LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo, is it possible that my interventions are driving people away from the forum?
If so, I’m truly sorry about that – it’s not my intention.
But if a party forum is simply meant to act as a ‘glue’, as a ‘reinforcement’ for the party’s existing ideological beliefs, then my fundamental and oppositional questioning (especially about the lack of democracy within your party view of ‘science’, when ‘democracy’ has always been a supposed ‘core belief ‘of the party) can only act against this purpose.
Of course, I’ve benefited greatly from my engagement – over the years, I’ve followed up all the claims made by your members, and read widely about Marx, Engels, history of ‘science’, materialism/physicalism/realism, German Idealism and Romanticism, Pannekoek and the many other 20th century ‘Marxists’, philosophy of physics, maths, logic, etc. – and so I understand both my own position and your party’s much better than I did at first.
I must say, though, I would have thought that this fundamental political debate would attract anyone interested in ‘democratic socialism’, and I’m very surprised at the party’s inability to answer critical questions, and declare openly its own ideological beliefs.
That’s the main reason I haven’t developed from an interested enquirer into an active party member. I don’t think that, as a party, you have a coherent view of politics. Whether this political confusion is the source of your ‘declining involvement’, might be worth considering.
I’m inclined to point out that people wanting ‘Science’ to be the source of their political beliefs, don’t want ‘Democracy’ to be their political solution. The two just don’t fit.
robbo203 wrote: “LBird All Matt was suggesting was bring the matter up under another topic heading.. Perhaps make a new thread if you cant find an old one that suits”
Thanks for your advice, robbo, but all I am suggesting is that it would be pointless to make a new thread with the title and topic of “The root is Leninism and Bolshevism” and actively critique that title and topic, when one already exists!
It’s a bit like in education, robbo, where you get taught to ‘criticise the essay title’ – I’m sure you remember that, from your education!
It’d be a bit strange, because I know that you’re interested in the process of education within our new democratic socialist society, for you to argue that “One won’t be able to criticise essay titles within socialism, and one will passively obey the teacher!”
I’m sure that you’ll support my democratic method, robbo, because ‘passive obedience’ as a teaching method is conservative, went out of fashion after the war! đ
Matthew Culbert wrote: “As moderator
âThe root is Leninism and Bolshevismâ
This is the topic. Please stick to it. ”
Is this an order, that political disagreement with an untrue ideological assertion is not to be challenged within the SPGB?
As far as I’m concerned, I am ‘sticking to the topic’.
I’ve pointed out that the ‘root’ of Maoism is not ‘Lenin and Bolshevism’ (they are only a supporting ‘branch’), but Engels’ ‘materialism’.
Surely the whole point of a socialist politics site is to invite political discussion, in the hope that workers will take part, and teach the party about politics?
Or have youse really now gone ‘Full Leninist’… or should I say (what’s identical) ‘Full Materialist’?
Where the Party Specialists ‘know better’ than the workers that they claim to represent?
Marquito wrote: “The main purpose is to indicate and show that Maoism and Leninism and not socialist trends and the Chinese revolution was an anti-agrarian revolution or a bourgeois revolution.”
On this point, I entirely agree with you, Marquito.
Marquito wrote: “Materialism or Engels is another topic…”
On this point, however, I fundamentally disagree with you.
Maoism and Leninism both flowed from Engels’ misinterpretation of Marx’s political and philosophical views. That’s why Mao and Lenin usually quoted Engels (and not Marx), and insisted that there was a single ‘unified-being’ called ‘Marx-Engels’, to justify their omission of Marx’s political (democracy) and philosophical (social productionism) views.
Of course, Mao and Lenin built upon an existing framework of ‘Marx-Engels’, which had already been produced by Plekhanov and Kautsky – and, of course, Engels himself.
Engels was the originator of the myth of the unified being of ‘Marx-Engels’. And according to Engels, there was no need to read the difficult ‘Capital‘ whilst the easy ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific‘ would do a similar job. Hard to credit that, isn’t it?
Our real problem, Marquito, is that the SPGB was founded on the basis of Engels’ myth, and you seem unable to discuss this – and indeed, resent me for pointing it out.
In fact, given the SPGB’s commitment to Engels’ materialism, I’d go so far as to predict that if the SPGB ever found itself in a similar position of power as did Mao and Lenin, the political outcome would be very similar.
