[LBird]

I'll try once more with you, robbo, but since I've said these things before, I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.

robbo203 wrote:

Not once has he ever explained the need for a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory.  How is it going to make any differnce if you support a theory and it gets voted down  by a majority?  Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory?

Because we know from the actually history of science (not the myth of 'science' put about by bourgeois scientists, anti-democrats all) that science by its social theory and practice can produce ideas and policies which are dangerous to the majority. For example, eugenics. This was a socio-historical product of science, and had the status of a 'scientific fact', and produced 'official policies' which led to the sterilisation of those deemed by the elite to be 'inferior'.Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control.So, yes, those 'eugenicist' scientists in a society of that sort would be forced to abandon the theory. They would be prevented from advocating the sterilisation of humans. Of course, society might decide that there are some cases where forced sterilisation might occur in the future, and in that case the 'theory' would be reserved, but no 'practice' of it would be allowed.

robbo wrote:

But thats dumb,  It undermines the very basis of science as a self critical enterprise and substitutes for science some kind of quasi religious authority. 

This is a repetition of the bourgeois myth about their 'science', that it is a 'self-critical enterprise'. It is often not 'self-critical' whatsoever, and almost everyday in the newspapers we can read accounts of 'scientists' ignoring evidence, manufacturing evidence, and suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'. And even where there is 'criticism', criticism is always from the perspective of a 'theory', and so their so-called 'criticism' never criticises their social power as 'scientists'. Bourgeois scientists never accept the need for democratic controls on their socio-political activities. All science involves power.robbo gives his game away, here, because I always argue for democratic authory, and robbo, because he is an individualist and thinks 'elite scientists' should simply be trusted, wants any democratic political interference to be deemed 'quasi religious'. Of course, robbo is hiding the fact that there is a quasi religious authority in science today – the 'elite scientists' themselves. They are the modern priests, conducting a religious order, separated and hidden from most of us workers. 

robbo wrote:

Marx argued that we should "doubt everything", LBird, by complete contrast, would have us "accept everything" providing it is formally sanctioned by the proletarian majority. 

I've  always argued that Marx was correct on this point. We should 'doubt everything' including supposed 'objective science'. robbo pretends to agree with Marx, but when robbo is asked should the nature of the sun be put to a vote, he denies this power to the majority, and insists that an elite of 'materialists', which includes robbo, already know what the sun is, and that the majority can't know this, because otherwise robbo would have no problem with a vote.Marx claims that we create our object. I agree with Marx, but the materialists, like robbo, don't. The materialists claim that we don't create matter, whereas Marxists claim that 'matter' has a history, and we can study when it originated, and why, and how it has changed, by looking at the various modes of production within which the social product of 'matter' has been socially produced.robbo is an anti-democrat, and an individualist, so robbo can see no good reason for democracy in science. robbo trusts an elite, especially the ultimate elite for individualists, their biological senses. robbo doesn't agree that our knowledge of everything, including the sun, is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it. Marxists argue that those changes must be controlled by society, by democratic methods. robbo wishes to determine what the sun is, by looking at it, by feeling heat upon the skin. This is the bourgeois method, of individual biological sensation. It is not a suitable method for democratic socialism, and its aim to democratically control all social production.

[LBird]

I'm really getting into my stride, now – it's the SPGB method of denigration, and I endorse it! Abuse and lie about your political opponents, yeah!The SPGB has announced that it's changing its name, to better reflect its political and ideological purpose, to the Defence of Matter Church, and, according to the latest DoMC epistle, twc has been appointed Chief Priest.

[LBird]

This is such a comical thread, with the usual Three Stooges taking part, that I thought that I'd join in the fun, too!LBird is actually an idealist-idealist-idealist, because he insists that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as a single unity, created the SPGB!

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

L Bird is talking about a socialist regime, the same person who said that there  would be proletarian in a socialist society.

I hope you're reading this alan.This is the same allegation that I refute weekly, as I did when you claimed it, too, but the dishonesty of the SPGB in political discussion never stops.

Marcos wrote:

He has not abandoned Trotskyism yet. The same one who talk against Leninism and recomend to read George Luckacs and Gramsci, two fervent Leninists and supporters of the vanguard party

Yeah, and I'd recommend that anyone interested in the history of Fascism should read Mein Kampf.Marcos apparently believes that if someone reads a book, that they endorse that book – every last word in that book.Perhaps that's why no-one in the SPGB reads any books, other than the ones that confirm their Religious Materialism.Does the SPGB maintain an Index of banned books, like those by Lukacs and Gramsci?

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marcos wrote:

What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like you 

You really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.

So, let's re write history in other form, your idealist-idealist thoughts.

[my bold]Why should reading prove so difficult for materialists?Perhaps the Soviet Union re-wrote history because they were illiterate? But I can't believe that Marcos and Tim can't read. It's an enigma.

