What is Socialism?
- This topic has 197 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote: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
Actually, judging by his past contributions outside his pet obsession, his definition of socialism is not all that far from ours and not nearer to that of the SWP's state capitalism. He does agree that socialism is a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production which will make money, wages, profits, banks, etc redundant but –and it's a big but — he adds something rather sinister — that democratic control should extent to what people think, i.e thought control, which of course has never been part of the historical definition of socialism
ALB wrote: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.
ALB, I'm just returning your abuse in the same terms, you dickhead.On the other thread, I was very patient and courteous, and explained some complexities to you, about your 'materialism'. You didn't abuse me, so I didn't abuse you. I treated you like a grown-up.But, this thread?You seem to be a very slow learner. I despair that you'll ever learn, about either your ill-manners or your ill-education.The SPGB should let alan vet members' posts on here, because at least alan makes the SPGB seem vaguely attractive, unlike youse ignorant louts.This is your party's 'shop window', for god's sake! Even I came here, actively following you and alan from LibCom, to browse initially and perhaps even enter, and build the concern.But… the dummies in the shop window are like a collection of zombies, banging on the glass, trying to eat my brains!
ALB wrote:…his definition of socialism is not all that far from ours and not nearer to that of the SWP's state capitalism. He does agree that socialism is a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production which will make money, wages, profits, banks, etc redundant but –and it's a big but — he adds something rather sinister — that democratic control should extent to what people think, i.e thought control, which of course has never been part of the historical definition of socialism[my bold]You're perfectly correct, ALB, we do have much in common.But you're a 'materialist', which has its roots in bourgeois biological individualism. Hence 'tangible matter' as its central concern.Here, I've bolded your ideological concern – 'Individual Free Thought'.No socio-historical, Marxist, analysis of what 'thought' means.Your political and philosophical, unrecognised, unacknowledged assumption is that 'thought' is individual, not a social product.In fact, 'thought' is always a product of societies, not 'genius individuals', so our 'thought' in a democratic society would have to be democratically produced.This is a scary 'thought' for 'individualists', who have been progammed from birth by the bourgeoisie that 'they are individuals!', and that their thought is theirs.It's nonsense of course, and is merely a figleaf for the 'individual thought' of the 'elite', who obviously wish to keep their thought uncontrolled by the producers.So, here we have it – ALB is using standard bourgeois scare-mongering:The Commies will take not only your property, and daughters, but even your thoughts!
"In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal loveBelieves that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)Requires excessive admirationHas a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectationsIs exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own endsLacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or herRegularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes"I make no further comment
Bourgeois thinkers always want to find the root of any issue in individual psychology, eh, Tim, and not in political and philosophical, that is, social and historical, origins?Back to the crayons, Janet and John, and the Ladybird publication "Tim constructs a bourgeois argument", for you.
ALB wrote:Vin wrote: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 displayActually, judging by his past contributions outside his pet obsession, his definition of socialism is not all that far from ours and not nearer to that of the SWP's state capitalism. He does agree that socialism is a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production which will make money, wages, profits, banks, etc redundant but –and it's a big but — he adds something rather sinister — that democratic control should extent to what people think, i.e thought control, which of course has never been part of the historical definition of socialism
I don't think he understands. He asks us to define socialism but is insulted when I ask him to define itHow can he envisage 'elite contro'l in a society where production is under democratic control and free access? Why should it concern me if a brain surgeon can understand and carry out surgery but I cant? The medical profession will be under democratic control, I don't need to know how to run the canteen.
That's right L Bird You are the cleverest, the brightest the most wonderful of us all, we are but shadows of your towering intellect. You can dismiss anything you don't like with your magic force field of "that's bourgeois" or "your a Leninist" or even your ultimate weapon "I'm clever and you're thick".After all you have achieved the dizzy heights of grade 2 CSE in Philosophy. It must be such a frustrating place to be surrounded on all sides by imbeciles, when you are such a towering genius.
