No “No Platform”

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy.

 "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."Communist Manifesto  chapter 2

I know, robbo, but why not just come out and say what your ideology is?Your essential focus is, as is Young Master Smeet's, 'free individuals', or 'Libertarian Communism'.Mine is "workers' power", or Democratic Communism.We've had this form of discussion during our 'science' debates: everyone quotes from Marx to support their own views, and Marx supplies a steady source of 'confirmatory quotes' for everyone. We all know he can be selected from, just like The Bible.The more interesting discussion would be to reveal our own ideological viewpoints, and take it from there.Experience leads me to say 'Fat Chance!', right now.Those brought up in bourgeois society apparently love the word 'free': I wonder why?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy.

 "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."Communist Manifesto  chapter 2

I know, robbo, but why not just come out and say what your ideology is?Your essential focus is, as is Young Master Smeet's, 'free individuals', or 'Libertarian Communism'.Mine is "workers' power", or Democratic Communism.We've had this form of discussion during our 'science' debates: everyone quotes from Marx to support their own views, and Marx supplies a steady source of 'confirmatory quotes' for everyone. We all know he can be selected from, just like The Bible.The more interesting discussion would be to reveal our own ideological viewpoints, and take it from there.Experience leads me to say 'Fat Chance!', right now.Those brought up in bourgeois society apparently love the word 'free': I wonder why?

 You ask me to "come out" and tell you what my ideology is  and then you go on to tell me what my "essential focus" is.  Well, yes, thats right – my ideology is libertarian communism.  And what of it? I agree with Marx about the free development of each being the condition for the free development of all. You claim your ideology is "democratic communism". I dont think it is .  I think your ideology is totalitarian communism i.e. not communism at all.  You are an antidemocrat posing as a democratic workerist.  Dissent will not be tolerated under your so call "communist" dispensation.  How can you have democracy without the right to disagree? I think you are a very muddled individual, personally. Even if your heart is in the right place, your mind is somewhere else, wandering through a rather barren wilderness of ideas

[LBird]

It's revealing that you focus upon me as 'a very muddled individual'.I regard the social ideology that you have been persuaded of, to be the problem, in your case.But then, my ideology is social and historical at heart, whereas yours is about 'individuals'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

It's revealing that you focus upon me as 'a very muddled individual'.I regard the social ideology that you have been persuaded of, to be the problem, in your case.But then, my ideology is social and historical at heart, whereas yours is about 'individuals'.

 Thats bollocks LBird.  Your  problem is that you cannot see things except in terms of black or white.  As I said  earlier, your  sociology is at the same naive level as Mrs Thatchers when she declared that there is no such thing as society , only individuals and their families. Except that for you the opposite is true – there is no such thing as individuals, only society My ideology is not what you claim it is. For me individuals can no more exist apart from society than society can exist apart from individuals.  Even you can surely see that is quite different from saying my ideology is just "about individuals".  Individuals are socially constituted but individuals also constitute society. by interacting with each other. There is no such thing as a pre-social individual as per Hobbes and his mythical  "social contract".You say it is revealing that I focus on you as a very muddled individual.  Pray do tell me  – what is this that we are engaged in if not an exchange of ideas between individuals.  Or maybe its not that all. Maybe what we are witnessing is just the collision of abstract ideas that happen to be floating around in the ether and mysteriously find themselves landing on this forum where they materialise in this written form Of course individuals exist but they don't exist in splendid isolation . I recognise and that is precisely I endorse democracy as the only really effective and desirable way of resolving differences of opinion between individuals.  Which is not the same as eliminating differences of opinion which is what you seem to want to push for Its a question of balance.  The freedom of the individual which you sneer at is indeed a precious thing but it has to be constrained and held in check  by the freedom of other individuals.  My view of freedom is not an absolutist any more than is my view of  democracy.  For you on the other hand it is either one thing or the other which in effect means giving up on both

[alanjjohnstone]

i have just been reading a story about the measles outbreak in the US  and many on the comments section are anti-vax and demanding their right not to vaccinate their "property"…their children….I don't want to debate thier reasons as valid or not  but keep to this thread  Hypothetically we can put this to a vote….all children are vaccinated unless a medical reason not to….make it compulsory…but just what rights do the individual hold to defy the majority and by doing so, directly putting many others at risk, by their decision to flaunt democracy…is it to be classed as a form of child abuse…or anti-social activity…but do we fully support society to impose its democracy…i do

