[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

If not, you'll follow the political trajectory of Lenin..

Whuch  is precisely what LBird is doing with his advocacy of society wide central planning

What did I predict?Slanders and lies, as usual, the political method of the 'materialists'. In a word, Leninism.Those who actually read what I write, and are very careful of the lies of the 'materialists', will be aware that 'society-wide democratic planning' (Marx's ideas about 'social production') has been consciously and deliberately altered by robbo to confuse the unwary as 'society-wide central planning'.robbo thus anticipates his own political regime, in which he as an individual is at the centre of his planning.Individualists, like robbo, will always deny democracy, because they have a 'fear of the mob'. Individualism is a ruling class idea, a social product of the bourgeoisie, and must start from concepts like 'matter', which all individuals claim to 'know', by their individual, biological, asocial, ahistoric, senses. Thus, they don't need to discuss social theory, social practice, or the place of democracy within the social production of socialism.Thus, he defines 'democracy' as 'centralism'.Democratic Communists / Marxists define 'democracy' as 'society-wide'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We should be addressing what is possible…adapting and adjusting our Party.Or do we abdicate any responsibility and place the blame on the incapacity of our fellow workers to learn new ways of thinking and understanding and that the hegemony of the capitalist culture is too strong to break.Did i ever mention i feel a conference would be nice to raise ideas and share them with invited like-minded observers?

Such a 'conference' wouldn't last past the opening minute, alan.The Democratic Communists / Marxists would ask for all concepts to be democratic. This would be so that all 'socialist theory' would embody democratic ideals, and so all 'socialist practice' (which follows from theory) would be inherently a democratic practice.The Materialists would then declare for undemocratic 'matter' (which is a reflection in physics of 'private property'), a class-based, ruling class idea, which expels 'democratic theory' at the outset.A split would ensue, there being no political basis for a conference.I suppose you'd need to answer for yourself, what a 'like-minded observer' is for you. Do you mean someone who claims to be a 'socialist', or do you mean, from the outset, a 'democratic socialist'? If it's the latter, you'll have to exclude the elitist, non-democratic 'materialists', whose focus is not 'production', but 'matter', and whose inspiration is Engels (and thus Lenin), not Marx.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I'm with Engels on this one, we want socialism that is scientific rather than utopian recipes for the future.

Yes, the contrast of only two options, is an Engelsian construct, not Marx's, jdw.Marx unified idealism and materialism – he says so.As you openly state, you are with Engels, and so, not with Marx.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Jon, i do feel a shiver when i see the word scientific in any discussion of socialism…the same shiver when i read the word dialectical.

A healthy 'shiver', alan. A 'shiver' that all democrats feel…… 'scientific socialism' and 'dialectical materialism' are both Leninism in sheep's clothing.Ask them… they'll deny 'democracy'. They'll claim to be 'specialists'. Anything but agree to democracy within all power relationships.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

Andrew: Marx was wrong. We need plans now.

I'm with Engels on this one, we want socialism that is scientific rather than utopian recipes for the future.

[my bold]By 'scientific', the political consequence is 'non-democratic'.Whoever employs the term 'scientific socialism' is denying 'democratic socialism'.There's a political choice to be made – does one go with Marx's 'democratic socialism', or with Engels' 'scientific socialism'?The key question is 'can you come up with a democratic science?'.If not, you'll follow the political trajectory of Lenin. Who also claimed to be a 'scientific socialist'. And, in his 'scientific' work, quoted Engels, not Marx. Read Materialism and Empirio-criticism, to find out if this is true or not.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

I don't think that Robbo is so simplistic. He always gives profound and detailed explanations. You are monothematic, and now you are riding on top of your favorite little horse

Another one who apparently can't read what Marx argues, and hates a Democratic Communist pointing that out.The real problem is the 'monotheme' of the SPGB, if you're anything to go by, of anti-democratic Engelsian Materialism, just what Lenin supported and put into practice.So, yeah, my hobby horse is exposing anti-democrats who pretend to workers that 'thinkers' like Marcos and robbo 'know better' than 7 billion workers, and so set out from the very start to ensure that workers will not be allowed to vote on issues that the 'materialists' claim to know already, because the 'materialists' supposedly have a 'special consciousness' not available to all workers – hence, no democracy.Why can none of you argue about politics?Bluffers.

[LBird]

robbo, why don't you change your anti-democratic tune -"Wahhhh, boo-hoo, LBird's exposing my selfish elitism again, and wants to talk about the politics of workers' control, rather than Thatcher's 'Free Individuals' ".You wouldn't know 'socialism' if it bit you on the arse, you long-winded clown.Not a bit 'disingenuous', now, eh?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

The main problem I have with the article is that though it talks of the need to  have a plan about how to get to socialism, it  doesnt really define  socialism.  That is the the problem with the left in general.  You cant really move forward unless you have some clear  idea of where you want to move forward to – your end goal

Well, I've tried to discuss this with you and the rest here, and when I define 'socialism' as 'the democratic control of social production', your response is 'why is there a need for democracy in social production?'.I've got no problem with someone arguing that 'the democratic control of social production' is a bit vague, and needs more detail, but the challenging of 'democracy' itself, leaves me baffled.As far as I can tell, 'your end goal' seems to be 'free individuals', but this tells any worker asking nothing about 'social production' or, indeed, 'socialism'.To most, the ideology of 'free individuals' is a bourgeois ideology of "I'm alright, Jack", whereas at least 'democracy' stresses co-operation, society, and a form of decision-making.

