LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 definitionThe 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.
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 anywayThanks.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.
jondwhite wrote:Welcome back LBird!Hmmmm… it has more of a feel of a dog returning to its own vomit.I feel compelled to comment upon the error of telling workers, in answer to their new questions, the same old guff that Engels produced, about 'rocks talking to us'.It's elitist claptrap, that Engels couldn't recognise because he knew sod-all about philosophy, and will keep us in the 'Marxist' dead-end that Marx himself recognised, with his famous comment, which the OP mentioned.Are we all baulking at the stench of vomit, yet?
jondwhite wrote:The difference is Marxists are scientific socialists and Pre-Marxian socialists were utopians.This is an ideological statement, which suggests there are only two alternatives, 'science' and 'utopia'.This is part of an Engelsian reading of Marx, and is disputed by those who think that Marx took from both strands, and produced a third alternative, 'social theory and practice', within which parts of both elements are represented.The SPGB do not recognise this view, and follow, just like the Leninists, the mistaken reading of Engels. This mistake was made well before the founding of the SPGB in 1904, and so the error was already present, prior to Lenin's mauling of even Engels' version of Marx's original and revolutionary ideas.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"He already changed the switch from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton"That was totally expected and will not surprise anybody. He is a lesser evil voter and Clinton for Chomsky is the lesser evil to the alternative Trump.Isn't Chomsky just making a judgement about the class consciousness of the current world proletariat?That is, to those already having a revolutionary class consciousness, he'll 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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I couldn't help myself when i saw this …i just had to post itQuote:“Science isn’t about voting,” he says. “We don’t vote on the theory of relativity. We don’t vote on evolution. The image of scientists voting gives the public the impression that science is arbitrary.”https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/01/2006-space-oddity-pluto-debate-row
It's a good article, well worth reading.It raises epistemological issues about power in science, who creates categories, the nature of reality and truth, etc.
alanjjohnstone wrote:No ordinary mortal, Lbird, is capable of almost limitless knowledge.I agree, alan.And 'no ordinary elite', either. Notwithstanding what the elitists of the bourgeoisie, like physicists, mathematicians, and Leninists, say.Socialism is the democratic control of the means of production, which clearly includes 'scientific knowledge'.
ajj wrote:We can't know everything, nor do i think anybody really does aspire to that omnipotent state.You're quite wrong here, alan.The 'materialists' do 'aspire to that omnipotent state' – that's why they will deny a vote to the producers in deciding what 'reality is'.The 'materialists' really do believe that they, to the exclusion of the working class, can determine 'reality'.If they don't exclude democracy in scientific knowledge production, why can't 'truth' be put to a vote?
ajj wrote:What we are happy to do is delegate to others responsibilities to make various judgements and decisions on our behalf. We will only become involved when something amiss is brought to our attention.And who determines 'amiss', alan?The more I read your replies, the more I can see why you don't have any problem with what the 'materialists' claim, to the opposition of Marx's arguments.Marx argued, at the core of his ideas, that humans must become 'consciously active' in their production of their world.IMO, you hold to a far more passive approach, of an essentially passive majority, who will just meander along in life, not taking an active interest in the building of their world, and leave that task to a dynamic minority, who will apparently, 'when something is amiss, bring it to our attention'.I know that you're tired of these exchanges, alan, probably because you neither understand their political importance, nor really agree with Marx's views about Democratic Communism, but the unwillingness of even you (who has been probably the most forebearing of the SPGB members) to discuss these political issues, is not very re-assuring about the depth of the SPGB's politics.I think that initially I took the SPGB's protestations of 'democracy' at face value, and was clearly attracted to the party, after my experiences with various Leninist/Trotskyist parties, but I think that time has shown that, at its core, the SPGB is just as Engelsist and 'materialist' as those groups are.That is, "workers' democracy" is not what the SPGB means by 'socialism'. The SPGB wants an active elite to tell the passive masses when something 'goes amiss', and for the majority to simply trust to the 'experts', in science and politics. This also puts into sharp relief why so many members are attracted to 'parliament', rather than "workers' councils".'Science', eh?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Building socialism starts before socialism arrives with actual plans and the networks that will carry it outI agree with you about this, alan, which is why I disagree with Engelsists and Leninists, who argue that 'practice' precedes 'theory'.Marx argued for 'theory and practice': as you put it, 'actual plans', first, and then 'carry it out'.
ajj wrote:Isn't science about making hypotheses and over time amending and adjust those as more and more information becomes available. Nobody claims such things are definitive answers but merely they are the best educated guesses and predictions subject to further research and study. Things will be added and things will be dropped.This is the 'scientific method' of Marx.'Bourgeois science', in opposition to this, argues that an 'elite expert' group have a 'politically neutral method' which gives them, and them alone (so, no 'democracy'), the ability to produce 'Objective Knowledge' of the world, 'out there', 'as it is'. It's easy to see that this bourgeois, elite science, suits the Leninists, who, too, argue that the elite party has a special consciousness which is not available to ordinary workers, and so can't allow the class to outvote the party, when it comes to 'political practice'.Of course, in a socialist society, based upon the democratic control of the means of production (which clearly includes 'ideas' or 'plans'), the 'hypotheses', 'adjustments', 'answers', 'guesses' and 'predictions', which you mention, can only be produced by democratic means. There can be no elite of physics or maths who tell us what 'reality is': if a scientist produces an idea, it is put to the vote, to see if we should try in practice to implement the hypothesis. And if we do attempt to put together 'theory and practice' in science, then we determine whether the results of this social theory and practice has produced 'truth' or 'knowledge'.The ideological belief, unfortunately embraced by Engels, influenced by 19th century 'successes', that 'reality' is sitting out there, waiting to be passively 'discovered' by an elite of physicists, is the opposite of Marx's method.Only the revolutionary proletariat, in the process of building its class consciousness, can determine democratically what the social and natural world 'is', because 'it' is our social product.Any other formulation will lead to an elite being allowed to dictate to us just what 'reality is'.We have to be the ones to democratically determine what 'things' are 'added' and what 'things' are 'dropped', alan.
alanjjohnstone quote wrote:…“proof” … is rife with the selection and manipulation of facts to fit a desired conclusion…I've been saying for years here that this is 'the scientific method'.The sooner we accept that this is 'science', and begin by presuming that revealing one's own 'desired conclusion' (ie. one's ideological starting point) is the correct method, the better for science.As I've said before, regarding this thread's content, start from 'peace-bands' and 'war-bands' (for example), and the 'proof' will flow.This is how all science works, including physics.The 'disinterested scientist' with a 'neutral method' to produce 'objective Truth' is itself a ruling class idea, a bourgeois myth.Hello, alan.
maxhess wrote:@OfficialSPGB tweeted something to Paul Mason about ever-cheapening goods resulting in capitalists increasingly abandoning those and looking elsewhere for profits, to which he replied "Remind us what the profitable ones are?"Anyone want to suggest a suitable reply?Bombs, tanks, planes, ships, barracks, airfields, uniforms, bullets, water boards, etc…Of course, that'll be 'post-capitalism', to Paul Mason.