[ALB]

I don't think, Alan, that anyone on this thread disagrees that when it comes to policy and action about social matters the majority should have its way. The argument is about whether the majority has the right to prevent the expression of views. In other words, to not allow minorities to have their say. L. Bird is arguing that a majority could in theory do this if it wanted to (even if he doesn't think they should do so in practice). Robbo and me are saying that democratic decision-making doesn't and shouldn't extend that far and that if it did it would no longer be democracy since a key part of democracy is, precisely, the free expression of opinions.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

L. Bird is arguing that a majority could in theory do this if it wanted to (even if he doesn't think they should do so in practice).

Yes, this sums up my position. That "workers' democracy", in the final analysis, trumps "individual/minority freedom".As ALB recognises, in practice I'd probably be as 'liberal' in my approach to 'freedom for minorities' as ALB or robbo (because we all agree that 'minority' opinions are the essence of democratic practice, and allow criticism of 'what exists', and have the ability to become a 'majority' opinion).But, the 'definition' of what democracy is, and how it works in practice, must be subject to workers' democracy.So, my baseline ideological position is "workers' democracy", and not "individual/minority freedom".If there is a clash between the two, I'd argue for the former. I think that this is entirely consistent with Communism and workers' control of the means of production.I think that the latter is a hangover from our bourgeois conditioning, where, at base, the 'free' individual has the 'right' to ignore their comrades (that is, their comrades' democratically expressed opinion).To me, this notion of 'free' as opposed to 'mass authority' is rooted in 'fear of the mob' and private property.And when it comes to 'matter', well… why should a vote tell us 'what matter is', when matter is perfectly able to speak for itself, to each and every individual… well, at least to 'special individuals' and to 'minorities of scientific experts'…There simply has to be a brake upon the power of workers to make decisions…No, workers' democracy is the last resort for decisions about how our society would be run, not ahistorical and asocial 'freedom' and 'individuals'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

L. Bird is arguing that a majority could in theory do this if it wanted to (even if he doesn't think they should do so in practice).

Yes, this sums up my position. That "workers' democracy", in the final analysis, trumps "individual/minority freedom".As ALB recognises, in practice I'd probably be as 'liberal' in my approach to 'freedom for minorities' as ALB or robbo (because we all agree that 'minority' opinions are the essence of democratic practice, and allow criticism of 'what exists', and have the ability to become a 'majority' opinion).But, the 'definition' of what democracy is, and how it works in practice, must be subject to workers' democracy.So, my baseline ideological position is "workers' democracy", and not "individual/minority freedom".If there is a clash between the two, I'd argue for the former. I think that this is entirely consistent with Communism and workers' control of the means of production.I think that the latter is a hangover from our bourgeois conditioning, where, at base, the 'free' individual has the 'right' to ignore their comrades (that is, their comrades' democratically expressed opinion).To me, this notion of 'free' as opposed to 'mass authority' is rooted in 'fear of the mob' and private property.And when it comes to 'matter', well… why should a vote tell us 'what matter is', when matter is perfectly able to speak for itself, to each and every individual… well, at least to 'special individuals' and to 'minorities of scientific experts'…There simply has to be a brake upon the power of workers to make decisions…No, workers' democracy is the last resort for decisions about how our society would be run, not ahistorical and asocial 'freedom' and 'individuals'.

