Why we are different
- This topic has 49 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As always, L Bird is trying to shift the forum toward his favorite toy . He is monothematic
Reminders: Rule 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.
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.
Presumably a dimwit like me gets an equal vote on string theory to a genius like L Bird?
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote: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' ofwhat they produce. And the only way within a society, like socialism, that produces democratically, is to vote.
But thats NOT explaining why they need to VOTE to determine the truth is it now?Lets for the sake of the argument go along with your statement that "only the producers call tell the truth" – what does that mean? According to you everybody is a producer in socialism: there is no non productive class. So everybody "tells the truth of what they produce", You dont need to consult society as a whole by means of a vote. All you need to do is consult your fellow producer next door. "Oi Fred, could you tell me what is the truth about String Theory, Does it hold water or is it a load of bollocks?" Fred being a producer will then give you a spot on answerBut what happens if Samantha down the road, who is also a producer, disagrees with Fred? They cant both be telling the truth can they? See, this is what is so wacky abouy your whole argument. You say only the producers can tell the truth. So why are they voting then?To vote implies the possibility of diasgreeement which you rule out by saying only the workers can tell the truth of what they produce. But clearly this is nonsense since what is true for Fred is not true for Samantha
LBird wrote: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.Marx said a lot of things but one thing he definitely did not say is that workers would vote on scientific theories as to whether they are true or not. That is LBird's absolutely unique contribution to the intellectual history of the Western World as we know it. No one but literally no one has ever come out with this idea, You are a very special kind of intellectual LBird, A true one off! Saying that ideas or theories are socially produced – which incidentally I fully I agree is the case – does NOT mean therefore that they must be subject to a democratic vote. Thats not what democracy is for. This is your problem . You dont understand what democracy is for.
LBird wrote: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.What nonsense is this??? I have ALWAYS argued that there is no such thing as some diembodied objective truth that exists somewhere out there and is discoverable by some politically neutral method. I have ALWAYS argued that there is no such thing as a value free science. My position is that the truth is a relative thing and will differ from one person to the next. You are the one who wants to objectify truth and set it in concerete on the basis of a show of hands. You are the one who has a bourgeois hankering after the objectifcation of scientific truth. You cant pin that one on me, mate I see absolutely no necessity at all for voting on the truth of scientific theories. Indeed, in a sense this is anti-scientific this view of yours. The only possible reason I can think of as to WHY you want a vote on scientitific theory is that you want to crush any possiblity of heretical views arising in opposition to orthodox views. You want complete social conformoity and compliance with the status quo. Your model of a socialist society is a herd of sheep grazing contentedly on a hillside somewhere. You cant bear the thought that people might be different and have differnet notions of the "truth". Your instincts are totalitarian, If that is not the case then why vote on a scientific theory at all? I just dont get it. No scientist worth her salt is going to be kow towed into submission to orthodoxy just becuase it has the support of the majority for the present. That is not how science develops.But that is apparently how you want science to develop
moderator1 wrote:Reminders: Rule 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.These rules do not work. What does work is a tab named deleted or blocked
robbo203 wrote:You dont need to consult society as a whole by means of a vote. All you need to do is consult your fellow producer next door. "Oi Fred, could you tell me what is the truth about String Theory, Does it hold water or is it a load of bollocks?" Fred being a producer will then give you a spot on answerBut what happens if Samantha down the road, who is also a producer, disagrees with Fred? They cant both be telling the truth can they? See, this is what is so wacky abouy your whole argument. You say only the producers can tell the truth. So why are they voting then?To vote implies the possibility of diasgreeement which you rule out by saying only the workers can tell the truth of what they produce. But clearly this is nonsense since what is true for Fred is not true for Samantha … My position is that the truth is a relative thing and will differ from one person to the next. …As I keep telling you, robbo, you're an 'individualist', and so you see 'society' as a collection of 'individuals' (Fred next door, Samantha down the road, one person and the next), and so, naturally for your ideology, you interpret 'production' to be something done by 'individuals'.But I'm a Communist and Marxist, and so I look to social groups when discussing 'production', and the interests and purposes of those social groups when they engage in their 'social theory and practice'.So, for 'individualists', 'production' is 'individual production', whereas for 'Communists', 'production' is 'social production'.These opposed ideological bases of ours lead us to differing conceptions of the nature of production, and how it is controlled. And this further leads to issues about whether 'power' is 'individual', 'elite' or 'social'.Socialists are concerned about social power and who wields it, and a subset of this is the social production of 'science'. Because 'science' is powerful, its control is of great concern to those who wish to build for a social revolution against the ruling class, who employ their 'science' to keep power out of the hands of the masses, and who build a socio-natural world of an elite making.Since you don't recognise these categories and political issues, because the world is made of 'individuals' for you, then these concerns are essentially meaningless to you (and, in fact, are seen as a 'danger' to the elite individuals who do science, in your ideological world).To you, 'democracy in truth production' is dangerous, whereas to democrats, it is essential.
