What is Socialism?
- This topic has 197 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Only if workers can vote upon this issue, of the question of whether there are significant differences between the ideas of Engels and the ideas of Marx, can the issue be resolved.
Is that a 'fact'?
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:It does not mention 'democratic control' by the direct producers.I wouldn't agree with him if he did. It will be Democratic control by all in communismWould you read our Object and D of P and raise criticisms of them instead of strawmen
[my bold]So, Vin, would 'all' democratically control maths, physics, etc.?It's a simple question – will 'all' control the production of 'truth'?
Introduction to the French Edition of Engels’s Socialism: Utopian and ScientificKarl Marx ¹ Written: May 5 1880;First published: in a pamphlet: F. Engels, Socialisme utopique et socialisme scientifique, Paris, 1880;Source: Marx Engels Collected Works, Volume 24, the first English translation;“The pages which form the subject of the present pamphlet, first published as three articles in the Revue socialiste, have been translated from the latest book by Engels Revolution in Science [i.e., Anti-Dühring]”.[Here is the CV that Marx wrote for Engels’s publication of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.]
Karl Marx wrote:“Frederick Engels, one of the foremost representatives of contemporary socialism, distinguished himself in 1844 with his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, which first appeared in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, published in Paris by Marx and Ruge.”“The Outlines already formulates certain general principles of scientific socialism.”…“In 1870, after leaving Manchester for London, Engels joined the General Council of the International, where he was entrusted with the correspondence with Spain, Portugal and Italy.”[Here is Marx’s endorsement of Engels’s Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.]
Karl Marx wrote:“The series of final articles which he contributed to the Vorwärts under the ironic title of Herr Dühring’s Revolution in Science (in response to the allegedly new theories of Mr. E. Dühring on science in general and socialism in particular) were assembled in one volume and were a great success among German socialists.”“In the present pamphlet we reproduce the most topical excerpt from the theoretical section of the book, which constitutes what might be termed an introduction to scientific socialism.”⁽¹⁾ The last page of the manuscript contains a postscript in Marx’s handwriting: “Dear Lafargue, here is the fruit of my consultation (of yesterday evening) with Engels. Polish the phrases, leaving the gist intact.” The introduction was initialled “P.L.” in the pamphlet.The editors of the Marx Engels Collected Works used Marx’s original manuscript and checked it against the text in the pamphlet.
Yes, twc, we've discussed Marx's introduction in the past.But it doesn't answer our present question, about the significant differences between Marx's ideas and Engels' ideas.To do that, we'd have to compare their respective ideas, not just quote-monger.I've said that before, too, but the faithful like to quote from the Good Book, and circumvent difficult questions.It's the mark of a cult. Cults do not like their followers critically discussing their alleged 'founders'. Another aspect of Leninism, eh?
LBird wrote:So, Vin, would 'all' democratically control maths, physics, etc.?It's a simple question – will 'all' control the production of 'truth'?No , because1) there is absolutely no need for thisand 2) it is logistically impossible for 7 billion people to vote on tens of thousands of scientific theories and only a complete fantasist would think otherwise.Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth" – that would be absolutely pointless anyway.- but to decisions relating to the regulation and control of the means of production and it will operate at multiple levels – local regional and , much more rarely, the global levelQED
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:It does not mention 'democratic control' by the direct producers.I wouldn't agree with him if he did. It will be Democratic control by all in communismWould you read our Object and D of P and raise criticisms of them instead of strawmen
[my bold]So, Vin, would 'all' democratically control maths, physics, etc.?It's a simple question – will 'all' control the production of 'truth'?