I know that that is not what you seek (nor do the other SPGB posters), but whilst you all refuse to examine the problem, it’ll remain hidden, but potent.
Marquito wrote: “You spend most of the time hiding in your ideological cave…”
At least I’m completely open about my ‘ideological cave’, Marquito, and its origins and consequences.
You, however, like all ‘materialists’, seem not to be able to explain nor even understand your own ‘ideological cave’.
The origins of my ideology are ‘democracy’ and Marx’s ‘social productionism’. So, I can argue for a politics which starts from human production of their world by democratic means, a world we have the power to change. Self-emancipation of the working class and change.
The origins of your ideology are ‘bourgeois elite science’ and Engels’ 18th century ‘materialism’. This is a politics which necessarily involves a supposedly ‘pre-existing reality’ and ‘elite knowledge’. Thus, any social emancipation is brought from outside of workers themselves, by a ‘knowing minority’, who claim that only they, the elite, have the power to change this ‘unchanging matter’.
Marquito wrote: “…you want to bring your old arguments in order to distort or deviate the real topic , by the meantime,  the whole world is falling apart and  you do not say anything about it.”
I’d suggest the ‘real topic’ is the politics of our attempt to build ‘socialism’, and why those arguing for ‘materialism’ have always failed, and always will fail, to convince the working class. Given that, any solution to our ‘world falling apart’ won’t be a ‘democratic socialist’ solution, but an elite one, which will clearly benefit the interests, aims and purposes of that elite.
If I had to have a guess, I’d name this supposed solution as ‘Green Science’. But it’s nothing to do with Democratic Communism, Marx, or the proletariat. And it’ll be compatible with some form of elite control of social production, whether called ‘capitalism’ or not.
Marquito wrote: “...going deeper to the origin of Leninism and Bolshevism“.
The deepest political and philosophical root is ‘materialism’, which insists that there is a ‘something’ that humans did not socially produce.
Since this is a political lie, and ‘materialists’ claim to know this ‘something’, to the exclusion of the majority of humans, and so the ‘materialists’, as Marx argued, have to divide society into two parts, the smaller part being in control of the larger part.
‘Materialism’ is the root of Lenin’s organisational theory, his correspondence theory of truth (a theory of truth which denies human production), and his notion of a ‘special party consciousness’.
robbo203 wrote: “…though such bodies would doubtless be subject to democratic scrutiny, this is not the same thing as direct democracy…”
robbo, I must admit that I see this statement as a ‘rowing-back’ on your earlier post.
What, to you, is the political difference between ‘democratic scrutiny‘ and ‘direct democracy’?
The juxtaposition of the two seems to suggest that ‘scrutiny’ is done by others than all those affected.
If you say that ‘scrutiny’ is delegated, all well and good, because the scrutineers can be recalled and replaced by ‘direct democracy’, and so power remains with the majority.
Is your ‘scrutiny’ mandated and revocable, or an elite final opinion?
Bijou Drains wrote: “Perhaps the scars you have from time spent with the Leninists and the Trots have made you understandably sceptical about democracy within an organisation...”
It’s worse than that, mate. đ
I’ve come to the conclusion that ‘materialism’ was the root of Leninist/Trotskyist power over me and all the other workers who followed their lead.
So, to me, any ‘Socialists’ who argue in favour of ‘materialism’ are part of a political organisation that is not serious about workers’ democracy, the self-emancipation of the proletariat, or Marx’s political and philosophical views, and intends to usurp power from workers.
The views expressed on here about ‘Specialists’ only confirms my beliefs.
But, I’m prepared to discuss it with any worker, because once I didn’t understand either. And was fooled.
I’d like to openly thank Bijou Drains, alanjjohnstone and robbo203 for their very comradely responses, and say that we seem to be on the same page politically.
Perhaps this next question will spoil all this new-found comradeship, but, hey, ever the heretic…
…and if youse all disagree, then we can simply agree to disagree. đ
Who (or what) determines reality/truth/matter/nature/material/universe?
Because I agree with Marx’s philosophy, and this is based upon my prior political commitment to democratic social production, I would answer ‘active humanity’. That is, humans are the creators of their universe, and thus they can change it. ‘Knowledge and reality’ are intertwined, and can’t be separated into ‘consciousness’ and ‘nature’, and the separation of ‘mind/matter’, ‘ideal/material’, ‘consciousness/being’, ‘art/science’, opinion/fact’ was a socio-historic act by the ruling class. This was intended to ensure that they could change all of these things (and so have power), but pretend that they were not changing these things (and so ward off from the start any claims for democracy from the exploited class, within any changes being made). History since Marx has confirmed his view, and they have changed physics, maths, logic, matter, etc.
