Largest party in Europe

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And the thesis I was building was that …the working class may not necessarilly be the or even an agent of communism.

Yes, and I was contesting this 'thesis of yours', YMS, and suggesting the socio-historical origins of 'your thesis' (ie. that it's not 'your thesis', but an already well-known one). I'm contesting from a Marxist perspective.

YMS wrote:

The sheeple/brainwashing explanation doesn't wash, because any ideological control must conform in some way to lived experience, or it would be totally rejected.The working class have built a Labour Party, not a Socialist Party.

No, the 'working class' haven't 'built a Labour Party' – over generations, many workers, still under bourgeois consciousness, have helped, under bourgeois leadership, build a bourgeois party.Most workers looking to Corbyn are still held in thrall by bourgeois consciousness.I'm sure we all know where this is going, because we have a socio-historical method which examines what the Labour Party does in government.The socio-historical activity of workers building their own party has never yet taken place. Given my experiences here, I'm not convinced that the SPGB is going to be a part of that future activity.And you aren't helping to convince me otherwise, YMS.

[lindanesocialist]

jondwhite wrote:

The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.

This flaunting of the rules is repeated throughout the forum, rules persistently ignored by the many.A member is permanently suspended from this forum for breaking the same rules (allegedly)  and these very same, self righteous hypocrites that are breaking the rules now – including  Moderators –   will say and indeed DO say  'well you shouldn't break the rules' , 'Go ask the EC for forgiveness' ad nauseam.Repeat after me "Vin is suspended for breaking the rules" Say it long enough and you begin to believe it 

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And the thesis I was building was that …the working class may not necessarilly be the or even an agent of communism.

Yes, and I was contesting this 'thesis of yours', YMS, and suggesting the socio-historical origins of 'your thesis' (ie. that it's not 'your thesis', but an already well-known one). I'm contesting from a Marxist perspective.

But you haven't refuted the proposition that the working class are not propertyless, and, to continue with the Thompsonisms, seem more disposed to plebeian rather than proletarian politics (prefering to bargain with power than to displace power). 

LBird wrote:

No, the 'working class' haven't 'built a Labour Party' – over generations, many workers, still under bourgeois consciousness, have helped, under bourgeois leadership, build a bourgeois party.Most workers looking to Corbyn are still held in thrall by bourgeois consciousness.I'm sure we all know where this is going, because we have a socio-historical method which examines what the Labour Party does in government.

And bourgeois consciousness holds their minds, seems to meet their needs and aspirations, and they have more use for bourgeois consciousness than socialist consciousness, and we can ask ourselves why.  We can also ask how workers escape bourgeois ideology, if it is all pervasive?  How can we know, per Zizek, that any alterative ideology isn't in fact part of the support mechanisms for the ruling ideology (Zizek calls it disidentification: "I'm not a bricklayer, I'm a rock guitariusts, really, etc.": "I'm not a boring office worker, I'm a dangerous socialist revolutionary" And yet they still do their job).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But you haven't refuted the proposition that the working class are not propertyless…

You still don't seem to understand, YMS.We're taking about a conceptual starting point, or 'concept formation'.Marxists start from the concept of a 'propertyless proletariat'.This isn't undermined by some workers owning houses or shares or cars, etc. because its not about 'property as stuff', but a relational concept to help explain why 'social property' produced by social producers is in the hands of a 'propertied class'.If you want to start from a non-Marxist concept, like 'propertied workers', fair enough, but why not openly say that this is nothing to do with Marx or, indeed, 'class'? (because 'class' is a relational concept, too, about 'exploitation', not about varying 'groups' of 'property owners', which it would be in your usage of 'working class')I dare say that you're employing the bourgeois scientific method of 'induction', which looks to 'out there', registers it, and from that 'practice' proceeds to form 'concepts'. So, you look at workers having 'property', and go on from there.It's nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's scientific method, of critical social theory and practice.Why won't you openly say what method you're using, when you produce your 'thesis' of 'propertied workers', so we can all recognise your ideology for what it is?

[moderator2]

Quote:

The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.

Please do the original poster the courtesy of addressing the issue he wishes to discuss on this thread and explained further in his last message. Otherwise begin a new thread. 

[LBird]

moderator2 wrote:

Quote:

The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.

Please do the original poster the courtesy of addressing the issue he wishes to discuss on this thread and explained further in his last message. Otherwise begin a new thread. 

jondwhite, OP, wrote:

The Labour Party under Corbyn have claimed to have become the party with the largest membership in the whole of Western Europe so there must be something wrong with our theory of society.

