[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Once again, Brian, I'm not sure why you think we disagree.Engels and 'ultimate' I have a problem with (elsewhere he talks of 'finality'), but I don't want to sidetrack yet again into the detail of Engels' mistakes (and his contradictory assertions), since most of what you've written seems to me to be incompatible with 'materialism', which is why I think I agree with what you've said.

Like I've mentioned, I knew this would be no easy task.  You need to unpick what Engels means by ultimate and only.  He like Marx were on a learning curve when they originally took on the MCoH and the LVToV and combined them into a methodology for an analysis of "production and reproduction of real life", albeit when investigating a political economy.  With time they came to realise this methodology was incomplete and it suggested they had the answer to everything.In effect what they both admitted in later life (it took Engles a bit longer to catch up with Marx) was the actual methodology or system analysis would only become a complete whole once the majority were in a position to decide for themselves what is and what isn't without the hinderance of ideology. Or like when Marx hinted at 'the demons of the past weighing like an incabus on the present'.  Obviously, this all harks back to the philosophers becoming proactive rather than reactive.Personally, being a generalist and not a specialist, I could not care two hoots what is and what isn't in the present. For my end goal is that  essential change where I can decide what is and what isn't.  And to that end I not only seek fundamental change by democratic methods but also am ultimately determined that the future decision making process will not be constructed by a party elite, or any other elite for that matter, but by the majority.For more on this see#27.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.

I completely disagree.  In actual fact the death of party control and the roots of class control lies not in 'materialism' or any other 'ism' for what it matters, but in a majority putting into practice their understanding of democracy and what the decision making process will consist of.  When a majority allows a political party to establish the democratic framework of the decision making process it follows, that all outcomes, by default are going to be a reflection of what that political party deems to be truth and reality.For the guidelines and rules for debate and discussion have been predetermined by a minority.  Therefore, all methodology, including the scientific method, will have been pre-determined by an elite.On the other hand, when the democratic framework and decision making process is introduced and established by a politically concsious majority it's they and they alone who deem what is truth and reality and not any political party.  In this regard, the WSM have consistently stated that once socialism is attained its the majority who will decide the framework of democracy and the decision making process and not the party.  This being the case the claim that a party elite consisting of 'materialists' will continue to dominate the decision making process after the revolution has succeeded fails at the first hurdle.  For the purpose of a revolutionary party will have disappeared on the eve of the revolution and not after the revolution has taken place.This essential part of the revolutionary process, the democratic framework and the decision making process, will of course be worked out in the pre-revolutionary period and not post-revolutionary period.  In essence it means the understanding of what democracy and the decision making process actually means in 'reality' will be determined by the majority and not a political party.And in reality will be the first step in the demise of a political party and political party discourse.  And subsequently, the true beginnings of real political discourse, and not party political discourse. 

From what I can tell, Brian, I agree with what you've said here, about 'conscious majority', 'democracy', 'revolution', 'reality determined by a majority'.I'm not sure where any 'disagreement' is.

I thought you would be unable to see where the disagreement lies.  You are assuming the discussion is at heart over the various claims of materialism versus theory and practice, or idealism and materialism and therefore concluding such a discussion will continue after the revolution due to the presumption that a politcal party will still determine what is and what isn't.  I'm attempting, and it's no easy task, to explain this premise is false by outlining that in actual fact it's the construction and creation of the democratic framework and the decision making process itself, by the majority – and not a party elite – which will be the ultimate determing factor on deciding on what is truth and reality.  Unfortunately, you have become so focused on thinking that for socialists materialism is the only deciding factor you have lost sight of the fact that Engels himself declared otherwise:According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.[Engels, Letter to J Bloch (1890)Note the emphasis on ultimately and only.  In effect Engels is categorically stating that when conducting a system analysis of the "production and reproduction of real life", everything has to be taken into consideration.  Not just materialism, economic, theory and practice, etc, etc but everything, and hence reiterating Marx by declaring he's not a Marxist either.How that decision is reached on what the system analysis actually consists of will be determined by the democratic machinery installed by the majority and not the eternal wangling of party and non-party members.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

 The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.

I completely disagree.  In actual fact the death of party control and the roots of class control lies not in 'materialism' or any other 'ism' for what it matters, but in a majority putting into practice their understanding of democracy and what the decision making process will consist of.  When a majority allows a political party to establish the democratic framework of the decision making process it follows, that all outcomes, by default are going to be a reflection of what that political party deems to be truth and reality.For the guidelines and rules for debate and discussion have been predetermined by a minority.  Therefore, all methodology, including the scientific method, will have been pre-determined by an elite.On the other hand, when the democratic framework and decision making process is introduced and established by a politically concsious majority it's they and they alone who deem what is truth and reality and not any political party.  In this regard, the WSM have consistently stated that once socialism is attained its the majority who will decide the framework of democracy and the decision making process and not the party.  This being the case the claim that a party elite consisting of 'materialists' will continue to dominate the decision making process after the revolution has succeeded fails at the first hurdle.  For the purpose of a revolutionary party will have disappeared on the eve of the revolution and not after the revolution has taken place.This essential part of the revolutionary process, the democratic framework and the decision making process, will of course be worked out in the pre-revolutionary period and not post-revolutionary period.  In essence it means the understanding of what democracy and the decision making process actually means in 'reality' will be determined by the majority and not a political party.And in reality will be the first step in the demise of a political party and political party discourse.  And subsequently, the true beginnings of real political discourse, and not party political discourse. 

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And a bio may very well reinforce people's perceptions that we are predominantly a white elderly male party.

If it's the perception that we are all "elderly" it's wrong. We're not all OAPs !  Of the 10 candidates we put up at the last general election only  3 fell into that category, 5 were middle aged and 2 were younger than that.

