Conversation between Mod1 and LBird

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I couldn't agree more, Vin.Why do the posters here continue to pretend to defend a 'democratic socialism' that they do not hold?They are really defending individualism, Religious Materialism, elite science, and their god Matter.Never a word about the democratic production of our world, and the election of our truth.

I was talking about your strawmen and you know it.  I have told you this before, you are a troll, but a very good one, here to waste our time and provoke emotional response from users. And you do it very well. Had you sussed 2 years ago 

It's been open to you, and the others, at any point, to defend workers' democracy, in any or all of the areas that we've spoken about.Neither you, nor the others, ever mention democratic socialism – you defend individuals, Engels' Materialism (nothing to do with Marx's views), the 'science' of the bourgeoisie, and 'matter'.Then robbo creates an argument that I've never made, and the others use that as a basis of their arguments, rather than address what I actually write – read what I've written on this thread, and read what's been argued against.And, usually, after I keep defending workers' democracy, the moderator accuses me of repeating my own arguments, and bans me (but not those who refuse to read what I write, and compel me to keep correcting them – like you, Vin).

It may have passed your notice but we are actually defending and also proposing Direct Delegated/Participatory Democracy which includes this framework being put to the test within workers organisations like the WSM.  However, this form of democracy can only be universally implimented within a society of Common Ownership for where a class own the means of living there's no possibility of democracy taking affect on the global population – only class rule.  Democratic socialists support the working class setting up democracy within their own organisations.  Indeed, we encourage such endeavours for its a definite sign of class maturity.However, it would be a failure on our part if we failed to understand that the concept of democracy is a double edged sword.  Because taken to its extreme democracy can if it so wishes take a step back by voting in a dictatorship. Or even, if it so wishes, impliment so many rules and regulations that human needs are impossible to satisfy.Now given this understanding how do you imagine your theory on a limitless democracy will be put into practice in a society of Common Ownership?  We have, when all is said and done, provided a framework on how we anticipate democracy will work in socialism.  Please note I said anticipate for we understand that the concept of democracy is not written in stone and they are just thoughts we have and do not constitute a theory.If you have any political integrity you have to be prepared to go beyond the thoughts and make a start on embellishing the practical. Which we have done on this forum.This begs the question given your understanding of democracy: are you capable of defending the indefensible?  Or, are you willing to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

 Or, are you willing to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle?

This is the key political statement by mod1. Its prioritising of 'practice' over 'principle' is reinforced elsewhere in the post, but this simple sentence ecapsulates mod1's whole political philosophy.It's the 'materialist' philosophy of 'practice and theory'.This is opposed by Marx's philosophy of 'theory and practice'.That is, 'principle and practice' are interlinked.mod1 separates the two, and can imagine a politics where in an ideal world 'principles are unlimited', but in the real world 'practices are limited'.For socialists, their can be no 'limits' to either 'principles' or 'practice', other than the social activity of the producers themselves.This social activity can only be democratic social activity, where the producers themselves determine principles, practices and limits.mod1, like all 'materialists' who follow Engels, wishes to prevent democratic production of principles, practices and limits, and impose prior restrictions upon the social activity of the producers. mod1 wishes to have an elite who pre-decide these issues.So, politically, I'm not willing to admit what mod1 asks in their statement.This is a political debate, about questions of 'power' and 'who wields it' in a future socialism.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 Or, are you willing to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle?

This is the key political statement by mod1. Its prioritising of 'practice' over 'principle' is reinforced elsewhere in the post, but this simple sentence ecapsulates mod1's whole political philosophy.It's the 'materialist' philosophy of 'practice and theory'.This is opposed by Marx's philosophy of 'theory and practice'.That is, 'principle and practice' are interlinked.mod1 separates the two, and can imagine a politics where in an ideal world 'principles are unlimited', but in the real world 'practices are limited'.For socialists, their can be no 'limits' to either 'principles' or 'practice', other than the social activity of the producers themselves.This social activity can only be democratic social activity, where the producers themselves determine principles, practices and limits.mod1, like all 'materialists' who follow Engels, wishes to prevent democratic production of principles, practices and limits, and impose prior restrictions upon the social activity of the producers. mod1 wishes to have an elite who pre-decide these issues.So, politically, I'm not willing to admit what mod1 asks in their statement.This is a political debate, about questions of 'power' and 'who wields it' in a future socialism.