[my bold]I'm arguing that 'there is something wrong with the SPGB's theory of society' (as outlined by YMS), because it's not a Marxist 'theory of society', based upon class and exploitation.How this is 'discourteous' to the OP, or indeed how the mod can't see this, baffles me.I'm beginning to think that the SPGB doesn't like critical thought, one little bit…

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

If you want to start from a non-Marxist concept, like 'propertied workers', fair enough, but why not openly say that this is nothing to do with Marx or, indeed, 'class'? (because 'class' is a relational concept, too, about 'exploitation', not about varying 'groups' of 'property owners', which it would be in your usage of 'working class')

Marx is dead.  I am exploring the conceptual implications that through ownership of votes and citizenship, working folk have a property interest (as a property interest, analogous to the category of rent).  This property interest gets them a share of the social product.  It may not be much, but like any small holder, they are aware and jelously guard their share.  Now, on a global scale, this does leave us with propertyless proletarians; those in states where they cannot vote, and stateless migrants.  That would indicate some sort of third worldism is the way to socialism.This would also make left-nationalists of the Labour type the more likely party for those states where workers have votes, and also form the basis for explaining working class Tories who find common cause with small shop keepers in nationalist movements.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you want to start from a non-Marxist concept, like 'propertied workers', fair enough, but why not openly say that this is nothing to do with Marx or, indeed, 'class'? (because 'class' is a relational concept, too, about 'exploitation', not about varying 'groups' of 'property owners', which it would be in your usage of 'working class')

Marx is dead. 

[my bold]I take it you mean here 'Marx's ideas are dead'. Otherwise, it would be a pointless comment, and I'm assuming that you are trying to make a political point.That's a fair enough political point of view, YMS.But I don't share it.If the SPGB shares your point of view, and openly posts on its website that it is not a 'Marxist' party, so that any workers reading the site will immediately know this political stance, I'll stop posting entirely.I'm not interested engaging with a non-Marxist party, like the Leninists and Trotskyists, but I've always assumed that the SPGB, in some way, does think that 'Marx is alive'. Especially given posts by ALB, alanjjohnstone, twc, mcolome1, etc.As I say, if your view is general, YMS, I'll leave you all in (political) peace.

[jondwhite]

Marx's (and Engel's) Communist League had 50 members while it existed between 1847 and 1852. Labour had more at its formation and now. Was the Communist League small because it was materialist? In which case, what was Marx doing in it?

[Young Master Smeet]

Actually, this article:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/02/22.htmBy Engels, has aged well.

Quote:

Nobody holds it against the “labour leaders” that they would have liked to get into Parliament. The shortest way would have been to proceed at once to form anew a strong workers’ party with a definite programme, and the best political programme they could wish for was the People’s Charter. But the Chartists’ name was in bad odour with the bourgeoisie precisely because theirs had been an outspokenly proletarian party, and so, rather than continue the glorious tradition of the Chartists, the “labour leaders” preferred to deal with their aristocratic friends and be .'respectable,” which in England means acting like a bourgeois. Whereas under the old franchise the workers had to a certain extent been compelled to figure as the tail of the radical bourgeoisie, it was inexcusable to make them go on playing that part after the Reform Bill had opened the door of Parliament to at least sixty working-class candidates.

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.

This flaunting of the rules is repeated throughout the forum, rules persistently ignored by the many.A member is permanently suspended from this forum for breaking the same rules (allegedly)  and these very same, self righteous hypocrites that are breaking the rules now – including  Moderators –   will say and indeed DO say  'well you shouldn't break the rules' , 'Go ask the EC for forgiveness' ad nauseam.Repeat after me "Vin is suspended for breaking the rules" Say it long enough and you begin to believe it 

I looks like women are more brave and have a more clear view than men, and she is correct on what she is saying. L Bird, specially is constantly breaking the rules of this forum, and he is always trying to impose his own point of view, and always try to change the topics, insulting members of the forum, calling stupid and clowns the members of the Socialist Party,  and nothing has happened to him, and Vin was suspended permanently, and he is a member of the SP . I am glad that he is not a member of the WSM forum, because he would have been blocked a long time ago.  The main topic of this post has already being changed with the same argument that the SPGB is not a socialist party, and it is a materialist organization, he continue riding on his high horse

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.

This flaunting of the rules is repeated throughout the forum, rules persistently ignored by the many.A member is permanently suspended from this forum for breaking the same rules (allegedly)  and these very same, self righteous hypocrites that are breaking the rules now – including  Moderators –   will say and indeed DO say  'well you shouldn't break the rules' , 'Go ask the EC for forgiveness' ad nauseam.Repeat after me "Vin is suspended for breaking the rules" Say it long enough and you begin to believe it 

I looks like women are more brave and have a more clear view than men, and she is correct on what she is saying. L Bird, specially is constantly breaking the rules of this forum, and he is always trying to impose his own point of view, and always try to change the topics, insulting members of the forum, calling stupid and clowns the members of the Socialist Party,  and nothing has happened to him, and Vin was suspended permanently, and he is a member of the SP . I am glad that he is not a member of the WSM forum, because he would have been blocked a long time ago.  The main topic of this post has already being changed with the same argument that the SPGB is not a socialist party, and it is a materialist organization, and we are not a member of the Church of Marx,  he continues riding on his high horse

