[LBird]

robbo, the simple answer to your predicament is to realise that we don't share the same political ideology.I'm a Democratic Communist, influenced by Marx's ideas about 'social production', and the democratic control of that production.You believe something else.I can't explain my views from your perspective, only from my own.If you don't accept my Marxist viewpoint, that's fine by me. If you don't think all social production should be democratically controlled, that's fine by me.I'm more interested in discussing these democratic ideas about social production with socialists who are influenced by Marx.Quite frankly, your ideological focus on 'Opportunity Costs', 'specialists' and 'individuals' is irrelevant to me, and my views about social revolution, workers' democracy and socialism. My views, similarly, will be irrelevant to you.Why not take up your discussion with someone who shares your ideology?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Also mcolome1 recommends Franz Mehring herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/new-trojan-horse-elf-lacan-left#comment-36394Wasn't Mehring a Leninist?

No, I wouldn't say so.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_MehringSounds as if he was more of a "Luxemburgist" if anything.

In regard to the issue of whether there was a 'unified entity' named 'Marx-Engels', then Mehring was a Leninist.This was opposed by, for example, Lukacs, Korsch and Gramsci, who discussed the differences between Marx's and Engels' separate views.I'm sure that I don't need to stress to the SPGB the political pedigree of the 'unified entity Marx-Engels' claim?Hmmm…well… why not?Marx-EngelsMarx-Engels-LeninMarx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin'Unified entities', eh? There's always a political purpose for the concept, which is an essentially conservative one of building political legitimacy for the later in the chain, based on the legitimacy of the first in the chain.That's why 'materialists' always link Engels to Marx, because it is a political necessity.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

If one follows Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (see the Theses on Feuerbach, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, and Capital), one will support the class-based science of the proletariat – a science based upon 'social production' by all humans who employ a democratic method, which insists upon the democratic creation of our nature. Loosely known as 'theory and practice' – the democratic producers expose their 'theory', and the masses are aware of their theory and discuss it, and know that their social theory and practice produces their world. The masses are conscious, and they democratically determine their own production.

So there is no social division of labour in socialism, no specialization in socialism.  Is that what you are saying LBird?.  That everyone can – and indeed must – become an accomplished nuclear physicist and a molecular biologist  in order to contribute democratically to the production of scientific knowledge in these fields.  I would love to hear your answer to this question if you have one!

I'm only going to answer you once more, robbo, because I've answered this continuously for years now, and you keep asking the same question, having ignored my answers.Marx argues that there must be a 'unified' society, which democratically controls its production – this is 'communism' (or, 'socialism').From the replies of SPGB members, there seems to be an untheorised attachment in the party to a 'specialist/generalist' dichotomy in society, which will carry on in communism.This concept ("specialist/generalist" separation) is opposed to Marx's concept of 'unified society'. The 'specialist' will determine the 'specialist' production.For those opposed to Marx and democratic production, like you robbo (who argues for 'individualism'), this is not a problem. Your political concerns are to defend 'specialists' from any democratic controls on their 'individual' theory and practice. This is not my concern, because I agree with Marx, and wish to see democratic control of production.So, according to Marx, within communism the 'educators' would be the 'generalists' (ie. the masses), who would 'educate' any 'specialists' that the masses wish to produce. Clearly, the masses would determine why, how, for what interests and purposes, any 'specialised' production was produced. 'Specialists' will do as they are told, by 'generalists' (to use the terminology current within the SPGB), because that is the democratic method. There are no 'specialists' who have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the 'generalists' (the masses).The ideas/theories/philosophies/ideologies/methods/etc. employed by the selected 'specialists' will be openly explained, in plain language, to the democratic selectors, so that the 'generalist/masses' can determine whether the social production that their 'specialists' propose to produce is in the interests and for the purposes of the whole of society.This clearly means all members of society will have the same possibilities in education open to them, and they will control the education process itself, by democratic means. A socialist eduction will require that all those educated can explain clearly to everyone else what they propose to produce. There will be no 'priests' employing 'Latin' to 'read their own hidden bible', who then pretend to 'translate' their own elite understanding of their bible into words the illiterate peasants can comprehend.Priests/Latin/Bible = Physicists/Maths/Reality (or any other 'specialism/language/object')As Marx argued, we create our own reality, by democratic theory and practice, and only we can create a socio-natural world that is built to our purposes and in our interests. Any social theory is capable of being explained to the social producers.The bourgeois specialists lie about this, and claim to have an access to 'The Truth', 'Eternal Reality', which they alone can access through bourgeois maths, with a non-political 'scientific method', and in a disinterested manner. They've lied about this since 1660, when the bourgeoisie became the ruling class. They claim not to 'actively produce' their 'nature', but to merely 'passively discover' an already-existing 'external' nature.robbo believes this ruling class idea, which is his political choice. It's a conservative philosophy of the status quo, which simply 'exists', already.I don't believe this ruling class idea, and follow Marx's views on this issue of democratic social production. It's a revolutionary philosophy of our power to change our world.

[LBird]

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).

