Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:I see Lbird has resorted to his sarcasm and put downs again. I believe this is frustration caused by his lack of understanding of the nature of a classless society.He believes that the working class will continue its struggle within communism. He has not yet realised that Revolution to establish common ownership ends the struggle. Elites and class control/struggle is specific to societies based upon property ownership.LBird wrote:Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers
This is not a slip of the tongue, he has said or implied it on too many occasions. How would an 'elite' gain anything or an advantage in socialism/communism?
I guess there is no answer to how it would it be possible to have 'elites' in a classless society of socialism/communism and what advantage could be achieved by these 'elites'
What was I saying about 'cloth-ears', alan?robbo, can you explain once again to Vin – mind you, if even a quote from Marx the first time didn't have any effect…
LBird wrote:Robbo, you say you agree with most (nearly everything?) that I say, and yet the bit that you don't understand you accuse me of using 'smear tactics'.Not quite, LBird, not quite.Part of what I understand I agree with, part of what I also understand I recognise as being outright mischievous misrepresentation. I refer to your earlier claim that I endorse a position:that starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS NOT necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is not necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.This is not my position at all and you know it. I said repeatedly that, of course, democracy is necessary. – where there is a conflict of interests to resolve . Where there is no conflict of interests to resolve, where we are merely talking, for instance, of diffferent scientific theories being advanced to account for some or other phenonmeon then obviously democracy is not necessary. What is the point in putting the theories to a vote? So you vote on the matter – what then? Does that mean the protagonists of the rival theories that have lost out should just shut up shop since clearly their therories, having been outvoted, cannot possibly be "true". This is such a silly argument I cannot believe someone who is clearly as intelligent as you are, can actually advance it. And yet that is precisely what you are doing:In some ways, it's a simple choice: who determines human knowledge (and ethics and truth)? An elite, or our whole society, by voting?FFS, LBird, how can I vote on the merits of something like String theory when frankly I no bugger all about it? – like probably 99.9% of my fellow workers. But does it really matter that only a small minority – what you call an "elite" – that have had the necessary training and education, grasp what it is all about? NO IT DOES NOT!! I bet most of those astrophysists who know all about String Theory wouldn't know the first thing when it comes to pruning an olive tree or drystone walling – something that I do routinely every working day.There are thousands upon thousands of scientific theories out there covering every conceivable field of scientific endeavour. And you seriously expect the world's workers – all 7 billion of us – to familiarise themselves with each and every one of these theories and then vote on their merits. Are you for real? You have still to explain how this distinctly Leninist style proposal of yours for a highly centralised global society that coordinates and collates the opinions of billion of individuals is even going to work on your terms but I wont press you on that; you have problems enough trying to justify your dotty ideas as it is! Look, it really doesnt matter a damn as far as I am concerned that some people know a damn sight more than I do on subjects that I will never know much about and, to be frank, have little interest in – like String Theory. I evidently dont possess your obsession with with wanting to have my say on every conceivable scientific (or other) point of view doing the rounds. What matters to me is that I should be able to have my say where it matters – where there is actually a conflict of interest, where people have different views as to what course action to be taken. Democracy is about practical matters, about the lives people lead, not some high fulutin scientific (or other) theory… Instead of serving up to us your long pretentious reading list of 19th and 20th century intellectuals – how ironic for someone who claims to be an anti elitist!- you could have addressed those two very simple straightforwad points I raised but no , you are more slippery then an eel when it comes to providing a straight answer to a straight question. Instead we get from you, this: I'm trying to help, to help comrades actually avoid much of the reading (lots of it is simply wrong, from a Democratic Communist perspective). But apparently, you and the others don't need my help, because you all already know the answers, and argue with me constantly from a position of abject ignorance.I bow down to your superior knowlege O superior one. Actually, I dont know all the answers and that is precisely the point I have been trying to make. And I am never likely to know more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge – and that goes for everyone else (including, believe it or not, you too) – and yet you expect all of us – all 7 billion of us – to all vote on everything that constitutes this immense stock of human knowlege!!!! Absolutely bleedin unbelievable! This is insane. What planet are you from, LBird?Christ, there I was actually starting out rather sympathetic to much of what you were saying (I still am). You sure have a knack of alienating your sympathisers, LBird, you sure do….
