What is Socialism?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

… and an entire party aguing that 'socialism' means 'elite control of the means of production'.

 Untrue. You don't know what we mean by socialism. You are a confused left wing Leninist  

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

… and an entire party aguing that 'socialism' means 'elite control of the means of production'.

 Untrue. You don't know what we mean by socialism. 

Oh, I do know what youse mean, Vin!I keep asking you to confirm that, for the SPGB, 'socialism' means 'the democratic control of the means of production', and youse all keep refusing to confirm that.The reason that you can't do that, is that the ideology employed by the SPGB is 'materialism', the same ideology employed by Lenin, and this ideology insists that 'matter' determines 'what it is'. Hence, no room for 'democratic control by workers' in determining just what 'matter' is.Only a party that argues for workers' power is interested in 'socialism'; a party imprisoned in 'materialism' can't do this, because 'materialism' denies the role of class consciousness in determining 'matter'.For 'materialists', 'matter' just 'is'. And we workers cannot argue with this assumption, and must obey those who 'know matter' just 'as it is'.The SPGB makes such an elitist claim, that they are 'materialists' who have a special insight into 'matter', and so the party denies the right and power of the class conscious proletariat to 'change its world', as defined by the proletariat.

[twc]

The only occurrence I know of, in the 49-volume Marx–Engels Collected Works, to a reference about ‘the scientific value of voting on scientific truth’ is the Engels-to-Marx letter of Bastille Day 1877, excerpted in Post #42, Letter 3, Paragraph 2 (above)

wrote:

Congress resolutions, however unexceptionable they may be in the field of practical agitation, count for nothing in that of science, nor do they suffice to establish a periodical’s scientific nature — something that cannot be decreed.

This refers to the scientific nature of a periodical as “something that cannot be decreed”. That is the closest I’ve found to “voting on scientific truth”, and it’s all in the negative.Furthermore, Marx did not respond to Engels like an outraged crank:Marx does not thereby hurl abuse at Engels.Marx does not thereby label Engels a bourgeous anti-democrat.Marx does not thereby charge Engels with founding modern jacobinism [latterly known as Leninism].On the contrary Marx calmly agrees with Engels’s unexceptional point, without raising his ire or sweat.Thus, we all would be in your debt if you will kindly point us to the source in the 49-volume Marx–Engels Collected Works in which Marx states categorically that truth can only be decided by universal voting on it.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Thus, we all would be in your debt if you will kindly point us to the source in the 49-volume Marx–Engels Collected Works in which Marx states categorically that truth can only be decided by universal voting on it.

Marx, Rules of The International, wrote:

Considering,That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves…

http://marx.eserver.org/1864-international/1864-rules.txtSorry, twc, but no matter how hard I search, I can't find the point where you claim that Marx 'states categorically' that 'Truth can only be decided by an elite, unelected minority'.

[Young Master Smeet]

Since we're being asked:

SPGB Object wrote:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Since we're being asked:

SPGB Object wrote:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

[my bold]Surely physics and maths come under 'means and instruments', YMS?Surely the 'interests of physics research' and the 'interests of truth' come under 'the interest of the whole community'?And where does it say in the SPGB Object that 'there will be no democratic control in science' ?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

And where does it say in the SPGB Object that 'there will be no democratic control in science' ?

No one here has ever said that, we have repeatedly said how scientific resources and institutions will be democratically managed. Universities would have to become democratic associations; learned societies would continue to exist and would be able to freely produce and distribute their journals to libraries which anyone would be able to access ; individuals would have the free time to study and learn.  the community would allocate resources to these activities: land, buildings, lab equipment, ICT.  Worlwide bodies would promote conferences and the distribution of ideas; the internet would be barrier free and all learned journals would be free to read online. etc.  The whole community would have access to the information they choose to access and the capacity to join the ongoing openm ended debate, which no-one would have the right or power to shut down.Of course, democracy means the right of minorites to try and become majorities, so that must include promotion and protection of heterodox views.

[jondwhite]

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.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.

AFAIK robbo is a non-member which leaves about 2% of total SPGB membership at most who have disagreed with you on this forum.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

And where does it say in the SPGB Object that 'there will be no democratic control in science' ?

No one here has ever said that, we have repeatedly said how scientific resources and institutions will be democratically managed. Universities would have to become democratic associations; learned societies would continue to exist and would be able to freely produce and distribute their journals to libraries which anyone would be able to access ; individuals would have the free time to study and learn.  the community would allocate resources to these activities: land, buildings, lab equipment, ICT.  Worlwide bodies would promote conferences and the distribution of ideas; the internet would be barrier free and all learned journals would be free to read online. etc.  The whole community would have access to the information they choose to access and the capacity to join the ongoing openm ended debate, which no-one would have the right or power to shut down.Of course, democracy means the right of minorites to try and become majorities, so that must include promotion and protection of heterodox views.

