[LBird]

Vin wrote:

The expelled member says:  The SPGB is a roadblock, not a help, to the working class.  Partly by design – the Hostility Clause, for example was a dead letter as soon as we came back empty-handed from the Second International in 1904 – but partly from progressive degeneration of its personnel. There is in particular no understanding of Marxism. A money fetish has been substituted for the suppression of Capital, an anarchist rejection of  combination substituted for the pursuit of "world-historical character", a fully formed castle in the sky substituted for what should never have been more than a direction of travel, an initial rough sketch of what is a set of projected relationships, not a place. And so forth. Everywhere one finds abstractions.  And as this election has shown most clearly – the SPGB's road to revolution does not start where the working class *is*. The class is expected to shift onto the Party's pre-prepared ground, held vacant since the late 19th century. Only then will it follow the golden road to socialism, which again is fully formed and located … in the 19th century.

[my bold]I know that you won't thank me for my support, Vin, but here it is, anyway.No understanding of Marxism – only mindless adherence to Engels' 'materialism', the 'progressive degeneration'.An anarchist rejection of combination – only bourgeois individualism and 'freedom' from society's control of production.The class is expected to shift onto the Party's pre-prepared ground, held vacant since the late 19th century – the fruits of materialism, as Marx warned. The belief that 'specialists' in consciousness supposedly already know what workers haven't even yet built.The root of this 19th century disease is Religious Materialism. The result is that the party 'knows Truth', and the members must be watched for dissent.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

How long are we going to allow this ant-working class and anti-SPGB propaganda permeate our forum? He is repeating the same lies and accustaions.

The problem, Vin, is if you start from 'criticism' equalling 'propaganda, lies and accusations', then you're making my argument, about the pointlessness of a WSJ, for me.I suppose you could get Goebbels to be editor, and send me to suffer the judgement of Freisler.You'd have to find someone who can argue with me, to make a WSJ worthwhile.

[LBird]

The problem with the idea for a 'theoretical' journal, similar to the SWP's ISJ, is that these sorts of publications necessarily involve discussions about philosophy, ontology, epistemology, etc., and involve questioning concepts, categories, assumptions, axioms, etc., from a critical stance.If one tends to 'the practical', and avoids any talk of prior 'theory', then a journal of this type will be anathema.And specifically, the whole culture of the SPGB seems to be one of 'being practical', and quite unquestioning of, for example, concept formation, and tends to simply accept the 'theory' that society holds at present, as being completely unproblematic, for example, regarding 'science'.All this is very far from Marx's views about the socio-historic production of ideas, and their practical implementation by societies at a specific time. That is, 'social theory and practice'.In my view, any party that pretends to have any theoretical understanding of its practice, would require a journal of this type. But, given what I've encountered on this site (and I admit that the wider party might have a very different approach), a WSJ would be both little-read and little-understood.Having made that criticism, personally I'd welcome a theoretical journal that could combat the 'materialist' ideas of the SWP and other Leninist/Trotskyist parties. But… if it were to merely echo the anti-democratic 'materialist' politics of the ISJ, lauding 'specialists', what's the point?

[LBird]

This article, Engels' Marxism, John Rees, is taken from the ISJ 65 Special Issue December 1994, pp. 47-82.The whole issue addresses Engels' ideas, and also includes:Frederick Engels: life of a revolutionary, Lindsey German, pp. 3-46;Engels and the origins of human society, Chris Harman, pp. 83-142;Engels and natural science, Paul McGarr, pp. 143-176.It's certainly worth a read, and most 'materialists' will agree with the SWP.I was a member of the SWP when it was published, but didn't have the knowledge then, to challenge the SWP's arguments.How times have changed.

[LBird]

I thought that you'd avoid political discussion, and return to insults, YMS.You're politically predictable, just like all individualists.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Won't the ex capitalists be building socialism?

If they are now class conscious members of the revolutionary proletariat, then yes, they will. If not, no, they won't.

YMS wrote:

My preferred term is 'the community' rather han people, the community as a whole,will that suffice?  I prefer terms that humanise, rather than metonyms.

