moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:I would welcome LBird to join the Party and take up the fight for socialism with folk who he can still debate and discuss with as comrades-in-arms …if he can't join, we and he should still recognise one another as fellow-workers seeking the same end…the end of capitalism…and regardless of the polarisation of these debates, we are all on the same wavelength politically if not philosophically.
Whilst I acknowledge the comradely tone of your post, alan, I've become less sure as time passes that we are 'seeking the same end'.I'm not simply seeking 'the end of capitalism' (as a negative, of what must be destroyed), but also seeking 'the creation of socialism' (as a positive, of what must be built).Years of debates with tories, liberals, anarchists, trotskyists, greens, managers, teachers, academics, has taught me to ask pithy questions which get to the nub of what someone really stands for.And the killer question about workers' democracy (which is what I mean by 'socialism') is 'who or what controls the production of social ideas?'.And by 'ideas' I mean all academic production, including mathematics, physics, logic, meaning, understanding, philosophy, etc., etc.This question always exposes, for example, the Leninists. If they agree with me, I ask when are we removing the central committee. Because by 'we', I don't mean the 'party organisation', but 'the membership'. It soon becomes clear that the Leninists are paying lip service to 'workers' democracy', and that they really want 'democratic centralism'. This is a phony 'democracy', which allow an elite to produce the ideas, policies, culture, structures of the party, not the membership.It must be obvious that I've employed the same method with the SPGB.When asked 'who' will control the production of maths and physics under (the SPGB version of) 'socialism', there is massed bafflement at the question. The simple answer by the SPGB is 'the elite that have always controlled maths and physics!'. The implication is that the elite have done such a good job in the last 350 years, so why change a perfectly good working formula, and let those uneducated, lazy, drunken, scruffs in the working class get their grubby hands on the shining edifice of perfection that is 'science'.No mention of the socio-historical orgins of that 'science', of course. Or its interests, purposes, theories, methods and practices of production.Surely it's clear to you, alan, that I'm the only one who ever mentions terms like 'socio-historical', and gives dates, names, events from hundreds of years ago, to the modern day. Descartes, Galilleo, Bacon, Comenius, Newton, 1660, the English Revolution, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, 1905 and 1915 with Einstein, Bohr, Labriola, Lukacs, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, Korsch, Pannekoek, Fleck, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend… I don't know about you, but I'm losing the will to live.And what do my opponents, who will not have democracy in the means of production (and by 'means', they mean physical things, like brick and mortar, instruments, tangible 'stuff', not 'ideas') look to for their basis?Engels' bloody 'materialism'. That's it. 19th century, half-arsed ignorant bullshit, based on a positivism that even the bourgeoisie have jettisoned. And the SPGB is supposed to be a resource for enquiring workers, looking for ideas that can help those workers build for socialism?No, alan, "we are not all on the same wavelength politically or philosophically".In fact, I can honestly say that the 'theoreticians' in the SWP can give a better, more informed, historical and social account of what we're discussing, than the supposed 'democrats' of the SPGB. The SWP still spout nonsense, of course, but at least its thought-out, informed, educated nonsense. As is most of the product of bourgeois academia.The SPGB seems to consist of uneducated, ill-informed, philosopically-illiterate bluffers, who like the sound of 'democracy' and 'socialism', but haven't got a clue what they're talking about.We've even had posters say that they have never read Engels or Marx, beyond a cursory uncomprehending glance by some, never mind physics or philosophy. I seriously doubt that some read books at all – they seem to rely on word of mouth, and they've learned, years ago, to mouth the slogan "Materialism Good, Idealism Bad!". And they're sticking to their potty training and ALB as the arse-wiper, no matter how many wellread workers explain about the modern water closet, soft toilet tissue and self-cleaning.After all this, alan, I could be persuaded that I'm just unfortunate to have encountered online mostly the 'thickoes' of the SPGB, and offline the party does contain literates. I could be persuaded of this if the SPGB could produce just one – one only – who shows some recognition of the complexities of understanding the Marx-Engels relationship, and the meaning of 'scientific knowledge', and the philosophical need for "workers' democracy".But I think that I'm right to conclude that the SPGB is built upon Engels' theory of 'materialism', which existed before the SPGB was formed, and had already contaminated the 'socialist' movement by 1904. Anyone who had encountered the party and already had some understanding of the roots of Leninism (in Engels' 'materialism') would never join, and if they were open minded enough to have developed during their membership, they would have resigned.Anyway, what do you think the chances are of me accepting your warm, comradely welcome, and joining your party?
