What is Socialism?
- This topic has 197 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
And of course in socialism everybody will be able to have free access to science and technology, i.e there will be no patents, trade secrets, copyright, etc.
LBird wrote: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!
2nd warning: 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.
Vin wrote: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
1st warning: 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 wrote: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?
1st warning: 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.
moderator1 wrote:1st warning: 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.Er, I always had the impression that a 3rd warning followed a 2nd (see #181) but maybe the maths is far too advanced for a forum that more and more resembles a kindergarten. I dread to think the effect all this infantile behaviour is having on those visiting our forum for the very first time…
LBird wrote:.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.Can you tll us a bit more about this vote you propose 1) who is going to participate in this vote?2) how are you going to organise this vote?3) What happens if some of us continue to think 2+2 is 4 or even, lets say, 7?
Vin wrote:I 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 minoritiesI would have to agree. Even now, it is bizarre to claim that a social elite control science. There is an elite of a kind, but a meritocratic elite, established through competition of ideas.I know little about chemistry, still less about biology, but when it comes to physics it seems difficult to find a discipline so apolitical. Mathematical models stand and fall on how closely they comport with the objective reality we observe, on their predictive power. The only difference I would envisage there being under a socialist economy would be the tight limits on funding being relieved. There would be more avenues of research explored, and hopefully more scientists to carry it out in place of the work they now do on e.g. defense research.
gnome wrote:moderator1 wrote:1st warning: 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.Er, I always had the impression that a 3rd warning followed a 2nd (see #181) but maybe the maths is far too advanced for a forum that more and more resembles a kindergarten. I dread to think the effect all this infantile behaviour is having on those visiting our forum for the very first time…
There were so many reported/flagged posts and breach of rules I got confused and inadvertedly started handing out warnings on this tread from the bottom up instead of from the top down. My apologies.
gnome wrote:I dread to think the effect all this infantile behaviour is having on those visiting our forum for the very first time…And why do you wait for other comrades to react to the abuse from LBird before you step in and have a go at your own comrades?Where were you when we needed you?
moderator1 wrote:My apologies.And you
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:I dread to think the effect all this infantile behaviour is having on those visiting our forum for the very first time…And why do you wait for other comrades to react to the abuse from LBird before you step in and have a go at your own comrades?
I'm not having "a go" at anyone in particular. Every participant in this counter-productive, ego-massaging diatribe needs to execise a modicum of self-control. Hard for some I realise.
Vin wrote:Where were you when we needed you?What, and join those seemingly determined to wreck the forum (and the party) – you cannot be serious. You'll rarely, if ever, see comrades from Kent & Sussex, East Anglia, Manchester, South West and other branches contributing to this self-defeating shit; most of them are far too busy engaged in socialist activity. Some would do well to take a leaf out of their book.
Gnome, i believe you have in the past criticised some of those comrades (whose numbers include party officers) for not bothering to visit this forum and sticking with the old Yahoo lists. In fact some don't even bother to use those. If we took a leaf out of their books, this discussion forum would be non-existent and any opportunity other than conference or adm or the ec to call committees or officers to account would disappear entirely. A charge that some members are intent upon wrecking the party is a serious one. I am aware that the line between self-criticism and self-destruction can be a narrow one, but rather than casually throw these charges about , they should be questioned specifically with particulars. I think many are involved in socialist activity, especially online, that goes unnoticed by some in the Party. I know of one member who is the sole voice of sanity in the comments section of the Guardian…and i pretty certain many members read that rag and don't make use of it interactively. And, of course, you know my position that i sometimes (well quite often, in fact) actually raise the issue of inactivity by committees, branches and members and try to gee them into doing stuff. I think you too share that opinion at times even though you also think members in far-off parts of the globe should exercise a more modicum of restraint when it comes to suggestions for others to carry out. Your own branch should be congratulated for its initiatives to remedy the malaise i see existing within the Party. I wish all branches operated with such enthusiasm and determinedness…alas…i am often disappointed. But i don't despair, even if it may seem like i do. We are capable of turning things around…how we do that, well. i am no oracle, but we start as KSRB do…on the street corner making ourselves visible.Spring and Summer is approaching, the possibility of good weather may very well facilitate more open-air activity. But planning and preparing for that begins now with acquiring the pamphlets and books, the banners and posters and a sturdy table and having an appropriate leaflet addressed to your local fellow-workers available to hand out. I was pleased by the proposal from your branch that we have a template (preferably several concentrating on different themes and topics) of leaflets that can be produced at short notice. Thats the way to go…Get the tools available for people to access. Sorry for teaching granny to suck eggs…this post isn't meant to be patronising…just a gentle reminder for those who require a nudge or two.