Socialist information centre – data
- This topic has 12 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Socialist information Centre – data proposed on another thread.
What is it?
Charles Darwin wrote:I had also, during many years, followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raised against my views which I had not at least noticed and attempted to answer.Collecting only facts that support a certain point of view is what psuedo science does.To be scientific it should also collect facts that (at least seem to) go against the argument.
I will just leave that
DJP wrote:Collecting only facts that support a certain point of view is what psuedo science does.To be scientific it should also collect facts that (at least seem to) go against the argument.Sorry, I can't resist challenging this mystification of the so-called 'scientific method'.This is bourgeois ideology, that 'facts' exist outside of 'a certain point of view'.The bourgeoisie broke the 'being-consciousness' link (or, 'subject-object') because it favoured their own class practice, based upon the philosophical separation of 'private property' from any supposed 'social controls'. For them, 'physical nature' must be completely separate from 'human society and its consciousness'.The proper 'scientific method' is to expose one's 'certain point of view', so that the so-called 'facts' selected from that viewpoint can be compared with 'facts' selected from a differing viewpoint. To collect 'facts opposing' would be to make no selection, and to have to collect everything, an impossibility.Sometimes they will 'match', sometimes they won't.The solution, for the class conscious proletariat, is to vote to determine which 'fact' is to their liking.The bourgeoisie cannot adopt the democratic scientific method, because it will lead to their loss of property. Thus, they must pretend that an elite to their liking has a 'neutral method' for ascertaining 'facts' favourable to their class interests.Physics and maths both fall into this class viewpoint, never mind sociology or politics.
Correct me if I'm wrong DJP, but I seem to recall not too long after I joined this forum a discussion regarding the aims of this sight in which you said you were more in favour of an information only based sight, with something along the lines of an FAQ type interaction between the SPGB and visitors. That you saw little benefit in a discussion forum.Such a set up would have meant visitors would only be exposed to views favourable to the SPGB position and be unable to debate with party members.I have long thought a data base of facts such as reports of the negative effects of capitalism, the hypocrisy of capitalist politics, the biased nature of the media etc, gathered from a wide range of sources, would be a good resource for socialists to tap into when presenting the case for socialism. it would be handy to have a one stop shop to go to for accessing evidence when engaged in online debate.
SP I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea, but we should deliberately look for arguments against socialism as well (and could then debunk them). It would make it a more interesting website anyhow don't you think? But as it stands, personally I have no spare time to put into new projects…
SocialistPunk wrote:Such a set up would have meant visitors would only be exposed to views favourable to the SPGB position and be unable to debate with party members.It's ironic that visitors are being exposed to my views of scientific method which are favourable to the SPGB position about proletarian democracy, whereas SPGB members posting here are debating from an anti-democratic viewpoint: they won't have workers' control of physics or maths, for example.That is, a 'no debate' site would 'objectively' () favour an anti-SPGB elite. No wonder DJP 'saw little benefit in a discussion forum'!DJP 'knows The Truth', and won't have uppity workers challenging his elitism and demanding that if their views outvote his, that they are right.DJP has a 'special consciousness' that allows him, to the exclusion of all of us, to 'know nature'.How other Communists can't see the Leninism inherent in this ideology, beats me!The real political question is 'Who controls physics?'. Unless the answer for 'democratic socialists' is 'society by democratic means', then something is wrong with that 'materialist' philosophy.
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.
I don't want to get sidetracked into some kind extended philosophical debate on positivism etc as that is not what this thread is about. As Andy's brother, I know what he had in mind by this project as we discussed it on occasions. He wanted to build up a kind of database of information and links that would be useful to socialists. I am talking about subjects like, for example, the extent of capitalism's structural waste – the kinds of occupations related to the maintenance needs of capitalism (e.g. the finance sector) as opposed to the satisfaction of human needs. In other words what are the approximate figures for workers employed in these socially useless occupations and how much do they use in the way of resources etc. There is precious little research done in this particular subject area which I consider to be quite an important aspect of the case for socialism. There are many other aspects of the socialist case that could likewise benefit from a more wide-ranging and systematic approach to research along the lines that Andy proposed. I would urge people here to have a look at his website and look under the heading "database", in particular Here is the linkhttp://andycox1953.webs.com/ Since Andy's death last year I have been sort of caretaking for his site. There has not been much traffic but someone has recently enquired about the possibility of developing the project further. Perhaps the SPGB might like to officially take it on (as I have suggested it should) or if not, I suppose it could be continued and expanded upon on an informal collaborative basis. If anyone is interested in doing that please feel free to get in touch with me.