1st warning: 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.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:You won't recognise the importance of your use of that, but to any other readers who have followed this with interest, it should stand out like a sore thumb, as the mark of a 'materialist' (the modern term being a 'physicalist').You are fucking nuts, lol
1st warning: 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.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Vin, I think that's an excellent point. Come on then L Bird, we're all waiting.I'm not. We don't want him contaminating this thread. If we must accommodate him let's try and contain him in a thread devoted to his obession of what is knowlefge. Mind you, I suppose he has his uses as a foil and punchball.
ALB, I'm just returning your abuse in the same terms, you dickhead.On the other thread, I was very patient and courteous, and explained some complexities to you, about your 'materialism'. You didn't abuse me, so I didn't abuse you. I treated you like a grown-up.But, this thread?You seem to be a very slow learner. I despair that you'll ever learn, about either your ill-manners or your ill-education.The SPGB should let alan vet members' posts on here, because at least alan makes the SPGB seem vaguely attractive, unlike youse ignorant louts.This is your party's 'shop window', for god's sake! Even I came here, actively following you and alan from LibCom, to browse initially and perhaps even enter, and build the concern.But… the dummies in the shop window are like a collection of zombies, banging on the glass, trying to eat my brains!
2nd warning: 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.
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.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Dear ModeratorApologies. On re-reading my post, it may come across that I was trying to be disingenuous with my comments. In retrospect, using words like: low self esteem, friendless and bellend,. could be interpreted in a different way than I intended, if this is the case, please accept my withdrawal of those terms. So just to be clear, it is not my view that L Bird is a friendless, bellend who suffers from problems associated with low self esteem. I hope that clarifies the matter,.A reminder is not aimed at any one user in particular but at all users. But hey if other users expressed the same humility as your good self it would make moderation a lot easier.
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.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…democracy is … not about establishing Truth…Once more, robbo can't be any clearer.He holds to an ideology that claims that 'Truth' is not established by democracy.It doesn't take much thinking about his ideological claim, that 'democracy is not about establishing the Truth' (which is also a claim that bourgeois ideology makes), to start to wonder, if not the democratic proletariat, then just who does 'establish the Truth'?From logic alone, we Democratic Communists must assume that robbo has in mind an 'elite' who are to 'establish the Truth'.Those who know the events of the 20th century, and are aware of regimes that claimed to be 'socialist', but also refused to allow workers to actively participate in the production of truth, also refused to allow workers to participate in politics, or in the distribution of social production… in fact, those regimes, which also claimed that 'Truth is not established by democracy', weren't 'socialist' at all.Only the class conscious proletariat, building towards a socialism in which they will themselves determine production, can be the source of any claims for 'truths'.Whilst workers look to any persons or organisations which clearly deny the active role of the revolutionary proletariat in all areas of social production, then those workers will be lied to and fooled. The result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'.This is the fruit of 'materialism'. Materialism claims that the 'material' ('matter' or 'physical') speaks alone to a 'special elite' (but doesn't speak to workers, who are too poorly educated, or even have no interest, to participate), and so, from the very outset, denies the possibility of democracy in the means of production. For materialists, 'matter' is the 'active side', and so workers cannot vote upon what 'matter' actually 'is'. The materialists argue that 'matter just is', and they claim that they (and they alone) 'know' matter, because they have a non-political method which allows elite minorities to access 'matter', outside of considerations of socio-historical consciousness, or the wishes or purposes of the proletariat.They claim physics is non-political. This is a bourgeois claim, and its emergence can be located in history.This claim leads to the ideological belief that 'Truth' is outside of any considerations of social consciousness, and so outside issues of democracy.Beware, any workers reading, an elite plans openly to deny democracy in the means of production: this elite actually says so, and you should take their open claims seriously.