[LBird]

Don't worry, don't take fright, Tim, that a non-materialist might seek to join your party.You've all played a blinder on this site, discouraging any class conscious, democratic worker from actually joining!I suspect most parties set up sites on the internet, to try to attract members, but not yours, eh, Tim?You can sleep safely tonight, with your cherished elitist beliefs.I don't know why the party doesn't just be truthful, and have a banner over the login, saying 'No Workers' Democracy wanted here!' At least workers like me wouldn't get sucked in, then. And you wouldn't have to work so hard to defend your materialism, which is the whole purpose of the party, as far as I can tell. Although, quite cheekily, you carefully hide this core ideological belief, which I don't think is actually mentioned in your 'principles'. You should really be open, and make 'materialism' a core principle of membership.Yeah, 19th century Religious Materialism, guaranteed no workers' democracy – that'll really draw in the workers of the 21st!

[LBird]

alan, is this sort of slanderous garbage, made up by twc, what passes for discussion in the SPGB?Is it any wonder you're struggling to make any headway in the working class?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Hate to point this out, but samizdat publishing was a thing in the Soviet Union, that most workers would understand.

This is a really revealing point that you've made, which openly displays your own ideological beliefs.On this site, we're discussing socialism, and democracy, and workers' power.But, you're concerned to equate 'socialism' with the Soviet Union, which was neither socialist, democratic, nor run by workers' power. And based upon that smear, you wish to then charge me with Stalinist politics.Ironically, the state religion of the SU was Engels' materialism, an ideology that you, too, espouse, whereas I've completely consistently argued for workers' democracy, and the denigration of elitist materialism. 

YMS wrote:

 The question of unofficial publication, linked closely to the planning problem of secondary uses, are hardly insane issues.

Why would there be a need for 'unofficial publication', in a society concerned to disseminate all information that meets the democratically-decided needs, interests and purposes of the world social producers?You seem to want 'isolated individuals' to determine those social needs, interests and purposes, or think that the mass of humans on this planet are incapable of deciding whether the views of any individual are dangerous to our lives, and so should be prevented.

YMS wrote:

You could have easily answered: minority viewpoints will be given space an opportunity to publish and express their ideas, and thee will be no repurcussions for the publication of heterodox ideas.A fair minded reader would be right to ask why you could not give that simple answer, and instead spent a lot of effort pathologising the dissident as insane.

I've said this, many times, but you won't read what I write, but make up your own world of 'Stalinist LBird, out to suppress indivdual freedom'.But, frankly, I do think that society will be faced with tough decisions about 'dissident insanity', and I'm prepared to argue that those decisions to suppress those dangerous ideas, should be in the democratic hands of all, not in the hands of your 'materialist elite', who regard the masses as essentially stupid, and who will make the wrong decisions. I'd be prepared to vote for the arrest and imprisonment of a 'brown paper envelope physicist' who proposed to test explosives on children.You're not a socialist, nor a democrat, YMS. You're an individualist, with a fear of 'power'. You don't recognise 'democratic authority' or the abilities of the vast masses, and simply wish to see the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You may well be right about the presence of the many politically conscious aware workers, but where are the organisations? Workers unorganised, are impotent, as well you know. Our contribution in the SPGB is to help grow that needed organisation, and we must be sure that we are not stifling it. 

I agree with you, alan, about the lack of workers' organisations.Once, I thought that the SPGB was trying to fulfil that role, and that I would join, to help the process.But, notwithstanding twc's claims about the SPGB being based upon its published 'principles', the reality is that the SPGB is not an organisation dedicated to producing a self-confident, class conscious, democratically-organised, proletariat, but is pursuing a hidden, unpublished dedication to 'Materialism'.I had thought that it was just some members (which is fair enough, debate is a good thing), but it's not just some – including you, it's a party 100% dedicated to 'Specialists' telling us workers that you, the elite, have an access to 'reality' that we workers don't have. If you didn't believe that you have this 'special consciousness', you'd agree to democracy in the production of all areas, including the universities' output of 'ideas'.So, to summarise, 'materialism' equals 'stifling workers'. Your party has nothing to say to attract workers. Ditch the 19th century materialism, and things might change. I've tried to help you do this, but to no avail. 1904 was too late, alan. The damage was done 50 years before that.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

Only the democratic producers can assess the usefulness, potential usefulness, or sheer lunacy of these 'brown envelope' theories. Perhaps others will look with favour on your individualist theory never to dismiss any 'theory', and they'll then assign the social labour, required to write out all those brown envelopes, to everyone on this planet.

*watches Lbird dance around the point*

I don't know how to give your frankly insane musings on social production within socialism any more careful attention, YMS.If your questions and beliefs are going to form the core of our social problems to be solved, I can't see many workers, having read this exchange, choosing 'socialism'.What's so hard for you to understand about 'democracy'?Whatever 'point' you're dancing around, you'll be doing it on your own.Well… perhaps with 'brown paper envelope physicist' for company.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.

Because their theories have been voted down?  Because the democratically elected editor declined to publish their paper?  But, of sound mind, and determined in their views despite the vote, they keep on disseminating their documents.

