The Long Awaited Materialism thread
- This topic has 285 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
twc wrote:Can you afford to remain democratic?
Democracy is the only option for all Communists, not just me.I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I don't understand how any Communist can hold to 'democratic' methods in politics, but not in science. This contradiction, to me, is a key philosophical problem.But to answer it, we have to actually recognise it as a 'problem'. I suppose that the obvious answer for those holding this (to me, contradictory) idea is to deny that there is any problem, and that 'democracy in politics' can exist alongside 'elitism in science'.
I've played on the same pitch as elite sportspersons (well, an Ireland 7's international), so I quite firmly believe they exist…
alanjjohnstone wrote:If i was sitting in the pub with you lot, i would move to another table !!Young Master Smeet wrote:I've played on the same pitch as elite sportspersons (well, an Ireland 7's international), so I quite firmly believe they exist…We're on the site of a Socialist party, talking about Communist politics, and about the power of various socio-economic and political elites, who have authority over the proletariat, and you bring up sport?I really don't know what else to say.Well, YMS, you look to an Ireland 7 international for your answers about the philosophy of science and the problem of scientific authority within society. Good luck.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If i was sitting in the pub with you lot, i would move to another table !!Therein lies our problem!If you can't be induced to engage in such an important issue, it won't be raised and discussed amongst us, and the current default position will remain: 'keep politics out of physics'.
LBird,
Lbird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I cited the example of sporting elites, they plainly exist, likewise I believe there are mathematical elites, and even linguistic elites. Try as I might, I can't write poetry what is as good as Shelley's. Or should we write poetry democratically?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,Lbird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I cited the example of sporting elites, they plainly exist, likewise I believe there are mathematical elites, and even linguistic elites. Try as I might, I can't write poetry what is as good as Shelley's. Or should we write poetry democratically?
This is becoming laughable, now!Since when has 'poetry' or 'rugby' had the authority of science?What's the matter with comrades on this thread? This is supposed to a political site! We're supposed to be discussing power.Perhaps ajj is right, and I should move tables with him! But the topic of footie only.
LBird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science….'elites' in any sphere(Bold added) So, I provide an example of elites in society.And, by corollary, we can say that there are ability elites in science, some people are much better at doing sums in their head (whether by habituation and practice or any natural aptitude is irrelevent). So, we can have poetic elites, sporting elites and, yes, scientific elites.(p.s. and poetry has always had authority, the authority of the, er, author).
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science….'elites' in any sphere(Bold added) So, I provide an example of elites in society.And, by corollary, we can say that there are ability elites in science, some people are much better at doing sums in their head (whether by habituation and practice or any natural aptitude is irrelevent). So, we can have poetic elites, sporting elites and, yes, scientific elites.(p.s. and poetry has always had authority, the authority of the, er, author).
Wow! A killer quote!Well, you've got me beat, YMS.You're quite correct, on a politics site discussing power, I didn't specify political power.Next, you'll pick me up for not specifying 'Earth politics' (you could argue that I might be talking about Martian power struggles), or not specifying 'Human science' (you could argue that I might be talking about Aardvark science).Yes, my failures are now all too apparent, YMS. The SPGB are too sharp for me! Sorry for wasting your time.
EqualityEquality and democracy are not absolute Kantian categorical imperatives. They are not inalienable human rights of man. They are not ideals that transcend scrutiny by human rational thought.For Marx, imposing human social equality is actually imposing human social inequality:
Marx, in the Gotha Program (1875), wrote:One man is superior to another physically, or mentally…This equal right [of equal pay for equal work] is an unequal right for unequal labor [but] it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only…To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”There could be nothing clearer.Marx resolves the issue by “from each according to ability to each according to needs”. We all need each other, and complement each other.DemocracyDemocracy only makes rational sense if participants have a common interest in, and a clear knowledge of, what’s at stake. Democracy is there, for us, solely to resolve common interest and common knowledge but different considered viewpoints.In a society based upon the capitalist mode of production, common social interest is hijacked by private stake in capital expansion, the true subject, object and goal of the capitalist mode of production. Common social interest is swamped by warring venal sectional interests.In a society based upon common ownership and democratic control of the material conditions of life, everyone in the community participates equally in social decision making, bringing to the democratic table differently considered viewpoints, abilities and needs. Common social interest is not swamped by private, or anti-social, interest in capital expansion but remains practical social interest, even if communally divisive. That’s what democracy is for.The precondition for rational democracy under socialism is consequently a common knowledge of the running of society by each member of the whole community.Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of science, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unscientific a procedure.Instead, actual consensus at the forefront of science arrives in surprisingly novel ways, that finally turn out, just as surprisingly, to be totally appropriate to the issue at hand, being integral to the long-sought solution, and not a precondition of it. Consensus may then strike with the suddenness of a gestalt switch, overturning everything held communally dear, that finally makes sense of the hitherto inexplicable, and instantly renders the exercise of democratic decision making pointless and incorrect.Society is thus compelled to take much specialist thought on trust, though conditionally so, just like the specialists do themselves. That is the reality of research, and social decision making must therefore democratically decide how it must approach inconclusive scientific issues, but it should in no way imagine that society can solve such inconclusive issues conclusively by democracy.The question remains on the table:When you and your voluntaristic big-C Communism impose control over specialist thought, in the name of your categorical-imperative big-D Democracy, while the concrete needs of social practice demand that complex scientific thought cannot be circumscribed by democratic social ignorance, and the scientists rebel against your Kantian edict, will you be able to sustain your control without giving up your rights-of-man big-D Democracy over everything that threatens big-C Communism, no matter whether democracy is an appropriate mechanism or not, because it conforms to an incontrovertible big-C Categorical Imperative?Will you be forced by material circumstance to resort to a reign of terror to continue to impose your absolute decision making stranglehold upon mankind?
twc wrote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of science, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unscientific a procedure.[my bold]twc, for me, you might as well have written:
Quote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of politics, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unpolitical a procedure.I trust neither politicians nor scientists, comrade.If I can't put my trust in my future comrades across the planet to make important decisions that affect all of us, I can't see the point of being a Communist.
ScienceSo you distrust scientists. What other socially-necessary human activity do you pathologically distrust?Never, in 1000 posts, have you recognized capital as the source of general social distrust in our capitalist-class society. Instead you unconsciously hypostasize the general social distrust under capitalism into your very own ego’s paranoid distrust.You materialistically misconceive the general social condition, personally, as your very own alarmist paranoia. [Social being determines consciousness.]ElitesSo you don’t believe in elites — your contemptible term — while simultaneously arming society to annihilate the unbelievable.Never, in 1000 posts, have you recognized capital as the source of general social mediocrity in our capitalist-class society. Instead you unconsciously hypostasize the general social mediocrity under capitalism into your very own ego’s impotent mediocrity.You materialistically misconceive the general social condition, personally, as your very own pathetic mediocrity [Social being determines consciousness.]The IncredibleBut now you do believe in the unbelievable.Your fertile imagination, well-schooled in the mysteries of Leninist voluntarism, concocts the latest gem of syncretic thought that announces to the world that you really have arrived among the elite — the inconclusive forefront of politics. Breathtaking!Please, mankind, savour this wisdom. You read it here first.While you attempt to explicate this nonsense, please have a go at my #119.
Naw, i will qualify my earlier comment….i wouldn't just move to another table but instead move to a different pub !!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.