Youre just waffling LBird and not making much sense at all. I note that ,having lied through your teeth in your earlier post about me (and presumably others here too) wanting to "deny democracy in the means of production", you are still persisting with this line of argument although youve wisely chosen not to name names in this latest attempt of yours to throw mud around in the hope that it wil stick on someone I have made clear what my position is. I see absolutely no point in submitting scientifc theories to a democratic vote. You have not once explained why this is necessary and what is supposed to happen once a scientific truth has been democratically voted on. Is dissenting opinion going to be suppressed after the vote? No? Well then what was the vote supposed to be abou?. What was its purpise? Just to demonstrate that a majority thinks a particular scientific theory was "true" – or alternatively not "true". Big deal, then what? . In what way is this democratic decision going to be meaningfully implemented or applied and to what end?. You dont explain. You never explain. You cant explain and that is because, quite clearly, you dont really understand democracy., do you LBird ? You don't really understand what it is for. Weve been over this several times but still you dont get it You can't seem to see that there is a world of difference between calling for "democratic control over the means of production" and calling for a "democratic vote to determine the truth of a scientifc theory," The former is both practical .and necessary in a socialist society; the latter is just plain nuts and betrays a kind of religious cum dogmatic attitude towards "Scientific Truth" that you shoud want to formalise it in this way. And we wont even go into the logistics of organising tens of thousands of worldwide plebsicites for every scientific theory going becuase I know you are too embarrassed to even attempt an answer – arnet you LBird? – so I will spare you any further embarrassment.Do I think there will be an elite community of astrophysicists in socialism who know a lot more about astrophysics than the average guy in th street. Absolutely! Dont you LBird? Answer this – how many years of study do you reckon it takes to become an accomplished astrophysist? I dont know but lets hazard a guess and say 10 years. So according to you in order to avoid there being an elite of astrophysicists everyone will need to commit at least ten years of their life to the intensiive study of astrophysics, That way we can all be accompished astrophysists, familiar with all the theories circulating in the field of astrophysics and hence able to vote knowledgeably on whether these theories are true or false. Yes?But hold on a moment – what about the molecular biologists or the oncologists or the people into plate tectonics or the cognitive sceintists and so on and so on. There are probably thousands upon thousands of different specialisms. So what are you gonna suggest, LBird? That we devote 10 years of our lives to each of these as well? Well, Im sorry to disappoint you but unfortunately we have only a limited lifespan and we can't do everything So LBird there are only two choices left 1) keep our already incredibly complex social division of labour intact and concede therefore that you are always goig to have experts – what you call the "elite" – in what ever field you care to mention2) abolish this social division so that we all become "jack of all trades" and masters of none and witness the rapid decline of science and technology, followed in short order by the collapse of society's infrastucture and productive capacity Is this an "ideological " statement on my part. Sure it is! I dont know what you are – presumably some kindi of primitivist by the sound of it – but I am democratic communist and I am concerned that a socialist or communist society should be able to materially support its population, not collapse into barbarism and a vicious struggle over a rapidly diminishing pool of resources, Encouraging expertise is part of what is needed to sustain a level of output that would enable such a society to floursih. That does not mean as you stupidly claim, that the result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'. You forget firstly that there will be no one elite but multiple "elites" in each of their specialised fields. The astrophysicist is not part of the elite of molecular biologists in the field of molecular biology. Secondly there will be no impediment whatsoever placed on anyone to pursue whatever field interests him or her and to develop expertise in that field. Socialism will be a completely open society in that respect. That does not mean there will be no examinations and qualifications en route to acquiring expertise. If you imagine just anyine is going to be able to perform the task of a brain surgeon without being qualified to do so then you are seriously deluded. And thirdly what leverage could scientific experts exert over the population at large in a society in which the principles of free access and volunteer labour apply?. None at all. And the oorrolary of that is prceisely "democratic control over the means of production". The democratic determination of Scientifc Truth , on the other hand. is an irrelevance and utter baloney
1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:AFAIK robbo is a non-member which leaves about 2% of total SPGB membership at most who have disagreed with you on this forum.But 100% of active, posting, members, jdw!I notice that you haven't denied the 'materialist faith' in the god 'matter'!It might only take one poster to restore the democratic credentials of the SPGB, which have been so roughly dismissed by the, err… ahem… '2%'.
