Good article by the SPGB 1973 Brendan Mee

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

A joker wrote:

No matter what Marx says, you're not going to have workers voting about whether 'matter exists' or not, are you?

robbo203 wrote:

the silly idea that scientific ideas – tens of thousands of them – should be put to a democratic vote by the global population …, if your silly idea were ever to be attempted I suspect less than 0.0001 per cent of the populace would even bother to vote on whether sting theory was true or not.

I agree with you, Robbo, that if the issue "Does matter (external reality) exist? Yes/No" was put to a referendum, most people would vote with their feet — in the same way that Dr Johnston did when he answered the same question by kicking a stone. And if the No side won the Brexiteers' dilemma would be nothing compared with theirs. No doubt, our joker would be there to insist that "Exiting Reality means Exiting Reality". Who could disagree with that?

 Yes indeed, ALB. I mean, what LBird is saying is so ludicrous it is astonishing that he doesn’t even seem to have the faintest glimmering of this.  Is he seriously proposing that some new theory concerning, say,  the asexual reproduction of the Malaysian tapeworm is gonna be put to a global vote of 7 billion people???  C’mon.  Let’s get real here. LBird is obsessed with the word elitism” but it got nothing to do with elitism. Its get everything to with the fact that individuals are different in multiple ways.  I couldn’t care a toss about the asexual reproduction of the Malaysian tapeworm, frankly,  but somebody might.  Maybe there is a little community of enthusiasts scattered around the world who are deeply interested in the subject.  Good on them!  Maybe LBird could join their forum if they would have him.  He seems to think that every individual in a future communist society is going to be 1) fully knowledgeable and 2) fully interested in every conceivable kind of scientific theory that is being churned out so perhaps he should practice what he preaches and lead by example by actively participating in the discussion of that forum with fegular feedbacks to this forum I imagine, though, that some Facebook group for Malaysian tapeworm enthusiasts is unlikely to organise a democratic vote on this startling new theory but supposing that it did, what then?  Are the rival factions going to stop debating the topic just because one of them carried the day and got more votes than the others? Of course not.  So what really was the point of the vote in that case? You see this is what LBird doesn’t understand.  He pretends to be a “democratic communist” but he hasn’t got a clue what democracy is about or what it is for.  Democracy is not about stifling the free expression of ideas, denying the right of a minority to continue expressing their ideas in the face of majority opinion.   This is what is so sinister and repulsive about what LBird is saying.  He is a Leninist putting forward the Leninist principle of so called democratic CENTRALISM.  The whole thrust of his argument is totalitarian, not libertarian, and it is high time he should be outed on that count.  In effect, since there is no possibility of his apparently ultra-democratic proposal of a global vote on all scientific theories ever being implemented what he is actually arguing for, if only by default, is for a tiny minority to decide what the rest of us should think.  That is to say, once this vote has been taken – in effect, by a tiny minority, since there is no way 7 billion people are going to concern themselves with the asexual reproduction of the Malaysian tapeworm – that’s it!  No further dissenting opinion will be permitted.  The TRUTH has been decided once and for all.  This is the fascism of a Big Brother state, frankly. It is certainly not remotely what democracy is about.  Democracy is not about controlling and regulating ideas. LBird’s basic argument is that ideas are socially produced which is true enough but he fails to see that just because something is socially produced, it does not follow therefore that it must therefore be subject to democratic control. My mobile phone is socially produced.  Does that mean that every aspect of it’s design and functionality must be subject to a democratic vote of the entire world population.  Seriously? Until LBird begins to learn the difference between what democracy is for and what it is NOT for, we will not make much headway in this discussion. Once he has jettisoned these junk ideas he holds then, but only then, can we begin a serious discussion about what democracy will look like in a democratic communist society

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

Whether or not Stalin was personally a sincere democrat or  Marxist for that matter, in 1906, is a different question.I think not.

