Is there a problem with non-members commenting on Party issues on Party sites?

[steve colborn]

No other Party acts in such an Open way. No other Party allows non-members as much access to  "all" meetings and even allows, with the permission of the Chair and members present, to actually "address" said meeting! This is a historical aspect, we are and should be, rightly proud of.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…continuing the ideology of minority control…

But don't forget that the SPGB continues the ideology of minority control, in regard to science.If you ask any SPGB member if they are in favour of a workers' majority deciding what the 'material' consists of, they will answer 'No!', and will further allege that they have a way to decide what the 'material' is, but they won't share it with workers.Otherwise, they'd quite happily share this method for discovering what the 'material' consists of with all workers, and allow it to be put to a vote.That is, the 'material' would be under democratic control.But the SPGB does not have faith that the mass of workers would come to the same decision as the membership of the SPGB about what comprises the 'material'. It must regard workers as less able than members.Thus, like the Leninists, the SPGB is an elitist organisation.

[jondwhite]

SocialistPunk wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

What else is the answer to charges of sectarianism? Or the charges put by George Walford herehttp://gwiep.net/wp/?p=387As you can imagine, it takes a good deal to leave me speechless. But that did, the first time I heard it. The blind, unthinking conceit of that answer! If you disagree with the Socialist Party that shows you don’t understand them. They have nothing to learn from anybody. There is no possibility of anybody knowing more than they do and no possibility of them being wrong.

Hi JDWDo you or anyone in the Party know if this challenge was ever answered?

I don't think so, though they did reply to Walsby (search for Mugwump and Moonshine https://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority), but for a reply to Walford you're probably better off looking at gwiep website through the archives of Ideological Commentary journal. Here's a link to get you startedhttp://gwiep.net/wp/?tag=socialism

[LBird]

Thanks for the links, jondwhite.

LibCom article wrote:

Now the SPGB -loudly and consistently proclaims from the housetops its scientific basis, its scientific method and attitude. Thus, in the Party pamphlet "Socialism and Religion", we are told:"The word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who on all such questions takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation. (p.46).Anyone who had the slightest justification for that claim would not hesitate for one moment, in the face of such signal lack of success of theory, to overhaul their whole theoretical position – to examine in the light of scientific criticism and rigorous logic their most dearly held and confident assumptions.

[my bold]It's not only me who can see a need for the SPGB 'to overhaul their whole theoretical position – to examine in the light of scientific criticism and rigorous logic their most dearly held and confident assumptions'.In a phrase, that 'assumption' is Engelsist Materialism.

[ALB]

Quote:

Quote:

Hi JDWDo you or anyone in the Party know if this challenge was ever answered?

I don't think so, though they did reply to Walsby (search for Mugwump and Moonshine https://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority), but for a reply to Walford you're probably better off looking at gwiep website through the archives of Ideological Commentary journal. Here's a link to get you startedhttp://gwiep.net/wp/?tag=socialism

The reply was written by a comrade of the time, Barry McNeeney, but it does not seem to exist in electronic form but I could send you a paper copy if you contribute a fiver to Party funds.On the other hand, this other reply, from IC47, 48 and 49, does:See:http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3410http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3464http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3502And:http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=3567Good luck.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

He died shortly after attending an SPGB meeting at which a Party member tried to convince him that you can derive an "ought" from an "is".

How do you do that then? The suspence is killing me.

[ALB]

I've got my doubts about this too. It wasn't me but a member who was more into Hegel than most members wot did it. I can't remember what the argument was but it may have had something to do with the "rational" having to be "real". The comrade is still around beavering away on the internet. I believe that "critical realism" also subscribes to this view (we may as well discuss this on this thread too, as on all others )

[jondwhite]

Looks like I stand corrected on a response to Walford. I've read Walfords writing and a question from him can be heard on one of the audio files of an older meeting on here. I wasn't necessarily persuaded by his analysis but he didn't seem infuriating, I worry that some members regard any persistently critical non-members as infuriating as has sort of been alluded to in respect of Lbird.As for 'In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?' saying the conception of the party that we are a part doesn't really satisfy me but its two different conceptions of the party (Lbirds may be a third conception of the relation). Why does a socialist party arise? The class struggle? How is the socialist party accountable to the class, or why should it be accountable only to members where policy would not be adversely affected?It might be one for the Marxologists but I don't think Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto makes Marx out to be a proto-Bolshevik or Labourite. Sometimes I wonder if this is an attempt to defend the (perceived) status quo of the party organisation at this moment at any cost. There can be a party that has the same interests without adopting mistaken ideas that happen to have support of the working-class.As for 'no other party acts in such an open way' I wonder if this isn't just a shibboleth repeated without interest in other parties? What is the Pirate party's interest in transparency for example? Boasting of all meetings being open for discussion is something to be proud of, but certainly isn't an argument for this being the historical limit of participation. We should be proud but not complacent or satisfied with the organisation.