 So –  finally finally  FINALLY – you have been brought, kicking and screaming, to acknowledge the simple undeniable fact  that was stated at the outset that there are indeed limits to how far you can or ought to push democratic decision making, that the freedom of individuals and minorities to take up and express positions contrary to those of the majority is important  – not only for itself but for the sake of democracy as well – and without which there is no democracy. It seems the only argument worth having now is where we actually place those limits. The ridiculous suggestions you have come up with in the past – like the idea of workers democratically "voting" to determine the "truth" of some scientific theory will hopefully now be abandoned by you as the complete nonsense it is.  I have still to hear from you how you hope to organise the logistics of such a mindboggling vote among a global population of 7 billion to determine the "truth" of, not just one but thousands upon thousands of scientific theories but I know I will never get a sensible answer from you or even any answer at all.  You know in your heart of heart you cannot defend  what is a demonstrably indefensible and crackpot idea. Yet despite the apparent progress made you still cling to this silly mantra of yours that insisting on this freedom of individuals and minorities to dissent  is rooted in  "fear of the mob and private property".  This is dire mechanistic rubbish.  If you have studied hunter gatherer band societies you will know that one of the features of this form of society was  its constant tendency towards fissioning or breaking up – not just in response to environmental factors where the carrying capacity of a particular locality had been exceeded but also in response to internal disagreements. In fact this is one of the reasons why levels of violence in this form of society were comparatively low –  contrary to the claims of  people like Stephen Pinker.  Where there is a fall out , a section of the band could just peel off and move off elsewhere.  Voting with your feet was a form of conflict avoidance.  In fact the ethnographic evidence suggests that conflict in HG groups is often radically decentralised involving just the parties concerned without third party intermediaries.  Its a myth that such a societies do not display a high degree of individuality in their dealings with each other. But note that we are talking about a society in which there is no private property. Individuals in this society vigorously assert their right to disagree.  They are proudly and defiantly  independent minded in some ways even as they collectivist in others. I see communist society in analogous terms.    Free access to the means of living by everyone deprives anyone of the means to enslave others. It will be our equivalent of the hunter gatherers ability to vote with their own feet.  Necessarily, that will influence and condition the way democracy is perceived and practised.  We depend on each other in a world of socialised production and to that extent we need to come to decisions about  matters that affect us all and the only way to really come those decision is democratically  –  recognising that minorities have the right to disagree but also recognising that majorities have the right to have the final word in such practical matters. But,  and this is the key  point , the legitimacy and the moral authority of the majority decision MUST stem ultimately from the fact that everyone is treated as an equal regardless of their point of view and that on no account should any attempt be made to suppress that point of view. To do so would corrupt and undermine the democratic process itself

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

It seems the only argument worth having now is where we actually place those limits.

[my bold]No, robbo, I'm afraid you still haven't 'got it'.The issue is 'who', not 'where'.I'll leave the rest of your 'individualist' rant for those who approve.BTW, say 'Hello!' to the 'hunter-gatherers' who've moved onto Mars, for me.At last, there, they'll be free from that nasty Earth Society and its inescapable social organisations.Perhaps 'Martian Individualism' is the more illustrating term for your version of 'Libertarian Communism'.

robbo203 wrote:

The ridiculous suggestions you have come up with in the past – like the idea of workers democratically "voting" to determine the "truth" of some scientific theory will hopefully now be abandoned by you as the complete nonsense it is.

Yeah, always the bottom line with the 'mob-hating' individualists: 'elite rule, expert knowledge, no workers' democracy'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It seems the only argument worth having now is where we actually place those limits.

[my bold]No, robbo, I'm afraid you still haven't 'got it'.The issue is 'who', not 'where'.I'll leave the rest of your 'individualist' rant for those who approve.BTW, say 'Hello!' to the 'hunter-gatherers' who've moved onto Mars, for me.At last, there, they'll be free from that nasty Earth Society and its inescapable social organisations.Perhaps 'Martian Individualism' is the more illustrating term for your version of 'Libertarian Communism'.[/quite] 

 Nope,  the issue is definitely not "who" places the limits since I am quite happy with the suggestion that those limits should be established democratically.  The question – I repeat – is what those limits are which amounts to  saying where you place them.  Are you going to democratically decide what people are allowed to wear, eat, what music they listen to or who they associate with? No? Well then in that case the limits do not enclose these kinds of things.  So what then do they enclose, LBird? You don't say . You wriggle and wriggle trying to escape the consequences of your own absurdities in hot pursuit after you every time you put pen to paper.  You are your own worst enemy I have no idea what the rest of what you gabbling on about is about.  I did not talk about  hunter gatherer individualism,  I referred to HG INDIVIDUALITY. . Individuality is NOT at all the same thing as individualism. You should try reading up on the subject before just opening your mouth and just opining Try Abercromie et al's "Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism" which explains the difference very well.As I said to you, my position is neither a holistic one nor an individualist one but is an intermediate one – between these two standpoints.  Do me the courtesy of at least attacking me on grounds that I actually do hold not those that I don't

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The ridiculous suggestions you have come up with in the past – like the idea of workers democratically "voting" to determine the "truth" of some scientific theory will hopefully now be abandoned by you as the complete nonsense it is.

Yeah, always the bottom line with the 'mob-hating' individualists: 'elite rule, expert knowledge, no workers' democracy'.

