Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried
- This topic has 140 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Isn't Marx saying here that this is the end of politics?
Of course, it's elementary Marx for idiots
LBird wrote:That's precisely what I'm arguing for – democratic control of violence.It's about 'power'. All societies have 'power', they always have had, and they always will have, including within socialism.The only issue is 'who controls power' (including 'legitimate violence') – and the answers are either 'no-one', 'an elite', or 'society democratically'. Only the third answer can apply to a democratic society like socialism.This is not marxism, it is nonsismThis is Marx"The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society."Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847) I doubt LBird has read Marx, he has probably confined his research to other people's reading of Marx.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Isn't Marx saying here that this is the end of politics?No, he isn't.
ajj wrote:I didn't say there would be an end to disagreements and an end of arguments. And no doubt proponents of a position will come together in organisations, as will their adversaries and they'll reason it all out among themselves. These disputes will have to be resolved in a process acceptable to all. As there is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics.So, you agree with me and Marx, then.If 'politics' is defined as 'parliamentary' (or 'class') politics, then there is 'an end to politics'.If 'politics' is more widely defined as the social reconciling of 'disagreements, arguments, disputes', then there will be politics. You 'just don't consider this to be politics'. Fine by me. Change the name of 'politics' to 'reasoning it all out' or 'acceptable resolution', and the problem still remains. Who determines 'reason' and 'acceptable', and how?
LBird wrote:If 'politics' is defined as 'parliamentary' (or 'class') politics, then there is 'an end to politics'.If 'politics' is more widely defined as the social reconciling of 'disagreements, arguments, disputes', then there will be politics. You 'just don't consider this to be politics'. Fine by me. Change the name of 'politics' to 'reasoning it all out' or 'acceptable resolution', and the problem still remains. Who determines 'reason' and 'acceptable', and how?Why would a 'Democratic Communist and Marxist' use the term 'politics' in any other way than the way Marx used it? Why the confusion?Are you now informing us that you, a Democratic Communist and Marxist, have been using the term in a different way than Marx? and you now wish to change the definition of 'politics' to something class neutral? But wouldn't this remove 'politics' from ideology?
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…I, I, I,… me, me, me,… mine, mine, mine,… my, my, my…No mention of social production, or democratic controls, nor even the odd 'we', 'us', 'our'… as for Marx, Communism, society or history… well, we'll have a long wait before the ideological individualists here ever mention those.
More evasion from our resident Jehova Witness who intones vacuous dogmas rather than presents coherent arguments and then has the nerve to call others "religious materialists." Answer the questions I posed in post 59 or concede that you have no defence in the face of the crushing criticism of your harebrained dotty idea of what communism is about I have incidentally discussed social production and democratic controls in a communist society. I said quite explictly that communist democracy will be necessarily be polycentric and operating at a different levels of organisation – global, regional and (mainly) local. You as a Leninist reject all this and prefer instead a unicentric system of society-wide planning central planning – in effect, a de facto authoritarian structure of decisionmaking since there is no way 7 billion people can be practically involved in this form of decisionmaking. They will have to be excluded by you and your Leninist vanguard to all intents and purposes
LBird wrote:This is your 'substantive point', YMS. It's a political argument for the liberal theory of the diffusion of 'powers', similar to legislature, executive, judiciary, etc.On the contrary, my 'substantive point' is that there will be a single world authority, which will have any necessary final say regarding any 'many, varied and overlapping [lower level] authorities'.This 'single world authority' is embodied in the political slogan 'World Socialism'.This 'World Socialism' will be built to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic proletariat.This is the key political difference between us, YMS. You are not a supporter of 'World Socialism', but, at best, of 'World Socialisms'. From my Democratic Communist perspective, you might as well be talking about 'National Socialisms', a particularistic, divided, unco-ordinated, even anarchistic, politics.And behind all this, is your individualism, and 'fear of the mob' of "workers' democratic power".This is clear evidence if evidence is needed of LBird's Leninist outlook. Whats the difference between this and Lenin's declaration that the the "whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory", Local or even regional decisionmaking will not exist in his so called democratic communist world. All decisions will be handed down from a "single world authority". and imposed on the populace throughout the world regardless of whether they like ir or not Of course, there is no way 7 billion plus people can be collectively involved in making the millions of decision affecting the global production system. Perforce these decisions will have to be made by some kind of vanguard elite. This is what lies behinds LBirds vacuous and dogmatic mantras; Though he probably cannot yet see this, it is backhanded attempt to justify the need for a leninist vanguard in the face of the unsurmountablele complexity of decisonmaking in a system of society wide centralised planning which he clearly endorses
