LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: “Unfortunately L Bird has never understood or even addressed this point and continues not to do so”
robbo, I’ve always understood your point, and have constantly addressed it, probably dozens of times, and, in the interests of a fresh and comradely start in these political discussions, I’ll do so, once again.
Firstly, this is a political (and philosophical and ideological) issue. Secondly, it is an issue about ‘social power’ and just ‘who’ would wield it, both under socialism eventually, and in any workers’ movement dedicated to building for socialism.
That is, it’s not a discussion about whether unqualified, untrained and uncaring people will be allowed to perform operations on anybody they like, whilst highly trained and qualified, dedicated surgeons will be treated with contempt and put in the stocks.
The political question is, who controls the social production processes that socially produce, for example, surgeons (or any other ‘specialists’, that you name, like molecular biologists, structural engineers, agronomists, astrophysicists or dieticians, and, just to make quite sure we know what we’re discussing, plumbers, airline pilots, mathematicians, logicians, physicists, etc.).
This can be summed up quite easily as the question ‘who controls science?’.
In the building for socialism, we’d need to discuss what ‘science’ actually is, what are its purposes, aims, assumptions (especially those currently hidden from us, and often unknown to the so-called ‘specialists’), concepts, theories, methods and practices.
Again, to simplify, to give us some focus, for example, what is the purpose of ‘science’?
This can be answered a number of ways, depending upon the ideological assumptions (and I’d argue class viewpoint) of those giving the answer.
Bourgeois ideologists have, since the 17th century, given the answer that the purpose of science is to uncover the workings of reality.
But another answer that can be given, and I’d argue that this is the answer that democratic socialists should be giving, is that the purpose of science is to build a better world.
Of course, there are ideological assumptions in both of these views. The former, for example, assumes that ‘reality’ already exists, before humans attempt to ‘discover’ it. But Marx didn’t agree with that, and argued that we humans socially produce ‘our reality’, a ‘reality-for-us’. If this is so, then bourgeois scientists have been pulling the wool over our eyes for more than 300 years, and simply pretending to ‘discover’ a world that they themselves have actually built, for their own political, social and productive purposes. That is, this ‘reality’ is a ‘reality’ built by the bourgeoisie.
With the latter view of the purpose of science, comes the issue of who decides what ‘better’ means, in the concept of ‘better world’. Clearly, for a movement building for democratic socialism, the only interpretation of ‘better’ can come from the movement itself, ie., in your terms, the ‘generalists’.
Perhaps a more recent example of this problem could be the interwar issue of ‘genetics’, when self-selecting ‘specialists’ decided off their own bat that some people had bad genes (the poor, Jews, Blacks, untermensch, etc.) and that others had good genes (the rich (no surprise there, eh?), Christians, Whites, ubermensch, etc.).
The simple question is, who had the power to label ‘Eugenics’ as ‘science’? Would this be possible in a democratic socialist society? Or would society itself, employing democratic methods within their ‘science’, decide on purposes, concepts, disciplines, theories, etc.?
As a final plea, robbo, please focus on the political and ideological questions embodied in this discussion. If you really think that this discussion is about whether we should be letting 10 year old kids on a whim have control of nuclear weapons, whilst the ‘experts’ are forced to stand aside and weep, I think that you’re missing the point.
I should make it plain that I think that the nuclear industry and its research should be under our democratic control. We have to elect our ‘truths’.
John Oswald wrote: “Science is definitely treated in such a way under capitalism, but that is the nature of capitalism imposing itself on science. Scientists like Sagan and S.J. Gould opposed this elitism. In fact, the anti-science plague of the new generation of received knowledge-denyers, conspiracy theorists and creationists has been spawned by bourgeois science’s tendency to elitism.
The essential difference is that under capitalism the mass of people are passive onlookers, whilst in socialism they would be actively engaged.”Yes, it’s important to recognise that Marx wasn’t ‘anti-science’ – he just wanted it revolutionised and democratised (and I agree with Marx on this point).
It’s important for us democratic socialists to discuss in what ways this ‘revolutionising and democratising’ of ‘science’ could happen.
As you say, a good starting point would be the issue of ‘mass passive onlooking’, and how this could be addressed whilst building for socialism – clearly, the ways in which this ‘passive mass of onlookers’ would become an ‘active mass of participants’ in a revolutionised and democratised ‘science’, needs much thinking and discussion.
