the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But Lbird, that is your position, since by definition, in a democracy, a minority of one can be right, and can struggle to become the majority.

 No, it's not my position. In a democracy, only the majority can be 'right'. 'Right', like 'truth', is a social product. In a democratic society like Communism, only the majority can determine 'right' and 'truth'. Of course, minorities can disagree, and attempt to persuade the majority (just like the SPGB study guide suggests), but at any given point 'right' is the product of the majority. If the minority remain a minority, their views are 'untrue' and 'wrong', from the point of view of political power. No minority can claim to hold 'right' or 'truth', against the decision of the majority. 

YMS wrote:

 But

Quote:

This claim can only come from 'materialists', who claim that they alone have access to a 'reality' that the vast majority don't, because the 'materialists' have a 'special consciousness' which is not widely available. No socio-historical analysis of 'science' or social production, just belief in special individuals, an expert elite, who shall tell the workers what 'reality is'.

This is false, since, as I said, the claim of materialists is that a majority could just as well have access to reality, I'm afraid your argument is flawed at the level of a major premise.  The claim of a special consciousness is not essential to materialism.

[my bold]Yes, and you are wrong, because within Communism, only a majority have access to reality.There is no 'minority' who have this special access. 'Reality' is a social product, and only the majority can build it.The 'materialists' deny this, and claim, as you do by your words, that 'a minority could just as well have access to reality'.You can't get away from the elitist premise of your 'materialism'.For 'materialists', 'reality' is 'out there', unconnected to our social production of our reality. Put simply, materialists follow bourgeois teaching on 'science', which emerged with the triumph of the bourgeoisie in society, c. 1660.As usual, I give a social, political, historical and ideological account of the production of 'reality', commensurate with Marx's views, and you hide your ideological views, and their socio-historical specificity and origin, and pretend to have a 'special access' to this eternal 'reality out there', which you claim to be able to 'contemplate', and deny that humans can 'change' it.This ideology of science you espouse is one basis of Leninism, and has nothing to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I object to lumping utopian socialists in with the SPGB.

Your premise, that there are only two opposing 'factions', 'utopian' and 'scientific', is what is at issue, jdw.Once you question that Engelsian premise, your statement doesn't make sense.Marxists are 'utopian-scientific' socialists, to use the terms above.As mcolome1 correctly suggests, 'ideas' of what reality can become must precede the building of that reality.Marx's social 'theory and practice', by which the producers plan their production, to their own interests and purposes.

[SocialistPunk]

LBird,Perhaps I'm a bit dim, but I've never understood what you mean by "reality" and "production of our reality"?Could you attempt to give me a simple explanation, starting with what you mean by "reality"?

[jondwhite]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

I object to lumping utopian socialists in with the SPGB.

Your premise, that there are only two opposing 'factions', 'utopian' and 'scientific', is what is at issue, jdw.Once you question that Engelsian premise, your statement doesn't make sense.Marxists are 'utopian-scientific' socialists, to use the terms above.As mcolome1 correctly suggests, 'ideas' of what reality can become must precede the building of that reality.Marx's social 'theory and practice', by which the producers plan their production, to their own interests and purposes.

I'm not saying there are only two types but I'd be surprised if anyone thought there was no ideological distinction between TZM and SPGB for example or Owen and Marx for another example.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

LBird,Perhaps I'm a bit dim, but I've never understood what you mean by "reality" and "production of our reality"?Could you attempt to give me a simple explanation, starting with what you mean by "reality"?

I mean much the same as Marx, SP.We create our object.Thus, 'objective reality' (and 'objective truth') is a social product, which varies with the mode of production.The bourgeoisie deny this, and their creation of their reality is treated as an 'eternal truth', something that we can't change (it just 'is', sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested' scientists).The notion that 'objective' is not a social creation, is a ruling class idea – one which still, unsurprisingly, has great purchase in society, even amongst socialists.They wish to 'eternalise their rule', and 'objective reality' is the main plank of their ideology of science.If you disagree with Marx on this, SP, that's fine by me, but then my scientific and epistemological arguments won't make much sense, since you won't be starting from the same axioms/assumptions/premises, of which the key one is that 'we humans produce our reality'.The alternative is that a 'god' produced it, in the past, and we merely 'contemplate' HIS 'reality'.Humans are their own creator and creations, and thus we can 'change' our creation and our selves.PS. Marx thought that he had dealt with all this in the 1840s, and put both 'idealism' and 'materialism' to bed, and turned the focus to humans (especially workers) and their social production.But Engels fucked up that hope. So, we're still dealing with 'Religious Materialism', and its faith in 'matter', and its elitist view of 'knowledge production'.That is, a 'reality' not amenable to democracy.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I'm not saying there are only two types but I'd be surprised if anyone thought there was no ideological distinction between TZM and SPGB for example or Owen and Marx for another example.