Vin wrote:The medical profession will be under democratic control, I don't need to know how to run the canteen.Fair enough, Vin, that's your individual opinion.But who decides who runs the 'medical profession' and 'the canteen'?If you agree with me, that it is democratic society, then it's society that decides what the 'medical profession' does and does not do with its production, not the 'medical profession' itself.If we, for whatever reason, decide that the 'medical profession' cleans the bogs, the 'medical profession' cleans the bogs.The only problem with accepting this formulation is for those who fear that the class conscious, revolutionary proletariat will make our surgeons and doctors clean shithouses, and will order plasterers to do heart surgery!Those stupid workers, eh? Wouldn't trust them to run a piss-up in a brewery, never mind physics and maths!I'll spell it out for you, Vin, because I know you don't do subtlety.It's a philosophical attitude towards the merits of democracy versus elitistism.Those brainwashed by the bourgeoisie fear democracy, because they fear the 'masses', and prefer to look to geniuses and 'special individuals', rather than that great unknown 'the democratic control of the means of production (and operations)'.
Just to add some psychological observations of my own, LBird, having read your earlier post on how you consider the Party to be, you must have one of the strongest streaks of masochism i have come across for you persistence in debating and discussing on this forum if you recognise the futility and fruitlessness of it No matter how much you are spurned, you keep coming back for moreIs it unrequited love, Lbird?…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwjS3_cZdN8&list=PL5_uypbSMXwCa_nxqQVu46MgJZDPwM4_y&index=10
The scene – A science classroom somewhere in the UK in the late 1980samidst the Bunsen burners, test tubes, retort stands etc. a group of 12 year old school pupils gather, a hushed silence descends upon the room as a man in a tweed coat with patches on his elbows enters the room. Taking off his jacket and putting on his lab coat moving to the front of the classroom. At the front of the class sits a small boy with pimples and glasses, clearly ostracized by his class mates he sits alone separated from the group. He is unaware that on his back one of his fellow pupils has placed a post it note with the word "TWAT" written on.The man in the lab coat speaks – "Today class we will be looking at using the flame test and burning sodium air"The spotty boy with spectacles' hand shoots up – "sir, sir, sir, please sir!!!"The teacher speaks with a heavy heart – "what is it this time boy"L Bird (for tis he) – "sir surely you mean that we will be hoodwinked into believing the socially constructed outcomes of bourgeois thought, masquerading as scientific truth"Loud groans are heard from the rest of the pupils in the class, followed by threats of violence from some.Teacher under his breath "Oh Christ not again" then out loud "Bird, we'll just carry out the experiment and see what happens"L Bird – "But sir do you not see you are an agent of Leninist oppression, by your elitist approach to science, I demand a democratic vote by the rest of my fellow pupils before this experiment continues"Teacher "I won't be oppressing anybody, we just want to see what happens when you burn sodium in air, now settle down and let us get on with the experiment"L Bird – "But sir, you've been led astray by Engels and his crass materialism, don't you see by looking to see what happens when you burn sodium in air you negating the role of consciousness in our scientific understanding. If only you would listen to me……"Teacher loudly "Bird!!! just sit down and let the rest of the class get on with their work"L Bird – "But sir, the rest of the class are too stupid, ill educated and ignorant to understand these concepts, leave them to their Janet and John books and colouring in, only I have the special insight necessary to see through the deceptions of bourgeois science, please, please, can't you see how special I am"repeat ad nauseam for the next twenty years
LBird wrote:ALB, I'm just returning your abuse in the same termsThat wasn't abuse. It was contempt, basically for your dishonesty. And here's another example:
LBird wrote:But you're a 'materialist', which has its roots in bourgeois biological individualism. Hence 'tangible matter' as its central concern.Yes, I do call myself a materialist but in the general sense of holding that there is a world outside our thoughts. I think you do too. Some materialists (it's a wide definition) make 'tangible matter' their central concern, but not all. And not me. On the other thread I referred you to an article (which I assume you read) which contains this passage:
