[Ed]

Coming back to the Mengle joke earlier his old mate Joeseph Goebbels had something to say on this. (I laughed earlier and hopefully LBird will take this with the same tounge in cheek as his earlier joke was intended)

Goebbels wrote:

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

The problem I think is the inefficiency of language, which of course is a social construct. The truth is a description of what is reality. It's opposite a fallacy is of course unreality, subjective opinion relative to the individual does not come in to play. When I suggested earlier that truth was in fact inseperable from reality I was accused of changing the parameters of debate.Dictionary definition of truthtruth  NounThe quality or state of being true: "the truth of her accusation".That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality: "tell me the truth". 

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

In any event, I think it's unfair to suggest that he is a "Leninist" as he's made it clear that he isn't.

That's not what he said.

Quote:

LBird misreads thesis III through his anti-Leninist eyes, with vestiges of Leninism clouding his vision.

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Or a reasonable educated guess 

One man's educated guess is another man's conspiracy theory

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ed wrote:

Although he does espouse a couple of conspiracy theories of his own when speaking of Bradley Manning and Julien Assange.

Can you elaborate on just why you consider Hedges and these legal cases are conspiracies theories ? 

Sure thing, relevant part of the video is about 03:43. He states that there is a secret plan by the government  to influence the sentencing of Bradley Manning to life without the possibility of parole, he then goes on to claim that this secret government plan extends to incarcerating Julien Assange for life when the only official charges levelled against him are those of rape allegations in Sweden. That, my friend, is a conspiracy theory.

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

Thanks, but to tell the truth his criticism of the Black Bloc and defense of non-violent tactics in the interview was one of things I liked. Obviously we don't denounce them to the police, but that doesn't alter the fact that their tactics are idiotic. But, as you say, we've already had this debate.

I agree I thought his argument was very convincing. I think John.D was saying at other times he has been a little over the top with his criticism, calling them a cancer. That is a bit much. I also think that calling black bloc activity violent is a bit over the top as well. To the ruling class property damage may be violence of the most horrible kind imaginable but personally I don't share their definition. As for run ins with the police we would not deny the working class the right to defend themselves with force when being physically attacked by the states henchmen. Having participated in Black Blocs I can tell you that most of the day is spent keeping as far away from the filth* as possible while they spoil for a fight. *read fellow workers

[Ed]

Wiki to the rescuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_HedgesAlthough he does espouse a couple of conspiracy theories of his own when speaking of Bradley Manning and Julien Assange.

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

 (rather than formal electoral victories in all the world's states)

I think that's hoping for a bit much, seeing as not all countries have a the means to seize control of the state through elections. That's not going to be possible in China or North Korea for example. Marx said something a long the lines of each revolution will take on the character of the prevailing national culture. So where there is no democracy there is no chance of peaceful revolution. And of course if the democratic route was the only one we might as well spend our time campaigning for democratic reforms in countries which do not have it. Furthermore if the democratic route looks possible or even dangerous I'm sure that some states would abolish democracy. Of course in the process this would only help to destroy the legitimacy of the state and the ruling class even more.

[Ed]

I don't think that's true of the ICC. I mean another possible difference in theory between us and them is decadence theory. I've heard this told two ways, either capitalism has peaked and is now in decline or it means the exact same thing as we mean when we say that capitalism is developed enough for socialism to be made a reality. I say possible difference because I know some of our members think there could be some value in decadence theory. So the last thing I think it is, is development of capitalism. Rather fears over reorganizing production from jobs which will no longer be necessary and possibly to fight counter revolutions and stuff like that. I don't know though you'd have to ask them. And as the article that Alan posted points out Left coms do not have homogenous opinions about everything, that's probably one of our biggest similarities. But yeah from my interactions with them they have definitely acknowledged the political transition needs to be as quick as possible.So no I think decades is inaccurate. 

Alb wrote:

They need to get away from Russia Revolution and what happened after as a model for any future socialist revolution. To dump all that baggage and come into the 21st century

.I whole heartedly agree with this though. The Russian revolution stands as a great testament as to what not to do but the SPGB could have told them that beforehand .

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

Much longer. In one of their early pamphlet they say it could be as long as the Israelites had to wander in the wilderness, i.e. 40 years. I don't know if they've modified this since. I think they call it a "semi-state" as their theory is an amalgam of Council Communist (who reject the idea of a state) and Bordigism (who embrace it). As far as we're concerned it would be a state but a democratised one controlled by the working class. Not quite sure if they agree with this second part since I think they still think "the party" will exist during this period and, as the quote in the opening item in this thread made clear, in their view this would be a highly centralized, top-down (not to say Leninist) organisation.

I think they certainly have modified their view on how long it will take but still probably hard to quantify as neither them nor us would presume to put a precise number on the exact days, weeks, months. As it wholly depends on the circumstances at the time. If one were to presume, as they do that it will be after a gigantic and bloody civil war then of course it will take a little longer. I think the semi-state is the amalgamation of various democratically controlled workers councils rather than the dictatorship of the party in the Leninist or bordigist sense. That would coincide with their view of where the Russian revolution went wrong, taking the power away from the soviets. Which would basically be a bit like syndicalism, an arrangement Bordiga denounces as "a mercantilist economy" in Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism (part 3).

