[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.

Well, I wasn't going to interfere with Brian's separate attempt to get the SPGB to do some critical thinking, but clowns like you must be challenged.If there's any "bizarre theories of some eccentric individual" at stake here, they are the 'social production' theories of Marx.But, you wouldn't know that would you, because you're an Engelsian Materialist, without a clue about Marx's works.Do me a favour, and keep your childish insults to yourself.Since I'm here, though, bit of advice to Brian.Whose 'scientific method' are you about to discuss? Or are you starting from the socio-historically specific assumption that the method of the bourgeoisie is universal?If you are assuming the non-historic, non-social, 'scientific method', you should all be open with one another that you're all starting from that ideological assumption.

[LBird]

Marx, Capital Vol. 1, p. 169, wrote:

…categories…are forms of thought which are socially valid, and therefore objective, for…this…mode of social production.

'Objectivity' is determined by its 'social validity'.This is a historical 'validity', because produced by a certain society.Who, amongst workers struggling to build for socialism, determines what thoughts count as 'objective' and 'valid'?Is it the workers themselves, democratically, or an elite?Who makes the category 'matter' a 'socially valid' one? And when?The 19th century bourgeoisie made 'matter' a 'socially valid', and thus 'objective', category.They've since moved on, but Engelsian Materialists haven't.The ruling class has learnt from Einstein, but 'materialists' haven't.Ironically, Einstein confirmed Marx, but the ruling class is still over a century ahead of the proletariat, who still look to 'materialism'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Sorry, LBird but i have to persist.  

alan, I can't win. If I talk about 'proletariat' and 'socialism' is the same sentence, I get jumped on by those who object to talking about a 'class' in socialist society.So, to try to come up with a term which represents 'workers', I use 'producers', to try to cover both now and then.Then you, because you're not really interested in the debate about 'who has the power to determine production, including scientific knowledge', you've move on, to a …You tell me, alan. What do you think I mean by 'producers of widgets'?The individuals producing widgets?Or is 'producers' a term for 'collective producers' and 'widgets' a term for 'social products'?In other words, those in society who determine products.I think only democratic methods can be employed by those in society who determine what is to be socially produced.If you're going to 'persist', alan, you're going to have read some books on epistemology yourself, and do it the hard way, because my comradely attempts to shorten the process and make it easier, have clearly completely failed.My interests in this subject go back to the late 80s, so if you start now with your readings, you might get to where I'm trying to get you quickly now, in about 25 years.Perhaps this is just evidence for robbo's thesis that we're all too thick to learn 'new' stuff quickly, and you're just going to have to leave this subject in the hands of experts like me, who've been grappling with it for more than a quarter of a century.God help us all. And you're not interested. Why 'persist', mate?

[LBird]

twc, if the SPGB's still listening to you, the party deserves what it gets!

[LBird]

LOL!Yer couldn't make it up!When I say 'worker', the SPGB says 'no workers in socialism'.When I say 'producer', the SPGB says 'no elite in socialism'.alan, I'm approaching these issues from a 'class' perspective, so I'm talking about how we build now, amongst interested, curious workers, to help build for a socialist future.When I say 'working class', I'm clearly referring to, well, the proletariat of Marx, and because I've been criticised for using that term, when talking about socialism, I've tried to use the term 'producers'…But, you and all the rest are never going to discuss a class approach to epistemology, and the need for democracy within all areas of power, both during the building towards socialism, and after the revolution, within socialism.And you have said, many times, that you're not really interested in these issues, I'll grant you that.But, what sort of position is that for someone who is involved in a political party to take – to claim that they're not really interested in a vital political issue, about the social production of knowledge?I openly acknowledge that you've engaged in a genuine attempt to understand, even given your declared 'lack of interest', but we're going nowhere fast now, aren't we?I thought that I could generate a political debate about Marx, epistemology and democracy, but I think that the complete embeddedness of Engels' ideology of 'materialism' (which starts from the view that this is a non-issue, 'reality just is', 'anyone can touch matter') within so-called 'Marxist' parties (not just the SPGB) is too strong for critical debate to overcome.I laughingly called it 'Religious Materialism', in the hope that, in a party like the SPGB, with its dislike of religion, this term might wake it up.The laugh's on me, eh?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I really don't see any real big difference of viewpoint here and we all these years been arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead.

