Pathfinders: The Opposite of Binary Oppositions

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

patreilly wrote:

LBird wrote:

I've never argued for 'a workers world state' – 

Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.

I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).

patreilly wrote:

Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites'  or even workers disagree and decide their own  'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being  asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.

Welcome back my feathered friendIf Truth has to be decided democratically then who decides which truths have to be decided?It follows therefore that if it is necessary to decide democratically what is the truth, it is necessary to decide democratically what is in doubt. So do we therefore have to vote on what in doubt before we can vote on what is the truth?

[LBird]

Bijou Drains wrote:

LBird wrote:

patreilly wrote:

LBird wrote:

I've never argued for 'a workers world state' – 

Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.

I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).

patreilly wrote:

Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites'  or even workers disagree and decide their own  'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being  asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.

Welcome back my feathered friendIf Truth has to be decided democratically then who decides which truths have to be decided?It follows therefore that if it is necessary to decide democratically what is the truth, it is necessary to decide democratically what is in doubt. So do we therefore have to vote on what in doubt before we can vote on what is the truth?

Yes.I won't say anymore, because I can tell that the mod and the usual suspects don't like me discussing politics here.I've given a quote from the SS article, and tried to discuss that, but no-one in the SPGB seems to want to discuss their own article.It's a strange political party that doesn't want to discuss its politics.It's a shame that the author (Paddy Shannon?) doesn't post here. Perhaps only then would a discussion about the social production of 'digital' be possible.Until then, we'll just have to accept the bourgeois version of 'digital' – it's 'out there', simply waiting for passive humans to accept it. End of debate, 'Truth' determines itself.

[Wez]

I realize that this is a waste of time (and off subject) but this 'might' be of interest to L Bird as it tells the story of the divergence between science and the bourgeoisie. More often than not these days science confronts bourgeois ideology rather than supports it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

[Bijou Drains]

L BirdHow can you count votes except in a digital format?

[LBird]

Wez wrote:

I realize that this is a waste of time (and off subject) but this 'might' be of interest to L Bird as it tells the story of the divergence between science and the bourgeoisie. More often than not these days science confronts bourgeois ideology rather than supports it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

Wez, there are many, many philosophers and physicists who have criticised 'science'. The problem for 'materialists', is that these criticisms are aimed squarely at this bourgeois materialism. That is, the form of 'science' that these criticisms embody is derided as 'idealism' by the materialists.We never get to discussing these conflicting ideologies of 'science', simply because 'materialists' claim not to have an 'ideology', but that they are simply reflecting 'Reality', a reflection that does not require pre-existing ideas.This 'materialism' is opposed to Marx, who quite clearly argued for the method of 'theory and practice'. Thus, discussions about 'theory' and its implementation within 'practice' are central to any 'science' which is useful to the whole of humanity.The 'materialists' oppose Marx, by arguing for the bourgeois conservative method of 'practice and theory', within which 'blindly doing stuff' supposedly produces 'ideas'.If you want to discuss 'science', Wez, all well and good. But tell me your ideology of science, if it's not Marx's 'theory and practice', and a 'democratic  socialist' method.As I've said, if you're a 'materialist', you're espousing an ideology that pre-dates Marx, and which Marx replaced with 'theory and practice'.'Science' is a socio-historical human activity, which changes over time and with mode of production. It's not a 'universal, asocial, ahistorical method'. And it embodies 'power' relationships. Unless we democratically control our 'science', it will be controlled by an elite.If you're happy with elite control of 'science', how do you reconcile this with democratic socialism? 'Materialism' cannot reconcile its 'elite science' done by 'Specialists', with the necessity within democratic socialism for the 'Generalists' to be in political control.

[moderator1]

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:

Wez wrote:

I realize that this is a waste of time (and off subject) but this 'might' be of interest to L Bird as it tells the story of the divergence between science and the bourgeoisie. More often than not these days science confronts bourgeois ideology rather than supports it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

Wez, there are many, many philosophers and physicists who have criticised 'science'. The problem for 'materialists', is that these criticisms are aimed squarely at this bourgeois materialism. That is, the form of 'science' that these criticisms embody is derided as 'idealism' by the materialists.We never get to discussing these conflicting ideologies of 'science', simply because 'materialists' claim not to have an 'ideology', but that they are simply reflecting 'Reality', a reflection that does not require pre-existing ideas.This 'materialism' is opposed to Marx, who quite clearly argued for the method of 'theory and practice'. Thus, discussions about 'theory' and its implementation within 'practice' are central to any 'science' which is useful to the whole of humanity.The 'materialists' oppose Marx, by arguing for the bourgeois conservative method of 'practice and theory', within which 'blindly doing stuff' supposedly produces 'ideas'.If you want to discuss 'science', Wez, all well and good. But tell me your ideology of science, if it's not Marx's 'theory and practice', and a 'democratic  socialist' method.As I've said, if you're a 'materialist', you're espousing an ideology that pre-dates Marx, and which Marx replaced with 'theory and practice'.'Science' is a socio-historical human activity, which changes over time and with mode of production. It's not a 'universal, asocial, ahistorical method'. And it embodies 'power' relationships. Unless we democratically control our 'science', it will be controlled by an elite.If you're happy with elite control of 'science', how do you reconcile this with democratic socialism? 'Materialism' cannot reconcile its 'elite science' done by 'Specialists', with the necessity within democratic socialism for the 'Generalists' to be in political control.

[LBird]

How are we to discuss the article, if I quote from it, ask for responses, and have the usual suspects refusing to discuss the article but asking me for clarification about Marx and democratic socialism, and I receive a warning?Why doesn't the moderator even make any attempt to appear even-handed?Why aren't the usual suspects warned for not discussing the SPGB article?

[moderator1]

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules. 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.

[LBird]

Report it to the moderators? You're having a laugh!Well, that's any informed discussion of the best article published in the Socialist Standard now curtailed.And you wonder why the SPGB is slowly dying?

[LBird]

There is a good article in The Guardian today which refers to some of the problems covered by PJS in the SS article.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/15/schools-children-education-exams-maths-rankings-obsessionThis is an educational example of the bourgeoisie's attempt to 'digitise' or 'mathematise' our world. This is also reflected within bourgeois physics, which creates a world, not only not of our making, but creates a world politically opposed to our own making and control, and ideologically claims that this 'world-for-the-bourgeoisie' is the only world possible, because it is 'the objective world', 'nature-in-itself', which their scientists are 'merely discovering'.Whilst we place our trust in their educationalists, physicists, chemists,etc., we cannot change our world, but must simply obey them and their 'objects', their 'digits'.This is a political battle, about who has the power to create our world.

[Author]

Posts