robbo203 wrote:Christ, there I was actually starting out rather sympathetic to much of what you were saying (I still am). You sure have a knack of alienating your sympathisers, LBird, you sure do….I started to write a longer post, robbo, but on reflection I think that it's probably best left there. You'd probably be better reading some books or something, because I can tell when I'm beaten!
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Christ, there I was actually starting out rather sympathetic to much of what you were saying (I still am). You sure have a knack of alienating your sympathisers, LBird, you sure do….I started to write a longer post, robbo, but on reflection I think that it's probably best left there. You'd probably be better reading some books or something, because I can tell when I'm beaten!
I dont need to read a book on the subject LBird. All I need – or wanted – was a straight answer to a straight question. Can you address the two points I raised earlier, directly and to the point? I would be much appreciative of a reply along those lines
After some consideration, I feel obliged to give you some well-meant advice, robbo!Forget (for now, at least) about your 'problem' about '7 billion voting on string theory', and focus on the issue of 'if not the proletariat, who?'.The knub of the issue is 'who? or what?', rather than, once we've identified a 'who' (or a 'what'), then turning to 'how' that specified 'who or what' can implement their power to decide.For example, we could decide that a 'who', like 'scientists', or a 'what', like 'matter', are the 'decider' of 'truth'. That's logically prior to 'how' scientists or matter go about determining truth.In my case, I think that the 'decider' should be 'society', as a whole (clearly, I mean within socialism, when there will be no classes, but, during the build-up to revolution in bourgeois society, it must be the 'proletariat' who are regarded as the 'decider', because that stance would prefigure our belief that the working class must take control of the means of production, and abolish classes).If you toss that problem around, and identify what you consider the best 'decider', we can compare notes. You have the advantage of already knowing my 'decider': 'the whole of society'. If you disagree with me, fine, but specify your 'decider', and we'll explore that.[edit – cross-posting]
LBird wrote:My experiences on this site, unfortunately, have bolstered my previous experiences, both online (LibCom, ICC) and cadre-priests. Democracy carries many fears for them all. Fear of the mob, I think. They don't really mean workers to control the means of production. That's just a line.More caricature, I'm afraid. The problem is entirely your own doing LBird. You are the one who defined democracy in terms of voting and came out with this mindboggling statementIn some ways, it's a simple choice: who determines human knowledge (and ethics and truth)? An elite, or our whole society, by voting?It is not fear of the mob or elitism that makes one reject this insane idea of yours. It the utter impracticality of what you suggest. How does "our whole society" vote on the "truth" of String Theory or any other high falutin scientific theory (and why should it?) as you suggest. You provide absolutely no answer to these and other questions and then perversely interpret people's rejection of what you are suggesting as somehow signifiying a fear of "democracy" and the "mob".Do you have any idea just how arrogant and offensive that comes across as being? You would do well to begin by looking at yourself for a change…
Well, I've tried to help you develop, robbo.It's up to you now. You clearly think that you don't need my help.Ignorance and outrage are common bedfellows.
LBird wrote:When will they listen to workers? The cloth-ears here are in great evidence.Listening is a two way affair and for all parties to become enmeshed in the conversation it involves three very important pyscological social drivers for the conversation to become a learning curve for those participating. The first driver is that the conversation must be enjoyable, for if its not people soon drift away. The second driver is that the conversation must be interesting, both for the conversation to continue and also it's found beneficial to the social intellect. Last but not least, although listening is a skill not to be ignored our mental capacity is geared towards a generalist approach to all conversations, both oral and written. This generalist approach to our listening skills means we only pick up those bits of conversation which relate to our everyday affairs and we tend to leave the nuances and niche details to the specialists. And with the majority of humanity being composed of generalists and not specialists we tend to switch off when a specialist subject is intoduced to the conversation and comes under scrutiny. For when that specialist subject swamps the conversation it usually results in an end to the conversation. All three drivers were evident in this thread. Cloth-ears not likely!
