What is Socialism?

[Anonymous]

I don't think a definition of socialism is forthcoming from the idealist even tho' he said that Socialist Punk has a different view of socialism. I suspect his ignorance of materialism will be displayed by his ignorance of socialism.As I pointed out to him almost 2 years ago, how can there be a meaning full echange of ideas if he refuses to define his terms?https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/science-communists We still don't know what he means by democratic communism, science, ideology etc. He changes their meaning to suit and when challenged throws in a few insults to cover up the bollocks

[ALB]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Vin, I think that's an excellent point. Come on then L Bird, we're all waiting.

I'm not. We don't want him contaminating this thread. If we must accommodate him let's try and contain him in a thread devoted to his obession of what is knowlefge. Mind you, I suppose he has his uses as a foil and punchball.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm not. We don't want him contaminating this thread. If we must accommodate him let's try and contain him in a thread devoted to his obession of what is knowlefge. Mind you, I suppose he has his uses as a foil and punchball.

And there's me treating you like a grown-up on the other thread.I suppose that the fool in you will always come out, no matter how courteously you're treated. You never fail to revert to type.You really are an unpleasant crowd in the SPGB, aren't you?You can't discuss philosophy, and so duck the challenge.Make that unpleasant and cowardly. Oh yeah, and ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

We still don't know what he means by democratic communism, science, ideology etc. He changes their meaning to suit and when challenged throws in a few insults to cover up the bollocks

[ALB]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Dear ModeratorApologies. On re-reading my post, it may come across that I was trying to be disingenuous with my comments. In retrospect, using words like: low self esteem, friendless and bellend,. could be interpreted in a different way than I intended, if this is the case, please accept my withdrawal of those terms. So just to be clear, it is not my view that L Bird is a friendless, bellend who suffers from problems associated with low self esteem. I hope that clarifies the matter,

Sorry, I apologise too just as effusively.

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Dear Moderator it is not my view that L Bird is a friendless, bellend who suffers from problems associated with low self esteem. I hope that clarifies the matter,

or 'pillock' for that matterhttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pillockI don't think Lbird is either a pillock or a bellend and I apologise for inferring it, Mod1

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird, should be given full respect for arguing his corner so consistently and determinedly, although, i do think he over-eggs his views and does de-rail other threads with it…and does deserve to be told off about it …and he has shown he can take heed of the Moderator without any rancour…(that even some members cannot do).He'll know this himself. He is like a bull-terrier unable to let go of his bite once he gets his teeth into something. Sometimes a virtue, sometimes a vice. His debate about the differences between Engels from Marx on philosophy is a valid one and i am sure there is a place for such a discussion within the study of Marxism. I'm sure his posts have made those that engaged with him re-read and re-examine Marx and Engels and other thinkers who i never knew even existed. Not a bad thing in itself, even if the positions were irreconcilable in the end.My own caveat though is that there is much more than that topic in our way of presenting socialism to other workers and confronting our enemies. Here, is where i hope LBird can recognise our shared positions and assist in our case for socialism as a comrade. I possess different priorities. Marx didn't make the 1st International digest his German Ideology before joining and participating in it. We all carry our own baggage and idiosyncrasies but being part of a party does mean perhaps parking them at the back of the house and not in the front drive so as not to make it seem they belong to the party as a whole. This is necessary for organising for socialism.  LBird should recognise that to become part of the movement we should not be  lone wolves , howling at the moon but be part of an organisationwhich does not mean to own it lock, stock and barrel but accept influencing it is gradual and sometime almost imperceptibly, more so in a party like the SPGB with its long history but also its culture of questioning and introversion. LBird is unaware of the full extent of how the Party has been tolerant and (even encouraging) of self-analyses of itself by dissenting members that in many cases continued for years and decades.I am sure LBird's opinions can be slotted into a critique of the party without them becoming to much of a bone of contention that we cannot agree to comradely disagreement so we can actually cooperate in the greater challenge of making socialists to make socialism a reality…and i often said in the many threads and exchanges …i often find the debate surreal.I would welcome LBird to join the Party and take up the fight for socialism with folk who he can still debate and discuss with as comrades-in-arms …if he can't join, we and he should still recognise one another as fellow-workers seeking the same end…the end of capitalism…and regardless of the polarisation of these debates, we are all on the same wavelength politically if not philosophically.  

