Socialism and Change

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

FFS  this is what is so infuriating  about LBird. . He never makes any attempt to defend his argument,  He just repeats it over and over and over again – like a JW arguing against evolutionIf you are trained as a molecular biologist are you bound to know more than about more molecular biology than some one who is not trained?  Of course you are!! LBird I cant believe even you are that dense as to deny  this.  Of course, the  rest of can come to know as much about molecular biology if we too were inclined to train up to become molecular biologists as well.  But thats not going to happen in the real world is it? 

Here we have again robbo's individualist, elitist ideology, which completely ignores socio-historical production, and the future of a socialist society, which must be built, by us, employing Marx's method of social theory and practice, using democratic methods from the outset.All this political thinking means nothing to robbo – he's an individualist (he doesn't aim for the democratic control of social production, but for the realisation of the bourgeois ideal of 'free individuals') and an elitist (he assumes that academics 'know better' what 'our world' should look like, than we should). All this elitist individualism (ie. ruling class ideas) comes from robbo's belief in 'matter', which an 'individual' (like him) can 'touch' (by his 'biological' senses).I've said this, time and again, as a political explanation, and to defend the argument of democratic socialists. But, apparently, given his 'senses', robbo can't read. Ironic, eh?But, for Democratic Communists, like me, and for Marx, the defining assumption is 'democratic social production'. The earth is a common treasury, for all, and the social production by all for all, based upon our common resources, can only be realised by democratic means.robbo completely ignores the political and philosophical basis of his ruling class ideology, and so doesn't start from 'democracy' in academia.During the building towards socialism, the ideological dominance of bourgeois academics and bourgeois elitist science, must be replaced by a form of education and science more suitable to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary proletariat. So, we'll see the emergence of challenges to the assumptions of bourgeois education (which robbo ignorantly shares), so that our assumption will be that there will not be an 'academic elite' who isolatedly conduct 'science' for their own ideological purposes. Professors-for-us will be elected, and we will determine what ideological concepts the 'professors' employ in our research, in the buildings and facilities we provide, for our scientific needs, interests and purposes. If the elected can't explain in a language suitable to us, they'll be removed. There won't be any 'priests' using 'Latin' to explain 'The Bible'. Or 'physicists' using 'maths' to explain 'matter'. These are revolutionary assumptions, democratic assumptions, suitable for a revolution.robbos' assumptions, that 'scientists know better' than we do, and that this is a state of nature that can't be changed, says everything about his political ideology, which has nothing whatsoever to say to workers who wish to build towards a democratic socialism.robbo knows nothing, and always resorts to insults, of the sort typical of those who think that most workers are thick as pigshit, and can't argue with professors, like Hawking, who even the SPGB has recently corrected.I've said all this to robbo, but he never discusses 'science' as a social and historical activity, or the social production of 'matter', which we can, as Marx argued, change. robbo wants elite contemplation of 'Truth'.'Materialists' follow robbo, and follow Engels, who didn't have a clue what Marx was talking about, and thought that Marx had reverted to the 'Mind-Matter' problem. Marx unified 'Mind-Matter' as 'conscious activity', where both are required. Any discussion of 'matter' outside of its socio-historical production is a reversion to 'materialism', whereas Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', and he says so, and he criticises 'materialists' as elitists.So, Marx was right about you, robbo. 'The real world'? Conservatives unite, eh, robbo?