I'm not sure what the Office of National statistics (ONS) is asked to report on, but certain reports are commissioned by the government and certain ones are not. I think one of the SPGB pamphlets alluded to this in reference to a report on poverty or social mobility.Is what is being proposed a sort of Socialist Office of National Statistics or think tank? The New Economics Foundation occasionally produce interesting reports.Stuff like social mobility reports seem not to be get widespread publicity, nor to the amount of failed businesses or how much is wasted when they fail. Honest unemployment statistics and redundancies per year. Trade unions report trade union membership.Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.
Hi Rob, I think everything you have said about the need for such a site is spot on particalurly in terms of the need to come up with some solid facts about capitalism that can be backed up with solid evidence. For example I have often heard is said that 80% of Labour goes into running capitalism rather then being socially useful but no one has ever managed to tell me where that comes from! I have a friend who is also a computer programmer (and agrees with socialism if not a member) he may be able to help you?
JohnnyFBM wrote:Hi Rob, I think everything you have said about the need for such a site is spot on particularly in terms of the need to come up with some solid facts about capitalism that can be backed up with solid evidence. For example I have often heard is said that 80% of Labour goes into running capitalism rather then being socially useful but no one has ever managed to tell me where that comes from! I have a friend who is also a computer programmer (and agrees with socialism if not a member) he may be able to help you?Hi Johnny Yes, the subject of "structural waste" as I call it, is something that ought to figure prominently in socialist literature. I remember corresponding with Hardy many years ago and he was insistent that this was by far the most important productive advantage that socialism would have over capitalism. I agree. Yet we find very little written about it in the Socialist Standard. If I were on the editorial committee I would devote a special issue to the subject. At the very least the Party should consider bringing out a pamphlet on it There is, of course, a distinction to be made between "socially useless labour" and "unproductive labour". Some occupations fall under both categories but others might fall under one but not the other. Socially useless labour – structural waste – is only really discernable from a standpoint that is non-capitalist i.e. one that takes as its starting premiss the notion of use value. It is a uniquely socialist perspective on the world and it needs to be expressed Regarding the extent of structural waste, estimates vary. Buckminister Fuller memorably suggested a figure in the region of 95% of the workforce. I think that's somewhat over the top. 60-70 % would be more like it. Stefan in the WSPUS did some research on the subject some years ago and came up with a figure of, I think, 60%. It is impossible to reach a precise figure and we depend for data on bodies like the American Bureau of Labour statistics which tend not to organise their data in a way that is easily assimilable to socialist economic categories. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that much of this structural waste is hidden or indirect. For example banks which are obviously a clear case of socially useless activity operate out of buildings so the extent of structural waste extends also to the construction industry itself and so on and so forth. One other point that must be born in mind is that if we are talking about work in its technical sense as purposeful and useful activity then just over half of all the work we do falls outside of the money economy – it is unpaid work . I have data from sources like the UN Development Programme and iothers which shows this to be the case. I assume that most of this work will continue in a socialist society e.g.. household work, volunteer community work and so on. When we are talkuing aboiut strucutural waste we are talking about monetised sector which in terms of labour hours worked is slightly smaller the non monetised sector. Just to put matters in perspective…. The project that my brother Andy had started was intended to provide a database on this and other subjects relevant to the socialist case. It is a great pity that the Party does not seem interested enough to take on this project. Its not as if it hasn't got the resources and it takes only a few volunteers to get the ball rolling. Once you start publishing regular updates I am sure this will attract increased interest not only within the Party itself but far beyond
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.