LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Democracy will not be imposed…
Of course it will, alan. That's the political point. There can be no anti- or non-democratic methods within socialism. That's the starting point for revolutionary politics.
ajj wrote:…but will be the result of the self-determined will of those in socialism.Who 'self-determines', alan?Dictators can 'self-determine', narrow elites can 'self-determine'.To put it bluntly, the revolutionary class conscious proletariat will impose their democratic political methods. Any other political starting point undermines, from the beginning, the revolutionary class conscious proletariat, in favour of some other political entity, who will claim to be outside of 'democratic methods'.It's political suicide for workers to deny democracy, since they are the vast majority. This is about power and politics, alan, even though the SPGB seems to be very reluctant to discuss either.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, he's clearly saying animal being preceded conscious being. And clearly stating that social applies only to multiple humans working together, so a being on their own can produce, is that not so? Or do none of Marx' words mean what they say?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.Since you are an individualist, they'll mean that you're are an individual, and that you as a biological being can 'know matter' (by touch, for example).You're not really interested in politics, ideologies, society, production, or socialism, YMS – you're just interested in confirming your existing ideological choices, that you're an 'individual', and you won't have others telling you 'what to think'. And you got this ideology from the bourgeoisie, who've dominated human thought for the last 350 years, and which Marx fought to overcome, and provide a basis for workers to liberate themselves collectively from those ruling class ideas, like 'individualism'.
Once again (and no doubt again, later), for Marx, 'production' is a social category.Marx is not discussing 'individual biological movement', but the 'active side', an active social consciousness that labours to produce its own product.'Nature' is a social product. That's why we can change it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird,can non-social producers create a product?YMS, I've explained this to you, several times already. I do wish that you'd read what I write, and move on. If you disagree with what I've written, fair enough, but just say so, and move on, please.Once again… for Marx, humans are 'social producers'.It's a philosophical category, that Marx employs to explain how humans create their world. The 'social activity' of those producers he calls 'labour'.To put it even clearer, for Marx, the notion of any human, being a 'non-social producer' is meaningless.I think that you're mixing up your categories, and confusing this issue with 'classes' (ie. 'exploited producers' and 'exploiters').Now, I agree with Marx's categories, but if you don't, just say so, and we can move the discussion on, as to why you disagree with Marx's philosophical categories, and which other categories you'd prefer to employ. Of course, I'll ask you where you got those categories from (ie. their socio-historical origin).
alanjjohnstone wrote:No. I won't let you steer this exchange to suit your agenda. I have posted 4 message in recent days. I want you to tell me in each and everyone where they were wrong, in the sense of being anti-socialist. Where in the text of what i actually posted were they presenting a fundamentally anti-socialist case?[my bold]The bit where you missed out that only the social producers can determine their product, and that the only acceptable political method for that determination is democracy.It's rather simple, alan. No need for me to rub it in, post by post.But 'materialists' won't have it – because it undermines the materialists' belief that they alone have a special consciousness, and that they won't have workers telling them what the 'truth' is.Materialists are elitists, which is why Lenin clung to that ideology.Ask them, alan – can workers elect 'matter'? Which obviously presupposes that they can deselect 'matter', too, if they wish.'Materialists' won't have this political control over 'reality' being in the hands of the democratic producers.'Matter' is their 'God'.
If you can't read what you've written yourself, alan, and compare it with what Marx wrote (and contrast with Engels), then my pointing out what you've written won't convince you.Perhaps another tack might help.Where does 'thought' come from?A 'materialist' will say 'the brain', whereas a Marxist will say 'social production'.'Thought' isn't 'material', but 'social'. Or, to put it into 19th century terms, 'ideal-material', a practical product of social 'theory and practice'. Change the 'theory', and we change the 'product'. Engels didn't understand that.That's why 'specialists' can't know 'reality' before we've created it. 'Reality' is a social product, and within socialism we'll build our reality, and it won't be the reality built by bourgeois science.
