[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Even to the extent, I take it that they become the unity of opposites?

I'm not an Engelsist 'Religious Materialist', like you, mod1, so I don't recognise the 'dialectical' nonsense about 'unity of opposites'.That sort of talk is only there to baffle workers, so that the elitists who use that guff can hide their anti-democratic 'philosophy' (an 'ideology' by any other name, to keep this reply relevant to the thread).Of course, Lenin was right at home with 'unity of opposites' – wasn't that the actual 'unity' between the supposed 'opposites' of party and class?Youse Religious Materialists might be still falling for this 19th century elitist bluffing, but most workers aren't any more. It's 2017, not 1917.

I don't recall Engels using the phrase 'unity of opposites' and I don't subscribe to it in any shape or form.  For it logically means a Humpty-Dumpty situation where anything goes and all reasoning and critical thinking is abandoned and replaced with irrationality and dogmatism.  But surely your #10 does indeed subscribe to such a situation:jondwhite wrote:  Quote: In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’.   "Of course, the Democratic Communist answer to that academic statement is:'We have a social philosophy, we have political opinions, we have an ideology'.And we can change around 'philosophies', 'opinions' and 'ideologies', and assign to each whatever status we democratically decide.We can change 'philosophy' to 'opinion', and 'ideology' to 'philosophy'. And then change them again, to suit our purposes, needs and interests.All philosophy, opinion and ideology are socio-historic products. In a Democratic Communist society, we can change them."Agreed we can if we so wish change them by assigning them different labels.  For what's in a name so long has the contents remain true. However, when this change in labels also means an intentional change in meanings this also includes an acceptance of the ideological weighted unity of opposites.Which begs the qualification does LBird also subscribe to a change in meaning even if it means abandoning reasoning? Edit:DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, a misused concept which grew in popularity with those who defend the tortuous policies of capitalist Russia and other State capitalist countries, acquired the mystical characters of reconciling all points of view even the most contradictory.So far as concerns its use in socialist propaganda, dialectical materialism made its appearance when Marx borrowed from Hegel the dialectical or evolutionary method of examining Man, his history and his works. But Marx reversed Hegel's method of approach to the world. To Hegel, the world was a reflection of the thought processes in man's head. He was an Idealist. To Marx, thought process was a reflection of an actual world process. He was a materialist. Hegel built his philosophical system at a time when the old, static world of feudalism was being rent by the birth of capitalism, and accepted ways and ideas were being buried into a tormented melting pot. The newly-born world was problematical, and struggling into shape. Nothing was settled. All was changing.But whereas Hegelianism was impregnated with the idea of universal change (even though upside down) the confused, contradictory and changing policies of Soviet Russia bewilder its adherents and drive them back into a different and bastardised Hegelianism with leadership as the absolute concept. Is there a contradiction between principles and policy? No matter! An understanding of dialectics will show that everything is all right in this best of all possible Russian worlds. If the Russian workers are "free" to control their own destiny but must obey the dictates of the Stalin or Brezhnev oligarchies; if the capitalist class is the enemy and yet Russia concludes alliances with them; if imperialism is a capitalist method of fleecing and yet the "Workers' Republic" fights for markets and spheres of influence, don't worry! Dialectics explains and solves these contradictions. The more incomprehensible dialectics appears to the ordinary worker, the firmer the bonds of leadership are riveted upon him and the higher the self-appointed interpreters climb.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialism

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’.

Of course, the Democratic Communist answer to that academic statement is:'We have a social philosophy, we have political opinions, we have an ideology'.And we can change around 'philosophies', 'opinions' and 'ideologies', and assign to each whatever status we democratically decide.We can change 'philosophy' to 'opinion', and 'ideology' to 'philosophy'. And then change them again, to suit our purposes, needs and interests.All philosophy, opinion and ideology are socio-historic products. In a Democratic Communist society, we can change them.

Even to the extent, I take it that they become the unity of opposites?

[moderator1]

mcolome1 wrote:

Pull the plug to all these troll and spammers  They are just fucking around with this forum. We need workers who want to learn about socialism. This guy is using this forum  fior advertising on his capitalist ideas and propagate right wing conspiracy theory 

1st warning: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[moderator1]

John Pozzi wrote:

Fiat money is made from debt.Commodity-backed Global Resource Bank money consists of resources that have universal value – http://www.grb.net.

2nd warning: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.

[moderator1]

John Pozzi wrote:

To ALB,Thank you for the information.To: /Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist/,There is additional information if you click on Mother Earth News at the bottom of http://www.grb.net .  

1st warning: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators. 

[moderator1]

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Yeah, yeah, I get a warning (again) from the impartial moderator, whilst the 'materialists' (of which the mod is one) call me what they like, even when I follow the rules and report it to the mod, and nothing is doneWhat I write is 'shit', according to the 'objective observer' mcolome 1, but when I suggest ignorance is a bad thing, I get a warning.Meanwhile, the dingbats come at me in squadrons, unmolested by moderation.

3rd and final warninng: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail. Note:  This 3rd and final warning shall be effective for 30 days.  If during that time the user makes a further breach of the rules I shall issue an indefinite suspension.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ?  This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ? 

Why not try reading and learning, mcolome1?It's not too edifying to see socialists praising ignorance.

2nd warning: 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.  

