGB 1932 wrote:The Socialist Party of Great Britain answers those questions in this small pamphlet. The answer is worth the consideration of every working man or woman, as it concerns the great social problem—the problem of poverty. Our views on the crisis are set out here with the hope that workers who read them may be led on to study more seriously the principles of Socialism. One great obstacle has first to be overcome. The worker, seeing the inability of the experts to agree among themselves, may doubt his own capacity to understand the problem that other and seemingly wiser heads have found so baffling. Do not be put off by that idea. Working men and women, who make and tend the wonderful machinery of modern industry, and who carry out the intricate operations of trade and finance, have powers of thought that are well able to grasp the basic problems of politics and economics. We who address you are also workers, and we know that only the lack of desire and of confidence has hitherto prevented the mass of the workers from thinking these things out for themselves.The reader is asked to remember that this pamphlet is not merely the opinion of an individual—it is the view of the Socialist Party.[my bold]How did the SPGB get from such a good perspective in 1932, to the anti-democratic, anti-worker, pro-elite 'specialist' nonsense of 2017?
rodmanlewis wrote:What is the purpose of your participation in this forum, other than to show the SPGB to be wrong?My purpose is to develop the social theory and practice of the democratic, revolutionary proletariat, not 'to show the SPGB to be wrong'. That is a mere by-product of my purpose, that has emerged during our discussions.
rml wrote:Either socialist theory as expounded by us is defective, or socialism isn't possible anyway.Yes, I agree, either/or.Since I think that 'socialism is possible', then the 'socialist [sic] theory expounded by you is defective'.
rml wrote:What is your solution to the major problems that beset our world today?The same solution as Marx and Engels, and millions of workers since – the democratic control of production by the producers themselves: that is, socialism.Having said that, you'd think that there would be mostly agreement between me and the SPGB.But, having tried to discuss 'socialism' with the SPGB, I find no mention of workers, proletariat, bourgeoisie, Marx, democracy, power – all the issues that I would presupppose that any 'socialist' would be keen on discussing, so as to build a 'theory' which can then be put into 'practice'.So, I'm compelled to 'show the SPGB to be wrong' – but the SPGB (or even individual members, initially) can change its Religious Materialist ideas. Religious Materialism leads to elite power – that's why the Leninists (and the rest of the 2nd International) espoused 'materialism'. Neither the 2nd International nor Lenin had any intention whatsoever in 'allowing' workers to decide for themselves about the creation of their world. It was to be left to 'specialists'. Marx warned about this connection between 'materialism' and 'elitism' in his Theses on Feuerbach.
mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics…There's a good reason for that, mcolome1.The threads that I participate in are actually thought-provoking, whereas those by just SPGB members/followers just spout the usual, old, outdated, 19th century nonsense that even the bourgeoisie have got past. Even the religious thinkers in science are more advanced than the SPGB.Which is ironic, given the obsession by Religious Materialists with other religions.It mightn't be too serious, if there was some evidence of anyone in the SPGB taking a serious interest in these issues, but it seems that the SPGB is like a cult, dedicated to matter, practicalities, individuals, anti-intellectualism……the only debate which stimulates thought based upon Marx's ideas is in the threads I generate. Which doesn't give me any satisfaction whatsoever, because I'm trying to develop my own thinking at the same time as other Democratic Communists.Mind you, that's probably the problem… none of youse are Democrats or Communists/Socialists, but 'specialists'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Logic is not based on an ideology: those who claim processes are ideological are usually trying to hide something.[my bold]Hmmm…
YMS wrote:Ideology is based on premises (and unstated presuppositions), [whereas, in contrast] logic is [merely] a set of procedural rules.[my bold]Hmmmmmm…
YMS wrote:Nothing can be two mutually exclusive things…[my bold]Sounds like a 'premise', an 'unstated presupposition' an 'ideological' definition, YMS. Tell me, where do your 'rules' come from? The planet 'Rules', outside of any human social consciousness?
YMS wrote:… else explain how someone can be pregnat and not pregnant at the same time.A sly switch from 'nothing' to 'something' there, YMS.It's pitiful. Your ideology. And your (supposed) non-human 'logic'.It's elitist bluffing at its best.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If objects are produced by humanity, they cannot be independent of humanity, such is basic logic.No, 'your logic', YMS, which is based upon an ideology.
YMS wrote:Yet marx says they are independent of humanity.Can anyone else point out how something can be 'independent' and 'not independent'? How Marx argues both?It's not too difficult for anyone who's been reading so far.
For those readers keen to see just where YMS is going wrong, but can't be arsed to read Marx:
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach 1, wrote:The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism…[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmYMS wants to separate his 'object' from any producing 'subject'. This is 19th century ideology. And Marx went beyond it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Read him, disagree (lets face facts, the philsophical notebooks are a slender reed for any analysis, weren't meant for publication, and in so many words 'I agree with Feuerbach').Marx doesn't agree with Feuerbach, YMS.So much for your 'slender reed'.
YMS wrote:Lbird wrote:Of a producer?It can't.That's the point, of Marx's argument about the subject-object relationship."as objects independent of him".Square that away.
Read very carefully, YMS, because I've only just written the answer to this.'Objects' are independent of humanity.You're particularly slow today.Now, tell me how these 'objects' are independent – the secret is, to read what I wrote earlier.Until you quote my answer, to show that you have read it, I'm not continuing with your education, because you don't seem keen to actually learn anything.
Young Master Smeet wrote:How can production be independent?Of a producer?It can't.That's the point, of Marx's argument about the subject-object relationship.Why not read Jordan?
Young Master Smeet wrote:To repeat "as objects independent of him".https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htmCan you guess how often I'm going to quote this at you, Lbird?I'm all for it!I'd quote it, too.That's what 'production' means.So, you keep 'quoting', but not 'understanding'. I'd guess you'll do it incessantly until the cows come home.
Young Master Smeet wrote:But the social is something: society is made of something isn't it? So what do we call the stuff that is producing?The 'social' is 'something social'; 'society' is made of 'something social'; the 'stuff that is producing' is 'society'.Marx argues that we are self-creators.Why not read Jordan, and read in detail where he explains all this?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the important thing is stuff monism: either everything is ideas, or everything is matter, …I know that you think this, YMS, and have done for years.I've also pointed out years ago just where you got this 'either/or' notion from, too.You got it from Engels, and I've given the passage, where he divides all philosophy into Materialism and Idealism.This is nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's views about 'social production'.You stick to 'stuff monism'; I'll stick to 'social production'.It's up to workers, coming to revolutionary consciousness and wanting to build for socialism using democratic methods, which they'll 'stick' with.
Young Master Smeet wrote:… if everything that exists is matter, then ideas are material…[my bold]I've told you a thousand times, YMS, that 'if' clause is an ideological choice, which determines the 'then' statement.I don't share your ideological choice, and neither did Marx.What 'exists' for those who look to Marx is 'social production'.I wish that you'd read my words, and accept that we disagree about what 'Marx meant'. 'Meaning' is related to politics and ideology, and my ideology, Democratic Communism, (that 'socialism' is the democratic control of social production by the producers), can see that Engels' focus on 'matter' was a move away from Marx's focus on 'social production'.If one chooses an ideology that is not concerned with 'social production', then one can't understand Marx, in terms of what Marx meant.If you believe that Marx meant 'matter', then that's your choice. But your choice is of no use to the revolutionary democratic proletariat, in its attempt to build for socialism.Since you're not interested in these politics, your choice is fine for you.
