LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This has been a very interesting and enlightening debate, marred only by the inevitable personal insults by the SPGB against TrueScotsman. Plus ca change…
I should declare openly, though, to TrueScotsman, that my Democratic Communist politics are closer to those of the SPGB than to those of TrueScotsman.
There are two outstanding parallels between this thread and my many debates with the SPGB about ‘science’, which mirrors the “Leninist Elite versus Mass Class” basis of this one.
The first parallel, as I’ve already pointed out, is the SPGB’s mode of political debate – it doesn’t argue politics, but attacks individuals, and so loses the political debate, in the sense that its own ideological beliefs remain sacrosanct, but it doesn’t spread its own political message to workers who debate with them. It’s a method that will end in cult-like isolation.
The second, is that my arguments in defence of democratic science (the ideological belief that only mass control of physics, maths, logic, etc. is acceptable for a democratic socialist movement and its eventual product, socialism) are exactly the ones used by the SPGB to defend their politics.
That is why I agree with the SPGB as against TrueScotsman’s politics. I believe that only mass communist consciousness amongst workers across the planet can build socialism. TrueScotsman disagrees with this, and argues for a party to lead the still non-socialist workers into socialism – which is fair enough, and a political and ideological one, which I disagree with, but I can understand and debate with.
The problem is, the SPGB are contradictory, and on the issue of ‘science’, agree with TrueScotsman’s political and ideological position: that an elite is needed to lead the benighted mass.
My position, and I think it was Marx’s too, is that only the proletariat can liberate itself, in all areas of social production, which naturally (and I chose that term consciously) includes the power of human ‘science’.
‘Nature’ and ‘Society’ are human products, and within a democratic socialist society can only be changed democratically.
I think TrueScotsman would disagree that either should be democratically produced (but at least holds a consistent political position), whereas the SPGB thinks ‘Nature’ is simply sitting ‘out there’, waiting to be ‘discovered’ by an elite of physicists (and other ‘scientists’), and so ditches its correct democratic politics regarding ‘Society’ when dealing with ‘Nature’. It’s a confused political stance that must lead nowhere. At least TrueScotsman’s consistent beliefs have had, and continue to have (unfortunately from my perspective) political relevance today.
Anyway, I couldn’t resist posting, so my apologies to those who detest the notion of ‘Politicised Science’, and prefer a self-selecting elite to hold power in science.alanjjohnstone wrote: “All i can say, is that Marx in his lifetime actively joined in organisations which did not fully accord with all his ideas and expectations. We can only assume that he valued their contributions to the emancipation of the working class more than he did the philosophical views from his youth. It appears you take a very difference position from Marx.”
Again, as a materialist, you’re twisting the truth.
Marx never joined an organisation that argued against the self-emancipation of the proletariat – which is what ‘materialists’, as we’ve seen here, do. Marx’s philosophical notion of ‘self-change’ has been deemed wrong by both ALB and robbo.
Marx might have thought that the organisations that he did join were not ‘materialist’, but we’d probably disagree now, given later developments, and Marx’s own words about not being a ‘Marxist’.
And given his support for the supposedly ‘idealist’ ‘Narodniks’ in Russia at the end of his life, when he opposed the supposed ‘materialist’ ‘Marxists’, like Plekhanov (who made up the category of ‘Narodnik’ and damned his creation as ‘idealist’, in an echo of Engels’ great battle), we’ve good reason to think he wasn’t any sort of ‘materialist’, like you are.
Your ideological view of ‘Marx’ is not one I share, alan.
But, since you don’t consider your view to be ‘ideological’, we can’t even discuss the problem. To you, there is no problem.
Putting your heads in the sand is not a good political strategy. Nor is shooting the messenger.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “My questions were as you rightly quoted
“…can you suggest any political party, contemporary or historical, that has been more democratic than ourselves? Likewise, can you provide an example of a socialist party exemplifying socialism more than we do?”
Your answers did not address them, LBird.”
Right, alan, I’ll try again.