John Oswald wrote: “Please send me any links to this sort of talk (Specialists, etc.) by SPGB members. I have never come across it. I have argued with other members a lot, but have never heard such ideas from the party.”
I’ve tried a search on this site, for some of the threads relating to our previous discussions on these issues, of democratic socialism, who will control production within socialism, science, Marx and Engels and their differences, materialism, idealism and Marx’s unifying of the two – but I don’t seem to be able to find any. Perhaps other comrades know how to find some of those threads.
Some of the other posters who participated in these political discussions were ALB, robbo203, Brian, DJP, Young Master Smeet, twc, alanjjohnstone, and others – if you contact them, perhaps they can give you the information about who came up with the elite political concepts of ‘Specialists’ and ‘Generalists’. I’m not sure if these terms are widespread or official within the SPGB (perhaps not), but they were used to combat my political arguments that ‘science’, just like all social production within socialism, must be under our democratic control. ‘Truth’ has to be electable. If it isn’t, an elite minority will claim that they, as they do within capitalism, have a politically neutral method which gives this self-selected elite the means to determine ‘truth’, without the participation of the vast majority.
The elite call this supposedly ahistoric and asocial activity ‘science’. On the contrary, I’ve always argued, just like you, John, that ‘by definition, socialism cannot have any elites’. Unfortunately, the main ideological plank for this political belief in ‘science’ is 18th century ‘materialism’, which Marx predicted would lead to a separation of society into two, a small elite and a powerless mass, in his Theses on Feuerbach.
John Oswald wrote: “L. Bird, you obviously do not understand what we mean by socialism, …”
I think I do understand what the SPGB means by socialism, because I’ve asked many times, of many members and supporters – I just don’t agree with what the SPGB seems to mean by socialism, because the SPGB openly says that the social producers will not democratically control the social production of ‘truth’ (or maths, or logic, or science, etc.). Thus, by definition, the SPGB must have an elite in mind, who will separately control the production of those social products.
John Oswald wrote: “…by socialism, which by definition cannot have any elites.”
Yes, I think this too, John, that by definition, socialism ‘cannot have any elites‘. The difference seems to be, that I mean that ‘socialism cannot have any elites‘, whereas the SPGB (and perhaps yourself?) seem not to really mean this, when questioned about the political control of ‘truth’ production within socialism.
The term that has been used previously by SPGB posters for this ‘elite within socialism’ is ‘Specialists’, which is contrasted with the masses as mere ‘Generalists’. It has been made very clear that this ‘elite’ will exist within socialism, as it does now within capitalism, by the SPGB.
When I question this political assumption, rather than an account being given for this political and ideological assumption, I’m called a ‘troll’. Not a good sign for the form of socialism prefigured by the SPGB’s views, eh? Personal attacks can never replace political argument.
ALB wrote “The same view has infected universities as “post modernism” (and its offshoots). Some go so far as to say that there no facts, only opinions.”
Yes, there are both ‘facts’ and ‘opinions’, and, as Marx argued, we socially produce both of them.
That’s why we humans can (and have done throughout our history) change both ‘facts’ and ‘opinions’.
The political question for democratic communists (ie. Marxists) is ‘who has the power to control these changes?‘.
If this ‘power to change facts and opinions’ is left in the hands of an elite, that elite will control any ‘socialism’ that we humans attempt to build. It won’t be a democratic socialism.
As Robin’s article argues, Marx’s theory of value was neither subjective alone nor objective alone, but ‘subjective-objective’. An alternative term for this linking of the subject and object is ‘productive’.
We produce our value, it’s a ‘value-for-us’. This ‘value’ is thus neither ‘individual estimation’ nor ‘matter’ (this latter Marx specifically says in Capital), but our socio-historical product, and thus we can change it.
It’d make some sense to call it Marx’s ‘Productive Labour theory of value’.
ALB wrote: “Wow ! Can we used that in the Socialist Standard as a definitive refutation of the nonsense/slander that Marx was some sort of post-modernist?”
I’m all for the refutation of the nonsense/slander that Marx was some sort of post-modernist!
Marx definitely wasn’t a post-modernist, he was a social productionist.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “One thing though is certain, workers were not fully educated or aware of what they wanted or were seeking. A sign was how Noske, the butcher, actually got himself voted as chairman of the workers council in Hamburg/Kiel (?) demonstrating how little political consciousness existed among the ordinary participants. …
Who knows how history may have turned out if by some miracle the Spartacists had prevailed and Luxemburg survived.”
