Science ‘as it is’? Or ‘a social power?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

Only the democratic producers can assess the usefulness, potential usefulness, or sheer lunacy of these 'brown envelope' theories. Perhaps others will look with favour on your individualist theory never to dismiss any 'theory', and they'll then assign the social labour, required to write out all those brown envelopes, to everyone on this planet.

*watches Lbird dance around the point*

I don't know how to give your frankly insane musings on social production within socialism any more careful attention, YMS.If your questions and beliefs are going to form the core of our social problems to be solved, I can't see many workers, having read this exchange, choosing 'socialism'.What's so hard for you to understand about 'democracy'?Whatever 'point' you're dancing around, you'll be doing it on your own.Well… perhaps with 'brown paper envelope physicist' for company.

[Young Master Smeet]

Hate to point this out, but samizdat publishing was a thing in the Soviet Union, that most workers would understand.  The question of unofficial publication, linked closely to the planning problem of secondary uses, are hardly insane issues.You could have easily answered: minority viewpoints will be given space an opportunity to publish and express their ideas, and thee will be no repurcussions for the publication of heterodox ideas.A fair minded reader would be right to ask why you could not give that simple answer, and instead spent a lot of effort pathologising the dissident as insane.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Hate to point this out, but samizdat publishing was a thing in the Soviet Union, that most workers would understand.

This is a really revealing point that you've made, which openly displays your own ideological beliefs.On this site, we're discussing socialism, and democracy, and workers' power.But, you're concerned to equate 'socialism' with the Soviet Union, which was neither socialist, democratic, nor run by workers' power. And based upon that smear, you wish to then charge me with Stalinist politics.Ironically, the state religion of the SU was Engels' materialism, an ideology that you, too, espouse, whereas I've completely consistently argued for workers' democracy, and the denigration of elitist materialism. 

YMS wrote:

 The question of unofficial publication, linked closely to the planning problem of secondary uses, are hardly insane issues.

Why would there be a need for 'unofficial publication', in a society concerned to disseminate all information that meets the democratically-decided needs, interests and purposes of the world social producers?You seem to want 'isolated individuals' to determine those social needs, interests and purposes, or think that the mass of humans on this planet are incapable of deciding whether the views of any individual are dangerous to our lives, and so should be prevented.

YMS wrote:

You could have easily answered: minority viewpoints will be given space an opportunity to publish and express their ideas, and thee will be no repurcussions for the publication of heterodox ideas.A fair minded reader would be right to ask why you could not give that simple answer, and instead spent a lot of effort pathologising the dissident as insane.

I've said this, many times, but you won't read what I write, but make up your own world of 'Stalinist LBird, out to suppress indivdual freedom'.But, frankly, I do think that society will be faced with tough decisions about 'dissident insanity', and I'm prepared to argue that those decisions to suppress those dangerous ideas, should be in the democratic hands of all, not in the hands of your 'materialist elite', who regard the masses as essentially stupid, and who will make the wrong decisions. I'd be prepared to vote for the arrest and imprisonment of a 'brown paper envelope physicist' who proposed to test explosives on children.You're not a socialist, nor a democrat, YMS. You're an individualist, with a fear of 'power'. You don't recognise 'democratic authority' or the abilities of the vast masses, and simply wish to see the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom'.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

But, you're concerned to equate 'socialism' with the Soviet Union, which was neither socialist, democratic, nor run by workers' power. And based upon that smear, you wish to then charge me with Stalinist politics.

Or, rather, knowing the concerns many workers have, and the memory of the Soviet expriement, they would be concerned by the idea of a democratic editor deciding what gets published.  Especially with a singular model.  It is reasonable to ask for, and expect, a simple reassurance, which you failed to give, that minority opinions would be circulated.  This has practical implications, much like the eco-system of automated stock market trading, similarity of ideas can lead to bad ideas, we need dissent and mnorty opnions to grow to be ale to use thm if the time comes.

LBird wrote:

Why would there be a need for 'unofficial publication', in a society concerned to disseminate all information that meets the democratically-decided needs, interests and purposes of the world social producers?

Because one person, or a minority of people, are voted down, but feel strongly enough to publish anyway.  Again, you could simply say, that every effort will be made to disseminate ideas.