It seems that, as Marx suspected, the political ideology/movement/party known as ‘Marxism’ was nothing to do with his ideas. Again, as Marx pointed out, any ideology/movement/party rooted in the notions of ‘materialism’ would bolster class society.
So, if you are asking me if “any political party, contemporary or historical… has been more democratic than ourselves”, then I can only judge your question based upon Marx’s democratic social productionism.
The answer thus is, to the best of my knowledge (and I’m open to further enlightenment on the issue), there is not and never has been a ‘democratic’ party, ‘contemporary or historical’, that meets this political test.
So, the SPGB is not democratic, nor does it ‘exemplify socialism’. And it appears that all ‘contemporary and historical’ parties who’ve called themselves ‘socialist’ or ‘Marxist’ have really been ‘materialist’, and so have nothing to do with Marx’s democratic social productionism.
Of course, there have been thousands of individuals, over the years and across the world, who’ve pointed this out, that ‘socialism/communism’ must mean ‘democratic social production’ if it is to be worth building. But, again to the best of my knowledge, no party has emerged from these dissenters against ‘materialism’. I might be wrong on this, and would be pleased if you know differently and can point one out.
I must admit, my experience of the SPGB and its ‘materialist’ ideology (which is so obviously at odds with ‘democracy’) leaves me feeling as if I’m unlikely to find a ‘democratic socialist’ party in my lifetime. Youse were a bit of a ‘last chance saloon’. I actually think that there’s a danger that Marx’s ideas will be completely forgotten, because it seems that the ‘materialist’ parties, like the Trotskyists and the SPGB, are doomed in the 21st century because they base themselves on a completely discredited 18th century ideology, and there is no other ‘institutional’ memory of what Marx argued. I’d like to think that a party based upon Marx’s views would emerge, and I’d join, but I’m not hopeful.
I hope that this answers your question, now, alan.
robbo, you must try and read my answers. It’s pointless to keep asking the same question.
‘Objects’ are socially created. That’s the answer.
The fact that you disagree, and want ‘objects’ to be ‘independent of human conscious activity’, is an ideological position.
Deal with your ideology, and ask where it came from.
Hint: it didn’t come from you.
robbo, you haven’t read or understood Marx, so quit now, whilst your ignorance, and touching faith in the bourgeoisie, is still partially hidden.
robbo203 wrote: “Actually, Marx’s explanation was quite wrong…”
So, why bother with Marx and Capital?
Oh, sorry, you don’t.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “For the record, can you suggest any political party, contemporary or historical, that has been more democratic than ourselves? Likewise, can you provide an example of a socialist party exemplifying socialism more than we do?”
Is this the question you were referring to, alan?
1. You’re not a ‘democratic party’. Every time I ask by who (and how) is ‘truth’ created, you don’t answer ‘humanity’ by ‘democracy’. You favour the social production of ‘truth’ by an elite of ‘specialists’. Youse write this stuff, it’s not an allegation by me.
2. You’re not a ‘socialist party’. ‘Socialism’ can only be ‘democratic socialism’ (see 1.), and can only be produced by the self-emancipation of the proletariat, not by an ‘elite’ or by ‘biological individuals’. Socialism means all social production is democratic, including our science.
ALB wrote: “...Marx was of course wrong…”
ALB’s now quoting bourgeois encyclopaedias to prove Marx was wrong! LOL!
Sorry, a materialist is quoting objective sources, which were nothing to do with bourgeois social production.
alan, this is pretty sorry stuff, to be aligning yourself with – ALB the Leninist, who favours bourgeois thinking over Marx, and robbo, who’s got his own personal connection to the ‘object’.
Where’s the self-emancipation of the proletariat, amongst all this bourgeois ‘objective science’?
I’ll stick to quoting the Socialist Standard! You couldn’t make this up!
Yeah, ALB, ‘Generatio aequivoca’ means ‘self-emancipation’.
Every quote you make from Marx, or even the Socialist Standard, undermines your anti-democratic Leninist Materialism.