[moderator1]

Nice quote from here: http://www.autodidactproject.org/guidideo.htmlPaul Szende on ideology & reification“All ideologies tend to become reified. Handed down from generation to generation, they end up having a constraining authoritarian form, from which thought can no more free itself. Abstract ideas, principles and concepts are transformed into essences and or forces that are real though invisible and that are obeyed by humans as though they were superior beings…. It is understandable that Medieval Church denounced nominalism …. Its hostility to critical positivism is based on the very same motivation.”— Paul Szende, Verhüllung und Enthüllung. Der Kampf der Ideologien in der Geschichte (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1922), p. 19ff; quoted in Joseph Gabel, Mannheim and Hungarian Marxism, translated by William M. Stein and James McCrate (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991), p. 19. 

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Hmmm…did i try to disguise my "ideology"?

Quote:

One key problem, alan, is that the way you lay out the 'issue' is prejudiced from the start.

"Personally, i believe…I think…or at least i think"…yup, i'm prejudiced alright for declaring my very own thoughts on the matter…

[my bold]You don't seem to realise what you're saying, alan.You are not 'declaring my very own thoughts', but spouting an ideology.Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows that you are unaware of it.

ajj wrote:

As i said before, it is time to move on….your own ideology has been done to death on this forum. 

No, wrong again, alan.It's your own ideology that 'has been done to death on this forum', and it still is being, by you and the other 'materialists', and it will be in the future, whether I remain here, criticising it, or not.You seem to regard yourself as a non-ideological individual, outside of any socio-political influence. That's why you are a 'materialist', because that ideology feeds the illusion of 'individual', biological engagement with 'The Real World' of personal sensation.Since you are probably the most sincere poster here, who has defended me almost uncritically, a number of times, and who has shown at least some interest and willingness to learn about these issues, it pains me to have to point this out, all over again.Unless you stop pretending to be 'non-ideological', then you can't advance.But… the central ideological plank of 'materialism' is that it is not ideological, but deals with 'Real Matter'…Is there a way forward? Not, I think, until (for whatever reason) comrades come to reject their 19th century 'materialism'. If they don't, then the die is cast: irrelevance.

Taken from here:  https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/z-marxism/iIdeology. The socialist concept of ideology can refer to (a) general claims about the nature of a society's superstructure (e.g. law, politics, religion) or (b) a distortion of thought that stems from, and conceals contradictions within, capitalist society.Marx did not invent the concept of ideology but it does play an important role in his analysis of capitalism, particularly as distortion. In capitalism profits take priority over needs, so that people starve while food rots, people go homeless while buildings are empty, people remain unemployed while needs are unmet, and so on. Because people are unable to solve these contradictions within capitalism they tend to project them in ideological forms of consciousness; that is to say, in ideas which effectively conceal or misrepresent the existence and character of these contradictions. Accordingly, profit-taking is held to be justified as risk-taking for the capitalists, so that starvation, homelessness, unemployment and the rest are the price paid for ‘good economics’. By concealing contradictions ideology contributes to their reproduction and therefore serves the interests of the capitalist class.Marx criticised capitalist economics because it is an ideology which stems from, and conceals, the social relations of production beneath the surface appearance of commodity exchange in the market. The free and equal exchange of values in the market conceals the unfree and unequal nature of wage labour in its social relation to capital. Marx believed that it was the role of scientific socialism to penetrate the surface of social phenomena and reveal capitalism's inner workings.Marx never used the phrase ‘false consciousness’, though many commentators insist that he did. Engels did once use the phrase, after Marx’s death in a private correspondence, but this usage is not consistent with his or Marx’s published writings on ideology. (See also CONTRADICTION; IDEALISM; SCIENCE.)ReadingTerry Eagleton, Ideology, 2007Ideology and False Consciousness by Joseph McCarney:http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htmIdeology Study Guide: www.autodidactproject.org/guidideo.html

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

 Yes, I've been suspended several times, for defending "workers' democracy" before hostile 'materialists': only to be expected, I'm afraid. 

Correction: You have never been suspended "for defending "workers democracy" before hostile materialist" and indeed never will be.  In fact, its a matter of record that every time you have been suspended is due to you deliberately breaching the rules.  The guidelines and rules have been democratically agreed to by the party membership and your presence on this forum means you have also agreed to abide by this form of democracy.Yet you have persistently and purposely breached them on numerous occasions.  Which effectively indicates – not just to me but all users – you are a serial breacher of democratic discussion and places your democratic credentials and integrity under suspicion.Despite your claim to be a defender of "workers democracy" you have yet to spell out what this term means in practice.  Also, your behaviour on this forum is not what socialists would expect to be democracy in practice.I have no intention of killing the messenger, far from it, otherwise you would have not been allowed back on this forum.  However, I have every intention to rebut your claim that you are a "defender of workers democracy" when the evidence of your undemocratic behaviour proves the opposite is the case.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The post now appears to have disappeared but from memory in regards to Lydon thread,  Bob Andrews commented "There's never a Mark Chapman around when you need one".  (29 Mar at 3:44 PM)..Mark Chapman killed John Lennon…i took that to be an inference that he would approve of John Lydon being murdered for expressing political ideas. I don't think i imagined the post and can only surmise that the Moderator was on the ball and deleted it. And perhaps i should not have raised the topic and let it be. 

I agree with you but the mod has been a help, in this matter. But perhaps we should get back to the issues raised originally and concentrate on the things we said today, rather than rake helter skelter over past posts.

I had to chose between deleting, removing or upublishing.  If I deleted it would have been outside of the guidelines and rules for moderation for no rule was actually breached.  On the other hand by removing the post to the Off-topic section it would have remained visible and offensive.  Hence the pragmatic decision to unpublish so the post is not visible to users.If Bob Andrews continues with his antics he can expect the same result if posters take offence and raise valid objections and rebut the intended inference.  Until these concerns are raised, in such instances I prefer to stay on the democratic fence has stipulated by the guidelines and rules.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Author]

Posts