My comments above about 'people' also apply to 'community', 'community as a whole', and 'humanising', for the same political reasons – you're trying to hide the 'social' nature of 'production', because you're an individualist.I'm not an individualist, I'm a Democratic Communist, a Marxist, and my political concerns are with 'social production', now and within socialism.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to be clear then, if there are no classes in socialism, what is the point of using any designation like 'social producers' or 'workers'?  People suffices, as you can see, the persistence in using these terms has lead to confusion, since, naturally, interlocutors inferred that there was some significance in this designation and hat there would be non-workers.So, for further clarification, "social-producers" and "people" are exact synonyms?

[my bold]Because, like Marx, I'm talking about 'social production'.alan has already mentioned the political difficulties for the class conscious revolutionary proletariat in using the term 'People'.So, no, 'people' and 'social producers' are not politically 'exact synonyms'.I suspect that your ideological wish to use the term 'people' is part of your individualist ideology, and seeks to hide the 'social' nature of 'production'.Once you get the term 'people' accepted in discourse, you'll then move to arguing that 'all people are individuals'.It would be far clearer for this political discussion if you would be open, and say why you don't want to use the term 'social producers', and why you prefer 'people'.Furthermore, I'm open about saying that the 'workers' within capitalism are the ones who will build socialism, and so the 'workers' will be the ones self-transforming into the producers of socialism. So, no, the 'people' will not be building for socialism, and no, the 'people' won't be the social producers, and the term doesn't 'suffice'.

[LBird]

The only genuine political criticism that you can make of my post, alan, ignoring red herrings, is that I'm wrong to claim that there will be 'social producers' within socialism.Is this what you're trying to say?

[LBird]

alan, why not just read my post 114?I wrote quite a long and comprehensive post, addressing as much as is possible in this format, the issues and red herring that you raised.Now, unless you tell me what I wrote about within socialism (clue 'social producers'), I'm going to have to treat you like robbo, Vin and YMS, and assume that either you're not genuinely interested in engaging, or that you simply can't read.FFS, what's the point of the SPGB having a website, and driving away those workers who express an interest?

ajj wrote:

I think you are rightly angered…

…and at the end of my tether.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

Rubbish.  You are wriggling as per usual.  You talked quite explicitly of there being a "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" in socialism .  How can you have a class conscious proletariat without this presupposing the existence of classes???

As anyone can read, in my post 114, I said that the proletariat won't exist within socialism.We're back to alan arguing with robbo's mythical 'What LBird said', as opposed to what I did say.Since this inability to engage with what someone actually writes seems to widespread within the SPGB (perhaps it's a condition of membership?), I'm not sure where this thread can go. Is there anyone reading, who can read post 114, and respond to what I actually wrote there?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? 

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. This is Marx's view, too.

ajj wrote:

"Self-determined" in my usage is that people themselves will determine the means of how. The sentence can stand alone without the use of self-determined "Democracy will not be imposed but will be the result of the … will of those in socialism." if that is more to your liking. 

[my bold]Where do you get the ideological category 'people themselves' from, alan? I prefer Marx's concept, above.

ajj wrote:

But perhaps it might be a bad choice of word since it echoes of national self-determination and we all know how pejorative terms can be when it comes to Marxist discussion

Yes, I agree. It's important not to leave ourselves a hostage to nationalist ideology about 'The People' (the 'volk'), during our building towards socialism.

ajj wrote:

Are you confusing the revolutionary period where the struggle for class power is still in progress?Whereas i am discussing an already established socialist society?

No, the 'struggle to build' will determine what is 'established', alan, so I'm not confusing the process (rather than two separate 'states of existence')

ajj wrote:

Once socialism is up and running there is no proletariat as has been pointed out to you, there is no politics of any resemblance to how we use the concept today.

If I read this constant red herring, once more, I'll scream.There will be 'social producers', because 'social producers' exist in every society. In terms of process, today's social producers (workers, proletariat) will transform themselves into socialism's social producers. It's easier just to use the term 'workers', but Vin has a bee in his bonnet about this, and now you and others seem to have jumped on the bandwagon, because I've stopped replying and explaining to Vin.

ajj wrote:

I fear it is you yourself who cannot understand the extent of change in ideas and social practice that will take place. It isn't me who is guilty of believing  'things will remain much the same as now' but yourself.

That's a good one, alan. I say that even physics, maths and logic will 'change in ideas and social practice', whereas you defend 'bourgeois science' and 'academic experts', and I don't understand the extent of change?

ajj wrote:

But you still haven't  indicate where in those posts (or the subsequent ones), i am adopting and applying Engels materialism to my views of what socialism will be.

