LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: “But for democracy to be considered not “extendible” to such things very clearly implies that one sees democracy as being applicable to certain other things. Yet you are here making this disgracefully dishonest claim that we reject democracy altogether when all we are saying is that its application would of necessity be limited to certain kinds of decisions and not others”
I’ve never made any claim whatsoever, robbo, never mind any ‘disgracefully dishonest’ ones, that you ‘reject democracy altogether’. I’ve openly said that the SPGB is far more democratic than, for example, the SWP.
I keep quoting you, and asking you questions about what you yourself are writing. You have to read what I’m writing, and not make up a figment of your own imagination.
Look: “democracy … all we are saying is that its application would of necessity be limited” You wrote this, not me.
In response, I ask you (I don’t make a ‘disgracefully dishonest claim’, it’s your words, chosen by you – I simply quote you) – ‘who would determine these ‘limits’, if not humanity by democratic means?’.
It’s open to you to answer this, I’m not putting words in your mouth.
I simply argue that the only acceptable answer for a democratic socialist would be ‘humanity (not ‘necessity’) would determine these limits, by democratic methods’.
If you disagree, fine, tell us who (or what), in your political opinion, determines ‘limits’, and how do they (it) do so?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “You have hit on one accuracy…I am completely baffled by your promotion of your position.”
Well, since my ‘position’ is the same as Marx’s, ‘the self-emancipation of the proletariat’, perhaps you need to question your ‘bafflement’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I’m passed the stage where i require any philosophical explanations…”
The problem, alan, is that you haven’t even reached any ‘stage’, never mind ‘passed’ it.
You have a ‘philosophy’, but it’s not, as you seem to accept, a ‘democratic’ philosophy. Otherwise, you’d agree with me and Marx.
robbo203 wrote: “We just don’t believe that the principle of democratic decision making should be extended to such things as …
Stop being so downright dishonest, LBird. That is an appalling comment you made. You should it retract it immediately” [my bold]
I can’t retract the truth, robbo.
In return, I wouldn’t call you ‘dishonest’, just apparently incapable of reading what you yourself write. You have a ‘belief’ that ‘democratic decision making’ shouldn’t ‘be extended’ to a list of powerful things that you have chosen.
I’m not writing this stuff, robbo, you are.
You never tell us why you get to choose this list, but humanity can’t democratically accept/amend/reject it.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I concur with Matt, you have revealed deliberate and malicious misinformation.
After all those years of being on the fringe of the Party and having been privy to some of our internal disputes, i’m surprised you have not recognised that one of our organisational problems is an over-commitment to democratic practices which sometime have hindered our activities.”
There’s nothing ‘malicious’ about speaking the truth, alan. You only have to read this thread, to find constant questioning about the theory and practice of democratic social production. It’s not me writing those arguments, but your party members.
As for ‘over-commitment’ to democracy, read this thread. No commitment whatsoever.
On a personal level, you seem to be completely baffled by the discussion, and refuse to take the side of ‘democracy’, and prefer ‘matter’. It’s your choice, alan, not mine.
Once you tell me that ‘matter’ can be voted out of ‘existence-for-us’, I’ll know that you’ve got to grips with ‘democratic socialism’. Else, you have to tell me who or what created ‘matter’. Easy answer, alan, as Marx argued, is humanity, using conscious production. That’s why we can change it.
If everyone is so opposed to democracy, and this seems to be the official stance of the SPGB, why not just say so?
You’re only fooling yourselves.
I’m keen to get to the bottom of your self-deception, and I think that your responses over years have confirmed my thesis that ‘materialism’ is only suitable for anti-democrats, such as the Leninists.
From experience of both, the SPGB has more in common with the SWP, than with workers seeking self-emancipation of their class.
You’re going to have to explain yourselves eventually, or the party will collapse. Why is the SPGB opposed to democracy?
BD, I know that you’re trying to give me genuine advice, but you’re still not arguing with what I’m saying, but with the straw man built by ALB, robbo, twc, etc.
For example, to equate Marx’s ‘democracy’ with ‘plebiscites’ is a straw man that no-one (certainly not me) is arguing in favour of.
ALB wrote: “Socialism is the common ownership of the means of producing wealth and not of people’s personnel possessions.”
I think that ALB has made a key point, which I think has caused enormous difficulties for those employ ‘materialism’.
