[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Well, go ahead and build your own political party and start to play with your toy 

Why 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.

[LBird]

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 liberation

I 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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

That is, to those already having a revolutionary class consciousness,  he'll [Chomsky]say 'build for socialism/anarchism';Whereas, to those not presently class conscious, he'll say 'vote for the lesser of two evils'.I do this myself, regarding Corbyn. To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'. If they press me for a deeper, more politically profound answer (and they already know my Communist views), I discuss Democratic Communism, and the dangers of Corbyn.

This sounds rather elitist to me.

It would, since, being a 'materialist', you are one, and clearly wish to taint Democratic Communists with your non-democratic 'scientific' views.The whole notion of the development of workers' consciousness is completely alien to 'materialists', and so they see their own elitism everywhere.I allow workers to dictate their own questions to me, and answer honestly to their present political consciousness.Remind me again, ALB, of your political views on 'truth' – you won't have workers voting on it, will you? Because you have faith that 'matter' speaks personally to your own elite, but not to all workers, who thus cannot be allowed to participate in the building of their 'truth'.Is this elitism the policy of the SPGB? Is the whole of the party membership bound to 'elitist materialism'? Will the SPGB, if they participate in a workers' revolution, really seek to deny the democratic participation of workers in the social production of 'scientific knowledge', as I know already, because you've said so, that you will?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Engels was not the only one who made mistakes, Marx did it too. The only one that does not make any mistake is the god of the Bible according to the believers

But according the 'materialists', 'matter' does not make any mistake, and so seems to be a 'god' for them.When Engels, Marx and us make mistakes, we can say they/we were wrong, and change what we said.But, again according to the 'materialists', once their 'science' has made a 'discovery', it is 'True Forever'.The 'materialists' are compelled to be elitists (just like the 'materialist' Lenin), because they won't allow workers to decide what their 'truth' is. The 'materialists' assert only an elite can 'know Truth', and that workers are either too stupid to understand the methods of 'materialism' (and so can't 'do science'), or are too ready to follow any old nonsense that they think is 'science' (and so will destroy 'real science').Whatever the basis of their elite contempt for workers' abilities to develop themselves, the 'materialists' reserve the right and power to themselves to tell workers what 'science' is, and how it should be conducted.

[LBird]

Engels wrote:

The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong – into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

As long as we add to Engels' 'material' list of 'the spinning wheel and the bronze ax' ('matter', touchable stuff), also ruling class ideas produced by bourgeois science, like 'the ether, matter, Piltdown Man, atoms, Butter is good for you, Butter is bad for you, eugenics', and a continuing list of 'Truths' claimed to be 'Objective', which turn out to be changeable products, socio-historical 'truths', that humans have produced.Our 'museum of antiques' will include 'Eternal Truth, produced by an Expert Elite'.Our 'truth' will be openly proclaimed as 'our social product', which we can thus clearly 'change'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Here's Marx expressing the sane idea in an article in the New York Daily Tribune in1852:

Quote:

….Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class.

If only …

It's certainly never going to become 'inevitable' either, whilst supposed 'socialists/communists/Marxists' tell the working class that only an elite can determine 'truth/knowledge/science/reality/objectivity/etc.' for the workers, rather than these things only being able to be determined by workers themselves, through their own democratic social theory and practice.Surely there can't be anything more representative of 'political supremacy' than being able to determine what's 'objective' for those with power?The 'materialist' road leads 'inevitably' to the 'political supremacy' of an elite. That's why Lenin took this road.The problem can be summed up as "What has the power to determine? 'Reality itself' or 'The direct producers who produce their reality'?"Whilst those influenced by the misunderstandings of Engels hold sway, we'll remain with ALB's 'If only …'.

[LBird]

I found this article about Marx, Engels and democracy very informative:http://www.academia.edu/2601794/Marx_Engels_and_the_Democratic_Communist_Tradition

[LBird]

Stephen Hawking, today, wrote:

But we can and will succeed. Humans are endlessly resourceful, optimistic and adaptable. We must broaden our definition of wealth to include knowledge, natural resources, and human capacity, and at the same time learn to share each of those more fairly. If we do this, then there is no limit to what humans can achieve together.