LBird wrote:It's a case of 'been there, done that', alan. Union rep, arguing with police on picket lines, ANL activity…Even joined the SWP. I soon found out that they weren't prepared to listen. It's a funny thing, that all so-called 'workers parties' say they want workers to join, and workers must be the active element in social change.But when self-confident workers, who're used to arguing with bosses and all authority, and thinking for themselves, finally make the ideological jump to 'the need for a revolution', and political organisation, actually join, they find that the so-called workers' party just won't listen to them. The parties seem to think that they're there to teach workers and tell them 'what's what', and don't realise that the boot is (or should be, according to the party's ideals) on the other foot, and the party is there to learn from and obey the workers who join.Clearly you have no idea, or indeed any understanding of the democratic structure of the SPGB otherwise you would have not used this caricature. The rulebook is under the 'Members' link above. Read it then you will have a better understanding what democracy means in theory and practice.
LBird wrote:After some consideration, I feel obliged to give you some well-meant advice, robbo!Forget (for now, at least) about your 'problem' about '7 billion voting on string theory', and focus on the issue of 'if not the proletariat, who?'.The knub of the issue is 'who? or what?', rather than, once we've identified a 'who' (or a 'what'), then turning to 'how' that specified 'who or what' can implement their power to decide.For example, we could decide that a 'who', like 'scientists', or a 'what', like 'matter', are the 'decider' of 'truth'. That's logically prior to 'how' scientists or matter go about determining truth.In my case, I think that the 'decider' should be 'society', as a whole (clearly, I mean within socialism, when there will be no classes, but, during the build-up to revolution in bourgeois society, it must be the 'proletariat' who are regarded as the 'decider', because that stance would prefigure our belief that the working class must take control of the means of production, and abolish classes).If you toss that problem around, and identify what you consider the best 'decider', we can compare notes. You have the advantage of already knowing my 'decider': 'the whole of society'. If you disagree with me, fine, but specify your 'decider', and we'll explore that.[edit – cross-posting]I have already touched on some, if not all, of the points you raise here, LBirdFirst off, why should there be some kind official stamp of approval as to what constitutes "The Truth" anyway? Why is it deemed necessary at all to decide via the vote, as your have recommended, whether (say) String Theory should be admitted into the hallowed hall of the Offical Party Line or be banished henceforth to the wilderness of underground thought crimes? This smacks of Kim Jong-un and North Korea, frankly. If people want to hold conflicting theories in the realm of science or any other branch of knowlege then so be it. I am for pluralism and continuous open dialogue, not turning science into a dogma.Secondly you ask who should be the decider of the Truth and suggest that this should be "society". If all this is meant to convey is the idea that knowlege is social then this is a pretty meaningless statement. If you mean society literally as comprising some 7 billion inhabitants of planet Earth, then as I suggested to you before, the idea is – to put it mildly – utterly insane. The vision of 7 billion people voting on the merits of String Theory – not to mention thousands upon thousands of other theories – is spectacular in its surreality. Quite apart from the sheer mechanics of collating the views of 7 billion people to come to a "decision" of this magnitutde – which implies a high centralised Leninist mode of social organisation as i said – 99% of the population (myself included – before you go on about "elitism") are never going to master the complexities of String Theory and, to be quite frank here, String Theory is not really my cup of tea, anyway. Im just not interested enough in rousing myself to study the subject, That probably goes for most other people as well.So to answer your question – who "decides" whether String Theory is sound or not? Simple answer – whoever is interested enough! I might not be interested enough but I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate. Point is you simply dont need to define a constituency of decisionmakers which in your case seems to be "the proletariat"Why can you just not let scientific opinion develop naturally and organically through open continuous dialogue amongst whoever choses to interest themsleves in the subject? Why the need to mechanistically impose some vast, large scale schema on the population which lays down the law in these matters? What if 6.999 billion people decide not to cast their vote on the merits of String Theory? Are you going to make voting mandatory?I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nail
LBird in effect wrote:I take seriously the beliefs that workers should control the means of production, and that that control should be democratic.robbo203 wrote:I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nailEvidently you're in the vast majority here, robbo, and I seem to be in a minority of one.The very idea of 'string theory' being dealt with by workers, eh? Outrageous! They'll be too busy sweeping the streets, and other 'proletarian' activities. We [never specified] are certainly never going to let them anywhere near the nuclear research facilities!We seem to have very different interpretations of the meaning of 'the means of production'.To me, that includes 'string theory'.Wacky idea, eh?I wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?And ajj still seems to think that there's room for me in the SPGB.