Besides which appearances can be deceptive.  Mirror, mirror on the wall whose the fairest of us all …..?Not me for sure when it comes to looks.  But on the other hand my looks conceal my age and confuse even some socialists and always confuses the media presenters.

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

 Vin said: It's becoming so pretty pathetic, Tim.  Have a look at other party videos, debates etc. ALL criticisms could be applied yo them. Brian and YMS have kept silence until nowI recieved permission from all concerned except Bill Martin, if he wishes to sue, that will be up to himVin was appointed at the time of video making by NERB to produce audio visual material and open Internet accounts  The Socialist Standard prints pictures of many politiciians and logos of other parties and extracts from other newspapers and BBC reprorta etc etc 

Every edition of the SS contains a box of picture credits to cover the party against copyright issues.  I see no such box in the video.

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

It's becoming pretty pathetic, Tim.  Have a look at other party videos, debates etc. ALL criticisms could be applied yo them. Brian and YMS have kept silence until nowI recieved permission from all concerned. The Socialist Standard prints pictures of many politiciians and logos of other parties and extracts from other newspapers and BBC reprorta etc etc Sour grapes and nonsense

You have not received permission to use the party logo.  Yet you continue to use it?  Is that sour grapes and nonsense?  By continuing to use the logo you are deliberately misleading the working class that the video is a party production.  It contains no diclaimer to this effect, neither does it state its your independent production. If you are so proud of your efforts how come you are not claiming ownership but seeking a free ride on the back of the party?You have dug yourself a hole which only you can backfill.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The Small Party of Good Boys returns to the fray

What happened to the 'good girls'.  That particular phrase is now illegal I'd have you know.

[Brian]

I put this exact argument by robbo in a private email to LBird many months ago.  I pointed out to him that the majority of the population prefer to be generalists while a minority choose a specialist role.  But he took no heed on the implications and consequences of putting every theory to the vote.

[Brian]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

Ever heard of copyright law?  If the holder of the copyright is informed by one of the viewers that they spotted a piece or snippet of their work they can take legal action against cde Maratty and the party.  Even if they request Youtube to remove it under the law the damage has already been done.

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Brian wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists are

Have it ever crossed your mind that several of these viewers could be considering to sue you for breach of copyright by using snippets of their efforts without permission?  They might try also try and sue the party seeing you have retained the logo for there's more prospects of a settlement there rather than raiding your bank account.

Ah yes, of course – the likes of ALB, DL, BM and JS are more than likely to do that. Tut, tut, fancy overlooking that prospect. As far as the logo is concerned it's the property of the party and in particular of those members who use it quite legitimately in the furtherance of their committee activities.  In the meantime we'll look forward to receiving even more encouraging observations from members like yourself who favour Positive Socialist Activity.

Cde Maratty is not on any committee or have you forgoten?  Also, are you willing to represent the party in court in the event of a legal action?  Such action would be cool but it's hardly positive.

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4more than 1000 views in a week.Hopefully it may stimulate some thinking of those workers who watched it as they now know who the real socialists are 

Have it ever crossed your mind that several of these viewers could be considering to sue you for breach of copyright by using snippets of their efforts without permission?  They might try also try and sue the party seeing you have retained the logo for there's more prospects of a settlement there rather than raiding your bank account.

[Brian]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 that's really interesting. A quick edit for the WSP US would n't be too difficult, would it?They would probably hav to provide their own voice over, but again that could be done quite easily with a script and a sound file from a US comrade who was ok to do it.Are you going to contact them and sort it out?Interestingly, if you posted it as an official WSM video, who would make the decision about that, the WSM has no EC.YFSTim

Whoa just before anybody reaches any hasty conclusions (again) just consider this is a suggestion from an individual member of WSPUS.  He's only representing himself not the US companion party.Caution is the watchword here in all due respects.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Well,  the disappointment came a lot sooner that i wished. All the interesting articles were just introductions…had to pay for the "premium" articles…grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…. Reality in this world is that you rarely get anything for nothing

Well I've just ordered it, alan, and the 'bourgeois reality' is that it costs £5.54, inc. p&p.Of course, in 'socialist reality' we'd all have free access.Thanks for the tip about its publication!

Is this just for the article or the content of the magazine?

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I look forward for some leisurely few hours to read through the new edition of New Scientist on what is reality. I am sure there will be a few points relevant to the socialist understanding of the universe that others might wish to discuss. https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/metaphysics/Register for free access to the articles

Sorry to disappoint you Alan it's not free access.  Except that is the tantalising introduction.  Not to worry I'm sure LBird will reveal those bits which suit his narrative for democratic control of the means of production.

[Brian]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

To offer an instance of the difficulty – LBird and Robbo as non-members of the Party but are regular posters but neither have recourse to a full appeals procedure eg to the EC, conference and party poll that a party member such as Cde. Maratty can pursue, if he so wishes, and has been urged to do. Such inequality among forum users requires to be resolved and will be in the due course of time.  

I sincerely hope not.  Non members should certainly not have the same rights and privileges as members: the forum belongs to the members of the party.  

If we were to follow the logic of your suggestion towit: the forum belongs to the members of the party; we would end up talking to ourselves.  In theory yes the forum does belong to the members of the party but in practice we make no claim on the ownership of socialist discussion and how it's arranged.Which logically means both socialists and workers have to reach an agreement on what these arrangements consist of in terms of engagement through a set of guidelines/rules otherwise such an engagement is a non-starter.  With this in mind moderation on the forum is open to suggestions, complaints and appeals by all parties. For if we fail to provide free access to such issues by default we are leaving ourselves open to the claim that equality only applies to party members.  

[Author]

Posts