[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.

You've neversubstantiated this claim.  It doesn't follow.Oh, and what is actual is rational, and wht is rational is actual.

You might as well be saying 'what is piffle is poffle, and what is poffle is piffle', for all the understanding you have of the political issues at stake for the democratic producers.But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

[LBird]

J B Foster wrote:

For Engels, as for Marx, the key to socialism was the rational regulation of the metabolism of humanity and nature, in such a way as to promote the fullest possible human potential, while safeguarding the needs of future generations.

[my bold]The key political question for socialists is: "who (or what) determines 'rational'?".Either 'matter' determines (and a minority will 'read matter'), or 'humans' determine (and only a majority can say what 'humans' determine).This is an issue of 'power'.If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.The SPGB follows this anti-democratic theory of 'materialism', and argues that 'specialists' (a minority of elite experts) must determine, whilst the 'generalists' (the majority of 'non-specialists') must obey the 'specialists'.'Materialism' is at base a bourgeois, anti-democratic philosophy suited to elite rule, which is why Lenin espoused 'materialism' for his elite political purposes.Marx, on the contrary, was concerned with 'social production', and the political rule of the majority of the 'social producers'.Only the social producers can determine what is 'rational' for their own interests and purposes. 'Rationality' is a social product, not an external, unchanging, ahistoric gift from god.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Published online on 28 Nov in Jacobin, an article by John Bellamy Foster marking Engels birthday and addressing the movement to disassociate him from Marxhttps://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/engels-marx-ecology-climate-crisis-materialism/

I've addressed these issues in great depth already, on many threads here.Foster, like the rest, continues to make the mistake of seeing Marx as a 'materialist'.And they interpret this 'material' to mean 'matter' (as opposed to 'ideas' or 'non-matter stuff').Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who argued for democratic social production by democratic social theory and practice.Thinkers like Foster, Burkett, Stanley, Lukacs et al place 'matter' above 'democracy'.For 'materialists', like Engels, 'matter' determines ('external nature' determines). Thus, we can't change. Power does not reside with a majority vote. Thus, only a minority must decide.For 'idealist-materialists', like Marx, 'democracy' determines ('human production' determines). Thus, we can change. Power does reside with a majority vote. Thus, only the majority must decide.I recommend that any comrades who read jdw's link bear these political considerations in mind.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 You dont need to consult society as a whole by means of a vote. All you need to do  is consult your fellow producer next door. "Oi Fred, could you tell me what is the truth about String Theory, Does it hold water or is it a load of bollocks?" Fred being a producer will then give you a spot on answerBut what happens if Samantha down the road, who is also a producer, disagrees with Fred?  They cant both be telling the truth can they? See, this is what is so wacky abouy your whole argument.  You say only the producers can tell the truth. So why are they voting then?To vote implies the possibility of diasgreeement which you rule out by saying only the workers can tell the truth of what they produce.  But clearly this is nonsense since what is true for Fred is not true for Samantha … My position is that the truth is a relative thing and will differ from one person to the next. …

As I keep telling you, robbo, you're an 'individualist', and so you see 'society' as a collection of 'individuals' (Fred next door, Samantha down the road, one person and the next), and so, naturally for your ideology, you interpret 'production' to be something done by 'individuals'.But I'm a Communist and Marxist, and so I look to social groups when discussing 'production', and the interests and purposes of those social groups when they engage in their 'social theory and practice'.So, for 'individualists', 'production' is 'individual production', whereas for 'Communists', 'production' is 'social production'.These opposed ideological bases of ours lead us to differing conceptions of the nature of production, and how it is controlled. And this further leads to issues about whether 'power' is 'individual', 'elite' or 'social'.Socialists are concerned about social power and who wields it, and a subset of this is the social production of 'science'. Because 'science' is powerful, its control is of great concern to those who wish to build for a social revolution against the ruling class, who employ their 'science' to keep power out of the hands of the masses, and who build a socio-natural world of an elite making.Since you don't recognise these categories and political issues, because the world is made of 'individuals' for you, then these concerns are essentially meaningless to you (and, in fact, are seen as a 'danger' to the elite individuals who do science, in your ideological world).To you, 'democracy in truth production' is dangerous, whereas to democrats, it is essential.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So tell me L Bird, in the "communist society" you propose, we have a world wide vote on a scientific theory. For arguments sake let's take the theory of what causes thunder.The vote are cast and the "truth" is decided along the lines of discharge of electrons between clouds, etc. However I'm still of the opinion that it's caused by a big guy in the sky with a hammer called Thor.What happens to me? Am I carted off to a idealist-materialist reeducation camp to ensure I acknowledge "the truth". Also how long do I have to wait before we can have another vote?

Tim, stay out of it – I can't take your inability to discuss sensibly. I'll only end up getting banned, because I'll talk to you like one talks to a dimwit, and I shouldn't treat you like that, so I won't reply to your stupidities any further.If you don't like it, complain to the mods.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

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.

 OK so can you now explain why do you want the global population to vote on the" truth"  of scientific theories.  What is the point of the exercise? 

I keep telling you this, robbo, but you keep ignoring what I write.The 'point of the exercise' is that only the producers can tell the 'truth' of what they produce. And the only way within a society, like socialism, that produces democratically, is to vote.I also explained why you don't agree with Marx's views (which I do agree with) about 'social production' and the 'self-determination' of the producers, is that you are not a 'democratic socialist' concerned with 'social production', but you are an 'individualist' concerned with 'material' biological sensation.You believe that 'Truth' simply 'exists' somewhere 'out there', and this can be passively 'discovered' by 'disinterested' bourgeois scientists, who have a 'politically-neutral method', which is only available to an 'expert elite with a special consciousness', but not available to the masses.So, you believe that 'elites' produce 'Truth' (which doesn't change, or it wouldn't be 'Truth'), and I believe that 'societies' produce 'truths' (which are created socio-historically, and so do change).To you, if Hawking tells us his physics is 'True', you reply 'it must be the truth, a scientist says so', according to their 'disinterest' and absence of political purpose.To me, if Hawking tells us his physics is 'True', we ask him to explain how he came to this conclusion without us deciding how to go about producing this 'truth' according to our interests and purposes, and who gave him his 'concepts'….I've said all this before, robbo, but you won't engage with the ideological, political and historical aspects of 'science', and simply repeat your bourgeois-inspired outrage that "Workers can't tell Stephen Hawking what to do in physics! He's a genius, who does 'maths', and you workers are all unable to comprehend your world! Leave it to your 'specialist' betters!"The simplest way of putting our ideological disagreement is that you don't believe in 'democratic science', whereas I do. But then, I'm a Democratic Communist, and you're not.There is no 'objective answer' to this issue, robbo, It's a political battle, about 'power within social production', and 'who will wield it within socialism'.

[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.

[Author]

Posts