Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I knew that you've give up, YMS.

 You have given up long agoYou will not answer the simple questions put to younby myself and others.   No quotes from Marx to support your silly assertions.  I have to take that as you giving up.   

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

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.

Nothing objective about it, but rational, reaonable, based on argumnt and evidence : if you can change the meaning of a text, arbitrarily, there is no scope for dialectic.  There are no invalid moves in your language game.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

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.

Nothing objective about it, but rational, reaonable, based on argumnt and evidence : if you can change the meaning of a text, arbitrarily, there is no scope for dialectic.  There are no invalid moves in your language game.

Whose 'rational, whose 'reasonable', whose 'argument' and whose 'evidence', YMS?You talk as if these are all obvious (ie. 'objective') categories.No one 'changes the meaning of a text, arbitrarily' – this belief of yours is an ideological belief, because you think you know what 'arbitrary' is.All 'meanings' are socially-produced (and so are not 'arbitrary'), and are related to the ideology of the producer. 'Invalidity' is always from a perspective.You've always refused to expose your ideology, YMS. And you refuse to do so, because as soon as you do, your ideological basis is destroyed. You have to pretend to be 'an objective individual', who already has the power to determine rationality, reasonability, arguments, evidence, arbitrariness, and invalidity, outside of their social production.I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Whose 'rational, whose 'reasonable', whose 'argument' and whose 'evidence', YMS?

Debate's, and consistency's.  Can the argument coherently endure, and explain what it is trying to explain: can it's moves be validated, and is the validation itself inconsistent.  Again, you attribute positions to me I don't hold.  You don't seek to try and find out.  Mere denonotative locutions cannot announce an ideology, it is an emergent property of debate.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whose 'rational, whose 'reasonable', whose 'argument' and whose 'evidence', YMS?

Debate's, and consistency's.  Can the argument coherently endure, and explain what it is trying to explain: can it's moves be validated, and is the validation itself inconsistent.  Again, you attribute positions to me I don't hold.  You don't seek to try and find out.  Mere denonotative locutions cannot announce an ideology, it is an emergent property of debate.

Why not just openly say what your ideology is, YMS, rather than pretend that you don't know (and that I don't know) and that it will simply 'emerge' during, presumably, 'objective' debate.Since when have the gods Debate, Consistency, Coherence and Validation determined 'rationality', etc.?As for me 'not seeking to find out your position', can't you read? I've already asked you dozens of times, and I'm asking you again, in this post.Perhaps DCC&V will tell me – hello, hello, DCC&V, YMS tells me that I can 'seek' from you, and you'll tell me YMS's ideology?Nope, not a sausage, YMS. I'm afraid you're going to have to tell me – or, rather, just confirm what I've told everyone for years, and which you've sought to hide.

[alanjjohnstone]

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? If that is "politics", who is contesting who for what?Once more you seek to define language solely on your terms."Self-determined" in my usage is that people themselves will determine the means of how. The sentence can stand alone without the use of self-determined "Democracy will not be imposed but will be the result of the … will of those in socialism." if that is more to your liking. But perhaps it might be a bad choice of word since it echoes of national self-determination and we all know how pejorative terms can be when it comes to Marxist discussionAre you confusing the revolutionary period where the struggle for class power is still in progress?Whereas i am discussing an already established socialist society? Once socialism is up and running there is no proletariat as has been pointed out to you, there is no politics of any resemblance to how we use the concept today.I fear it is you yourself who cannot understand the extent of change in ideas and social practice that will take place. It isn't me who is guilty of believing  'things will remain much the same as now' but yourself.But you still haven't  indicate where in those posts (or the subsequent ones), i am adopting and applying Engels materialism to my views of what socialism will be.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist.

 

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Why not just openly say what your ideology is, YMS, rather than pretend that you don't know (and that I don't know) and that it will simply 'emerge' during, presumably, 'objective' debate.Since when have the gods Debate, Consistency, Coherence and Validation determined 'rationality', etc.?

Since communication has been a social process, and debate has been about how to produce meaning.As I have said many times, I am a Marxist and a democratic socialist, I seek to hide nothing,I believe in common ownership of the means of production, the free association of producers, and creating a society where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all: where every human being is treated as an end in themself, and human society's goal is to develop human potential.Now, as a ctholic, you believe in one god, father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, orf all that is seen and unseen.   You believe in the Lord Jesus Chirst, god from god, light from light, true god from true god, begotten not made, of one being with the father.  you believe in the holy spirit, the lord the giver of life…So you keep telling us, ad nauseam, why do you keep banging on about being a catholic?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? 

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. This is Marx's view, too.

ajj wrote:

"Self-determined" in my usage is that people themselves will determine the means of how. The sentence can stand alone without the use of self-determined "Democracy will not be imposed but will be the result of the … will of those in socialism." if that is more to your liking. 

[my bold]Where do you get the ideological category 'people themselves' from, alan? I prefer Marx's concept, above.

ajj wrote:

But perhaps it might be a bad choice of word since it echoes of national self-determination and we all know how pejorative terms can be when it comes to Marxist discussion

Yes, I agree. It's important not to leave ourselves a hostage to nationalist ideology about 'The People' (the 'volk'), during our building towards socialism.

ajj wrote:

Are you confusing the revolutionary period where the struggle for class power is still in progress?Whereas i am discussing an already established socialist society?

