Marx and Lenin’s views contrasted
- This topic has 138 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
YMS wrote: “I don’t see how you can agree with me, I was saying we’d give…”
Yes, I agree with you, YMS.
“We‘d give…”
‘We’, to any democratic socialist, is ‘us’. ‘Us’ meaning the social producers.
Unless… by ‘we’ you really mean ‘them’. ‘Them’ meaning an elite separate from the social producers.
So, as long as you mean ‘humanity’, we agree, YMS.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “He has been told this innumerable times. That socialism will be an <b>advanced , democratic, post-capitalist</b> society, run by <b>us all</b>, locally, regionally, globally…”
And I’ve agreed with ‘this’ innumerable times, Matthew.
‘All’.
Not ‘some’.
L.B. Neill wrote: “LBird, I see democracy in science as making its study accessible to all who wish to do it, not sure it be based on uninformed opinion…”
I’ve never argued that ‘democratic science’ should ‘be based on uniformed opinion’, L.B.
Part of the problem is that you’re reading what ‘materialists’ say LBird says, rather than asking me, what I say.
From Lenin onwards, ‘materialists’ have had as a central part of their political method, the confusing of their opponents’ arguments, to make the arguments seem absurd, assisted by personal attacks on their opponents’ motives, characters, intelligence, etc.
I think it impossible to build democratic socialism upon uninformed opinion, because part of the revolutionary process will involve the masses becoming informed.
Of course, if you were to argue that ‘most people are thick as pigshit, and can’t become informed‘, I’d disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of people can understand ‘physics’, for example, especially if its theories and concepts were not hidden from view by a refusal to actually explain them in a way that the majority can understand. It’s part of the role of workers to make themselves collectively able to take control of our social production. We can find ways to explain to each other. The elite have a vested interest in keeping ‘knowledge’ hidden their own hands. I’m sure your own reading about ‘scientists’ (given some of the thinkers that you’ve mentioned) has already made you aware about this social problem of ‘experts’ keeping the rest of us ‘uninformed’.
Of course, if you were to argue that ‘most people are thick as pigshit, and can’t become informed‘, I’d disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of people can understand ‘physics’, for example, especially if its theories and concepts were not hidden from view by a refusal to actually explain them in a way that the majority can understand. It’s part of the role of workers to make themselves collectively able to take control of our social production
LBird
Of course, its a good thing that workers should be encouraged to learn more about physics and that no obstacle should be placed in the way of them becoming better informed. And of course we would agree with you that most people are NOT “thick as pigshit”, and can’t become better informed.
However, what you still dont seem to grasp is that there is a limit to how much better informed ANYONE – even the most brilliant physicist in the history of the universe – can become better informed in general. He or she may know more about physics than anyone else on the planet but there are hundreds of other scientific disciplines around and his or her knowledge of any one of these will likely be no different from that of the average person in the street
No one can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. The opportunity cost of acquiring a deep understanding of Physics is to forsake the idea of acquiring a deep understanding of Neurology or Structural Engineering . It is for this reason that specialisation of knowledge is an absolutely inescapable fact of life under ANY social system with any kind of advanced or developed infrastructure. Meaning some form of social division of labour is inevitable even if work is done on an entirely voluntary basis as in socialism
What socialism will do is ensure that the specialists are subject to democratic control by the generalists – us , the general public. But that “democratic control” will NOT be over the development of ideas as such (namely, scientific theorising) – how can you possibly exercise “democratic control” over a theory if you dont know what the theory is about anyway and why would you want to do that anyway? – but rather, over the application of those ideas in practice in the form of innovations and so on which affect our interests and wellbeing.
There is simply no other way…
LBird,
So, if “we the collective producers”, ask some scientists to go off and develop multiple, conflicting theories (given ethics guidelines, a “budget”, service level agreements, standards, etc.), all is well and good with you, and there’s no need to vote on the truth? And we’ll have resources so people can use “private time” to pursue their own researches, and try to get their ideas published?
I think it impossible to build democratic socialism upon uninformed opinion, because part of the revolutionary process will involve the masses becoming informed
LBIRD,
I agree with you ‘the masses becoming involved’ in all aspects of society. And open access to information is critical for social productions, and even notional assent.
I do not, nor will ever hold an opinion that many are thick. And I think you know that. Dividing knowledge into access to betters and lessers: sounds Lockean..
I argue that access to science is a right, and to practice it has a responsibility. To know how to use it, and there are many disciplines- it took some time for me to train in its safe use too. Imagine me using a therapeutic intervention in counselling health without my training- sugar… we need to show ethical practice, know-how, and have access to peer support/review. And I need to know when to refer on to a a person who has very specific issue training outside my field of study. This example is not to make it elite, but to use it safely.
As I said all should have access to it. I can inform myself on physics, and like it, but can I earnestly say I know enough about matter in the study to fire a rocket to the moon? But if I wanted to, I have the responsibility to be informed before I dare it, study and practice.
