Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried

[Young Master Smeet]

Vin wrote:

I have asked a simple question 'Will the proletariat exist in democratic communism'. It is easily answered. 'yes'  or 'no' without reference to

A slightly better question is: if the revolutionary proletariat exrcise democratic decision making, what otehr classes are there in society?Further, to return to the question of violence, not all human beings are capable of violence (or effective violence) so, if the democratyic majority is to have its way, it rests on the fraction of society that can be violent, not on the whole community.  Is this, then, not dividing society into two parts, the violent and the violented?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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? 

[my bold]The bit where you missed out that only the social producers can determine their product, and that the only acceptable political method for that determination is democracy.It's rather simple, alan. No need for me to rub it in, post by post.But 'materialists' won't have it – because it undermines the materialists' belief that they alone have a special consciousness, and that they won't have workers telling them what the 'truth' is.Materialists are elitists, which is why Lenin clung to that ideology.Ask them, alan – can workers elect 'matter'? Which obviously presupposes that they can deselect 'matter', too, if they wish.'Materialists' won't have this political control over 'reality' being in the hands of the democratic producers.'Matter' is their 'God'.

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird, can non-social producers create a product?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,can non-social producers create a product?

YMS, I've explained this to you, several times already. I do wish that you'd read what I write, and move on. If you disagree with what I've written, fair enough, but just say so, and move on, please.Once again… for Marx, humans are 'social producers'.It's a philosophical category, that Marx employs to explain how humans create their world. The 'social activity' of those producers he calls 'labour'.To put it even clearer, for Marx, the notion of any human, being a 'non-social producer' is meaningless.I think that you're mixing up your categories, and confusing this issue with 'classes' (ie. 'exploited producers' and 'exploiters').Now, I agree with Marx's categories, but if you don't, just say so, and we can move the discussion on, as to why you disagree with Marx's philosophical categories, and which other categories you'd prefer to employ. Of course, I'll ask you where you got those categories from (ie. their socio-historical origin).

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

A fine conclusion! If useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society — and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the "condition" of labor, society.In fact, this proposition has at all times been made use of by the champions of the state of society prevailing at any given time. First comes the claims of the government and everything that sticks to it, since it is the social organ for the maintenance of the social order; then comes the claims of the various kinds of private property, for the various kinds of private property are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases can be twisted and turned as desired.

I think it was Engels who said that, or was it Kautsky?  So, to be clear, you think that only through society, as expressed throuh it's organs of violence, can production occur?

[Young Master Smeet]

See, thing is, Marx could define social:

Quote:

By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end.

So a woman alone on an island picking fruit is not social, she is merely satisfying her own needs.Oh, and just for old times sake, here's what Marx eally said about social production:

Quote:

Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all. Consciousness is at first, of course, merely consciousness concerning the immediate sensuous environment and consciousness of the limited connection with other persons and things outside the individual who is growing self-conscious. At the same time it is consciousness of nature, which first appears to men as a completely alien, all-powerful and unassailable force, with which men’s relations are purely animal and by which they are overawed like beasts; it is thus a purely animal consciousness of nature (natural religion) just because nature is as yet hardly modified historically. (We see here immediately: this natural religion or this particular relation of men to nature is determined by the form of society and vice versa. Here, as everywhere, the identity of nature and man appears in such a way that the restricted relation of men to nature determines their restricted relation to one another, and their restricted relation to one another determines men’s restricted relation to nature.) On the other hand, man’s consciousness of the necessity of associating with the individuals around him is the beginning of the consciousness that he is living in society at all. This beginning is as animal as social life itself at this stage. It is mere herd-consciousness, and at this point man is only distinguished from sheep by the fact that with him consciousness takes the place of instinct or that his instinct is a conscious one. This sheep-like or tribal consciousness receives its further development and extension through increased productivity, the increase of needs, and, what is fundamental to both of these, the increase of population. With these there develops the division of labour, which was originally nothing but the division of labour in the sexual act, then that division of labour which develops spontaneously or “naturally” by virtue of natural predisposition (e.g. physical strength), needs, accidents, etc. etc. Division of labour only becomes truly such from the moment when a division of material and mental labour appears. (The first form of ideologists, priests, is concurrent.) From this moment onwards consciousness can really flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice, that it really represents something without representing something real; from now on consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of “pure” theory, theology, philosophy, ethics, etc.