  So once again you have evaded the question I posed – how are you going to organise a vote amongst 7 billion people of the merits of String Theory. (plus thousands of other theories).  You never answer this question, do you?  You just come out instead with thoughtless knee jerk responses like  "elite rule, expert knowledge, no workers' democracy'."So what are you trying to say – that everyone in communism will know everything about String Theory (plus the thousands of other theories) to be able to vote on it/them? Huh? Are you for real  LBird? Never mind Martian hunter gatherers, what planet are you from?   Please explain how you think this is possible. Don't evade the question as is your wont. Answer it honestly and openly. Let us all hear what you have to say..  I know you wont – because you can't!  Because you will know  that even to attempt to answer it will make you look even more foolishI tell you what I have to say on the matter.  I know very well that I am never going to master the complexities of String Theory.  Same goes for a host of other theories.  I think most people are in the same boat.  Actually, ultimately everyone is the same boat – even the few experts on String Theory –  if you are talking about the total sum  stock of human knowledge. No one individual , however gifted and clever will ever know more a tiny sliver of what knowledge exists out there.  Thats a simple and absolutely undeniable fact.  What that in turn means is that no one will ever be able to vote on anything more than that tiny sliver of information they possess because how can you possibly vote on something when you don't know what it is you are supposed to be voting about?Does that matter to me as a democrat and a communist? No, not in the least.  I accept totally the fact that some people will know things I will never know.  For example I know nothing about how computers tick .  My grasp of computers is about at the level of a hunter horticulturalist living in the depths of the Papua New Guinea rainforest. To them its magic. To me its incomprehensible gobbledegook.  Same difference.So yes, "expert  knowledge "- the fact  that some people know more than others –  is inevitable. You are living in a complete dreamworld if you think otherwise LBird,The problem is not that there are people with expertise in some things; its what they can do with it that is the problem.  THIS is where democracy comes in. As I keep on saying , democracy is about practical decisions, it is about what course of  practical action we should collectively take as groups and as a society.  THIS is where the role of elites can be legitimately questioned .  There should be no elites when it comes to decide what people should DO. I suspect ultimately that is what you are trying to tell us and in that respect I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. However  you've locked yourself into daft  absolutist way of expressing yourself  that makes no distinctions and draws no lines when it comes to democracy.  So if  we are to take what you are saying at face value then the fact that some people know about String Theory, and others do not, means that there can be no democracy while this state of affairs last and that the only way you can ensure democracy  is by abolishing this expert knowledge or ensuring that everyone  is made aware of String Theory .Which needless to say is indeed a pretty  daft idea

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

There should be no elites when it comes to decide what people should DO.

So, presumably, since you introduced the qualifier about elites, 'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK'?And since, for Marxists, our method is 'theory and practice', and thus 'thinking precedes doing', 'doing is a product of thinking', really your slogan in fact becomes:'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK and DO'.Of course, contrary to Marxists, for the specialists, blind 'doing', like the sort of work that the scruffs 'do', doesn't need 'elite' input, so that the elitist-loving 'individualists' can happily leave the workers to their inconsequential 'do-ings'.By christ, we can't let those workers get hold of the nuclear research industry – by 'means of production', we mean 'factories' that produce cardboard boxes, or sweets.Any worker who presumes (like LBird, guffaw!) to take the phrase 'the means of production' to mean the serious stuff, is going to get a shock.Hmmmm…. so we workers get to 'do stuff', whilst the special individuals, who comprise the expert elite, get to do the thinking and the interesting stuff…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

There should be no elites when it comes to decide what people should DO.

So, presumably, since you introduced the qualifier about elites, 'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK'?And since, for Marxists, our method is 'theory and practice', and thus 'thinking precedes doing', 'doing is a product of thinking', really your slogan in fact becomes:'the re should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK and DO'.