I find that ‘materialists’ disagree with this political and philosophical position, and argue that the ‘material’ precedes ‘consciousness’, and thus the ‘material’ is not a social product, and thus the ‘material’ cannot be changed.
I’d just note that Lenin was a most vociferous defender of ‘materialism’, because, if what I’ve just written is true, this would give his ruling class the same power as any other ruling class.
This is a genuine political/philosophical question, and I’m almost sorry to raise it again, in the present happy circumstances. But, if what you’ve all said about the SPGB is true, how can it espouse ‘materialism’? I find this contradictory, which is the fundamental root of my disagreement.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “…we delegate…”.
My entire political point, alan.
WE delegate. And WE undelegate.
WE need an ‘orchestra conductor’? Pilot? Advisor? Fine – we delegate.
But… does the ‘orchestra conductor’ determine which music we must listen to, because, well, they’re the conductor?
Does the pilot determine the destination of our flight, so, even though we wish to holiday in Venice, the pilot prefers a beach, so ‘we fly’ to the Spanish coast?
Does the advisor determine the correctness of their advice, Or do we?
My political problem, alan, is those who argue that the ‘delegate’ should be a ‘representative’, and that the ‘representative’, being an ‘expert’, should have the final say.
robbo203 wrote: “On the face of it, you seem to be arguing that, in this post capitalist world, all decisions relating to production will be channelled through one single global organ of decision-making. Local communities and individuals will NOT be able to make decisions on their own.”
robbo, over the years, I’ve answered this, time and time again. So much so, that I’ve been ignoring your ‘on the face of it’ personal political and ideological interpretation of ‘what LBird says’. I’ve long ago tired of trying to correct you, and have changed tack to simply say what I say, and leave it to other posters to ask questions/ for clarification, etc.
But since we seem to be going through (what for this site is) a relatively grown-up period, I’ll try again. Here goes.
This is a political, philosophical and ideological issue. It relates to ‘power’ within ‘democratic socialism’, and thus, I would argue, to the political process of building for socialism within our present society. I believe that the political (etc.) basis that we employ now, will be the same in any future society. That is, if undemocratic methods are used (say, like the Leninists employed in Tsarist Russia), then clearly those same methods would be employed in any society that emerges from that process (that is, Soviet Russia).
So, all social production must be democratic. I’ll say that again: ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATIC.
Clearly, democracy works on all levels, and in all areas/disciplines.
If, for example, the inhabitants of a street decide to paint all of their houses with white paint, and this decision is democratic, then the houses all get painted with white paint.
But… what if a single household, within the collective, disagrees, and wants a green house? Or, if the district within which the street is located, traditionally paint the whole district blue?
These objections, both from within/below the body and without/above the body, must be resolved by a body that encompasses all the disputants. But this might be a regional body, and another region objects to that region’s decision. On so on, wider and wider.
Of course, the vast majority of decisions will be taken at an appropriate circle without any problems, but any questions as to the ‘appropriateness’ of any given circle, from within or without, would be referred to a wider circle.
Clearly, in political terms, there has to be a ‘final authority’, and that ‘supreme appeal’ can only be to humanity itself. There can’t be any ‘elites’ within social production who allocate to themselves an authority to override the democratically expressed wishes/interests/needs/aims/purposes of the circle (production unit) within which they sit.
This, of course, is a political declaration that can be adopted during the building of democratic socialism. Equally, it can be argued with, and ‘elites’ will be allowed to determine for themselves, outside of the democratic determination of the associated producers. But I would argue that would go against Marx’s argument that the emancipation of the proletariat must be the conscious act of themselves, not any ‘elite’. This issue clearly must be discussed. If there are those who argue for ‘elite determination’, then they should say that that is their aim, and not ‘democratic determination’.
So, ‘decentralisation? Fine. ‘Localism’ Fine. ‘Individual Choice’? Fine. ‘Polycentres’? Fine.
But ‘decentral’, ‘local’, ‘individual choice’ and ‘polycentres’ don’t have the final say. Humanity does. And its political method is democracy.