I agree completely with you here, alan. In contrast to Rosa’s claim we saw earlier, workers were not fighting for ‘democratic socialism’, their own control of all social production.
But, we know exactly how the Spartacists and Luxemburg would have prevailed – in a minority being in control, because, as you say, “workers were not fully educated or aware of what they wanted or were seeking.”
Even today, ‘materialists’ do not seek ‘fully educated, aware workers’, who will be able to outvote the ‘materialists’. There is no route to ‘democratic socialism’ through an elite minority, but only through a ‘fully educated aware’ majority. Bourgeois ‘science’ denies this political belief, or the need for a ‘democratic method’ within our science.
ALB wrote: “…Bolshevism, a doctrine that originated in any economically and politically backward country and took critics of capitalism back to a pre-Marxian stage and worse“.
This is incorrect, ALB. Bolshevism, the notion of an elite (party) dictating to workers, the political belief that a select minority know what ‘socialism’ is, prior to democratically consulting workers, pre-dates 1917, and pre-dates Lenin.
The core of Lenin’s ideology was ‘materialism’, which he learned from Plekhanov, Kautsky and Engels. ‘Materialism’ at its core is an anti-democratic ideology (as Marx said), and it laid the basis for Lenin’s ‘elite party’ ideology, ie. Bolshevism.
And you’re right about it taking us ‘back to a pre-Marxian stage and worse’ – it took us back to 18th century bourgeois ideas, which not only pre-dated Marx, but which Marx specifically fought against, when he put humans at the centre of their creative activity. Marx argued that humanity, not god, produced their world. The ‘materialists’ of course deny this. In fact, it could be said that ‘materialism’ is simply ‘Bolshevism in Physics’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I don’t know how many times in the last few posts on this thread I have emphasized the “social” nature of our case, purposefully explaining it meant all of society … at all levels of decision-making. What I did not do is lay down any preconceived rules on the matter, leaving it instead to members of society to work out for themselves.
That is your answer to your question, “who will create ‘individuals’ and how, according to whose social plan, whose social aims, whose purposes?” The SPGB since it was formed has had that position.”
So, according to your answer, alan, when it is asked of the SPGB ‘who shall elect either ‘matter’ or an alternative?’ or ‘who controls science?’ or ‘how shall we create our universe?’, the SPGB answers ‘all of society’.
That is, not ‘individuals’, not ‘science’, not ‘physicists’, not an elite of ‘Specialists’, but ‘all of society’.
But that’s not the answer that I’ve been given over the last few years of asking that political question. ‘Materialists’ (who do not agree with your position) have argued that ‘matter’ simply ‘exists’, just ‘as it is’, and that we can’t deselect this concept, and replace it with other concepts, by means of a democratic vote, by ‘all of society’ deciding for itself. The ‘materialists’ insist an elite ‘knows matter’, and they can’t be argued with. ‘Materialism’ is nothing to do with ‘democratic socialism’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I was constantly reminded that it was not workers control we sought but the abolition of classes and the development of social democracy and common ownership as the means to liberate ourselves as individuals.”
Perhaps this statement illustrates the differences in our understandings about both ‘socialism’ and ‘Marx’s ideas’.
You seem to equate political ‘control’ with ‘individuals’. I equate political ‘control’ with ‘democracy’.
Thus, when I ask you ‘who is to produce our universe?’, this is probably a meaningless question, as individuals just do as individuals do, according to their own lights, whereas for me, following in the footsteps of Marx, I regard this question as a social question, and thus a political question. So, the question follows – who will create ‘individuals’ and how, according to whose social plan, whose social aims, whose purposes?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “You can continue to place your concerns and reservations about the “Engelsian” SPGB as a reason for remaining outside of it, but i’ll be blunt – it is in no way contributing to any workers’ democracy nor the emancipation of labour from wage-slavery. The few SPGB members might not be doing much, but it is a helluva lot more than yourself.”
This is a fundamental disagreement we have here, alan. I’d argue that the building of a movement which has as its aim ‘democratic socialism’ must from the start ask questions about, and provide answers to them, about ‘democratic social production’. That is, ‘socialism’ isn’t about ‘free/liberated individuals’, but about ‘social production’. Marx argues that ‘social production’ is a task eternally imposed upon humanity, and I agree with him.