You do realise that your unwillingness to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle places you in an undemocratic and dogmatic position?  For the logic of your position means you are actually denying the voluntary associated producers the democratic right to decide on which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions.  This dogmatic position illustrates you are purely concerned with theory alone and when the practice does not fit the theory this is not a signal to change the theory but a reason to embed it in stone.  The concept of democracy includes flexibility so the question of principle and practice is continually debated unless you are LBird.  This being the case I suspect most users will decline any further discussion with you.

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

You do realise that your unwillingness to admit that democracy is limited in practice, but not in principle places you in an undemocratic and dogmatic position?  For the logic of your position means you are actually denying the voluntary associated producers the democratic right to decide on which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions.  

No, I'm insisting that only the democratic producers have the right to determine "which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions".You wish for an elite to predetermine this. Preferably the elite of 'materialists'.

mod1 wrote:

This dogmatic position illustrates you are purely concerned with theory alone and when the practice does not fit the theory this is not a signal to change the theory but a reason to embed it in stone.  

No, I keep stressing Marx's social theory and practice, but the elitists like you wish I would say 'theory alone'. In turn, you place 'practice' before 'theory', and so want 'current practice' to determine 'theory'. This is a conservative political formulation.

mod1 wrote:

The concept of democracy includes flexibility so the question of principle and practice is continually debated unless you are LBird.  

[my bold]So, at last – you do have a pre-existing 'concept of democracy' (ie. a 'theory'), so you are wrong to claim 'democracy as practice' can be followed by the producers prior to a theory of democracy. So, Marx is correct – you, too, employ a method of 'theory and practice', but simply hide it from workers, and pretend, like all 'materialists', that 'practice' precedes 'theory', so that your particular but hidden 'theory' is put into supposedly simple 'practice'.You should have the political courage to outline your version of 'democracy', rather than hide this theory.

mod1 wrote:

This being the case I suspect most users will decline any further discussion with you.

I suspect that you, and the others, will eventually 'decline any further discussion', because you're getting your ideological arses spanked by a Democratic Communist, who follows Marx in insisting upon a social theory and practice which is under the democratic control of the producers.Either that, or you'll ban me, again.At least any workers reading this will have had confirmed, yet again, that the SPGB will limit democracy in practice, if the SPGB in power is ever faced with a conscious class of democratic workers, who insist that only they as a class, and not any party, have the right to decide for themselves.If there are any other SPGB members reading this exchange, who disagree with mod1, they should make their opinions known now, otherwise the SPGB will be seeming to endorse mod1's political opinions, philosophy, method, and specific 'theory of democracy'.

[Anonymous]

Mod1 if your interested in LBird's gobbledygook. Here he is  at Hyde Park Corner, explaining his theories and displaying his usual clarity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UJZF5iRhNg 

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

No, I'm insisting that only the democratic producers have the right to determine "which form of democracy in practice is most suitable for their conditions".

Including deciding not to vote on scientific truth?  I'm happy with that, a future socialist society will be free to decide to vote on whether to vote on determining what is true (let's leave aside how we'll know the result of that vote, maybe we can vote on it).  If I'm around, I'll vote against.

LBird wrote:

If there are any other SPGB members reading this exchange, who disagree with mod1, they should make their opinions known now, otherwise the SPGB will be seeming to endorse mod1's political opinions, philosophy, method, and specific 'theory of democracy'.

1) Many party members are not on this forum.2) The party's democratically decided decision making procedure does not include allowing silence on an internet forum to detmerine party policy.What would I know, I'm a democratic communist who wants a conscious association where the free development of each shall be the free development of all.  All I know is that Lbird is not a democratic communist.  Why does Lbird hide their ideology from us?  Come on Lbird, reveal your ideology.

[Capitalist Pig]

LBird wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I have not read the book you mention but it is of interest to me and this conversation.  I think the video primer I linked to is a good summary of my understanding of the fuzzy logic princples. 

The key political point being made here, Steve, is that 'logic' is a social product, and various 'logics' have been produced, including 'classical/traditional' and 'n-valued'.mod1 is using the usual conservative political trick to pretend that 'logic' is actually 'Logic', so that mod1's political logic is pretended to be 'Objective' and 'The Truth' and 'Eternal', and so can't be argued with.Within socialism, it would require a democratic vote by the producers to determine which 'logic' is employed in any intended social process of theory and practice, which produces social knowledge.So, 'logic' is not an ahistoric, asocial, 'truthful' process, which any individual or elite can simply use outside of the democratic control of the producers, but is an integral part of a political process.Any attempt to appeal to 'Logic' is a conservative political act, intended to hide its own ideological beliefs, and to denigrate the political stance towards which it is aimed.That is, one ideology's 'logic' is another's 'illogic', and vice versa. We must consciously choose our 'logic', and be aware of the political implications of our particular choice of a 'logic'.