This is a question of ‘power’, and ‘who wields it?’. Since ‘socialism’ will still be a mode of social production, ‘power’ will still exist. I’m not an ‘anarchist’, but a ‘democrat’.
If you disagree with me, robbo, all fine and good. But you must explain your view of ‘power’ within ‘democratic socialism’. If you think that socialism will involve 7 billion sovereign bodies (ie. each individual, doing their ‘own thing’, without ‘the nanny state’ (as individualists characterise any ‘social authority’), untrammelled ‘freedom’), I respectfully disagree. I think that there will still be a ‘social authority’, which will determine ‘social production’. We have to all be a part of that social authority.
How will we resolve such disagreements during the building of democratic socialism?
Marquito wrote “The future society is not  going to be decided by Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, or whatever, or any guru,  or even the SPGB, it is going to be decided by the world working class…”
But that’s precisely what I keep arguing, Marquito.
But most others here keep insisting it’s going to be decided by … ‘material conditions’, or ‘specialists’, or ‘science’… and I think you’ve defended these too, in preference to ‘the world working class’.
Furthermore, I also insist (and I believe that I’m following Marx here) that ‘the world working class’ must politically organise on a democratic basis, and that by their own self-emancipation, they themselves will determine ‘material conditions’, ‘specialists’, ‘science’… and all other social products, like physics, maths, logic, truth, etc.
alanjjohnstone wrote: ”
[LBird wrote: ]âWhy is it that almost everyone in the SPGB, and its supporters, seem incapable of having a political discussion, without resorting to personal abuse?â
Are you including my good self in that charge, LBird?  đ”
Funnily enough, alan, I did think of specifically excluding you from my condemnation, but I think even you, too, have succumbed to this frustration. So, I left it at ‘almost’. đ
alanjjohnstone wrote: “There must be a time to agree to disagree and shift the exchanges to topics where we do hold consensus views.”
The problem here, alan, is that I’d assume that ‘democratic socialism‘ is the very basis of a ‘consensus view’ in the SPGB.
But, it seems that, literally, I’m the only one who defends ‘democracy’ – and I consciously include you as one who, like the rest, defends ‘science’, or ‘specialists’, or ‘matter’, or ‘reality’, or ‘material conditions’… almost everything except ‘democracy’.
That is, in terms of defending the organised power of the associated social producers (what I’d call, within capitalism, the ‘proletariat’ or the ‘working class’), and Marx’s commitment to the self-emancipation of that class by democratic methods, I’m defending what most democratic socialist thinkers for the last 150 years would call a ‘consensus view’.
Why do you think I’m the one who appears to be out of step with the current SPGB? What’s the political, philosophical, ideological difference between us?
Marx, as quoted by robbo203:
“…society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me…”
Society ‘makes possibilities’ for all individuals.
Democratic control of social production will produce our possibilities.
robbo203 wrote: “I still dont seriously believe that you actually believe the nonsense that you are spouting LBird.”
Why is it that almost everyone in the SPGB, and its supporters, seem incapable of having a political discussion, without resorting to personal abuse?
In the past, I’ve made the error of replying in kind (wrongly assuming that, by my ‘experience’, the SPGB allows that sort of debate), but I’ve learned that the SPGB moderators will discipline me, alone, and that the SPGB originators of the personal abuse are not subject to the same sanctions.
So, I can’t use the same political and ideological methods that are employed by the SPGB, when their party is subjected to political criticism. I have to remain quite.
Perhaps it gives us all a taste of robbo’s real political methods, which would be employed in his version of ‘Individualist Socialism’.
You still haven’t explained how this ‘Golden Mean’ would ‘speak’ to the associated social producers, without your active participation in explaining ‘what the Golden Mean says’.
I openly say that the ‘Golden Mean’ within democratic socialism, will be freely determined by the social producers, after discussion and debate, and a democratic vote. And I predict, just as Marx warned, that your elite would claim that the ‘Golden Mean’ speaks only to you, and that you are merely passively repeating what ‘it’ says. Marx warned this will split society into two parts, with the smaller part claiming power.
You daren’t say that about ‘Democratic Golden Mean’, because it would place ‘power’ into the hands of the vast majority within democratic socialism, and you constantly deny that democratic methods would be employed in your version of ‘social production’.
Please try to be civil, robbo, in your answers, this is a site open to other socialists and interested workers. The SPGB aspires to influence workers, not to denigrate them, both personally and politically.