LBird wrote: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.The TRUTH is LBird you always resort to abuse and insults when it is revealed just how stupid you are by someone with higher intellectual ability Why don't we have a vote on your stupid theory? Then we will have arrived at the TRUTH.
LBird wrote:As I keep telling you, robbo, you're an 'individualist', and so you see 'society' as a collection of 'individuals' (Fred next door, Samantha down the road, one person and the next), and so, naturally for your ideology, you interpret 'production' to be something done by 'individuals'.But I'm a Communist and Marxist, and so I look to social groups when discussing 'production', and the interests and purposes of those social groups when they engage in their 'social theory and practice'.So, for 'individualists', 'production' is 'individual production', whereas for 'Communists', 'production' is 'social production'.These opposed ideological bases of ours lead us to differing conceptions of the nature of production, and how it is controlled. And this further leads to issues about whether 'power' is 'individual', 'elite' or 'social'.Socialists are concerned about social power and who wields it, and a subset of this is the social production of 'science'. Because 'science' is powerful, its control is of great concern to those who wish to build for a social revolution against the ruling class, who employ their 'science' to keep power out of the hands of the masses, and who build a socio-natural world of an elite making.Since you don't recognise these categories and political issues, because the world is made of 'individuals' for you, then these concerns are essentially meaningless to you (and, in fact, are seen as a 'danger' to the elite individuals who do science, in your ideological world).To you, 'democracy in truth production' is dangerous, whereas to democrats, it is essential.But you have still not explained why the global population should vote upon thousands upon thousands of scientific theories. WHY LBird? What is the point of the vote on this matter? Workers democratic control of production I can perfectly understand but "workers democratic control of scientific truth" is just plain bonkers. And I wont even go down the road of asking you how you propose to logistically organise this global vote not just once but thousands of times becuase I know you won't answer my question. It will be too embarrassing even to try. Also, let me just point out while you are labeling me an "individualist" that your own position has got nothing to do with Marxism or Marx. Nowehere did Marx ever suggest that scientifc truth should be subject to a democratic vote Marx like me would agree that science is indeed a social product but just because it is a social product doesnt mean you have to vote on it!. The laptop you are wtiting on is a social product, Do you think the global population should have a democratic vote on whether you deserve to have this laptop? No the theory you advance is not Marxist but Birdist. You are a Birdist not really a Marxist… As for my being an individualust, this is wrong LBird. I dont see society as just a "collection of individuals", Truth be told I subscribe to "emergence theory" which, as you will know, means that while society" supervenes" on individuals in the sense that you cant have society without individuals, you cannot nevertheless reduce society to individuals. Individuals constitute society and are constituted by society, Its a two way thing. What about you LBird? Do you think it is a two way thing? Or do you think that only society exists but not the individuals comprising it and that you and I conversing like this dont actually exist but are just a figment of society's imagination? Whats your view LBird. Do you exist? Cos, if you dont, I might be wasting my time trying to converse with you…
spgb policy on trade unions is unique…. and just read a online swp pdf version on trade unions and could notice the difference….
The International Communist Current, a Leninist organization in disguise viewed by the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Are we Leninist ? Just read their principles versus our principles and you will see the difference. The best way to see why we are different is by applying their principles to our principles https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1977/no-878-october-1977/old-fallacies-look-international-communist-current
The SPGB is different. Other groups sensibly dismiss anyone spouting this sort of nonsense as a troll, a flamer or just plain nuts. The SPGB engages with them to their heart's content. Incroyable!
KAZ wrote:The SPGB is different. Other groups sensibly dismiss anyone spouting this sort of nonsense as a troll, a flamer or just plain nuts. The SPGB engages with them to their heart's content. Incroyable!We have had debates with Liberal candidates too:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1950s/1950/no-547-march-1950/debate-liberal-candidate
We have had debates with Trotskyists :http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1948/no-528-august-1948/debate-trotskyists-russia-capitalist
A debate between the World Socialist Party of the US ( WSPUS companion party of the WSM ) and the Independent Communist Labour Leaguehttp://www.wspus.org/1938/01/workers-socialist-party-vs-independent-communist-labour-league-1938/
Have we ever supported this type of movement ? https://redguardsaustin.wordpress.comWe have never asked workers to confront with riles a force stronger than them which is the state. Most guerrillas groups have been wiped out by the capitalists forces, and others have been forced to sign peace agreement or to become part of the state apparatus, or they have taken the state by a coup. Voting for socialism ( Not reformism ) is a stronger force at the present, http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament. What is wrong with using parliament ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.