Well, alan, if you can't tell the difference between power in the hands of the producers, and power in the hands of an elite, there's nothing further I can say that will convince you.I still find it strange that a political party seems to have so much difficulty comprehending political debates.The issues of epistemology are political debates about 'power'.Unless, that is, one is a 'materialist', and thinks that it's all down to individuals and their biological senses, and their easy ability to touch 'matter'.Then, clearly, this debate is just so much 'angels dancing on a pinhead', and the SPGB can just ignore me, and carry on as it is, living in the 19th century.As I've said, alan, I've tried hard to raise awareness of these political issues, but it seems, to you, to be a complete 'non-issue', and I think that you've been the one who has most genuinely tried to engage with what I'm arguing, so perhaps you should just stick with Tim's, twc's and robbo's views, and leave 'my' arguments to the realms of 'idealism', and write me off as a 'bogeyman'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Let's simplify it for you then, Do I exist outside of your perception of me? Again a simple yes or no will do,

Tim, I keep giving you the simplest answers that I can.But you're not using the same Marxist ideology as I am, about the social production of 'existence'.You want to discuss your drunken encounters with your missus, and you as an individual and me as an individual. I keep pointing this out as an effect of your 'materialism', which looks to 'biological senses' as the determiner of 'what exists'.Any answer I give is in the context of my freely exposed-to-all ideology, which is Marx's too. For example, Marx argues that 'senses are social', and so to talk about 'existence' outside of the mode of production that produces that 'existence', is meaningless.I'm trying to give you straight answers, but you just seem to ignore Marx's works – which, of course, you're free to do, but it would be better if you openly state to all, where your concern with you, yourself and your perception, comes from.I'd argue that you're simply repeating the ruling class ideas of this society, and locate your views socio-historically, whereas I suppose you'll locate the origin of your views in you.I won't keep on saying the same thing to you, Tim, so unless you start to engage in a discussion about epistemology, and its social location, then I'm going to have to stop replying to you.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[my bold]You'll have to read my post again, Tim.I was giving an answer to a political and philosophical question about 'power' within epistemology.You seem to want to persevere with your 'bourgeois individualist' concerns, like 'I' and 'me', and your biological notions of 'perception'.Since I specifically said that 'existence' is socially-produced, I don't know how you can read that as 'your existence is in my head', but I suppose with your bourgeois ideology, those sorts of beliefs are basic.But those ideological beliefs of yours are not mine (nor Marx's).And who told you that you are made of 'matter'?And why not 'energy'? Your ideology is 19th century, Tim. As are your 'assumptions'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

So lets have it from the horses mouth: are you now denying that your vision of a future communist society invoives workers voting on the truth or otherwise of scientific theories?  A straightforward  YES or NO will be much appreciated  and if NO please enlighten with a simple explanation in your OWN words as to precisely what you have in mind without your customary waffle.   . 

Yes. (ie. workers will vote on 'truth')If you don't agree, robbo, you have to say who does determine 'truth'.I suspect that you'll argue that 'truth' is 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered', but then that puts power in the hands of 'out there' and we can't change it.Can you please give me a similarly simple answer, to my reasonable political question?Who determines 'truth'?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But again, LBird…are you saying i vote at every level, at every stage, on every point and that everybody else has to, as well…i don't think so…

Only the producers can decide whether this is necessary, or not.This decision is not made by 'matter', so that we can't change our decision, but by conscious humans.I'm a Democratic Communist, and just like Marx, I can't give details of how the democratic control of, say, widget production, will work in practice.We might all want to vote on the production of every last widget in every last factory – though I can't imagine 'why' we'd want to do so, but its not my individual decision, and in fact I'd argue against such time-consuming activity.But, I argue that only the producers can decide about 'widget production'. The 'widgets' do not simply 'exist out there', and the 'widgets' don't tell us what we must do. It's our decision.A democratic society might decide to appoint a sub-committee to supervise widget production, but the members of that s-c would be delegates, and would have to report back to their appointers. Obviously, the report back would be in language and terms that the appointers understand. Their appointers would decide whether the production of widgets is in the interests and serves the purposes of the appointers; the interests and purposes of the delegates, if they differ from those of their appointers, would be over-ridden. That's political power, and it must be in the hands of the appointers, not the delegates.This is basic democracy. There can't be an elite who determine widget production, against the interests and purposes of society as a whole.Frankly, I'm surprised that the term 'democracy' seems to cause so much bafflement to the SPGB. If society determines that every last muscle movement in every individual shall be determined by a vote, then it will be. I'm a democrat, and so can't give any other answer, if I'm asked that question.Do I think that society ever would vote to do this, then I'd answer 'no'. I'm inclined to think that production would be subject to some division of labour (by choices, abilities and interests of the producers individually), by specialists (educated and elected by society), by delegates (controlled by mandates), by sub-committees (appointed from above), etc. Democracy in action. But, clearly, its society that decides if their shall be a division of labour ('matter' doesn't decide for us), or specialists (they don't select and educate themselves as an elite), or delegates (they'll do what we tell them to do) or sub-committees (they won't form themselves, outside of our social power).Does this cover the basis of 'democracy', alan? Clearly, if you had a different conception, and you and others outvoted me, your definition of 'democracy' would prevail.It seems to me, that any workers' movement being built up within capitalism would have to be built upon the principles of 'democracy', and so perhaps the first task is for workers to begin to determine just what they want from 'democracy', and to which spheres of production it would apply. I think all production should be subject to democracy, but perhaps other workers disagree, and want elites to continue to tell us things, and for workers to remain passive in the political process. I'd argue strongly against leaving any power to elites, because it leaves workers passive and thus powerless.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

A simple question for L Bird, which mirrors one you posed to another poster earlier and which should hopefully elicit a simple yes or a no.Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?

