[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

Well, since I regard 'production' and 'truth' (we socially create both, by theory and practice) as 'social products', and I'm not 'confused' by my open ideological stance in science, you'll have to tell me where you disagree with Marx, and why you regard 'truth' as an elite product.I suspect that your faith in 'materialism' is going to come into play in your explanation.You should speak to YMS first, though, and get your 'individualist biological sense' explanations in sync. Of course, you'll both deny that you're (like we all are) 'ideologists', and simply defer (perhaps unconsciously) to bourgeois ideologists.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

And, of course 'democracy is about more than voting', but 'voting' is at the heart of it.

I'd argue freedom of information, expression and association come well above voting, and the right for minorities to try and become majorities (and for majorities to not enforce their will unless necessary): voting is just a means to assist the discursive process.  Sometimes we need to weight the strngth as well as quantity on a question: a minority that strongly holds it's opinion compared to a lightly held majority needs to be taken into account.  The conversation never ends.

It's interesting that you downgrade 'voting' in your list of priorities, YMS.This of course leaves it open for an unelected minority to determine by themselves, for their minority interests and purposes, just what contitutes "freedom of information, expression and association" for the majority.Again, it's interesting that you don't agree with 'one person, one vote' (which I'd argue is at the heart of any 'democracy' worthy of its name), but that you'd 'weight strength' (presumably by 'weighted votes' for an elite) 'as well as quantity' (ie. each person's vote).Further, "a minority that strongly holds its opinion compared to a lightly held majority", combined with your unelected minority who determine, presumably, what 'strong' and light' actually consist of, prior to any 'majority voting' on the issue of 'strong/light', to which is added to your 'weighted voting' – it's almost as if you want to protect a minority's power as above the majority's power.In fact, the more I think about it, your proposal for (pseudo-)democracy, makes the gerrymandering of Northern Ireland pre-1968 (1 vote between a working family of five adults, but 6 votes for one businessman) seem positively enlightened!No, YMS, I think I prefer to argue to workers that in building for socialism, 'voting' (and one person, one vote) will be at the very top of our list of democratic priorities.BTW, is your 'Ulsterisation' view of elections in any way an official SPGB opinion?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

Question 6: How do you wish to prepare the way for your community of property?Answer: By enlightening and uniting the proletariat.

You still don't seem to have got the hang of Marx, and Engels' mistakes, YMS.The 'answer', for Marx, is 'by the proletariat self-enlightening and self-uniting'.The workers are the active side, not an elite of 'enlighteners'.You really should read Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, why won't you allow a vote on 'truth'?

It's not up to me, or any socialist to say how socialism will be democratically be run, I just don't see what the earthly use is, and I note that democracy is about more than voting.

This is probably the most thoughtful post that you've made, YMS.The fact that you 'don't see what earthly use' there will be for democratic truth production, is something that can be overcome with socialist education, where our class will come to realise that we alone have to educate ourselves, using the democratic means that we will require for our socialist society.And, of course 'democracy is about more than voting', but 'voting' is at the heart of it.Unless… you and the SPGB don't really mean 'voting' when you say 'democracy'…… but then we'll just have the Leninist/East German model, once again, where so-called "People's Democracies" are actually nothing to do with workers voting about any power produced by their social production.So, all in all, a good start to the day!

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

You are still riding on your favorite horse, but you have not  proven yet that by analyzing the major works of Lenin, you can establish an equality between Leninism  and the socialist party. 

Which bit of 'materialism' is causing you a problem, mcolome1?Why not read 'Materialism and Empirio-criticism', and compare it with what the Engelsist Materialists in the SPGB argue?You seem determined to ignore what Engels, Lenin, and the SPGB here, write.God knows, I've given probably hundreds of quotes, links, recommendations to books, articles, over the last few years.But, I can't make 'materialists' read what Marx wrote, and compare and contrast it with what Engels and Lenin wrote.It's up to undecided readers, who look to Marx and workers' democracy, to wonder for themselves just why the SPGB won't discuss 'materialism', but simply adheres to the 'faith'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' argues that 'Truth equals Matter', and that only a minority of specialists have access to this 'matter', and that it therefore is not a political issue for workers.

But that isn't true, and doesn't follow, thorough materialism says the world is available for access to all.  And that is how we differ from Leninists, we think that each human, not an amorphous mass, has access to reality, and can freely shape their own world by interacting with it.

