[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The point is they are working towards a scientific commons, one regulated and sustained communally, in which we will all share the benefit.  This is an interesting event, as much klike our communist roads, this is actually existing communism.

[my bold]But your ideological interpretation of 'a scientific commons' is of an 'expert elite', who cannot be politically controlled by the majority – otherwise, you'd allow a vote upon 'Truth'.Thus your 'regulation' will be by an elite expert 'regulator', and your 'benefit' will be determined by this regulator, too.You only mention 'communally', 'we', 'share' and 'our' as a sop to the majority of workers. If you meant any of these terms in a political sense, you'd use the term 'democracy'. But you won't, because your ideology of science will not have democracy, because your ideology of science says that 'matter' determines, and not humans engaged in socio-historic production, of their socio-natural world. You won't have workers' democracy.As for 'this is actually existing communism', you should ask your mentors in Eastern Europe between 1945-90 what happened to their 'actually existing communism'. It's a laughable statement to make.Your approach to science is Leninist, through and through, YMS. You hide this from workers, and perhaps from yourself, too.The fruits of 19th century 'materialism' in action.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Communist science now

Should be "Communist science now?"And the answer is 'No'.The answer to the question is rooted in one's ideology of what constitutes 'Communist' and 'science'.If one roots 'science' in an ahistorical, asocial, practice, which is concerned with 'discovering' a 'reality-out-there', and that the practitioners of this 'asocial, ahistorical practice of science' are a politically-neutral, special elite, with a special method, which allows the experts alone to 'know' this 'reality-out-there', then one can accept a market-driven, individualist, elitist, non-democratic, unpolitical practice, to be 'Communist science'.For those who live in our socio-natural world, who recognise that 'science' is power, and that ideologically this 'science' emerged with the triumphant bourgeois, and is thus inherently anti-democratic and thus anti-Communist, it is a laughable notion that the bourgeoisie can socially-produce a 'Communist science'.For those 'individualists', who laud 'expert elites', and who think that 'Eternal Truth' is the product of 'science' (and clearly are Leninists in their politics and science), then this is 'Communist science'.I'll leave other comrades to situate YMS's "non-political" enthusiasm in this historical, political, socially-productive Marxist approach to 'Democratic Communism' and its 'science'.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Okay. What about all the forum violations, and insults that L Bird has inflicted in this forum ? 

I think that you'll find that on any recent thread, it's you who's been insulting me, mcolome1.This is because you can't argue logically, theoretically or politically with the arguments that I'm making, and thus are compelled to attack me as an individual, to cover up your own political weaknesses.In the past, I returned the personal abuse from the other 'materialists' (which is what you are, at your own admittance), because they too are compelled to take the same actions for the same reasons. But I was sanctioned, like Vin, for doing so.But, unlike Vin, I've learned to appeal to the mods to protect my rights as a poster to make posts which are politically disagreeable to the SPGB, and to allow the mods to chastise the 'materialists' who resort to personal abuse (ie. all of them – they have no choice, because of their ideology).So, to summarise, mcolome1, I've now got you in my sights, and any more personal abuse of me by you will be followed by a PM by me to the mods.Rules, eh?It's a pity that only non-members like me adhere to them, whilst the 'materialist' SPGB members resort to forum violations and insults. Tsk, tsk.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you want to start from a non-Marxist concept, like 'propertied workers', fair enough, but why not openly say that this is nothing to do with Marx or, indeed, 'class'? (because 'class' is a relational concept, too, about 'exploitation', not about varying 'groups' of 'property owners', which it would be in your usage of 'working class')

Marx is dead. 

[my bold]I take it you mean here 'Marx's ideas are dead'. Otherwise, it would be a pointless comment, and I'm assuming that you are trying to make a political point.That's a fair enough political point of view, YMS.But I don't share it.If the SPGB shares your point of view, and openly posts on its website that it is not a 'Marxist' party, so that any workers reading the site will immediately know this political stance, I'll stop posting entirely.I'm not interested engaging with a non-Marxist party, like the Leninists and Trotskyists, but I've always assumed that the SPGB, in some way, does think that 'Marx is alive'. Especially given posts by ALB, alanjjohnstone, twc, mcolome1, etc.As I say, if your view is general, YMS, I'll leave you all in (political) peace.

[LBird]

moderator2 wrote:

Quote:

The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.

