Socialism and Change
- This topic has 86 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I would like to say that the idealist LBird talks absolute bollocks.
I know it has been raised before, but why the attraction of the SPGB for you, LBird?There has been a long absence until the other day. I assumed you moved on but it seems it was just a holiday from posting and that you continue to monitor the forum.Do you hope you can instigate change within the Party? If so, what actual concrete proposals do you present to ourselves. How should we shift our propaganda and campaigns towards a positive direction? In what way should it be conducted. A return to those articles on materialism from our past that you approve of overall, even if they appear too heavy on theory that no longer connects with our fellow-workers?I think i keep asking…you may well be right on our wrong Engelsian emphasis, but i always seek flesh on the bone.How do we translate our ideas into action and make our Party a vehicle for change?(As for this democracy dispute you have with Robbo, i think i have put forward a reasonable compromise between you and him….the world will vote with their feet, so to speak, on scientific issues that require clarifying, ballots and referendums are a very clumsy way of expressing opinions on such nuanced topics although they are powerful tools for capturing political power for the majority).I think the present situation between climate change "truthers" and climate change deniers shows that global discussion and debate can take place in a delegatory manner to come to a consensus of which is scientifically valid or not. It maybe specialists and scientific elites but they are being driven by a social movement and are part of it…they are feeding the facts which are only possible by a division of labour…workers in universities and think-tanks with access to data and information confirming what we can see happening around us…changing weather patterns and increasing extreme weather events. A friend who is a gardener noticed such changes in his work…how the seasons are changing and his timetable of work requiring adjusting, not by days but by weeks and even months. A professor of ecology merely gives dedicated and specific research support to my gardener's friend own experience. I would not consider him being an elitist, imposing any superiority upon my "humble" gardener because one has a PhD and the other does not.One does have access to communication though, to talk for and to the population as a whole. This is perhaps where we must consider our respective views on democracy. In the past the mass political party had this role…but as we see, this too is a disappearing phenomenon.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I know it has been raised before, but why the attraction of the SPGB for you, LBird?There has been a long absence until the other day. I assumed you moved on but it seems it was just a holiday from posting and that you continue to monitor the forum.Do you hope you can instigate change within the Party?Who gives a toss?
I don't know about you Vin, but in my opinion based on the current trajectory of the Party, you don't need to be an actuary of the insurance business or some sooth-sayer to see that the Party is heading towards extinction. The only question is the timetable.Either it will transform into an ILP-like publications group but no longer exist as a political party, or it will simply fade and expire like the American SLP, not with a bang but with a whimper.LBird's contributions to an analysis of the Party's case may well be rejected by many of us, but should it be jettisoned completely? Does it hold some element of truth?
alanjjohnstone wrote:LBird's contributions to an analysis of the Party's case may well be rejected by many of us, but should it be jettisoned completely? Does it hold some element of truth?Well, as far as I am concerned, Alan, the one element of truth in LBird's stance is his rejection of positivist thinking. Other than that, the guy is very obviously a troll who is not interested in constructive debate at all, who ignores any kind of question asking him to explain how his proposal could work in practice and who will lie through his teeth to score a point as he sees it. – such as robbo is an opponent of democracy – when I am very obviously counterposing my conception of democracy to his conception of democracy as society wide centralised decisionmaking without any kind of localised or intermediate levels of democacy at all. Similarly his stupid characterisation of his opponents as "bourgeois individualists"; by that warped reasoning Marx would qualify pre-eminently as a bourgeois individualist! The guy is simply not interested in debate and – Gawd knows – Ive tried like others here to encourage him to explain his ideas and justify them. All he is interested in is the sound of his own voice. I wouldnt waste any more time on him, Alan, to be brutally frank Socialists have better things to do than indulge a monomaniac whose only interest here is to push his pet theory to the exlcusion of anything else
alanjjohnstone wrote:t in my opinion based on the current trajectory of the Party, you don't need to be an actuary of the insurance business or some sooth-sayer to see that the Party is heading towards extinction.I don't think it is inevitable. We DO need to change, though.