Quote:Mind and MatterDietzgen, as we saw, called himself a materialist. There are however various kinds of materialism and Dietzgen was careful to differentiate his dialectical materialism from what he called ‘onesided,’ ‘narrow’ and ‘mechanical’ materialism. This was the view (indeed the traditional materialist view going back to the philosophers of Ancient Greece) that the world is composed of tiny particles of tangible ‘matter’ and that the mind and thinking are simply the effects of the movement of these atoms. Writes Dietzgen:The distinguishing mark between the mechanical materialists of the 18th century and the Social-Democratic materialists trained in German idealism consists in that that the latter have extended the former’s narrow conception of matter as consisting exclusively of the Tangible to all phenomena that occur in the world.13 Every phenomenon, everything that occurs, exists, as part of the entire world of phenomena. Since non-tangible phenomena, e.g. ideas, thoughts etc., also occur, they are just as real or, if you like, just as ‘material’ as tangible phenomena:In the endless Universe matter in the sense of old and antiquated materialists, that is, of tangible matter, does not possess the slightest preferential right to be more substantial, i.e. more immediate, more distinct and more certain than any other phenomena of nature.14Dietzgen had no objection to the classification of the world of phenomena into two general categories, one consisting of tangible phenomena and called ‘matter’ and the other consisting of mental phenomena and called ‘mind.’ He had no objection either to explanations of mental phenomena in terms of tangible phenomena. What he was concerned to point out was that, in this sense, both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ were abstractions, even if very general ones, from the real world of phenomena. The rigid distinction between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ was a mental distinction that did not exist in the world of phenomena which, despite this mental operation, remained an undivided whole:The mind is a collective name for the mental phenomena, as matter is a collective name for the material phenomena, and the two together figure under the idea and name of the phenomena of Nature.15 This was the basis of Dietzgen’s statement, which, as we shall see, so upset Lenin, that ‘our materialism is distinguished by its special knowledge of the common nature of mind and matter’.16 By this he simply meant that both mind and matter were parts of the world of observable phenomena.Those Dietzgen called the ‘narrow’ materialists made the mistake of not thinking dialectically, that is, of not realising that the parts of the world of phenomena do not exist independently but only as interconnected parts of that world. In taking one part of the world of phenomena and making it the basis of all the other parts, they were falsely ascribing a real, independent existence to what was in fact only an abstraction:This materialism is so enamoured of mechanics, that it, as it were, idolizes it, does not regard it as part of the world, but as the sole substance of which the universe is made up.17 This was the same mistake as regarding the objects of everyday use as having an independent, separate existence. ‘Matter’ just as much as ‘table’ was a mental abstraction from the real world of phenomena; in reality tangible phenomena do not exist separately from other phenomena, they exist only as an integral part of the entire single world of all phenomena.I rest my case, but I can't keep on correcting your distortions every time you repeat them. It happens so often.
To return to the theme of the thread:
LBird wrote:In fact, 'thought' is always a product of societies, not 'genius individuals', so our 'thought' in a democratic society would have to be democratically produced.Discuss.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to add some psychological observations of my own, LBird, having read your earlier post on how you consider the Party to be, you must have one of the strongest streaks of masochism i have come across for you persistence in debating and discussing on this forum if you recognise the futility and fruitlessness of it No matter how much you are spurned, you keep coming back for moreIs it unrequited love, Lbird?…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwjS3_cZdN8&list=PL5_uypbSMXwCa_nxqQVu46MgJZDPwM4_y&index=10Good one, alan! It made me burst out laughing – perhaps with uncomfortable self-recognition!
ALB wrote:I rest my case, but I can't keep on correcting your distortions every time you repeat them. It happens so often.ALB, I answered your post on the other thread about Dietzgen, and told you he argued for 'induction' (ie. practice and theory), so he wasn't using Marx's method of 'theory and practice'.You haven't continued that discussion.The only distorter in all this is you.You 'distort' your ideology, and pretend to be a Marxist. You are an Engelsist.This ignoring by you of what you're told 'happens so often', and is always followed by you insulting me, that I can only conclude that you've got a problem with learning.I presume that there is a 'psychological connection' between 'ignorance and insulting', but you'll have to get the 'expert' Tim to explain that one.Meanwhile, if you want to discuss Dietzgen, read what I write, and make some progress.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.