Please do the original poster the courtesy of addressing the issue he wishes to discuss on this thread and explained further in his last message. Otherwise begin a new thread. 

jondwhite, OP, wrote:

The Labour Party under Corbyn have claimed to have become the party with the largest membership in the whole of Western Europe so there must be something wrong with our theory of society.

[my bold]I'm arguing that 'there is something wrong with the SPGB's theory of society' (as outlined by YMS), because it's not a Marxist 'theory of society', based upon class and exploitation.How this is 'discourteous' to the OP, or indeed how the mod can't see this, baffles me.I'm beginning to think that the SPGB doesn't like critical thought, one little bit…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But you haven't refuted the proposition that the working class are not propertyless…

You still don't seem to understand, YMS.We're taking about a conceptual starting point, or 'concept formation'.Marxists start from the concept of a 'propertyless proletariat'.This isn't undermined by some workers owning houses or shares or cars, etc. because its not about 'property as stuff', but a relational concept to help explain why 'social property' produced by social producers is in the hands of a 'propertied class'.If you want to start from a non-Marxist concept, like 'propertied workers', fair enough, but why not openly say that this is nothing to do with Marx or, indeed, 'class'? (because 'class' is a relational concept, too, about 'exploitation', not about varying 'groups' of 'property owners', which it would be in your usage of 'working class')I dare say that you're employing the bourgeois scientific method of 'induction', which looks to 'out there', registers it, and from that 'practice' proceeds to form 'concepts'. So, you look at workers having 'property', and go on from there.It's nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's scientific method, of critical social theory and practice.Why won't you openly say what method you're using, when you produce your 'thesis' of 'propertied workers', so we can all recognise your ideology for what it is?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And the thesis I was building was that …the working class may not necessarilly be the or even an agent of communism.

Yes, and I was contesting this 'thesis of yours', YMS, and suggesting the socio-historical origins of 'your thesis' (ie. that it's not 'your thesis', but an already well-known one). I'm contesting from a Marxist perspective.

YMS wrote:

The sheeple/brainwashing explanation doesn't wash, because any ideological control must conform in some way to lived experience, or it would be totally rejected.The working class have built a Labour Party, not a Socialist Party.

No, the 'working class' haven't 'built a Labour Party' – over generations, many workers, still under bourgeois consciousness, have helped, under bourgeois leadership, build a bourgeois party.Most workers looking to Corbyn are still held in thrall by bourgeois consciousness.I'm sure we all know where this is going, because we have a socio-historical method which examines what the Labour Party does in government.The socio-historical activity of workers building their own party has never yet taken place. Given my experiences here, I'm not convinced that the SPGB is going to be a part of that future activity.And you aren't helping to convince me otherwise, YMS.

[LBird]

moderator2 wrote:

…if you wish, just treat it as another cop-out by the SPGB …

[my bold]It's not merely my 'wish', mod2, but, ironically, an ongoing 'social fact'!OK, if mcolome1 wishes to reply to my last post and continue, he can do so on a new thread.I won't respond any further on this one.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Everything that Marx wrote has a social, or sociological character character,( he was not a physicists,)…

  No, Marx was a 'physicist'.That's the point. 'Physics' is a socio-historical product, and 'physicists' are ideologists. [edit: this is why his Capital is more scientific than works produced by bourgeois physicists, like Hawking, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc., who attempt to conceal their ideologies]This argument is contained in your next words:

mc wrote:

No separation between thought and reality; dialectics characterized both the subjective and objective development. (2) He was not keeping in totally separate departments materialism and idealism. He was uniting them to create a totally new category–a “new Humanism.” …

Thought-reality, subjective-objective, materialism-idealism, unity.This is no less than Marx's 'idealism-materialism', a unity.'Rocks' are ideal-material products of human society. That's why the ideologies behind 'physics' (and all 'science') must be addressed.

mc wrote:

The one that always had an opinion about Natural Sciences, and the Universe,  was F. Engels, that was his specialty ,up to the point that mistakenly applied Dialectic to Nature, …

Yes, Engels was 'mistaken'.'Dialectics' means 'idealism-materialism', human social theory and practice, which produces our 'organic nature'.

mc wrote:

For me, socialism, would be like Marx and Engels envision it, as the unification of human beings with nature.