2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:And where does it say in the SPGB Object that 'there will be no democratic control in science' ?No one here has ever said that, we have repeatedly said how scientific resources and institutions will be democratically managed. Universities would have to become democratic associations; learned societies would continue to exist and would be able to freely produce and distribute their journals to libraries which anyone would be able to access ; individuals would have the free time to study and learn. the community would allocate resources to these activities: land, buildings, lab equipment, ICT. Worlwide bodies would promote conferences and the distribution of ideas; the internet would be barrier free and all learned journals would be free to read online. etc. The whole community would have access to the information they choose to access and the capacity to join the ongoing openm ended debate, which no-one would have the right or power to shut down.Of course, democracy means the right of minorites to try and become majorities, so that must include promotion and protection of heterodox views.
Whilst I agree with the above, YMS, I see that you've avoided my question about 'democratic control' of physics and maths, amongst other human social productive activites.If not us, 'who' or 'what' determines 'scientific truth'?The bourgeoisie claim to have a 'neutral', 'non-political' method which allows 'academics' or 'elite experts' an access to 'Truth', and that the rest of us do not have the ability now, or capability to develop along with our developing class consciousness, and so this 'Truth' must be produced by an elite.The bourgeoisie introduced this ruling class idea (and myth) when they began to achieve political and economic domination for their class. They call it 'being objective'.But we now know that that claim was a lie, and even their own physicists (those who bother to consider it, anyway, not the majority) admit that they do not have a 'neutral' method, but that their method is entirely 'human' (and thus, for us, socio-historical).Once the revolutionary proletariat realise that 'the bourgeoisie are making it up, and always have been', they'll realise that we, too, can make up our 'socially-objective' world, to our own purposes, and thus change it.The 'materialists' object to this, because 'materialism' is a bourgeois ideology, which fits elite political control, hence the history of Leninism and its philosophy, materialism.Materialists regard 'matter' as the determining, active side.Socialists regard human social productive activity as the 'active side': theory and practice.
1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.
LBird wrote:Moderator, how can the issue of Engels' materialism not be relevant to the materialist myth of a 'simple commodity mode of production'?Even Dave B, who disagrees with me, can see the relevance of it to a debate about 'simple commodity production'.In fact, it's the most relevant thing that's been said on this thread for (simply) ages!3rd and final warning: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi LBird,With reference to your post #122 above. The way I see it education is key. I'm not talking about reading the complete works of Marx, who as you point out is very vague and far from user friendly.The education I refer to is the stuff we can all relate to, from school onwards. My experience of education once I got to comprehensive level was one of boredom and frustration. In contrast education in a socialist society would be designed to be stimulating and fun. Education can and should be enjoyable. But I'm straying off my point slightly, so I'll get right to it.Wouldn't education within a socialist society be vastly different from today? Pupils would be encouraged to enjoy learning and be allowed to explore and develop at their own pace. As such I see education within socialism as being a lifelong habit for most people, should they desire it. This could mean, in theory, a highly educated global population capable of a great deal of flexibility and creativity. Given such a scenario, I see the likely hood of social academic ideas falling into the hands of an elite, very unlikely.The only way I see an elite controlling the production of social academic ideas within a socialist society, would be from the start. If such a scenario were to take place during the build up to a socialist/communist revolution, it wouldn't be the socialism I envisage. It would be a technocracy.In all my years of exposure to the SPGB/WSM, as a teenage sympathiser, later a member and back to a sympathiser, I've never got the impression a technocracy was on the agenda.1st warning: 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.