You're right not to say that there are only two types, jdw, because Marx posited a third, 'idealism-materialism', a unity of parts of both.There clearly are ideological distinctions between TZM/SPGB/Owen/Marx, just as there are ideological distinctions between elite bourgeois science and democratic proletarian science.But, the ideology of 'objective science', produced by the bourgeoisie, still has a ruling class grip on society.Anyway, if you've got beyond Engels' 'utopian' and 'scientific' dichotomy, you're getting somewhere.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Of course, minorities can disagree, and attempt to persuade the majority (just like the SPGB study guide suggests), but at any given point 'right' is the product of the majority. If the minority remain a minority, their views are 'untrue' and 'wrong', from the point of view of political power. No minority can claim to hold 'right' or 'truth', against the decision of the majority.

But that minority have always been right, as the new majority say so, and the old majority were wrong. 

LBird wrote:

Yes, and you are wrong, because within Communism, only a majority have access to reality.

In which case the minority have no opportunity to become amajority, and there is no mechanism for a majority to form itself, since until it has a majority is has no access to reality. What, though, is special about the majority?  I'll one up you: only  unanimity can create reality.  Ha! Watch your mere majority squirm before the might of unanimity.

LBird wrote:

There is no 'minority' who have this special access. 'Reality' is a social product, and only the majority can build it.

Since reality is maleable, and has no properties of its own, must it be singular?  Can we not gerrymander majorities to be local: in England the moon in Green, in Botswana, it's blue?  Or does the greater population of England prevail (and then, are we talking majorities, or pluraliies, can't the biggest minority decide an issue?).

LBird wrote:

You can't get away from the elitist premise of your 'materialism'.

I can: watch me.  Everyone can have access to reality, unlike the elitism of your case that denies minorities access.

LBird wrote:

This ideology of science you espouse is one basis of Leninism, and has nothing to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production'.

I have exposed my ideology, an an anarcho monarchist (with traces of having passed through Hebridean exophagism).  This does have nothing to do with Marxism.  Now, run along, and take your snarks with you.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Now, run along, and take your snarks with you.

Bingo! I knew that your poor grasp of Marx would fail you, Young Master Stalin!The 'materialists' always resort to abuse, because their ideology is an outdated 19th century one, which has nothing to say to 21st century workers, who wish to unite, just like Marx, our scientific method, so that physics and maths are just like history and sociology.'Materialism' is elitist, and denies, just as you have, democratic production and workers' power over their own products, including scientific knowledge and 'truth'.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Bingo! I knew that your poor grasp of Marx would fail you, Young Master Stalin!The 'materialists' always resort to abuse, because their ideology is an outdated 19th century one, which has nothing to say to 21st century workers, who wish to unite, just like Marx, our scientific method, so that physics and maths are just like history and sociology.'Materialism' is elitist, and denies, just as you have, democratic production and workers' power over their own products, including scientific knowledge and 'truth'.

At the end of a long and detailed rebuttal (and one which didn't rest on Charlie).  You've in fact resorted to ad hominem type, when driven off your central premise that that materialism is essentially elist.  You can't hold your position: you're the one who wants to restrict science and reality to a majoritarian elite, whereas the truth is that everyone is involved in producing knowledge, even the minority, and even the wrong.You call me all the names under the sun, and when I refuse to rise to your bait, you walk off in a huff.  You have no argument: yuo are an empty bucket, you bring nothing to the debate but the weakest and fablest arguments by assertion.  You, sir, are a waste of electrons.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

 The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.