[LBird]

Once again (and no doubt again, later), for Marx, 'production' is a social category.Marx is not discussing 'individual biological movement', but the 'active side', an active social consciousness that labours to produce its own product.'Nature' is a social product. That's why we can change it.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, he's clearly saying animal being preceded conscious being.  And clearly stating that social applies only to multiple humans working together, so a being on their own can produce, is that not so?  Or do none of Marx' words mean what they say?

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

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….

Still no response from LBird in reply to my questions. I can only assume he  doesn't understand  them.He twitters on about Marx: 'I am a Marxist and your not' in a ver childish manner, which wouldn't  be so bad if he would back his nonsensicle arguments up with one or two quotes from Marx's actual writings. Oh but wait, that's because Marx was wrong. So although LBird is a Marxist, Marx wasn't!! That's why he can't rely on Marx to support his argumentWell Marx did say 'I am not a Marxist' but if LBird had read Marx then he would know that wouldn't he?It is clear that LBird is a confused Leninist incapable of understanding the implications of a classless society. He cannot escape his Hobbesian view of human nature. Without organised social violence there will be a 'war of all against all'Very anti communist  and a very conservative ideology. Ironic, eh. I always new that he 'protesteth too much' . 

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, he's clearly saying animal being preceded conscious being.  And clearly stating that social applies only to multiple humans working together, so a being on their own can produce, is that not so?  Or do none of Marx' words mean what they say?

They'll mean what the ideology trying to understand Marx's words, says that they mean.Since I'm a Democratic Communist, concerned to build up the confidence and abilities of the class concious proletariat for their aim of building socialism, Marx's words are about 'social production', workers, and democracy.Since you are an individualist, they'll mean that you're are an individual, and that you as a biological being can 'know matter' (by touch, for example).You're not really interested in politics, ideologies, society, production, or socialism, YMS – you're just interested in confirming your existing ideological choices, that you're an 'individual', and you won't have others telling you 'what to think'. And you got this ideology from the bourgeoisie, who've dominated human thought for the last 350 years, and which Marx fought to overcome, and provide a basis for workers to liberate themselves collectively from those ruling class ideas, like 'individualism'.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

The bit where you missed out that only the social producers can determine their product, and that the only acceptable political method for that determination is democracy.

I'm guilty of being an anti-socialist, not of what i said but what i never said.So let's see what i did say in these four messages.

Quote:

Democracy will be whatever it will be when it begins to be put into practice and it will express itself in a variety of manifestations of what is fit for purpose. Who knows how the will of people ends up being conducted and applied. It cannot be one size fits all.

Democracy will not be imposed but will be the result of the self-determined will of those in socialism. 

Quote:

Socialism will be pluralist and we will all be wearing different hats at different times. We possess the technological means to achieve this. And yes, a billion, 10 billion, can all vote on issues they consider of importance. And i'm not going to decide what they might consider of import or not. And just as a billion can vote, a billion can choose not to if they are not affected by the outcothere is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics.me of any decision…people in socialism will decide for themselves in whatever way they wish /quote] (my emphasis)That is the only acceptable political method of determining what is democracy. I maintained politics will come to an end with socialism.

Quote:

there is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics./quote] and i cited the authority of Marx for positing this.

Quote:

The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character…

Not me but you had to back-track and correct yourself, widening the definition of politics

Quote:

 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?

 I was using the Marxian concept of politics, you were not and i clarified this with the additional remark 

Quote:

I think we can safely say that by "politics", i was not applying the term , for instance, to the phenomenon of "office politics".

You were using the term in such a way by confusing politics with "a business matter".I am accused of excusing myself with a ' i don't know" when asked who and how make decisions. Yet i answered the best anyone can do at this moment in time. I specuated that embryonic forms of democracy will be the basis and provided the example of this very political party. I also used another instance where i even acknowledged your own early contribution.

Quote:

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.

(my emphasis)I did add a caveat in that not just anybody got the vote, just as no-body can walk in off the street and take part in the deliberations of how work should be organised at a workers council meeting (BTW, as the chair of Conference, i once did just that, let some stranger who simply walked off the street to address the conference!) I cited Marx as supporting the view of democracy being relative and limited regards the conductor of an orchestra.Once more in #83 i emphasised that the actors in the workers' movement will determine its course.  