[LBird]

The essential difference between Marx and Lenin was 'who determined what producers produce?'.Marx argued that only the producers can determine what they produce.Lenin argued that a special elite must determine what the producers are producing.Thus, Marx argued for a 'unified' society, where there was no 'educated elite' who educated the masses – the masses are to be self-educating. Marx's political method for this was 'democracy', because self-education requires democracy. The only authority can be a self-determined authority.Lenin, by contrast, argued for a 'divided' society, where there was an 'educated elite' (who had a 'special consciousness' which was not available to the masses) who educated the masses – the masses are to be educated by the elite. Lenin's political method for this was 'authoritarian', because elite-educating requires authority. The only authority can be a elite-determined authority.These political perspectives are class-based perspectives. Marx's views are proletarian-based, whereas Lenin's views are bourgeois-based.Further, politics shapes philosophy, and philosophy shapes science.If one follows Lenin's 'materialism' (see Materialism and Empirio-criticism), one will support the class-based science of the bourgeoisie – a science based upon a 'special consciousness' of an 'expert elite' who employ an anti-democratic method, which denies democratic creation of our nature. Loosely known as 'practice and theory' – the elite hide their 'theory', and pretend to the masses that simple 'practice' (of course, based upon the hidden 'elite theory') produces 'theory'. The masses remain unconscious, and their production is determined for them by the elite.If one follows Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (see the Theses on Feuerbach, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, and Capital), one will support the class-based science of the proletariat – a science based upon 'social production' by all humans who employ a democratic method, which insists upon the democratic creation of our nature. Loosely known as 'theory and practice' – the democratic producers expose their 'theory', and the masses are aware of their theory and discuss it, and know that their social theory and practice produces their world. The masses are conscious, and they democratically determine their own production.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

… L Bird is constantly telling us that we are Leninists and anti-democratics…

Let's be correct about this, mcolome1.I keep asking whether the SPGB thinks that Marx is correct, and that only the producers can democratically produce their product. And I keep getting the answer, including from you, that the SPGB does not agree with Marx.I keep explaining that you and the others unconsciously support Engels' 'materialism', which is an anti-democratic epistemology, and so you are forced to defend 'matter' rather than 'democratic communism'.This is the same position that Lenin took – that there is a 'special elite' who 'know matter', outside of any interference by the democratic workers, and so the workers do not need to be consulted about what constitutes 'matter'.In this sense, you and the SPGB are following Lenin's views about epistemology, and so your belief in 'science' is an 'anti-democratic' belief.Put simply, I am "constantly telling you that you are Leninists and anti-democratics" because that is exactly what you all claim yourselves.Why you do so, and why you don't look into why you do so, can only be put down to a religious faith in what you've been told in the past, and which you've never thought to critically challenge.

If you are a pure Communist why you do not post anything against the capitalist class or the ruling class, or the event that are taking place around the world ? You posting are only focused on attacking Engels or the Socialist Party, nothing against the bourgeoisie

Perhaps it's escaped your notice, mcolome1, but this is a supposed socialist site, where socialists discuss socialist ideas.When I'm in 'real life', speaking to other workers, I do nothing but criticise 'the capitalist or the ruling class'.But here, I 'attack' the nonsense that Engels spouted about 'materialism' (which is opposed to Marx's ideas about democratic workers' control of their own production), a nonsense that the SPGB seems to follow, and which is politically disastrous for workers, and leads to Leninist political views, about 'elite experts' (or, a 'cadre party') telling workers what 'matter is' (and so, what 'politics are').

mcolome1 wrote:

You can not  even tie the shoelaces  of Engels because he dedicated his life and his money for the cause of the working class, and he even took arms in a revolution,  and you are seating on a  rocking chair

Here we have the usual personal abuse of a politically critical poster, rather than an attempt to politically engage with a critic of the SPGB's 'materialism'.You always do this, mcolome1, because you don't understand the political criticism that is being levelled at you and the SPGB, and so you always revert to calling me names.You're being childish, mcolome1. Why not attempt to refute my allegation that you share Lenin's elitist political epistemology? I'll tell you why you don't – you can't, because you argue the same politics as Lenin.Personal abuse of another poster won't change that situation. Only critical thought and discussion can hope to change your Leninist politics of knowledge production, and replace them with a 'democratic communist' epistemology.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

… L Bird is constantly telling us that we are Leninists and anti-democratics…

Let's be correct about this, mcolome1.I keep asking whether the SPGB thinks that Marx is correct, and that only the producers can democratically produce their product. And I keep getting the answer, including from you, that the SPGB does not agree with Marx.I keep explaining that you and the others unconsciously support Engels' 'materialism', which is an anti-democratic epistemology, and so you are forced to defend 'matter' rather than 'democratic communism'.This is the same position that Lenin took – that there is a 'special elite' who 'know matter', outside of any interference by the democratic workers, and so the workers do not need to be consulted about what constitutes 'matter'.In this sense, you and the SPGB are following Lenin's views about epistemology, and so your belief in 'science' is an 'anti-democratic' belief.Put simply, I am "constantly telling you that you are Leninists and anti-democratics" because that is exactly what you all claim yourselves.Why you do so, and why you don't look into why you do so, can only be put down to a religious faith in what you've been told in the past, and which you've never thought to critically challenge.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

I suspect the latter but on the other hand JDW does also appear to have a bit of a fixation with you.  Seems you've impressed someone…

Perhaps it's just that jdw has got a more open mind?And has some awareness of the issues of 'power'. I have to say, though, that this political awareness is in strangely short supply amongst the membership, from what I read here.The SPGB seems to have had more of this consciousness in 1906, from jdw's post from the SS. Which is where we came in…

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

… it is getting dafter each post. You appear to regard scientists as an elite when they are actually proles. There won't be any elites, scientists, miners, engineers, electricians, dieticians. But we will surely give some weight to their specialisms.

