Question about historical materialism
- This topic has 181 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:You may well be right about the presence of the many politically conscious aware workers, but where are the organisations? Workers unorganised, are impotent, as well you know. Our contribution in the SPGB is to help grow that needed organisation, and we must be sure that we are not stifling it.
I agree with you, alan, about the lack of workers' organisations.Once, I thought that the SPGB was trying to fulfil that role, and that I would join, to help the process.
what makes you think we would allow you to join, you're an elitist Leninist who doesn't agree with our Declaration of Principles. We are not like other parties you have stated you have been in (SWP, etc.) .You see we don't practice the kind of "democratic" centralism you clearly favour. All members of our party are conscious socialists. You can't just sign a piece of paper to join, safe in the knowledge that a Leninist elite will make the decisions and the members function is to agree. All our members are involved in every aspect of party democracy and therefore we ensure that they are able to participate. I'm afraid, from what you have written here, you don't measure up at present. That's not to say you won't develop Socialist consciousness, but that you still seem to be a good distance from meeting the requirement at te moment.
Don't worry, don't take fright, Tim, that a non-materialist might seek to join your party.You've all played a blinder on this site, discouraging any class conscious, democratic worker from actually joining!I suspect most parties set up sites on the internet, to try to attract members, but not yours, eh, Tim?You can sleep safely tonight, with your cherished elitist beliefs.I don't know why the party doesn't just be truthful, and have a banner over the login, saying 'No Workers' Democracy wanted here!' At least workers like me wouldn't get sucked in, then. And you wouldn't have to work so hard to defend your materialism, which is the whole purpose of the party, as far as I can tell. Although, quite cheekily, you carefully hide this core ideological belief, which I don't think is actually mentioned in your 'principles'. You should really be open, and make 'materialism' a core principle of membership.Yeah, 19th century Religious Materialism, guaranteed no workers' democracy – that'll really draw in the workers of the 21st!
LBird wrote:alan, is this sort of slanderous garbage, made up by twc, what passes for discussion in the SPGB?Is it any wonder you're struggling to make any headway in the working class?You would know all about slanderous garbage. You have proved an expert at it.
LBird wrote:Yeah, 19th century Religious Materialism, guaranteed no workers' democracy – that'll really draw in the workers of the 21st!Another example of slanderous garbage?
LBird wrote:Don't worry, don't take fright, Tim, that a non-materialist might seek to join your party.You've all played a blinder on this site, discouraging any class conscious, democratic worker from actually joining!I suspect most parties set up sites on the internet, to try to attract members, but not yours, eh, Tim?You can sleep safely tonight, with your cherished elitist beliefs.I don't know why the party doesn't just be truthful, and have a banner over the login, saying 'No Workers' Democracy wanted here!' At least workers like me wouldn't get sucked in, then. And you wouldn't have to work so hard to defend your materialism, which is the whole purpose of the party, as far as I can tell. Although, quite cheekily, you carefully hide this core ideological belief, which I don't think is actually mentioned in your 'principles'. You should really be open, and make 'materialism' a core principle of membership.Yeah, 19th century Religious Materialism, guaranteed no workers' democracy – that'll really draw in the workers of the 21st!We don't have any problem with a class conscious democratic worker joining our party, sadly, as you have demonstrated time and time again on this forum, that is not a description that could be applied to you.We are a materialist party, I have no problem using that term. You're right, we don't want a non-materialist joining, similarly, we don't want people who believe in transubstantiation joining, we don't want nationalists joining, we don't want followers of the tooth fairy or magic alien lizard king joining either. As to what we mean by a materialist, we would define the use of that term and contrast it with your idealism in exactly the way that Marx did:"To Hegel (for Hegel read L Bird), the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea', he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."However you did finally you get one thing right, and bloody hell that must be a first. As i have highlighted in your post, and it actually illustrates the Leninist, Trotskyist, elitist nature of your political thought, you're right we have not set this website up to "attract members", we have set this website up to make Socialists, who will hopefully then join our struggle.From a Leninist point of view (the kind of view you hold) this must seem like madness, surely a political website must, as you say, "attract members", No doubt Party Membership in the organisations you have previously been in and, as is indicated by your post, clearly want to join, is available to anyone, regardless of what they think.Let's face it in your type of Leninist organisation it deosn't matter what the "rank and file" think because "the membership" have no contribution to make other than their time, money and energy.The kind of democratic centrism you adhere to specifically excudes democratic control of the party, that is left to the elite (who you no doubt view yourself as part of).In the Socialist Party there is no rank and file, or any leadership for them to be rank and file to. All members are equal, no member has any more authority than another (a concept you clearly struggle with). A member of the Executive Committee is of no more importance than a member who has just completed joining. To be a member of the Socialist Party you need to understand these principles, clearly you do not.
LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like youYou really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.
So, let's re write history in other form, your idealist-idealist thoughts. I did not know we were going to have a goverment in socialism, you have not abandoned the SWP yet. In several other threadss we have shown to you the real distinctive characters of Leninism, and you did not oppose them, and none of those principles are not proclaimed by the Socialist Party
Marcos wrote:LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like youYou really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.
So, let's re write history in other form, your idealist-idealist thoughts.
[my bold]Why should reading prove so difficult for materialists?Perhaps the Soviet Union re-wrote history because they were illiterate? But I can't believe that Marcos and Tim can't read. It's an enigma.
LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like youYou really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.
So, let's re write history in other form, your idealist-idealist thoughts.
[my bold]Why should reading prove so difficult for materialists?Perhaps the Soviet Union re-wrote history because they were illiterate? But I can't believe that Marcos and Tim can't read. It's an enigma.
And this year prize for the most piss poor, weak and risible response to a posting goes to …….. sound of envelope being opened …………….. Ladies and Gentlemen, for a record breaking 4th year running I give you the one and only, the legend, the man who makes Jimmy Tarbuck sound witty, put your hands together for Mr L Bird!!!!!Returning to an earlier theme, does anyone know where I can get an emoji of straws being clutched at?
LBird advocates “democratic communism” in whichSocial Truth is determined by universal democracy.Social groups cannot hold elite ideas.Social discourse outlaws mathematics because it is elitist.Social Truth, once agreed, is enforced universally.Social production roles are allotted by universal democracy.Social consumption goods are allocated by universal democracy.These social rules follow from an epistemological theory called “idealism–materialism”.Idealism–materialism implies that ideas precede actions. The terms don’t commute, so that idealism–materialism leads to socialism, but materialism–idealism prevents socialism.LBird believes Marx used the word “material” as a synonym for the word “production”, which begs the question of why he called “Book 1. The Process of Production of Capital” instead of “The Process of Materialisation of Capital” and Parts 3, 4 and 5, the “Production of Surplus Value”, rather than the “Materialisation of Surplus Value”. [Probably, because as LBird claims, Marx couldn’t write, or write clearly, was generally confused, and the opening three chapters of Capital are incomprehensible.]To proceed… Idealism–materialism implies idealism–productionism, which implies that ideas produce the world. This is the pure Idealist half of his idealism–materialism.LBird then relies on a standard materialist assertion that the ideas of the working class are correct because the working class comprises the producers (or materialisers). This is the pure Materialist half of his idealism–materialism, although he’ll never admit this because, for him, materialism is an elitist philosophy.Now, the masterstroke… To overcome the elitism he believes is inherent in materialism, LBird needs a universal thought police. It becomes everyone’s duty under “democratic communism” to enforce the Truth of every social idea that determines social production (= social materializations).All science, all art, all social intercourse (bedroom not exempted ) will be voted on for its social Truth, indexed against subversion, and socially enforced by everyone.Sympo, LBird asks you to judge. Is his idealism–materialism and “democratic communism” the blueprint of a new Marx, or the terrifying delirium of a self-absorbed dogmatic crank?LBird has submitted over ten-thousand posts on this same theme, day-in day-out, for over four years. He’s got a better run here than he might expect elsewhere, partly because the Party is democratic in decision making — except that it falls well short of LBird’s insistence that it take a democratic vote on whether Pluto is a planet — and the Party is averse to shutting down discussion.But it has to temper its aversion to shutting down discussion to defend itself from LBird’s unstoppable shutting down threads by perpetually hijacking them down his hobby-horse cul-de-sac of voting on everything, or face being “outed” as a closet fascist.To me, LBird is a dangerous crank, who has long outstayed his welcome. Let LBird go elsewhere, perhaps by crowd funding, to independently promote his idealist–materialist “democratic communism”, which has failed to take root here.From my point of view, a society that can only survive by policing thought is not worth fighting for.