I completely disagree.  In actual fact the death of party control and the roots of class control lies not in 'materialism' or any other 'ism' for what it matters, but in a majority putting into practice their understanding of democracy and what the decision making process will consist of.  When a majority allows a political party to establish the democratic framework of the decision making process it follows, that all outcomes, by default are going to be a reflection of what that political party deems to be truth and reality.For the guidelines and rules for debate and discussion have been predetermined by a minority.  Therefore, all methodology, including the scientific method, will have been pre-determined by an elite.On the other hand, when the democratic framework and decision making process is introduced and established by a politically concsious majority it's they and they alone who deem what is truth and reality and not any political party.  In this regard, the WSM have consistently stated that once socialism is attained its the majority who will decide the framework of democracy and the decision making process and not the party.  This being the case the claim that a party elite consisting of 'materialists' will continue to dominate the decision making process after the revolution has succeeded fails at the first hurdle.  For the purpose of a revolutionary party will have disappeared on the eve of the revolution and not after the revolution has taken place.This essential part of the revolutionary process, the democratic framework and the decision making process, will of course be worked out in the pre-revolutionary period and not post-revolutionary period.  In essence it means the understanding of what democracy and the decision making process actually means in 'reality' will be determined by the majority and not a political party.And in reality will be the first step in the demise of a political party and political party discourse.  And subsequently, the true beginnings of real political discourse, and not party political discourse. 

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 You have no argument: yuo are an empty bucket, you bring nothing to the debate but the weakest and fablest arguments by assertion.  You, sir, are a waste of electrons.

The usual 'materialist' abuse, even to the point of reducing humans to 'electrons'! You couldn't make it up!Why not leave the thread to those who wish to genuinely engage?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.

I completely disagree.  In actual fact the death of party control and the roots of class control lies not in 'materialism' or any other 'ism' for what it matters, but in a majority putting into practice their understanding of democracy and what the decision making process will consist of.  When a majority allows a political party to establish the democratic framework of the decision making process it follows, that all outcomes, by default are going to be a reflection of what that political party deems to be truth and reality.For the guidelines and rules for debate and discussion have been predetermined by a minority.  Therefore, all methodology, including the scientific method, will have been pre-determined by an elite.On the other hand, when the democratic framework and decision making process is introduced and established by a politically concsious majority it's they and they alone who deem what is truth and reality and not any political party.  In this regard, the WSM have consistently stated that once socialism is attained its the majority who will decide the framework of democracy and the decision making process and not the party.  This being the case the claim that a party elite consisting of 'materialists' will continue to dominate the decision making process after the revolution has succeeded fails at the first hurdle.  For the purpose of a revolutionary party will have disappeared on the eve of the revolution and not after the revolution has taken place.This essential part of the revolutionary process, the democratic framework and the decision making process, will of course be worked out in the pre-revolutionary period and not post-revolutionary period.  In essence it means the understanding of what democracy and the decision making process actually means in 'reality' will be determined by the majority and not a political party.And in reality will be the first step in the demise of a political party and political party discourse.  And subsequently, the true beginnings of real political discourse, and not party political discourse. 

From what I can tell, Brian, I agree with what you've said here, about 'conscious majority', 'democracy', 'revolution', 'reality determined by a majority'.I'm not sure where any 'disagreement' is.

[Anonymous]

Snarks are imaginary animals and as such have no basis in reality, unless, I suppose, a majority agree that they have.   Returning to the real world, interventions by the moderators such as the one above are becoming more and more ludicrous. 

[Young Master Smeet]

No, my electrons, the ones I'm wasting dealing with you. Lets return, though, to your major premise.  If an external reality exists then only a minority can determine what is true.This is demonstrably false: if you show ten people a circle and ask them what shape it is, all ten will say circle.  The circle exists outside each of them, and each has access to the circle.  The real risk, and difference is that where a minority can seize control of any instruments and resources (per my example above, only a minority had eyes) then they can dictate what is known about the world, the point is to open up access to those resources to common ownership, so that each may freely avail themselves of the evidence.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

Snarks are imaginary animals and as such have no basis in reality, unless, I suppose, a majority agree that they have.   Returning to the real world, …

So, you have an access to 'the real world' that 'a majority' don't? Otherwise, if the majority declare 'snarks' to be 'real-for-us', then they would be. The 'basis' of a 'reality-for us' is our own social production, our theory and practice.'Materialists' like you deny this aspect of social production to 'reality', and claim that only you can determine 'imaginary' and 'real', and you won't have a 'majority' telling you otherwise.

gnome wrote:

…interventions by the moderators such as the one above are becoming more and more ludicrous. 

No, they are not. These interventions help to keep a comradely tone to the discussions, a tone that the 'materialists' always, without fail, change to one of personal abuse.Now, I can give as good as I get, but whilst the mods are doing their job, there is no need for me to return the abuse.It might help if you tell us your scientific method, to which the majority of workers have no access (otherwise, you'd accept a vote upon what 'reality is'), which tells you as an individual what is 'real' and what is 'imaginary'.

[Author]

Posts