No “No Platform”
- This topic has 179 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I found that a number of SPGB members either denied censorship was being used or that a little was necessary for maintaining control.
This sums up my point, really.I think censorship is inescapable, and it's better to admit this, and state clearly who has the power to censor.
Censor what, though? That is surely the crucial point, isn't it? You have put forward the preposterous and totally unworkable idea that scientific theories, among many other things, will be voted upon in order to establish what you call "The Truth". Here is what you said on the "Science for Communists" thread:"The productive activities of those 'doctors, scientists and engineers' (and of all the other workers who choose to specialise in whatever area, including physics or sociology, and every discipline inbetween), including any alleged 'truths' that they produce, should be subject to a democratic vote. Thus, society will collectively and democratically determine the ethics, politics and science of that society.So going along with this crackpot suggestion for the sake of argument, the workers – all 7 billion of us – have fully equipped ourselves with a comprehensive understanding of, say, String theory. We decide that it is a load of bollocks and vote it down. What then? Clearly, the implication of what you are saying is that the advocates of String theory would no longer be permitted to advance String Theory. In short , they would be censored. Otherwise what would be the point of the democratic vote?. If it is just to piously affirm what a majority think anyway why bother?. They will think that anyway and the minority will think what it thinks too anywayFrankly, your whole argument is just plain daft. You haven't really thought through this have you? We need democratic decision making where it is needed – to reach decisions that have some kind of practical bearing on our lives – where there is conflict of interests of sorts to resolve. By no stretch of the imagination does deciding whether String Truth is true or false fall under the heading. If someone wants to continue believing in String theory then so be it. It s not going to affect me in the slightest We can argue what might possibly be an appropriate subject for censorship e,.g, the exposure of pornographic material to kids – and how that might be managed in communist society but I would like just once to get off your high horse and at least acknowledge the point that in other areas of human activity such as science the very idea of censorship is indeed utter nonsense. And if it is nonsense then the whole idea of "voting" to determine the "truth" of a scientific theory is equally nonsense
LBird wrote:Mind you, if they can define 'democracy' as 'free association', anything's possible.'Democracy' means "workers' power", not 'free association'.But its not one thing or the other is it? Its both. You certainly cannot have democracy without the right to disagree, to dissent and to freely associate. Your thinking on this matter is far too black and white. And then there is also the question of what you mean by "workers power" Is the global population going to democratically vote on where your local community is going to site its new medical Centre? No? Oh so then its not all the workers who are going to decide on such a pressing matter but only some of them – in fact only a very tiny minority of them – presumably only those who live locally . All of which makes a complete mockery of all your nonsensical talk about "elitism". If you really took what you are saying at face value then every decision decision taken in the world would have to be subject to a vote of the entire world's population,Is that what you are saying LBird? Do tell us. Because if you are not saying then you would be contradicting yourself and your whole argument for "workers democracy" would be exposed as the total sham it is
Hi LBird,I don't agree that censorship is inescapable, well at least in theory. In practice it might be a different matter as I discovered a couple of years ago, much to my horror.I agree with ALB, that what people are allowed to do and say are different matters, though back then ALB seemed to take a different approach to full freedom of expression.
Young Master Smeet wrote:But society cannot democratically do the censoring, since in order to vote on what information to suppress society would have to disseminate it, in which case, it's not suppressed. You'd need a technical elite to do the censoring.Couldn't put it any better.
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:But society cannot democratically do the censoring, since in order to vote on what information to suppress society would have to disseminate it, in which case, it's not suppressed. You'd need a technical elite to do the censoring.Couldn't put it any better.
Disagree with you here, SP!YMS's argument amounts to:If you haven't been to the moon, you can't know that it's not made out of green cheeseOf course we can censor 'information' which we can know about, and think is socially dangerous/unethical/undesirable, without every individual having to experience it personally.A democratically-elected sub-committee can do the 'dirty work', not YMS's political dream of a self-selecting 'technical elite'.
I think the issue between LBird and the rest of us is now clear: he calls himself a "Democratic Communist" but does not accept the normal definition of democracy which, basically, is that "the minority has its say and the majority has its way". He only accepts the last part and holds that the majority can have its way even to the extent of not allowing the minority, or minorities, to have their say. ( He goes further than this in fact and says that the majority can and should also decide what is scientifically true or not, but that's another argument which I think we've exhausted on other threads though of course, as a minority, he still has a right to his say.)I'm not sure what to call this truncated theory of democracy. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind but "totalitarian democracy" seems a contradiction in terms. All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.Can anybody think of a better term?
SP,in this thread I also mentioned the principle of association, which means people may wish to control the manner of expression. No topic has been censored on this forum, the manner of behaviour of forum members has been censured. All such controls are due to channel limitations, and the need to share the resource. The fact that people can go elsewhere to discuss topics in the manner they choose fit is relevent.LBird: so this sub-committee that reviews the material won't become corrupted itself? And you are right, there are things we don't know we don't know about the moon, and that can only be resolved through "going there" (either physically or through advances in remote viewing). If censorship exists, there will be information I don't know I don't know, that I might need to know (or have a chance of finding). I will also be being asked to vote on matters I don't know by your beninign su-committee. Democratic censorship is impossible.
ALB wrote:All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.[my bold]This is, of course. what I'm pointing out.But I'm consistent.For you ALB, who determines the 'not on everything'?You must be advocating a non-democratic decision: either individuals or an elite group, who are outside of democratic control.There are problems, and it's best to be open about them with workers, and prepare ourselves and other workers.Blathering on about 'free association' for individuals doesn't cut the political mustard, I'm afraid.
