the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Right let's now fast forward to socialism to try and visualise how a complete system analysis will work in theory and practice or practice and theory for when you use system analysis it's constantly evolving and eventually it becomes immaterial which comes first – the chicken or the egg!

[my bold]This is where I have problems, Brian.In your earlier post, that I agreed with, you seemed to agree with Marx's method of social theory and practice.This is a method, which insists that 'theory' precedes 'practice', because 'practice' is always driven by theories, even if those theories are undeclared/unconscious by those employing them in their social practice (as they often are by those following bourgeois ideologies). It's the examination of those theories, and the interests and purposes that those theories embody, that allows us to collectively determine whether those theories are acceptable to us.But now, you've jettisoned any talk of Marx, and the social origin of theories, and moved to 'system analysis', rather than 'social theory and practice', and claim that 'practice and theory' (ie. 'induction', the unthinking,uncritical acceptance of 'what exists' and simply 'doing') is also an acceptable scientific method.This 'pragmatic' type of thinking, the doing of supposedly untheoretical 'practice' is suited to 'individuals', and is indeed a core notion of US 'pragmatism'. They 'just get on with it!', without any need for accounting for one's social practice to one's comrades.Where does democratic accountability sit within 'practice and theory'? If the 'act' is already done, prior to the discussion (and the 'theory'), how is this production to be controlled by the associated producers?Once again, I'm sorry to realise that many socialists seem to pay lip service to Marx's ideas, of social production, but simply discard them within their account of how production will work in a socialist society, and return to bourgeois conceptions of, for example, 'practice and theory'.I'm sorry to see this further development (or, should I say 'regression'), because I genuinely thought that we were getting somewhere, in today's discussion.As for "robbo's dig at the impracticalities of your claim for theory and practice", it's robbo who has no understanding of the consequences of his 'dig'. He's 'digging' at Marx, and democratic socialism. Since I know that robbo is an individualist at heart, I can live with his political opinion, but I'm surprised, given your earlier posts, that you can't see that the problem lies with robbo, not with Marx's theory of social production.Hmmm… back to the drawing board, eh?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

The Socialist Party is not an organization composed of robots,

Unfortunately, it is, whilst its members continue with ruling class ideas about 'science', and it'll continue to 'robotically' repeat those ideas.Marx's method is a critical method, and so 'critical theory' of 'what exists' must precede any social practice.'Robots', of course, can just do 'practice', because they are programmed with someone else's 'theory'.Given your hatred of Leninism, mcolome1, I don't know why you can't see these 'robotic methods' are those of the 'materialists', who regard workers as 'robots' who 'do practice', while the elite experts determine the 'programming', without any democratic input and control from the workers themselves.That's why the 'materialists' will let workers control 'widget production' in factories, but not 'ideas production' (ie. scientific knowledge and the election of truth) in academia.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

 But now, you've jettisoned any talk of Marx, and the social origin of theories, and moved to 'system analysis', rather than 'social theory and practice', and claim that 'practice and theory' (ie. 'induction', the unthinking,uncritical acceptance of 'what exists' and simply 'doing') is also an acceptable scientific method. Hmmm… back to the drawing board, eh?

This seems to be the case for yourself for your full response is stating your unwillingness to re-evaluate your claim which I advised you to do."Ok now lets put this reasoning into the historical context of how Marx reached this conclusion earlier than Engels.  To do this you need to take a step back and take a further look at your claim, gained from the quotes of Marx that in actual fact he was an idealist-materialist.  And I'm sure you will find that Marx was just making tentative suggestions on what elements provided a complete picture of system analysis.And knowing Marx I'm also sure he was not foolish to put himself in the dogmatic position of claiming that idealism-materialism was the key methodology.  He explored that possibility but eventually he reached the conclusion that there was far, far more to a system analysis than even he, Engles, et al (and since) were able to uncover.  And only a socialist society would be in a position to discover what this system analysis involved and consisted of."This failure to re-examine and re-assess your claim, plus the constant assertion that 'social theory and practice' is the end all and be all of everything is a classic example of what Marx an Engels warned us to avoid like the plague.Has for your reference to the "induction methodology" it appears you are forgetting that deduction requires induction to compare and contrast between what is and what isn't.

[lindanesocialist]

Isn't this a bit like 'chicken and the egg' conundrum.  Why not just have a chicken foo yung?Or in our case  – socialism.Or in other words, the car I own already gets me from A to BOr the philosophers have……. 

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Isn't this a bit like 'chicken and the egg' conundrum.  Why not just have a chicken foo yung?Or in our case  – socialism.Or in other words, the car I own already gets me from A to BOr the philosophers have……. 

 The chicken or egg is just an Apologetic reasoning. None of them existed. The only thing that the Philosophers have done and continue doing is to contemplate the world, in any way, we do not need a philosophy, or philosophers, what we need is a coherent theory of liberation in our brains, ready to send the capitalists to the goddam  hell. Only the world working class will make the decision , this is a Coffee shop discussion

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Has for your reference to the "induction methodology" it appears you are forgetting that deduction requires induction to compare and contrast between what is and what isn't.

The key word, Brian, is production, not 'induction' or 'deduction'.You've now completely moved away from the posts that you made earlier.I'm not sure why you made those posts, only to not use any of the concepts and terms within them, now.The 'constant assertion that 'social theory and practice' is the end all and be all of everything' is what you agreed with, earlier.I keep emphasising social theory and practice, because that is Marx's method. And he's concerned with 'social production' and 'change', not the 'contemplation' of either 'induction' or 'deduction'.You've stopped mentioning the social production of knowledge by the class conscious proletariat, and have returned to bourgeois concerns like induction and deduction, apparently unaware of what you are doing.As for 'historical context', I'm the one who constantly tries to discuss the social origins of your ideology, whereas you ignore it.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.As for "robbo's dig at the impracticalities of your claim for theory and practice", it's robbo who has no understanding of the consequences of his 'dig'. He's 'digging' at Marx, and democratic socialism. Since I know that robbo is an individualist at heart, I can live with his political opinion, but I'm surprised, given your earlier posts, that you can't see that the problem lies with robbo, not with Marx's theory of social production.Hmmm… back to the drawing board, eh?

