the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[Sympo]

This thread is almost as confusing as the thread "Science for Communists". What is the issue exactly? What are the different views that are in conflict with eachother? Is it basically "Everyone during Socialism should vote on what should be considered to be true(for example the statement 'CO2 damages the ozone layer')" v.s. "People specialized in a certain field should discuss what is correct in that specific field, people who don't know that much about the subject shouldn't take part in the debate"?

[LBird]

You're in a bit of a spot, as a party, because a worker is making a political criticism of your public stance about the future of socialism, and yet you're unable to respond with a political answer, but resort to personalising the debate, in order to take the focus off the political problem, and refocus it upon a 'problem individual'.And ALB, bit of political advice, mate, simply re-posting the same post, from a different debate, is not addressing the political criticism advanced on this thread.As I'm already aware, the root of this problem is not in youse as 'individuals' (even though that may leave a lot to be desired), but in your political ideology of 'materialism'.But… you won't discuss this.'Materialism' is not democratic.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

Is it basically "Everyone during Socialism should vote on what should be considered to be true(for example the statement 'CO2 damages the ozone layer', " v.s. "People specialized in a certain field should discuss what is correct in that specific field, people who don't know that much about the subject shouldn't take part in the debate"?

Not quite. The first part is correct (except I'm not sure that C02 does damage the ozone layer, does it?). There is an individual here who argues that the proposition, eg, that "increasing C02 in the atmosphere does not contribute to global warming"  should be put to the vote and, if carried, it would be "true" that it didn't.As far as I know there is no-one here arguing that people who are not specialists in a particular field should not be able to take part in debates about issues in that field.

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

"I'm not sure that C02 does damage the ozone layer, does it?"Nah I'm not sure, I just used it as an example."There is an individual here who argues that the proposition, eg, that "increasing C02 in the atmosphere does not contribute to global warming"  should be put to the vote and, if carried, it would be "true" that it didn't."Doesn't this imply that truth is relative? I personally don't think truth is relative, either something is correct or it isn't(and sometimes it is almost correct). If something you said turned out to be not true, the objective truth hasn't changed. It's like science."As far as I know there is no-one here arguing that people who are not specialists in a particular field should not be able to take part in debates about issues in that field."Oh, okay. What is the main problem people here have with the first statement about the majority voting to determine truth?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

There is an individual here who argues that the proposition, eg, that "increasing C02 in the atmosphere does not contribute to global warming"  should be put to the vote and, if carried, it would be "true" that it didn't.As far as I know there is no-one here arguing that people who are not specialists in a particular field should not be able to take part in debates about issues in that field.

ALB correctly characterises the political position of Democratic Communism: that is, that any 'truth' is a socially-produced truth, and that therefore any 'truth' produced within a democratic society, like socialism, must be democratically produced.Again, as ALB says, no-one is arguing that specialists should not take part in debates: in fact, elected specialists will be central to any debates about the social production of a 'truth'.The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.  [edit – I've just seen that Sympo agrees with this belief]If ALB is correct, then there is no need to compel 'specialists' to explain in a language that non-specialists can understand, because their 'ideas', produced by them alone, are, by definition, 'True'.This denies democratic control of production from the majority, and makes a nonsense of the claim that 'socialism is the democratic control of social production'.The acceptance of any 'truth' can only be made by the majority: that is, the majority can reject the recommendations of any 'specialists', because we judge the majority to be a better judge of what 'truths' serve their purposes and interests, than the judgement of 'specialists'.Of course, if one does not have faith in the majority, combined with a faith in 'neutral science' done by an 'expert elite', then one won't share this political opinion.What's behind our differences is different beliefs about Marx and Engels. ALB believes that Engels faithfully reproduced Marx's ideas, whereas I believe that Engels destroyed Marx's ideas.

[Sympo]

LBird wrote:

"The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.  [edit – I've just seen that Sympo agrees with this belief]"Wait, what? When I have said that only an elite can establish truth? Could you quote me saying this? Do you not believe there is an objective truth? If most people believe in God, does that mean that he exists?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.

This is not what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps repeating this lie, both about me and the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.For the record, my views are more or less the same as that expressed by Anton Pannekoek in this article, in particular part III:https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/society-mind/index.htm

[Anonymous]

Matt –

Quote:

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

 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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…

Yes, but in a classless society they will be workers and fellow workers will/will not acknowledge their specialisation in neuro-surgery, chemistry or sewage treatment. Workers will be oranised locally, regionally, globally however they determine and it will all take a bit of time with some bouncing aboot before it begins ot synch into best practice, which might be varied or not. It is not for us to determine, in precise terms, but the ones who make the revolution and que sera, sera.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.

This is not what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps repeating this lie, both about me and the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.

I've given ALB the opportunity, several times, to agree that 'the earth going round the sun' is a socially-produced 'truth', and that in the past 'the sun went round the earth', and that in the future it is possible that 'the earth will no longer go round the sun'.He won't agree with this, because he believes, as do all 'materialists', that 'the earth really does go round the sun' and that this will never change, because it's an 'Absolute, Eternal Truth' and reflects 'True Reality'.This is what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps denying this truth, both about himself the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.'Materialism' is a dishonest ideology, which lies to workers.

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

Wait, what? When I have said that only an elite can establish truth? Could you quote me saying this? Do you not believe there is an objective truth? 

You've quoted yourself, Sympo, in those two lines above.'Objective truth' implies 'an elite who establish'.If that wasn't your belief, you'd agree that 'objective truth' can be voted on.That is, if what's 'objective truth' is obvious, we'd all be able to 'know' it, and so would all vote the same way as any 'specialist', so a democratic vote would be identical to 'expert opinion'.Have a think about this, because it'll be an unfamiliar argument to you.

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird if people vote that there is no such thing as the Law of Gravity, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity%5Dwill you be the first to demonstrate the "truth" of this by jumping off the top of a tall building? ….just kidding ( i was inspired by this news itemhttp://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/skydiver-no-parachute-successful-landing-trnd/   even though i'm not saying he is defying gravity) 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

a dishonest ideology, which lies to workers.

As in:

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'.

[SocialistPunk]

LBird wrote:

I've given ALB the opportunity, several times, to agree that 'the earth going round the sun' is a socially-produced 'truth', and that in the past 'the sun went round the earth', and that in the future it is possible that 'the earth will no longer go round the sun'.

There is a possibility in the future that the earth will no longer go around the sun. There's the possibility it will end up being swallowed up by the sun.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB, I believe the SWP say support Corbyn as well.

[ALB]

Found a better organisation for him to join:http://www.geocentrism.com/The latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer has an article on this group under the title, appropriate in the circumstance, of "Does the Universe revolve around Me?":https://business.highbeam.com/5799/article-1G1-455989010/does-universe-revolve-around-me-critical-review-geocentrism

[Author]

Posts