ALB wrote:I'm not sure what to call this truncated theory of democracy. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind but "totalitarian democracy" seems a contradiction in terms. All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.Can anybody think of a better term?Well, if you eliminate the "minority" in the sense of depriving it of the right to disagree then it is no longer even sensible to talk of a "majority". A majority only exists by virtue of the existence of a minority which is why I think what LBird is talking about is not democracy at all but a form of totalitarianism. And his whole conception of it is built on a fundamental contradiction which he cant seem to see and whuch YMS pointed out to himThat apart, I think he ought to pressed on this particular fetish of his concerning a technocratic elite and the need to submit such things as scientific theories to a "democratic vote". I don't think he has a leg to stand on here which is why he never gives a straight answer to a straight question but runs away from the question and covers his tracks with vague generalisations and pious platitudes.So here's another question to L Bird . He talks of "workers democracy" and the need for workers to socially determine everything that goes on in society by means of a democratic vote. But in my last post I raised the hypothetical case of a local community trying to decide on where to site a new medical centre in its locality. Does L Bird think this is really a matter for the locals themselves to decide or does he consider that in his so called "democratic communist" society the global population of workers should be involved in this (and of course the millions of other such "local" decisions….)If he thinks the latter is the case can he please explain how 7 billion workers are going to meaningfully and democratically participate in making these millions of decisions. I want a direct answer to this from himIf he thinks the former is the case can he please explain what is the difference between this and the situation where inevitably you are going to find only a small number of people knowing enough about some complex scientific theory to sensibly comment on it? Let us not have any more straw arguments about people wanting to put barriers in the way of others wanting to come to an understanding about such theories. No one here is wanting to place barriers on anyone acquiring more knowledge. Its got nothing to do with that. Its got everything to do with the simple undeniable fact that no individual can ever acquire anything more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge. Specialism is the direct consequence of that undeniable fact and it does not in the least signify the absence of democracy But then LBird has never really understood what democracy is about and, more to the point, what it is for.
LBird wrote:For you ALB, who determines the 'not on everything'?Socialist society obviously, as part of its founding "constitution" (as it were). In other words, the majority who democratically establish socialism democratically decide that an essential part of the society they want to live in is that the minority has its say, i.e that minority opinions are protected from being suppressed by a majority decision. I've offered you this way out of your dilemma, which doesn't involve invoking abstract indivual rights, but you've rejected it.
LBird wrote:Blathering on about 'free association' for individuals doesn't cut the political mustard, I'm afraid.Tell that to Marx who used to blather on about post-capitalist society being an association. For instance, "an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism" (Poverty of Philosophy), "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (Communist Manifest) and "an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common" (from the section on the "Fetishism of Commodities" in Capital).
ALB wrote:I'm not sure what to call this truncated theory of democracy. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind but "totalitarian democracy" seems a contradiction in terms. All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.Can anybody think of a better term?What about 'compulsory democracy'? Which by the way is how some anarchists describe democracy. Nevertheless, like I've mentioned previously LBird is consistently failing to make the distinction between the democratic method and the decision making process and consequently finding that his arguments are of no practical significance.
ALB wrote:He goes further than this in fact and says that the majority can and should also decide what is scientifically true or not, but that's another argument which I think we've exhausted on other threads…If fact, we haven't exhausted this, because neither you, nor any other poster, nor the SPGB officially, has told us 'who determines' what is 'scientifically true'.We know from scientists that they don't have a method for determining 'truth' outside of society, and so we must say, to workers who are looking to socialists for answers to their questions about political control, legitimacy and authority, who shall determine 'truth' in a socialist society.To me, as a Democratic Communist, that only acceptable answer is "workers' democracy" shall determine 'truth'.After that axiomatic declaration, the only issue is 'how'.The details of 'how', though, are of course a matter for the class conscious proletariat, one of the many questions that workers are going to have to formulate, wrestle with, and answer, during the course of building towards socialism.The apparent insistence on this site that 'elite experts' shall be determining 'who' has power, 'who' tells us the truth, and from 'who' originates legitimacy and authority, is a denial of "workers' power".If workers are not to control 'the means of production', who is?Or by 'means of production' do you all mean 'factories', but not the important stuff, like the production of ideas?I sense the 'materialist' bluffers at work!Beware Workers of the World – the 'materialists' deny democracy!
I have been following the thread but every time I have attempted to write a post my body has been racked with hysterical laughter.There is a kind of honest dignity and consistency with the position ‘no platform for fascists’. It practices what it preaches and preaches what it practices. It is dishonest to oppose this position while having moderators with clear intentions and mandates to prevent an opinion by claiming it is ‘off topic’ etc. We neither practice what we preach nor preach what we practice.
ALB wrote:Rather than try to physically stop them from speaking, put them up on a platform and refute their views forcefully point by point. Trust people to be able to see through them. Censoring what you don't want people to hear is a patronising and elitist attitude towards people as if they are incapable of making up their own minds up or might be corrupted by what they hear (while you're not). And when “no platform” becomes the norm who's going to be next?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-826-june-1973/eysenck-lse-socialist-defends-free-speechThis is an admiral position, Alb, but it it is not the position being practiced by the party. It is a position I would like to see restored.
Brian wrote:ALB wrote:I'm not sure what to call this truncated theory of democracy. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind but "totalitarian democracy" seems a contradiction in terms. All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.Can anybody think of a better term?What about 'compulsory democracy'?
'The tyranny of the majority' as applied to democracy is an expression which has often been used figuratively, but in LBird's mind it assumes an altogether more literal and sinister definition.
Perhaps as internet communications develope we can deem fascist views 'off topic' and after three warnings ban their opinions altogether.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.