the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Well, go ahead and build your own political party and start to play with your toy 

Why is it that nobody in the SPGB seems to be able to talk about politics without descending to abuse? Isn't there anybody in the party capable of understanding philosophical issues? Doesn't anyone actually read Marx's works?And when I return the unwarranted abuse, I get warned and banned?Well, here we go again.You're a gobshite, macker.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I've given my political answer, robbo, in some detail.You don't like my answer, because it doesn't suit your political ideology.

 No you haven't answered the question at all.  I repeat the question for your benefit.  Do you think that in a communist society everyone will become a skilled neurosurgeon, an accomplished biochemist and a knowledgeable mechanical engineer all together and at the same time? Do you not believe that there will be to some degree a social division of labour in such a society such that some people will tend to specialise in some lines of work and others in others? Do you think it is OK that anyone can come off the street and operate on that brain tumour you have , irrespective of the fact that they might not even know which end of a scalpel to hold? Its a very simple question, L Bird.  A "yes" or "no" will suffice and then we can take it from there…"

LBird wrote:

Talking of giving answers, though, can you explain why you intend to deny the producers the right to decide for themselves what they produce? And to make it clear that I'm not talking about just 'widgets', but the right to decide 'truth'.This is the nub of the political debate on a political site, about 'power' and who will wield it, in your proposed version of 'socialism'.My answer is very clear: only the democratic producers can determine their truths.

 Where do you get the impression that I want to deny anyone the right to decide the truth".  If you want to believe that the sun revolves around the earth in a communist society then be my guest.  In no way would I want to stop you holding this belief though I might want to challenge that belief and present evidence that the opposite is the case. You are of course at liberty to reject the evidence I present  If anything it is you who seem to want to deny people the right to hold alternative views.  According to you scientific theories – tens of thousands of them! – ought to be subject to a democratic vote by the global population of 7 billion, Never mind how you organise such a vote which is mind boggling in itself , what happens if such a vote were to take place and the "truth" of a given theory has been established by democratic mandate. Are you going to forbid the expression of rival theories henceforth? If not , what then was the point of the vote?  Was it just an intellectual popularity contest carried out at enormous expense to determine whether some theory was correct or not , a decision which might very look foolish the day after the vote should some scientist accidentally stumble upon a discovery that completely overturns the newly endorsed orthodox theory. Are we then going to have to have yet another global vote on the matter? Of course the whole idea is silly.  Democracy is about practical decisions of a collective nature that impact upon our lives.  I don't really see the point of voting to determine whether String theory is a correct and truthful representation of reality.  Do you and if so could you explain in simple terms what is the purpose of such a vote?

[Dave B]

Going back to post 49 and The idea (of Karl) of 1845 that somehow or another “democracy” or the equal laws of suffrage was automatically. synonymous with communism It is perhaps understandable in a way if you take a narrower view of communism as a sigh for a more equal distribution of societies blessings and of a levelling spirit. As that was indeed the position of the ruling classes themselves even in 1787 America even without its feudal heritage and its still preponderance of ‘self employed’ simple commodity production etc.  Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison It ought, finally, to occur to a people deliberating on a government for themselves, that as different interests necessarily result from the liberty meant to be secured, the major interest might, under sudden impulses, be tempted to commit injustice on the minority. In all civilized countries the people fall into different classes, having a real or supposed difference of interests. There will be creditors and debtors; farmers, merchants, and manufacturers. There will be, particularly, the distinction of rich and poor. It was true, as had been observed (by Mr. PINCKNEY), we had not among us those hereditary distinctions of rank which were a great source of the contests in the ancient governments, as well as the modern States of Europe; nor those extremes of wealth or poverty, which characterize the latter. We cannot, however, be regarded, even at this time, as one homogeneous mass, in which every thing that affects a part will affect in the same manner the whole. In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country; but symptoms of a levelling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarter, to give notice of the future danger.   http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0626-2/

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

We do not even know what the working class of the whole world is going to do when they take real  political consciousness, and what method they are going to use in order to overthrow capitalism, …

Quote:

This assertion worries me, because I thought that the SPGB, at least nominally (outside of epistemology) argued that only democratic methods could be employed by the class conscious workers, to build a revolution for themselves.

It is peacefully if we can and violently if we must. 

Quote:

Whilst the SPGB continues to hide in the dead-end, I can't see myself joining, because I'm a Democratic Communist, first and foremost. I've tried to promote some discussion about this political difficulty (the power of 'science', and its current elitism, the roots of that in the counterrevolution of 1660), but it seems 'heads-in-the-sand' is the preferred response by the membership, at least on this site.