[ALB]

That's what I once thought. There's nothing wrong with someone defending their own views. What is objectionable, and in the end intolerable, is someone distorting our view and being abusive to those who protest. If they are not going to take into account what we are really saying then the point comes when it's not worth continuing to argue with them. In my view that point was reached some time ago, but I'll give it one more go.

[Bijou Drains]

I've only been a member of this forum for a relatively short while, however I've come to the conclusion that the hours of time and effort committed socialists spend in discussion with L Bird is futile, wasted and a distraction from the real task of making socialists through socialist propaganda. If the amount of time spent by members on this forum was translated into productive work for socialism. I am sure it would be to better effect.I doubt that L Bird is ever going to join the socialist movement. If his neediness, apparent need to have his ego stroked and practically pathological need to be told how clever he is emerged whilst a member of the party, I fear his presence in the party would do exactly what it does on this forum, distract, annoy etc. In the end I fear he would do as a party member what he does on this forum, drive people away.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

That's what I once thought. There's nothing wrong with someone defending their own views. What is objectionable, and in the end intolerable, is someone distorting our view and being abusive to those who protest. If they are not going to take into account what we are really saying then the point comes when it's not worth continuing to argue with them. In my view that point was reached some time ago, but I'll give it one more go.

 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…and he has shown he can take heed of the Moderator without any rancour…(that even some members cannot do).

ewwwwooooh!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I would welcome LBird to join the Party and take up the fight for socialism with folk who he can still debate and discuss with as comrades-in-arms …if he can't join, we and he should still recognise one another as fellow-workers seeking the same end…the end of capitalism…and regardless of the polarisation of these debates, we are all on the same wavelength politically if not philosophically.

Whilst I acknowledge the comradely tone of your post, alan, I've become less sure as time passes that we are 'seeking the same end'.I'm not simply seeking 'the end of capitalism' (as a negative, of what must be destroyed), but also seeking 'the creation of socialism' (as a positive, of what must be built).Years of debates with tories, liberals, anarchists, trotskyists, greens, managers, teachers, academics, has taught me to ask pithy questions which get to the nub of what someone really stands for.And the killer question about workers' democracy (which is what I mean by 'socialism') is 'who or what controls the production of social ideas?'.And by 'ideas' I mean all academic production, including mathematics, physics, logic, meaning, understanding, philosophy, etc., etc.This question always exposes, for example, the Leninists. If they agree with me, I ask when are we removing the central committee. Because by 'we', I don't mean the 'party organisation', but 'the membership'. It soon becomes clear that the Leninists are paying lip service to 'workers' democracy', and that they really want 'democratic centralism'. This is a phony 'democracy', which allow an elite to produce the ideas, policies, culture, structures of the party, not the membership.It must be obvious that I've employed the same method with the SPGB.When asked 'who' will control the production of maths and physics under (the SPGB version of) 'socialism', there is massed bafflement at the question. The simple answer by the SPGB is 'the elite that have always controlled maths and physics!'. The implication is that the elite have done such a good job in the last 350 years, so why change a perfectly good working formula, and let those uneducated, lazy, drunken, scruffs in the working class get their grubby hands on the shining edifice of perfection that is 'science'.No mention of the socio-historical orgins of that 'science', of course. Or its interests, purposes, theories, methods and practices of production.Surely it's clear to you, alan, that I'm the only one who ever mentions terms like 'socio-historical', and gives dates, names, events from hundreds of years ago, to the modern day. Descartes, Galilleo, Bacon, Comenius, Newton, 1660, the English Revolution, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, 1905 and 1915 with Einstein, Bohr, Labriola, Lukacs, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, Korsch, Pannekoek, Fleck, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend… I don't know about you, but I'm losing the will to live.And what do my opponents, who will not have democracy in the means of production (and by 'means', they mean physical things, like brick and mortar, instruments, tangible 'stuff', not 'ideas') look to for their basis?Engels' bloody 'materialism'. That's it. 19th century, half-arsed ignorant bullshit, based on a positivism that even the bourgeoisie have jettisoned. And the SPGB is supposed to be a resource for enquiring workers, looking for ideas that can help those workers build for socialism?No, alan, "we are not all on the same wavelength politically or philosophically".In fact, I can honestly say that the 'theoreticians' in the SWP can give a better, more informed, historical and social account of what we're discussing, than the supposed 'democrats' of the SPGB. The SWP still spout nonsense, of course, but at least its thought-out, informed, educated nonsense. As is most of the product of bourgeois academia.The SPGB seems to consist of uneducated, ill-informed, philosopically-illiterate bluffers, who like the sound of 'democracy' and 'socialism', but haven't got a clue what they're talking about.We've even had posters say that they have never read Engels or Marx, beyond a cursory uncomprehending glance by some, never mind physics or philosophy. I seriously doubt that some read books at all – they seem to rely on word of mouth, and they've learned, years ago, to mouth the slogan "Materialism Good, Idealism Bad!". And they're sticking to their potty training and ALB as the arse-wiper, no matter how many wellread workers explain about the modern water closet, soft toilet tissue and self-cleaning.After all this, alan, I could be persuaded that I'm just unfortunate to have encountered online mostly the 'thickoes' of the SPGB, and offline the party does contain literates. I could be persuaded of this if the SPGB could produce just one – one only – who shows some recognition of the complexities of understanding the Marx-Engels relationship, and the meaning of 'scientific knowledge', and the philosophical need for "workers' democracy".But I think that I'm right to conclude that the SPGB is built upon Engels' theory of 'materialism', which existed before the SPGB was formed, and had already contaminated the 'socialist' movement by 1904. Anyone who had encountered the party and already had some understanding of the roots of Leninism (in Engels' 'materialism') would never join, and if they were open minded enough to have developed during their membership, they would have resigned.Anyway, what do you think the chances are of me accepting your warm, comradely welcome, and joining your party?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Anyway, what do you think the chances are of me accepting your warm, comradely welcome, and joining your party?