alanjjohnstone wrote:How do we translate our ideas into action and make our Party a vehicle for change?Show workers our new intro videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZonz0YE50A
alanjjohnstone wrote:I know it has been raised before, but why the attraction of the SPGB for you, LBird?There has been a long absence until the other day. I assumed you moved on but it seems it was just a holiday from posting and that you continue to monitor the forum.Do you hope you can instigate change within the Party? If so, what actual concrete proposals do you present to ourselves. How should we shift our propaganda and campaigns towards a positive direction? In what way should it be conducted. A return to those articles on materialism from our past that you approve of overall, even if they appear too heavy on theory that no longer connects with our fellow-workers?I think i keep asking…you may well be right on our wrong Engelsian emphasis, but i always seek flesh on the bone.How do we translate our ideas into action and make our Party a vehicle for change?(As for this democracy dispute you have with Robbo, i think i have put forward a reasonable compromise between you and him….the world will vote with their feet, so to speak, on scientific issues that require clarifying, ballots and referendums are a very clumsy way of expressing opinions on such nuanced topics although they are powerful tools for capturing political power for the majority).[my bold]The attraction? A party that claims to be democratic socialist and Marxist. The problem, though? A party that denies "workers' democracy" and is Engelsist. The hope? That discussion can encourage the SPGB to become what it claims to be.Here's an example of the problem, in bold. Your ideology tells you that 'the world will vote with their feet'. This is a conservative ideology, that claims that 'consciousness' and 'theory' do not precede human actions.According to Marx, humans 'vote with their theory and practice', and their 'feet' will thus 'vote' according to the 'consciousness' associated with those 'feet'. So, whilst the SPGB is expecting 'the world to vote with its feet', what will happen is that 'the world's state of consciousness will determine what those feet vote'. And since the world is presently driven by bourgeois consciousness, so the 'feet will vote' accordingly.Your claim is a claim of defeat and despair – but you apparently have no understanding of that, notwithstanding your membership of the SPGB.So, whilst you 'translate your (current) ideas into action', your party will support the bourgeoisie. Your 'ideas' are counterrevolutionary, and so you haven't helped one jot in 113 years to develop any workers' consciousness and action.Can you change? That's what I'm trying to find out. That's the 'attraction' of talking to a democratic party. If that's what it is, at heart, even if not in physics (but we can change that).
ajj wrote:I think the present situation between climate change "truthers" and climate change deniers shows that global discussion and debate can take place in a delegatory manner to come to a consensus of which is scientifically valid or not. It maybe specialists and scientific elites but they are being driven by a social movement and are part of it…they are feeding the facts which are only possible by a division of labour…workers in universities and think-tanks with access to data and information confirming what we can see happening around us…changing weather patterns and increasing extreme weather events. A friend who is a gardener noticed such changes in his work…how the seasons are changing and his timetable of work requiring adjusting, not by days but by weeks and even months. A professor of ecology merely gives dedicated and specific research support to my gardener's friend own experience. I would not consider him being an elitist, imposing any superiority upon my "humble" gardener because one has a PhD and the other does not.You have a touching faith in 'professors', alan. You seem to think that there is 'an elite who know', and the rest of us don't, and can't.This is the political method of an ignorant peasant trusting a priest who claims to know the bible, and accepts that the bible must be in a foreign language.And 'experience' producing 'knowledge' is a 19th century ideology. Marx claims 'theory and practice' produces knowledge, but it seems you're completely tied into bourgeois empiricism. But you don't know this (even though I've explained this dozens of times to you).
ajj wrote:One does have access to communication though, to talk for and to the population as a whole. This is perhaps where we must consider our respective views on democracy. In the past the mass political party had this role…but as we see, this too is a disappearing phenomenon.Well, 'mass political parties' will either 'disappear' or be run by an elite (as they always have, like the Labour Party).But what is the SPGB doing to turn this around – when you (and it) keep telling workers that they can't elect truth?Who does the SPGB suppose will produce truth in their version of 'socialism'? And who will the SPGB be telling workers, is the source of truth whilst they are trying to self-develop in preparation for taking over social production?If the SPGB starts by telling workers that 'you won't be the authority on truth', why would workers listen, and how would that help them self-develop? Your current party ideology is not fit for purpose. It's not fit for 'democratic socialism'. It's fit for 'elite experts' directing the producers.That's what Lenin claimed and did.
