[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

The basic of Leninism is not  Materialism, it is the vanguard party…

This belief of yours is worthy of discussion, mcolome1.I'd argue that 'materialism' implies an elite, because 'materialists' deny that 'matter' can be voted upon (and so only 'materialists' can determine 'matter', and not the majority of workers).This ideology of materialism provides the basis for the 'vanguard party', because the elite within science parallel the elite within politics.Just as materialists will not allow the class to democratically control science, so the Leninists will not allow the class to democratically control power.The root of this is Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's usage of 'material', by which he meant 'human' (as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'). Whenever one reads Marx, and he uses the term 'material', if one replaces 'material' with 'social' (or 'human'), there is no change of meaning. When Marx talks of 'material production', he's talking about 'human production'.Engels thought that 'material' meant 'matter' (a 19th century focus for 'science'), and thus broke Marx's link to humanity.Of course, Marx was right, that 'material production' is social, and thus can be changed by us. The materialists hide this human activity, and preserve for themselves the right to determine 'matter'. That's why Lenin latched onto a scientific term which justified his non-democratic politics, and thanks to Engels' mistake, was able to pretend that Marx was a 'materialist', in the Leninist sense.The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have always had a soft spot for Solidarity's statement  in their 'As We See It"

Quote:

7. Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

[my bold]The problem, alan, is that several posters here, regarding science and epistemology, follow the 'sterile and harmful action' route, rather than the 'meaningful action' route.Only the class conscious proletariat can determine what is 'meaningful' for them, and thus 'meaning' can be voted upon.No elite can determine our academic disciplines, whereas the elitist ideology of science argues that only the expert academics can.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

The important thing in this movement, it is not in what we disagree, it is what we agree, and what essential ideas we have taken from others writers and thinkers. I have  never taken Marx as a god, or a perfect thinker, he also made many mistakes, but I have taken his most important ideas, as well I have taken the  essential ideas from Engels

[my bold]But do we agree that, in some important respects, that Engels contradicted what Marx wrote?If we can agree on that, there is hope for an informed discussion.Those who argue for the singularity of the unified being of 'Marx-Engels', have historically been the Leninists. Why SPGB members and supporters should follow the Leninists, baffles me.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

So the next time LBird is banned he'll be asking permission for somebody to post on his behalf and, if this is refused, then there'll be another long, tedious argument as to why the moderators did in the one case but not in the other.

Don't drag me into your childish arguments, ALB.My response to being banned is not to 'ask permission' for a post-by-proxy, but to accept that the party has rules, and to simply conclude that the mods are as bad at reasoned argument about Marx, social production and 'materialism', as the rest of the membership.BTW, why Vin has been banned, but the rest of the clowns haven't, beats me. Vin is by no means the worst.

[LBird]

At least it's clear that, for the SPGB and its supporters, almost any elite, rather than the class conscious democratic proletariat, is going to have political power in their version of 'socialism'.So much for socialists helping to develop the class consciousness of workers, and bringing the class up to the abilities of the bourgeois elites.Whatever happened to the SPGB's educational and propaganda role? That's one of the things that made me look to the SPGB, together with its 'democracy'.Unfortunately, neither of these things play any part in the thinking of today's party, from the evidence of these threads.No vision for a socialist future, together with a strategy for achieving it, just simply 'more of the same', as the bourgeois experts do things currently.It doesn't bode well for the party – it certainly doesn't attract me; although, I'm sure that comes as a relief to those who want to keep science and academia much as they are, and workers out of their activities.

[LBird]

robbo203, post #1399, wrote:

Though I agree that it is very probable that for any given subject area in science only a minority is likely to be sufficiently competent to judge on the particular merits of a given theory, this is  not in any way a elitist view as I explained, It is purely a function of the social division of labour which L Bird completely ignores.

[my bold]The problem is, robbo, who or what actively determines 'the social division of labour'?You talk of this category as if it were something outside of our own production, something outside of our political control, something that is active, in the face of which we are passive.Any workers' organisation built upon your principles will tell workers that they are not the 'active, conscious, subject', but that the 'social division of labour' is, and that they must obey the 'social division of labour'.Anyone with any political nous whatsoever, can see that humans determine their 'social division of labour', and that if this political truth is hidden, that a 'special minority' will be the ones who 'determine', whilst they hide this truth from the masses, who will believe that this actually socio-historically-produced 'division' just 'is', timeless, ahistorical, and outside of human interference, and they have to 'obey it'.It seems bloody obvious to me that any Leninist would tell the passive workers that the power structures which allowed Stalin to control production was "purely a function of the social division of labour", and that those workers should avoid the troublemaker LBird, who is 'ignoring' a reality, which is 'out there', and not socially-produced.I don't agree with you, robbo, because I'm a Marxist, and I argue for the democratic control of all human production, including everything from widgets to scientific knowledge. That is, 'socialism/communism'.You're not a Marxist, nor a Communist, nor a democrat, but you are an elitist. Although, I'll grant that you seem to be unaware of this.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

There won't be a proletariat

This touches on what i asked earlier…will socialism be a static society? If ideas and material conditions do arise to create ideology what can we expect to replace the proletarian one when the proletariat is no more. hmmmmmmm…?

The 'proletariat' is a special category of 'producer': a 'producer' that is 'exploited'.Of course, socialist society will see the end of the 'proletariat', but not of the 'producer'.The 'producer' is the 'social subject', that creates its own 'object'.Social 'theory and practice' (your 'ideas and material') will create new 'ideologies' to suit our own purposes and interests, and if we decide to actively change our own purposes and interests, then those 'ideologies' will change, too.