 Gawd, not this again. ..I refrained from commenting on LBird's latest rendition of the same old tune that he is forever and oh-so- monotonously coming out with on this forum until this! Does LBird have the slightest inkling of what are the "impracticalities of his claim for theory and practice" that robbo was getting at?  Apparently not.  LBird airily dismisses all  such talk and point blank refuses to answer any questions as to how he is going to put his ivory tower notions into practice.  How, for example, are tens of thousands of new scientific theories each year going to be subjected to a democratic by a global population exceeding 7 billion.  Why is it even necessary? LBird never explainsI get bored with having to repeat the same questions only to be ignored yet gain by LBird.  If folks here want the lowdown on why I think LBird position on this matter is complete baloney I refer them this earlier post (1423 ) here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/science-communists?page=142 And once more for the benefit of LBird , no,  I have no problem at all with the idea of democratic socialism. I don't know how many times I've repeated the point that for me socialism does indeed mean the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing wealth and I fully endorse that.  How is that taking a dig at "democratic socialism"?Nor am I an "individualist at heart" Does LBird even know what is meant by an individualist or individualism? I doubt it.  I suspect he is conflating the term with "individuality" which denotes something quite different. Marx, since LBird is so fond of citing Marx, also subscribed to the idea that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"? Sorry to disappoint you LBird but the problem does not lie with me but with you and with your stubborn refusal to answer the kind of practical questions that are levelled at you.  You are your own worst enemy but more than that as I said in the above post you make a laughing stock of communism by presenting an image of it that is frankly ridiculously impractical

[moderator1]

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

You spend more times attacking Engels and the Socialist Party than toward capitalism and the ruling class.

 Lbird, To remedy this criticism from mcolme, can i suggest you write something not too controversial or convoluted to persuade or convince our fellow workers of the advantages and benefits of socialism and why the capitalist society is a failed system and requires replacing for our blog which is always on the look out for original contributions. A disclaimer will be added to explain that you are not a member and that the Party may not 100% agree with what you write (i hope you do,of course, make it something all members could endorse.)

[Anonymous]

Robbo203. has one attribute that many peoples do not have, he is not a member of the Socialist Party, and he disagrees with certain aspect of the SPGB,  but wherever he goes, or wherever he is, he is always defending, and supporting the Socialist Party. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Lbird, you may be interest in this article – the medicalisation of racism.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37681-the-dangers-of-medicalizing-racism

Quote:

racism is viewed as a matter of faulty wiring that can simply be corrected with medical intervention…Medicalizing racism has the added consequence of silencing cries for social justice. The message is clear: racism is to be fought at the psychiatrist's office, not in the streets. However, we do not need racism recovery, we need revolution. The prescription we need is for radical social change.

[alanjjohnstone]

mcolome,you are perfectly right and i hold out the same invitation to contribute to the SOYMB blog to Robbo.

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

mcolome,you are perfectly right and i hold out the same invitation to contribute to the SOYMB blog to Robbo.

 Alan, Thanks for the invite. I'm  writing some stuff at the moment that maybe  could  be adapted for the purpose you have in mind.  I'll get back to you on this. cheers

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lbird, you may be interest in this article – the medicalisation of racism.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37681-the-dangers-of-medicalizing-racism

Quote:

racism is viewed as a matter of faulty wiring that can simply be corrected with medical intervention…Medicalizing racism has the added consequence of silencing cries for social justice. The message is clear: racism is to be fought at the psychiatrist's office, not in the streets. However, we do not need racism recovery, we need revolution. The prescription we need is for radical social change.

Yeah, alan, the article is to my political tastes, as it discusses issues which should be relevant to any Communist scientist: the individualising and biologising of social products; structures; disastrous theory shifts; the problem with focus on the physical; ideologies at the heart of medicine; power; and revolution.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

You spend more times attacking Engels and the Socialist Party than toward capitalism and the ruling class.

 Lbird, To remedy this criticism from mcolme, …

I can 'remedy this criticism' very fast, alan.Simply put, mcolome1 hasn't got a clue about how I 'spend my time', other than that which he encounters on this site.Most people who meet me know that I spend most of my time attacking 'capitalism and the ruling class'.But, on a site supposedly based on a desire for socialism, which continues to push the nonsense that Engels wrote, and to ignore the detail of what Marx wrote, clearly I will appear to be 'spending my time' here attacking the SPGB. I am attacking the SPGB. It's a shame that mcolome1 doesn't respond to my criticisms of 'Engels and the Socialist Party', rather than try to shift the blame onto me, for being critical, rather than blame the SPGB for spouting nonsense.

ajj wrote:

…can i suggest you write something not too controversial or convoluted to persuade or convince our fellow workers of the advantages and benefits of socialism and why the capitalist society is a failed system and requires replacing…

I can't even 'write something etc.' to persuade our fellow socialists, who supposedly look to Marx and workers' democracy, but won't apply those ideas to 'science'.I don't think my writing a blog attacking the SPGB for its inability to produce thinkers who can cope with ideas about science, epistemology, physics, maths, social production, etc., would be productive in the wider class. The idea that the membership would 'endorse' my views is currently laughable, because Religious Materialism is their ideology, but not mine.I look to Marx, social theory and practice, workers' democracy, the collective production of truth, class origins of bourgeois science, etc., etc., etc…

[Author]

Posts