i should have known my reading of Marx wouldn't have been the same as yours, LBird. Nor Vin's other source.After all, i referred to this difficulty of agreeing meanings on this thread in message # 67. I think we can safely say that by "politics", i was not applying the term , for instance, to the phenomenon of "office politics". As for your question, who and how, i have answered this more than once. Not you or me but the future generation living and working inside socialism.And lacking the power of prophecy, i have only the barest speculation of which i have more than once said will vary according to circumstance, geography and tradition. I can only generalise with the broadest of brush-strokes. Despite its warts, the SPGB endeavour to reflect the best it can a structure and process of administration which we would expect to find being practiced in socialism – horizontal is the popular word, these days, bit more descriptive than democratic but entails being leader-free, but using delegation and all-member votes. And for many members, it is also random and a lottery in their choices, not being the most informed voters on every issue bu nevertheless holding that power of a jury…Even within our industrial developed countries, the production process differs from enterprise to enterprise so i doubt very much if the same structure of workers' council/committee will be identical from one industry to another. The size and scope of community administration means that they will be built differently to suit the needs of the community. We often discussed the role of the specialist and the professional and just how do they go around settling their debates. By conferences and seminars and conventions congresses where participants and anatagonists present papers until they reach a consensus.How was a planet defined and Pluto classified and then re-classified, for instance? By a vote. So scientific facts can be changed by what people vote upon as you originally said all those years ago. But not of the entire world but by the International Astronomical Union. Many such bodies exist across every disciple, and there is no automatic democratic inclusion of anybody in them — you become a fellow or whatever and those excluded understand and accept the criteria of their non-membership and non-involvement. Discipline, strange word but i think it highlights the fact that there is no "anarchy" in knowledge and infers Marx's and Engels' social status of authority figures the orchestra conductor and ship's captain or in my quoted extract, the factory manager/supervisor. They are endowed with the power of discipline !!!!
alan, your reply seems to consist of 'I don't know' and 'things will remain much the same as now'.It's fair enough if this is the politics you wish to propagate, and you reflect a consensus within the SPGB, but to me it's all a long way from Marx, revolution, class struggle, workers' power, democratic control of social production, fundamental socio-historic changes, etc.From the answers given here, by you and others, it seems that the SPGB is essentially an individualist and reformist organisation – I even hesitate to say 'party', which suggests organisation, conscious ideology, and politics.And the terms 'Marxism' and 'World Socialism' seem to be just a figleaf for pretty bog-standard, mainstream, ruling class ideas, within the SPGB.Whatever, my political beliefs, historical outlook, and hopes for the future, seem to be a long way from yours.
I will happily accept the description, "i don't know" but i do make educated guesses but that is all they are. I am not advocating any pre-determined course for the future. People make history, not me, not you, other than being small elements of the general movement and as you know, from that famous Marx quote, we do so only within certain prescribed conditions.Others though have been more detailed. The IWW made a gallant attempt at proposing a new economic democracy with industrial unions and Fathers Haggerty Wheel. Is it applicable today? I think it has been supplanted or complemented but it makes a basis for discussion and debate. Something that may well be built upon…or simply passed over, due to events and expectations. (Parecon and Zeitgeist to a certain degree also share this non-historical approach)I certainly have not said "things will remain much the same as now" Nor have i inferred it. That is something you insist upon reading into what i am saying.What i am actually arguuing is that things will build upon and develop from what we do have now, and i think that is the Marxist analysis, that we are not system-model builders. We accept what is socially useful within capitalism,eg its technology and we reject and discard what is not ie its power structure. We adapt and amend and adjust. Socialism is the next stage in humanity's evolution of society. It is not something invented anew. We transcend and we transform. This is not accepting things will be much the same as now. Simply acknowledging ideas come from somewhere.Just to quote again from that article.