L Bird is talking about a socialist regime, the same person who said that there would be proletarian in a socialist society. He has not abandoned Trotskyism yet. The same one who talk against Leninism and recomend to read George Luckacs and Gramsci, two fervent Leninists and supporters of the vanguard party
Marcos wrote:L Bird is talking about a socialist regime, the same person who said that there would be proletarian in a socialist society.I hope you're reading this alan.This is the same allegation that I refute weekly, as I did when you claimed it, too, but the dishonesty of the SPGB in political discussion never stops.
Marcos wrote:He has not abandoned Trotskyism yet. The same one who talk against Leninism and recomend to read George Luckacs and Gramsci, two fervent Leninists and supporters of the vanguard partyYeah, and I'd recommend that anyone interested in the history of Fascism should read Mein Kampf.Marcos apparently believes that if someone reads a book, that they endorse that book – every last word in that book.Perhaps that's why no-one in the SPGB reads any books, other than the ones that confirm their Religious Materialism.Does the SPGB maintain an Index of banned books, like those by Lukacs and Gramsci?
twc wrote:Now, the masterstroke… To overcome the elitism he believes is inherent in materialism, LBird needs a universal thought police. It becomes everyone’s duty under “democratic communism” to enforce the Truth of every social idea that determines social production (= social materializations).All science, all art, all social intercourse (bedroom not exempted ) will be voted on for its social Truth, indexed against subversion, and socially enforced by everyone.Yes for me this represents the very epitome of LBird's daft way of looking at the world. Not once has he ever explained the need for a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory. How is it going to make any differnce if you support a theory and it gets voted down by a majority? Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory? But thats dumb, It undermines the very basis of science as a self critical enterprise and substitutes for science some kind of quasi religious authority. Marx argued that we should "doubt everything", LBird, by complete contrast, would have us "accept everything" providing it is formally sanctioned by the proletarian majority. Majorities can never be wrong, you see; neccesaarily they speak the Truth. Since the great majority currently vote for capitalism, according to LBird's reasoning they must be right and we should accept this and embrace capitalism as the Truth, Why then is LBird hypocritically professing to be a "democratic comunist". Shouldnt he be affirming the need for capitalism since the proletariat has pronounced on the matter and declared in favour of capitalism? After all,the proletariat can never be wrong according to LBird The truth is LBird has no understanding about what democracy is for, whatsoever.. He just does not have a clue. Democracy is about practical matters such as the allocation of resources to different ends which has practical consequences for the people involved, Its not about the truth of a scientifc theory, Thats not democracy, thats just an opinion poll. LBird wants us to have millions upon millions of opinion polls in a socialist society for some unspecified reason known only to himself And finally of course we come to the pacticality of his harebraned scheme. LBird sneers at the word "practical", suggesting it reeks of bourgeois ideology, Be that as it may he still has to explain how his ideas can be put into practice otherwise there would simply be no point, woud there? How are tens of thousands of decisions – a gross underestimate if anything – to be voted on every day by billions of people right across the globe as LBird suggests? The idea is just so childish I can only assume LBird has not even begun to think about the implications of what he is suggesting. And here's the killer, Snce its is highly improbable that even one of these multiple decisions will attract the votes of anything more than infintesimally small fraction of the global population – quite seriously, how many people in the world are going to vote on the merits of some startlling new theory concerning the asexual reproduction of tapeworms? – what does mean for LBird's bizarre notion of Scientific Truth as something that has to be rubber stamped by the votes of a proletarian majoroty? In de facto terms LBird is necesarily and inescapably an advocate of an elitist form of science Until LBird answers these questions forthrightly and honestly he will continue to be rightly regarded and dismissed as a crank, Im afraid.