ALB wrote:

Not much, but did they really say that !

Yeah, there was a longer explanation but if I tried to quote it from memory I would end up butchering it, which would probably be very unfair. Anyway the reason I ask is that the phrase came up recently between myself and another comrade in relation to the upcoming party poll. Different context perhaps but the concept may be similar, food for thought. But let's not get side-tracked on that.

[Ed]

although formed out of the stuff of natureFrom the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.Isn't that positivism in your book? As that is what I was saying earlier, or trying to, natural phenomena = evidence. Whereas you appeared to be saying that ideas occur spontaneously, independently from nature and material conditions. That was my main beef anyway.

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the end it will be th working class who will determine the tactics and strategies dependent on the circumstances and situation the working class face  and makes me reticient to make  outright condemnation of  Stuart, (or Bill when he went off on his Co-op explorations) The class war is after all a series of battles and not always on the same field of battle.

I think there is a world of difference between the Left communists and Left unity. One is a an organisation of class conscious workers who stand for revolution and the other, to use an ICC turn of phrase is a bourgeois party who seeks to maintain and manage capitalism.

[Ed]

What an (potentially) interesting thread! I may be jumping the gun a little in terms of the progression of this conversation, but I'd like to talk a little about the ICC's Semi-State. As I understand it this is the Dictatoriship of the proletariat a period where the proletariat have "smashed" (not siezed control of the existing one) the state and have proceeded to create a semi state which would then wither away in time. I got the impression that they see this political transition as lasting a little longer than we do, the main reason would probably be because they see no concievable alternative to armed conflict against the ruling class. This would necessarily be a period of buying and selling and not socialism. I put to them that Marx's and in fact most definitions of the state have one class exploiting another, in Marx's case for the purpose of extracting surplus value. I asked who would be the exploiting class in this scenario assuming that the bourgeouisie has been expropriated. The answer which seemed to be generally agreed was that the proletariat would exploit itself. I wonder what comrades think of the concept of the the proletariat exploiting themselves?I hope I've been fairly accurate in my description of the views of the ICC and I hope LBird or someone else will correct me if I have got anything wrong.

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I genuinely hope it does manage to overcome what i suggest are unsurmountable challenges since we are as workers in need of a more determined and aggressive trade union response, supported by a more intransigient principled mass "workers" party, which the Labour Party isn't .

It's taken almost 100 years for the labour party to become discredited in workers eyes. The last thing I would want is for labour 2.0 to be successful. It could set us back another 100 years. I genuinely hope these left unity phonies fall flat on their arses and in doing so bring us one step closer to seeing the last nail being driven into the coffin of social democracy. If reforms to capitalism is what they want they would be better off taking the same position as us. As the ruling class will only pass reforms which are harmful to profits if they think the only alternative is revolution.As old Oscar said "the worst slave owners were those who were kind their slaves", that would make left unity the worst kind of masters if they ever got into power. And as old Goethe said "None are more hoplessly enslaved than those who falsely belive they are free.". The sooner the left are completely discredited, disowned and destroyed forever the sooner we can get on with this revolution I've been hearing so much about.So, yeah, no sympathy for class enemies from me.

[Ed]

The truth is not relative to the current ruling ideology it is a constant which exists externally from the individual and society. In this sense I am using truth to mean reality. Science tries but often fails to explain the truth/reality, due, as LBird has said to ruling ideological hegemony. Science which is biased in this way but still produces a correct result I would call truth apt. That is because even though it can produce the correct result it is still built on a fallacy and thus is only fit to offer a description of the truth/reality. The reason I used the mathematical example is because math is a pure science which cannot be biased, something is either correct or it is not (ALB's true by definition?). LBird has accused me of supporting positivism, this is incorrect. A far more appropriate term would be realism, in sharp contrast to idealism a long discredited bourgeois doctrine which is completely incompatible with materialism. The reason I feel this debate cannot really go anywhere is because we are using completely different definitions of the truth. LBird is positing the truth as being whatever the ruling paradigm happens to be at any given moment (an idea). Which is the complete opposite of the definition supplied in this post. Even though the scientific method can be biased by ideology it is still the best means by which we can attempt to understand the truth/reality. Which is why I reiterate my previous sentiment that when seeking the truth an attempt must be made to expel ideology from logical reasoning, i.e. to remove false and unfounded evidence from your analysis.A good analogy for this debate I feel is the old chestnut if a tree falls in the forest with no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I would answer emphatically yes it does. I suspect LBird's answer would be "whatever the individual or society thinks at the current time."

[Ed]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Frankly, I'd rather not be a member of an organisation that expelled people for having their own personal views. 

This ^^

[Author]

Posts