LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird wrote:I've given ALB the opportunity, several times, to agree that 'the earth going round the sun' is a socially-produced 'truth', and that in the past 'the sun went round the earth', and that in the future it is possible that 'the earth will no longer go round the sun'.
There is a possibility in the future that the earth will no longer go around the sun. There's the possibility it will end up being swallowed up by the sun.
As usual, you're misunderstanding what the issue is.The issue is, how do you know that the sun goes round the earth now, not in some putative future.You'll be forced to say that 'it really does' and that your 'knowledge' of this is a reflection of that 'reality'. And you'll say that that 'reality' can't be changed.This is also Lenin's 'reflection theory of knowledge', just as it was Engels'.Marx, though, argued that we create our knowledge, by our social theory and practice.Thus, our knowledge is not a reflection of something 'out there', but a reality-for-us, which we create, and thus we can change.
Sympo wrote:Wait, what? When I have said that only an elite can establish truth? Could you quote me saying this? Do you not believe there is an objective truth?You've quoted yourself, Sympo, in those two lines above.'Objective truth' implies 'an elite who establish'.If that wasn't your belief, you'd agree that 'objective truth' can be voted on.That is, if what's 'objective truth' is obvious, we'd all be able to 'know' it, and so would all vote the same way as any 'specialist', so a democratic vote would be identical to 'expert opinion'.Have a think about this, because it'll be an unfamiliar argument to you.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.This is not what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps repeating this lie, both about me and the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.
I've given ALB the opportunity, several times, to agree that 'the earth going round the sun' is a socially-produced 'truth', and that in the past 'the sun went round the earth', and that in the future it is possible that 'the earth will no longer go round the sun'.He won't agree with this, because he believes, as do all 'materialists', that 'the earth really does go round the sun' and that this will never change, because it's an 'Absolute, Eternal Truth' and reflects 'True Reality'.This is what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps denying this truth, both about himself the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.'Materialism' is a dishonest ideology, which lies to workers.
ALB wrote:There is an individual here who argues that the proposition, eg, that "increasing C02 in the atmosphere does not contribute to global warming" should be put to the vote and, if carried, it would be "true" that it didn't.As far as I know there is no-one here arguing that people who are not specialists in a particular field should not be able to take part in debates about issues in that field.ALB correctly characterises the political position of Democratic Communism: that is, that any 'truth' is a socially-produced truth, and that therefore any 'truth' produced within a democratic society, like socialism, must be democratically produced.Again, as ALB says, no-one is arguing that specialists should not take part in debates: in fact, elected specialists will be central to any debates about the social production of a 'truth'.The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'. [edit – I've just seen that Sympo agrees with this belief]If ALB is correct, then there is no need to compel 'specialists' to explain in a language that non-specialists can understand, because their 'ideas', produced by them alone, are, by definition, 'True'.This denies democratic control of production from the majority, and makes a nonsense of the claim that 'socialism is the democratic control of social production'.The acceptance of any 'truth' can only be made by the majority: that is, the majority can reject the recommendations of any 'specialists', because we judge the majority to be a better judge of what 'truths' serve their purposes and interests, than the judgement of 'specialists'.Of course, if one does not have faith in the majority, combined with a faith in 'neutral science' done by an 'expert elite', then one won't share this political opinion.What's behind our differences is different beliefs about Marx and Engels. ALB believes that Engels faithfully reproduced Marx's ideas, whereas I believe that Engels destroyed Marx's ideas.
You're in a bit of a spot, as a party, because a worker is making a political criticism of your public stance about the future of socialism, and yet you're unable to respond with a political answer, but resort to personalising the debate, in order to take the focus off the political problem, and refocus it upon a 'problem individual'.And ALB, bit of political advice, mate, simply re-posting the same post, from a different debate, is not addressing the political criticism advanced on this thread.As I'm already aware, the root of this problem is not in youse as 'individuals' (even though that may leave a lot to be desired), but in your political ideology of 'materialism'.But… you won't discuss this.'Materialism' is not democratic.
If you want to discuss my positions about Corbyn, why not discuss them on the thread upon which they were expressed, that is, the Chomsky thread? I can discuss them with you there, in that context.The only reason I can see for those issues being reproduced here, is to avoid any discussion about the openly-expressed view by SPGB members that they regard some areas of 'social production' to be 'off-limits' to the democratic control of the direct producers, within a future socialist society.Surely this is an abominable position for any democrat to take, with regard to socialism?The fact that this issue isn't being addressed, shows to me that either the SPGB, like the Leninists, have got something to hide from workers, or, more generously, that the SPGB has no conception whatsoever about issues of power, and hasn't really thought through the political implications of their support for Engels' 'materialism'.Put simply, if 'matter' is supposed to have power, then workers clearly don't.And as we know that 'matter' doesn't have power, then clearly an elite has to substitute itself for allegedly 'powerful matter', and that elite itself has the power (and pretends not to have it, and continues to pretend to the powerless that the powerless do have power, and that the elite simply reflects the wishes of workers).
