Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Sad that our companion party, the WSP(NZ), has almost disappeared from the political scene.The MFP certainly demonstrates that there is an audience in New Zealand for our message.Is our problem not one of the content but how we transmit our ideas? I recall at one conference Cde, Johnson of Swansea Br. repeatedly regaled us with references to the USP…Unique Selling Point…That we have to discover what is in our publicity and campaigns resonates with our audience and results in a receptive hearing. I think we are still struggling to identify the core elements of our propaganda that offers opportunities for us to build upon.
The anecdotal experience from my venture on Quora is suggesting the USP in order of preference are:1. A moneyless society2. The corruption of democracy.3. The cause of war.This seems to suggest that people are slowly but surely coming around to the idea that money is the cause of global problems. The human nature argument rarely shows it's ugly face, but the confusion over the meaning of socialism or communism relentlessly continues unabated. After 3 months on Quora what I'm finding is the number of views my answers are attracting is way beyond my expectations. Over 100,000 views, 900 up votes, 29 followers, and endless comments.Just imagine that instead of 3 regular socialist contributors on Quora what an impact 10 would have!
mcolome1 wrote:Brian wrote:It seems some users have failed to read the OP of this thread and would rather attempt to kill the messenger?"I'd like to see if we can get enough support to do a comprehensive critique of holocracy as a group. Here's a link to the holocracy constitutio. http://www.holacracy.org/constitution . It's rather complex reading and maybe not the best way to understand Holocracy, but given the people here are pretty fluent in constitutional document type reading, maybe our SPGB community doesn't need to practice Holocracy to understand it?"The problem is not the software. I have used different of software that are much better than that. The problem is that the forum is being used for somehting else. Just go and they a look at the survey. We do not need a survey in this type of forum. We have what we need it just has to be imporved, we can use yahoo too, and it will do the same job, We have peoples at the SPGB who are doing a pretty good job with our website. That is all what we need
You don't have to complete the survey to offer a "comprehensive critique of holocracy". I personally, would like to see it on here rather than hidden away in a survey. However remember such a critique should contain the good and bad points of holocracy.
It seems some users have failed to read the OP of this thread and would rather attempt to kill the messenger?"I'd like to see if we can get enough support to do a comprehensive critique of holocracy as a group. Here's a link to the holocracy constitutio. http://www.holacracy.org/constitution . It's rather complex reading and maybe not the best way to understand Holocracy, but given the people here are pretty fluent in constitutional document type reading, maybe our SPGB community doesn't need to practice Holocracy to understand it?"
moderator2 wrote:I think i have to agree this poster has idiosyncratic views and ways of expressing them that generally does not accord with the general opinion of socialists within the WSM i refer folk to this insightful post on one aspect of his argument. http://class-warfare.blogspot.com/2007/09/i-was-born-facially-disfigured-with.htmlWhich is all the more reason for socialists to challenge and rebut such idiosyncratic views. Surely, this is the very reason for this sites existence?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:HollyHead wrote:"Power is a great aphrodisiac" (Henry Kissinger) Perhaps it's the sex they're after?What does that say about people who join the SPGB?
They are so stressed out gaining the politcal power they require a group hug and some sexual cohesion?
ALB wrote:Just noticed that we get mentioned in the entry on capitalism in wikipedia. The reference given for the statement below is an article in the August 2011 Socialist Standard:Quote:Socialists maintain that, although capitalism is superior to all previously existing economic systems (such as feudalism or slavery), the contradiction between class interests will only be resolved by advancing into a completely new social system of production and distribution in which all persons have an equal relationship to the means of production.[209]Click on the 209. The article can be found here.
Thank's for that. That's going to be an excellent source for rebutting on sites like Quora.
Sympo wrote:What makes Capitalism a system of slavery? The fact that capitalists must pay people less than the value they create or the fact that people have to have jobs where surplus value is extracted from the workers by the capitalists in order for the system to work?Am I perhaps creating a false dichotomy or whatever?Both. They complement each other.