Answer MY question. It is simple, tooWho voted on your 'facts'
LBird wrote:Yes, twc, we've discussed Marx's introduction in the past.But it doesn't answer our present question, about the significant differences between Marx's ideas and Engels' ideas.To do that, we'd have to compare their respective ideas, not just quote-monger.I've said that before, too, but the faithful like to quote from the Good Book, and circumvent difficult questions.It's the mark of a cult. Cults do not like their followers critically discussing their alleged 'founders'. Another aspect of Leninism, eh?What rubbish, Instead of dealing with the content of the post. You engage personal slurs.How come you present your argument as if it was a 'fact' Your so 19th century and Leninist
A number of comrades have tried to convince me that the SPGB is not Leninist, and have been at pains to persuade me that the SPGB really is committed to "workers' democratic control of the means of production", and so the SPGB is 'socialist' in the sense that it claims to be.But, as I keep asking those well-meaning comrades, can't they read what is being written, by those opposed workers' democracy, on this site?Here, once more:
robbo203 wrote:Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"…I really don't understand how those comrades who are defending the SPGB can interpret this in any other way than a denial of workers' control, that is, a denial of democracy within the means of production.Apparently, for those within the SPGB who agree with robbo, the social production of scientific knowledge and social truths will be in the hands of a self-selected elite. They keep saying this, so I take them at their word, and I'm not sure why other comrades are not taking them at their word.To me, this is not any form of 'socialism', but simply a retread of Leninism, where an elite with a 'special consciousness' (which by their definition is not available to all workers, otherwise they'd agree to workers' democratic control) tell the 'unconscious masses' what the 'Truth' is.robbo and others keep saying this, and I can't see how this is any form of socialism. For them, 'socialism' seems to be about workers running factories, but not academia.Once again, why the SPGB doesn't disown this anti-democratic nonsense, beats me. I can only assume, in the absence of a rebuttal by the SPGB, that the 'official line' of the SPGB is this non-democratic version of 'socialism', which we workers have seen and experienced so often before, either in the Eastern Bloc or in the Trotskyist parties of the West.
Why don't you answer our questions?I believe Robbo has asked you over and over again. Will the whole world vote on advanced physics, mathematics, chemistry? Which will require us all to fully understand all knowledgeWill every adult human be capable of carrying out a complex brain operation?If we vote that the moon is static will that become the truth?Here is where you either disappear of come out with personal slander
Vin wrote:Why don't you answer our questions?I believe Robbo has asked you over and over again. Will the whole world vote on advanced physics, mathematics, chemestry? Which will require us all to fully understand all knowledgeWill every adult human be capable of carrying out a complex brain operation?If we vote that the moon is static will that become the truth?Here is where you either disappear of come out with personal slanderI've answered your questions many times, and since you refuse to accept my answers, I've stopped giving them. I'll leave that to others who wish to repeat what I've already said, on other threads, if they wish.I'm more interested in discussing with those members and followers of the SPGB, who are committed to the democratic control of the means of production, how this will apply to, for example, the social production of academia: the education system and all its disciplines, including the most ideologically powerful for the bourgeoisie, physics and maths. Those are a central pillar of the non-democratic ideology of the bourgeoisie, together with 'individualism' and 'the free market'.It seems pointless to try to discuss 'democracy' with those who start from the presumption that 'democracy is not required' or 'democracy is not possible'.My starting point is the necessity for workers' democratic control of the means of production: I define this as 'socialism'.Youse don't, and you've made that very clear, so I've learnt to ignore your pretended requests for answers.
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:Why don't you answer our questions?I believe Robbo has asked you over and over again. Will the whole world vote on advanced physics, mathematics, chemistry? Which will require us all to fully understand all knowledgeWill every adult human be capable of carrying out a complex brain operation?If we vote that the moon is static will that become the truth?Here is where you either disappear of come out with personal slanderI've answered your questions many times,
You have not! And you are avoiding the questions yet again. You do not have answers to these questions.
LBird wrote:A number of comrades have tried to convince me that the SPGB is not Leninist, and have been at pains to persuade me that the SPGB really is committed to "workers' democratic control of the means of production", and so the SPGB is 'socialist' in the sense that it claims to be.But, as I keep asking those well-meaning comrades, can't they read what is being written, by those opposed workers' democracy, on this site?Here, once more:robbo203 wrote:Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"…I really don't understand how those comrades who are defending the SPGB can interpret this in any other way than a denial of workers' control, that is, a denial of democracy within the means of production.
Either you a very serious problem with your eyesight, LBird, or your are being grossly dishonest. Here is what I actually wroteCommunist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth" – that would be absolutely pointless anyway.- but to decisions relating to the regulation and control of the means of production and it will operate at multiple levels – local regional and , much more rarely, the global levelNow explain to me in what way is this a "denial of democracy within the means of production"?
