What is Socialism?
- This topic has 197 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
He's just done it again. He accused me of being the sort of materialist which has "'tangible matter'"as its "central concern". I produce chapter and verse to show that I'm not that kind of old-fashioned materialist. And what he does he do? Call me an "Engelsist" which in his mind is someone whose central concern is tangible matter. What's the point of arguing with someone like that?
Hi ALB apparently, I'm an "expert Psychologist" , would you like to pull up a seat and talk about your feelings toward L Bird.Firstly, It's important that you don't get angry.To achieve enlightenment, you need to be like me – recognise that L Bird is a truly gifted individual.The undoubted truth is that we are but mere insects, in comparison to his huge intellect.Not for L Bird the nuances of logical argument, not for him cogent and coherent replies to the view points of others. L Bird uses the supreme dialectic, proof by assertion.You need to recognise that when L Bird tells you what your view is, that is what your view is. When L Bird tells you what to think, that's what you should think, when L Bird asserts something, it is infallible truth. Come join me in the shadow of the greatest thinker of ours, or for that matter any generation. L Bird, we salute you!
ALB wrote:He's just done it again. He accused me of being the sort of materialist which has "'tangible matter'"as its "central concern".ALB, I specifically asked you on the other thread what does 'means' (of production) include.I said it includes 'ideas', including physics and maths, and so 'democratic control of the means of production' means ''democratic control of physics and maths'.You argued against this, You said, in effect, 'means' includes only 'tangible stuff' and not 'ideas'.Now, you clown, give us a straight answer:Do you agree that the revolutionary proletariat should democratically control 'maths and physics'?If you say 'No', you're an Engelsist Materialism.If you say 'Yes', like me, you're a Marxist Idealist-Materialist.Fuckin' hell, it's simple enough.Either workers control 'maths' or an elite controls 'maths'.You want 'mathematicians' to control 'maths'; 'physicists' to control 'physics', etc. etc., which will end in a 'party' controlling 'politics'. Engels' materialism leads inexorably to Leninism.
L Bird wrote -Do you agree that the revolutionary proletariat should democratically control 'maths and physics'?If you say 'No', you're an Engelsist Materialism.If you say 'Yes', like me, you're a Marxist Idealist-Materialist.Typical of your method of argument, make a statement and then put in your own conclusions about what the respondent might say. If you were to say that we should democratically oversee the work of scientists, no problem, however regardless of your spurious logic, we cannot democraticaly control the outcome of physical experiments, 2+2 equals four, no matter how many times any gorup of individuals vote to say ot doesn't. What you appear to want to create is some kind of Orwellian newspeak.
Tim Killgallon wrote:…we cannot democraticaly control the outcome of physical experiments, 2+2 equals four, no matter how many times any gorup of individuals vote to say ot doesn't.[my bold]Tim, you're new to the site, so you won't know.I've shown many times that we can control the outcome of all experiments, and 2+2 can equal 11, and that both can be decided by a vote.Of greater philosophical significance is your use of the qualifier 'physical'.You won't recognise the importance of your use of that, but to any other readers who have followed this with interest, it should stand out like a sore thumb, as the mark of a 'materialist' (the modern term being a 'physicalist').
LBird wrote:I said it includes 'ideas', including physics and maths, and so 'democratic control of the means of production' means ''democratic control of physics and maths'.Socialism means the common and democratic ownership and control of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth, phyasical and mental.We could unpack what democracy means: it means run by and for the whole community. So, yes, physics and maths would be a part of common ownership, and physics and maths societies and inteest groups would be democratically organised, and their resources taken from the common stock by democratic agreement (i.e. in today's parlance, their budget).One possibility is the wikipedia model. There knowledge is organised by the community for the community without commodity relations.
LBird wrote:It's a philosophical attitude towards the merits of democracy versus elitistism.It is not, and you are out-voted by us imbeciles. If you do not accept that as the 'truth' then you are an elitist and consider the opinion of us working class idiots as irrelevant.Your argument is hilarious. You oppose elitism but everyone around you are idiots that don't understand you. There is no subtle way of describing you and your opinions.
LBird wrote:You won't recognise the importance of your use of that, but to any other readers who have followed this with interest, it should stand out like a sore thumb, as the mark of a 'materialist' (the modern term being a 'physicalist').You are fucking nuts, lol
I suggest those who think LBird is an elitist and is out to deliberately troll the SPGB, take heed of the following bit of advice, specifically the last sentence.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.
LBird is abusive and not civil. He ignores this rule
Tim Kilgallon wrote: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 yearsLol As LBird said, you are new to the forum but you have him summed up already
L BirdI may be new to this site but I am anything but new to the kind of philosophical arguments you are putting forward.I fully understand the point that you are trying (very poorly, in my opinion) to make which is that thought is socially produced. Where you sink into idealism is in your interpretation that if thought can be changed and concept can be changed the material world will necessary change alongside our perception of it. You also make a crude reductionist argument that as we live in a bourgeois society this is not only the primary influence on the production of thoughts it is the only factor. As I have pointed out to you time and time again, perhaps you should read some work on attachment theory and personality development, it might fill in the all to obvious gaps in your knowledge base.
Vin, the discussion has broken down so much it is no longer a discussion, but a series of insults.I'm not defending LBird, simply suggesting a way to deal with someone who goes around telling everyone here that what we are and what we think, say etc is wrong, while claiming to have the only solution at the same time as claiming to be against elitism.Just a suggestion.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:SP Point taken, I shall desistdittoI will put my pennyworth in1. ‘Science’ is central to the development of the means and instruments of production within capitalism.2. Socialists welcome the advanced development of the means of production (including science) within capitalism as it is one of the prerequisites for the establishment of socialism.3. Socialists do not seek to destroy the scientific and other advances made within capitalism. On the contrary we intend to use them for the common good.4. Knowledge is socially produced and this will continue in socialist society.5. Logically there can be no ‘elite’ control of the knowledge as knowledge is socially produced.6. There can be no ‘elite’ where there is no economic control by minorities
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.