So, why won't you allow a vote on 'truth'?As 'materialists', you are exactly the same as Leninists.As for politics, YMS, you're an 'individualist' ('each human').This is nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production', workers' power, and democracy.You're more of a US pragmatist – Dewey, Pierce, James, etc., – who also argue for 'each human freely shaping their personal world'.How you're involved with any party with the word 'Socialist' in its title, beats me.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Actually, I was wrong, it was Engels who wrote that, clearly something was wrong with his materialism that day.  He also wrote this:

Quote:

Answer: We are convinced not only of the uselessness but even of the harmfulness of all conspiracies. We are also aware that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily but that everywhere and at all times they are the necessary consequence of circumstances which are not in any way whatever dependent either on the will or on the leadership of individual parties or of whole classes. But we also see that the development of the proletariat in almost all countries of the world is forcibly repressed by the possessing classes and that thus a revolution is being forcibly worked for by the opponents of communism. If, in the end, the oppressed proletariat is thus driven into a revolution, then we will defend the cause of the proletariat just as well by our deeds as now by our words.

[my bold]You really, really don't understand any of this, do you, YMS? This is Engels' 'Materialism', 'that day' and every day, and is nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production'.Engels was talking complete bollocks, as many socialists have pointed out since the late 19th century.Let's spell out what Labriola et al pointed out:              'the necessary consequence of circumstances' is voided by 'if'.Engels' letters in the 1890s say the same nonsense. He argues for 'finality', and denies 'finality', in the same letter.This guff impresses the 'materialists', but everyone who's read Marx since with an open mind, can easily see where Engels destroyed Marx's political argument.Marx argued for social production and change; Engels argued for matter and finality. The 'ultimate' is a religious  concept, which is why 'materialism' is a faith.Apparently, a 'faith' followed by those who can't read and make sense of texts…

[LBird]

And still, not one member or sympathiser of the SPGB argues for workers' democracy in truth production.The root of this is the SPGB's adherence to Engels' 'Materialism'.'Materialism' argues that 'Truth equals Matter', and that only a minority of specialists have access to this 'matter', and that it therefore is not a political issue for workers.Lenin (a materialist) and the SWP (materialists) and the SPGB (materialists) all openly deny the social producers are the ones that create their reality, as Marx argued.In a socialist society, being a democratic society, only democratic methods can determine 'truth'.'Materialists' deny this, and argue that only 'specialists' can determine 'Truth' (because, unlike Marx, they argue that 'Truth' simply 'exists out there', and is merely waiting to be 'discovered').Socialists argue that only a unified society can make these decisions, about what is 'true', because 'truth' depends upon the interests and purposes of those creating their 'truth'. 'Truth' is a socio-historical product, and thus changes.Whatever the form of 'socialism' that the SPGB is arguing for, it is nothing to do with Marx's notions of democratic production by the producers.To elitists, democracy is always 'impracticable'.They always argue that only an expert elite can 'know in practice' about their 'specialism'.Materialism in philosophy is Leninism in politics. Until the SPGB re-examines its faith in 'materialism' (and it is a 'faith', because 'materialists' are unable to square the circle of 'materialism versus democracy', and simply take 'matter' on faith), then it will continue to deny workers' democracy, and continue to defend 'specialists'.It's not me saying this – the SPGB members here keep stating this, that they won't have workers' democracy (although, the sneakier ones are prepared to let workers produce 'widgets', but the elite SPGB will not allow workers near anything vital or important, like power, physics, maths, logic, etc.).Whilst 'science' is in the hands of the bourgeois specialists, which the SPGB aims to continue, and to keep power in the hands of 'specialists', then workers' democracy will be crushed. When the revolutionary proletariat aims to take over 'truth production', those who follow the faith of 'materialism' will side with the bourgeois specialists.You all say so, already.Why mcolome1, who claims to be a 'materialist' but not a Leninist, can't see where this ideology of 'materialism' leads, I can't understand. It's a 'faith' that mcolome1 will have to learn to question.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Bollocks.

LOL! And this is the philosophical-intellectual part of the SPGB!You can't argue with me, ALB, because I can produce the textual evidence for my arguments, and point to the political experience of all workers when confronted with 'materialist' parties, like the SPGB.It's the usual Leninist special pleading for cadre/specialist consciousness, which the class/generalists can't presume to vote against.It'd be more suitable if you tried to learn from educated workers, but 'materialists' resent the very suggestion, that the class 'knows better' than the Party.That's why only the class can determine their socio-historically produced truths, by democratic methods.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

We can see how Marx actually thought a party should be organised.  He did seek to centralise to some extent, but it's clear that that was in part a process of democratising and mofving away from the conspiratorial version of the rules:

[my bold]It's probably clearer to say that Marx thought the class should be organised in a democratic way.

YMS wrote:

But, it's clear that the congress of the league that retained supreme authority.

