Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
But it’s true, alan, even you agree – the official stance of the SPGB is to oppose democracy in: nature, reality, truth, physics, matter, maths, logic, necessity… I’m sure there are others that have been mentioned, and I have forgotten.
You are digging yourself ever deeper into a hole of your own making, LBird. For your own sake stop and think a little before committing yourself to print. You are just making yourself look really foolish
Having declared that it seems to be “the official stance of the SPGB” that it is “opposed to democracy” – an outrageous slander by any standard – you are now hastily backtracking in a desperate attempt to save face by qualifying your comment. Its not democracy as such that SPGB is seemingly opposed to, according to you now in your latest spin on the subject, but democracy in “nature, reality, truth, physics, matter, maths, logic, necessity…”
WTF is all that even supposed to mean, LBird? Are you now suggesting that we have global vote on whether 2 plus 2 is 4???? It was bad enough you trying to suggest the global population should vote on tens of thousands of scientific theories when you have never once explained what is the purpose of such a vote or how you propose to organise the mind boggling logistics of all this voting.
It is not just the SPGB that would reject such a silly idea but, I am completely confident, virtually the entirety of humanity. Yet here you are pontificating in the name of “democracy” about a massively pointless and completely impractical idea that the entire world population must follow through on – simply because, in your opinion, it is essential for democracy that they do so. In other words, it is supposedly essential for democracy because you as a single lone individual, apparently without any support from anyone else, says it is!!
Oh the irony! If people in a future socialist society want to vote on whether 2 plus 2 is 4 let them decide on whether such a vote is necessary. Don’t undemocratically impose this requirement on them. Personally I don’t see the slightest chance of this crackpot idea being taken up but then that’s just me I guess…
Matthew Culbert wrote: “The workers themselves,(no longer workers as a class as classes will not exist) will decide which functions will be recallable delegatory, local, regional,global.
Permanently in the hands of the immense majority, always with recourse to overall decisions about resources and theoretical informational decision making apparatus, being allocated to permanently prevent the formation of bureaucratic, technocratic or scientific potential usurpation of control over resources.”
So, you seem to agree with Marx and me, Matthew.
Within democratic socialism, truth will be elected.
Otherwise, you’d have to explain where ‘truth’ (and nature, reality, etc., etc.) comes from, and since you agree that ‘the immense majority’ will be politically controlling the ‘theoretical informational decision making apparatus’, which will ‘prevent the formation of bureaucratic, technocratic or scientific potential usurpation of control’, then the only source of ‘truth’ will be humanity – all of us, democratically socially producing our truth.
If you mean this, Matthew, it’s a massive political, philosophical, theoretical and ideological breakthrough in these discussions.
It means no more talk of ‘specialists’ telling the rest of us what ‘material’ means (as the Leninists claim to do, with their ‘special’ consciousness). It means that we determine ‘the material’, and that ‘the material’ doesn’t determine us.
No more talk of ‘material conditions’ bringing democratic socialism. We are the active, conscious, social producers, and only we can create our world (natural and social – there is no separation).
So, you seem to agree with Marx and me, Matthew.
Within democratic socialism, truth will be elected.
No, I agree and the Party agrees with Marx. Not your returning hogwash.
” The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”(1879 Marx and Engels )
What nonsense that ‘truth’ will be elected.
There is no ‘absolute truth’ to be elected.
Save possibly that fact.
Deal with Robbo’s practical questions to you.
The ‘specialists’ will be qualified in their respective fields, from ‘us’all, in the classless society, by examination or whatever measure of educational or practical requirements will be deemed necessary for their functions.
The philosophical considerations will be informed and proceed from the organising tenet of,
“from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
It will be unthinkable in the new zeitgeist that specialists freed from the shackles of war science, will be deliberating other than that above.
Using the current Covid vaccine development, will we be letting a number of developments in different locations compete to produce varieties of vaccine?
Yes very probably. The differerence being the pooled and shared results, being widely available and smaller teams breakthroughs not being stifled or blocked as at at present by commercial considerations.
The rolling out of approved solutions for application in the local regional and global areas having been subject to prior scientific criteria ‘consensus’ approval.
Scientific proofs, are not the same as philosophical ‘absolute truths’.
Never forget …
lBird propagates the view that “workers as a class will exist under socialism”. In his philosophical “socialism”, workers persist as the ruling “class” and capitalists persist as the ruled “class”.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must preserve its social status as the “ruling” class by rooting out — lock, stock and barrel — the production of human thought by experts in all fields of specialist endeavour, research or practice, whether they be scientific or artistic.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must deprive the “capitalist class” of its democratic rights in order to prevent “elite experts” — in particular, “bourgeois” scientists — from monopolising the production of human thought.
Otherwise, on lBird’s authority, “bourgeois” scientists will carry out terrifying experiments (à la the angel of death, Dr Josef Mengele) upon our “proletarian” bodies.
