Why we are different
- This topic has 49 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
mcolome1 wrote:
But… don't forget to emphasise where the SPGB is exactly the same as these other parties.All these parties, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, and the SPGB, base their politics, philosophy and science on Engels' 'Materialism'.Thus, none of these parties argue for Marx's ideas about the democratic control of all social production, by employing the democratic method of social theory and practice.It's my opinion, though, that what separates the SPGB from the others, is the potential to ditch Engels' 'Materialism' and to turn to Marx's democratic production.This, though, would require a thorough re-examination of the SPGB's commitment to democratic politics, democratic philosophy and democratic science.All three of these areas of social production must be based upon a commitment to democratic means, which is impossible if the SPGB retains its (undeclared in its constitution) commitment to Engels' 'Materialism', which is inherently undemocratic.I haven't found any open declaration by the party to Engels' 'Materialism', but it seems to be taken on faith by the membership (that I've discussed it with, anyway).
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:But… don't forget to emphasise where the SPGB is exactly the same as these other parties.All these parties, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, and the SPGB, base their politics, philosophy and science on Engels' 'Materialism'.Thus, none of these parties argue for Marx's ideas about the democratic control of all social production, by employing the democratic method of social theory and practice.It's my opinion, though, that what separates the SPGB from the others, is the potential to ditch Engels' 'Materialism' and to turn to Marx's democratic production.This, though, would require a thorough re-examination of the SPGB's commitment to democratic politics, democratic philosophy and democratic science.All three of these areas of social production must be based upon a commitment to democratic means, which is impossible if the SPGB retains its (undeclared in its constitution) commitment to Engels' 'Materialism', which is inherently undemocratic.I haven't found any open declaration by the party to Engels' 'Materialism', but it seems to be taken on faith by the membership (that I've discussed it with, anyway).
Are you or have you been a member of any of those tendencies ? I have been a member, cadre, of some of those tendencies, I was able to see a great difference with the Socialsit Party. If we are equal why members of those groups do not join the socialist party ?
mcolome1 wrote:LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:But… don't forget to emphasise where the SPGB is exactly the same as these other parties.All these parties, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, and the SPGB, base their politics, philosophy and science on Engels' 'Materialism'.Thus, none of these parties argue for Marx's ideas about the democratic control of all social production, by employing the democratic method of social theory and practice.It's my opinion, though, that what separates the SPGB from the others, is the potential to ditch Engels' 'Materialism' and to turn to Marx's democratic production.This, though, would require a thorough re-examination of the SPGB's commitment to democratic politics, democratic philosophy and democratic science.All three of these areas of social production must be based upon a commitment to democratic means, which is impossible if the SPGB retains its (undeclared in its constitution) commitment to Engels' 'Materialism', which is inherently undemocratic.I haven't found any open declaration by the party to Engels' 'Materialism', but it seems to be taken on faith by the membership (that I've discussed it with, anyway).
Are you or have you been a member of any of those tendencies ? I have been a member, cadre, of some of those tendencies, I was able to see a great difference with the Socialsit Party.
Yes, I've been a member of the SWP, which espouses Engels' 'Materialism', and the party/class dichotomy of Lenin.I'm not able to see a 'great difference' between the SWP and the SPGB. They both hold to the faith of 'materialism', deny workers' democracy in truth production, both argue that cadre specialists 'know matter' whilst the class generalists do not have the ability to 'know matter'.If 'materialists' believed that the majority could 'know matter', then the 'materialists' would accept 'democracy' in knowledge production.But 'materialists' argue that only a minority can 'know matter' (and this knowledge is beyond the abilities of the masses), and so the 'materialists' must deny democratic controls over social production.The SPGB employs the 'specialist/generalist' model, which is identical to (and has the same political results) as the SWP's 'cadre/class' model.Both parties deny that only the workers can determine 'truth', and that this social production must be democratic.They both claim to have a special, elite access to 'Truth'.