 Groan. No, I am not saying anything of the sort. Christ, you've sure got a fertile imagination if not much of a grasp of logic.As I said before,  there there is no question of "should" about it. One wonders what goes on in that brain of yours when you imagine that I am saying 'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK'?  ALL I am saying is that in de facto terms only a small minority are likely to end up being familiar with  the complexities of , say,  String theory and therefore in a position to say something about it. I'm just being realistic here.  As I said, the most any of us , however clever, can ever know is a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge. Therefore there is no way any of us could ever meaningfully  " vote" on everything, even if there was any point in voting on theory at all – which there isn't!!!  – since if you don't know what you are voting on how can you vote on it? Now think about this slowly – take you time to answer this question – how does that translate into me  saying therefore that only this small minority should be allowed to "decide what people think" eh?  I mean c'mon – what a dumbass inference to draw! "Think about what" may I ask anyway? If you are not particularly interested in String theory you are unlikely to be thinking much about it anyway.  If on the other hand you are interested in String theory then I have absolutely no problem whatsoever about you or anyone else joining the merry band of String Theorists and I certainly would oppose absolutely  any restrictions on you or anyone else joining this group of people who do actually know something about  the Theory if that is what you want.  I don't and most people don't and we are not ever  likely to but in no way does that mean we are being "told what to think" .  We think what we think because we chose to think it and we don't happen to think much about String Theory for that same reason. Oh, and tell me once again – how do you propose to organise that vote of 7 billion people on the merits of String Theory and all those thousands of other scientific theories? You did, after all, say it would be put to a vote, did you not?  So come on –  explain the logistics.  I'm all ears. Why are you constantly dodging this question might I ask?

[twc]

LBird’s LeninismLBird’s “democratic communist” program is characterized by the totalizing goals of his Leninist tradition:Ideology Dictates Practice“Communist” ideology authorizes “communist” practice.Authoritarian “Communism” Knows BestThe only objective truths—in art, science, etc.—are truths that have been authorized by “communist ideology”.An individual’s highest personal goal is total surrender to “communist” ideology.“Unity of Theory and Practice”“Unity of theory and practice” is enforced by “proletarian discipline”.Persons must be disciplined to think only “communist” ideology.Persons must be disciplined to perform only ideologically authorized “communist” practice.Personal DefiancePersons who oppose authorized “communist” discipline express uncomradely “anti-communist” ingratitude.Such “anti-communist” deviation must be conditioned into compliance.Anti-ElitismPersons who display undisciplined personal ability—in art, science, etc.—are performing elitist “anti-communist” practice.Such persons must be ideologically re-educated, by cutting them down to authorized “communist” size.Abilities and Needs“Communist” society determines personal “abilities” and personal “needs”.“From each according to ability to each according to needs” is decided, not by persons themselves, but by “communist” society for them.Political PowerPreservation of “communist” political power is paramount.“Communist” political power is the highest good, for which personal individuality must be renounced in ideological theory and sacrificed in ideological practice.This could be Lenin’s program, point-by-point, but for one exception, for which LBird takes immense pride.  While Lenin meant by the term “communist” the “Communist Party”,  LBird means by it his own idiosyncratic conception of the “class-conscious proletariat”, a conception that is as alien to us as it would have been to Marx. LBird’s “Democratic Proletarian Discipline”LBird’s conceptions of “communism”, “proletarian”, “discipline”, “political power”, “ideology”, etc. belong to the anti-democratic politics of the Leninist parties from which he is attempting to extricate himself.  All his conceptions are alien to us.For LBird all conceptions are “ideological”, and all practice is ideologically driven.  Furthermore, all social groupings, including social classes, are defined by shared ideologies that [upon ideological education] reflect their holder’s social status and express their holder’s political aspirations.LBird’s class-conscious proletariat is an ideologically self-defining group of included ins and excluded outs, united by a shared ideology of “proletarian” class consciousness.  Who’s in and who’s out of the “class-conscious proletariat”, and so who may vote and who may not, ultimately hangs on the ideological decision of the class-conscious proletarian ins who have the vote.LBird’s “proletarian” democracy is a social privilege conferred by the “class-conscious proletariat” upon itself.  LBird’s “class-conscious proletariat” may decide to offer “proletarian democracy” to, or remove it from, its ideological (and so political) enemies at its “democratic” whim.LBird’s “democratic proletarian discipline” is the political enforcer that guarantees the supremacy of the “class-conscious proletariat” in “democratic communist” society [sic].LBird’s “proletarian” class-consciousness is simply the recognition that everyone’s personal thoughts and personal actions in “democratic communist” society must be subordinated to “democratic proletarian discipline”.  Anyone who disagrees or disobeys is ipso facto an “ideologically-individualist capitalist elitist”.LBird’s ideologically-individualist capitalist elitists are the social pariahs of “democratic communist” society.  Refusal to buckle under “democratic proletarian discipline” displays ideological incorrectness, from which all other problems descend.  Such ideological ingrates stand in need of ideological correction.AuthoritarianismLBird describes “democratic communism” as the unity of theory and practice, in which the crucial role of “democratic communist” theory is to enforce “democratic communist” practice.The indispensable precondition for this to work is that everyone in “democratic communist” society consciously submits to the unquestioned authority of “democratic proletarian” discipline.On this submissive basis, “democratic communist” society collectively authorizes acceptable (and unacceptable) forms of social practice, including permissible (and impermissible) forms of personal behaviour, e.g., morality.For “democratic communist” theory to keep apace with a dynamic world—assuming its ideologically castrated members possess the personal dynamic drive —each and everyone without exception is obliged, through “proletarian” discipline, to actively participate in updating each and every aspect of society’s authorized corpus of currently-sanctioned universal truths.On LBird’s insightful estimation, “democratic communist” society is obliged to train each and everyone of us to PhD level [sic] in every domain of every science and every art in adequate preparation to pass censorial judgement uponevery scientific thought in every domain of every scientific practice;every artistic thought in every domain of every artistic practice.Consequently, as we obligingly submerge our personal thoughts to the authorized “communist” thoughts we are condemned to decide upon, and compelled to think exactly alike, we strengthen our collective submission to “democratic proletarian discipline” and thereby “willingly” contribute to the supposedly assured permanence of our political domination by “democratic communist” society.TotalitarianismLBird unashamedly calls his “democratic communist” society totalitarian.  And he is quite correct to do so, because LBird’s society is based upon total subservience of each and everyone of us to “proletarian discipline”.LBird takes enormous comfort in stating that he needs to be told what to think, and what to do!  His authoritarian “commune” personally reassures him.LBird’s “commune” will tell him exactly what it wants him to think, and exactly what it wants him do.  [His well-publicized personal obsession with medical operations on pregnant women—perhaps those ideologically-individualist capitalist elitists—involuntarily springs to mind as the perfect test of his insatiate zeal for “democratic communist discipline”.]LBird boasts that he is prepared to believe whatever his “commune” tells him, and to perform whatever his “commune” asks him to.  He triumphantly defies his interlocutors to think and act likewise, but sneers that they can’t and won’t.In that surmise he is also quite correct.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I'm just being realistic here.