logic is illogical

[Anonymous]

Don't you use and think thru the bourgeios logic which is illogical and false ?  It is also known as bourgeois ideologyhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1349-january-2017/‘bourgeois’-ideology

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Don't you use and think thru the bourgeios logic which is illogical and false ?  It is also known as bourgeois ideologyhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1349-january-2017/‘bourgeois’-ideology

mcolome1 link wrote:

Although there is much talk of ‘bourgeois science’ it is hard to recognize an ideological element within mathematics or geometry;…

This is a typical statement made by someone who doesn't recognise just how much under the influence of ruling class ideas they are themselves.I've shown a number of times just how ideological is this belief, that 'science' generally, maths, geometry, physics and logic are 'non-ideological'.I think that mcolome1, WEZ (the article author) and the other 'materialists' here underestimate just how much the 'science' we know today is a bourgeois product, especially that form of 'science' that popular 'common sense' holds to be 'true'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Don't you use and think thru the bourgeios logic which is illogical and false ?  It is also known as bourgeois ideologyhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1349-january-2017/‘bourgeois’-ideology

mcolome1 link wrote:

Although there is much talk of ‘bourgeois science’ it is hard to recognize an ideological element within mathematics or geometry;…

This is a typical statement made by someone who doesn't recognise just how much under the influence of ruling class ideas they are themselves.I've shown a number of times just how ideological is this belief, that 'science' generally, maths, geometry, physics and logic are 'non-ideological'.I think that mcolome1, WEZ (the article author) and the other 'materialists' here underestimate just how much the 'science' we know today is a bourgeois product, especially that form of 'science' that popular 'common sense' holds to be 'true'.

Here, you are looking for the 5th leg of the cat which you will never find it. First, I was trying to show the definition of bourgoise ideology, I do not care if that writer is materialist, or idealist, second, that statement from Mcolome probably, is not from him, or maybe it  is out of context and it must be related to something else. I do believe that in this society there are ideological influences on sciences and that there is not homogenity among scientistsL Bird in this movement known as Socialism or Communism I have travelled more roads than you, even more, sometimes I have been under the risk of getting into personal problems. What ever you have said, or have not said I do know it, and they are not new for me because I have been  inside of several organizations with different point of view, and I have met thousands of peoples in this movement with different point of view, I am not monothematicThe only thing  that I know is that I have not been seating in a rocking chair awaiting for the bus to pass in front of me, or  to catch others peoples mistakes, and personally when I have committed mistakes, I have always accepted, and I have made self  critcis of myself, and I have not  seen that virtue on you. Members of this forum have placed in a corner with your own mistakes and you have never accepted themYour main concern in this forum is to attack the Socialist Party without knowing the history and the sacrifice of many of its old and new members, and I do not dare to do that, because I do recognize their contributions and sacrifice for the cause of the working class, and they travelled a very bad road,  while you are seating in a rocking chair, and your other concern is to attack Engels in all angles without giving any credit to him for his contributions to socialist theory. I have known for many decades the mistakes of Engels, and I have known for many year his contributions, and I can not even tie his shoelaces, even more, I came thru socialism because I read the works of Engels and then I read Marx, and when I was young they were the only two 'heroes" that we had.Continue looking for the piece of hair in the soup

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

hi Lbiiiiiiiird. you are awesome

Thanks for your appreciation, CP!Though, you should remember, that I'm criticising the SPGB from the political position of Democratic Communism, which is, I think, the opposite pole from your views.On the other threads, where you've challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.Most obviously, I'm not a supporter of 'bourgeois individualism', but of collective, democratic, social production, which includes the production of politics, laws, morals, laws of physics, logic, maths, truth and 'individuals'. These are all social products, and my political position is that Communism/Socialism equates to the democratic control of their production.Clearly, some here, claiming to be 'socialists', are actually politically closer to your 'individualism', than to my Democratic Communism.In fact, you're probably a better candidate for membership of the SPGB than I am!

It is strange, the Socialist Party is an undemocratic organization and they brought back again after they threw you out. How many times have you been suspended from this forum ? I do know  forums where they will throw you  out forever, and they will send messages to others forum to keep you out. You are right, I have seen most of the members of this forum supporting ultra-right wings conceptions, supporting xemophobia, supporting nationalism and patriotism, and rejecting the international working class, or have you seen the opposite ? Is that what you call individualism ? 