No, the 'struggle to build' will determine what is 'established', alan, so I'm not confusing the process (rather than two separate 'states of existence')

ajj wrote:

Once socialism is up and running there is no proletariat as has been pointed out to you, there is no politics of any resemblance to how we use the concept today.

If I read this constant red herring, once more, I'll scream.There will be 'social producers', because 'social producers' exist in every society. In terms of process, today's social producers (workers, proletariat) will transform themselves into socialism's social producers. It's easier just to use the term 'workers', but Vin has a bee in his bonnet about this, and now you and others seem to have jumped on the bandwagon, because I've stopped replying and explaining to Vin.

ajj wrote:

I fear it is you yourself who cannot understand the extent of change in ideas and social practice that will take place. It isn't me who is guilty of believing  'things will remain much the same as now' but yourself.

That's a good one, alan. I say that even physics, maths and logic will 'change in ideas and social practice', whereas you defend 'bourgeois science' and 'academic experts', and I don't understand the extent of change?

ajj wrote:

But you still haven't  indicate where in those posts (or the subsequent ones), i am adopting and applying Engels materialism to my views of what socialism will be.

I have done so, alan, many times, but you yourself keep saying that you don't understand what all this 'philosophy stuff' is about. I've tried to help, and the key point is that materialists deny the power of humans to ditch 'matter'.Once we adopt the view that 'matter' or 'the material' is a social product, and that we can change it, then the power of the Leninists disappears, because they claim to 'know matter' as it is, before we create or destroy 'it'. This keeps 'the material' outside of our productive powers, and yet leaves it in theirs.I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist, alan, and so I insist that only the class can determine 'it' for itself, and not a party. That includes 'nature' and 'the universe', so I'm covering all bases, eh?Unless this is all sorted out during the building towards socialism, when we get there we'll find a party of materialists in charge. And we all know that we've been there before, and it's not socialism as we would see it.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

There will be 'social producers', because 'social producers' exist in every society. In terms of process, today's social producers (workers, proletariat) will transform themselves into socialism's social producers. It's easier just to use the term 'workers', but Vin has a bee in his bonnet about this, and now you and others seem to have jumped on the bandwagon, because I've stopped replying and explaining to Vin.

So, just to be clear, in your future Catholic society, will the old, the sick, the infirm and children not have a vote? 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

There will be 'social producers', because 'social producers' exist in every society. In terms of process, today's social producers (workers, proletariat) will transform themselves into socialism's social producers. It's easier just to use the term 'workers', but Vin has a bee in his bonnet about this, and now you and others seem to have jumped on the bandwagon, because I've stopped replying and explaining to Vin.

 You have stopped replying to  me because you don't have any answers. Will the proletariate  exist in socialism?? One word answer yes  or no 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? 

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. This is Marx's view, too. 

 More evidence of LBird's anti Marxist,, pro Leninist outlook.  Lbird, like Lenin, envisages  the existence of classes – a proletariat and therefore private property  – in socialism.  Marx didnt"When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite.  Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property " The Holy Family (1845): 

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan:  the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat.  This is Marx's view, too.

I'm sorry but you have offered no answer.I have proposed a few tentative suggestions on how this would be done in my replies, advancing actual proposals of how current decision-making can be further developed and widened to advance the will of the People.If you don't like the term "the People", because you see a nationalist connotation,  substitute humanity or humankind…but i recall these do not meet with your satisfaction, either. "to make way for the real will of the cooperative." I'm happy with Marx using cooperative so we can use it, if you so will insted of "social producers" which i also have no objection to, even if i have said it too is not perfect as it makes out that non-producers – young and old and sick – are excluded. (I note that has been repeated by another contributor, independently, just as we independently began to focus on your unique use of words and language to bolster your case) Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism. Once more i quote this same article i have already cited from

Quote:

It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared…the class rule of the workers over the strata of the old world whom they have been fighting can only exist as long as the economic basis of class existence is not destroyed.

It's not Vin writing but Marx.As for my lack of insight into the more philosophical aspects of the discussion, it is neither here or there. To use that hackneyed phrase, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.". Perhaps the Socialist Party is wrong in its means and methods but nevertheless, the very obvious remains – it has a means and methods, a political strategy, for fellow-workers to examine and judge – you have not offered any route for change to take place. You remain a philosopher, not an agent or actor in the revolutionary process – another reason to describe you as conservatively-minded. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

 Rubbish.  You are wriggling as per usual.  You talked quite explicitly of there being a "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" in socialism .  How can you have a class conscious proletariat without this presupposing the existence of classes??? BTW LBird when are you going to get round to defending your Leninist inspired vision of "communism" as a unicentric system of society wide planning in which there will be no kind of local democracy or even regional democracy, whatsoever – just 7 billion plus individuals spending all their time voting on millions and millions of decisions that will need to be made to operate a global system of communist production?

[Author]

Posts