I agree with you, Dave. Stalin was never a democrat.And neither was, I think you'd agree with me, Lenin.The 'different question' that you allude to, though, is also a fundamental question.What united Stalin, Lenin, all the Bolsheviks, Kautsky and all the Second International, was the issue of why they weren't democrats.They all sincerely believed that the fundamental determinant of 'reality' was 'matter'.Of course, once 'matter' determines 'reality', then clearly there can be no question of producers determining their reality, because there is no such thing as a 'reality' that is produced, a 'reality' that is socio-historical, a 'reality' that is a product of a specific mode of production, a 'reality' that is determined by the producers as their reality.Stalin, Lenin, etc., etc., as sincere believers in 'matter' were 'materialists', and as such opposed Marx's views. They wouldn't agree with what I've said in this post, and regarded themselves as 'democrats and Marxists', but we workers should know better, in the 21st century.Oh, one more thing……since Marx was right, that modes of production do consist of producers who produce their own reality, the 'materialists' had to come up with the 'active side', the conscious agent of production. They had to lie about 'matter' determining, and replace Marx's 'active side' (the class conscious proletariat) with an elite minority who had a 'special consciousness' who could determine the production of 'reality', a 'reality-for-them', within which workers had no power to determine their own product.Why the SPGB identifies with this essentially bourgeois ideology of 'materialism' beats me. But, we can see the same developments happening in the SPGB, too, as happened in the early 20th century. The SPGB has started to argue for 'specialists', who are not under the political control of the 'generalists'.This is Leninist politics by another name.

[ALB]

Robbo, it looks as if there's only a single "democrat" in the whole wide word. It's obviously a waste of time engaging with such a deluded person. Especially as he's also intellectually dishonest in accusing us of "Leninist politics". See our blog today:https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/what-kind-of-revolution-marx-or-lenin-2.html

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

 This article in the Socialist Standard at the time of his assassination indicated a more sympathetic view of Trotsky by the SPGB."So ends the amazing career of one of the outstanding men of to-day.""It is curious, therefore, that a man so gifted as a writer as Trotsky undoubtedly was, has left little, if any, literary trace of his Marxist education.""Trotsky's personal qualities are of minor interests to Socialists. As a political pamphleteer he was outstanding and he was also a first-class orator. But unless the world-proletariat can harness such gifts to serve the struggle for Socialism, they will be wasted and even harmful to workers' interests, although, and as in the case of Leon Trotsky, there is no doubt that his whole life was sincerely dedicated to their cause."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1940/no-433-september-1940/death-trotsky

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

This article in the Socialist Standard at the time of his assassination indicated a more sympathetic view of Trotsky by the SPGB."So ends the amazing career of one of the outstanding men of to-day.""It is curious, therefore, that a man so gifted as a writer as Trotsky undoubtedly was, has left little, if any, literary trace of his Marxist education.""Trotsky's personal qualities are of minor interests to Socialists. As a political pamphleteer he was outstanding and he was also a first-class orator. But unless the world-proletariat can harness such gifts to serve the struggle for Socialism, they will be wasted and even harmful to workers' interests, although, and as in the case of Leon Trotsky, there is no doubt that his whole life was sincerely dedicated to their cause."

[my bold]The reason, isn't so 'curious' as the SS wrote, Vin.The reason there is 'little, if any trace' of Marx left in Trotsky's works, is that it wasn't there in the first place.And we can also doubt the 'sincere dedication of his  whole life'. It wasn't to the class conscious proletariat, the producers of their own reality. Trotsky's 'dedication' was to 'matter'.Which, he alleged, he and Lenin, to the exclusion of the workers, just 'knew' it, 'as it is'.So, I would argue that the SS was too sympathetic, even in 1940, to Trotsky's politics.

[Bijou Drains]

I think you could argue that there are strong parallels between the way Stalin operated and L Bird operates. (and no, L Bird, that doesn't mean you are a Stalinist, just that there are parallels.)What is clear from some of the passages above is that Stalin (or his ghost writer) was able to pose as a Socialist and a Democrat in terms of what he wrote, however the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what he did in practice is obviously somewhat different.In a similar way  L Bird talks extensively about the need for Socialists to be anti-elitist, yet as soon as anyone disagrees with him he accuses them of being fools, morons and clowns, of being his intellectual inferiors and not being worthy of taking him on in argument (I have been target of L Bird's elitist ire on many occasions)In his words L Bird is an anti elitist who deplores the Bolshivik approach, in practice he is demonstrably elitist in his tone, his manner, his uncomradely style of argument, etc. The term hypocrite comes to mind.

[ALB]

Tim, and he's intellectually dishonest with it. He's just now accused us of being sympathetic to Trotsky's politics. Imagine.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…L Bird talks extensively about the need for Socialists to be anti-elitist, yet as soon as anyone disagrees with him he accuses them of being fools, morons and clowns, of being his intellectual inferiors and not being worthy of taking him on in argument (I have been target of L Bird's elitist ire on many occasions)

More re-writing of history by a 'materialist', eh?I've tried many times to raise the debate to a philosophical level, about the post-Kantian relationship between subject and object, which informed Marx's ideas, but the 'materialists' really hate this, because it questions their 'faith in matter', a 'matter' which supposedly has no relation to 'faith' or any other 'conscious activity'.They all, including you, Tim, turn to abuse – and I return it. I'm a working class bloke, and when 'fools, morons and clowns' think that they can be funny with me, I'll be funnier.