Thanks for your erudite and constructive contribution to the debate, ALB.It doesn't surprise me anymore that 'individualist' analysis of social production is closely followed by ignoring any socio-historical issues, the reduction of the debate to 'yah-boo, your poo stinks' insults, and the smothering of the real issues, about 'who controls production?'.Cosidering that you're supposed to be one of the 'intellectuals' of the SPGB, ALB, you're a great disappointment. If your approach to political criticism of the SPGB is so poor, it doesn't give much hope for the future development of your party.
In pursuit of my Democratic Communist belief that the role of Communists is to explain complex ideas to fellow workers, so that my fellow workers can develop at a far faster rate than I did, because I sum up years of reading into simpler analogies, here is an explanation of the relationship of Marx’s ‘idealism-materialism’ to Engels’ ‘materialism’.Imagine an electrician who finds two grey wires hanging down from a ceiling. Each grey wire is an outer casing for two inner wires, a red one and a green one. The electrician wants to splice the two grey wires, but only requires the feeds of both of the green wires to be taken forward. So, the electrician gets a third piece of grey wire, again containing two inner wires, but which are both green. She connects the green wire, from the left-hand grey wire hanging down, to one of the green wires in her piece of grey wire, and she connects the other green wire, from the right-hand grey wire hanging down, to the second green wire in her wire. Lastly, she bends upwards the red wire of the left-hand feed and covers it with tape, and repeats this with the other red wire from the right-hand grey wire.So, the electrician now has a feed taking forward power from both of the input grey wires, and the input grey wires both have their unused red wires safely taped off, unwanted.Having finished her task, the electrician then moves on to other, more urgent, work.But… she has a mate, a bloke who knows nothing about electrics, but thinks that he does. We all know the sort. He offers to progress her work, and she trusts her mate, and assumes that his estimation of himself can be trusted, and so leaves him unsupervised, to continue her initial task.He, however, on finding the joined wire taking from two sources, decides that this is a bit messy, and thinks it can be simplified. So, he unfastens the join between the green wire linked to the left-hand green wire, untapes the right-hand red wire, and joins the two together. Much simpler and clearer! Now, the right hand grey wire simply continues into the connecting wire, entirely continuing the both inputs from that right-hand grey wire. Much better than having the complexity of wires being joined into a ‘Y’ shape, and he lastly pushes the left-hand grey wire back into the ceiling, well out of harm’s way, and out of sight of any other future meddlers!He assures his companion that he’s completed her original work, and simplified it into the bargain. She’s not too sure just how her work has been ‘simplified’, but she’s now far too busy with the massive new task facing her, and warmly thanks her trusted mate.Years later, some French ‘electricians’ tell her of the extensions they’ve made to her electrical work, but when she examines the powerless results, she’s astounded, and recognises immediate that this is not ‘electrics’ as she knows it, thus declaring that, if this is ‘electrics’, as far as she’s concerned “I’m no ‘electrician!’ ”.
robbo, I've answered your question, and you really do have to try and read what I wrote in my last post.Please stop your childish style of debate, and please try and engage with the political and philosophical (and historical) issues of the building by the bourgeoisie of their 'science', and how we can try to build a 'science' suitable for the democratic control of production, within a socialist society.
This determination to reduce political and philosophical questions to questions about 'individuals' seems to have spread from robbo – or has it always been there, in the party?As a comparison, it's like having a discussion with someone who says that they're interested in hearing about Marx's economic ideas, and when confronted with the concept of 'value', intended to explain social dynamics and exploitation, asks the question "So, how much 'value' is there in my old car?".When told that 'value' isn't a 'thing' or something in an individual item, but is a social relationship, they then say "So I can't see or touch this 'value' stuff, and even you can't tell me how much 'value' is in my car… nah, it sounds like bollocks to me, mate!"Of course, the problem is in the unexamined ideology of the person who isn't really interested in Marx's ideas, but just wants to hear a way that they can identify for themself as an individual, the individual 'value' of their car.Discussions about value, and social activity within social production, require some attempt by those saying they are interested in Marx's ideas to recognise their own already-existing predilections which make understanding Marx's ideas perhaps impossible.Of course, 'practical men' always pooh-pooh 'thinking' (or 'navel-gazing', as they have it), and are determined to focus on the practical problems of any issue.Right! So, how much 'value' is there in that guy's old car? He needs to know, so he can deal with 'the real world' and sell his 'value' on, at a profit. After all, individuals and their personal concerns will come first in socialism, right?
mcolome1 wrote:Well, go ahead and build your own political party and start to play with your toyWhy is it that nobody in the SPGB seems to be able to talk about politics without descending to abuse? Isn't there anybody in the party capable of understanding philosophical issues? Doesn't anyone actually read Marx's works?And when I return the unwarranted abuse, I get warned and banned?Well, here we go again.You're a gobshite, macker.