[LBird]

meel2 wrote:

… he talks about “belief” and “morality” as being important components of the struggle.  He clarifies that what he means by “belief”, isn’t necessarily a belief in a religion, but rather a holding on to a belief in such values as justice, truth and compassion – the way “good draws to the good”.  …  I know both these words are anathema to many people on this list, as they do not fit in with what it means to be a “materialist”. 

Well, if one's starting point is the 19th century concept of 'matter' (which supposedly precedes 'consciousness'), then 'belief' and 'morality' are secondary concerns, at best.Materialists have Faith in Matter, not Faith In Humans, and their social production and its possibilities.

meel2 wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, I also think that everything in the world can ultimately be explained in terms of sub-atomic particles – however, the whole is often “greater than the sum of its parts”.

Oh dear… I think you've answered your own question, meel2.Good luck with finding 'consciousness', 'belief' and 'morality' in 'sub-atomic particles'.FWIW, Marx (unlike the 'materialists') started from both consciousness and being, and their relationship, and thus social production. It was Engels who had the 19th century bourgeois fetish for 'particles'. Why you also have this fetish, given the advances even in bourgeois physics, god only knows.I suspect that you, too, are an ideological 'materialist'… but you can get better from it, if you want to.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,“Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual.”(Marx)

Yes, Alan, I know Marx's views about 'the democratic control of production by the direct producers' quite well.But I'm asking you about your views.Or are you interpreting Marx to be arguing for a 'Robinson Crusoe' society?It's an easy question to answer, really. Do you think that there is a fourth alternative, 'democratic socialism', to the three that you outlined earlier – individualism, elitism or chaos?If you are arguing for individualism, and calling it 'Robinson Crusoe socialism', that's fine by me – I just disagree with you politically, if that's the case, because I'm a 'democratic socialist', as I think Marx was. If you disagree, too, about Marx and democracy, that's OK by me.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,You left some more comments.Thank you.Here’s the answer.Very broadly, *we can think of just 3 ways* to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market. ….Now if what you mean by socialist democracy is Crusoe’s way–full scale then what? Then very broadly, *we can think of just 3 ways* to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market.Or are you sure that, there is an option 4), socialist democracy versus Crusoe’s way then what?  Then please prove it.Thank you. 

It's not a 'proof', Alan, but a political definition. That is, a starting point, a foundation of building a new society, democratic socialism.If you want to define 'democracy' (a social concept about power) as 'Robinson Crusoe' (an individual concept about solipsism), then I think that we don't share the same politics.It would probably be better, for common understanding, if I call the new society 'democratic socialism', and you call it 'Robinson Crusoe socialism'. Then everyone reading will be clear about your view of 'power' as a individual property, and my view of 'power' as a social property.It's politically important that we expose our political axioms to the common gaze.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,No the alternative is not just democracy as such. The alternative to the market is in Marx’ Capital here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133

As elaborated on in this article "A World Without Commodities" in this month's Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1357-september-2017/world-without-commodities

Thanks for the link, ALB,I can find mention of 'everything is social instead of individual', 'members', 'common holders of the wealth and resources of society', 'social relations', and,

SPGB article wrote:

This is what Marx sketches in his next example, where he describes an ‘association of free men’ who are ‘carrying on their work with the means of production in common’ so that the ‘labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community’.

Yeah, 'association', 'production in common', 'combined' and 'community'… all fine.The only thing that I can't find is the word 'democracy'. Going by Alan's definition, these words and terms are just paying lip-service to 'social' concepts, because without the inclusion of Marx's democratic political underpinnings, the words are politically meaningless.Without any mention of democratic socialism, as the politically-binding method for all these social concepts, we're left, indeed, with Alan's trio of individualism, elitism or chaos, as our political choice of organising 'social', 'community', 'members', 'production in common', etc.That's my point. Alan seems to have confirmed what I thought that he meant, and you appear to be also confirming this lack of 'democratic socialism'. Unless you don't agree with the article, of course.Am I missing something?

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,No the alternative is not just democracy as such. The alternative to the market is in Marx’ Capital here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133

So, to be clear, you don't accept that democratic socialism is a fourth alternative to your threefold definition of social production as either individualism, elitism or chaos.I was just giving you the chance to correct your definition (if you thought it was mistaken), but you appear to be clear that you believe that there are only those three, and democratic socialism is not one of them. Cheers.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

Democracy is allowing the market to do its work better than dictatorship can.

Must be my mistake – I was assuming that by 'democracy' you'd understand 'socialist democracy', rather than, as you appear to have, 'parliamentary democracy' (ie. 'not-democracy').

Alan Kerr wrote:

But no the alternative to the market is not just democracy as such.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain how 'democracy as such' differs from 'socialist democracy'.Clearly, I'm saying that 'socialist democracy' is a fourth alternative, to the three that you proposed, and I'm not sure why you apparently discount it by definition. If you define the possibilities as your three suggested, then you remove the alternative of socialism. If you want to do that by definition, then that's fine, but it's probably best that you say openly at the start of any political debate about social production that you discount democracy, and simply want either individualism, elitism or chaos (which is another way of describing your three alternatives).

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

That’s great Michel. Very broadly, we can think of just 3 ways to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market.

[my bold]Can't we think about a fourth option? That is, 'democratic'?

[Author]

Posts