Yes, and when the 'brown envelope' 'individualist physicist' has their theories about 'chips into rocket fuel' and their claim to be 'completely sane' voted down, they'll be sent to the department that we'll set up, to which you'll be elected secretary, in which post you can spend all your 'individual time' writing out their 'theory' onto several billion 'brown envelopes', which the 'completely sane' theorist insists is the only method to propagate their 'theory' around the world'.I, for one, god knows, sincerely hope that we get to socialism, so that I can help to elect you to such a socially and politically important research post.

YMS wrote:

 Would libraries be allowed to pass them on?So, would you print and disseminate rejected ideas?

Only the democratic producers can assess the usefulness, potential usefulness, or sheer lunacy of these 'brown envelope' theories. Perhaps others will look with favour on your individualist theory never to dismiss any 'theory', and they'll then assign the social labour, required to write out all those brown envelopes, to everyone on this planet. Of course, if there's only one of your favoured theorists, with one theory, we will all have to write only one brown envelope – but, since you insist that all the theories of all the theorists must be published according to their individual wishes, we'll probably spend most of our time in your 'socialism' doing pointless tasks, just to keep your 'individualist' beliefs happy.In the real world, meanwhile, I suspect that there'll be a 'weeding out' of some theories that the world social producers deem democratically to be 'of no use, even potentially', and so they wouldn't use up our social resources printing and disseminating them to libraries.Then again, perhaps I'm wrong, and 7 billion people will share your obsession with 'individualism in production', and socialism will consist of us all  endlessly filling out brown envelopes with theories about 'chips into rocket fuel'.

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, Sympo, are you interested in humans and their changing socio-historical production, or how 'matter' determines human activity?

I'm interested inwhether or not capitalism will inevitably lead to socialismwhether or not there are several "roads" to take when humans create history (for example, would it be possible that feudalism would be succeeded by a system other than capitalism?)whether or not a class-based society (and therefore a society of class antagonisms) must develop into a new society

I can only give you the Marxist answer to your questions, Sympo. You are right to also ask for the Engelsian Materialist answer, which other posters will give you.The answers are:1. No, it won't.2. Yes, there are.3. By 'new', if you mean 'non-class', then, no. If you include 'new class', then, yes.

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

No offence people but why does every thread have to turn into a debate about the validity of "idealism-materialism"Is this stuff really relevant to the thread?

Yeah, in a word, fundamental.Either your question is about 'materialism' (and the 'historical' is just a sly prefix to be ignored, like 'dialectical', etc.) and so you are asking about Engels' views, or……you want to know about Marx's 'social production' (which is what Marx wished to dicuss – he never used the terms 'historical materialism' or 'dialectical materialism').So, Sympo, are you interested in humans and their changing socio-historical production, or how 'matter' determines human activity?If you are interested in the latter, see twc's answers.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We are now getting closer to an actual debate about our problems as put by me in messages # 40 and  #58, LBird. As Marx pointed out 

Quote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society,

And we have not succeeded in breaking out of their parameters, have we? We are still dominated by their cultural hegemony as Gramsci expressed itIn the war of ideas we have failed, a point i keep repeating to my party comrades.

Let's get this straight, alan.It's not 'we' class conscious workers who've 'failed', but you and the SPGB. Plenty of workers (being able to overcome their bellies) can read history, philosophy and physics, and can understand the utter tripe of the belief that 'material' equals 'matter' in Marx's works. There are plenty of Gramsci's 'organic intellectuals' within the class, today. 

ajj wrote:

I now ask you and i expect an answer that we can begin to implement as a organisation to unite about, what sort of socialist "party" and what type of campaign or literature do you envisage succeeding in over-turning the "ruling material force"?Can we have some answers…i'm fed up with questions when my own answers are being so casually dismissed.

'Casually dismissed'? Fuckin' hell, alan, I've spent hours slowly explaining to you, over years, drawing on my efforts to think (whilst you've been stuffing your belly, apparently), and you can insult me like this?I'll tell you what workers need, an organisation that starts from workers' democracy, not the shite of elite materialism, and the so-called 'Specialists' of the SPGB, with their bourgeois method of 'their own biological senses', and their wish to realise bourgeois individualism, rather than the democratic control of social production.I'd better leave it there for now, since I've said all this before, but you call it 'dismissal', so I'm going to have a 'casual' cup of tea, and calm down.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?  

BTW, duly noted that you didn't answr this question.

You're like an irritating child, who just won't stop asking the same question, even when explained to a hundred times.Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.Still, even they wish to do this, and pass the brown paper envelope onto their elected authorities, those democratic authorities will judge on the usefulness to our social production of the ideas contained thereon, bearing in mind our needs, interests and purposes.Of course, if the reason that the particular individual using this strange, anti-social method, is doing this because they are mentally ill, we'll probably ignore their advice to turn chips into rocket fuel. We'll probably store the brown paper envelope, though, for future consultation, if it turns out that, though mentally ill at the time, the writer actually had a good idea. I presume we'd at least photocopy it, for dissemination, because the individualist method of passing on a brown paper envelope for individuals to read, wouldn't suit our needs, interests and purposes, in our world social production.Now, leave me alone, or I'll set the bogeyman on you.Vin, I've got a job for you…

[Author]

Posts