This is all hogwash. Workers are already scientists. We will have the option of recallable delegation for bodies such as we use or set up. WHO etc..

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

We do not even know what the working class of the whole world is going to do when they take real  political consciousness, and what method they are going to use in order to overthrow capitalism, …

Quote:

This assertion worries me, because I thought that the SPGB, at least nominally (outside of epistemology) argued that only democratic methods could be employed by the class conscious workers, to build a revolution for themselves.

It is peacefully if we can and violently if we must. 

Quote:

Whilst the SPGB continues to hide in the dead-end, I can't see myself joining, because I'm a Democratic Communist, first and foremost. I've tried to promote some discussion about this political difficulty (the power of 'science', and its current elitism, the roots of that in the counterrevolution of 1660), but it seems 'heads-in-the-sand' is the preferred response by the membership, at least on this site.

This is all hogwash. Workers are already scientists. We will have the option of recallable delegation for bodies such as we use or set up. WHO etc..

Matt has used the proper expression: It is peaceful if we can and violently if we must. Probably in certain areas or countries around the world maybe the capitalist class will place resistant, and the workers would be forced to take drastic measures

[alanjjohnstone]

Matt –

Quote:

We will have the option of recallable delegation for bodies such as we use or set up. WHO etc.

 I'm not so sure that we, the workers, all of us, will have this option, or at least not directly. It may well be a case of i don't know but  i know a man who does know…Just as factories and offices will be part of an interconnected federation of production (no doubt several simultaneously)and it will be the workers withing their work-places to nominate and vote for the delegates who will participate in the local, district, regional, continemtal and global assemblies, taking their instructions or advice from the statistical and logistical departments on how much and what to produce for a particular period aimed at specific geographical areas. We have some sort of organisation right now – the FAO on agriculture and farming…and regionally we have the Department of Agriculture, Locally, we have the Farmers Union (even if it is aunion of owners and employers).  The roles of other people will be one of relative non-involvement except within certain broad parameters. WHO can be thought of the medical workers' world committee. Forming its foundations are a whole lot of other medical and health associations, most i am not likely to ever heard of, much less vote for, and it will be they who will be selecting and forwarding delegates to the various offices of WHO. My direct democracy is going to be a voice in my local health clinic, my local  hospital, my local public health department, my local occupational health and safety committee. … Those who will be engaged with it, won't be every Tom Dick and Harry. Robbo is right….each and every one of us is not fully qualified to decide on technical and scientific aspects. I'm not an epidemiologist so as in the case of  AIDS/HIV and how to tackle it,  i take note of what one of those advises and acts upon it if it concurs with other experts in related fields…I'm the last resort, not the first resource, when it comes to making things happen, if you get my meaning. 

[LBird]

This determination to reduce political and philosophical questions to questions about 'individuals' seems to have spread from robbo – or has it always been there, in the party?As a comparison, it's like having a discussion with someone who says that they're interested in hearing about Marx's economic ideas, and when confronted with the concept of 'value', intended to explain social dynamics and exploitation, asks the question "So, how much 'value' is there in my old car?".When told that 'value' isn't a 'thing' or something in an individual item, but is a social relationship, they then say "So I can't see or touch this 'value' stuff, and even you can't tell me how much 'value' is in my car… nah, it sounds like bollocks to me, mate!"Of course, the problem is in the unexamined ideology of the person who isn't really interested in Marx's ideas, but just wants to hear a way that they can identify for themself as an individual, the individual 'value' of their car.Discussions about value, and social activity within social production, require some attempt by those saying they are interested in Marx's ideas to recognise their own already-existing predilections which make understanding Marx's ideas perhaps impossible.Of course, 'practical men' always pooh-pooh 'thinking' (or 'navel-gazing', as they have it), and are determined to focus on the practical problems of any issue.Right! So, how much 'value' is there in that guy's old car? He needs to know, so he can deal with 'the real world' and sell his 'value' on, at a profit. After all, individuals and their personal concerns will come first in socialism, right?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

This determination to reduce political and philosophical questions to questions about 'individuals' seems to have spread from robbo – or has it always been there, in the party?blah blah blah

 So when are you gonna answer the question LBird?Do you think that in a communist society everyone will become a skilled neurosurgeon, an accomplished biochemist and a knowledgeable mechanical engineer all together and at the same timeA simple yes or no would suffice. Anyone looking at your posts thus far might be forgiven for thinking that you dont wish to supply an answer out of fear that it might expose you as an empty windbag using convoluted language as a flak to hide your own utter naivete and your elitist posturingWhy are you so petrified of answering a simple question, LBird?