 I see the Leninist windbag and ex SWPer,  LBird, is at at again – completely misrepresenting what his opponents have to say as per usual. Im bored with having to endlessly  debunk the BS he constantly churns out and if  he thinks I am an "individualist" he would also have to criticise Marx as an individualist too.  Marx after all said things like “the free development of each is the condition of the free development of all" Thats sheer individualism by LBird's warped thinking so why does not LBird condemn Marx as a "bourgeois individualist" ? As for the "social production of truth" , yes "truth" , or what people believe to be the truth, is socially produced but that does not mean you have to vote on it for chrissakes!. LBird fails to understand what the issue is about.   My toothbrush is also "socially produced if you think of all the components that go to make a toohbrush.  Could I be bothered to vote on all the multiple processes involved in putting togther a toothbrush?  Hell no! Its idiocies like this and idiots  who propound them that reduce socialism to a laughing stock in the eyes of workers I dont want "elite contemplation of the Truth" because 1)  i dont want scientifc theories rigidified into eternal dogmas sanctified and rubber stamped by a vote which is what Lbirds wants and 2) becuase as far I am concerned if somebody wants to have a say about a  particular scientific theory then let them; there should be no barriers whatsoever on debate.  So actually my position is an ANTI-elitist one  What I am saying is quite different though LBird lacks the wit to grasp this – that in practice the sheer logistics of getting to grips  with any particular field  of scientifc endeavour means that the very most anyone can hope to achieve is to become thoroughly competent in one or two fields perhaps and therefore to remain relatively ignorant in thousands of other fields.  Its inevitable and its not a problem for a socialist society anyway. Does LBird deny this?  Can he seriously tell us that each and every one of us can become a trained and accomplished Molecular biologist and a trained and accomplished practitioner of every other of field of scientific  endeavour as well?  Over to you LBird.   Answer the question and stop ducking it.  Would you have just anyone come into the hospital and perfom a surgical operation on your brain in  communist society? Why are you so terrifed of anwering a straightforward question?

[LBird]

Socialism and Change, hmmm.You stick to your 'Real World', robbo, where the very notion of 'change' is anathema.The 'Real World' where 'Reasonable People' accept the 'Facts Of Life'…I want to discuss with socialists, Marxists, democrats, who start from the revolutionary presumption that this present 'Real World' is not 'real-for-us', where 'Reasonable People' are regarded as murderous dictators, and the 'Facts Of Life' are seen as 'Social Oppression', which we can change.Socialism and Change? You want Individualism and The Status Quo, robbo, and you're going to shit yourself when faced with democratic decision-making, which contradicts your bourgeois, expert-loving, elitist worship.Why can't you envisage a society in which scientists work to democratically-chosen social concepts, within scientific institutions which are run on democratic principles, and where the results of social research are presented in a socially-acceptable language, to a democratic society, for them to decide whether the research results are 'true-for-them'?Who are these 'experts', who have a non-political method, in a non-political science, who don't have to present their findings to a well-educated, well-organised, conscious society?Who determines 'dogma', 'rigidities', and 'eternal'? Apparently, for you, robbo, the whole of humanity, left to their own political devices, will become rigidly dogmatic, for eternity, if you and your elite don't have the power to override humanity!You really think that most people are stupid naturally, don't you, robbo? You can't conceive of a revolutionary social process, whereby the vast majority of humans self-educate themselves, and engage in a revolution which will overthrow your 'Real World', and actively participate in all human research. 'Ignorance' is a social product, not a 'Human Condition', nor part of 'Human Nature'.According to you, anyone who argues these democratic socialist principles, is saying that everyone in socialism will carry out brain surgery on each other! What political ideology has such contempt for 'the masses', and their 'endless stupidity'?You're a Tory, through and through, robbo, and all your bleating is the resistance of 'common sense' to 'revolutionary activity'. And you're, ironically enough, the one who's 'ignorant' of the basics of democratic socialism.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Socialism and Change, hmmm.You stick to your 'Real World', robbo, where the very notion of 'change' is anathema.The 'Real World' where 'Reasonable People' accept the 'Facts Of Life'…I want to discuss with socialists, Marxists, democrats, who start from the revolutionary presumption that this present 'Real World' is not 'real-for-us', where 'Reasonable People' are regarded as murderous dictators, and the 'Facts Of Life' are seen as 'Social Oppression', which we can change.Socialism and Change? You want Individualism and The Status Quo, robbo, and you're going to shit yourself when faced with democratic decision-making, which contradicts your bourgeois, expert-loving, elitist worship.Why can't you envisage a society in which scientists work to democratically-chosen social concepts, within scientific institutions which are run on democratic principles, and where the results of social research are presented in a socially-acceptable language, to a democratic society, for them to decide whether the research results are 'true-for-them'?Who are these 'experts', who have a non-political method, in a non-political science, who don't have to present their findings to a well-educated, well-organised, conscious society?Who determines 'dogma', 'rigidities', and 'eternal'? Apparently, for you, robbo, the whole of humanity, left to their own political devices, will become rigidly dogmatic, for eternity, if you and your elite don't have the power to override humanity!You really think that most people are stupid naturally, don't you, robbo? You can't conceive of a revolutionary social process, whereby the vast majority of humans self-educate themselves, and engage in a revolution which will overthrow your 'Real World', and actively participate in all human research. 'Ignorance' is a social product, not a 'Human Condition', nor part of 'Human Nature'.According to you, anyone who argues these democratic socialist principles, is saying that everyone in socialism will carry out brain surgery on each other! What political ideology has such contempt for 'the masses', and their 'endless stupidity'?You're a Tory, through and through, robbo, and all your bleating is the resistance of 'common sense' to 'revolutionary activity'. And you're, ironically enough, the one who's 'ignorant' of the basics of democratic socialism.

