Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:This thread has become littered with personal off topic attacks
It's certainly littered with a party that seems to know nothing about politics whatsoever.Even basic ideology.No wonder no-one will answer the simple question 'what political ideology do you use to understand 'science'?'And this on a thread titled 'Science for Communists?'.
Why don't you answer my previous post about the communist part of the thread?
YMS wrote:…I see democracy as being the concrete individuals…Yes, I know, YMS.And 'I see' democracy as 'workers power'.If we're talking about 'science', I'm talking about 'workers' power' and you're talking about 'individuals'.I keep pointing this out, but you don't seem to acknowledge it.We have different ideological approaches to science.I'm a Democratic Communist, and you're a… ?
LBird wrote:I'm a Democratic Communist, and you're a… ?Tell me what 'democratic communism' is and how many groups with conflicting economic interests there will be.Rational answer without the childish put downs and sarcism you hide behind.
Ah, so, Lbird, you don't think that people who don't work should have any say in the scientific process?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Ah, so, Lbird, you don't think that people who don't work should have any say in the scientific process?You're starting to baffle me now, YMS.I'm not talking about 'individuals' who do, or do not, work.I'm talking about a socio-economic class, proletarians, who sell their labour to exploiters.My political ideology doesn't recognise a category of 'people who work' or 'people who don't work', which is an individualist way of understanding and categorising 'individuals' by their 'personal activity'.My political ideology recognises two opposed categories, 'exploiters' and 'exploited' (or, 'bosses' and 'workers'). These are social, not individual, categories. They are determined by relationships between them, as social groups, especially the exploitation of one by another.You still don't seem to recognise that we have differing ideologies, YMS.Why you don't seem to be able to recognise this ideological and political difference between us, I don't know.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:I'm a Democratic Communist, and you're a… ?Tell me what 'democratic communism' is and how many groups with conflicting economic interests there will be.Rational answer without the childish put downs and sarcism you hide behind.
I assume that you do not know what you mean by democratic communism.
Is there anybody reading this thread, either party members or not, who approach issues regarding science from the perspective of class analysis?Or is everybody else 'individualist' in orientation?Frankly, it seems pointless me going on, if there is no-one else who is looking at science from a class perspective.I'm quite happy to leave the SPGB to discuss science from YMS and robbo's perspective, if that's the basic view being taken.Perhaps it's me on the wrong site, because I think I have very little in common with other posters, from a political perspective.
LBird should withdraw his accusations against the Socialist Party or prove them.His accusations are that The Socialist Party is undemocratic, elitist, Leninist and Stalinist’ These accusations are clearly based on ignorance of The Socialist Party case as this statement makes clear.
LBird wrote:Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workersHe has said elsewhere that there will be ‘workers’ and other groups with sectional interests in socialism. He believes the class struggle will continue into socialism. He masks his ignorance with childish tantrums and sarcasm as his last post clearly shows and we all recognise now that this is a cover up for his inability to answer a straight forward question.His accusations can easily be substantiate or denied by him answering some simple questions he is avoiding, one of which is :If socialism/communism as defined by the Socialist Party were to be established, in what way would an elite gain an advantage and what would that advantage be? How would an 'elite' gain anything.Will there be groups with conflicting economic interests in 'democratic communism'?
LBird should withdraw his accusations against the Socialist Party or prove them.His accusations are that The Socialist Party is undemocratic, elitist, Leninist and Stalinist’ These accusations are clearly based on ignorance of The Socialist Party case as this statement makes clear.
LBird wrote:Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workersHe has said elsewhere that there will be ‘workers’ and other groups with sectional interests in socialism. He believes the class struggle will continue into socialism. He masks his ignorance with childish tantrums and sarcasm as his last post clearly shows and we all recognise now that this is a cover up for his inability to answer a straight forward question.His accusations can easily be substantiate or denied by him answering some simple questions he is avoiding one of which is :If socialism/communism as defined by the Socialist Party were to be established, in what way would an elite gain an advantage and what would that advantage be? How would an 'elite' gain anything.Will there be groups with conflicting ecomic interests in 'democratic communism?
Vin wrote:If socialism/communism as defined by the Socialist Party were to be established, in what way would an elite gain an advantage and what would that advantage be? How would an 'elite' gain anything.Will there be groups with conflicting economic interests in 'democratic communism'?Not 'economic determinism' as well, to add to our other travails?
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:If socialism/communism as defined by the Socialist Party were to be established, in what way would an elite gain an advantage and what would that advantage be? How would an 'elite' gain anything.Will there be groups with conflicting economic interests in 'democratic communism'?Not 'economic determinism' as well, to add to our other travails?
You can't answer the question so you revert to Strawmen. I know you only too well, Lbird. If you don't know what you mean by 'democratic communism' just say so. It explains your tantrums and smoke screens.
LBird wrote:I'm a Democratic Communist,……Tell me what 'democratic communism' is and how many groups with conflicting economic interests there will be.Rational answer without the childish put downs and sarcasm you hide behind.
Lbird,My turn to be baffled. I thought we were talking about socialism/communism where there will be no "socio-economic class, proletarians, who sell their labour to exploiters" and where there will only be one community, without classes?
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
Some guidance, mod1?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.