TK wrote:

The term hypocrite comes to mind.

And the term 'Religious Materialist' comes to the mind of any Marxist, who unlike Trotsky, Lenin, Kautsky, et al, argues that only the producers can determine their product.I don't expect you to understand this, though, Tim. Back to the 'materialist' mud pies and rocks for you lot, eh? Say 'hello' to 'matter', the next time it talks to you, Tim.Pre-Kantian!Take that for an insult!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Tim, and he's intellectually dishonest with it. He's just now accused us of being sympathetic to Trotsky's politics. Imagine.

Imagination requires an active consciousness, ALB, and according to you Religious Materialists, there is no need for that, when you have a consciousnessless access to matter.Just like Trotsky and Lenin argued to the workers who wanted a democratic say in their own production.Trotsky argued for a politics which separated a 'specialist' elite from a 'generalist' mass, with power being held by the former.'Accusing the SPGB of being sympathetic to Trotsky's politics'?Imagine. Indeed.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

. The SPGB has started to argue for 'specialists', who are not under the political control of the 'generalists'.This is Leninist politics by another name.

 No, LBird, the only Leninist here is you with your leninist argument for so called "democratic centralism" Not only are you a leninist but you are a dishonest leninist to boot.  The suggestion that the SPGB argues for specialists not under the political control of the generalists, clearly implies that said specialists have, in some sense, the power to impose their views on others against the will of the latter. Where has this ever been suggested? Cite the evidenceThe problem really boils down to your utterly childish and idiotic argument that there can be no specialists and no specialisation in socialism/communism. You have never bothered to explain how, for example, a neurosurgeon can become a competent neurosurgeon without specialising in neurosurgery, without devoting years and years of her life to studying and honing her craft. In LBird's surreal worldview, anyone can just walk off the street in a socialist society and perform a complex brain operation becuase, according to him, every single one of us will be fully competent skilled and knowledgeable in every conceivable kind of occupation.  There will be no specialists in anything because we will all specialists in everything The idea is so preposterous its hardly even worth debating, Of course any advanced modern  type of society requires specialisation to some degree – do  you deny this LBird and if so on what grounds?  Lets hear your argument for a change. Come out in the open with it and defend your ideas instead of forever running away from this argument every time it is levelled against you.  And while you are at it, please explain how a neurosurgeon, being a neurosurgeon, can have any power over others in a society in which all work is performed on a purely voluntaristic basis and where all goods  and services are made avialabe on a free access basis 

[ALB]

Here's a prime example of his intellectual dishonesty

ALB wrote:

read the article on the following page on "Men, Ideas and Society":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/men-ideas-and-societyHe will see that it ,too, specifically repudiates the view

Quote:

that the brain is a kind of camera photographing the world

Dishonest Intellectual wrote:

when you have a consciousnessless access to matter.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Here's a prime example of his intellectual dishonesty

ALB wrote:

read the article on the following page on "Men, Ideas and Society":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/men-ideas-and-societyHe will see that it ,too, specifically repudiates the view

Quote:

that the brain is a kind of camera photographing the world

Dishonest Intellectual wrote:

when you have a consciousnessless access to matter.

Hmmmm…OK, let's take ALB at face value.How can you consciously know 'matter', ALB, without a vote being taken by your fellow social producers?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 How can you consciously know 'matter', ALB, without a vote being taken by your fellow social producers?

 How would this vote be organised among 7 billion people, LBird,   What would happen to the minority within the tiny minority of people ever likely to vote, if they disagreed with the majority within this tiny minority?  Would they be allowed to continue holding and propagating their  minority view?   Or  would your Leninist thought police be on to them , rounding up all these non-conformists in dawn raids? If none of the above, please explain in plain terms to simple proles like myself what was the point of this vote being taken among the social producers .  What did you hope to achieve by such a vote?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

They all, including you, Tim, turn to abuse – and I return it. I'm a working class bloke, and when 'fools, morons and clowns' think that they can be funny with me, I'll be funnier. 

so presumably that makes you the specialist when it comes to being funny. Perhaps you might even consider yourself to be amongst the elite of funny people. 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 Say 'hello' to 'matter', the next time it talks to you

 Hello! from more matter

[Author]

Posts