I have done so, alan, many times, but you yourself keep saying that you don't understand what all this 'philosophy stuff' is about. I've tried to help, and the key point is that materialists deny the power of humans to ditch 'matter'.Once we adopt the view that 'matter' or 'the material' is a social product, and that we can change it, then the power of the Leninists disappears, because they claim to 'know matter' as it is, before we create or destroy 'it'. This keeps 'the material' outside of our productive powers, and yet leaves it in theirs.I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist, alan, and so I insist that only the class can determine 'it' for itself, and not a party. That includes 'nature' and 'the universe', so I'm covering all bases, eh?Unless this is all sorted out during the building towards socialism, when we get there we'll find a party of materialists in charge. And we all know that we've been there before, and it's not socialism as we would see it.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whose 'rational, whose 'reasonable', whose 'argument' and whose 'evidence', YMS?

Debate's, and consistency's.  Can the argument coherently endure, and explain what it is trying to explain: can it's moves be validated, and is the validation itself inconsistent.  Again, you attribute positions to me I don't hold.  You don't seek to try and find out.  Mere denonotative locutions cannot announce an ideology, it is an emergent property of debate.

Why not just openly say what your ideology is, YMS, rather than pretend that you don't know (and that I don't know) and that it will simply 'emerge' during, presumably, 'objective' debate.Since when have the gods Debate, Consistency, Coherence and Validation determined 'rationality', etc.?As for me 'not seeking to find out your position', can't you read? I've already asked you dozens of times, and I'm asking you again, in this post.Perhaps DCC&V will tell me – hello, hello, DCC&V, YMS tells me that I can 'seek' from you, and you'll tell me YMS's ideology?Nope, not a sausage, YMS. I'm afraid you're going to have to tell me – or, rather, just confirm what I've told everyone for years, and which you've sought to hide.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

I knew that you've give up, YMS.You won't have workers' democracy, and you're even reluctant to discuss it, and want to talk about yourself and individualism. Why not openly reveal your ideology, rather than pretend to be wanting to 'objectively' read Marx.

Nothing objective about it, but rational, reaonable, based on argumnt and evidence : if you can change the meaning of a text, arbitrarily, there is no scope for dialectic.  There are no invalid moves in your language game.

Whose 'rational, whose 'reasonable', whose 'argument' and whose 'evidence', YMS?You talk as if these are all obvious (ie. 'objective') categories.No one 'changes the meaning of a text, arbitrarily' – this belief of yours is an ideological belief, because you think you know what 'arbitrary' is.All 'meanings' are socially-produced (and so are not 'arbitrary'), and are related to the ideology of the producer. 'Invalidity' is always from a perspective.You've always refused to expose your ideology, YMS. And you refuse to do so, because as soon as you do, your ideological basis is destroyed. You have to pretend to be 'an objective individual', who already has the power to determine rationality, reasonability, arguments, evidence, arbitrariness, and invalidity, outside of their social production.I'm a Democratic Communist and a Marxist.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

They'll mean what the ideology trying to understand Marx's words, says that they mean.Since I'm a Democratic Communist, concerned to build up the confidence and abilities of the class concious proletariat for their aim of building socialism, Marx's words are about 'social production', workers, and democracy.

And cut.  There is no possibility for debate in Humpty Dumpty world, eitehr words have historical, logical meanings that can be examined by their usage and assemblage in a text, or they don't.What this means is there is no point discussing Marx, and exploring his meanings with you, all we can do is judge your ideas as tand alone, based on your words (though your words, too are meaningless, if I accept what you say above).Clearly, this is how you debate, you decide what someone's position is, and then proceed to argue against that.  When asked to define terms, you fail, dismally, and resort to repeating them slowly and loudly.You might want to consider how succesful such a discoursive approach may be.  Because, although you say you are a democratic communist, I've decided in my ideology that you are an Orthodox Catholic, so how dare you support the transubstantiation of the eucharist, who are you to question the decisions of the magisterium, how can you reconcile the indivisibility of catholicism with your rejection of Vatican II?

I knew that you've give up, YMS.You won't have workers' democracy, and you're even reluctant to discuss it, and want to talk about yourself and individualism. Why not openly reveal your ideology, rather than pretend to be wanting to 'objectively' read Marx.

[Author]

Posts