[LBird]

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!’ ”.

[LBird]

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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts