Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.
That is because you believe that there will be 'class conscious workers' in a classless communist society. No wonder your arguments are confusing. You have a completely different view of communism/socialism than I have. Your idea of communism/socialism is closer to the left wing.To answer your question : there will be no class control of science because there will be no classes.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.That is because you believe that there will be 'class conscious workers' in a classless communist society. No wonder your arguments are confusing. You have a completely different view of communism/socialism than I have. Your idea of communism/socialism is closer to the left wing.To answer your question : there will be no class control of science because there will be no classes.
So, who will control science?If we're talking about a classless Communist society, everybody will determine 'science' by democratic methods. That is, 'truth' and the production of scientific knowledge will be determined by a vote.If you disagree with this democratic method, Vin, you'll have to specify 'who' (which elite) and 'how' (what political method they'll use) 'truth' will be produced.I'm a Communist because I'm a democrat and a worker, and I want to see a society in which workers democratically control the means of production. That necessarily includes science and truth.Can you spell out what you mean by socialism and its relation to science and truth?
How can you be a communist while you believe that there will be a class consious working class in communism?
I see you've reverted to idiocy, Vin. No surprise there, I suppose.Any attempt to treat you with respect and engage in a sensible conversation is doomed to failure.I'm not sure what effect you're trying to produce regarding the ability of the SPGB to answer simple questions.Oh, yeah, and since you don't think workers' democracy is the essence of Communism, I do think that you're a Leninist.A Leninist is someone who thinks workers shouldn't control their society, and that the power to do so should be in the hands of an elite.You believe the production of truth should be in the hands of an elite.What's laughable, though, is that you don't even comprehend the seriousness of these discussions.
LBird wrote:Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workersDo you believe there will be classes in a classless society? As you say you are a communist just what do you mean by communism?
LBird wrote:Can you spell out what you mean by socialism and its relation to science and truth?Does this mean that you have been criticising the position of the SPGB without knowing what it is?
Why do you believe that there will be classes in communism. You appear to be very confused about what communism is.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society. It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.Arguing now for democracy in the future, is hardly a 'blueprint'.I'd've thought that the notion that 'a Communist scientific method should be democratic' would've been the least controversial thing that I could argue, amongst comrades who're in a democratic party, but it seems to actually be the source of profound disagreement.Whilst 'no socialist agrees with that method of thinking', that is, 'democratic method', then I think we can start to grasp why 130 years after Marx's death, the socialist movement has such little purchase amongst workers.Property is safe from the grubby hands of the workers, whilst such anti-democratic sentiment is agreed amongst 'socialists' who have 'science' on their side.Well, Brian, you'll have to stick with science, as you know it. Good luck.
Of course a communist scientific method will be democratic, nobody is in disagreement there for its part and parcel of Direct Participatory Democracy where the whole of society will have democratic control over the production process and the distribution of human needs. However, the disagreement is over the decision making process itself with you strongly resisting any suggestion that by default this method will need to be adapatable and flexible to the conditions, the circumstances and to the tools at hand in order for it to be effective.Its you whose making this thread controversial by arguing – like Robbo pointed out – that one size fits all and in the process forgetting that democracy can not be imposed and neither can the actual form of the decision making process be made to order when we are unaware of what the conditions, circumstances or the tools which will be available in a communist society.
LBird wrote:Can't you go back to your mud pies, and leave the philosophy to the grown-ups?I'm afraid your personal attacks and name calling cannot mask your ignorance this time.
LBird wrote:Since your post concerns me the most, Brian, I’ve decided to give a further response, after more consideration. You said:Brian wrote:Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society. It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.My assumptions are that, as socialists, we all already agree that socialism involves four things:Workers;Class consciousness;Democracy;Production.That is, socialism would involve an already developed proletarian movement, that was self-conscious of itself as a class, and was employing democratic methods of decision-making within all areas of the production of goods/services/power/authority/legitimacy/knowledge.As a corollary, there would be no elite/bosses/experts other than as class-conscious workers, there would be no consciousness outside of workers control (religion, god, for eg.), there would be no decision-making by elites/bosses/experts other than as class conscious workers, and the production of anything social (including knowledge, truth) would be by class conscious workers. Finally, all these production decisions would be democratic.To me, that would be Communism (or socialism, as the SPGB has it).Hence, for me, any discussions about the ‘future’, regarding anything whatsoever about any prospective Communism/Socialism, would inherently involve class conscious workers employing democratic methods of production.If you really believe that…
Brian wrote:No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.…then I don’t think that we’re talking about the same meaning of ‘socialist’, Brian. If the other comrades here fundamentally reject my positions outlined above, regarding socialism, no wonder we’re having so much trouble about ‘Science for Communists?’.
Once again you are confusing the discussion by stating there will be a working class in a classless society. When by definition one class does not exist in isolation from other classes. Yet you also acknowledge that there will be elites/bosses/experts who are the "other" in socialist society. Other what I ask when there wont be any purpose for the elites/bosses/experts to exist?You are seemingly carrying the useless baggage of 'workers control' when community control is a more fitting description for such a society. Yes its no wonder we are having so much trouble about 'Science for Communists'.
Brian wrote:However, the disagreement is over the decision making process itself with you strongly resisting any suggestion that by default this method will need to be adapatable and flexible to the conditions, the circumstances and to the tools at hand in order for it to be effective.Brian, if a worker asked the question of the SPGB 'Will workers democratically control factories after the socialist revolution?', would you give the above answer?Because to me, any party that suggested that democracy wasn't necessarily the correct political method, and that workers would 'need to be adaptable and flexible to the conditions, etc.', would be a party that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the workers, and would go on to suggest 'party control', or the 'need for experts to make decisions', or a 'professional cadre' or a 'central committee'.Can you see my problem?
Brian wrote:Its you whose making this thread controversial by arguing – like Robbo pointed out – that one size fits all and in the process forgetting that democracy can not be imposed and neither can the actual form of the decision making process be made to order when we are unaware of what the conditions, circumstances or the tools which will be available in a communist society.I don't know how a worker arguing for workers' democracy in all aspects of production is being 'controversial'.If you or Robbo think that, then can either of you give your 'uncontroversial' method for workers' control, that does not involve democracy?I think that the ball is in the court of those who suggest that 'democracy might not always be the best method' to give some indication of what they do consider to be a workable alternative. I've given some above, but I consider them to be Leninist methods, and so I would reject them, because I'm a Democratic Communist, and I think workers democracy is the only alternative, and think that that should be said from the outset by any party wishing to attract class conscious workers.
Brian wrote:Once again you are confusing the discussion by stating there will be a working class in a classless society.Why this red herring keeps coming up baffles me.If I say 'humans', referring to a Communist society, the latter is ignored, and it's pointed out that we live in a class society.If I say 'workers', referring to present society, the latter is ignored, and it's pointed out that workers won't exist in a Communist society.This has happened a number of times, and I've pointed it out before.I'm starting to think that this is a method being consciously used to avoid answering the question 'who controls production, if not a democratic vote?'.Do I really have to use a clunky phrase, like 'humans who used to be workers previously', to avoid confusion?As I said, I think this 'query' is now being used to avoid answering a political question, by the SPGB, because several comrades have posed this question.
The fact is, Lbird doesn't know what communism is, nor does he know what the SPGB stands for and yet he attacks the position of the party.He believes that there will be classes in communism. Therefore, he believes the working class in communism will need to control science.I have aked him to define what he means by communism and I believe he has not got a clue. Which explains his childish attacks and name calling. He is embarrassed to be found out. He has a set off replies to hide his ignorance. The replies usually invole 'pies' or 'leninist' etc I asked at the beginning of this thread for clear definitions and I am still waiting.
LBird wrote:Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workersHow can that possibly be interpreted any other way? Your ignorance slips out. then you hide it with your childish attacks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.