mcolome1 wrote:I do really know what elitism is by practice, not by seating on a rocking chair and looking for the wrong doing of others persons, who in some way have also contributed to the cause of working class, because I have been a member of several elitist organizations, and I think that the SPGB does not get closer to them when it comes to elitism, therefore he does not what he is talking about.But the SPGB adhers to the very same Engelsist Materialism that the Leninists do. This problem existed before 1904, so the die was already cast, much earlier than 1917, long before the SPGB was founded, in the Second International and Engels.I do know what I'm talking about.
mcolome1 wrote:We do not even know what the working class of the whole world is going to do when they take real political consciousness, and what method they are going to use in order to overthrow capitalism, …This assertion worries me, because I thought that the SPGB, at least nominally (outside of epistemology) argued that only democratic methods could be employed by the class conscious workers, to build a revolution for themselves.
mcolome1 wrote:The SPGB has existed for more than 100 years and it is still alive and well…As I've said, on the contrary, the SPGB is no further forward than it was in 1904, founded upon Engels' materialism. This is 19th century philosophy, and not even suited to understanding Einstein's works of 1905 and 1915. And now, a hundred years even further forward in all areas, including physics, logic and maths, we're still crying out for a way to understand these fundamental changes.
mcolome1 wrote:Instead of being looking for mistakes it is better to join a political movement and work inside of that group. We do not need philosophers or philosophy, what need is a coherent socialist theory for real world liberationI couldn't agree more, about 'coherence', but unless workers produce their own philosophers and philosophy, to create a socialist theory, then there is no way forward. A coherent democratic theory is essential.Looking to 19th materialism, and Engels' mutilation of Marx's admittedly difficult-to-understand ideas, is a dead-end.Whilst the SPGB continues to hide in the dead-end, I can't see myself joining, because I'm a Democratic Communist, first and foremost. I've tried to promote some discussion about this political difficulty (the power of 'science', and its current elitism, the roots of that in the counterrevolution of 1660), but it seems 'heads-in-the-sand' is the preferred response by the membership, at least on this site.
I've given my political answer, robbo, in some detail.You don't like my answer, because it doesn't suit your political ideology.Talking of giving answers, though, can you explain why you intend to deny the producers the right to decide for themselves what they produce? And to make it clear that I'm not talking about just 'widgets', but the right to decide 'truth'.This is the nub of the political debate on a political site, about 'power' and who will wield it, in your proposed version of 'socialism'.My answer is very clear: only the democratic producers can determine their truths.
robbo203 wrote:Answer the question LBird Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time. Do you feel everyone can become an accomplished neurosurgeon , a geophysicist and a biochemist all at the same time?Yes or no?Once again, robbo wishes to turn this political and epistemological issue into one about 'practical matters'.This is a question, on a politics site, about power.robbo's method is, of course, the standard bourgeois materialist method of reducing everything to a question of 'practicality'. This always ends up with 'democracy' not being 'practical', because "there's no need for the dumb workers to worry their tiny little minds with philosophy or physics, when their betters can just do it for them".robbo's question, above, with suitable changes, could be addressed by any boss to revolutionary workers arguing for democratic control of the boss's factory:Do they not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished managers or directors let alone both at the same time.And the more ideologically aware amongst you will notice the form of robbo's question about 'everyone'.The assumption here is 'individualism', to try to force me to answer from the perspective of the bourgeoisie.If the question is asked from a socialist perspective, that is, 'Do you feel collectively everyone can become…'And to that question, I can answer 'Yes'.Unlike robbo, I see socialism as a society driven by collective concerns, organised democratically, whereas, as we've seen before, robbo sees socialism as an individualist free-for-all, which is why robbo is very wary of 'democratic' claims for our class, because robbo is already planning to circumvent any constraints upon his personal, individual, 'freedom'.robbo's views about 'power' are not social, but individual.
I notice that you've taken up ALB's derail, alan, to avoid confronting the central issue, that the SPGB argue that workers will not democratically control the social production of 'truths'.robbo is his reply confirms as much, with his 'opportunity costs', etc.I'm giving, and have given many times, an opportunity for any SPGB member (or even just a supporter, just one), to argue their case for the political support for the democratic control of social production of 'truths'.No-one has made this case, so I can only assume that the opposing non-democratic case for 'science' is the (unspoken?) policy of the SPGB.I know that this is the case for Leninists 'materialists', but we'd expect them to be elitist and anti-workers' democracy, but the SPGB seems to follow the Leninist method.Since I have to assume that the posters are posting in good faith, I can only assume that the political centrality of the democratic control of the means of production has not dawned on the membership, or that the SPGB define 'means of production' in a way that does not involve the production of theory.That is, the SPGB does not include the universities, education system, research facilities, scientific review publications, etc. in their definition of 'the means of production'. That is, the SPGB seems to believe that, with socialism, workers will control the production of factories and their widgets, but not 'the clever stuff'.It seems elitist to me, so here's someone's chance to make their case for the SPGB policy on the production of 'science'.Is 'democracy' too much of an 'opportunity cost'? If so, where will that attitude end? If 'science' in socialist society can work without democracy, why bother with the 'costs' of political democracy, either?Surely youse can appreciate the political questions being asked? About power.