That would require you to give a definition of 'socialism' which will probably be closer to the SWP than the World Socialist Movement. It is the only explanation for the confusion you display

[ALB]

Here, on cue, is exactly what I meant. Here's distortion:

LBird wrote:

When asked 'who' will control the production of maths and physics under (the SPGB version of) 'socialism', there is massed bafflement at the question. The simple answer by the SPGB is 'the elite that have always controlled maths and physics!'. The implication is that the elite have done such a good job in the last 350 years, so why change a perfectly good working formula, and let those uneducated, lazy, drunken, scruffs in the working class get their grubby hands on the shining edifice of perfection that is 'science'.

And here's abuse:

LBird wrote:

The SPGB seems to consist of uneducated, ill-informed, philosopically-illiterate bluffers, who like the sound of 'democracy' and 'socialism', but haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

That's it.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Engels' bloody 'materialism'. That's it. 19th century, half-arsed ignorant bullshit, based on a positivism that even the bourgeoisie have jettisoned. And the SPGB is supposed to be a resource for enquiring workers, looking for ideas that can help those workers build for socialism?In fact, I can honestly say that the 'theoreticians' in the SWP can give a better, more informed, historical and social account of what we're discussing, than the supposed 'democrats' of the SPGB. The SWP still spout nonsense, of course, but at least its thought-out, informed, educated nonsense. As is most of the product of bourgeois academia.The SPGB seems to consist of uneducated, ill-informed, philosopically-illiterate bluffers, who like the sound of 'democracy' and 'socialism', but haven't got a clue what they're talking about.We've even had posters say that they have never read Engels or Marx, beyond a cursory uncomprehending glance by some, never mind physics or philosophy. I seriously doubt that some read books at all – they seem to rely on word of mouth, and they've learned, years ago, to mouth the slogan "Materialism Good, Idealism Bad!". And they're sticking to their potty training and ALB as the arse-wiper, no matter how many wellread workers explain about the modern water closet, soft toilet tissue and self-cleaning.

So, Alan, is this what you call persistently arguing your corner? LBird should be embarrassed that he cannot give a definition of his 'democratic communism'. He doesn't have one, he gets frustrated and turns to abuse

[Author]

Posts