ALB wrote:Bollocks.LOL! And this is the philosophical-intellectual part of the SPGB!You can't argue with me, ALB, because I can produce the textual evidence for my arguments, and point to the political experience of all workers when confronted with 'materialist' parties, like the SPGB.It's the usual Leninist special pleading for cadre/specialist consciousness, which the class/generalists can't presume to vote against.It'd be more suitable if you tried to learn from educated workers, but 'materialists' resent the very suggestion, that the class 'knows better' than the Party.That's why only the class can determine their socio-historically produced truths, by democratic methods.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Bollocks.LOL! And this is the philosophical-intellectual part of the SPGB!You can't argue with me, ALB, because I can produce the textual evidence for my arguments, and point to the political experience of all workers when confronted with 'materialist' parties, like the SPGB.It's the usual Leninist special pleading for cadre/specialist consciousness, which the class/generalists can't presume to vote against.It'd be more suitable if you tried to learn from educated workers, but 'materialists' resent the very suggestion, that the class 'knows better' than the Party.That's why only the class can determine their socio-historically produced truths, by democratic methods.
I think ALB is quite right. It is "bollocks" to say the SPGB and the SWP.are essentially the same and that they both "claim to have a special, elite access to 'Truth'." The latter nonsense stems from LBird's nonsensical, non-Marxist and totally idiosyncratic idea – I have never heard it being expressed by anyone else – that the truth of all scientific theories should be voted upon by the entire global population. Nowhere does such a silly impractical idea appear in any of Marx's writing and if LBird can show otherwise let him produce the evidence. Saying that there is bound to be a social division of labour and specialization does NOT translate into "elitism". LBird doesn't seem to understand what elitism means. But as far as the SPGB is concerned I have never once heard the suggestion being made that only a small section of the working class are capable of understanding socialism. On the contrary the opposite is true. It is constantly pointed out that any and every worker is fully capable of understanding socialism and indeed that the great majority need to if socialism is to be established So LBird is indeed talking bollocks, That apart , there are very substantial theoretical differences between the SWP and the SPGB on a whole host of things and if LBird knew much about either organisation, he wouldn't have come out with such a crass claim
And still, not one member or sympathiser of the SPGB argues for workers' democracy in truth production.The root of this is the SPGB's adherence to Engels' 'Materialism'.'Materialism' argues that 'Truth equals Matter', and that only a minority of specialists have access to this 'matter', and that it therefore is not a political issue for workers.Lenin (a materialist) and the SWP (materialists) and the SPGB (materialists) all openly deny the social producers are the ones that create their reality, as Marx argued.In a socialist society, being a democratic society, only democratic methods can determine 'truth'.'Materialists' deny this, and argue that only 'specialists' can determine 'Truth' (because, unlike Marx, they argue that 'Truth' simply 'exists out there', and is merely waiting to be 'discovered').Socialists argue that only a unified society can make these decisions, about what is 'true', because 'truth' depends upon the interests and purposes of those creating their 'truth'. 'Truth' is a socio-historical product, and thus changes.Whatever the form of 'socialism' that the SPGB is arguing for, it is nothing to do with Marx's notions of democratic production by the producers.To elitists, democracy is always 'impracticable'.They always argue that only an expert elite can 'know in practice' about their 'specialism'.Materialism in philosophy is Leninism in politics. Until the SPGB re-examines its faith in 'materialism' (and it is a 'faith', because 'materialists' are unable to square the circle of 'materialism versus democracy', and simply take 'matter' on faith), then it will continue to deny workers' democracy, and continue to defend 'specialists'.It's not me saying this – the SPGB members here keep stating this, that they won't have workers' democracy (although, the sneakier ones are prepared to let workers produce 'widgets', but the elite SPGB will not allow workers near anything vital or important, like power, physics, maths, logic, etc.).Whilst 'science' is in the hands of the bourgeois specialists, which the SPGB aims to continue, and to keep power in the hands of 'specialists', then workers' democracy will be crushed. When the revolutionary proletariat aims to take over 'truth production', those who follow the faith of 'materialism' will side with the bourgeois specialists.You all say so, already.Why mcolome1, who claims to be a 'materialist' but not a Leninist, can't see where this ideology of 'materialism' leads, I can't understand. It's a 'faith' that mcolome1 will have to learn to question.