Quote:

People make history, not me, not you, other than being small elements of the general movement

It goes out of the way to dismiss an individualist interpretation of how history is made and remind us that it is a social movement, but i did later mention caveats.I may not have used your own favoured expressions but i explained where ideas came from

Quote:

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.

I did not say you claimed ideas fell from the sky but relating it to your accusation that i was inferring ideas came from matter. …no,  the rocks never told me about socialism, i directly said it was society and ideas in societies do not arise in a vacuum, they come from somewhere…from interaction. 

Quote:

they arise from social relations and those are born of – primarily – the need to provide for society.

So you say social producers, and i said social providers..tomaytoes and tomahtoes.Now where is my Engelsian materialism i am so guilty of, and where am i not qualified to style mysef as a socialist

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

They'll mean what the ideology trying to understand Marx's words, says that they mean.Since I'm a Democratic Communist, concerned to build up the confidence and abilities of the class concious proletariat for their aim of building socialism, Marx's words are about 'social production', workers, and democracy.

And cut.  There is no possibility for debate in Humpty Dumpty world, eitehr words have historical, logical meanings that can be examined by their usage and assemblage in a text, or they don't.What this means is there is no point discussing Marx, and exploring his meanings with you, all we can do is judge your ideas as tand alone, based on your words (though your words, too are meaningless, if I accept what you say above).Clearly, this is how you debate, you decide what someone's position is, and then proceed to argue against that.  When asked to define terms, you fail, dismally, and resort to repeating them slowly and loudly.You might want to consider how succesful such a discoursive approach may be.  Because, although you say you are a democratic communist, I've decided in my ideology that you are an Orthodox Catholic, so how dare you support the transubstantiation of the eucharist, who are you to question the decisions of the magisterium, how can you reconcile the indivisibility of catholicism with your rejection of Vatican II?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Democracy will not be imposed…

Of course it will, alan. That's the political point. There can be no anti- or non-democratic methods within socialism. That's the starting point for revolutionary politics.

ajj wrote:

…but will be the result of the self-determined will of those in socialism. 

Who 'self-determines', alan?Dictators can 'self-determine', narrow elites can 'self-determine'.To put it bluntly, the revolutionary class conscious proletariat will impose their democratic political methods. Any other political starting point undermines, from the beginning, the revolutionary class conscious proletariat, in favour of some other political entity, who will claim to be outside of 'democratic methods'.It's political suicide for workers to deny democracy, since they are the vast majority. This is about power and politics, alan, even though the SPGB seems to be very reluctant to discuss either.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

They'll mean what the ideology trying to understand Marx's words, says that they mean.Since I'm a Democratic Communist, concerned to build up the confidence and abilities of the class concious proletariat for their aim of building socialism, Marx's words are about 'social production', workers, and democracy.

And cut.  There is no possibility for debate in Humpty Dumpty world, eitehr words have historical, logical meanings that can be examined by their usage and assemblage in a text, or they don't.What this means is there is no point discussing Marx, and exploring his meanings with you, all we can do is judge your ideas as tand alone, based on your words (though your words, too are meaningless, if I accept what you say above).Clearly, this is how you debate, you decide what someone's position is, and then proceed to argue against that.  When asked to define terms, you fail, dismally, and resort to repeating them slowly and loudly.You might want to consider how succesful such a discoursive approach may be.  Because, although you say you are a democratic communist, I've decided in my ideology that you are an Orthodox Catholic, so how dare you support the transubstantiation of the eucharist, who are you to question the decisions of the magisterium, how can you reconcile the indivisibility of catholicism with your rejection of Vatican II?

I knew that you've give up, YMS.You won't have workers' democracy, and you're even reluctant to discuss it, and want to talk about yourself and individualism. Why not openly reveal your ideology, rather than pretend to be wanting to 'objectively' read Marx.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

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.

Quotes please!! I would love to compare what you say with what Marx and Engels said. Where did Marx and Engels write any of the rubbish you spurt?Wordwide votes on every little decision?Organised social violence ?Wage workers in communism?  Fighting off  elite  groups Quotes from Marx, please    

[Author]

Posts