Quite.As are all 'practical men'.For my part, I'm an 'unrealistic' revolutionary, who proceeds from criticism of 'what exists'.If you want to start from the political and ideological assumption that only a few can understand ''string theory", that's fine by me, but why not tell everyone what political ideology that position represents? Why are you reluctant to expose your ideology?Since I'm a Democratic Communist, and that means I assume that the vast majority of humans can understand their world, I don't share your version of 'being realistic'.From that Communist ideological position, the question is 'WHY don't many people in this society understand 'string theory?'.You no doubt, given your ideological elitism, will happily reply:'Because most people are thick, and the world is difficult to understand, only a few 'special individuals' have even the capacity to begin to understand!'.After all, you're just 'being realistic' – about this society.I would answer that question by saying:'Because scientific knowledge is restricted to an elite (our present society prevents all and any individual from having the freedom to study physics from kindergarten to post-PhD research) and that specially-chosen elite present their own findings in a special language (mathematics), the result is that few people in our present society understand 'string theory' '.After all, I'm just 'being realistic' – about a future Communist society.Not least of the differences between bourgeois science and proletarian science would be the imperative for a physics-worker to explain to a non-physics-worker what 'string theory' is, and this, all workers would agree, would be because the non-physics-workers would be deciding the merits of 'string theory'. If the physics-worker hasn't learned through their education the necessity for physics-workers to be able to explain what they are doing, and so can't explain, I think that other workers would be unlikely to allow the physics-worker to continue to be a physics-worker.It would be part of the definition of being a 'scientist' as being the ability to explain their work to other workers. The notion of 'priests speaking Latin to an uncomprehending laity, who must just accept that the priests know better', which is the scientific world we presently live in, would be ended.Of course, there will be resistance from the priests, who can see the end of their 'special status', if they are compelled to reveal their esoteric work, and their Bible is published in the language of the workers.How say you, Good Catholic Father Robbo?Beware the Bad Protestant Communist Revolutionaries!"The world turned upside down", indeed!

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird,the problem is, that your position is the elitist one here, since censorship requires a censor that hides information from the democratic polity.

[Author]

Posts