[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

LBird,Perhaps I'm a bit dim, but I've never understood what you mean by "reality" and "production of our reality"?Could you attempt to give me a simple explanation, starting with what you mean by "reality"?

I mean much the same as Marx, SP.We create our object.Thus, 'objective reality' (and 'objective truth') is a social product, which varies with the mode of production.The bourgeoisie deny this, and their creation of their reality is treated as an 'eternal truth', something that we can't change (it just 'is', sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested' scientists).The notion that 'objective' is not a social creation, is a ruling class idea – one which still, unsurprisingly, has great purchase in society, even amongst socialists.They wish to 'eternalise their rule', and 'objective reality' is the main plank of their ideology of science.If you disagree with Marx on this, SP, that's fine by me, but then my scientific and epistemological arguments won't make much sense, since you won't be starting from the same axioms/assumptions/premises, of which the key one is that 'we humans produce our reality'.The alternative is that a 'god' produced it, in the past, and we merely 'contemplate' HIS 'reality'.Humans are their own creator and creations, and thus we can 'change' our creation and our selves.PS. Marx thought that he had dealt with all this in the 1840s, and put both 'idealism' and 'materialism' to bed, and turned the focus to humans (especially workers) and their social production.But Engels fucked up that hope. So, we're still dealing with 'Religious Materialism', and its faith in 'matter', and its elitist view of 'knowledge production'.That is, a 'reality' not amenable to democracy.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I object to lumping utopian socialists in with the SPGB.

Your premise, that there are only two opposing 'factions', 'utopian' and 'scientific', is what is at issue, jdw.Once you question that Engelsian premise, your statement doesn't make sense.Marxists are 'utopian-scientific' socialists, to use the terms above.As mcolome1 correctly suggests, 'ideas' of what reality can become must precede the building of that reality.Marx's social 'theory and practice', by which the producers plan their production, to their own interests and purposes.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But Lbird, that is your position, since by definition, in a democracy, a minority of one can be right, and can struggle to become the majority.

 No, it's not my position. In a democracy, only the majority can be 'right'. 'Right', like 'truth', is a social product. In a democratic society like Communism, only the majority can determine 'right' and 'truth'. Of course, minorities can disagree, and attempt to persuade the majority (just like the SPGB study guide suggests), but at any given point 'right' is the product of the majority. If the minority remain a minority, their views are 'untrue' and 'wrong', from the point of view of political power. No minority can claim to hold 'right' or 'truth', against the decision of the majority. 

YMS wrote:

 But

Quote:

This claim can only come from 'materialists', who claim that they alone have access to a 'reality' that the vast majority don't, because the 'materialists' have a 'special consciousness' which is not widely available. No socio-historical analysis of 'science' or social production, just belief in special individuals, an expert elite, who shall tell the workers what 'reality is'.

This is false, since, as I said, the claim of materialists is that a majority could just as well have access to reality, I'm afraid your argument is flawed at the level of a major premise.  The claim of a special consciousness is not essential to materialism.

[my bold]Yes, and you are wrong, because within Communism, only a majority have access to reality.There is no 'minority' who have this special access. 'Reality' is a social product, and only the majority can build it.The 'materialists' deny this, and claim, as you do by your words, that 'a minority could just as well have access to reality'.You can't get away from the elitist premise of your 'materialism'.For 'materialists', 'reality' is 'out there', unconnected to our social production of our reality. Put simply, materialists follow bourgeois teaching on 'science', which emerged with the triumph of the bourgeoisie in society, c. 1660.As usual, I give a social, political, historical and ideological account of the production of 'reality', commensurate with Marx's views, and you hide your ideological views, and their socio-historical specificity and origin, and pretend to have a 'special access' to this eternal 'reality out there', which you claim to be able to 'contemplate', and deny that humans can 'change' it.This ideology of science you espouse is one basis of Leninism, and has nothing to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, materialism does mean that one person can be right against millions …

alan, can you tell me just where in the SPGB study guide on 'science', it argues this?As far as I can tell, the study guide would suggest that in socialism that the producers determine what's 'right', and not elite, expert, genius individuals.I suspect that the 'one person' who determines that they alone ('against' the democratically-produced views of 'millions', and is an ideological 'materialist', and who claims to commune biologically with 'material reality'), shall determine 'right'.Where in the SPGB educational pamphlets for socialism and workers' self-development, does it mention 'one person' having power to determine 'right'?This claim can only come from 'materialists', who claim that they alone have access to a 'reality' that the vast majority don't, because the 'materialists' have a 'special consciousness' which is not widely available. No socio-historical analysis of 'science' or social production, just belief in special individuals, an expert elite, who shall tell the workers what 'reality is'.Young Master Stalin, more like.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Never really liked that expression "scientific socialism"…one for the bin like "dictatorship of the proletariat".The German word wissenschaftlich. This is usually rendered in English as ‘scientific’, as in ‘scientific Socialism’, but it can equally well mean ‘theory-based’, which has fewer connotations than ‘scientific’.This puts in perspective, i thinkhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist(don't know if you read it, Lbird)

Quote:

The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.Just as science is cultivated in social surroundings, amid a network of conflicting interests, so too is the case of the SPGB. Socialism would be a class solution to the social problems of today. A solution which would be in the interest of the majority class of workers, but not of the capitalist class. There is no objective, logical or rational ground upon which the capitalist and worker can meet and settle the matter. So when the SPGB advocates class war, this is not cause for despair, but for hope; that the pattern of social and scientific development of the past may be continued – not by an elite of scientists, not by a gang of political butchers, but by the ordinary workers of the world.

[my bold]Music to my ears, alan!But it has nothing to do with what the SPGB and their supporters, like you, argue on the threads about science, knowledge, democracy, materialism, etc., etc.This 'study guide' seems to be just so much fluff, in comparison to what's written here, on this site.My postings are far more identifiable with your extract, than are those of my political opponents in the SPGB.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The SPGB idientifies itself as influenced by the writings of Marx, not the pre-Marxian communists like Fourier, Saint-Simon etc. The difference is Marxists are scientific socialists and Pre-Marxian socialists were utopians.

In some way  modern socialists are utopian too, because we envision a fiuture society that does not exist at the present time

Spot on, mcolome1!The ideological belief that 'socialism' is either 'scientific' (materialist) or 'utopian' (idealist) is sheer nonsense.It's simply the old 'good-bad' dichotomy, in which scenario the 'materialists' are our saviours, and the 'idealists' are the bogeyman.It's simple stuff, for simple thinkers. That's why they'll avoid Marx, if possible, because his work is not simple.The 'materialists' prefer to read Engels, because he simplified and changed Marx's views.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Some would go as far as say that we don't need to discuss Marx, at all.

The final refuge of a 'materialist' who can't defend their 'materialism', in the face of claims for democratic production, which is what Marx argued for.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Ironically,  I finally rejected Leninism  completely when I started my discussion with the Socialist Party, therefore, your statement is totally incorrect.

If you're a 'materialist', mcolome1, you haven't rejected Leninism.Marx was an 'idealist-materialist' (or, argued for 'theory and practice'). He always focussed on humanity, not 'matter', on social production and change (plans, ideas, schemes, then put into practice), not on contemplation of 'what simply is'.

mcolome1 wrote:

The Marxist-Humanists have rejected many of Engels ideas, but they have not rejected Lenin and Trotsky completely, they are like CLR James who rejected the vanguard party, but was not able to reject Leninism

Then the M-Hs and CLR James did not understand Marx, if they look to Lenin in any sense.Lenin was not a democrat.Socialism/communism is workers' democracy, the control by the producers of their production, on a world scale.

[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.

[Author]

Posts