LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Humans are analogue.'Digital' is a social product of the bourgeoisie. It follows from their attempt to 'mathematise nature'. This reduces our product 'organic nature' to a 'countable' world of discrete individual bits, an ideology which reflects the 'individualist' world of the bourgeoisie.'Value' is a case in point. The bourgeoisie want 'value' to be 'countable' for individuals, so they can individually determine the 'value' of a commodity. 'Value' for them is 'digital', and 'in' the commodity.For Marx, 'value' was analogue, and is 'in' the social production process. That's why an individual can't determine what the 'value' of a commodity is. The 'market' is a bluff.Bourgeois physics is another example of the 'digitising' of our world. Unfortunately, the 18th century 'materialists' who follow Engels, also do this, and pretend that a special group of elite academics have a 'special consciousness' that workers don't have, which allows these 'Specialists' to 'count the really-existing digits'. Whilst 'digits' are believed to 'exist', we can't vote on them.'Digits' do not 'exist' until we create them – they are 'digits-for-us', and we can change them.Any 'unified theory' within physics will involve humanity – the very place which 'materialists' insist must be ignored, because 'nature' supposedly exists in-itself, outside of our social production of 'it'.PS. A very interesting article, the best that I've read in the Socialist Standard.
alanjjohnstone wrote:On re-reading my last post, it may seem that i envisage a socialism that is merely capitalism – but only better.In a sense that is correct. Capitalism has already organised production socially – but it is not socially owned or controlled, remaining in the hands of a few individuals and acting in their interests of them and not society's.But surely by 'socially' we mean 'democratically', alan?So, Capitalism hasn't 'organised production socially' – but for a social elite.Your view here, that 'socialism' is 'merely a better capitalism', is fundamentally wrong, not 'correct' in any sense.Though… I suppose if one thinks that an elite will be in control of academic production, then it's a small step to think the same of all 'social' production.If 'academic production' remains 'not socially owned or controlled, remaining in the hands of a few individuals', why shouldn't it, too, be 'acting in their interests of them and not society's'?Since your views of science are non-democratic, it brings into focus what you might actually mean by 'scientific socialism'.'A science that is merely bourgeois science – but only better'?
alanjjohnstone wrote:It will be society as a whole which will define what needs are that are to have free access, not the individual. What is consumed will be socially decided in what and how much and even where production of various things will take place.We are of course not talking about a central command economy imposing limitations but social democracy being applied to allocation of necessities.[my bold]I couldn't agree more with you, alan.But I think many posters here wouldn't agree with you, if pressed.There is a political conflict between 'each individual deciding their own personal needs and abilities', and 'society democratically deciding its members' social needs and abilities'.I interpret the famous statement of communism to mean the latter. Production means democracy.
Mike Foster wrote:I don't think we can say that motivation would come just from wanting to help out the community, as motivation is always more personal (selfish?) than that.A more awkward argument against our view is the one that goes "why should someone bother training to be a brain surgeon when this wouldn't give them access to anything more than someone who does a few hours in an office?". Can our reply here be anything different to saying that being a brain surgeon is its own reward? Isn't this a bit glib?The usual socialist response to that question of 'why' is 'social estimation'.That is, the 'reward' is 'higher standing' amongst one's peers.This 'reward' can be 'physical', in the form of medals, but most often would be 'ideal', in the form of titles, honours, etc.All societies seem to have these forms of rewards, it's just that within class societies these rewards are tied to non-democratic forms, like property, money, palaces, etc.Within socialism, if one's social group elects one to a position of higher social standing, so that one is seen as 'the best' at some social activity (where 'best' is socially-defined, not having to mean 'winner' or 'most efficient'), then this would satisfy most humans, them being social animals. Even currently, for example, the army uses these forms, like membership of 'elite' regiments (guards, paras, marines, etc.) and awards for valour (VC, DSO, MC, etc.), which give much-sought 'standing' within their social organisation. Members will 'work hard' for these forms of 'social estimation', and even die for them.Being 'lazy' means social death. That's why workers used the method of 'sending scabs to Coventry', to socially isolate those who damage the social interests of the group.The only problem at the moment is that most workers are not taken in by bosses' 'rewards' to them, which usually mean a meaniningless title ('brush manager' for a road sweeper) as an excuse for low pay, but as there is a growth in revolutionary class consciousness, then I think there will be a similar development within social production.Not to develop and use one's abilities, to contribute to our society, will be seen as 'odd'. No-one likes to be pointed at in the street, as being 'odd'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…without active…Marx's criticism of 'materialism', YMS.The central question then (for what he called 'new materialism') became "Who or what is 'the active side'?".The 'materialists' insisted it was 'matter' (without any consciousness, as 'physicality').The 'idealists' insisted it was 'god' (without 'matter', as 'immateriality').Marx, having unified 'idealism' and 'materialism' into 'social production', insisted it was 'human production' (requiring both an active consciousness and its product, 'social objects').We are the 'active side'.
Which brings me nicely to…
alanjjohnstone wrote:I merely wished to point out that despite the statement's sentiment, our position itself is accused of passivity and always has been.[my bold]I will say only one word regarding their correct estimation of passivity: 'Materialism'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Don't teach your granny to suck eggs, LBird.Sorry, alan, I didn't meant to imply that you didn't understand – I was merely trying to reinforce your position!I've always acknowledged that it was yours and ALB's excellent posts on LibCom about 'economics', during the debate with some sects that I can't remember at this moment, that did teach me to suck eggs, that prompted me to look up the SPGB.Whether that latter move has been a success or not, I'll leave to others to judge!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:Passively standing by waiting for society to either collapse or evolve? Or should we consciously organise and actively replace capitalism with something else?This is often the response i get accused of in discussions with proponents of cooperatives.They tell me to start now by building what used to be called by old timer industrial unionists, the kernel of the new society within the shell of the old. They want something better now and that is something the WSM cannot supply.