[my bold]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/29/stephen-hawking-brexit-wealth-resourcesIf even a physicist can see that 'wealth', which is produced by humans, must include 'knowledge', then I don't know how socialists like the SPGB, who argue for the commonwealth, can continue to separate 'knowledge' from 'democracy'.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

can you explain in more detail 'democracy in production' it is a new concept for me

I'll try, CP!Marx argues that all humans produce their 'world'.In a socialist society, which I think all here would agree would be a democratic society, then the production of that society would be democratically controlled.So, 'democracy in production' simply means that the 'products' that we produce would be planned and created by us all, according to our purposes, needs, interests, desires. Our world would be built by us all, for us all.

moderator1 wrote:

The discussion on this thread – as on other threads where LBird has left his footprint – is on how far DPD shall go in respect of the extension of the decision making process.  In other words does the community democratic control include every sphere of social interaction (like science) or does it limit itself …LBird is arguing that democratic control over science is necessary and essential, which includes scientific theory.  Others are arguing the scientific community alone and the scientific method is self-regulatory…

mod1's outline of the Marxist view is pretty fair.Marxists, who are Democratic Communists, argue that all human productive activity is social (rather than elite or individual), and so argue that all social production must be under the control of our society (and not under the control of an elite or powerful individuals).The 'materialists', on the other hand, hold to the myth of the bourgeoisie, that 'science' is not a 'social activity', nor should be subject to democratic control by society. They believe that 'science' is above society, and that it has a 'neutral method' that is not social (and thus not political). The power of 'science' is denied. The 'materialists' seem to pretend that 'science' itself (without human intervention) imposes 'limits' and is 'self-regulatory'. In fact, when pushed, they admit that 'science' is social, but tell workers that there is an apolitical, neutral social elite called 'the scientific community', who can avoid the democratic controls that all other workers will live under.Of course, this 'scientific community' must, in logic, be a self-selecting elite; otherwise, workers would only elect 'scientists' who are Democratic Communists who already accept that they are a part of our society, and that their 'scientific' production is as social as producing 'widgets'.'Knowledge' is of course a social product, and is produced according to the method, as Marx argues, of 'theory and practice'. We must have democratic control of our social theory and practice, in a society which claims, as does socialism, to be democratic.The 'materialists' deny all of this, and regard 'material' or 'matter' as determining our world, rather than 'social production'. They have faith in an elite body of 'scientists', and claim to have  a 'politically neutral scientific method' which can only be understood by an expert elite (and so it can't be subject to democratic controls).So, there you have it, CP.Undemocratic, elite, 'materialists'……or Democratic Communists, who want to see 'democracy in production'.Hope this helps you to understand the issues, and helps in your political choice of ideology, which we all must make.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

What I got from all of your comments is that Marxism is just the perception of what people thought Marx meant…

CP, it's more accurate to say that 'Marxism' was 'the perception of what' Engels 'thought Marx meant'.The crux of the issue is whether Engels actually understood Marx's philosophy.One group, the 'materialists', claim that Engels did understand Marx, whereas another group, who we could call 'Democratic Communists', claim that Engels did not.FWIW, I think that the key issue is 'democracy in production'. Those who argue that 'matter' is not a social product must deny the power of workers to decide whether they will have 'matter' or not.The 'materialists' want it left to an elite to decide whether 'matter' should be replaced with, say, 'energy', or some other theoretical concept. The Democratic Communists think that only the mass of producers can decide whether a concept fits their own needs, purposes, theories, practice and production. 

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

From the AtoZ of Marxism available on here under the Publications tab:Science. In academia and capitalist production a theory or practice is said to be ‘scientific’ if it has been peer-reviewed and approved by practising scientists. In socialist theory, however, science means something different. According to Marx, ‘all science would be superfluous if the outward appearances and essences of things directly coincided’ (Capital, Vol. 2, Ch. 48); and ‘that in their appearances things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well-known in every science except political economy’ (Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 19). Marx argued that his scientific method penetrated the surface of capitalist social relations to reveal their inner workings. His labour theory of value shows the exploitative nature of capitalism, whereas political economy takes capitalism at face value as the free and equal exchange of commodities in the market.Marx’s method of scientific investigation consists in uncovering the real underlying and often unobservable mechanisms of exploitation. This is to be contrasted with ‘positivist’ accounts of science which demands that science can only deal with empirically observable phenomena. (See also IDEOLOGY; POPPER.)ReadingA.F. Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?, 1999Science Resource Online: www.scienceresourceonline.com/

Unfortunately, Chalmers admits that he doesn't address politics/ideology within 'science', in the latest edition of his book.I've given this quote before, so there doesn't seem any point me giving it again.We seem to be going down the same route as usual. The 'materialists' insist Marx was a 'materialist'.As long as the SPGB is happy with Engels' 'materialism', nothing I say will change its mind.The real problem for the SPGB is getting together a political argument for workers, which doesn't tell them they can't decide for themselves, but must defer to a 'reality', which an elite will give them.It's not much of a basis for a democratic socialism, telling workers that they can't decide for themselves, especially when there are Marxists saying just that.The SPGB will be confronted with the sort of arguments that I'm making, so you need to know how to argue clearly to workers how you'll explain that you, and not they, will determine 'reality'.As long as the OP knows that there are three options: 'science', 'utopia', and Marx's 'social production'.

[Author]

Posts