When we discuss ‘value’, we are not discussing ‘personal opinions’ about ‘value’, but the production of socio-historic relationships, how they emerged, and how we can change them. If someone tries to understand ‘value’, but insists from the start that they as an individual can determine ‘value’, then they’ll never get to grips with Marx’s views about ‘value’. The same applies to ‘matter’.
The idea, put forward by some here, that ‘democracy’ has ‘limits’, when discussing social production, is clearly mistaken, because only democratically organised humans can determine their own ‘limits’. Once again, those proposing ‘limits’ outside of democratic creation of limits (a manifestation of the bourgeois ruling class idea of ‘fear of the mob’) are really talking about themselves as individuals, rather than their future society’s social production.
In this sense, ‘materialism’ is a discussion about ‘personal possessions’ rather than ‘the means of producing wealth’, which is why when ‘materialists’ are asked about ‘matter’, they revert to individualistic explanations about ‘kicking rocks’, rather than explain by who, why and when ‘matter’ socially emerged.
So, ‘materialism’ leads to a ‘fear of the mob’ mentality. Because ‘materialists’ deny the source of their ‘materialism’ (ie. its source is in their society, not their personal ‘senses’), they are wary of ‘social power’, and pretend that ‘bourgeois individual rights’ are the aim of ‘democratic socialism’, rather than ‘the common ownership of the means of producing wealth’.
robbo203 wrote: “…democracy has its limits…”
I don’t suppose that you’ll tell what these limits are, and who determines these limits, and how they do so.
Or are ‘limits’ like ‘matter’?
Perhaps, just like ‘material conditions’, you want ‘limited conditions’ to determine ‘free’?
And seemingly the vast majority of humanity is entirely unaware of these ‘limits’, because only ‘clever individuals’, like you, can determine ‘limits’, and you fear that the ignorant majority will overstep your ‘limits’, and so fear ‘democracy’.
Perhaps you really want ‘limited socialism’, robbo?
robbo203 wrote: “I am still waiting to here your view on Marx, LBird. Do you think he was a bourgeois individualist for saying “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”?”
Christ, robbo, I’ve answered this time and time again – change the record, mate!
We all agree with Marx, I should think. If anyone doesn’t, it makes one wonder why they’re here.
Right, robbo! Who determines ‘free’ and how do they determine ‘free’?
Now, we all want a socio-historical account of ‘free’, preferably accompanied by a musical theme (Baker’s drumming will suit me), to this simple, basic, political and philosophical question.
I think that it’s very interesting how this thread has developed, since BD’s humorous crack about the Beatles (and as it happens, his list of favourite artists reads exactly like one of mine!).
It’s brought out the issue of who and how music is produced. Great Men with genius inspiration (a few, very unusual, musical lads, ‘elite art school’ attenders), or socio-historical circumstances (Liverpool being port city with intensely close contact for thousands with American 50s music development, together with the general prosperity post-war, better education beyond 14, more free time to think for many workers, and widespread music scene).
I’d just compare and contrast ‘music’ with ‘matter’, as part of the general discussion.
Bijou Drains wrote: “No doubt if you get your way all we’ll get to listen to will be The Birdy Song and the Feckin Beatles (the world’s most over rated band)”
Hey, I’ve got a soft spot for The Animals, and Eric Burdon’s voice!
robbo203 wrote: “The answer, LBird, is NO-ONE!”
No, that’s your political answer, robbo.
It’s an individualist ideology that pretends to workers that ‘no-one’ has ‘power’, and so hides from them just who does have power. And ‘someone’ always does.
BD, your ‘materialist’ assumption leads you to downplay the power of ‘ideas’, which is the other side of the coin from regarding ‘matter’ as basic. This clashes with Marx’s views, which was that human social conscious activity (which requires both consciousness and being, as equal factors) was the source of the ‘ideal’ and the ‘material’.
The most famous example, I think, of a ‘materialist’ poo-poo-ing the power of ideas, was Stalin’s response to Laval’s question about Catholics – “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?“.
Obviously, given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the role that Catholicism played, we know that the materialist was wrong to assume the power of ideas was less than the power of the material.
Politics is about power, and who wields it, BD. And ‘music, art, literature, etc.’ are powerful. As is religion.
Bijou Drains wrote: “So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.”
If these social products were not subject to democracy, BD, who do you have in mind that would have power over them?
Although you never seem to answer me when I ask who is the social subject, I can make the assumption that your answer would be either ‘individuals’ or ‘an elite’. How am I so confident that you’ll posit a social subject as a minority in society?
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, wrote: “The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