LBird wrote:Dave B wrote:Here in Chapter Thirty-Two we find Karl returning to his old chapter one tricks again; and dreaming and theorising about something that never existed, or flourished for that matterKarl Marx. Capital Volume OneChapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist AccumulationOf course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it attains its adequate classical form, only where the labourer is the private owner of his own means of labour set in action by himself: the peasant of the land which he cultivates, the artisan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso. This mode of production…..https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htmI've made this point myself many times in our debates, Dave.Charlie (and even more so, Fred) provided textual support for both sides of this debate: Marx through seemingly loose usage (Fred through ignorance).That's why the debate cannot be satisfactorily concluded by the method of exegesis of religious texts, but only through contemporary debate between workers about the aims and purposes of the revolutionary proletariat, that is, their own 'theory and practice'.If one wants workers to control the means of production, including the social production of scientific knowledge and truth, by democratic means, than one can find support in Marx (and to a lesser extent, in Engels).If one wants to keep workers' mucky hands out of the glorious, shiny 'Truth' that is the result of bourgeois physics and maths, then one can find support for that, too (a little in Marx, but mostly in Engels).Personally, since Einstein, I think that it's clear that Marx was onto something, with his notions of the revolutionary overturning of the backward bourgeoisie by the 'theory and practice' of the proletariat.That's why bourgeois physics is in such a mess: their physicists are still trying to avoid the political and philosophical implications of 'relativity', and are still searching for an 'individual, existentialist' basis to their work, and are ignoring the social history of science, and the emergence of 'modern science' and its 'methods' with the triumph of the bourgeoisie in the 17th century.
2nd warning: 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.
LBird wrote:Dave B wrote:To L Bird The alleged counter argument is simple enough. All the early Marxists from and including Fred and Gabrielle onwards misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise, Karl. They were in that respect all Engelists; I asked them the question as to whether Fred was a liar or a fool and they refused to give me an answer. So what we appear to have is Karl be praised as a genius by a host of people who didn’t understand him. One could ask who Karl would have ever been without this early pre modernist fan base. Then after almost one hundred years in the dark ages of Marxist theory we become enlightened by some ‘German professors’ from the bourgeois intelligentsia in the 1970’s’.Yes, all the early so-called 'Marxists' (including the 'French Marxists' that Marx himself complained about) did not understand Marx's ideas.The reason for this is that Marx's ideas are poorly expressed, unfamiliar to bourgeois science, and only partially worked out. Any worker reading Marx's works soon discovers this for themself: Marx is obscure, appears to contradict 'materialism' and bourgeois physics, and often appears to contradict himself.So, we workers now can see that Fred, Kautsky and the 2nd International were a bunch of bourgeois bluffers, who were never going to agree to workers democratically controlling production, and so had to 're-interpret' Marx's Democratic Communism, which insisted that only workers could liberate themselves, employing democratic methods, and so ditch Marx's 'theory and practice' and return to 19th century bourgeois positivist science, that insisted that elite experts could 'know nature' by employing a 'neutral method' which did not require a vote: ie., 'individual genius practice and theory'. After all, they can't have workers voting against Newton, can they?So, Fred was neither a liar nor a fool, but a follower of bourgeois ideology. Since they have to have 'geniuses', they had to praise Charlie as one.Charlie, of course, wasn't a genius, but a man who seems to have had some insights that are of some use to the revolutionary, class conscious, proletariat.It's not some '1970s German professors' who are the source of this view, but many thoughtful workers, who, since the late 19th century, have continued to ask why workers can't take democratic control of production, according to so-called 'Marxists', but have to defer to an elite of a experts, political and scientific.I know where you and many others in the SPGB are situated in this debate, Dave.Youse are 'Engelsist Materialists', and so won't have workers deciding upon maths and physics, but instead allege that maths and physics 'reflects reality', and so can be done by an elite, without the active intervention of the revolutionary proletariat.This latter is neither pre-modernism (bourgeois materialism) nor post-modernism (academics and professors), Dave, but Democratic Communism, critically informed by some of Marx's ideas.Democratic Communism alone provides a theoretical basis for Workers' Control of the means of production. Only the class conscious working class can decide 'truth' for itself, for its own purposes.Materialism will lead to Leninism, the control of production by an elite, for the elite, non-democratic purposes of that elite, in which workers at best will control 'factory widget production', but not the production of social academic ideas, scientific knowledge and their own 'truth'.
1st warning: 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.