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

hi Lbiiiiiiiird. you are awesome

Thanks for your appreciation, CP!Though, you should remember, that I'm criticising the SPGB from the political position of Democratic Communism, which is, I think, the opposite pole from your views.On the other threads, where you've challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.Most obviously, I'm not a supporter of 'bourgeois individualism', but of collective, democratic, social production, which includes the production of politics, laws, morals, laws of physics, logic, maths, truth and 'individuals'. These are all social products, and my political position is that Communism/Socialism equates to the democratic control of their production.Clearly, some here, claiming to be 'socialists', are actually politically closer to your 'individualism', than to my Democratic Communism.In fact, you're probably a better candidate for membership of the SPGB than I am!

It is strange, the Socialist Party is an undemocratic organization and they brought you back again after they threw you out. How many times have you been suspended from this forum ? I do know  forums where they will throw you  out forever, and they will send messages to others forum to keep you out. You are right, I have seen most of the members of this forum supporting ultra-right wings conceptions, supporting xemophobia, supporting nationalism and patriotism, and rejecting the international working class, or have you seen the opposite ? Is that what you call individualism ? We have many topics concerning issues related to the working class, and you have not said a word about them. We have workers around the world suffering form hungers, terrorism, and wars, and you have not said anything. Your main interest is the SPGB and Engels

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

It is strange, the Socialist Party is an undemocratic organization and they brought you back again after they threw you out. How many times have you been suspended from this forum ? I do know  forums where they will throw you  out forever, and they will send messages to others forum to keep you out. You are right, I have seen most of the members of this forum supporting ultra-right wings conceptions, supporting xemophobia, supporting nationalism and patriotism, and rejecting the international working class, or have you seen the opposite ? Is that what you call individualism ? We have many topics concerning issues related to the working class, and you have not said a word about them. We have workers around the world suffering form hungers, terrorism, and wars, and you have not said anything. Your main interest is the SPGB and Engels

You, like robbo, YMS and the others, mcolome1, should actually start to read what I write, and not live in a mythical world of outrage, ignorance and misunderstanding.

LBird wrote:

On the other threads, where you've [ie. CP] challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.

You're right on one thing, though – my fundamental criticism of the SPGB is its Religious Materialism, a faith that it has picked up from Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's ideas, and its a political and ideological criticism that's been getting made since the late 19th century.'Shooting the messenger' is never a wise political tactic, mcolome1.

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

 it does not folow that individuals ignore the rest in a poycentric model. Rather, iIt is a much more democratic model which allows for the fluid interaction and recognition of there beng several or many inputs necessary to arrive at conclusive results, in a modern technological and informational savvy, post-capitalist era with multiple interactive factors to interplay within decisions as to the better optional gains for the whole. It allows more for "From each according to their ability" to prevail with a multiplicity of interactions feeding into decision making and the best optional outcomes.Your rigid model is much more likely to create crises of over and undersupply with the loss of corrective autonomous self regulative adjustment. It has the smack of the Gulags to me.. We have been there before.

 Matt , our resident Leninist, LBird who like his mentor, Lenin, wants to turn the whole of society into a single office and a single factory, simply does not grasp, and shows no willingness to grasp, the utter stupidity of what he is arguing for  – total society wide decisionmaking over everything . He claims that I am making an argument about something he is not saying at all but that is rubbish.  He himself  has declared that there are no limits to democracy but as I have already explained, a localised form of democracy is in itself a form of limitation – it limits the electorate to  a particular locality in the case of certain kinds of decisions of a local nature.  By rejecting  the argument that demcoracy will necessarily be limited in some respects, Lbird is effectively saying that there will be no localised forms of decisonmaking!  In other words 7 billion people will all be involved in the making of billions upon billions of decisions right across the world.  Which of course is ludicrous. He then has the nerve to say that because we point out that democracy will necessarily be limited in socialism we are therefore rejecting democracy in favour of what he calls "individualism"  (he still doesnt undestand what this word means).   Which of course is rubbish and typical of his simplistic black or white view of the world,  Obviously there will be a lot more democray in socialism than there is today but that does not mean it will be "unlimited"

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

You, like robbo, YMS and the others, mcolome1, should actually start to read what I write, and not live in a mythical world of outrage, ignorance and misunderstanding.

Elementary science suggests we have read what you wrote, and reacted to it: so maybe the problem is with how you communicate your ideas.  Or maybe the problem is with the ideas themselves.  It is a key feature of elitism to assume that your audience is at fault for not understanding your arguments, don't you think?

[Author]

Posts