1st warning: 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’).7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 According to you, anyone who argues these democratic socialist principles, is saying that everyone in socialism will carry out brain surgery on each other! What political ideology has such contempt for 'the masses', and their 'endless stupidity'?You're a Tory, through and through, robbo, and all your bleating is the resistance of 'common sense' to 'revolutionary activity'. And you're, ironically enough, the one who's 'ignorant' of the basics of democratic socialism.

You are scraping the barrel in your desparation to sound remotely plausible, arent  you LBIrd?.  So now I am Tory – Ho Ho Ho – cos I say there are limits  to how much knowlege any one of us can acquire no matter how intelligent we may be. The opportunity costs of specialising in one branch of knowlege is  to remain relatively ignorant in others.  Thats a plain fact which you stubbornly and pigheadedly refuse to accept  because that alone blows apart your whole crackpot idea of having  a global vote on the "truth" of every scientific theory that comes into circulation.  How can we vote on something that doesnt really mean much to us and in all probablity we have not the slightest interest in? Actually, the stupidity is entirely  yours for grotesquely musunderstanding the point.  In saying that we cannot all carry out brain surgery on each other I am not at all displaying " contempt for 'the masses', and their 'endless stupidity'", you poor deluded fool!   I include myself  among "the masses" you refer to  who wouldnt know how to even begin to perform a surgical  operation,  And there is no shame in that at all.   Besides, a neoursurgeon probably wouldnt to know  where to begin with pruning an olive tree or strim a bank of bramble which is my specialisation.  Again there is no shame in that either…. And  once again you evade my point and misrepresent my postiion .  I have no objection whatsoever  to scientific papers and findings being made as widely available as possible and widely discussed as possible.  In fact I would encourage it.  Unlike you , a de facto Leninist in denial ,  I am an  ANTI elitist.  What i am attacking instead  is your utterly stupid idea of holding a global vote to determine the "truth" of  sciientific theories.  Its neither necessary nor remotely practical. You know as well as I do LBird that there are tens of thousands of scientific theories being churned out every year,  You know – or should know  – that the people who would actually bother to vote  on any one of these countless theories – never mind the nightmare logistics of organising such a global vote – would be absolutely minsuscule.  How then can you call that the "social production of truth" when only a miniscule fraction of society is ever likely particicpate in such a vote?  What you are actually calling for is the "minority production of the truth" and that would be quite in keeping with your own Leninist outlook Besides ,  I  still have no inkling of what you think would be the point of such a vote anyway.  Are the minority of those who vote supposed to relinquish their own rival theories and fall in line with new prevailing orthodxy now elevated to the status of a dogma by being rubber stamped by means of a vote?  You dont explain.  You never explain and  it would seem you have no intention of ever explaining. Sorry, but your  arguments are so naff its difficult to understand how even you can take yourself seriously.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

So now I am Tory – Ho Ho Ho 

Our resident troll the Wizard of OZ has created that many strawmen on this  forum that there is a danger of fire.Bring Marcus back!  

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

So now I am Tory – Ho Ho Ho 

Our resident troll the Wizard of OZ has created that many strawmen on this  forum that there is a danger of fire.Bring Marcus back!  

Marcos had his suspension lifted a few hours ago.

[Anonymous]

Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large???  

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large???  

