Question about historical materialism

[Sympo]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Living standards have risen, largely ebcause of the fall in the cost of the means of living (production is more efficient), i.e. our share of the wealth has hardly improved.  But it's not just that cronyism rises (that happens with every boom since the dawn of time), it is that wealth has become even more conentrated (which icnreases the volume of hangers on), and has changed into les personal, in some aspects, forms of capitalism.  

What do you mean with "hangers on"?In what way has class consioussness developed?

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.

And here's a serious answer, Tim.I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).It's when we get to the detail of what you're claiming to be socialism, democracy, Marxism, that the problems arise. I think that if you did put some emphasis on those issues, that you have the potential to grow as a party (which is going to be needed in the future, at some point, when a Labour government fucks up).But your (and I mean all the posters here) understanding of socialism, democracy and Marxism is so far removed from, well, socialism, democracy and Marxism, that I'm forced to argue the point.I don't think that you're 'all as thick as mince', but I do think that none of you have any idea about what Marx was up to.The dominant ideology seems to be some form of bourgeois individualism, and a desire to see a 'socialism' based upon the myth of 'Individual Freedom'. It's nothing to do with democratic social production or Marx.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.

And here's a serious answer, Tim.I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).It's when we get to the detail of what you're claiming to be socialism, democracy, Marxism, that the problems arise. I think that if you did put some emphasis on those issues, that you have the potential to grow as a party (which is going to be needed in the future, at some point, when a Labour government fucks up).But your (and I mean all the posters here) understanding of socialism, democracy and Marxism is so far removed from, well, socialism, democracy and Marxism, that I'm forced to argue the point.I don't think that you're 'all as thick as mince', but I do think that none of you have any idea about what Marx was up to.The dominant ideology seems to be some form of bourgeois individualism, and a desire to see a 'socialism' based upon the myth of 'Individual Freedom'. It's nothing to do with democratic social production or Marx.

 The only perfect political organization that I know is in heaven, and they do not want me over there, I do not want to be a member either, and I prefer to stay over the earth. I have been a member of several political organizations and until now, I have not found anything better than the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Let me know when you find something better

[alanjjohnstone]

Been offline for a few days so missed many of the posts but just to comment on the latest post

Quote:

I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).

As just an exercise, LBird, why not submit your answers to the membership questions which would be the basis of accepting or rejecting any membership application and see if your critics can fault you responses.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-application

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.

And here's a serious answer, Tim.I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).It's when we get to the detail of what you're claiming to be socialism, democracy, Marxism, that the problems arise. I think that if you did put some emphasis on those issues, that you have the potential to grow as a party (which is going to be needed in the future, at some point, when a Labour government fucks up).But your (and I mean all the posters here) understanding of socialism, democracy and Marxism is so far removed from, well, socialism, democracy and Marxism, that I'm forced to argue the point.I don't think that you're 'all as thick as mince', but I do think that none of you have any idea about what Marx was up to.The dominant ideology seems to be some form of bourgeois individualism, and a desire to see a 'socialism' based upon the myth of 'Individual Freedom'. It's nothing to do with democratic social production or Marx.

Thanks for an honest reply, I appreciate it.The point of this forum, at least as I see it, is to help in the process of enabling people to develop Socialist consciousness and to debate issues that relate to that.If your ongoing contributions had been based on the idea that we were for want of a better phrase "your enemies" then I could see no fruitful point in engaging in debate with you, considering how long the debate was going on. I appreciate that you have honestly held points of disagreement with us, however I am heartened to hear that you recognise the areas where we agree.I also understand that you have spent time in Trotskyist and Leninist organisations and that they are very different from the way we organise politically. I hope it is clear in the discussions that have taken place that we are unlike those kind of elitist and leadership driven organisations And I can fully understand your reticence with regard to internal party democracy, considering that experience. I hope it is also clear that we are very different to organisations like that.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how long L Bird will last on a forum run by Maoists and Stalinists

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Thanks for an honest reply, I appreciate it.The point of this forum, at least as I see it, is to help in the process of enabling people to develop Socialist consciousness and to debate issues that relate to that.