But I haven't claimed that 'ideas fall from the sky'. That is what 'materialists' always accuse Marxists of saying.And once again, regarding the 'primary need' that you identify – 'who' determines it, and 'how'?The only answer acceptable to Marxists is: 'the social producers' and 'by democratic means'.'Materialists' claim that 'need' comes from 'matter', and that the 'materialists' can identify that 'need' without the active participation of the social producers. So, the 'materialists' claim that 'experts' can decide. Or, as the SPGB has it, the 'specialists'.It's nothing to do with World Socialism and the democratic control of production, alan.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to quote again from that article.Quote:'scientific socialism'……was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself.We've done this discussion to death elsewhere, alan, about Engels' false contrast of 'scientific' versus 'utopian'. It's nothing to do with Marx.
ajj wrote:Simply acknowledging ideas come from somewhere.Yeah, according to Marx, 'ideas' come from 'social production'.It's Engels who believed that 'ideas' came from 'material' (or, 'matter'). Which is what you apparently believe, too.To put it another way, for Marx, 'ideas' come from 'social theory and practice' (ie., in part, from 'ideas' ('theory')). The notion that 'matter' is the source of ideas actually denies the social producers the ability to consciously change themselves, because 'materialism' takes that ability and places it in 'matter'. And then, of course, as Marx warned, the 'materialists' will claim to know what 'ideas' 'matter' is 'producing', and present the workers with this accomplished fact.And whilst so-called "workers' parties" keep spouting this 'materialist' nonsense, there will be no development amongst workers who look to those parties. Like you, alan.
alan, your reply seems to consist of 'I don't know' and 'things will remain much the same as now'.It's fair enough if this is the politics you wish to propagate, and you reflect a consensus within the SPGB, but to me it's all a long way from Marx, revolution, class struggle, workers' power, democratic control of social production, fundamental socio-historic changes, etc.From the answers given here, by you and others, it seems that the SPGB is essentially an individualist and reformist organisation – I even hesitate to say 'party', which suggests organisation, conscious ideology, and politics.And the terms 'Marxism' and 'World Socialism' seem to be just a figleaf for pretty bog-standard, mainstream, ruling class ideas, within the SPGB.Whatever, my political beliefs, historical outlook, and hopes for the future, seem to be a long way from yours.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Isn't Marx saying here that this is the end of politics?No, he isn't.
ajj wrote:I didn't say there would be an end to disagreements and an end of arguments. And no doubt proponents of a position will come together in organisations, as will their adversaries and they'll reason it all out among themselves. These disputes will have to be resolved in a process acceptable to all. As there is no political parties and no classes in conflict for domination of society, i don't consider this to be politics.So, you agree with me and Marx, then.If 'politics' is defined as 'parliamentary' (or 'class') politics, then there is 'an end to politics'.If 'politics' is more widely defined as the social reconciling of 'disagreements, arguments, disputes', then there will be politics. You 'just don't consider this to be politics'. Fine by me. Change the name of 'politics' to 'reasoning it all out' or 'acceptable resolution', and the problem still remains. Who determines 'reason' and 'acceptable', and how?