LBird wrote:'Materialism' argues that 'Truth equals Matter', and that only a minority of specialists have access to this 'matter', and that it therefore is not a political issue for workers.But that isn't true, and doesn't follow, thorough materialism says the world is available for access to all. And that is how we differ from Leninists, we think that each human, not an amorphous mass, has access to reality, and can freely shape their own world by interacting with it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:'Materialism' argues that 'Truth equals Matter', and that only a minority of specialists have access to this 'matter', and that it therefore is not a political issue for workers.But that isn't true, and doesn't follow, thorough materialism says the world is available for access to all. And that is how we differ from Leninists, we think that each human, not an amorphous mass, has access to reality, and can freely shape their own world by interacting with it.
So, why won't you allow a vote on 'truth'?As 'materialists', you are exactly the same as Leninists.As for politics, YMS, you're an 'individualist' ('each human').This is nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production', workers' power, and democracy.You're more of a US pragmatist – Dewey, Pierce, James, etc., – who also argue for 'each human freely shaping their personal world'.How you're involved with any party with the word 'Socialist' in its title, beats me.
LBird wrote:And still, not one member or sympathiser of the SPGB argues for workers' democracy in truth production.The root of this is the SPGB's adherence to Engels' 'Materialism'.'Materialism' argues that 'Truth equals Matter', and that only a minority of specialists have access to this 'matter', and that it therefore is not a political issue for workers.Lenin (a materialist) and the SWP (materialists) and the SPGB (materialists) all openly deny the social producers are the ones that create their reality, as Marx argued.In a socialist society, being a democratic society, only democratic methods can determine 'truth'.'Materialists' deny this, and argue that only 'specialists' can determine 'Truth' (because, unlike Marx, they argue that 'Truth' simply 'exists out there', and is merely waiting to be 'discovered').Socialists argue that only a unified society can make these decisions, about what is 'true', because 'truth' depends upon the interests and purposes of those creating their 'truth'. 'Truth' is a socio-historical product, and thus changes.Whatever the form of 'socialism' that the SPGB is arguing for, it is nothing to do with Marx's notions of democratic production by the producers.To elitists, democracy is always 'impracticable'.They always argue that only an expert elite can 'know in practice' about their 'specialism'.Materialism in philosophy is Leninism in politics. Until the SPGB re-examines its faith in 'materialism' (and it is a 'faith', because 'materialists' are unable to square the circle of 'materialism versus democracy', and simply take 'matter' on faith), then it will continue to deny workers' democracy, and continue to defend 'specialists'.It's not me saying this – the SPGB members here keep stating this, that they won't have workers' democracy (although, the sneakier ones are prepared to let workers produce 'widgets', but the elite SPGB will not allow workers near anything vital or important, like power, physics, maths, logic, etc.).Whilst 'science' is in the hands of the bourgeois specialists, which the SPGB aims to continue, and to keep power in the hands of 'specialists', then workers' democracy will be crushed. When the revolutionary proletariat aims to take over 'truth production', those who follow the faith of 'materialism' will side with the bourgeois specialists.You all say so, already.Why mcolome1, who claims to be a 'materialist' but not a Leninist, can't see where this ideology of 'materialism' leads, I can't understand. It's a 'faith' that mcolome1 will have to learn to question.You are still riding on your favorite horse, but you have not proven yet that by analyzing the major works of Lenin, you can establish an equality between Leninism and the socialist party.
