Science for Communists?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Up until now, I've just assumed that you just don't like me, and that you're conducting a personal vendetta, which is fair enough, as I've been pretty frank about what I think about your intellectual abilities……but this is becoming rather concerning. I'm starting to feel that there is some other problem going on.Could someone PM me, if there's something I should know?

Is this the only 'intellectual' reply you have? Silly childish put downs.You are  psychotic!  You do not understand the basics of socialism, which is why I asked you to define your terms at the start of this thread.You believe that socialism is proletarian democratic control and the that the proletariat do not need experts because we will all be experts and knowledgeable in all areas! You do not believe that there will be 'experts' with knowledge that most of us do not possess. Is this true?Now your backtracking because you have been revealed to be an abusive, ignorant arsehole void of basic socialist understanding and knowledge.You are stuck in a leftist confused world. Define socialism. What is it? 

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

 

You should congratulate yourself for the immense part you've played in bringing enlightenment to me, Vin.I'm not sure if robbo and YMS are party members, and so their undemocratic, elitist and individualist perspective perhaps can be explained and excused by me, but I know that you're the Real McCoy, and an active party member, if not a Branch official of some sort.I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB in some sense at least, especially given the lack of any other 'official' response to these philosophical issues.Perhaps I should just leave the SPGB in the 19th century, where it seems happiest.Indeed,

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Put simply, robbo, you have a fear of democracy, and a faith in scientists. It is not a revolutionary view.

If Robbo voted for the scientist wouldn't he be putting his faith in that scientist?  Unless Robbo posseses all the knowledge of all scientists which, like you and everything you say, is rediculous

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

 

You should congratulate yourself for the immense part you've played in bringing enlightenment to me, Vin.I'm not sure if robbo and YMS are party members, and so their undemocratic, elitist and individualist perspective perhaps can be explained and excused by me, but I know that you're the Real McCoy, and an active party member, if not a Branch official of some sort.I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB in some sense at least, especially given the lack of any other 'official' response to these philosophical issues.Perhaps I should just leave the SPGB in the 19th century, where it seems happiest.Indeed,

Read what you have said again. You have nothing to say, just sarcastic abusive crap. Ingorant people often hide behind it.   

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB 

 Very individualist bourgeois phylosophy, LBird.   The position of the SPGB on this subject will be issued by the party not an individual. Having said that, I am sure there will be no statement forthcoming on the nonsense you come out with. 

[alanjjohnstone]

For LBird, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjHSOzVU5j0

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB 

Very individualist bourgeois phylosophy, LBird.   The position of the SPGB on this subject will be issued by the party not an individual. Having said that, I am sure there will be no statement forthcoming on the nonsense you come out with.

Yes, I think I have to accept, that in the absence of any 'official statement', that my views do constitute 'nonsense' in the opinion of the party members and fellow travellers.Whether you like it or not, Vin, your views do carry some weight with readers of this site, in forming their views of the SPGB.Unfortunately, for me at least, that is a negative view of the SPGB.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For LBird, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjHSOzVU5j0

For the SPGB, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIHusZEIwio

[alanjjohnstone]

For both you and ourselves, LBird, perhapshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKSPOUEuqAE

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For both you and ourselves, LBird, perhapshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKSPOUEuqAE

LOL!!!Brilliant – just prefer it in French.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtGfyruroU

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

So, why claim that we're not 'saying, in practice, anything much different'?You either still don't understand what I'm saying, or are falsely presenting to others that there is nothing really radical about what I'm saying.

Because, from what I can see, we are arguing for the same processes, and AFAICS your 'vote of truth' is an inessential frippery, a redundant icing on the cake.  If we are voting on the reports of technical experts, then we will have no direct access to their data.  We will only be voting on either they're logic or on their method.  We're an oversite committee voting to validate, not verify.Any vote will be the 'truth' for the majority, but not for the minority, who will in practice go on believing their own view and trying to become a majority.It would be as significant as 'royal assent', which does make Acts of parliament, literally, Real, but which is frankly pro-forma.So, what we're both arguing for is for democratic control of resources, with the community setting research principles and priorities, upon which we will debate.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Whether you like it or not, Vin, your views do carry some weight with readers of this site, in forming their views of the SPGB.Unfortunately, for me at least, that is a negative view of the SPGB.

   You are coming to conclusions about a group of workers  by analysing the views of an individual member of that group. That is another very individualist and bourgeois approach.In the socialist movement the 'truth' is a democratic process. 

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…AFAICS your 'vote of truth' is an inessential frippery…

As I say, that's where we differ.

YMS wrote:

We're an oversite committee voting to validate, not verify.

You've never told us how 'verification' happens. The 'verification' must be a 'truth vote'. 'Truth' is a product of active consciousness, not a passive copy of 'matter'.

YMS wrote:

So, what we're both arguing for is for democratic control of resources, with the community setting research principles and priorities, upon which we will debate.

No, I'm arguing that 'truth' is a human product, and that it must be elected, if we have a democratic society.We disagree about this, and it's best to be frank, rather than pretend we have some essential agreement, and our differences are minor.In effect, my arguments are revolutionary, whereas yours are radical, at best.You want a "works' committee", who have a 'say' in production.I want "workers'power", that controls production. And 'truth' is a social product.If workers don't control 'truth', someone else will. Simples.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whether you like it or not, Vin, your views do carry some weight with readers of this site, in forming their views of the SPGB.Unfortunately, for me at least, that is a negative view of the SPGB.

   You are coming to conclusions about a group of workers  by analysing the views of an individual member of that group. That is another very individualist and bourgeois approach.In the socialist movement the 'truth' is a democratic process. 

But this site isn't called "Vin's World", but is a site for political education and debate, set up by the SPGB, in an attempt to attract class conscious workers.I've got a class conscious view of science (including physics and maths, as much as sociology and politics), whereas you, robbo and YMS seem to think 'science' is not related to classes, and so don't call our science 'proletarian science', and don't think that 'truth' should be elected.So, I'm forced to take your contributions at face value as representing what the SPGB has told you, and think that your last statement, that "In the socialist movement the 'truth' is a democratic process", is not the case, because you won't allow a vote on 'scientific knowledge'.If you don't think that 'truth should be a democratic product', as a philosophical starting point, why would you build democratic science structures, and introduce the democratic principle into education, and teach critical thinking?You won't, because you'll see no need for these things. You believe 'science' has a non-political method which produces 'Truth', and so won't build for a democratic science which knows that it doesn't produce 'Truth', and all knowledge must be criticisable. We humans can never say 'We have 100% knowledge of matter/nature'. Unless this is taught from the beginning, we won't have a class conscious movement of workers.We'll continue to have a movement that defers to 'experts', who have a special ability/training/desire/consciousness, which isn't available/possible/practical/desirable to the masses.We'll reproduce that society we have now: educators and educated. I can read Marx, and I know he warned against this. I think we need to prepare structures and ideas to prevent this separation, because I think it is not only politically necessary, but, since Einstein, scientifically necessary.To you three, this is just incomprehensible jibberish, and a diversion from 'political practice'.To me, 'practice' is based upon 'theory', and I'd rather be open about the 'theory' that I think workers need, before they engage in 'practice'. Again, I thought that this attitude fitted with the SPGB's well-known (and often derided) approach to building a conscious mass movement of workers, through education, debate and democracy, which I politically agree with.But… I find a party that seems to be happy with 'experts', and doesn't think workers will run physics. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

If workers don't control 'truth', someone else will. Simples.

How do workers control 'truth' in capitalism? 

[Author]

Posts