Vin, it is a very good video, but we have a long way to go to challenge TV and Hollywood domination of ideas. Even on the net, it has hardly gone viral, has it?Future videos are an integral part of how we communicate and as you often said in the past…we as a Party are not funding them sufficiently even though we can afford to.
Take a Party leaflet. Screw it up into a ball. Film a kitten playing with it. This will go viral.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Even on the net, it has hardly gone viral, has it?The video will go viral if it is advertised but it requires money to get it started. Capitalists spend lots of money brainwashing workers; they dont do it for free. I have none or it would have gone viral by now.I had thought of setting up a fund appeal and requesting donations from sympathisers.As I say 'Show the video to the workers'. It has a simple unique message.
Quote:You have a touching faith in 'professors', alan. You seem to think that there is 'an elite who know', and the rest of us don't, and can't.No. I have a touching faith in my gardener friend as i thought i indicated. He required no expert to detect changes in the growing season. Nor yourself to dismiss his hands-on experience. But those professors confirmed his practical experience and provided context. I thought i had made it clear that i saw academia and scientific community as a support role only, to dot the i and cross the t.Again you seem to misinterpret my intention…"vote with ones feet" means taking action and i fully agree that action requires thought and the existence of consciousness. How they arise can be debated but my point was that we see the manifestation of the democratic will in what people are currently doing.The mass socialist party i think the party always tried to emulate was never the Bolsheviks but the German Social Democratic Party, and we know Lenin also saw it as a model to adapt to the social conditions in Russia. Party bureaucracies were thrown up in both Germany and Russia…politics became professions and careersThe Party recognised SDP weaknesses and also those of the 2nd International generally. But there were many strengths too….the bonding of socialists socially in all manner of cultural and educational ventures. We too should adapt and adopt an approach that also has a diverse collection of activists and campaigners mustering under the one banner, leaving the democratic space for a variety of independent initiatives.Again i think you overlook the umpteen times that we say that the emancipation of workers must be by the workers themselves and to echo Dietzgen…" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself."
Quote:You have a touching faith in 'professors', alan. You seem to think that there is 'an elite who know', and the rest of us don't, and can't.Professors are just workers, certainly in socialism they will be. I have a touching faith in electricians, plumbers, gas fitters, chemists and other specialists in their fields. I will contest the latter at my potential peril. I am not speaking of capitalist businesses here, those are always suspect, but the workers in them. Best practice is a continually evolving phenomena. I can contest professors' findings anytime. There will not be any elites in socialism. We will delegate, with briefings, difficult specialisations in science , medicine and so on, subject to recall. There will undoubtably be differences of opinion on what constitutes the 'correct' appoaches in the use of findings of some of those scientific fields, as there is no absolute truth in any case, so local , regional and global circumstances will figure, in the application of several of them, sometimes even contradictory applications as a consequence of contradictory findings which may indeed be 'true' in different applicatory situations.There will be specialised knowledge whether you like it or not. This does not make for elites in a commonly owned society. This will be as contested within their specialised fields then as now, without the present economic distractions of marketisation and profit making. The criteria of the 'common good' will inform the specialists just as much and as well as the decision making, local , regional and global facillitation of them.Ultimately the people will decide, in which applications of findings is the most appropriate, for their local, regional or global circumstances.
Matt wrote:Ultimately the people will decide…I agree, Matt. That's why I think that the SPGB has the potential to develop workers' consciousness, in a way that the SWP, for example, hasn't. You're saying something that the Leninists don't.All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".If you do agree, we're plain sailing.If you don't, who or what decides truth?It's a simple question, Matt. Why won't the SPGB answer this political question?
LBird wrote:Matt wrote:Ultimately the people will decide…I agree, Matt. That's why I think that the SPGB has the potential to develop workers' consciousness, in a way that the SWP, for example, hasn't. You're saying something that the Leninists don't.All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".If you do agree, we're plain sailing.If you don't, who or what decides truth?It's a simple question, Matt. Why won't the SPGB answer this political question?
Yes ultimately the people will decide " .. … in which applications of findings is the most appropriate, for their local, regional or global circumstances." Such an edit fits in well with your lack of understanding on democracy and truth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.