Lbird temporarily banned from ICC forum

[Anonymous]

He is trying to become Don King's  next heavyweight champion, but he is getting too many knockouts. He should try the websites and forums of the Maoists, they will block him permanently. This forum is his favourite toy

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Now, if I was you, LBird, I would be asking myself is there anything in the style of my debating rather than the substance of it that could be improved to help convince others.Have you found any receptive audience in your cyber travels?

It's impossible to 'convince' materialists, alan because they worship their god 'matter'.They have Faith In Matter, not Faith In Workers.That's why they always turn to insults and bans because they can't put together a political argument that involves democratic controls on the social production of our world.Marx was right – 'materialists' can't have majority rule.

 If you have so much faith in the workers, Why aren't you a member of a workers party? I know the answer:  They are all Leninists, Engelsians and Stalinists

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

If you have so much faith in the workers, Why aren't you a member of a workers party? I know the answer:  They are all Leninists, Engelsians and Stalinists

You're correct here, Marcos.The SPGB (and the ICC) are not "a workers party".If I ask you (as a representative of the SPGB) to give me a political answer to the question 'who or what has power to determine reality within socialism', you won't answer 'the revolutionary proletariat', but you'll answer 'matter'.This 'materialist' ideology (a bourgeois ideology for an elite) was not Marx's view, and he warned that it would split society into two: a small elite who pretend to 'know reality' and are thus 'the active side', and a majority who can't, and remain passive.Politically, this incomprehension by Engels led to Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc., thinking that 'matter determined thought' for the passive majority, whilst they, as members of an elite whose thought was not determined by 'matter' (but had the freedom to be creative), were to provide 'leadership' for the passive workers.As we've seen on this site, when I've previously asked this political question, I've received the political answer that 'reality' is not, and will not, be created by the majority.As Marx claimed that humans create 'reality-for-them' (and different modes of production and classes socially produce different 'realities'), then 'the active side' will remain a ruling elite, whilst there is not workers' democracy in all social production, including 'academic knowledge' and 'science'.Socialism means the majority can vote for their own reality, a 'nature-for-humanity', by our own creative social theory and practice.The SPGB, like the Leninists, deny this, and see an elite (including themselves) as the determiners of a 'reality' which the majority cannot change.The SPGB never addresses Marx's concerns with change, but instead argues that the proletariat must only contemplate a 'reality' which already 'exists', and is 'objective'.Marx argues that we humans create our 'objects'.You are not 'a workers party', but a party of 'elite materialism', as are the ICC.

[LBird]

The real political issue is, does the SPGB have the ability to reject 'materialism'?

[Anonymous]

Marcos wrote:

He is trying to become Don King's  next heavyweight champion, but he is getting too many knockouts. He should try the websites and forums of the Maoists, they will block him permanently. This forum is his favourite toy

His favourite toys are those incapable of exercising a modicom of self-control by ignoring her.  That is the proven method of dealing with trolls.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Marcos wrote:

He is trying to become Don King's  next heavyweight champion, but he is getting too many knockouts. He should try the websites and forums of the Maoists, they will block him permanently. This forum is his favourite toy

His favourite toys are those incapable of exercising a modicom of self-control by ignoring her.  That is the proven method of dealing with trolls.

Not so. . If you ignore them, they will get worse. They will litter the forum with lies and distortion in a desperate attempt to get a response. They must be removed.  

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Marcos wrote:

They must be removed.  That would be the best solution

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Marcos wrote:

They must be removed.  That would be the best solution

No, Marcos – the best solution would be for you (or any other member) to answer the political questions that I posed to you, quite properly, earlier.It's simple – tell us workers, why you won't have workers' democracy in all social production, including science.Hiding, ignoring, insulting or banning, are not political answers.

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ LBirdYou are correct, though a paradox arises in that I may ask myself by what measure or standard I consider you correct and we are then back to ideological materialism.  So I will say you are right.  Either way, I agree.

[LBird]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ LBirdYou are correct, though a paradox arises in that I may ask myself by what measure or standard I consider you correct and we are then back to ideological materialism.  So I will say you are right.  Either way, I agree.

Thanks for your agreement with Marx's Democratic Communism, Ike.Of course, 'measures' and 'standards' are always social products (it's a bourgeois myth that they don't impose their own ruling class measures and standards upon the world that they have created for their interests and purposes, including within physics, maths, logic, indeed, all 'science'), and so for a democratic socialist society all 'measures' and 'standards' would be our creation, and so subject to our democratic controls.Apparently, the SPGB disagree with Marx, and the SPGB wishes to remove the power to determine, eg., physics, from our democratic control, and to simply allow to continue the ruling class physics that were instituted with the emergence of the capitalist class (again, eg., the 'mathematisation of nature', the supposed 'objectifying of reality' to allow 'objective measurement').Marx argued that we create our world, a 'nature-for-us'. Thus, we can change our world. Bourgeois physics insists that, once supposedly 'discovered', their supposed 'objective world' can only be contemplated.Bourgeois 'science' is inherently conservative, and 'contemplation' preserves the status quo. From our perspective, of Democratic Communism, science must be revolutionised, and thus democratised.

[Ike Pettigrew]

LBird wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ LBirdYou are correct, though a paradox arises in that I may ask myself by what measure or standard I consider you correct and we are then back to ideological materialism.  So I will say you are right.  Either way, I agree.

Thanks for your agreement with Marx's Democratic Communism, Ike.Of course, 'measures' and 'standards' are always social products (it's a bourgeois myth that they don't impose their own ruling class measures and standards upon the world that they have created for their interests and purposes, including within physics, maths, logic, indeed, all 'science'), and so for a democratic socialist society all 'measures' and 'standards' would be our creation, and so subject to our democratic controls.Apparently, the SPGB disagree with Marx, and the SPGB wishes to remove the power to determine, eg., physics, from our democratic control, and to simply allow to continue the ruling class physics that were instituted with the emergence of the capitalist class (again, eg., the 'mathematisation of nature', the supposed 'objectifying of reality' to allow 'objective measurement').Marx argued that we create our world, a 'nature-for-us'. Thus, we can change our world. Bourgeois physics insists that, once supposedly 'discovered', their supposed 'objective world' can only be contemplated.Bourgeois 'science' is inherently conservative, and 'contemplation' preserves the status quo. From our perspective, of Democratic Communism, science must be revolutionised, and thus democratised.

But then my question arises: about 2 and 2 making 5 and how you deal with Nature's feedback, that I asked on the other thread.  The rocks say that 2 and 2 makes 4 or 22.  What happens when, in reality, outside democratic communist committees, the rocks deliver the feedback that contradicts the democratic result?Also, and just as an aside, why is it necessary to add the word 'Democratic' to Communism?  Isn't that a redundancy, or are you saying that communism can be undemocratic?

[Author]

Posts