[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'.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Therefore, socialism is not an ideology. Marx defined ideology as a distortion of reality.

No, he didn't.Marx actually argued that we create reality, according to our social theory and practice.It was Engels who didn't understand this philosophical approach of Marx's, and built a 'Marxism' of 'Materialism'. When the French 'Marxists' followed this viewpoint, and produced a matching politics, Marx wasn't impressed.

mcolome1 wrote:

I think you have a fixed obsesion with Engels, He made several mistakes but he made contributions to socialism

'Materialists', like you, are the ones with the 'fixed obsession with Engels'.He made contributions, but he also made a profound philosophical error, and wrote contradictory things in his texts, some agreeing with Marx, but some undoing Marx's work.Engels in effect returned to 'mechanical materialism', which looks to the fixity of matter as 'Truth', rather than the dynamic social production of our object, which thus has a history. 'Truth' is a socio-historical product, which varies with societies.'Materialists' reject this philosophy and ideology, of social production. That is, they reject Marx.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Didn't Marx have a few words to say about the utopian communists preceding him?

Yes, and he had 'a few words to say about' the mechanical materialists 'preceding him', too.Unless workers read both sets of 'a few words' with equal interest, which Marx gave to both sets, they will continue to follow Engels and his biased obsession with only 'the utopian communists'.I suspect you share Engels' obsession, jdw.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Short answer: 'socialism' is an ideology. Our ideology.

Would you consider socialism-communism as an economical system ? 

No, with Marx, I'd consider it a 'system' of social production.The use of the term 'economic', as opposed to 'productive', is to ensure that the emphasis falls upon 'things' alone. This usage suits those who follow Engels' 'materialism'. So, 'economics' focuses on 'material stuff', whereas 'political economy' focuses upon 'social production'.Those who look to Marx, however, consider the production of both ideas and things to fall under the category 'social production'. That is, 'theory and practice' is a social method, which consists of both producing creative/critical ideas, and the putting into practice of those already existing ideas, to produce a product.A plan must exist prior to a productive act. Marx makes this plain in Capital.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Whereas a communist/socialist in the vein of the SPGB/WSM keeps the focus on the concept.

[my bold]This is not true, SP.The SPGB adhers to 'materialism', not 'concept'.'Concepts' can be changed, and in a socialist society, being democratic, can be voted upon.We've heard many times here, from you too, I think, that workers in a society looking to the SPGB's concepts will not be allowed to vote on 'truth'.'Materialists' insist that 'Truth' is 'out there', existing as it is, and is 'discovered' by 'science', by 'expert scientists' employing a 'special method', which is not available to workers.Marxists insist that only the direct producers, employing the method of democratic theory and practice, can create their own 'truth', for their own purposes and interests.Since the 'materialists' do not have access to 'Truth', they are forced to build upon their own purposes and interests, which workers are not allowed to vote against, and they pretend to workers that the 'materialists' are not doing this.'Materialism' is the conceptual basis for elitism, which is why the Leninists favour it.Why the SPGB follows this philosophical line, I'll never know.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

The term was also used by Engels, and Engels was the one who defined ideology as false conscience, although both in the German Ideology defined it as the prevaling ideas of the ruling class in a class society . I think the definition of ideology has been distorted because socialism is not an ideology according to their definition

The point is, 'ideology' is 'ideas as a structure'.Perhaps Charlie and Fred did use it to mean 'the prevailing ideas of the ruling class', but that shouldn't stop us using it to also refer to 'the countervailing ideas of the exploited class'.That is, we're engaged in a class struggle, in part about ideologies.I suspect, however, that 'materialists' will disagree with this, because they have a faith that 'our ideas' are 'True' in an absolute sense, rather than 'our truths', that we create and can thus change.Short answer: 'socialism' is an ideology. Our ideology.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Yes definitely feeling nauseous, might be your comments, might be the gallon of Newcastle Brown and the kebab I consumed last evening, hard to tell really.

[my bold]'Consumed'? Surely, as a 'materialist', it was 'listened to'?

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

welcome back anyway

Thanks.And don't believe everything that your spew says to you! Or what SPEW says, though I can guarantee that both forms of spew say the same thing.The sooner we Communists stop telling workers to follow the instruction of 'matter', the better. The class conscious ones already know that 'matter' doesn't talk, and know that those who claim to know what 'matter says' are either deluded or liars.Personally, I think that the SPGB is the former, and the Leninists are the latter. Perhaps that's why I continue to try to discuss it with youse, whereas I don't bother with SPEW.

[Author]

Posts