Reason and Science in Danger.
- This topic has 335 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“the SPGB’s ‘materialism’ (which they share with Lenin)”
Just in case, Thomas, you get the wrong impression:
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/03/lenin-reviewed-1976.html?m=1
“Secrets of the Solar System” on BBC 4 showed how the mechanical astronomical model is now in question.
Planets are not bound in their orbits, but can change direction and migrate. Gas giants especially, such as Jupiter, have been observed in other solar systems migrating and colliding with other planets in the system. They are called Hot Jupiters.
The Pope, Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Nicolas Maduro, and Donald Trump can be a member of this forum and will give us the opportunity to show to the world that he does not know anything about socialism/communism and that the liberation of the working class would be obtained by themselves without the need of any bourgeoise leader, and that a world without market and without money, without leaders, would be a better world in a post-capitalist society.
L Bird can say whatever he wishes because this is a very democratic forum,( more democratic than any so-called republic or so-called democratic government, or democratic political party of the bourgeoise class ) in other forum run by Castroists, Stalinists, Maoists, Anarchists, and Leninists he would have been kicked out a long time ago and blocked permanently. In one forum I said that Cuba, Venezuela and the Soviet Union were not socialists countries and that Lenin distorted socialism completely and I was kicked out, therefore, If real society live in Cuba or the Soviet they would have been kicked out too or taken to jail, they can not have a Socialist Party like the SPGB or the WSM
We advocate for a post-capitalist society ( instead of capitalism within capitalism ) without state ( no police, no military ) without a monetary system, common possession of the means of the production managed by the peoples of the world ( that is real democracy ) and free access to whatever mankind would be able to produce, and the right to be lazy as Paul Lafargue wrote, and we all can be artists as William Morris wrote, science and scientific knowledge would be expressed in the proper way and it would be in the hands of mankind instead of being used as a tool for the bourgeoise class
Socialism/communism ( meaning the same ) would be total different society, different to the one propagated by the leftwingers, the Stalinists, the Leninists, the Maoists, the Trotskyists, and the Chavezists and the Castroists, and the Soviet Union which only advocated for State capitalism
The thing is with our feathered friend is that he tells us that we shouldn’t rely on the opinions of experts and that doing so is anti socialist and then cites Marx to back up his argument, not seeing the irony that he has just used Marx as an expert source (or rather his interpretation of Marx)
Over the years there has been some speculation as to the origin of his title, L Bird. Some have speculated that it is short for Liver Bird and that he has some connection with the city of Liverpool. My own take is that like a bird he comes in, flaps about, squarks a bit, shits all over everything and then fucks off. (Sorry L Bird, just pulling your leg mate)
That sounds like the conspiraloons. They reject all received knowledge and insist on one’s own research, and then proceed to mouth word for word their online gurus’ verbiage.
By the way, conspiraloons who are into drinking urine are now injecting it too!
Thomas, just to reiterate and emphasise, this forum is a discussion list that hosts members, ex-members and non-members of the World Socialist Movement. On some issues there is overwhelming consensus, On others there may be disagreement of varying degrees.
The WSM is not a monolithic entity which demands that all its members follow the exact same canon.
We do have disputes among ourselves of some things that the WSM has not agreed an accepted analysis towards and that has been endorsed by a formal decision by a conference. Even then we are liberty to challenge those and endeavour to change the outcome.
Of all our critics since our foundation, and there has been many, rarely have any questioned our democratic structure and our openness to debate and engaging in a fair and frank discourse.
I hope you stay active within this forum and enjoy the exchange of views and opinions. It is the interaction of ideas that results in a better understanding our world.
Thomas More wrote: “L.Bird, Einstein didn’t believe in external reality?”
Of course he did, and I do too, Thomas. It’s a myth expounded by ‘materialists’ that their political opponents don’t. Lenin smeared his opponents by lying, and it seems to be a key part of the materialist method – personal abuse and untrue smears, anything but engagement with critics.
The fundamental question is (and has been since Kant in the modern period (if we ignore Protagoras and Ancient Greek thinkers for the moment)) ‘Who creates this ‘external reality’?‘.
The Idealists answer ‘God‘.
The Materialists answer ‘Matter‘.
Marx, who reconciled Idealism and Materialism (which was the contemporary task of German Idealism, which he solved) into Social Productionism, answered ‘Humanity‘.
Any ‘external reality’ that we know, we create by our conscious activity, and so, we can change it. ‘External Reality’ is a social product, and changes.
Only the third ideology is suitable for democratic socialism, because both ‘god’ and ‘matter’ supposedly have the divine power of ‘creation’, and are under the control of an elite of priests or scientists.
Marx argued for ‘Entausserung’ (‘Externalisation’, or ‘Production) of our own ‘nature’. That’s why ‘production’ figures in all of his key theoretical terms, like Mode/Means/Forces of Production.
So, Thomas, who or what produces your ‘external reality’? The answer has political implications.
Thomas More wrote: “I believe science in socialism would be open to all, and scientists today are inaccessible to the masses, which has fuelled in part the populist anti-science movement of the conspiraloons.”
I agree, Thomas. But, in political terms, what does ‘open to all’ mean to you? Where would ‘power’ lie, in this openness? Who would have the power of ‘education’?
As a democratic socialist, I would answer ‘open to all’ implies democratic control of science – ie. its theories, methods, concepts, universities, professors, etc. would be within the open power of all.
The masses would control science, not an elite (which is what the ‘materialists’ argue, as did Lenin).
L. Bird, are you not confusing social reality with natural? True, society is part of nature, but it has its own momentum, a momentum humans can change. I think Marx is talking about perception of reality.
For instance, the Earth is a sphere, proved by Eratosphenes, in a pre-capitalist society, accepted by all societies in Europe since, feudal and bourgeois. Whatever the human society, the Earth remains a sphere, in fact, and that fact is not changeable by humans. East Asian societies believed the Earth flat or cubic, but it was still a sphere, despite their beliefs.
Thomas More wrote: “Of course science will always have problems because it is open-ended and enquiring, which ideology is not.”
I’m afraid I disagree with you here, Thomas.
‘Science’ is as ideological as any other human activity.
Bourgeois ‘science’ emerged in very specific socio-historical conditions, and was built upon bourgeois ideas, concepts, interests and purposes.
We’d need to rethink what we socialists mean by ‘science’, and certainly introduce democracy to the social activity.
Science is only bourgeois when it is hijacked to back up bourgeois beliefs and perceptions. But then we put “science” between inverted commas, as in the case of Social Darwinism, and we definitely distinguish that bourgeois belief from Darwinism in the natural sphere.
Thomas More wrote “L. Bird, are you not confusing social reality with natural?”
It’s very apt that you’ve asked this question, Thomas, because one of the key ideological beliefs that was introduced by the bourgeoisie was the separation of ‘social’ and ‘natural’.
This is reflected in the separation of arts/science, fact/value, truth/opinion, ‘material/ideal’, etc., and is a dead end which has been causing concern even to their thinkers for a long time.
It’s a reflection of class society, and the determination of an elite to keep the power of ‘nature’ in their undemocratic hands, by presenting ‘the world’ as outside the reach of democratic controls.
I think in socialism, where all will have access to science, there will still be experts. Even today, not all experts are slavish “experts”, but are genuine.
People will have much much more leisure, and that will mean many will choose science, but many will choose other interests.
I don’t understand quantum theory, but I trust Einstein. I use discernment, i.e. my reason, to choose who to trust and what to accept in science.
The diameter of the sun is certainly beyond the control of any human society, even the most democratic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.