LBird wrote:

You seem to want 'isolated individuals' to determine those social needs, interests and purposes, or think that the mass of humans on this planet are incapable of deciding whether the views of any individual are dangerous to our lives, and so should be prevented.

Prevented?  Again, you could have said: the brown paper lady would be prevented from publishing. You could have said that, after all, she is stealing from the common store to publish her works.  But, again, you couldn't say that. I wonder why.But, how can we know what our intellectual needs are, unless we see the range of options available.  Last year, in the UK alone, 170 book *titles* were published  There is no way to pre-vet that volume of production (and, note, this is print)   The only response is to allow an abundance of ideas to be produced, and then develop ways of navigating among them, including preservation and dissemination in print for some ideas that match a specific need identified by a goup: that is the publisher's role, and many and varied types of publisher will need to exist in a socialist society.

LBird wrote:

But, frankly, I do think that society will be faced with tough decisions about 'dissident insanity', and I'm prepared to argue that those decisions to suppress those dangerous ideas, should be in the democratic hands of all, not in the hands of your 'materialist elite', who regard the masses as essentially stupid, and who will make the wrong decisions. I'd be prepared to vote for the arrest and imprisonment of a 'brown paper envelope physicist' who proposed to test explosives on children.

Surely, collecttively, democratically, we would see that proposition and decline to act uponm it.  How long would you imprison this person for?  But, lets tajke some more marginal versions: anti-Vax?  New Age Cancer treatments?Can I just ask: who will run your prisons?  Who will do the arresting?

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird wrote:

I'd be prepared to vote for the arrest and imprisonment of a 'brown paper envelope physicist' who proposed to test explosives on children.

BTW, how can we democratically decide to arrest this person withou reading their works?  What you're saying here is that we would have to disseminate their writings to everyone so that we could have a vote to ban them, because their dissemination was dangerous.  Democratic censorship sounds somewhat difficult…

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?  

BTW, duly noted that you didn't answr this question.

He would get tired of people just throwing his brown paper science articles away without realizing they were anything other than rubish. then, he'd probably go to someplace like SPGB and write science articles in the discussion forums.  It would be thrown away a little less at SPGB than being written on the back of brown paper envelopes.  He might also start writing free google doc presentations and share those with anyone who will read them.  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?  

BTW, duly noted that you didn't answr this question.

You're like an irritating child, who just won't stop asking the same question, even when explained to a hundred times.Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.Still, even they wish to do this, and pass the brown paper envelope onto their elected authorities, those democratic authorities will judge on the usefulness to our social production of the ideas contained thereon, bearing in mind our needs, interests and purposes.Of course, if the reason that the particular individual using this strange, anti-social method, is doing this because they are mentally ill, we'll probably ignore their advice to turn chips into rocket fuel. We'll probably store the brown paper envelope, though, for future consultation, if it turns out that, though mentally ill at the time, the writer actually had a good idea. I presume we'd at least photocopy it, for dissemination, because the individualist method of passing on a brown paper envelope for individuals to read, wouldn't suit our needs, interests and purposes, in our world social production.Now, leave me alone, or I'll set the bogeyman on you.Vin, I've got a job for you…

funny I went to two very fine universities, I scored 176 in a my state of colorado with a population of over 5 millioin (only 4 million when I competeted at university on math challenges.)  I have an Erdos number of 2 which puts me in the elite category of people who have published a math paper on combinatorial theory with 2 degrees of publishing separation from the most published mathematician currenly alive.  But I turned my back on the academic establishment and explored other areas of personal human value and ended up very much like the lady you describe in this brown paper envelope example. So we have a practical test of how a true socialist would treat the lady who produces novel and valuable science that is frowned upon by the ruling class. The same way I'm being treated here at SPGB.  P.S.  Sometimes I also write short little notes about economics or other topics on brown or white or other colored paper and go to a public bookstore and slip my ideas secretly into the middle of shelved books on economics for sale at the store.  The strategy of slipping my wisdom into books people buy seems the best option for someone like me who wants the public and the working woman to read and consider my thoughts before the establishment can shut down my good public service FYI program that I undertake voluntarily for the public good out of altruism.  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Now, leave me alone, or I'll set the bogeyman on you.Vin, I've got a job for you…

[Author]

Posts