Can I ask you then: do you believe socialist democracy will have health and safety practices, or do you think we will need H&S guidelines?
It is always good, and as you had said to me in your last post- ask direct questions, and I think I understand your position a little better… and without hurtful dismissive retorts.
I do not mean any negative regard in this question… only asking you to consider your remarks alongside some general guides for safe practice.
Most thread about a particular topic. L Bird turns it into another topic
MS, Think I am beginning to realise the general fluidity! More twists and turns than any rapid flowing river- hang on!
🙂
YMS wrote: “LBird, So, if “we the collective producers”, ask some scientists to go off and develop multiple, conflicting theories (given ethics guidelines, a “budget”, service level agreements, standards, etc.), all is well and good with you, and there’s no need to vote on the truth?”
If ‘we ask‘, YMS, how will we know that ‘we’ve received‘, without a vote?
If we’re collective producers, we produce a collective truth.
YMS wrote: “And we’ll have resources so people can use “private time” to pursue their own researches, and try to get their ideas published?”
‘We’ll‘ have whatever we want – it will be up to us.
That’s the whole point of ‘democratic socialism’, YMS.
L.B. Neill wrote “I…“.
I’m a democratic communist, so I always refer to ‘we’.
Anything you’ll have access to as an individual, we’ll have access to as a collective; and vice versa.
This includes: rights, responsibilities, training, ethics, practices, support, reviews, safety, health, guidelines. If I’ve missed any of your concerns, just add them to this list.
We’ll be deciding our future list by democratic methods.
Unless one believes that ‘democracy’ will necessarily involve ‘unjust individual restrictions’, which is a fear continually expressed by the bourgeoisie, then ‘democratic socialism’ is our collective answer to our political problems.
I don’t share that ideological belief, because I’m a democratic communist, and influenced by Marx’s social productionism.
L.B. Neill wrote “I…“.
I’m a democratic communist, so I always refer to ‘we’.
LBird, you made me smile with this comment. And I thought of Lacan and his theory of I Function. We discover ourselves in the mirror as an infant. It is a real ‘I’- I see myself, and it is me. We get introduced to language. We lose that sense of I: it is interpolated into we. Thing is, it depends on who says we.
It is about time we asked one another what that we or I means to us all. If I write I: it means I have said or wrote a thing. I am not the Borg- resistance is futile… But I and we must rhyme (selfish altruism). But you really knew me (I) you would say do something nice for ‘yourself’ as there was too much altruism… But you do not know me, nor I you- so we can ask questions of one another (you said it first).
Please don’t let the last retort be an I insult. You have no idea of my lived experience (and I hope you have never experience it).
I know when autonomy is taken away- in all its forms. I and we who have experienced that will say never again- do you comprehend?
L.B.
robbo203 wrote: “He or she may know more about physics than anyone else on the planet…”
robbo, I’ve tried to pick a small part of your post, in the interests of a focussed discussion, and ‘bite-sized’ posts.
The problem is, whose ‘physics’?
For example, many Catholic theologians ‘knew more’ about ‘god’ ‘than anyone else on the planet’.
But this ‘god’ wasn’t politically, socially, or ideologically relevant to the revolutionaries of the bourgeoisie. So they ditched these ‘experts’.
You’re assuming that, for example, Hawking or Einstein, ‘knows more’ than me and you about what sort of ‘nature’ we wish to produce.
Now, if you wish to continue with this belief, and are prepared to argue it as we build for democratic socialism, fair enough. If you can take society with you, your belief will become the ‘truth’ of that society.
However, I don’t share that belief (I’ve read enough about Einstein, for example, to recognise his mistakes, as have many of his contemporaries and later physicists), and, being a democratic communist, I’m committed to arguing for democratic control of all social production (including physics) within democratic socialism.
The upshot of this, robbo, is that current ‘physicists’ don’t know their arses from their elbows when it comes to the politics of social production.
I’d argue for a ‘physics’ relevant to our democratic revolution.
L.B. Neill wrote: “It is about time we asked one another what that we or I means to us all.”
Let’s ask ‘all’ then, L.B.
That’s precisely what I’m arguing – ‘all’ have to be involved in democratic social production. To me, that is what democratic socialism would be.
Bloody hell LBird- can you read between the lines?
I know we need to keep the dialogue open. Debate is helpful- but calling shit on the people who have experienced oppression- other than ideological divisions- is a real hurt.
Read my last post again.
That’s precisely what I’m arguing – ‘all’ have to be involved in democratic social production. To me, that is what democratic socialism would be.
Funny that LBird- “what I’m arguing” . I statements are inescapable.
To bring about socialism we must be pro-social. I and we will still be phrases.
We may argue the same thing- but in insults, or negligence- our Is cloud us.
Yes we all need to be involved, and some may choose not to- what will you do with those who choose not to be involved?
I got ‘what the’ before- but now… I ask a question… do you know how many people around the globe may view this exchange and seek answers to questions. I or we: society is my answer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.