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Gnome, i believe you have in the past criticised some of those comrades (whose numbers include party officers) for not bothering to visit this forum and sticking with the old Yahoo lists. In fact some don't even bother to use those. If we took a leaf out of their books, this discussion forum would be non-existent and any opportunity other than conference or adm or the ec to call committees or officers to account would disappear entirely.There is a vast distinction between contributing to the forum positively and engaging in a destructive and interminable set of exchanges over a long period of time with someone who clearly has the intention of sowing discord by posting inflammatory and extraneous messages with the deliberate intent of provoking other users into making an emotional response, presumably for her own amusement. LBird has you all on a string but you don't realise it…
alanjjohnstone wrote:A charge that some members are intent upon wrecking the party is a serious one.Now read what I actually said and not what you imagined I said. However, nobody will ever convince me that these particular exchanges are likely to be beneficial to the party.
"What, and join those seemingly determined to wreck the forum (and the party) "It is a bit ambiguous but i did imagine in the use of "those", you included those members who have participated in exchanges on the forum.As i said in an earlier post, LBird can be credited of encouraging some members to re-read Marx and Engels and Pannekoek and a host of other authorities to re-visit their interpretation of Marxist philosophy and re-confirm their existing analysis. That can only strengthen the party. We can also now use his contributions to demonstrate the openness and tolerance of the party towards its critics, another positive. And you are are aware if you have followed the thread i'm happy enough for them to debate and discuss to their heart's content but i, myself, was lost on page 1 and readily admitted it without any shame wahtsoever plus i have on more than one occasion questioned the value of the debates to the practical goal of achieving socialism, describing them as pub discourses…when drink gets the better of you and you become fixated upon one particular topic. While i accept there is a time and place for LBird, i also recognise that it should not fill the inbox of forum members day in , day out. I see now Tim also found the term "those" vague and asks for a clarification, so i'm gratified i'm not the only one to misread the possible intent of your message.
gnome wrote:What, and join those seemingly determined to wreck the forum (and the party) – you cannot be serious. You'll rarely, if ever, see comrades from Kent & Sussex, East Anglia, Manchester, South West and other branches contributing to this self-defeating shit; most of them are far too busy engaged in socialist activity. Some would do well to take a leaf out of their book.I do think that your comment "those seemingly determined to wreck the forum (and the party)" need to be clarified. Whilst accepting that this does not specify who the "those" actually are, it could be interpreted as stating that there are members of the Party who are determined to wreck it, which is a clear allegation of "action detrimental".Whilst I also have come to the conclusion that our feathered friend is either here to troll certain members, or possibly has certain issues of his own, and as such will not in the future engage in his anti-socialist and frankly anti social games, I think that to imply that this is a branch related issue is not only divisive, it is also uncomradely. I would also go as far as stating that such comments are unworthy of you and could be also described as self defeating, in as much as they discourage members from contributing to the forum. Similarly I feel that the implication that the work of some members in spreading socialist consciousness is more valid that others is also divisive; we all do what we can, when we can, in whatever way we can. The North East area for instance has been one where very little activity has taken place in recent years, although going back in time we had two strong and active branches. Activity has begun to begin again in the North east, aided by the use of the forum. Comments like the ones you have made could be counterproductive in the development of that activity.For my own part, I will admit I have on occasions taken the L Bird bait, and I take your general point that the debate has at times degenerated, I have stated previously that I will in future desist, however on a more puerile note, I did think my chemistry lesson contribution was quite funny.Yours in comradely spirit for Socialism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.