Why we are different

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

And still, not one member or sympathiser of the SPGB argues for workers' democracy in truth production.

But WHY WHY WHY do you want such a thing as "workers democracy in TRUTH production".???  You never ever explain.  Workers democracy in the production of goods and services I can perfectly understand and support –  but TRUTH?  To me the idea is bonkers.  Plain bonkers.  And the thing is you make no effort at all to explain the reasoning behind this I have never heard such nonsense and don't kid yourself that its got anything to do with Marx or Marxism.  There is not a single source you can cite which would support this claim of yours.  I think the only person I have ever come across to put forward this balmy idea that the general populace of a future socialist society should vote in the truth of scientific theories is your good self,  This idea of yours is unIque to you and you alone.  Prove me wrong if you can Anyway, what are you hoping to achieve by workers democratically voting on whether a particular scientific theory is true or not?  Please explain. So they take a vote and by a narrow margin agree that some particular  theory is true.  OK so now what?  What is supposed to happen?  Are we not allowed to question this scientific theory anymore – or what?  What was the purpose of taking the vote in the first place? You seem to have a kind of religious-dogmatic view of what science is about

LBird wrote:

To elitists, democracy is always 'impracticable'.

 Attacking your idea has got nothing to to do with supporting elitism.   It is not democracy that is impracticable but your particular take on what democracy entails.  Of course it is impracticable to suppose that tens of thousands of scientific theories can be voted upon a global population of 7 billion people. Have you even the slightest inkling of the logistics of such an undertaking How can you seriously think that is "practicable!?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

So, why won't you allow a vote on 'truth'?

It's not up to me, or any socialist to say how socialism will be democratically be run, I just don't see what the earthly use is, and I note that democracy is about more than voting.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, why won't you allow a vote on 'truth'?

It's not up to me, or any socialist to say how socialism will be democratically be run, I just don't see what the earthly use is, and I note that democracy is about more than voting.

This is probably the most thoughtful post that you've made, YMS.The fact that you 'don't see what earthly use' there will be for democratic truth production, is something that can be overcome with socialist education, where our class will come to realise that we alone have to educate ourselves, using the democratic means that we will require for our socialist society.And, of course 'democracy is about more than voting', but 'voting' is at the heart of it.Unless… you and the SPGB don't really mean 'voting' when you say 'democracy'…… but then we'll just have the Leninist/East German model, once again, where so-called "People's Democracies" are actually nothing to do with workers voting about any power produced by their social production.So, all in all, a good start to the day!

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

And, of course 'democracy is about more than voting', but 'voting' is at the heart of it.

I'd argue freedom of information, expression and association come well above voting, and the right for minorities to try and become majorities (and for majorities to not enforce their will unless necessary): voting is just a means to assist the discursive process.  Sometimes we need to weight the strngth as well as quantity on a question: a minority that strongly holds it's opinion compared to a lightly held majority needs to be taken into account.  The conversation never ends.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

And, of course 'democracy is about more than voting', but 'voting' is at the heart of it.

I'd argue freedom of information, expression and association come well above voting, and the right for minorities to try and become majorities (and for majorities to not enforce their will unless necessary): voting is just a means to assist the discursive process.  Sometimes we need to weight the strngth as well as quantity on a question: a minority that strongly holds it's opinion compared to a lightly held majority needs to be taken into account.  The conversation never ends.

It's interesting that you downgrade 'voting' in your list of priorities, YMS.This of course leaves it open for an unelected minority to determine by themselves, for their minority interests and purposes, just what contitutes "freedom of information, expression and association" for the majority.Again, it's interesting that you don't agree with 'one person, one vote' (which I'd argue is at the heart of any 'democracy' worthy of its name), but that you'd 'weight strength' (presumably by 'weighted votes' for an elite) 'as well as quantity' (ie. each person's vote).Further, "a minority that strongly holds its opinion compared to a lightly held majority", combined with your unelected minority who determine, presumably, what 'strong' and light' actually consist of, prior to any 'majority voting' on the issue of 'strong/light', to which is added to your 'weighted voting' – it's almost as if you want to protect a minority's power as above the majority's power.In fact, the more I think about it, your proposal for (pseudo-)democracy, makes the gerrymandering of Northern Ireland pre-1968 (1 vote between a working family of five adults, but 6 votes for one businessman) seem positively enlightened!No, YMS, I think I prefer to argue to workers that in building for socialism, 'voting' (and one person, one vote) will be at the very top of our list of democratic priorities.BTW, is your 'Ulsterisation' view of elections in any way an official SPGB opinion?