As usual, YMS, you're contradicting yourself, because you haven't thought through the politics of it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I agree, there would have to be a single world authority… Moreover, there is no necessary reason why that singular entity should always have the final say…Either there's a 'single authority' which does 'always have the final say'……or there's a diffusion of 'authority' which competes for political power, when one or another 'temporarily supercedes the world authority'.Just who makes this political decision to 'supercede' World Socialism, you never tell us. A 'Specialist' in 'politics', perhaps?It's a recipe for political confusion, and a denial of the democratic authority of the social producers. But then, you don't recognise the legitimacy of 'democratic authority', do you?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Nor will it be politics. Politics ends when capitalism ends. YMS reflects my own view.This is the nub of the issue, alan.For 'individualists' like YMS (and, apparently, you, too) 'society' and its nasty manifestation of 'politics' which interferes with 'individual freedom' will disappear with the end of capitalism.This ideological belief is nothing to do with Marx's 'social productionism', which recognises 'society' as the fundamental category of 'production'. Different societies, throughout history, have produced different 'individuals' (the term itself is a social product, and would not be recognised by other societies prior to capitalism).Of course, 'politics' won't 'end when capitalism ends'. Politics has always existed, and will always exist, because power is a social phenomenon, and we have to learn to deal with social power.Otherwise, why would Marx be so focussed upon 'democracy' within the workers' movement?This openness of yours – that you believe in 'the end of politics' – throws much light on just why the SPGB can't deal with political questions in the present. You have an ideolological belief in something other than 'politics' and humans – and I already know that this belief is in 'Matter', an ahistorical, asocial, non-political 'Truth'.I've recently said that I find the SPGB's attitude to 'power' to be strange for a political party – but perhaps the reason is emerging more clearly, now.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The substantive point is, there won't be one way of making decisions, but thousands, where useful, algorithmic decision making can be applied, sometimes, raw voting, sometimes weighted scoring by technical experts, each organisation, community and region will be different: single non-transferable voting, single transferable voting, condorcet pairwise voting, condorcet pairwise voting with AV track back, block vote, limited vote, d'Hondt, droop. I won't be voting on the colour of the bus stops in Dorset, nor about the street names in Aberdeen. I might have a vote for the world forestry commission, etc.So, you've listed at least a dozen 'ways' – so, who (or what) determines which 'way' applies to any given political situation?You won't answer this political question, YMS.
YMS wrote:In Socialist as a Practical Alternative, we cite the Food and Agriculture Organisation as a potential precursor to a world agricultural plan, but I doubt the decision of what to do with that field just off Thames Road should be used for would be taken at their head office, though their advisors might visit the local authority, and advise them in the light of expertise and co-ordinating with the world food plan…. etc. There would be many, varied and overlapping authorities involved in many decisions, not a single vote, and some decisions even might be made by consensus.[my bold]This is your 'substantive point', YMS. It's a political argument for the liberal theory of the diffusion of 'powers', similar to legislature, executive, judiciary, etc.On the contrary, my 'substantive point' is that there will be a single world authority, which will have any necessary final say regarding any 'many, varied and overlapping [lower level] authorities'.This 'single world authority' is embodied in the political slogan 'World Socialism'.This 'World Socialism' will be built to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic proletariat.This is the key political difference between us, YMS. You are not a supporter of 'World Socialism', but, at best, of 'World Socialisms'. From my Democratic Communist perspective, you might as well be talking about 'National Socialisms', a particularistic, divided, unco-ordinated, even anarchistic, politics.And behind all this, is your individualism, and 'fear of the mob' of "workers' democratic power".
alanjjohnstone wrote:I really thought we were reaching an agreement, even if there might have been a difference of emphasis…more fool me.And by no means am i apportioning blame on a particular person. It just depresses me that this discussion and debate isn't being fruitful. It's leading no-where.Not surprisingly, alan, I don't agree with you. It's a very fruitful debate, because it's exposing the SPGB's inability to discuss politics. This is, at root, because the SPGB embraces 'materialism', which Marx warns will lead to the separation of society into two parts, one superior to the other.The 'politics' involved are the politics of Specialism/Generalism, which seems to be the preferred expression with the SPGB for their elitism. That's why the SPGB can't support democracy where there is power: not in politics, nor science, nor maths, nor physics, nor logic… I'm sure you get the point.On a personal level, I'm baffled as to why this isn't apparent to you, and you still don't seem to understand that elitism in politics (ie. 'Specialism/Generalism') leads to, well, elitism in everything. It doesn't give me any confidence that the SPGB is able to even confront these political issues, because, aside from your 'neutral' bafflement, the other responses are personal attacks on me, rather than political responses to those who disagree with Engels' 'materialism'.So, it's leading to the SPGB's elitist politics being exposed, to class conscious, democratic workers, alan. This doesn't seem to bother the SPGB, probably because it's not interested in 'class', 'workers' or 'democracy'; just in 'Specialists' and 'individuals'.