LBird wrote:Apparently, for those within the SPGB who agree with robbo, the social production of scientific knowledge and social truths will be in the hands of a self-selected elite. They keep saying this, so I take them at their word, and I'm not sure why other comrades are not taking them at their word.To me, this is not any form of 'socialism', but simply a retread of Leninism, where an elite with a 'special consciousness' (which by their definition is not available to all workers, otherwise they'd agree to workers' democratic control) tell the 'unconscious masses' what the 'Truth' is.What bilge. I am quite happy to acknowlege that I will never be an accomplished nuclear physicist or a molecular biologist in socialism. I recognise, unlike LBird, that there will always be those far more accomplished in these fields than I could ever be and who will understand theories that I cannot even get my head around. Is that a problem? Not in the least. Why shoud it be? If it is a problem then how does LBird propose that we get round this problem in socialism? How does he propose to do away with the incredibily complex social division of labour upon which our advanced technology is based? Spell it out in detail LBird. Childishly claiming it is "Leninism" is no answerHow are we all gonna become accomplished nuclear physicists and molecular biologists ( not to mention the numerous other fields of sceitific expertise) in socialism ? Becuase if we dont then its gonna be pretty difficult to meaningfully vote on some abstruse theory we know nothing about, dont you think? Thats is to say nothing of the logistiscs of organising this global vote or even the very purpose for holding it anyway. On this last point I still have no idea why you think a vote is necessary. Say for the sake of argument you manage to organise this vote and the Truth of a some scientific theory is democratically established. OK now what? What are we supposed to do with this democratic decision? Will people be sanctioned for questoning the Truth or what?. You dont explain . You never expain. Thats becuase you dont understand what democracy is for . It is not about establishing Truth but about the resolution of conflicting interests .That is why it makes no difference to me whatsoever that some know a lot more than I will ever know, They cannot use that knowledge against me in the area of practical decisionmaking which is where the real significance of democracy actually lies
robbo203 wrote:…democracy is … not about establishing Truth…Once more, robbo can't be any clearer.He holds to an ideology that claims that 'Truth' is not established by democracy.It doesn't take much thinking about his ideological claim, that 'democracy is not about establishing the Truth' (which is also a claim that bourgeois ideology makes), to start to wonder, if not the democratic proletariat, then just who does 'establish the Truth'?From logic alone, we Democratic Communists must assume that robbo has in mind an 'elite' who are to 'establish the Truth'.Those who know the events of the 20th century, and are aware of regimes that claimed to be 'socialist', but also refused to allow workers to actively participate in the production of truth, also refused to allow workers to participate in politics, or in the distribution of social production… in fact, those regimes, which also claimed that 'Truth is not established by democracy', weren't 'socialist' at all.Only the class conscious proletariat, building towards a socialism in which they will themselves determine production, can be the source of any claims for 'truths'.Whilst workers look to any persons or organisations which clearly deny the active role of the revolutionary proletariat in all areas of social production, then those workers will be lied to and fooled. The result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'.This is the fruit of 'materialism'. Materialism claims that the 'material' ('matter' or 'physical') speaks alone to a 'special elite' (but doesn't speak to workers, who are too poorly educated, or even have no interest, to participate), and so, from the very outset, denies the possibility of democracy in the means of production. For materialists, 'matter' is the 'active side', and so workers cannot vote upon what 'matter' actually 'is'. The materialists argue that 'matter just is', and they claim that they (and they alone) 'know' matter, because they have a non-political method which allows elite minorities to access 'matter', outside of considerations of socio-historical consciousness, or the wishes or purposes of the proletariat.They claim physics is non-political. This is a bourgeois claim, and its emergence can be located in history.This claim leads to the ideological belief that 'Truth' is outside of any considerations of social consciousness, and so outside issues of democracy.Beware, any workers reading, an elite plans openly to deny democracy in the means of production: this elite actually says so, and you should take their open claims seriously.
Ahem wrote:The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself.Young Master Smeet wrote:Ahem wrote:The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself.So, if 'man' (sic, actually 'humanity') has 'control', then…… if 'man' is defined (as the bourgeoisie define) as an 'individual' or as an 'elite', then it means either 'individual control' or 'elite control'.However, if one is not a bourgeois ideologist, but looks to Marx, then 'humanity' means all humanity (after a successful proletarian revolution), and so this 'control' is 'under the democratic control of all' of us.That is, we can vote upon 'laws of nature', 'scientific knowledge', 'truths', maths, physics, logic, etc., etc.Materialists deny this, they define 'man', the 'active side', as a person or group who have a special consciousness/education/genius/interest/ability, which gives them, and them alone, access to 'material conditions'.Socialists, on the other hand, believe that 'material conditions' can only be defined by the class conscious proletariat, and not by a Leninist elite who claim to 'know matter'. For the class conscious proletariat, who organise on the basis of democratic controls, only a vote can suffice when declaring 'definitions'.'Definitions' are socio-historical, and humanity has the power to change its definitions, and so has the power to change 'material circumstances'.Materialists merely wish to 'interpret' what 'matter is' for a passive, disorganised, uninterested, uneducated, disabled, unwashed mass – the 'materialists' will not allow a vote upon 'matter'.Materialists have an 'elite' consciousness – ask them, any interested workers reading this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.