Yeah, I appreciate your response, too. And I, too, think that socialists should be helping in that process.  To me, 'Socialist consciousness' is the whole point, not 'defence of matter'.

Tim wrote:

If your ongoing contributions had been based on the idea that we were for want of a better phrase "your enemies" then I could see no fruitful point in engaging in debate with you, considering how long the debate was going on. I appreciate that you have honestly held points of disagreement with us, however I am heartened to hear that you recognise the areas where we agree.

Well, I don't regard youse as 'my enemies', but I regard youse as 'confused' about socialism, Marx , democracy, science – I think that these are all fundamentally related issues.That is, if I talk about socialism, I talk about Marx, democracy, science. If I talk about Marx, I talk about socialism, democracy and science. If I talk about democracy, I talk about socialism, Marx and science. And…. tah-dah!… if I talk about science, I talk about socialism, Marx and democracy.IMO, I shouldn't need to stress the above relationships (and I could add a few more, like class, history, production, method, but I'll assume you all get the relational gist from that list), which itself causes me some concern about 'areas where we agree'.

Tim wrote:

I also understand that you have spent time in Trotskyist and Leninist organisations and that they are very different from the way we organise politically. I hope it is clear in the discussions that have taken place that we are unlike those kind of elitist and leadership driven organisations And I can fully understand your reticence with regard to internal party democracy, considering that experience. I hope it is also clear that we are very different to organisations like that.

Yes! My typical working class experience, of being an uneducated adult, who received a late education, who then came across 'Marxists and Socialists', at college, who talked about workers, class consciousness, Marx, Engels and Lenin, democracy, etc., and who eventually joined a Trotskyist organisation, has had big effect on me. Like most (no, all) of the workers I knew who joined these organisations, I left when I realised that they were bullsitting us workers, about democracy and workers' power, and they really had an idea that they, and they alone, had the requisite 'consciousness' to effect their 'practice'. Of course,as Trotsky helpfully pointed out, 'they' moves from 'workers' to 'party' to 'party machine, to 'central committee'… It's nothing to do with Marx, workers' power, democracy, class consciousness (not 'party' consciousness), and the democratic control of social production in a socialist society.Of course, this political experience helped me to question what Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc., actually said, and actually meant. I long ago got to the realisation that many of the things that the Trots claim can be supported by reference to the genius unity of 'Marx-Engels'. I'm fucked as a class conscious worker, if I start from the god-like mythical unified being of 'Marx-Engels'. I will always lose an argument with the Trots.Imagine my surprise, when I found out that the SPGB embrace exactly the same ideology as Lenin. And for the same reasons, and with the same results. Engels' materialism is a bourgeois ideology, which is suited to 'elite consciousness' (especially the ultimate elite, of The Sovereign Individual, who has Biological Senses), and has the result, as Marx warned, of dividing society into two. You've guessed it, the SPGB talks about 'Specialists' and 'Generalists', and pooh-poohs democracy, where the Specialists do as they are told by the Generalists.So, Tim, I ask a genuine question – are you a 'very different organisation' to the SWP, Militant, etc.? On the surface, certainly, but…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Been offline for a few days so missed many of the posts but just to comment on the latest post

Quote:

I clearly do agree with much of what the SPGB says that it stands for: socialism, end of money, democracy, Marxism, etc. alanjjohnstone seems to think that, perhaps some day, I'll join the party (though perhaps he's changed his mind over time).

As just an exercise, LBird, why not submit your answers to the membership questions which would be the basis of accepting or rejecting any membership application and see if your critics can fault you responses.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-application

I've had another look at the form, alan, and I still think that I'd fail.For example, I don't think that any party has a monopoly over thinking, so I'd be fine with numerous workers' parties helping to build a class consciousness amongst workers. To me, the more debate, the better.Plus, I regard 'Faith in Matter' as an example of religiosity, so I'd laugh at the question about religion, because I consider Engels' 'materialism' (or, certainly as it was developed by 'Marxists' in the 19th/early 20th centuries) as a religious ideology about 'The Real World', which workers haven't created.So, it's clear to me that I'd be rejected, both by the current open rules and the covert beliefs, of the party. In fact, from the responses on this site, I'd be in a minority of one, because I haven't read one response in four years that seems to agree with my notions of socialism, democracy, Marx, science, etc. There seems to be no basis for me to join – neither I nor current members would be happy about that circumstance. It's better to discuss from the outside, for now, whilst I'm allowed.