This is not 'clear' at all.Marx argued that the proletariat as a class was the 'supreme authority'.As is usual with materialists (like you), the emphasis is always upon 'party', and not 'class'. That's why you're following Lenin, and not Marx.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What is Leninism (contrasted with Marx's views)?  I suggest there are three basic positions that are not found in Marx….OK, Lenin accepted …the Materialist Conception of History and we do too, but if that makes us Leninists it would make a lot of others too.

[my bold]Yes, so there is a fourth 'basic position', 'not found in Marx'.The 'Materialist Conception of History' is an adjunct to Engels' 'Materialism' – it is nothing to do with Marx.That makes you Leninists, just like 'a lot of others too'.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/how-spgb-different

But… don't forget to emphasise where the SPGB is exactly the same as these other parties.All these parties, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, and the SPGB, base their politics, philosophy and science on Engels' 'Materialism'.Thus, none of these parties argue for Marx's ideas about the democratic control of all social production, by employing the democratic method of social theory and practice.It's my opinion, though, that what separates the SPGB from the others, is the potential to ditch Engels' 'Materialism' and to turn to Marx's democratic production.This, though, would require a thorough re-examination of the SPGB's commitment to democratic politics, democratic philosophy and democratic science.All three of these areas of social production must be based upon a commitment to democratic means, which is impossible if the SPGB retains its (undeclared in its constitution) commitment to Engels' 'Materialism', which is inherently undemocratic.I haven't found any open declaration by the party to Engels' 'Materialism', but it seems to be taken on faith by the membership (that I've discussed it with, anyway).

 Are you or have you been a member of any of those tendencies ?  I have been a member, cadre, of some of those tendencies, I was able to see a great difference with the Socialsit Party.

Yes, I've been a member of the SWP, which espouses Engels' 'Materialism', and the party/class dichotomy of Lenin.I'm not able to see a 'great difference' between the SWP and the SPGB. They both hold to the faith of 'materialism', deny workers' democracy in truth production, both argue that cadre specialists 'know matter' whilst the class generalists do not have the ability to 'know matter'.If 'materialists' believed that the majority could 'know matter', then the 'materialists' would accept 'democracy' in knowledge production.But 'materialists' argue that only a minority can 'know matter' (and this knowledge is beyond the abilities of the masses), and so the 'materialists' must deny democratic controls over social production.The SPGB employs the 'specialist/generalist' model, which is identical to (and has the same political results) as the SWP's 'cadre/class' model.Both parties deny that only the workers can determine 'truth', and that this social production must be democratic.They both claim to have a special, elite access to 'Truth'.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Where, or when the Socialist Party has supoorted the concept of the vanguard party ? 

All the responses on this thread, mcolome1.They all support 'specialists' (apparently, the SPGB house term for 'cadre' with a 'special consciousness'), and none (not one) supports workers' democracy in truth production.This is Leninism, mcolome1.The 'vanguard party' in embryo.Once 'Truth' production belongs to 'specialists', rather the the democratic proletariat, the 'vanguard party' will announce itself to unsuspecting socialists.

You are using the tactic of the sniper, but you are not hitting the proper objective. The origin of the vanguard party and its application. That is one of the essential elements of Leninism.

Yes, and this 'sniper tactic' is an extremely accurate one, mcolome1.The 'objective', which I keep hitting dead centre, is 'the origin of the vanguard party'.The origin of Leninism is 'materialism'.We can see this at play within the SPGB: the party espouses 'materialism', and upon this foundation inescapably argues for the social dichotomy of power inherent in the 'specialist/generalist' model.This model of 'specialist/generalist' is precisely what Marx warns against in his Theses on Feuerbach.Since the ideology of 'materialism' holds that a minority 'know matter' (and that the majority cannot vote against this 'knowledge', which is claimed to be 'objective'), this ideology must separate society into two parts: party and class.This is Leninism. And the SPGB is following this ideology.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, look, everyone, a slippery slope argument.  See it before it slides away.

Another Leninist tactic.Pretend that there is no slippery slope from 'Materialism' to 'Leninism'.No! Nothing to see! Keep moving! Avoid the politics!And the history, philosophy, physics…In fact, what do the SPGB discuss?Nothing to do with 'democratic production', anyway.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Where, or when the Socialist Party has supoorted the concept of the vanguard party ? 

All the responses on this thread, mcolome1.They all support 'specialists' (apparently, the SPGB house term for 'cadre' with a 'special consciousness'), and none (not one) supports workers' democracy in truth production.This is Leninism, mcolome1.The 'vanguard party' in embryo.Once 'Truth' production belongs to 'specialists', rather the the democratic proletariat, the 'vanguard party' will announce itself to unsuspecting socialists.

[Author]

Posts