I'll try once more with you, robbo, but since I've said these things before, I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.
robbo203 wrote:Not once has he ever explained the need for a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory. How is it going to make any differnce if you support a theory and it gets voted down by a majority? Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory?Because we know from the actually history of science (not the myth of 'science' put about by bourgeois scientists, anti-democrats all) that science by its social theory and practice can produce ideas and policies which are dangerous to the majority. For example, eugenics. This was a socio-historical product of science, and had the status of a 'scientific fact', and produced 'official policies' which led to the sterilisation of those deemed by the elite to be 'inferior'.Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control.So, yes, those 'eugenicist' scientists in a society of that sort would be forced to abandon the theory. They would be prevented from advocating the sterilisation of humans. Of course, society might decide that there are some cases where forced sterilisation might occur in the future, and in that case the 'theory' would be reserved, but no 'practice' of it would be allowed.
robbo wrote:But thats dumb, It undermines the very basis of science as a self critical enterprise and substitutes for science some kind of quasi religious authority.This is a repetition of the bourgeois myth about their 'science', that it is a 'self-critical enterprise'. It is often not 'self-critical' whatsoever, and almost everyday in the newspapers we can read accounts of 'scientists' ignoring evidence, manufacturing evidence, and suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'. And even where there is 'criticism', criticism is always from the perspective of a 'theory', and so their so-called 'criticism' never criticises their social power as 'scientists'. Bourgeois scientists never accept the need for democratic controls on their socio-political activities. All science involves power.robbo gives his game away, here, because I always argue for democratic authory, and robbo, because he is an individualist and thinks 'elite scientists' should simply be trusted, wants any democratic political interference to be deemed 'quasi religious'. Of course, robbo is hiding the fact that there is a quasi religious authority in science today – the 'elite scientists' themselves. They are the modern priests, conducting a religious order, separated and hidden from most of us workers.
robbo wrote:Marx argued that we should "doubt everything", LBird, by complete contrast, would have us "accept everything" providing it is formally sanctioned by the proletarian majority.I've always argued that Marx was correct on this point. We should 'doubt everything' including supposed 'objective science'. robbo pretends to agree with Marx, but when robbo is asked should the nature of the sun be put to a vote, he denies this power to the majority, and insists that an elite of 'materialists', which includes robbo, already know what the sun is, and that the majority can't know this, because otherwise robbo would have no problem with a vote.Marx claims that we create our object. I agree with Marx, but the materialists, like robbo, don't. The materialists claim that we don't create matter, whereas Marxists claim that 'matter' has a history, and we can study when it originated, and why, and how it has changed, by looking at the various modes of production within which the social product of 'matter' has been socially produced.robbo is an anti-democrat, and an individualist, so robbo can see no good reason for democracy in science. robbo trusts an elite, especially the ultimate elite for individualists, their biological senses. robbo doesn't agree that our knowledge of everything, including the sun, is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it. Marxists argue that those changes must be controlled by society, by democratic methods. robbo wishes to determine what the sun is, by looking at it, by feeling heat upon the skin. This is the bourgeois method, of individual biological sensation. It is not a suitable method for democratic socialism, and its aim to democratically control all social production.
LBird wrote:I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.There is nothing democratic about the 'democratic communism' you propose.More like a world Stalinist regime.'Truth' imposed on all individuals and communitiesOrganised Violent group te ensure the adherence to 'truth'The continuation of a proleteriate (A classless, landless class of wage slaves)And many more horrors
LBird wrote:Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control.And if it had been voted up by the majority (since, after all, Eugenics only effects other people's children, never mine), would you and the otehr opponents of Eugenics be prevented from holding your views, and mprisoned in the communist prisons by the communist police backed up by the communist army?You have exposed your ideology, and it is not communist.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.