[Anonymous]

I may be wrong – as it has been 30 years since I read it –  but I think the central argument of his  'systematic Ideology' was that the distribution of ideologies in society never changed but remained constant. Thus socialist ideology (held by the The Socialist Party) would never spread beyond a small minority. The majority would remain conservative regardless of social conditions. We were wasting our time.https://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority 

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

…I worry that some members regard any persistently critical non-members as infuriating as has sort of been alluded to in respect of Lbird.

Yeah, you're right to 'worry'. The religious are always 'infuriated' by the 'persistently critical' non-religious.And the fury has been a lot more than 'alluded to'!My advice to the party is to weed out the 'religious': the followers of the outdated 19th century religion of 'materialism'.The 'material' is their 'God', and they consistently insist that their god 'talks to them'.Since ordinary workers cannot hear what their 'material circumstances' apparently say to them, they are compelled to follow the religious sects of Engelsian Materialism, who 'helpfully' tell the workers what the 'material conditions' are telling them. Thus, society is divided into two parts, one superior to the other. Charlie warned us against this.Proper Communists insist that there cannot be this division in society, and that everything produced by the producers (including knowledge) must be under the political control of the producers.The Engelsian Materialists deny this, and say that they have a way of producing knowledge that is done only by an elite, of experts, academics, the 'more able', 'proper scientists', etc.They say that their method is a better guarantee of 'truth' than is producers' democracy. Communists disagree with the Engelsian religious sect, and insist that the best scientific method of producing truth is a vote by the producers. The religious insist that their scientific method is better than the democratic method, but they won't tell us what their method is. We producers apparently have to take it on trust, that the sect is simply to be believed.If that's not 'religious' behaviour, I don't know what is.Right, back to 'alluding' by the furiously faithful physicalists, eh?

[Anonymous]

It is not tolerence of non-members expressing their views that is the problem, it is the tolerence of trolling and having to listen to the same thing being repeated ad nauseum  And on every thread.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

It is not tolerence of non-members expressing their views that is the problem, it is the tolerence of trolling and having to listen to the same thing being repeated ad nauseum  And on every thread.

That's the nature of 'science', Vin.You apparently prefer religion. You say that you prefer the evidence of your own eyes and ears, to the evidence of a majority vote.That's a religious stance, Vin. And science has dicredited the stance of the 'inductive individual' using an 'empirical method of their senses' which allegedly produces the 'positive truth' for some individuals.Science has shown that societies by employing their own theories produce knowledge, and not special individuals using their own senses or their own minds.We're all part of our society, produced by our society, and our 'senses' are part of a social perception system, not mere biological sensations, and theories are produced by societies, not special individual geniuses. Scientists, too, are part of, and produced by, society.As Communists, we should argue for democracy within all social production, including scientific knowledge.Only the religious sects oppose producers' democracy.1st Warning:  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[Anonymous]

You continue to invent lies about my own opinions to elisit an emotional response. You are trolling. 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 That's the nature of 'science', Vin.You apparently prefer religion. You say that you prefer the evidence of your own eyes and ears, to the evidence of a majority vote. 

 This is a deliberate lie as I have never said this. How could I believe that? That would mean I don't believe Spain or Austrailia exists. You attribute rubbishy ideas to people then knock them down.  Absolute rubbish!

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

You continue to invent lies about my own opinions to elisit an emotional response. You are trolling. 

You continue to avoid the issue, mostly; and when you do comment, and I point out the epistemological consequences of your opinion, you throw a strop.I've always been willing to discuss these issues with you, Vin, but you always turn to calling me names.Perhaps it is an emotional response that you are displaying, but that says more about you than it does about me.I'm not 'trolling', and I'm not out to 'elicit an emotional response'.I've actually read philosophy of science, and so I can situate myself within an epistemological framework (or, an ideology of science). You clearly haven't (or, if you have read a bit, you clearly haven't understood it or its political consequences).Now, if this subject 'upsets' you, just leave it alone. I don't get any satisfaction from your emotional turmoil. I want to discuss science with comrades who are interested. And if you're interested, you'll engage with me, and stop calling me a 'troll'.It's not my fault if the SPGB is apparently so lacking in people who have read philosophy of science, that it can't respond appropriately to critical discussion of the 'religion' of Engelsian Materialism.What I find most curious of all is not your personal issues, but that the 'faith' that I'm pushing, that is, Marx's 'theory and practice', suits the SPGB's declared political strategy better, than does Engelsian Materialism.Truly astonishing.Oh well, back to the religious wars.2nd Warning:  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[Author]

Posts