[LBird]

robbo, I've answered your question, and you really do have to try and read what I wrote in my last post.Please stop your childish style of debate, and please try and engage with the political and philosophical (and historical) issues of the building by the bourgeoisie of their 'science', and how we can try to build a 'science' suitable for the democratic control of production, within a socialist society.

[LBird]

In pursuit of my Democratic Communist belief that the role of Communists is to explain complex ideas to fellow workers, so that my fellow workers can develop at a far faster rate than I did, because I sum up years of reading into simpler analogies, here is an explanation of the relationship of Marx’s ‘idealism-materialism’ to Engels’ ‘materialism’.Imagine an electrician who finds two grey wires hanging down from a ceiling. Each grey wire is an outer casing for two inner wires, a red one and a green one. The electrician wants to splice the two grey wires, but only requires the feeds of both of the green wires to be taken forward. So, the electrician gets a third piece of grey wire, again containing two inner wires, but which are both green. She connects the green wire, from the left-hand grey wire hanging down, to one of the green wires in her piece of grey wire, and she connects the other green wire, from the right-hand grey wire hanging down, to the second green wire in her wire. Lastly, she bends upwards the red wire of the left-hand feed and covers it with tape, and repeats this with the other red wire from the right-hand grey wire.So, the electrician now has a feed taking forward power from both of the input grey wires, and the input grey wires both have their unused red wires safely taped off, unwanted.Having finished her task, the electrician then moves on to other, more urgent, work.But… she has a mate, a bloke who knows nothing about electrics, but thinks that he does. We all know the sort. He offers to progress her work, and she trusts her mate, and assumes that his estimation of himself can be trusted, and so leaves him unsupervised, to continue her initial task.He, however, on finding the joined wire taking from two sources, decides that this is a bit messy, and thinks it can be simplified. So, he unfastens the join between the green wire linked to the left-hand green wire, untapes the right-hand red wire, and joins the two together. Much simpler and clearer! Now, the right hand grey wire simply continues into the connecting wire, entirely continuing the both inputs from that right-hand grey wire. Much better than having the complexity of wires being joined into a ‘Y’ shape, and he lastly pushes the left-hand grey wire back into the ceiling, well out of harm’s way, and out of sight of any other future meddlers!He assures his companion that he’s completed her original work, and simplified it into the bargain. She’s not too sure just how her work has been ‘simplified’, but she’s now far too busy with the massive new task facing her, and warmly thanks her trusted mate.Years later, some French ‘electricians’ tell her of the extensions they’ve made to her electrical work, but when she examines the powerless results, she’s astounded, and recognises immediate that this is not ‘electrics’ as she knows it, thus declaring that, if this is ‘electrics’, as far as she’s concerned “I’m no ‘electrician!’ ”.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

In pursuit of my Democratic Communist belief that the role of Communists is to explain complex ideas to fellow workers, so that my fellow workers can develop at a far faster rate than I did, because I sum up years of reading into simpler analogies,

I don't think he does. He tells his fellow workers who haven't reached his level of "understanding" to Vote Labour:

LBird wrote:

To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'.

I don't know about him forming a new, one-person political party. Sounds more like he should rejoin the SWP.

[LBird]

Thanks for your erudite and constructive contribution to the debate, ALB.It doesn't surprise me anymore that 'individualist' analysis of social production is closely followed by ignoring any socio-historical issues, the reduction of the debate to 'yah-boo, your poo stinks' insults, and the smothering of the real issues, about 'who controls production?'.Cosidering that you're supposed to be one of the 'intellectuals' of the SPGB, ALB, you're a great disappointment. If your approach to political criticism of the SPGB is so poor, it doesn't give much hope for the future development of your party.

[LBird]

If you want to discuss my positions about Corbyn, why not discuss them on the thread upon which they were expressed, that is, the Chomsky thread? I can discuss them with you there, in that context.The only reason I can see for those issues being reproduced here, is to avoid any discussion about the openly-expressed view by SPGB members that they regard some areas of 'social production' to be 'off-limits' to the democratic control of the direct producers, within a future socialist society.Surely this is an abominable position for any democrat to take, with regard to socialism?The fact that this issue isn't being addressed, shows to me that either the SPGB, like the Leninists, have got something to hide from workers, or, more generously, that the SPGB has no conception whatsoever about issues of power, and hasn't really thought through the political implications of their support for Engels' 'materialism'.Put simply, if 'matter' is supposed to have power, then workers clearly don't.And as we know that 'matter' doesn't have power, then clearly an elite has to substitute itself for allegedly 'powerful matter', and that elite itself has the power (and pretends not to have it, and continues to pretend to the powerless that the powerless do have power, and that the elite simply reflects the wishes of workers).

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'.

[Author]

Posts