 I regret to say that, yes, he is serious about such an idea but I can assure you no socialist here or anywhere would endorse such a crackpot proposal.  He has never once explained how such a proposal would work in practice or what would be the point of the exercise but he conrinues to plug this harebrained scheme on this forum to the bemusement of all Ive been accused of being an "elitist" and an " individualist"  for assuming that scientists "know better".  But thats so silly when you think about it.  A trained nuclear physicist is always going to know better than a layperson about nuclear physics unless LBird proposes 1) that we no longer have any trained nuclear physicists or 2) that everyone becomes a trained nuclear physicist in which case what about all those thousands of other occupations where differences in ability and competence will arise?  Are we all meant to  become trained up in those too? LBird's big problem is that he doesnt understand democracy or what its for. Socialist democracy which I fullly support wll apply to the realm of practical decision making, not the determination of sciientific truth.  There is simply no point in voting to determine the truth of a scientific theory and scientists will have no more power in a socialist society than anyone else because the social relationship characteristic of a socialist society – free access to goods and serices plus volunteer labour  – dissolve the very basis of political power as such. As for me and others being an " individualist" – a jibe that LBird routinely makes –  I would counter that his view of a future socialist society is more akin to a beehive colony than a human society of free individuals.  Iroically democracy would be meaningless if it extingushed the capacity of individuals to express themselves by chosing by means of a vote.  .  Embarrasingly for him and for all his extravagant claims to be a Marxist I note he has nothing to say on the question of Marx's own thinking which contains a strong streak of individualism, as LBird  would see it.  See here  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-individual

[LBird]

MBellemare wrote:

Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large??? 

Given that you've not followed a very long political, ideological and philosophical discussion here, over years, you don't know the context of this debate.But, having said that, perhaps you can answer a question that the SPGB seems incapable of doing.If you are a 'democratic socialist' (and I'm assuming that you are, for now, but you can correct me later), who or what would determine 'truth' within a democratic socialist society?To make you aware of the central issue (and so more careful of your answer), this is a question about political power and who wields it.I'm simply asking, if not society employing democratic methods, which elite is going to make decisions about 'truth'?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

MBellemare wrote:

Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large??? 

Given that you've not followed a very long political, ideological and philosophical discussion here, over years, you don't know the context of this debate.But, having said that, perhaps you can answer a question that the SPGB seems incapable of doing.If you are a 'democratic socialist' (and I'm assuming that you are, for now, but you can correct me later), who or what would determine 'truth' within a democratic socialist society?To make you aware of the central issue (and so more careful of your answer), this is a question about political power and who wields it.I'm simply asking, if not society employing democratic methods, which elite is going to make decisions about 'truth'?

 You see, Michel, how Lbird studiously avoids answring the questions 1) what is the point of democraticaly deciding the truth of scientific theories?2)  how is it remotely practical to implement tens of thousands of global plebiscites on the truth of all these scientific theories? Instead, LBird resorts to the cunning ruse of suggesting that if you dont submit the truth of scientific theories to a worldwide democratic vote this somehow vests the scientists iwith more "political power" than the layperson.  He  makes no attempt to justify this astonishing  claim which is unsurpirsing since as a Leninist he does not really understand that nature of a socialist cum communist society Sad to say, it is an all too familiar pattern….

[Bijou Drains]

Not only that Michel L Bird has so far failed to give us any indication about how the truth behind the following crucial questions will be established in a future society:1. "What came first the chicken or the egg?"2 "Is the glass half full or half empty?"3. "How much is that doggy in the window?"4. (One for the football fans, or as you would call it Soccer) "Who's your father referee" (The current consensus goes along the lines of "you haven't got one, you're a bastard, you're a bastard referee")5 (And probably the most important question) is it "the one who denied it, who supplied it" or is it as, I suspect "The one that smelt it that dealt it"(On a serious note, perhaps when reading through L Bird's ridiculous, long winded, pompous, pseudo-intellectual postings, you can now see why those of us who are serious about promoting Socialist ideas on this forum, get a little bit tetchy at times!)

[Anonymous]

Will the workers first decide on truth globally then invite workers to join their movement that has already discovered and voted on truth?Sounds Stalinist to me, it cetainly doesn't sound democratic . Don't think I'll join LBirds Stalinist  Nut House. I will stick to the SPGB. Another question LBird refuses to answer is: Is his 'democratic communism' a classless society? Or one in which the proletariat holds power over other groups?? Don't expect any answers. We have been waiting years.

[Author]

Posts