So, to me, whatever it is at present that ‘the few SPGB members might be doing’, it isn’t ‘a helluva lot more than’ myself (which is little enough), but is failing to ask questions about socio-historical production, the ideas that it has produced in the past, where we (including the SPD and Second International, Luxemburg and Liebknecht) went wrong.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “We’re heading towards extinction if we can not garner more support and gather more members. Where shall we be then as workers? Any better off?”
I certainly don’t think that starting from telling workers that they will not democratically control all social production (including our universe, nature-for-us, science, physics, maths, logic, universities, etc.) is the way forward. In fact, I think that this political and ideological approach is the very source of our weakness. It’s a disastrous political strategy to tell the exploited that their exploiters already have a special, ahistoric, apolitical, elite social activity called ‘Science’ which should be left in the hands of an elite, who are our betters.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap. 😉
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Once again our democratic principles safeguards the democracy LBird values so much”
The turn this discussion (about the SPD and its lack of workers’ democracy, and the roots of that lack) has taken, shows how sensitive this issue is. Regarding the SPGB, I’ve never criticised its internal party democracy, and indeed I’ve often favourably contrasted that to the Trotskyist parties, like the SWP, of which I was a member. So, this issue isn’t about institutional democracy within the SPGB.
The problem is, whenever I’ve asked the political and philosophical question (which also bears upon our analysis of the problems of the SPD and the Second International) about ‘democratic production of our world’, the answer by the members and supporters of the SPGB has consistently been that the social production of ‘physical reality’ is an issue for an elite of ‘Specialists’ (that’s the term that has been used by posters here, not by me). This elite of ‘Specialists’ are claimed to have an elite method of ‘Science’, which is not amenable to ‘democratic controls’ by the mass of humanity (who are labelled ‘Generalists’ by the SPGB).
Thus, whenever there is a clash between ‘democracy’ and ‘science’, the SPGB takes the side of ‘science’.
The ideological seeds of this political stance were sown well before the SPGB was formed in 1904, and those seeds were present when the SPD and the Second International were formed. This ideological belief (indeed, it’s a faith) in a ‘something that precedes its social production‘, and that an elite minority only can know this ‘something that precedes its social production‘, means that the mass of humanity is forever excluded from the control of the production of this ‘something‘. If it already ‘exists‘, then it can’t be changed by producers, who must simply deal with it, ‘as it is’.
Whatever position one takes on this political and philosophical issue, it’s clearly not the position of Marx. Thus, one must account for the emergence of this anti-democratic tendency within the movement of ‘Marxism’ which emerged in the mid-19th century. Marx himself disassociated himself from this movement.
The SPD and the Second International had their roots in this anti-democratic ideology, and so it’s not a surprise to find that they never argued for the democratic control of all social production by workers, and never built a movement which had this as its aim. The thinkers of those organisations never aimed to place themselves under the control of social producers who would democratically control the production of their universe. Kautsky was open about this.
If ‘The Universe’ already ‘Exists’, and can’t be changed, then Marx was wrong, the Second International was right, and workers will never develop the ability to self-determine their ‘Universe-for-them’, their ‘Nature-for-us’. However, Marx thought otherwise. He regarded a ‘nature’ not socially produced by us humans, as a ‘nothing for us’. Marx argued in favour of ‘change’, not ‘interpretation’.
Of course, these political issues, about democratic controls over social production of any ‘nature’ that we know, are still a live issue in the 21st century.
It’s much wider than a simple discussion about ‘SPGB internal democracy’, which I’ve always praised for what it is.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “A 1907 analysis of the SPD by the SPGB
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lessons-of-german-elections-1907.html”
It’s a very good article, alan, which argues in favour of many of the things that I’ve said about workers’ class consciousness and self-emancipation.
Socialist Standard March 1907 wrote: “…where the workers once attain full class-consciousness they can no longer be misled…value election campaigns and political representation only in so far as they are a means for rousing the workers to full class consciousness…socialising the means of production…Insisting upon the truth that the working-class must emancipate itself …What the workers (and that means the whole of Society) will do after the proletariat have seized control…organising the workers in the political and economic field on the lines of the class struggle alone, would offer a united front of revolutionary hostility to the possessing class… ”.
But, there is one glaring omission: other than within a quote from Vorwaerts, the article itself doesn’t mention ‘democracy’, never mind “workers’ democracy”.
As I’ve said before, I think that this failure to emphasise that the workers themselves will collectively determine their own world was a feature of all Second International parties, and seems to also include the SPGB. That is, it’s not membership of that International that’s at the root of the problem, but something deeper, that all the post-Marx “Socialist” organisations seemed to share.