Quote:'scientific socialism'……was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself.alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to quote again from that article.Quote:'scientific socialism'……was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself.We've done this discussion to death elsewhere, alan, about Engels' false contrast of 'scientific' versus 'utopian'. It's nothing to do with Marx.
ajj wrote:Simply acknowledging ideas come from somewhere.Yeah, according to Marx, 'ideas' come from 'social production'.It's Engels who believed that 'ideas' came from 'material' (or, 'matter'). Which is what you apparently believe, too.To put it another way, for Marx, 'ideas' come from 'social theory and practice' (ie., in part, from 'ideas' ('theory')). The notion that 'matter' is the source of ideas actually denies the social producers the ability to consciously change themselves, because 'materialism' takes that ability and places it in 'matter'. And then, of course, as Marx warned, the 'materialists' will claim to know what 'ideas' 'matter' is 'producing', and present the workers with this accomplished fact.And whilst so-called "workers' parties" keep spouting this 'materialist' nonsense, there will be no development amongst workers who look to those parties. Like you, alan.
Quote:Just to quote again from that article.Quote:'scientific socialism'……was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself…….We've done this discussion to death elsewhere, alan, about Engels' false contrast of 'scientific' versus 'utopian'. It's nothing to do with Marx.Quote:If it has nothing to do with Marx, why did Marx write it?Ideas come from society and its members and society develops from the mode of production – social production – if you like, but with important caveats. I see no conflict in what i wrote except in that you wish to make one, i simply argue that ideas simply don't fall from the sky but come "from somewhere", they arise from social relations and those are born of – primarily – the need to provide for society.But I haven't claimed that 'ideas fall from the sky'. That is what 'materialists' always accuse Marxists of saying.And once again, regarding the 'primary need' that you identify – 'who' determines it, and 'how'?The only answer acceptable to Marxists is: 'the social producers' and 'by democratic means'.'Materialists' claim that 'need' comes from 'matter', and that the 'materialists' can identify that 'need' without the active participation of the social producers. So, the 'materialists' claim that 'experts' can decide. Or, as the SPGB has it, the 'specialists'.It's nothing to do with World Socialism and the democratic control of production, alan.
Please indicate to me where i have been mistaken in what i have written, and show the evidence of the materialism i am being accused of perpetuating from these posts #67, #75, #81 and #83.
If you can't read what you've written yourself, alan, and compare it with what Marx wrote (and contrast with Engels), then my pointing out what you've written won't convince you.Perhaps another tack might help.Where does 'thought' come from?A 'materialist' will say 'the brain', whereas a Marxist will say 'social production'.'Thought' isn't 'material', but 'social'. Or, to put it into 19th century terms, 'ideal-material', a practical product of social 'theory and practice'. Change the 'theory', and we change the 'product'. Engels didn't understand that.That's why 'specialists' can't know 'reality' before we've created it. 'Reality' is a social product, and within socialism we'll build our reality, and it won't be the reality built by bourgeois science.
Still no response from LBird defending his Leninist conception of communism as society-wide centralised planning and the top down authoritarian model of decisionmaking that this necessarily entails. This is the guy who whinges on about being "misunderstood" and urges his critics to read what he wrote but seems totally unwilling or unable to submit any kind of argument whatsoever in response to the very specific and detailed criticisms of what he is proposing. You have to wonder what lies behind all this evasiveness….
No. I won't let you steer this exchange to suit your agenda. I have posted 4 message in recent days. I want you to tell me in each and everyone where they were wrong, in the sense of being anti-socialist. Where in the text of what i actually posted were they presenting a fundamentally anti-socialist case?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.