mcolome1 wrote:You are still riding on your favorite horse, but you have not proven yet that by analyzing the major works of Lenin, you can establish an equality between Leninism and the socialist party.Which bit of 'materialism' is causing you a problem, mcolome1?Why not read 'Materialism and Empirio-criticism', and compare it with what the Engelsist Materialists in the SPGB argue?You seem determined to ignore what Engels, Lenin, and the SPGB here, write.God knows, I've given probably hundreds of quotes, links, recommendations to books, articles, over the last few years.But, I can't make 'materialists' read what Marx wrote, and compare and contrast it with what Engels and Lenin wrote.It's up to undecided readers, who look to Marx and workers' democracy, to wonder for themselves just why the SPGB won't discuss 'materialism', but simply adheres to the 'faith'.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Bollocks.LOL! And this is the philosophical-intellectual part of the SPGB!You can't argue with me, ALB, because I can produce the textual evidence for my arguments, and point to the political experience of all workers when confronted with 'materialist' parties, like the SPGB.It's the usual Leninist special pleading for cadre/specialist consciousness, which the class/generalists can't presume to vote against.It'd be more suitable if you tried to learn from educated workers, but 'materialists' resent the very suggestion, that the class 'knows better' than the Party.That's why only the class can determine their socio-historically produced truths, by democratic methods.
I think ALB is quite right. It is "bollocks" to say the SPGB and the SWP.are essentially the same and that they both "claim to have a special, elite access to 'Truth'." The latter nonsense stems from LBird's nonsensical, non-Marxist and totally idiosyncratic idea – I have never heard it being expressed by anyone else – that the truth of all scientific theories should be voted upon by the entire global population. Nowhere does such a silly impractical idea appear in any of Marx's writing and if LBird can show otherwise let him produce the evidence. Saying that there is bound to be a social division of labour and specialization does NOT translate into "elitism". LBird doesn't seem to understand what elitism means. But as far as the SPGB is concerned I have never once heard the suggestion being made that only a small section of the working class are capable of understanding socialism. On the contrary the opposite is true. It is constantly pointed out that any and every worker is fully capable of understanding socialism and indeed that the great majority need to if socialism is to be established So LBird is indeed talking bollocks, That apart , there are very substantial theoretical differences between the SWP and the SPGB on a whole host of things and if LBird knew much about either organisation, he wouldn't have come out with such a crass claim
I do not think he knows the real difference between a Leninist Party and the Socialist Party. He was a member of one Leninist Organization, but I was a member of several of them, from Maoism up to Hoxhaism, and one that supports his view of idealism-materialismWhen I encountered the Socialist Party I was able to see a great difference, that is the reason why I became a member of the WSM, despite the fact that those organization had a larger membership, and had more branches and locals, and with some of them I had the opportunity to travel to differences places for gathering on International CongressThe SLP of America had some similarity with the SP, and I was able to see differences too. The SWP is now a party that supports Cuba and many Leninists groups have never supported The Cuban government, even more, some nationalists groups did not want to support their point of view either, personally I would have never joined the SWP
Here's what the Socialist Standard had to say in 2003 about Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:
Quote:In any event, whatever criticisms may be made of Pannekoek's approach, to treat Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism as a serious contribution to the philosophy of science, as Richey does, is ridiculous. As anyone who has tried to read it knows, it is just a rant against some of Lenin's opponents within the Bolshevik Party in 1908 who he accuses, quite unjustly (but quite typically), of harbouring or condoning religious views just because they rejected his crude and untenable view that the mind merely reflects and photographs (as opposed to mentally reconstructs) the external world.LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:You are still riding on your favorite horse, but you have not proven yet that by analyzing the major works of Lenin, you can establish an equality between Leninism and the socialist party.Which bit of 'materialism' is causing you a problem, mcolome1?Why not read 'Materialism and Empire-criticism', and compare it with what the Engelsist Materialists in the SPGB argue?You seem determined to ignore what Engels, Lenin, and the SPGB here, write.God knows, I've given probably hundreds of quotes, links, recommendations to books, articles, over the last few years.But, I can't make 'materialists' read what Marx wrote, and compare and contrast it with what Engels and Lenin wrote.It's up to undecided readers, who look to Marx and workers' democracy, to wonder for themselves just why the SPGB won't discuss 'materialism', but simply adheres to the 'faith'.
Do not get desperate, everything is coming together, we are digesting each elements of Leninism one by one, in another topic, in any way, your favorite topics in prior occasions was also discussed including the question if we need dialectic. Comrade Alban has already posted our stand regarding Lenin Materialism and Empirocriticism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.