LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
mod1 wrote:Anyways nobody is going to participate in your silly ballot…Well, I thought it was a reasonable way to break the logjam, which gave others some say.But I think your tone tells me everything that I really want to know about the SPGB.
moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.Hold your horses!!! I have no reason whatsoever to give you a permanent ban.
No, I wasn't suggesting it would be considered in anyway a 'ban'.I'm suggesting that, if five posters have had enough, then I'll voluntarily withdraw from the site. Your role of moderator would be just to meet my wishes to have my account closed.That is, the decision to leave would be mine, not an imposition by the SPGB, which is what the term 'ban' would otherwise suggest.
I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.
SocialistPunk wrote:Oh well, I see LBird has declined the offer to construct a coherent explanation of his theory for us to digest. Instead preferring the practice of elitist….err…"intellectual" trolling.In my experience if a person can't explain in simple, coherent terms what they want to convey, it usually means they don't know what they're on about.I'm out, and I strongly suggest everyone else avoids temptation to counter attack. It's what LBird wants.I don't want anybody 'out' or 'counter-attacking'.I want a reasoned discussion, rather than to be abused.Further, I've explained in 'simple, coherent terms', but the problem lies with you.Whilst you won't tell us what your 'theory' is, I can't explain why you can't accept those 'simple, coherent terms'.I suspect it's because you're an Engelsian materialist, but you keep pretending that you're just a disinterested observer, trying to 'simply' understand.This is an ideological pretence, but you don't seem to realise it.
ALB wrote:…calls us "Leninists" (which they know will infuriate us in view of our consistent opposition to Leninism since the beginning)…Yes, I was hoping that you would become 'infuriated' enough to actually look at the links between 'materialism' and Lenin.I changed to this method because the method of reasoned discussion, providing quotes and expecting logical debate didn't work.When you all got sick of my providing quotes from all and sundry to back up my arguments, you turned to abuse.It's not my fault that I'm better read in Marx and Engels, and dozens of other thinkers, than you lot. I'm that interested that I've bought and read almost all the books recommended to me, by you and others.
ALB wrote:…whereas we have repeatedly said that we share with the same sort of criticism Pannekoek made of this "mechanical" or "bourgeois" materialism in his Lenin As Philosopher.But Pannekoek talks out of his arse, half the time.We've never got to discussing his thought, because to discuss, one has to expose one's own position of observation. It's pointless discussing Pannekoek unless one knows what one believes in contrast to Pannekoek.
SP wrote:SP suggests that this is the action of a troll. Not necessarily, but it would be cruel to spell out the alternative explanation.The alternative, and I will spell it out, is that I'm better read, more critical, and clearer about my position, than you lot.
ALB wrote:Basically, for whatever reason, you've cried "Englesist", "Leninist" once too much. Enough is enough.No, it's not enough. It must be said until you realise that materialism is a dead end for the revolutionary proletariat.If one is not a Marxist or a democrat in knowledge production, as YMS isn't, this consideration is of little concern. But I'd expect those, like you, ALB, who seem to me to be genuine in their protestations of being Marxists, to take this seriously.Sticking your heads in the sand is not an alternative.Banning me is, however. But, that's your collective choice.
SocialistPunk wrote:I have a very strong tendency to agree with you DJP. Bu tas socialists we do advocate a voice for the minority view. So in that spirit I simply suggest LBird takes the offer to once and for all coherently lay out his theory in one go.But 'my theory' is 'Democratic Communism'.So, when asked 'who elects matter', I say 'we all do'.It's those with something to hide who won't agree with this, and they pretend not to have a 'theory'.Mine is also consistent with Einstein's view that 'the theory determines what we observe', which is a later formulation of Marx's 'theory and practice'.So, I've been entirely open.How about the rest of you?