Brian wrote:This generalist approach to our listening skills means we only pick up those bits of conversation which relate to our everyday affairs and we tend to leave the nuances and niche details to the specialists. And with the majority of humanity being composed of generalists and not specialists we tend to switch off when a specialist subject is intoduced to the conversation and comes under scrutinyThere's a political ideology struggling to make itself heard within that approach, Brian, and I wouldn't recognise it as anything to do with Socialism. Or, indeed, democracy.
LBird wrote:LBird in effect wrote:I take seriously the beliefs that workers should control the means of production, and that that control should be democratic.robbo203 wrote:I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nailEvidently you're in the vast majority here, robbo, and I seem to be in a minority of one.The very idea of 'string theory' being dealt with by workers, eh? Outrageous! They'll be too busy sweeping the streets, and other 'proletarian' activities. We [never specified] are certainly never going to let them anywhere near the nuclear research facilities!We seem to have very different interpretations of the meaning of 'the means of production'.To me, that includes 'string theory'.Wacky idea, eh?I wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?And ajj still seems to think that there's room for me in the SPGB.
Seems there is no end to your capacity to distort and misrepresent what your critics are saying. What I said quite explictly was that i would fight tooth and nail against a version of "communism" that made it "mandatory" for workers to vote on such things as String Theory or anything else. Did you even bother to read what I wrote?And to suggest, as you have done, that I would be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas' is truly plumbing the depths of dishonesty. On the contrary I said quite explicitly and categorically thatI would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate. That applies to any of the workers you refer to above…You have seriously gone down in my estimation, LBird. I never thought you would sink so low as to resort to tactics such as this.
robbo203 wrote:…a version of "communism" that made it "mandatory" for workers to vote…Where did you get this gem from? It isn't anything that I've written, so you must be arguing with your own demons.
robbo203 wrote:Did you even bother to read what I wrote?Yes, your own demon.
robbo203 wrote:You have seriously gone down in my estimation, LBird. I never thought you would sink so low as to resort to tactics such as this.Yeah, 'workers can deal with string theory' – foul tactic, according to 'elitist robbo'.Oh shit, more 'low tactics'…
robbo203 wrote:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate.But you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?Your 'anyone' sounds like a synonym for 'individuals'.Curiouser and curiouser.No class analysis, or democratic controls – or social or historical analysis of 'science' as it has developed today, just a rant about 'barriers to anyone whatsoever'.Presumably Mengele gets to do live twin experiments, on your personal planet of 'no barriers or obstacles to anyone whatsoever'.So, 'Mengele, Yes', but, by christ, 'Workers, No!''Sinking low' is my speciality with those opposed to workers' democracy and their control of the entire means of production.I'm a Communist, funnily enough. In a sea of 'individualists', it seems. Say hello to Young Master Smeet for me, robbo.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.