[LBird]

The philosophical problem we face is the mediation between subject and object.Idealist philosophers like Cieszkowski, prior to Marx, had identified the link: 'activity'.Marx agreed with this link between subject and object being 'activity', but his term for this was 'social labour'.Marx argued that the 'subject' was 'humanity' (rather than 'god' as for the idealists), but agreed that, as for the idealists, the subject actively created its own object. The idealists argued that the divine created its world; Marx argued that humanity created their world.Marx regarded the 'subject' as a socio-historical category, and argued that the proletariat and bourgeoisie were different 'subjects', with different needs, purposes and interests. So, their 'activity' or 'social labour' would be different, and thus produce different 'objects'.This political and philosophical argument forms the basis of a Marxist approach to 'science'.'Science' is a social activity, an act by 'social labour', which creates, through its social theory and practice, its 'objective truth'.To be 'objective' is to be 'socially objective' – the link between subject and object must always be maintained, and we must always show who, and for what reasons, any 'object' is created.Clearly, the bourgeoisie have tried to hide this link: from the beginning of their creation of their science, they have pretended that they have a method that is not subjective, that there is no link between a creative subject and its object, and that the 'object' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery', by a passive enquirer, who has no subjective link to the 'object'.These political (class power, socio-historic subjects) and philosophical (creation of knowledge, and ability to change 'truth') considerations will form the basis of any discussion by Marxists, Communists and workers, about the nature of our 'science'.Without this discussion, the proletariat will remain in thrall to bourgeois science, the supposed 'disinterested' subject which simply 'discovers' a world which it hasn't built.Since, as Marx argued, our world is built by humans, the world to be passively discovered is a world already designed and constructed by the bourgeoisie, for their own purposes and interests, and it is a world alien to ours.The acceptance of bourgeois science, and its methods, is the acceptance of our exploitation, of our domination as a class.The bourgeoisie, of course, deny this argument as 'ideology', and as destructive of 'objective science'. 'True Science' must remain within the power of a 'scientific elite', and any attempt to take political control of this 'social labour' is 'totalitarian'. They must retain control of all 'social labour'.The class conscious proletariat, to carry out a successful social revolution, must dispute this ruling class ideology, and democratically build their own world anew.

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

The workers who make the revolution will ensure that the application and testing of science will be appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.

Yes, Matt, a 'science' appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.And "appropriate", "commensurate" and "needs" can only be determined by "the immense majority" of "workers who make the revolution".This requires a democratic epistemology, a proletarian science.'Objective science' and 'disinterested scientists' are bourgeois myths, ideologically intended to keep "the immense majority" docile and trusting in their supposed 'betters'.'Objective Knowledge' is 'appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the' 'Free Market' and an elite of 'Individuals'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Sounds as if he might be covering the same ground as this other recent biographer of Marx:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1309-september-2013/book-review-karl-marx-nineteenth-century-life

reviewer wrote:

His summaries of Marx’s philosophical and political views are accurate enough…

I had to smile at this, ALB.Is Sperber an Engelsist Materialist, too? No offence meant, but I rather think that 'accuracy' is always defined from a viewpoint.

[LBird]

Lew wrote:

LBird wrote:

It's not quite clear to me yet just who Lew is proposing should control the production of 'truth'. Perhaps Lew will clarify just who is their 'active agent of truth production'.

This is, I think, meaningless.

That's what non-democrats always say when asked, 'if not democracy, what method?'To elitists, talk of democracy is always 'meaningless'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of  interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this.

Honest and frank?You might as well say to any workers just starting to take an interest in socialism, science, and its possibilities, 'Fuck off, thickoes, and leave it all to your betters!'That would be 'honest and frank' about robbo's political views.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Most of us will know nothing of, and have little interest in…

It's nice to see that robbo has a very low opinion of what class conscious workers who've carried out a revolution will care about.I don't know why robbo just doesn't sneer, and say that "most workers will be busy eating free burgers and getting pissed and high, to do any 'complex' or 'educated' activities".To me, socialism will mean that most of us will know far more than we do now, and be far better educated, and be far more interested in everything to do with being human, including scientific research.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion

So, I argue for democratic control, and robbo argues that this is 'intellectual totalitarianism'.This is standard cold war scare tactics, that any sniff of democracy in any area where an elite currently has all the power, is tantamount to 'dictatorship'.I have a higher opinion about the intellectual abilities of workers, and their collective decision making about scientific research and the interests and purposes that it serves.robbo seems to regard workers as unwanted and dangerous fools, who, if let loose with 'physics', would return to witchcraft.It's elitism dressed up as concern for 'standards'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird needs to learn the difference between these two things

And what anyone reading needs to know is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and robbo isn't.That means that I argue that only the proletariat can decide what is 'true' and what isn't.robbo seems to argue that only an elite can decide what is 'true' and what isn't. He's given some of the reasons why he thinks that this is so.I follow Marx in arguing that social theory and practice creates our object.robbo doesn't follow Marx on this.It would be easier for all if robbo would be open about what he thinks 'socialism' is.I define it as 'the democratic control of production' – robbo seems to see it as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'individual freedom'.We'd all get a lot further if posters would tell us all their particular ideology of science, and where it comes from.I always point out the socio-historic nature of the bourgeois belief in 'elite science', but it seems that other posters don't want to reveal the source of their ideas.

[Author]

Posts