[Young Master Smeet]

Sympo wrote:

What do you mean with "hangers on"?

People who are not themselves personally capitalists, but who benefit through inflated salaries from the largess of capitalists and through corruption.

Sympo wrote:

In what way has class consioussness developed?

Looks like that part of my previous post disappeared.  Class consciousness developed through people identifying, and importantly, voting as working class: many do, and they understand that position, thr point is that they need to go on to develop socialist consciousness, which requires active work ofcurrent conscious socialists to help persaude them.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…you appopriate the whole house.  If you appropriate a street, you are not making slections, you're taking the whole street.  

[my bold]'Whole house' or 'whole street' is a selection between two 'wholes', YMS.'If' is the clue. Your 'appropriation' is a conscious choice by you, a part of what Marx calls 'the active side'.One could also note that you've chosen not to appropriate 'whole estates', 'whole towns', 'whole urban sprawls', and several other 'concepts' that we could take account of.

I'm afraid one does not have to make a conscious choice to select, selection can occur randomly, as can appropriation (e.g., a disease). To maintain that the theory your are propounding is Marx' you will need to find a different (and preferably published in his lifetime) quote, or simply assert that what you are propounding is your own theory.  There is no plausible way that what you are putting forward is a legitimate extrapolation from my quote from Marx.The clear point is, there is no reading of appropriation that implies selection, you can simply appropriate what is before you: like appropriating a good meal when it is laid on the table.  Or you can appropriate everything within reach.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

You've guessed it, the SPGB talks about 'Specialists' and 'Generalists', and pooh-poohs democracy, where the Specialists do as they are told by the Generalists.

Proof and references would help with this Strawman. 

[robbo203]

 

LBird wrote:

 Yes! My typical working class experience, of being an uneducated adult, who received a late education, who then came across 'Marxists and Socialists', at college, who talked about workers, class consciousness, Marx, Engels and Lenin, democracy, etc., and who eventually joined a Trotskyist organisation, has had big effect on me. Like most (no, all) of the workers I knew who joined these organisations, I left when I realised that they were bullsitting us workers, about democracy and workers' power, and they really had an idea that they, and they alone, had the requisite 'consciousness' to effect their 'practice'. Of course,as Trotsky helpfully pointed out, 'they' moves from 'workers' to 'party' to 'party machine, to 'central committee'… It's nothing to do with Marx, workers' power, democracy, class consciousness (not 'party' consciousness), and the democratic control of social production in a socialist society.Of course, this political experience helped me to question what Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc., actually said, and actually meant. I long ago got to the realisation that many of the things that the Trots claim can be supported by reference to the genius unity of 'Marx-Engels'. I'm fucked as a class conscious worker, if I start from the god-like mythical unified being of 'Marx-Engels'. I will always lose an argument with the Trots.Imagine my surprise, when I found out that the SPGB embrace exactly the same ideology as Lenin. And for the same reasons, and with the same results. Engels' materialism is a bourgeois ideology, which is suited to 'elite consciousness' (especially the ultimate elite, of The Sovereign Individual, who has Biological Senses), and has the result, as Marx warned, of dividing society into two. You've guessed it, the SPGB talks about 'Specialists' and 'Generalists', and pooh-poohs democracy, where the Specialists do as they are told by the Generalists.So, Tim, I ask a genuine question – are you a 'very different organisation' to the SWP, Militant, etc.? On the surface, certainly, but…

