Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(Good to know you’re alive and well L Bird).
I do, however, find it ironic, that in terms of your interpretation of democracy, you appear to be in a world wide minority of one.Thanks, BD.
Given what pgb wrote earlier, I’d be interesting to hear from you what you think will be the organising method for social production within a socialist society, if not democracy.
It is very enlightening to find out more about the SPGB and its notion of socialism. It’s revealing, too, that you think I’m the only Marxist in the world that argues for democracy.
Why is it that the SPGB will spend years defending ‘matter’, ‘material’, ‘science’… but not spend one post defending democracy – and I mean, as all Marxists do, ‘democratic social production’, not ‘parliamentary’ or ‘liberal democracy’.
Why does ‘democracy’ seem so laughable to the SPGB? Are you really all anarchists, who think that any ‘social authority’ (and its power) will simply disappear when ‘socialism comes’? That ‘politics’ will vanish?
” It’s revealing, too, that you think I’m the only Marxist in the world that argues for democracy.”
I didn’t say that, did I?
To put it more bluntly. You are the only person in the world who I have ever come across who puts forward the idea that we should all vote on “science”, whatever science is. For example I have not come across another living person who thinks that we should vote on whether or not the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, or who thinks that if we voted in the contrary the sun would conveniently fit in with our voting patterns and start rising in the west.
I do believe in democracy, however that does not mean that I agree with all decisions that are made democratically. For instance, if all of the world voted that you were in fact a genius, I for one (I suspect there may be others) would still think you were off your rocker. Interesting, well read, erudite, personable, but still as mad as mince.
Bijou Drains wrote: “For example I have not come across another living person who thinks that we should vote on whether or not the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, or who thinks that if we voted in the contrary the sun would conveniently fit in with our voting patterns and start rising in the west.”
I, too, have never come across another living person who thinks this, either, BD.
Just why ‘materialists’ continue to make up false stories, and then prove them false, and are satisfied with this charade, is a mystery to me. Perhaps the only answer can be that political and philosophical problems seem not to concern them – that is, the problems of social production – since they believe that matter’s own actions will produce their desired ends.
Still, since this stance apparently passes for ‘Marxism’ and ‘Democratic Socialism’ amongst ‘materialists’, it’s no wonder that this ‘Marxism’ and ‘Socialism’ has less and less influence in the 21st century, and the SPGB, just like the Stalinists and the Trots, is dying out.
I’m still unsure why ‘materialists’ are not interested in discovering the real positions of democratic Marxists (and there are many), and then formulating answers to them, in a bid to win the political debate – it seems the obvious way to go for political party.
Lenin’s method of trashing his political opponents, of telling his mostly ignorant supporters that his opponents are dangerous heretics, is a road to nowhere. It’s certainly not the way to build a democratic socialist society.
Finally, I’m sure you mean to be humorous by calling me ‘mad as mince’ and ‘off my rocker’, but it’s no substitute for a political argument.
Bijou Drains: “So you are saying that you do not believe that “scientific theory” should be voted on?”
What has “scientific theory” got to do with “the rising and setting of the sun”, which is the example you gave earlier?
This is what I mean by ‘materialists’ building straw men, and destroying their own creation.
What’s the point of taking the time to have a political/philosophical discussion, if you’ve no real interest in politics and philosophy? It baffles me, BD.
Maybe you are right, Bijou, mockery could be a better way than contempt of dealing with his non-stop lying about us being Leninists.
L Bird, you appear to be backing away from your previous view that scientific theory should be voted on, can you clarify your current position on this?
Yes, Bijou, he is a slippery customer. For years he has used materialism as a term of abuse, denouncing us as materialists while Marx was only a ‘materialist’ (in scare quotes). Confronted with the evidence that Marx called himself a materialist, he changes and calls us ‘materialists’ and Marx a materialist.
He is not prepared to admit that our materialism and Marx’s are the same. Obviously we don’t accept the 19th natural-science materialism that he distanced himself from but, like him, are historical/social materialists.
In any event, Marx’s materialism had nothing in common with the crackpot idea that the Sun used to go around the Earth at one time because that was what was generally believed and would do so again if a majority voted for it.
Bijou Drains wrote: “L Bird, you appear to be backing away from your previous view that scientific theory should be voted on, can you clarify your current position on this?”
You’re in luck this morning, BD, because I can give you the answer from both ideological positions!
If by ‘science’, you mean the bourgeois social activity that alleges that it has a disinterested elite, trained in their best universities, who are entirely free from ideology and socio-historical changes, who claim that ‘reality’ is just sitting there waiting for this elite to ‘discover’, who produce ‘Truth’, and always have the best interests of the whole of humanity at heart, and won’t have the ignorant, ill-educated masses interfering in their elite activity… then the answer is ‘No voting on scientific theory’.
If by ‘science’, you mean Marx’s socio-historical product, a social activity that should be under the control of the revolutionary proletariat, so that all of humanity can democratically determine its scientific social products (etc.)… then the answer is ‘Voting on scientific theory’.
Marx argued that ‘materialists’ will choose the former, as they are determined to separate society into two – a ‘scientific’ elite and a benighted mass. So, I’ll go with Marx on this question.
I just know which a materialist like you, BD, will choose!
‘scientific’ elite and a benighted mass.’
Has there ever been such an elite taking the place of a traditional or state capitalist ruling class? As far as I know a ruling class always derives its political power, in the final analysis, from the ownership and control of the means of production. How could a ‘scientific elite’ achieve this? There seems to be no historical precedence for such an unlikely occurrence. Scientists are just wage slaves like the rest of us.
Wez wrote: “As far as I know a ruling class always derives its political power, in the final analysis, from the ownership and control of the means of production. How could a ‘scientific elite’ achieve this?”
Yes, I think any Marxist would agree with you, on that.
Bourgeois ‘science’ is, of course, part of the means of production. Without ‘thinking’, there would be no ‘production’. Marx always linked ‘theory and practice’. We need to identify which mode of production we Marxists are talking about, to discuss the ‘scientific elite’. The ‘scientific elite’ of any mode are a key part of the ruling class, and help to justify its rule.
Within the capitalist mode of production, the university system, its rules, selection procedures for its elite, teaching ideology, even buildings, are produced to the design of the ruling class. Clearly, any ruling class denies this, and claims its priests/professors are dedicated servants of humanity. Any Marxist knows that the ruling class tells lies.
Workers believing professors of physics, is like serfs believing priests of religion. We have to build our own democratic science, and introduce the elective principle to any positions of power within our science.
‘The ‘scientific elite’ of any mode are a key part of the ruling class’
No they’re not – they’re working class just like you and me. The ruling class couldn’t tell you the difference between a quark and a quasar and care less.
Don’t the ruling class hold the purse strings to what is studied? As such, don’t they ultimately determine the outcomes of scientific research?
A parallel would be that reforms must be compatible with capitalism or the reforms simply don’t transpire. If science or technology is not in line with the capitalist wishes, they won’t get funding and won’t become a reality.
It is a dichotomy that exists between those who seek to study “pure abstract science” and the need for it to have applications for the capitalists to benefit.
Scientists are as BD suggests, servants of the ruling class.
Of course, as that wonderful 70s tv series ‘Connections’ with James Burke showed, there is rarely a straight line from one discovery to another
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.