A very simple and reasonable question, Tim.The answer is 'No'.Marx argues that the opposition to 'consciousness' is 'inorganic nature'.Engels thought (given his social circumstances and influences) that this meant 'matter'.According to Marx, 'matter' is a social product, which we can change, rather than, as the bourgeoisie allege, we contemplate.We could expect, if we were Marxists, that 'matter' could change (because it is a social product) to… errr… for example… errr… to… ermmm… 'energy'.So, some societies, from inorganic nature, produce matter.Other societies, from inorganic nature, produce energy.For some, 'inorganic nature' is 'matter'; for others, 'inorganic nature' is 'energy'. We have to choose.For us socialists, employing Marx's ideas, we can situate the social production of organic nature (nature-for-us) in socio-historical context. That is, we regard 'organic nature' as a social product, related to the 'mode of production' that produces it.So, to summarise, 'matter' is a social product (which we can change), and 'matter' has no 'existence' outside of our social production.'Existence' is produced.That's why we do not have to simply, passively, discover, contemplate 'matter', but can change 'it'.Bourgeois physics today is behind Marx in 1845.Theses on Feuerbachhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird is cautious about offering the technocrats the power to decide, even though they may well be the only ones who do understand the science…

This underplays my concerns, alan.We now know (read them) that 'the technocrats' do not 'understand the science'.That's why modern physics is in such a mess (read them).'Science' is a social product, and, in a democratic society like socialism, only the ones who produce socially can determine what 'science' is.'Scientists' (your 'technocrats') are products of our society, just like you and me, and the notion, that you espouse, that there is a minority of 'technocrats' who 'understand' (while we don't, and more importantly, can't) is a BOURGEOIS MYTH.Your statement, in effect, reflects ruling class ideas.That's not a surprise, because we live in a class society, where the ruling class are always concerned to eternalise their rule, and make the masses think that only the 'technocrats' 'understand' the world we produce (oooops… 'the objective world' – another myth).Modern physicists are moving in the direction that we produce 'space and time' (read them), so Marx's ideas about us producing our object are just what's needed in physics as in sociology.Thus, revolutionaries can have an input to all science (not just 'politics'), because science is political, knowledge is political, truth is political, maths is political, logic is political…'Politics' means 'power', and the only 'power' acceptable within a socialist society is democratic power.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

To argue that 'Freedom and individual development' is not task for  'social theory and practice', under the democratic control of all, is to argue for Thatcherism.

That doesn't follow.   As, I believe has ben argued here by others, hunter gatherers are highly individualistic, but they are hardly Thatcherite in their primitive communist societies.

Sometimes I wonder if you lot deliberately put the most obscure spin on everything I write.I don't wan't to get diverted into history, sociology, modes of production, etc., but…Yes, you're right, YMS. Not every pre-Thatcherite society has been 'Thatcherite individualistic'. It's arguable that the tory party in the '50s was 'hardly Thatcherite'.But, in our present day context, of capitalist society, that we live in, the most appropriate examples in debate are ones drawn from our recent history.Unless you're some sort of primitivist, harking for 'hunter gatherer' social production, then I think that this debate on 'democracy and the individual' is best discussed by talking about the 20th/21st centuries AD, rather than BC.So, do we have 7 billion individuals each as individuals defining what their own personal 'individual freedom' consists of, or we going to democratically determine what 'individual freedom' consists of?As a Democratic Communist, I think only we, as a society, given OUR level of social production, can democratically determine (and change that 'definition' later, if we want to) what we mean by 'individual freedom'.If you are a socialist and a democrat, YMS, and live in 2016, I think you'll agree with me. On the other hand, if you're hankering to get into a pair of budgie-smugglers, and roam around the fields and woods of your local park, and return to primitive food production, and eat caterpillars, then perhaps you won't.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Society will be run democratically, but to the end of freedom and individual development.

My point entirely.'Freedom and individual development' are social aims ('theory') and social tasks ('practice').Social theory and practice in a socialist society will be democratically controlled.'Freedom' is not the 'individual tasks' of 7 billion individuals.'Individual development' is not the 'individual tasks' of 7 billion individuals.To argue that 'Freedom and individual development' is not task for  'social theory and practice', under the democratic control of all, is to argue for Thatcherism.Only we can achieve the 'end' you mention.7 billion individuals can't. Only a united society can.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

LBird wants to global population of a future communist to hold tens of thousands of plebiscites on the truth value of each and every new scientific theory that comes on stream.

I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth but isn't his demand for only the right to democratically decide such issues.

I've tried talking to robbo, but he won't read what I write, and goes off on a rhetorical tangent.Perhaps you can explain 'socialist democracy' to him, alan.I define it as "workers' power", but he seems to define it as 'no individual's muscle moves without a vote', and thus condemns my wish to have workers in collective control of their production.Especially their production of our 'reality-for-us'.

[Author]

Posts