[Young Master Smeet]

Lets not forget that voting was mandatory in the SU.  Thee have been plenty of dictatorships that had lots of lovely votes, democracy means much more than voting, voting is just one means of assisting democracy along.You're reading some sort of unelected determining minority, it's more likely that after a vote a lightly held majority would back down if the minority loudly and vociferously continue to hold their position, for example.Lets take the example of a cultural/racial minority in a given area, that would lose every single vote, there might be a matter important to them which, perhaps unknowingly, a mjaority might vote against, the minority has to have the right to protest the result, demonstrate the strength of their feeling, and ask the majority to think again.  A vote does not end the matter (vide Brexit).ISTR Otto Neurath who described the difference of democracy between enemies and democracy between friends.Democracy between enemies is like bandits holding up a stage coah, and the occupants and the bandits counting which side has the most guns, and surrenderign according.Between friends it's like a trip to the cinema: you all want to go together, and agree to go together, and while, say, you might not like rom-coms, another friend has screaming nightmares if they see blood-splatter gore movies.  You might fancy the gore movie, the majority might fancy it, but that would mean going without the friend.On some points, I demand my right to be outvoted, I'm against strict consensus, but democracy always has the presupposition that we want to be together.

[Anonymous]

There are others groups such as the Maoists, the followers of Enver Hoxha ( Albanian tendencies ) The Castroists, and the followers of the so called Bolivarian revolution who called themselves Marxists, Socialists, or Marxist-Leninists, which are also different to the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the companion parties of the World Socialist Movement. We have  also discussed in other thread about the so called Democratic Socialists which is not a new trend, is a new version of the old Bernstein and Kaustky Social Democracy. They are all reformist up to the core, and all of them will prolong the life and the existence of capitalism.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, why won't you allow a vote on 'truth'?

It's not up to me, or any socialist to say how socialism will be democratically be run, I just don't see what the earthly use is, and I note that democracy is about more than voting.

This is probably the most thoughtful post that you've made, YMS.The fact that you 'don't see what earthly use' there will be for democratic truth production, is something that can be overcome with socialist education, where our class will come to realise that we alone have to educate ourselves, using the democratic means that we will require for our socialist society.

 So what is the point of voting on the "truth" of scientifc theories LBird? Could you explim what you hope to acomplish by such a vote?And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

Well, since I regard 'production' and 'truth' (we socially create both, by theory and practice) as 'social products', and I'm not 'confused' by my open ideological stance in science, you'll have to tell me where you disagree with Marx, and why you regard 'truth' as an elite product.I suspect that your faith in 'materialism' is going to come into play in your explanation.You should speak to YMS first, though, and get your 'individualist biological sense' explanations in sync. Of course, you'll both deny that you're (like we all are) 'ideologists', and simply defer (perhaps unconsciously) to bourgeois ideologists.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

Well, since I regard 'production' and 'truth' (we socially create both, by theory and practice) as 'social products', and I'm not 'confused' by my open ideological stance in science, you'll have to tell me where you disagree with Marx, and why you regard 'truth' as an elite product.I suspect that your faith in 'materialism' is going to come into play in your explanation.You should speak to YMS first, though, and get your 'individualist biological sense' explanations in sync. Of course, you'll both deny that you're (like we all are) 'ideologists', and simply defer (perhaps unconsciously) to bourgeois ideologists.

 OK so can you now explain why do you want the global population to vote on the" truth"  of scientific theories.  What is the point of the exercise?  What is supposed to happen after, lets say, 51% of the global population vote in favour of string theory?  Enlighten us ,,,er ,,"bourgeois ideologists"…

[Bijou Drains]

So tell me L Bird, in the "communist society" you propose, we have a world wide vote on a scientific theory. For arguments sake let's take the theory of what causes thunder.The vote are cast and the "truth" is decided along the lines of discharge of electrons between clouds, etc. However I'm still of the opinion that it's caused by a big guy in the sky with a hammer called Thor.What happens to me? Am I carted off to a idealist-materialist reeducation camp to ensure I acknowledge "the truth". Also how long do I have to wait before we can have another vote?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

Well, since I regard 'production' and 'truth' (we socially create both, by theory and practice) as 'social products', and I'm not 'confused' by my open ideological stance in science, you'll have to tell me where you disagree with Marx, and why you regard 'truth' as an elite product.I suspect that your faith in 'materialism' is going to come into play in your explanation.You should speak to YMS first, though, and get your 'individualist biological sense' explanations in sync. Of course, you'll both deny that you're (like we all are) 'ideologists', and simply defer (perhaps unconsciously) to bourgeois ideologists.