  The extraordinary thing about this rambling piece of muddle-headed thinking.is that LBird STILL doesn’t seem to realise that he hasn’t abandoned his erstwhile Leninist view of the world at all. He merely wants to present this image of having moved beyond Leninism to embrace what he calls “democratic communism” by projecting the charge of Leninism onto the SPGB instead.  The SPGB, "embrace exactly the same ideology as Lenin", according to LBird.  That’s rubbish.  Only someone who knows precious little about either Lenin or the SPGB can make such a preposterous claim The laughable thing about all this is the SPGB are also accused of embracing “bourgeois individualism”.  That’s the last thing you would accuse Lenin of embracing as a fervant advocate of state capitalism – bourgeois collectivism!  Essentially LBird’s conception of communist society is not unlike that of an ant colony.  It thinks and acts as a single organism.  There is only one single body of decision-making in this society – the global population – and no other.  LBird enthusiastically endorses Lenin’s idea that the “whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory"  (State and Revolution)  but the necessary corollary of this idea is that such a society will be a deeply undemocratic one since there is no way the population in general will be able to participate in decision-making  if there is only one single body of decision-making in the world and if there are millions of decisions that need to be made in the world on a daily basis. Necessarily, those decisions will have to be made by a tiny elite supposedly “on behalf of” the general population – namely Lenin's – and LBird’s – vanguard elite I’ve put this argument repeatedly to LBird but typically he has ignored it imagining perhaps that it would somehow go away if he puts his head in the sand for long enough.  It wont. The other point I would like to make concerns LBird’s constant jibes about “bourgeois individualism”. The plain fact is LBird does not understand what he is talking about.  In truth, Marx would qualify as an extreme “bourgeois individualist” by his reckoning if he thought about it for one moment Now of course it goes without saying that individuals are social individuals.  Marx quite rightly made the point that "It is above all necessary to avoid postulating 'society' once more as an abstraction confronting the individual. The individual is a social being." But just because individuals are social beings does not mean that they cannot be free to express themselves or assert their own needs in a communist society. A society can no more exist without individuals than individuals can exist without society.  It’s always a two-way thing.  LBird commits the same mistake as Margaret Thatcher when she said there is no such thing as society, only individuals, whereas for LBird it’s the other way round.  “Individuals” don’t exist according to him even though he as a minority of one on this forum sticks out as a sore thumb for being what he claims to want to abolish From a Marxist point of view, communism is about the empowerment and self-actualisation of individuals in a social setting.  It is about the optimisation of human freedom NOT the obliteration of self-expression under some kind of totalitarian faceless tyranny euphemistically called “society” I don’t think L Bird has really got his ahead around what communism is about at all.  Hopefully one day if and when he becomes a communist he might see this.  You cannot even begin to understand what communism is about if you do not understand such a basic concept as “from each according to ability to each according to need”, means.  That implies a degree of individual choice, freedom and empowerment to an extent unimaginable under capitalism.  It implies we voluntarily contribute our labour according to our abilities and we freely take from the common so according to our self-determined needs.  We are not rationed by dictate from above with respect to what we may consume or coerced into doing something against our will.  We do it as individuals because we want to do it, because we recognise we depend on each other as social beings But then LBird will doubtless dismiss this Marxist conception of communism as just another example of “bourgeois individualism” which only goes to show how far removed he is himself from a communist way of looking at the matter.  He is no communist, democratic or otherwise

[Sympo]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

"People who are not themselves personally capitalists, but who benefit through inflated salaries from the largess of capitalists and through corruption."Why does concentration of wealth lead to a larger amound of "hangers on"?"Class consciousness developed through people identifying, and importantly, voting as working class: many do(…)"Are you referring to people who vote on social democratic and leninist parties?

[Young Master Smeet]

Sympo wrote:

"People who are not themselves personally capitalists, but who benefit through inflated salaries from the largess of capitalists and through corruption."Why does concentration of wealth lead to a larger amound of "hangers on"?

Well, firstly because administering vast amounts of wealth requires people to do the work, who themselves don't own it: their loyalty must be bought (to avoid moral hazard and principal agent problems).  Secondly, as wealth concentrates, there's more spare to buy people with largess, and there are fewer personal capitalists upholding the "virtues" of thrift and personal property.  There have always been hangers on, but rarely has wealth evr been so concentrated.

Sympo wrote:

"Class consciousness developed through people identifying, and importantly, voting as working class: many do(…)"Are you referring to people who vote on social democratic and leninist parties?

Yes.

[Sympo]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Sympo wrote:

Are you referring to people who vote on social democratic and leninist parties?

Yes.

Are there really more workers who would have voted on socdem/leninist parties today than a hundred years ago?

[Author]

Posts