robbo203 wrote:At bottom, democracy is about the resolution of conflicting views and interests and presupposes that we give equal moral weight to everyone in the decision making process. That is to say, democracy presupposes equality which in a socialist society springs from our equal relationship to the means of wealth production. So really democracy is about to resolve conflicting or potentially conflicting objectives that impact on the way in which resources are allocated. It is not about the validity of scientific theories or the particular lifestyle we may chose to adopt. But there is another aspect to this which has been overlooked. While we talk about democratic control of the means of production, what about the process of producing wealth itself in a socialist society? In my view the great majority of decisions impacting upon the allocation of resources simply do not need any kind of democratic mandate at all. They are grounded in the spontaneous operation or automaticity of the production process itself based on a self regulating, system of stock control. Factory A does not need to convene a democratic meeting to decide how to respond to a request for more stock from Distribution store X. It just does it. The democratic mandate has to do with the parameters within which such automatic decisions are made, not the decisions themselvesThe OP goes further than just discussing "the process of producing wealth itself in a socialist society". Indeed it directly implies the potential for increasing wealth in a socialist society via the application of a new scientific method is taken as a given. Nonetheless, the application of "democratic control" also implies that this potential for the advancement of science will by necessity involve certain 'control mechanisms' are under consideration. So there's a balance between what is needed and what isn't needed to increase the social wealth.
Wez wrote:I think you over estimate most scientists concern with the philosophy of science (what constitutes scientific method etc.). Most are wage slaves like the rest of us who just perform alienated intellectual labour for their masters with no ideological questions asked.In all honesty this is failing to respond to the OP. Personally, I'm not that really concerned about the present scientific method or even the new scientific method which socialism will herald in. Indeed, I'm staying focused on the implications and consequences contained in the last two paragraphs of my last posting #19.
Wez wrote:After some study of the subject it would appear, to me, that there never has been a consensus on what actually constitutes the 'scientific method'. The book Against Method by Paul Feyerabend provides a fascinating insight into its development as a coherent (or incoherent) philosophy.Couple of issues and problems with Feyerabend's account on the evolution of science it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method . He argues from the standpoint that the present "scientific method" is not a universal whole and that different fields of science use and apply different methodology to their specific subject. This may well be the case, but not I suspect to the extent to which he descibes it. And let's not forget that there is a consensus amongst all scientists in that they all agree even their method is subject to change when new evidence is produced which proves another methodology is more viable.Whereas, we take it as a given that a socialist society will introduce a different "scientific method" and the application of science will be under the democratic control of the associated producers. Or like robbo puts it on another thread: Democracy is about practical decisions that have a practical bearing on our lives in terms of the allocation of resources to certain desired objectives. It is not about deciding the scientific truth of this or that theory. That is a complete waste of time and resources and its utterly pointless.If this is the case how do the majority ensure the decision making process is up to the task for agreeing what is practical and what isn't practical? What will be the benchmarks, standards, regulations and rules which will define and allocate resources under the new "scientific method"?.
Wez wrote:I think democracy is applicable in terms of the allocation of resources to particular scientific research. That 'investment' in pure science should continue is essential. It's difficult to conceive of the scientific method itself changing as I've always thought of it as potentially subversive of bourgeois ideology when practiced correctly. The scientists themselves will be free of reactionary ideology which, presumably, causes confusion and frustration within our culture. The commercial pressure to manipulate experimental data results will also disappear.I also agree democracy would have to be applicable when allocating the resources to particular scientific research. But what would be the benchmark for such research? Once the subversive cloak is no longer necessary and the true complexity of science finally revealed and the possiibility of combining the natural sciences with the social sciences comes that bit nearer the methodology plus the system analysis is going to be radically overhauled.I have to stress that is my opinion and contains no scientific validity whatsoever. Scientists are not very fond of "opinions".https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
LBird wrote:Since I'm here, though, bit of advice to Brian.Whose 'scientific method' are you about to discuss? Or are you starting from the socio-historically specific assumption that the method of the bourgeoisie is universal?If you are assuming the non-historic, non-social, 'scientific method', you should all be open with one another that you're all starting from that ideological assumption.The change in the scientific method is taken as a given in a socialist society, and not before. Thus, the old and new scientific methods will be face to face in the pre-revolutionary period I would think? So your "bit of advice" is not required, thank you very much. But this change itself in the post-revolutionary period will be a challenge for the community in relation to the allocation of resources. For I presume with the freedom of technological advance no longer hindered by costs and bourgeoisie ideology the scientist will have a field in coming forward with all their pet theories.Such a state of affairs in my estimation requiries a system analysis on what is immediately necessary and what isn't immediately necessary. This implies a system of governance based on an universal code of regulation and rules would be of immediate concern in the pre-revolutionary period. However, how would the decision making process for this be set up, and would such a panel consist purely of scientists or a mixture of lay-persons and scientists? Obviously such challenges and questions are presuming that Direct Participatory Democracy can be applied to the scientific method and the scientific community as a whole. Nevertheless, in that regard I'm just using some critical thinking and the philosophy of science to test the waters, so to speak.