ALB wrote: “He too thinks the world has been created, only he calls the creator “Social Mind” rather than “God”.”
Don’t you feel ashamed of your Leninist-like lying about your opponent’s politics and philosophy?
Marx argued that active, conscious, humanity was the creator.
You can only read ‘social mind’ because you want, just like Lenin, to portray your opponent as an ‘idealist’.
robbo – try and read some philosophy, especially Marx’s.
alan, Wez, Matt – don’t you think that it’s odd that it’s me quoting the Socialist Standard, and you’re all arguing against it?
ALB, perhaps the best way to explain this to you is to say ‘mind’ is like ‘value’.
They are both social products, not made up of ‘matter’, not touchable by an individual, but involve social relationships, which we can change.
‘Value’ in not in a physical good, just like ‘mind’ is not in a brain.
‘Value’ will never be ‘found’ inside a ‘good’, just like ‘mind’ will never be ‘found’ in a brain. Only the bourgeoisie insist that ‘value/mind’ are ‘inside something tangible’.
If you can’t get to grips with this, you can’t understand Marx.
Mind is a social product, not inside a wet organ.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird. i think i have made my position clear. As i said, i don’t really find any of this debate fruitful because i don’t believe it convinces people to become socialist nor is necessarily needed to be a socialist.
You may believe it is crucial…”
Yes, I do think that ‘it is crucial’.
As an example, ALB is currently arguing that ‘mind’ is ‘individual’, which undermines Marx’s theories, which concern social production.
I think democratic socialism involves social production, so if we don’t thrash this out, there won’t be any socialism, just more bourgeois individualism. If that’s what you, ALB, robbo and the SPGB stand for, fair enough, but why claim to be socialist, democratic or following Marx?
Why not just say that the SPGB thinks that ‘mind’ is individual? And merge with the Lib-Dems.
ALB wrote: “I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can’t conceive of a what “a social mind”, as distinct from individual minds with ideas derived from society, would be.”
Let me help you understand, ALB.
It’s from the Socialist Standard, 1973, quoting Marx: “Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all.”
See, it doesn’t say ““a social mind”, as distinct from “individual minds with ideas derived from society”.
What are these ‘individual minds’ which ‘derive their ideas from society’ but also, which no-one, including Marx, has mentioned, have another ‘internal mind’ which doesn’t ‘derive ideas from society’?
What you are writing is incomprehensible, ALB.
Either ‘mind’ is ‘social’, as Marx and the Socialist Standard argue, or ‘mind’ is ‘individual’, which is what the bourgeoisie argue.
Marx, The German Ideology, p.51, quoted in the Socialist Standard, No. 829, September 1973, ‘MEN, IDEAS AND SOCIETY’:
“Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all“.
ALB wrote: “The argument is not over whether or not the contents of the human mind is a product of society but over how the mind interprets the information conveyed to it by the senses and the brain.”
But ‘the mind’ of any individual is a ‘social mind’, ALB.
That is, it’s the ‘interpretation’ (which is social in origin) rather than the ‘conveyance’ by senses and brain (which are biological), that is fundamental.
Really, this rests on your interpretation of your own words ‘”how the mind interprets“‘ – is this an ‘individual mind’ or a ‘social mind’?
If it’s a social mind then the argument is over.
The ‘social mind’ is an inescapable input into any ‘reality’ that we know. Thus, nothing can ‘exist’ independent of society – that is, independent of the active consciousness, theory and practice, social production, of humanity.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “According to yourself now, the SPGB has indeed been correct in its interpretation and reflects much of your own thinking.
In view of this admission, I consequently await your Form A, LBird.”
Thanks for your admission about the SPGB, alan! [joke]
Indeed, I think that the 1973 article is very good, and perhaps would amend only some expressions, rather than the political content.
However… given the response to my quoting of the article, I’m not sure if the current SPGB actually still supports that article. Do you, for example?
Still, there would be more chance of me joining, if some other posters now start to support those arguments. Let’s see how things develop, eh?
