LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alan wrote “Semantic sophistry doesn’t achieve socialism”
I know alan, that’s what I keep telling you!
But you keep doing it!
You say ‘ideas are material’… but then talk of ‘material’ conditions, as if they (without workers’ consciously building them) will ‘result in…a movement’.
Can’t you see the damage you’re doing?
Let me explain, as a worker who keeps trying to help ‘materialists’ to understand why they are preventing a workers’ movement from emerging.
If ‘ideas are material’, then, surely, ‘material are ideas’? So why not call this concept ‘idea-material’? And then say the ‘idea-material conditions’ will result in a movement?
This would then make it clear to all workers that neither ‘idea’ nor ‘material’ alone will produce socialism.
But when you tell workers that ‘material’ will build socialism, without their conscious participation, then why would they bother to participate? And, in fact, since you believe this, you really think that workers’ conscious participation is not required, because you’re only paying lip-service to ‘ideas are material’, which is, as you so rightly say, ‘semantic sophistry’.
Now, I’m a worker, and I’ve been in and around ‘materialist’ parties for over 30 years, as have dozens of workers I knew personally, who have all been dedicated to consciously building a workers’ movement, but after exposure to various ‘materialist’ parties, have left the ‘movement’, when they realised that this ‘movement’ had no intention whatsoever in letting them democratically control their movement. I don’t know a single person (all dedicated socialists/Marxists) who have remained.
So, throughout the 20th century, all over the world, millions of workers hopefully joined ‘materialist’ parties… and then, when they understood what ‘materialism’ entailed (an elite of ‘special consciousness, and lack of democracy), they left again.
This argument provides an answer to your conundrum… the ‘conditions’ for socialism don’t exist – because ‘materialist’ parties are ACTIVELY PREVENTING their emergence.
If I were to use the term ‘Leninist parties’ in this argument, you’d probably agree with me.
What’s stopping you (and the rest of the ‘materialist’ SPGB) coming to consciousness of this truth? It was the ‘materialism’ in Lenin that was the problem.
Marx argues for the self-emancipation of the proletariat, conscious self-activity of workers – not for ‘matter’ building a movement.
Workers’ emancipation requires ‘idea-material’, not ‘material’, conditions.
Dave B wrote “
To have socialism or full communism you need two things.
1] A highly developed means of production and technology etc capable of producing sufficient abundance given expectations at the time etc with minimal effort.
2] And a communist consciousness; wherever that might come from.”
I agree with you, Dave, as far as it goes.
So, to be clear – the ‘material conditions’ for socialism did not exist at the end of the 19th century.
The ‘material conditions’ for socialism do not exist today, and have never yet existed, anywhere.
To argue with my statements, one has to separate the so-called ‘material’ (your ‘means’) and the so-called ‘ideal’ (your ‘consciousness’), and argue that one ‘already exists’, to the exclusion of the other (usually, this argument takes the form that the ‘material’ can ‘exist’ without the ‘ideal’).
But, as you imply, neither can ‘exist’ without the other – there is no ‘means’ just sitting there, without ‘consciousness’ – both 1] and 2] define each other.
This was Marx’s great innovation – ‘material’ and ‘ideal’ are inescapably intertwined for humans. We socially produce any ‘conditions’, by theory and practice, and we can’t have one without the other.
The separation of these two, material and ideal, was Engels’ misunderstanding of Marx’s unifying of the two, and Engels’ return to 18th century, pre-Marx, ‘materialism’.
Thus, one’s political view of epistemology comes into play here – there is no non-epistemological, simply ‘practical/pragmatic’ answer to this issue.
If one argues that 1] can ‘exist’ alone (or, indeed, 2] can ‘exist’ alone), then one is taking an Engelsist epistemological stance, and rejecting Marx’s unifying of 1] and 2], in a theory of social production, which is both ‘ideal’ and ‘material’.