The simple answer to this 'response' is to point out that 'cooperatives' are not 'the kernel of the new society'.Cooperatives are actually 'the kernel of the old society within the shell of the old', yet another version of 'market exchange'.This is exposed by their 'wanting something better now' (ie. within capitalist relations).All we can offer at present is a view of the future, because we're nowhere near making 'something better now', and we should concede that to supporters of cooperatives.For us, World Socialism is 'The Cooperative', not a continuation of market (or other) competition between a plurality of 'cooperatives', each concerned only with itself, but a singular world cooperative in which all social production is controlled democratically. That is, a Democratic World (not individual production by either biology or social sub-groups).If workers simply want better conditions within capitalism now, we should point them to unions or cooperatives, and openly say that we wish to build consciously for our future, a building which is critical of what exists (rather than pragmatically uses what exists).We democratic socialists have different aims to cooperatives, alan. The 'pragmatic now for accepted old' doesn't have our aim of 'critical now for created new'.
Ex Machina wrote:…social revolution begins when the forces of production develop to the point that they come in conflict with the relations of production.I think that it's important to acknowledge that Marx's theory about conflict between forces and relations of production is not a theory of 'technology being the driver of change'.Marx's 'forces of production' and 'relations of production' both involve social theory and practice. That is, it's not a theory of 'stuff' (forces) driving 'ideas' (relations).Marx is making the point that the theory and practice of our social forces comes into conflict with the theory and practice of our social relations.Without that acknowledgement, it's easy (and often has been done) to fall into 'technological determinism', where workers are regarded as passive, and have to merely await suitable 'techological development'. There are as many 'ideas' in the forces as in the relations.Democratic Socialism won't come into being without our changing of our theory and practice in all areas of social production. Social consciousness is central to change. 'Fetters' start with our ideas, which are often those of the ruling class, and we have to criticise them. Self-development of the proletariat is the key, not technological change.
Bijou Drains wrote:LBird wrote:You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.Dictionary definition of "Elite"" Noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"Seems to me that by selecting out infants and people with dementia, which apparently you agree with, you have selected out a group of people, creatign a select group that by definition is an elite. Not my words, but your.I am examining your propositions, your view of things, not giving mine.
[my bold]I'd read your chosen definition again, BD, you don't seem to understand it.'A select superior to the rest of society' is an elite, not a majority.You seem to be wanting to define a 'majority' as a 'dictatorship' – the politics behind that attempt is nothing to do with democratic socialism. Perhaps your own version of 'straightness' is beginning to show, after all.
You still haven't given a straight answer about which areas of social production you'd deny democracy, DB. This 'straightness' of yours seems to be a one-way street.You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.I think most workers would think that that category would consist of the vast majority of humans, but perhaps you could explain how you seem to see a 'majority' as an 'elite'?I'm beginning to think that you're not really interested in the issue of 'democracy within social production' (ie. World Socialism), and simply wish to retain at least some areas (perhaps physics, logic, mathematics, etc.) as the preserve of an educational elite.How about a straight answer to the question of which areas of social production that you'd deny democracy within?
You haven't returned the courtesy, BD, and answered my question. Fair dos, eh?But, attempting to make an answer out of your post, if your list of areas which you will deny democracy really extend beyond infants and dementia sufferers (which you probably would be able to make a good political argument for, and would probably win a vote) to physics…… then you intend to deny democracy within a central part of the theory and practice of social production.If I've understood you properly, why not simply say to workers that this is what you intend, to leave political power within the hands of an elite within certain areas, and list those areas?I think that in these areas that you'd lose a vote, and the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat would make a start on making all science comprehensible to all proletarians.That is, education would be democratised. If you oppose democracy within education, then you should say so, openly, and explain why you hold these anti-democratic views.
Bijou Drains wrote:Come on then, in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion, I'll give it one last go and ask you a straight question, in the hope of a straight answer.My question is:In your view does democratic decision making extend to every member of the community and to every question of social production?I've always given a straight answer to any straight question – the problem is, some posters don't seem to like my straight answers, and proceed to attack me personally (and then complain when I reply in kind).But, since you're claiming to be asking 'in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion', I'll give it a go, too.In my view, within World Socialism, every question of social production extends to every member of the community, thus only democratic decision making is politically acceptable.If you don't agree with 'democracy' within all social production within World Socialism, that's fair enough – but the ball's in your court to explain why you oppose 'democracy', and, if not everywhere, within which political contexts you intend to deny democracy within social production.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.Your failure to address the question and make yet a further attempt to go Off-topic is in my opinion proff positive that you are unable to answer the question.
Brian's topic: "How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century?"LBird's answer: "Your 'Materialism' (which you claim to be 'The Marxist Theory') isn't relevant in any way at all to the 21st century (and never has been)".Simple enough, and direct, answer, Brian.Or do you want me to outline why your 'Materialism' isn't?The obvious starting point is that, as Marx argued, your 'Materialism' wasn't democratic in the 19th or 20th centuries, and still isn't in the 21st century.If we aspire to build a 'democratic socialism', then a 'democratic theory' is required from the start. 'Materialism' isn't democratic, and so is of no use for this purpose.I'm not making any false claim here, because you've often said in the past that you won't have democracy in all social production – you reserve at least some to elite control. The real problem is that you never explain how an elite theory can be used to build a democratic society, in the 21st century, or any other.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.Can we stick to the question please. I would have thought it would be easy peasy for a person with knowledge of Marxist theory. I'm sure that answering the "How" will not prove too great a difficulty for you.
OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.