 OK so can you now explain why do you want the global population to vote on the" truth"  of scientific theories.  What is the point of the exercise? 

I keep telling you this, robbo, but you keep ignoring what I write.The 'point of the exercise' is that only the producers can tell the 'truth' of what they produce. And the only way within a society, like socialism, that produces democratically, is to vote.I also explained why you don't agree with Marx's views (which I do agree with) about 'social production' and the 'self-determination' of the producers, is that you are not a 'democratic socialist' concerned with 'social production', but you are an 'individualist' concerned with 'material' biological sensation.You believe that 'Truth' simply 'exists' somewhere 'out there', and this can be passively 'discovered' by 'disinterested' bourgeois scientists, who have a 'politically-neutral method', which is only available to an 'expert elite with a special consciousness', but not available to the masses.So, you believe that 'elites' produce 'Truth' (which doesn't change, or it wouldn't be 'Truth'), and I believe that 'societies' produce 'truths' (which are created socio-historically, and so do change).To you, if Hawking tells us his physics is 'True', you reply 'it must be the truth, a scientist says so', according to their 'disinterest' and absence of political purpose.To me, if Hawking tells us his physics is 'True', we ask him to explain how he came to this conclusion without us deciding how to go about producing this 'truth' according to our interests and purposes, and who gave him his 'concepts'….I've said all this before, robbo, but you won't engage with the ideological, political and historical aspects of 'science', and simply repeat your bourgeois-inspired outrage that "Workers can't tell Stephen Hawking what to do in physics! He's a genius, who does 'maths', and you workers are all unable to comprehend your world! Leave it to your 'specialist' betters!"The simplest way of putting our ideological disagreement is that you don't believe in 'democratic science', whereas I do. But then, I'm a Democratic Communist, and you're not.There is no 'objective answer' to this issue, robbo, It's a political battle, about 'power within social production', and 'who will wield it within socialism'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So tell me L Bird, in the "communist society" you propose, we have a world wide vote on a scientific theory. For arguments sake let's take the theory of what causes thunder.The vote are cast and the "truth" is decided along the lines of discharge of electrons between clouds, etc. However I'm still of the opinion that it's caused by a big guy in the sky with a hammer called Thor.What happens to me? Am I carted off to a idealist-materialist reeducation camp to ensure I acknowledge "the truth". Also how long do I have to wait before we can have another vote?

Tim, stay out of it – I can't take your inability to discuss sensibly. I'll only end up getting banned, because I'll talk to you like one talks to a dimwit, and I shouldn't treat you like that, so I won't reply to your stupidities any further.If you don't like it, complain to the mods.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So tell me L Bird, in the "communist society" you propose, we have a world wide vote on a scientific theory. For arguments sake let's take the theory of what causes thunder.The vote are cast and the "truth" is decided along the lines of discharge of electrons between clouds, etc. However I'm still of the opinion that it's caused by a big guy in the sky with a hammer called Thor.What happens to me? Am I carted off to a idealist-materialist reeducation camp to ensure I acknowledge "the truth". Also how long do I have to wait before we can have another vote?

Tim, stay out of it – I can't take your inability to discuss sensibly. I'll only end up getting banned, because I'll talk to you like one talks to a dimwit, and I shouldn't treat you like that, so I won't reply to your stupidities any further.If you don't like it, complain to the mods.

I take it you think I'm too stupid to take part in this conversation and I should leave it to an elite, such as L Bird to take part in the debate. Who's the Leninist now. With your narcissistic retort, me thinks your chronic low self esteem is starting to show itself.Alternatively you could just answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Isn't this thread about the difference between   the Socialist Party and others political organizations ? 

[Author]

Posts