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Everything that Marx wrote has a social, or sociological character character,( he was not a physicists,)…

  No, Marx was a 'physicist'.That's the point. 'Physics' is a socio-historical product, and 'physicists' are ideologists. [edit: this is why his Capital is more scientific than works produced by bourgeois physicists, like Hawking, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc., who attempt to conceal their ideologies]This argument is contained in your next words:

mc wrote:

No separation between thought and reality; dialectics characterized both the subjective and objective development. (2) He was not keeping in totally separate departments materialism and idealism. He was uniting them to create a totally new category–a “new Humanism.” …

Thought-reality, subjective-objective, materialism-idealism, unity.This is no less than Marx's 'idealism-materialism', a unity.'Rocks' are ideal-material products of human society. That's why the ideologies behind 'physics' (and all 'science') must be addressed.

mc wrote:

The one that always had an opinion about Natural Sciences, and the Universe,  was F. Engels, that was his specialty ,up to the point that mistakenly applied Dialectic to Nature, …

Yes, Engels was 'mistaken'.'Dialectics' means 'idealism-materialism', human social theory and practice, which produces our 'organic nature'.

mc wrote:

For me, socialism, would be like Marx and Engels envision it, as the unification of human beings with nature.

And for me, too, mcolome1.But not for the 'materialists', who continue to argue that 'rocks' are simply 'out there' (ie. there is no unity between 'humans' and 'their rocks'), and that the 'materialists' can 'know' rocks 'as they are', and so they don't need a vote about the social production of 'rocks', because they, and they alone, 'know' nature 'as it is'.mcolome1, you're confused, because you correctly argue about 'unity' (that societies produce their 'external' world), but then refuse to allow the producers to democratically decide upon their world (social-natural, a unity).This is a contradiction that must be addressed.Are 'rocks' simply 'out there', awaiting 'disinterested scientists' to 'discover' them (so that when they do so, they 'know Truth')?Or, are 'rocks' our social product, that we are already aware that different societies produce differently, and that in a socialist society, being democratic, only we can determine our 'rocks-for-us'?If one agrees with Marx on the 'unity of science', then one must agree with 'democratic control of science', mcolome1.That's what's at issue, here.The SPGB does not agree the workers should democratically control their science (but argues that 'science' is an elite activity, with disinterested experts, who employ a politically-neutral scientific method, and that there is no place for democracy in the production of 'Truth').'Truth' is a socio-historical product, and changes.We must be in control of those changes – we can't be told to merely contemplate what an elite has produced, for their own interests and purposes, in the past.Marx was correct – 'philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it'.

I am not going to answer to you in the proper way because that is not the topic. You want to change it  again toward your political egotism. 

[lindanesocialist]

mcolome1 wrote:

 L Bird, specially is constantly breaking the rules of this forum, and he is always trying to impose his own point of view, and always try to change the topics, insulting members of the forum, calling stupid and clowns the members of the Socialist Party,  and nothing has happened to him, and Vin was suspended permanently, and he is a member of the SP .

Indeed, and the mods passionately defend LBird's right to post  while at the same time declaring that they have no intention of ever letting Vin back on the forum unless ordered to do by a 'higher authority'. Vin is suspended for breaking less rules and being less offensive than LBirdThere is a reason and an explanation for this  somewhere. But I believe that I will be joining my partner in suspension before it is allowed to come to light.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 The SPGB does not agree the workers should democratically control their science (but argues that 'science' is an elite activity, with disinterested experts, who employ a politically-neutral scientific method, and that there is no place for democracy in the production of 'Truth'). 

 Until you answer the question of 1) WHY and 2) HOW the production of truth should be organised be "democratically organised" we are banging our heads against a wall with you, LBird Why don't you ever answer the simple question – how do you propose to organise multiple global plebiscites  on literally thousands upon thousands of scientific theories? Do you seriously think this is feasible? If  0.1 per cent of the population voted to endorse String Theory – probably a wildly optimistic prediction – would you consider that the "democratic production of scientific truth" had been secured?. What happens if a socialist society decided not to go through the whole, rather pointless (and very expensive), rigmarole of democratically voting on scientific theories but just let the scientists get on with the job? Do you think this would in any way undermine the practical and democratic running of a socialist society as far as this affects the allocation of resources? In a society where goods are freely available and labour is performed on a purely voluntary basis what possible leverage could the scientists exert over the population in general? A trained astrophysicist may know a lot more about String theory than the average person but how does this translate into social power over the average person in socialism? Please explain!

[Author]

Posts