Put simply, it’s the ideological belief that ‘matter itself’ (and most emphatically not humanity, not the social producers) produces our reality. This is a belief that stems from Engels, not Marx, and means that when talking about workers’ reality, there is no need to discuss the democratic control required when creating whatever ‘reality’ we know.
It’s a shame that the article omits this central political question, because, compared to today’s articles from all parties, it’s much more advanced. Perhaps it just shows the deterioration after 1883 has continued to weaken Marx’s original ideas. The faith in Engels’ ‘Scientific Socialism’ must be opposed by ‘Workers’ Democracy’.
The problem is, I’ve come to realise that it’s the word ‘Scientific’ that seems to attract most post-Marx ‘socialists’, and not ‘Democracy’. If asked what should determine our Universe, our Physics, our Reality, these ‘socialists’ influenced by Engels will always answer ‘Science’, not ‘Democracy’.
And Engels got his notions of ‘science’ from Robert Owens (a well-documented autocrat, who wanted to help workers, not be under their control), and overlaid Marx’s core ideas of ‘democracy’, ‘social production’ and ‘critique’, with an elite ‘science’ which studied eternal matter to produce a final ‘Truth’.
ALB wrote: “Here‘s one on/by Luxemburg …”
Quote by Luxemburg, from ALB’s link: “…a tremendous under-estimation of the enlightening and elevating intellectual influences which 40 years of Socialist propaganda have produced in the ranks of the German working class.” [my bold]
With due regard to the circumstances of this claim, and its rhetorical context, but given the later events of 1914, I think that we can only conclude that it was Rosa herself who was guilty of over-estimation of the effects of this (supposed?) ‘Socialist propaganda’.
As I argued to alan earlier, the ‘Socialism’ of the SPD (and all Second International thinkers) had very little to do with Marx’s notion of ‘the self-emancipation of the proletariat’. It would be very hard to believe, that if the European proletariat had been ‘enlightened and elevated’ for 40 years, that it would have marched off to war and mass suicide under the banner of nationalism.
In fact, all the evidence since supports the view that there was no mass proletarian self-conversion to democratic socialism anywhere, neither in Germany nor in the other combatant nations.
Even after four years of terrible killing at the front and starvation at home, still the German proletariat hadn’t learned to rely upon itself, but handed political power to the counterrevolutionary SPD.
No matter how much we admire Rosa Luxemburg and her bravery which caused her death at the hands of the proto-fascists, we have to learn the lessons of the late 19th century – regarding not just politics (and Marx’s ideas) but also those of physics, logic, mathematics and ‘science’, which in many ways are all still in a state of unresolved crisis.
Any attempt to save this planet and all its life forms is going to require a thorough-going revolution in all areas of humanity’s activities, its social production. And if it’s not democratic socialism, the ‘Solution’ will be an ‘elite’ one. Perhaps Engels’ ‘Finality’ will bear fruit, but not in the sense he anticipated, but one of which we’ve already had a terrible taste.
ALB wrote: “The “radicals” in the SPD attributed its drift towards reformism as being due not so much to the bureaucratisation of the Party (after all Luxemburg and Pannekoek were at one time paid Party officials themselves) …”
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they! 🙂
Did Luxemburg or Pannekoek, when they were ‘paid Party officials’, ie bureaucrats, argue that they must obey their electorate? As I said before, I’m more familiar with Pannekoek’s ideas, and he wasn’t consistent. Given his social upbringing, and lack of political clarity, it’s difficult to believe that ‘reformism’ in the party wasn’t connected to his attempts to ‘reform’ workers into seeing the world from his perspective, as opposed to encouraging them to create their own.
Until a workers’ party starts out from the premise that workers should democratically control it, institutionally and intellectually, then I can’t see how it can be ‘socialist’. This applies, of course, to that party’s view of ‘nature’ and ‘science’, too. There can’t be a ‘special elite’ who claim to have a ‘special method’, which gives them, and them alone, insights into a ‘reality’ that the vast majority cannot share. It’s only when when workers argue for our own control of ‘reality-for-us’ (or, ‘nature-for-us’), a social product, that we’ll begin the task of undermining the world/universe we live in, one built by the bourgeoisie, by its ideas, aims, and purposes, not ours.
Thanks for the links, I’ll read them later.