Never forget.
For lBird, “proletarians” must be generalists. Expert “proletarians” are forbidden lest they become “elitists”.
Never forget.
lBird denies the objectivity of the phenomenal world. Instead, he apprehends the phenomenal world — with Schopenhauer — as a mental representation.
Never forget.
lBird vehemently denies materialism.
Nevertheless, lBird discovers within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the existence of other minds cohabiting a society of social classes, and then discovers/hopes that those other minds belonging to his own social class happen to agree with him in their representation of the world.
LBird then bases the triumph of socialism on his own class’s collective mental representation of the phenomenal world as being infallible in a general, not in an expert, sense.
Therein lies the wanted objectivity of lBird’s idealist representation of the phenomenal world — an idealism he attributes to Marx!
Never forget.
lBird denies materialism,
Nevertheless, lBird discovers, within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the historical process of social construction.
But lBird is ignorant of idealist social construction’s only possible objective foundation in Hegel’s objektiver Geist.
Bereft of Hegel’s idealist motive force, lBird’s social constructionism remains stuck in a vicious circle of thought begetting thought, scarcely distinguishable from the vicious circle of idealist pop post-modernism.
Never forget.
In such a philosophical muddle, lBird absolutely needs to rescue social control over the social production of idealist “thought”. He absolutely must advocate a regime of each surveilling the mental representation of each.
Never forget.
lBird’s adventures in social philosophy have given birth to a monster — the reign of compulsory thought policing.
Never forget.
To us, the fellow’s views are insane.
Never forget …
lBird propagates the view that “workers as a class will exist under socialism”. In his philosophical “socialism”, workers persist as the ruling “class” and capitalists persist as the ruled “class”.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must preserve its social status as the “ruling” class by rooting out — lock, stock and barrel — the production of human thought by experts in all fields of specialist endeavour, research or practice, whether they be scientific or artistic.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must deprive the “capitalist class” of its democratic rights in order to prevent “elite experts” — in particular, “bourgeois” scientists — from monopolising the production of human thought.
Otherwise, on lBird’s authority, “bourgeois” scientists will carry out terrifying experiments (à la the angel of death, Dr Josef Mengele) upon our “proletarian” bodies.
Never forget.
For lBird, “proletarians” must be generalists. Expert “proletarians” are forbidden lest they become “elitists”.
Never forget.
lBird denies the objectivity of the phenomenal world. Instead, he apprehends the phenomenal world — with Schopenhauer — as a mental representation.
Never forget.
lBird vehemently denies materialism.
Nevertheless, lBird discovers within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the existence of other minds cohabiting a society of social classes, and then discovers/hopes that those other minds belonging to his own social class happen to agree with him in their representation of the world.
LBird then bases the triumph of socialism on his own class’s collective mental representation of the phenomenal world as being infallible in a general, not in an expert, sense.
Therein lies the wanted objectivity of lBird’s idealist representation of the phenomenal world — an idealism he attributes to Marx!
Never forget.
lBird denies materialism,
Nevertheless, lBird discovers, within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the historical process of social construction.
But lBird is ignorant of idealist social construction’s only possible objective foundation in Hegel’s objektiver Geist.
Bereft of Hegel’s idealist motive force, lBird’s social constructionism remains stuck in a vicious circle of thought begetting thought, scarcely distinguishable from the vicious circle of idealist pop post-modernism.
Never forget.
In such a philosophical muddle, lBird absolutely needs to rescue social control over the social production of idealist “thought”. He absolutely must advocate a regime of each surveilling the mental representation of each.
Never forget.
lBird’s adventures in social philosophy have given birth to a monster — the reign of compulsory thought policing.
Never forget.
To us, the fellow’s views are insane.
But apart from that, he’s ok
Matthew Culbert wrote: “Scientific proofs, are not the same as philosophical ‘absolute truths’.”
No-one has ever argued that they are, Matthew.
You’re a great disappointment, as I really thought that you’d got to grips with Marx’s democratic social productionism.
The ‘absolute’ refers to ‘god’, not humans.
Still, the materialists’ straw-manning will continue, because Marx’s words are a threat to them.
The practice of the new society will proceed from the new society.
We will not need to vote on ‘truth.
Answer Robbo, Bijou Drains and twc.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-56462390
What you been up to, L Bird????
LBird
Marx never, as far as I am aware, suggested that something like a scientific theory – or “maths”- should be subject to a democratic vote by the global population in a socialist society. This is pure invention on your part, the product of an over fertile imagination
But maybe I am wrong. Maybe somewhere Marx said or hinted at something along these lines in which case perhaps you could provide a quote to show this. In any event if he did say or hint at something like this then I would not hesitate to say that on that occasion he had clearly lost his marbles. Unlike you I am not a Marx fetishist, I don’t hero worship the man. He wrote a lot of good stuff but he also wrote some crap too
I suspect what you mean is that Marx would have thought a scientific theory is a social product in the sense that it is the intellectual outcome of a collaborative effort of many individuals. This is quite true but I remind you once again that just because something is a social product does NOT make it a candidate for democratic decision making
I have given you the example of my laptop. This is a social product in the sense that the labour inputs that went into making involve countless numbers of workers distributed right across the globe who assembled the components, produced the components or produced the raw materials required to produce the components etc etc. All in all we are talking about millions upon millions of workers worldwide.