Lew wrote “As it happens, I’ve reviewed Carver’s books for the Socialist Standard and I agree with his point that there are important philosophical differences between Marx and Engels. However, they have no practical political significance as far as we are concerned. “
No, practical political significance, eh?
Well, let’s see how it aligns to this thread.
The ‘materialists’ (see ALB’s quote) argue that the ‘material conditions’ for socialism have existed since the late 19th century, but there has been no workers’ revolution.
What is the OP to make of this?
There’s all this shiny, new, bright ‘material socialism’, just sitting there, for 120 years, and those workers have completely ignored it!
It doesn’t take much deep thought to realise those workers must be stupid! Fancy them ignoring the ‘material conditions’, which are just begging to be employed in the interests of all workers! And all the hard work has already been done, by those capitalists!
Either it can be done overnight, because the ‘material conditions’ already exist – or it can’t be done overnight, because those dumb workers haven’t yet shown the slightest inclination to take those ‘material conditions’ over for themselves, so they’re clearly going to take a long time to learn, being taught by those nice ‘materialists’!
Of course, whichever answer is given to the OP (and any other interested workers, looking to the SPGB ‘materialists’ for a lead), it involves workers being as thick as pig shit.
Lew wrote “Ironically, Carver shows that the main philosophical difference between Marx and Engels concerns epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and it is precisely here that L Bird’s argument fails.”
That is the ‘argument’, Lew.
You ‘materialists’ claim to know something workers don’t and can’t (ie. you have an elitist epistemology), which is why you refuse to countenance workers voting on the ‘truth’ of physics, maths, logic, scientific method, etc., etc.
Lew wrote “It will be noted that, yet again, L Bird evades the epistemological problems inherent in his position as he obsessively pursues his ‘materialist’ straw man.”
Who’s ‘evading the epistemological problems inherent in his position as he obsessively pursues his ‘materialist’ hard man’, Lew?
The worship of ‘matter’ is a religious practice, and Marx argued against it.
Try re-reading Carver’s books, Lew, in the light of the failure of the ‘material conditions’ to have persuaded workers to adopt socialism. You (and ALB) will be waiting a long time for ‘material conditions’ to do anything. Only humans, as Marx argued, consciously, with planning and purpose, change their world.
And another, repeated, ‘cordial invitation’, alan.
Have a read of Gareth Stedman Jones’ “Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion’ (2016), especially pp. 191-99.
Surely 9 pages is not too much to ask of anyone’s time, is it, alan?
alan wrote “
So LBird you decline the cordial invitation to offer comradely advice to a group you very obviously seem attached to, despite what disagreements you hold with us.
Then let me re-phrase my request
Construct an address to our fellow-workers in a non-party, non-partisan manner that will encourage them to investigate the socialist case further.”
But what are my thousands of posts over several years, if not an ‘offer of comradely advice’ to think critically about the anti-democratic ideology of ‘materialism’?
And I’d like to be ‘attached’, as I’ve said often before – but, having joined, argued with, and left, the SWP (as did many friends in Militant, RCP, WRP, CP, WP, etc., etc. – I’ve known a few), I want to politically examine this party, first. That hasn’t gone well, has it? The membership have consistently argued that they will deny workers’ democracy in production, and then have resorted to personally abusing me, rather than make a case for their anti-democratic views (which clearly will let the cat out of the bag in front of other readers).
I’m non-party and non-partisan, through and through, alan – I’m only ‘partisan’ to my class and its necessary democratic methods, which is why I’m here, at least. Obviously, that’s not why some are here.
Anyway, I’d ‘cordially invite’ those comrades in London to attend Carver’s talk on Engels, because that might help to break the political logjam between us, once some ‘outside’ input has been accepted by SPGB members.
Marcos wrote “Calling elitists to members of the SPGB, and saying that you know more than them, is not an abuse? I do not suffer from historical amnesia”
But you all admit that you’re ‘materialists’, and MARX himself called this 18th century ideology elitist.