ALB wrote:What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.An OP which is implying there are limits to the application of democracy is I assume discussing socialist ideas. For instance, we can take it as a given that applying the scientific method for the creation of WMD is a nono in socialism. But how would a socialist society ensure the environmental policy is not in conflict with the scientific method or vice versus?
LBird wrote:But now, you've jettisoned any talk of Marx, and the social origin of theories, and moved to 'system analysis', rather than 'social theory and practice', and claim that 'practice and theory' (ie. 'induction', the unthinking,uncritical acceptance of 'what exists' and simply 'doing') is also an acceptable scientific method. Hmmm… back to the drawing board, eh?This seems to be the case for yourself for your full response is stating your unwillingness to re-evaluate your claim which I advised you to do."Ok now lets put this reasoning into the historical context of how Marx reached this conclusion earlier than Engels. To do this you need to take a step back and take a further look at your claim, gained from the quotes of Marx that in actual fact he was an idealist-materialist. And I'm sure you will find that Marx was just making tentative suggestions on what elements provided a complete picture of system analysis.And knowing Marx I'm also sure he was not foolish to put himself in the dogmatic position of claiming that idealism-materialism was the key methodology. He explored that possibility but eventually he reached the conclusion that there was far, far more to a system analysis than even he, Engles, et al (and since) were able to uncover. And only a socialist society would be in a position to discover what this system analysis involved and consisted of."This failure to re-examine and re-assess your claim, plus the constant assertion that 'social theory and practice' is the end all and be all of everything is a classic example of what Marx an Engels warned us to avoid like the plague.Has for your reference to the "induction methodology" it appears you are forgetting that deduction requires induction to compare and contrast between what is and what isn't.
LBird wrote:I can only reiterate that I can't see why you think we disagree, on the substantive issue of 'social production'.Perhaps we'd argue about Engels, if we had to, but I'm content to register my general agreement with your position, which I take to be that there is no 'neutral method' of science, which is only available to an elite, and so the social production of 'scientific knowledge' is amenable to workers' democracy. That is, the class conscious workers (pre-rev.; post-rev, the associated producers) can elect their 'truth' and determine their 'reality'.At long last we seem to be getting somewhere positive, in that we've reached an agreement that the actual design of the democratic structure and the decision making process will be down to the majority in socialism and this well eventually determine the system analysis. And also Marx and Engles had reached an understanding that their methodology was incomplete.Ok now lets put this reasoning into the historical context of how Marx reached this conclusion earlier than Engels. To do this you need to take a step back and take a further look at your claim, gained from the quotes of Marx that in actual fact he was an idealist-materialist. And I'm sure you will find that Marx was just making tentative suggestions on what elements provided a complete picture of system analysis.And knowing Marx I'm also sure he was not foolish to put himself in the dogmatic position of claiming that idealism-materialism was the key methodology. He explored that possibility but eventually he reached the conclusion that there was far, far more to a system analysis than even he, Engles, et al (and since) were able to uncover. And only a socialist society would be in a position to discover what this system analysis involved and consisted of.Right let's now fast forward to socialism to try and visualise how a complete system analysis will work in theory and practice or practice and theory for when you use system analysis it's constantly evolving and eventually it becomes immaterial which comes first – the chicken or the egg!. For the point is to utilise all the productive forces at your disposal to uncover what is and what isn't.So what do these productive forces consist of? Well firstly there's the division of labour, then there's technology and the capacity for critical thinking and critical reasoning to go off the scale. There are of course other elements of the productive forces but just these elements alone imply and suggest that there will be millions of people who will only have a sectional interest on fitting the jigsaw together to arrive at a system analysis, in the knowledge this is a social task of such huge proportions that team work and project management, plus constant scrutiny of the findings are essential requirements to arrive at a conclusion which is acceptable and appropriate to the rest of society via the decision making process for establishing what is and what isn't. Obviously, all the contributory factors uncovered by Marx and Engles will be taken into consideration when a conclusion is reached and an outcome is arrived at but these alone will not be the ultimate and only contributionary facors taken into consideration.Hence, robbos dig at the impracticalities of your claim for theory and practice. The truth of the matter is we'll all be doing our little bit to bring about a system analysis which a majority are comfortable with. Until that day arrives the constant wangling between party members and non-members will only be scratching at the surface appearances and revealing nothing of a substantial nature and even less on fundamentals.Hope this helps.