And for me, too, mcolome1.But not for the 'materialists', who continue to argue that 'rocks' are simply 'out there' (ie. there is no unity between 'humans' and 'their rocks'), and that the 'materialists' can 'know' rocks 'as they are', and so they don't need a vote about the social production of 'rocks', because they, and they alone, 'know' nature 'as it is'.mcolome1, you're confused, because you correctly argue about 'unity' (that societies produce their 'external' world), but then refuse to allow the producers to democratically decide upon their world (social-natural, a unity).This is a contradiction that must be addressed.Are 'rocks' simply 'out there', awaiting 'disinterested scientists' to 'discover' them (so that when they do so, they 'know Truth')?Or, are 'rocks' our social product, that we are already aware that different societies produce differently, and that in a socialist society, being democratic, only we can determine our 'rocks-for-us'?If one agrees with Marx on the 'unity of science', then one must agree with 'democratic control of science', mcolome1.That's what's at issue, here.The SPGB does not agree the workers should democratically control their science (but argues that 'science' is an elite activity, with disinterested experts, who employ a politically-neutral scientific method, and that there is no place for democracy in the production of 'Truth').'Truth' is a socio-historical product, and changes.We must be in control of those changes – we can't be told to merely contemplate what an elite has produced, for their own interests and purposes, in the past.Marx was correct – 'philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it'.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

It is the same discussion of the Evangelical, of what is literal, and what is figurative, for some idealists  evangelicals, ( similar to the ones we have in this forum )   what is literal is figurative, and what is figurative is literal.Let"s  stop discussing  about the Bible, and concentrate our time on socialism. that is the main purpose of this forum, and that is what newcomers are looking for when they become a member of this forumIf we follow this discussion, as some idealists want to present it,  we can say that religion had an idealist origin,  instead of a materialist origin, therefore, preachers, religion historians, metaphysical,  and biblical commentators are totally correct.The needs of the workers at the present are materialist, and they are: Unemployment, Housing, Homeless, Wars, medical needs, diseases,  and Psychological problems have a materialist origin.

[my bold]All I'm asking, mcolome1, is does 'materialist' mean 'social'?Why can't you, or anyone in the SPGB, answer that question?When Marx says 'material', does he mean 'social', or does he mean 'matter'?

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

[LBird]

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i never weary saying, it is now time that we have a whole re-evaluation of how the party practices its principles in the light of our declining numbers and influence. 

I think that the problems go far deeper, alan.It's not simply a case of 'practices' which need 'a whole re-evaluation'.To me, the underlying problem is the party's 'principles'.I don't mean the written document, but the hidden, underlying, unspoken, perhaps even unconscious, 'principles' which form the worldview(s?) of the membership.I'm still not sure, after more than 3 years of engagement, whether the party is a 'Marxist' party (in either a 19th century Engelsist sense, or a Marxist one), whether the party is committed to "workers' power", whether the party puts 'democracy' ahead of 'individual freedom' – in short, whether the party's idea of 'socialism' is that of Marx, power in the hands of the direct producers, and no elite above the masses.Again, to me, a 'shorthand' test of these issues, is to ask any supposed 'socialist party' the question: "Who controls the production of 'truth'?"The simple answer for a 'socialist party' (in the sense I understand that term) is 'the democratic producers'. That's the basic 'principle' to build for 'socialism'.Any other answer – god, cadre, matter, 'reality', 'me as an individual', Stephen Hawking, etc., etc., shows me that that party is not 'socialist'.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

… you start to cry like a little child.

More wonderful political analysis from the SPGB.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, I did float an idea in the discussion of Brexit: the working class aren't propertyless.  They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote.  this gives them an interest in the state (and makes them effectively rentiers, or intellectual property holders), and they vote accordingly.As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is. 

This argument of YMS's rests on the assumption that 'citizenship and a vote' are simply more important to workers than, say, affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.On the other hand, it could be argued that once 'affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.' become rarer, that the changing socio-economic basis of the 'property ownership' of 'citizenship and voting' will remove their supposed 'interest' in those political benefits.I'd suggest that the latter argument, that 'citizenship and voting' aren't the key interests for workers, and that YMS is wrong, is the Marxist approach.Once workers realise, with the help of socialists, that 'citizenship and voting' can't ensure that they have decent housing, etc., then they will become more critical of YMS's thesis of 'the propertied proletariat', a direct contradiction of Marx's socio-historical views.

[Author]

Posts