And I rather think you do ‘suffer from historical amnesia’, because you’ve read Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, and yet have forgotten what Marx said therein.
And because if you read them (again), and remember what you’ve just read long enough, you’ll be forced to re-think, critically, your present ideology of ‘materialism’ – and so, since you won’t do that, and argue your case, you revert (as do all ‘materialists’, always) to abusing those workers who do follow Marx, read his works, and then think critically about what they’ve read.
So, you ‘abuse’ (as this thread shows), whereas I don’t abuse you, but ask you to account for your politics.
alan wrote “We’ve given our answers on numerous occasions which you decline to accept which is your prerogative to do since there is no absolute truths, is there? 😉”
But ‘your answers’ are that non-democratic methods are acceptable. Obviously, any proponent of workers’ democracy has no option but to ‘decline to accept’ them. And Lew didn’t say that, Lew said the opposite, that he won’t allow a vote to workers on ‘truth’.
As for ‘practical parameters’ and ‘something concrete and pragmatic and practical’, can you really not see the inherent conservatism of refusing to criticise what exists (ie., to begin from an ‘abstract, philosophical, theoretical exercise’, as you dismissively call it), and to disregard the ‘practical, concrete’ in a determination to change it. The ‘existing’ must be criticised and destroyed, not ‘accepted’ and used as a starting point. It’s simply the difference between revolution and reform, alan. Revolution requires ‘theory and practice’, whereas reform argues for ‘practice and theory’, or often, just ‘practice’, and bollocks to ‘idealist’ theory!
As I’ve sorrowfully said before, alan, you might be a decent bloke, good comrade, and very pleasant to have a drink with, but your lack of awareness of the political and philosophical basis of your ‘practical, pragmatic’ method seems to be widely shared within the SPGB, and so makes it a hostile environment for any workers who are democrats and Marxists. They are opposed by the other posters who openly express hostility to workers’ democracy, and espouse Engels’ destruction of Marx’s ideas.
Dave B, Marcos
It’s always open to either of you, or any other SPGB member/supporter, to come up with political answers, rather than to turn to abuse.
What’s ‘shit’ to Dave B and ‘crap’ to Marcos is “workers’ democracy” to Marxists.
patreilly wrote “LBird my old foe, we have been here before and some of us are still awaiting answers.”
Ever the ‘practical’ person, eh, pat?
That’s the bourgeois ideology in you – no need for criticism, theory, philosophy, epistemology, political ideas in general – just ‘practical’, ‘common sense’ questions.
Ruling class ideas, eh? What was it Marx said about those?
Anyway, whilst you think (practically, of course) that humanity will obviously fail to come up with a democratic method of determining ‘truth’ for themselves, I suppose you’ll have to leave ‘truth production’ in the hands of the old elite.
That’s gone well for workers, so far, hasn’t it?
Lew wrote “
- In socialism truth will be decided by voting (false).”
At least you’re being completely open, Lew, about your attitude to workers’ democracy!
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to get SPGB members/supporters to deny democracy, especially given the SPGB’s hard-earned reputation for democratic methods.
The bitter fruits of a ‘materialist’ ideology, I’m afraid.
I hope as many SPGB people attend Carver’s lecture on Engels as possible. Perhaps Carver will succeed in opening your eyes to the ‘anti-democratic’ nature of this ideology.
Anyway, until the scales fall from your eyes, Lew, make sure you continue to be completely open, with any workers who ask about socialism, about your intention that an elite will continue to tell humanity what ‘truth’ is.
But don’t be surprised that you don’t get many takers for your elitist version of ‘socialism’. We’re 135 years after Marx’s death, and it still hasn’t dawned on the Engelsist Materialists that they are the reason that workers always leave the parties that they hopefully join.
Lew wrote “
L Bird wrote:
“… the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat …”
The victorious proletariat might also reject your assertions about “materialists”. They are assertions because, according to your own criterion, they have not been voted on (and passed) by a class conscious proletariat.
“Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’. The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.”
If truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means, then we will have to wait to find out what is true and what truth is – including, presumably, the claim that truth is determined by a vote. Until then, again all you have, according to your own criterion, is opinion.”
Well, Lew, what you say is correct – only the class conscious proletariat can decide to use democratic political methods for all their social products.
But, given what you’ve said about my assertions (ie. I argue that ‘democracy is a must‘), you must have some conception of why, and in what political circumstances, the class conscious proletariat would choose a non-democratic political method.
That is, either you think that the building of socialism can be non-democratic, or even that socialism once achieved can be non-democratic.
So, that leaves me to expect that my assertions, of the democratic control of production, would be voted for by any workers’ political organisation, from its inception.
It also makes me wonder what such organisations would make of your implied view, that non-democratic methods would be acceptable.
I’m not sure if you’re a member or not of the SPGB, but I certainly wouldn’t want to join an organisation that has members who would argue against ‘my assertions’, since I would consider that organisation not to be attempting to help self-develop the proletariat.
My opinions are democratic, my criteria are democratic. That, indeed, is all we have.
alan wrote “And if you did read my earlier post, i would like your answer to why capitalism continues to be supported.”
Because the alternative to capitalism, ie, socialism, would require a class conscious revolutionary proletariat organised upon democratic lines, to socially produce it.
EVERY ‘materialist’ party tells workers that they can’t change ‘matter’.
Then, underhandedly, those parties propose an elite to take control of the social production of physics, maths, logic, truth, reality, etc., etc.
It’s obvious to any worker who joins those parties that they don’t intend to let workers determine ‘science-for-workers’.
Hence, 135 years after Marx’s death, capitalism is going strong, and will continue to do so, because supposed ‘Marxists’ (ie., ‘materialists’) prevent the self-development of any workers who show any interest in overthrowing capitalism.
Capitalism continues to be supported because it works, and the capitalists don’t pretend that they’re going to hand over control to workers, and then don’t, which is what EVERY ‘materialist’ party that has gotten into power has done.
It’s very clear to all workers, that capitalism is the preferred mode of production for their own interests. There is no alternative to a minority in control of ‘truth’, as the ‘materialists’ keep telling them.
Workers might as well have a competent elite in charge, rather than an incompetent ‘materialist’ elite, who can’t even account for the social and historical development of ‘science’, and wish to drag us all back to the 18th century, before Marx wrote.
Any ‘materialist’ party might as well put Rees Mogg in control.
ALB wrote “Calling all Engelsists:”
I recommend that all who are interested in these vital political issues, and who live near enough, to attend this lecture.
This will help those who confuse Marx’s and Engels’ views, to understand their profound differences.
I’d also recommend having a read prior to the lecture of Carver’s 1983 book “Marx & Engels: The Intellectual Relationship’, especially chapters 4 & 5.
alan wrote “My understanding has always been that two requisites were required for the establishment of socialism, the productive capacity and a mental development, both complementing one another”
So, how can ‘productive capacity’ develop, without ‘mental development’ (to employ your terms)?
You’re simply following Engels here, by SEPARATING ‘material’ from ‘ideal’ factors. It was Engels who instituted this trend, of regarding ‘Idealism’ and ‘Materialism’ as in a terrific battle, from which there can only be one winner.
Marx, on the contrary, UNITED ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’ in a philosophy of ‘social production’, where HUMAN theory and practice form a whole, and neither ‘mind’ nor ‘matter’ can be addressed apart – as did the Idealists, who emphasised the activity of Divine Production, as did the Materialists, who emphasised the passivity of unconscious Material Production. It was obvious to Marx, and should be to us, that NEITHER had any place for human conscious activity – the idealists saw consciousness as divine, the materialists saw motion as clockwork, self-motivated. Marx put the ‘human’ into ‘production’.