This sort of conversation always appears 'daft' to those who know nothing about power, politics, philosophy and science.I've tried to explain why it's a vital subject, the control of the power of 'specialisms' (to use your term), but you seem happy with the current social arrangements.Some, like me, aren't.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

Perhaps you see all 'professors' as 'gods'? Or is Stedman-Jones a particular favourite of yours?I'm not sure where you want this thread to go – I was keen to support and deepen the SPGB's insights from 1906.They seem to have withered and shallowed since, given the members' arguments on this site.

I'm not sure either, but I thought Stedman-Jones was agreeing with you.

Not from what I've read by him.

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

Workers 'have to work' for their wage or salary…You are the one who is turning them into 'gods'.

Yeah, that's right.I regard the producing class as the god-like creators of their reality.That just about sums up Marx, too.The fact that you apparently don't do this, just as, it must be said, the rest of the SPGB here don't, either, says an awful lot about the SPGB's current politics.Which, unlike 1906, perhaps, is why my Democratic Communist and Marxist views seem so out of kilter in these debates in 2016 with the SPGB.Your 'god', Matt, is an elite expert academic god, which creates a 'reality' which has nothing to do with the interests and purposes of the vast majority of humans, but which is claimed to be merely sitting 'out there' waiting to be 'discovered' by a special consciousness. How you can't all see the obvious conservativeness of such an attitude of 'uncovering the existing status quo', beats me. They've built our world, and lie about that.My 'god' is the revolutionary proletariat – and we have to change our world.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

What about Stedman-Jones?

Is that the pen-name of 'god'?

I don't know. Either that or he's a prole professor at the Uni of London.

Why should one person be of such interest to you, rather than 'expert academics' as a social group who claim to have a 'politically-neutral access' to 'facts', an 'access' that the rest of us supposedly don't have?Perhaps you see all 'professors' as 'gods'? Or is Stedman-Jones a particular favourite of yours?I'm not sure where you want this thread to go – I was keen to support and deepen the SPGB's insights from 1906.They seem to have withered and shallowed since, given the members' arguments on this site.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

What about Stedman-Jones?

Is that the pen-name of 'god'?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to point out: most scientists these days are proletarians…just saying, like.  The working class runs society from top to bottom, but not in its own interest.  The technical experts these days, the intellectuals, are workers.

So, why do you oppose the democratic control of truth production?Either, 'most scientists-proletarians', under socialism, will collectively decide the nature of their 'scientific products'……or, beside this 'most' of yours, you also argue for an 'elite' of 'non-proletarian scientists', who themselves alone will determine 'truth'.For you, 'truth' must be based upon an 'interest' that is not 'proletarian' – otherwise, you would agree that only the revolutionary proletariat can determine its own 'interests' within science, physics, maths, logic, etc.The denial of democracy within science is the promotion of a special elite, with a 'special access'… it's the Leninist 'special cadre consciousness', once again.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Here's Jack Fitzgerald on "The Need for "Intellectuals" in Politics." For those unaware, Jack Fitzgerland was a notable founding member of the party.http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-need-for-intellectuals-1906.htmlNo mention of scientists though.

Jack Fitzgerald wrote:

For if the workers are, in addition to producing all the wealth, to instruct their masters in all the details of administration, then it at once follows that they may just as well do the whole business for their own benefit. Why trouble to elect "experts," either financial or economic, if these geniuses have to be shown what to do by those whose superiors they are supposed to be? Forty years ago Karl Marx completely exploded the "Captains of Industry" nonsense in his masterly way; and Engels and Lafargue, among others, have pointed out the facts around us, illustrating the intellectual bankruptcy of the ruling class.

[my bold]Thanks for that link, jdw.Put simply, 'administration' includes the social activity of 'science', too.The ruling class are also 'intellectually bankrupt' when it comes to physics, logic and maths, too, which is why they're having so many problems within all the 'sciences' (not just the so-called 'soft social opinion' sort, but also the so-called 'hard objective fact' sort, too).We will be the 'masters' in all areas of social production, and the likes of Hawking will be the ones taking 'instruction' about how we will create our socio-natural world. Only we can determine our reality, 'for our own benefit', by democratic means.This idea that the bourgeois scientists have an access to a 'reality' that we don't have, because they have a politically-neutral elite method, and a special elite language of maths, is a 350-year-old bourgeois myth, and it's a powerful ruling class idea that the revolutionary proletariat must challenge.Any social revolution will be accompanied by a science revolution, too.

[Author]

Posts