Whilst I agree with the above, YMS, I see that you've avoided my question about 'democratic control' of physics and maths, amongst other human social productive activites.If not us, 'who' or 'what' determines 'scientific truth'?The bourgeoisie claim to have a 'neutral', 'non-political' method which allows 'academics' or 'elite experts' an access to 'Truth', and that the rest of us do not have the ability now, or capability to develop along with our developing class consciousness, and so this 'Truth' must be produced by an elite.The bourgeoisie introduced this ruling class idea (and myth) when they began to achieve political and economic domination for their class. They call it 'being objective'.But we now know that that claim was a lie, and even their own physicists (those who bother to consider it, anyway, not the majority) admit that they do not have a 'neutral' method, but that their method is entirely 'human' (and thus, for us, socio-historical).Once the revolutionary proletariat realise that 'the bourgeoisie are making it up, and always have been', they'll realise that we, too, can make up our 'socially-objective' world, to our own purposes, and thus change it.The 'materialists' object to this, because 'materialism' is a bourgeois ideology, which fits elite political control, hence the history of Leninism and its philosophy, materialism.Materialists regard 'matter' as the determining, active side.Socialists regard human social productive activity as the 'active side': theory and practice.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

AFAIK robbo is a non-member which leaves about 2% of total SPGB membership at most who have disagreed with you on this forum.

But 100% of active, posting, members, jdw!I notice that you haven't denied the 'materialist faith' in the god 'matter'!It might only take one poster to restore the democratic credentials of the SPGB, which have been so roughly dismissed by the, err… ahem… '2%'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Whilst I agree with the above, YMS, I see that you've avoided my question

 Lol. What a joke you are. When are you going to answer my questions and those of other forum members. 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

But 100% of active, posting, members, jdw!

 Yes 100% reject your lunatic rantingsAnswer my question.  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

That is, we can vote upon 'laws of nature', 'scientific knowledge', 'truths', maths, physics, logic, etc., etc.

The whole of humanity will have full knowledge of advanced physics and maths. Every member of humanity will vote on ALL knowledge. The laws of nature can be changed by a vote of the entire world.Answer the questions put to you? Are you suggesting that socialism is only possible when we all understand every bit of every discipline. History, physics, maths, biological sciences etc This is your theory. Do you deny it?

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

And where does it say in the SPGB Object that 'there will be no democratic control in science' ?

No one here has ever said that, we have repeatedly said how scientific resources and institutions will be democratically managed. Universities would have to become democratic associations; learned societies would continue to exist and would be able to freely produce and distribute their journals to libraries which anyone would be able to access ; individuals would have the free time to study and learn.  the community would allocate resources to these activities: land, buildings, lab equipment, ICT.  Worlwide bodies would promote conferences and the distribution of ideas; the internet would be barrier free and all learned journals would be free to read online. etc.  The whole community would have access to the information they choose to access and the capacity to join the ongoing openm ended debate, which no-one would have the right or power to shut down.Of course, democracy means the right of minorites to try and become majorities, so that must include promotion and protection of heterodox views.

Whilst I agree with the above, YMS, I see that you've avoided my question about 'democratic control' of physics and maths, amongst other human social productive activites.If not us, 'who' or 'what' determines 'scientific truth'?The bourgeoisie claim to have a 'neutral', 'non-political' method which allows 'academics' or 'elite experts' an access to 'Truth', and that the rest of us do not have the ability now, or capability to develop along with our developing class consciousness, and so this 'Truth' must be produced by an elite.The bourgeoisie introduced this ruling class idea (and myth) when they began to achieve political and economic domination for their class. They call it 'being objective'.But we now know that that claim was a lie, and even their own physicists (those who bother to consider it, anyway, not the majority) admit that they do not have a 'neutral' method, but that their method is entirely 'human' (and thus, for us, socio-historical).Once the revolutionary proletariat realise that 'the bourgeoisie are making it up, and always have been', they'll realise that we, too, can make up our 'socially-objective' world, to our own purposes, and thus change it.The 'materialists' object to this, because 'materialism' is a bourgeois ideology, which fits elite political control, hence the history of Leninism and its philosophy, materialism.Materialists regard 'matter' as the determining, active side.Socialists regard human social productive activity as the 'active side': theory and practice.

1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[Author]

Posts