Do you consider that all these millions of workers should democratically determine every step in the production chain from start to finish. If so how exactly do you propose to do that? That’s not a serious proposition is it?
Same with scientific theories. How exactly do you propose these – theories – tens of thousands of them – be democratically voted upon by 8 billion and what purpose would this serve? You never answer these practical questions, LBird. Why is that?
You are the one insisting that global population MUST democratically vote on these theories without consulting anyone as to whether they might even consider it worth the effort. What if no one considers it worth the effort – which is more than likely (to say the least) – would you still insist that such a vote be held. How would square this with your championing of “democracy”?
Entertain us with another round of ducking and diving and doing anything it takes to avoid answering any serious practical question
robbo203 wrote: “Unlike you I am not a Marx fetishist, I don’t hero worship the man. He wrote a lot of good stuff but he also wrote some crap too”
You really don’t read what I write, robbo, mate!
I’m always criticising Marx – he’s a hopeless writer, who never uses one word where a hundred will do, and is very unclear about what he means, which is why we now have to discuss his works.
If only you and the others would engage with what I write, rather than your own illusions, and hidden ideology.
Perhaps one day…
On threads that you monopolise — that’s a sizeable fraction of threads — I only engage with what you write.
If you recall, you wrote some posts back that “I’ve been wanting to engage with twc” in lieu of actually engaging with twc, otherwise known as dodging what twc wrote.
Do you recall the occasion? If not, I can remind you.
Is it not unreasonable to request that you engage with what twc writes?
Engage on …
If only you and the others would engage with what I write, rather than your own illusions, and hidden ideology.
LOL LBird
We should engage with you, according to you,but do you ever reciprocate by engaging with us??? For example, by answering a simple straightforward question which has been asked of you over and over again such as how in practical terms do you propose to organise tens of thousands of global votes on scientific theories and what possible purpose would this serve?
Perhaps you consider that any such explanation that you might give would be too abstruse and complex for us plain speaking proles to comprehend and should be considered only within the illustrious circle of the cognoscenti elite of which you consider yourself a member
No point in casting pearls before the swine, eh?
robbo203 wrote: “We should engage with you, according to you,but do you ever reciprocate by engaging with us??? For example, by answering a simple straightforward question which has been asked of you over and over again such as how in practical terms… ”
This is why you’re refusing to engage, robbo.
I’m trying to discuss Marx’s politics and philosophy, about our social production… whereas you want to ask ‘simple, straightforward questions’ which will supposedly require ‘simple, straightforward’ answers.
Whilst I’ve tried as much as I can to use analogies, examples, and references for you to explore which deal in more depth with my simplifications, we’re trying to discuss politics and philosophy, especially Marx’s, which are far beyond the ‘simple and straightforward’.
It’s like trying to discuss Marx’s ideas about the Labour Theory of Value, and its implications for Capitalist social relations, and exploitation, and classes, with someone who insists on ‘simple and straightforward’ answers to their questions based upon their individual opinion about ‘what is valuable’.
It can’t be done, robbo. Whilst the questioner wants to ask their own questions without questioning the basis of their questions, then they’ll continue to get their own answers, to their own satisfaction. Which is all fine for them, but they’ll never get to understand the socio-historical, politico-philosophical context of the Theory of Value.
Individualism contains its own answers, mate. As does Marx’s democratic social productionism.
If you’re happy with the ‘simple and straightforward’, many workers are not. I think you’re confusing ‘plain-speaking’ with ‘ignorance’.
I’m trying to discuss Marx’s politics and philosophy, about our social production… whereas you want to ask ‘simple, straightforward questions’ which will supposedly require ‘simple, straightforward’ answers.
OK, LBird, since you are so obsessed with Marx, tell me then – when did Marx ever come up with such a crackpot idea that the global population should be enabled to democratically vote to validate tends of thousands of scientific theories? It is not acceptable to give as answer the fact that he considered (as do I) scientific theories to be “social products”, for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum. Citations please!
And while you are at , since you appear to be the only person in the whole wide world to endorse this crackpot idea, which you seem to want to undemocratically impose on the rest of us who see absolutely no need for it, perhaps you can at least explain WHY you think these scientific theories should be voted on (Ill leave the “HOW” to another time)? That is, if you deign to patronise us simple-minded proles with your elite knowledge in response to our simple-minded practical questions….
Not that I am holding my breath in expectation of getting an answer from you. You have an established track record in evading uncomfortable questions, haven’t you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.