[Brian]

LBird wrote:

 It's a case of 'been there, done that', alan. Union rep, arguing with police on picket lines, ANL activity…Even joined the SWP. I soon found out that they weren't prepared to listen. It's a funny thing, that all so-called 'workers parties' say they want workers to join, and workers must be the active element in social change.But when self-confident workers, who're used to arguing with bosses and all authority, and thinking for themselves, finally make the ideological jump to 'the need for a revolution', and political organisation, actually join, they find that the so-called workers' party just won't listen to them. The parties seem to think that they're there to teach workers and tell them 'what's what', and don't realise that the boot is (or should be, according to the party's ideals) on the other foot, and the party is there to learn from and obey the workers who join. 

Clearly you have no idea, or indeed any understanding of the democratic structure of the SPGB otherwise you would have not used this caricature.  The rulebook is under the 'Members' link above. Read it then you will have a better understanding what democracy means in theory and practice.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

When will they listen to workers? The cloth-ears here are in great evidence.

Listening is a two way affair and for all parties to become enmeshed in the conversation it involves three very important pyscological social drivers for the conversation to become a learning curve for those participating.  The first driver is that the conversation must be enjoyable, for if its not people soon drift away.  The second driver is that the conversation must be interesting, both for the conversation to continue and also it's found beneficial to the social intellect.  Last but not least, although listening is a skill not to be ignored our mental capacity is geared towards a generalist approach to all conversations, both oral and written.  This generalist approach to our listening skills  means we only pick up those bits of conversation which relate to our everyday affairs and we tend to  leave the nuances and niche details to the specialists.  And with the majority of humanity being composed of generalists and not specialists we tend to switch off when a specialist subject is intoduced to the conversation and comes under scrutiny.  For when that specialist subject swamps the conversation it usually results in an end to the conversation. All three drivers were evident in this thread.  Cloth-ears not likely!

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

 You keep saying 'practice' determines 'truth'. Successful practice can be done by individuals or an elite, and thus a vote is not required.I keep saying 'voting' determines 'truth'. Successful practice requires to be validated by a vote, and thus can't be determined by either individuals or an elite. Society must determine what counts as 'truth', not simple 'successful practice'.If you agree, why not just say 'truth depends upon vote'?

Brian wrote:

Nevertheless, according to your 'theory' this amounts to being Leninist claptrap.

Yes, the belief (and it's an ideological belief) that 'experts in science' should determine 'truth' in science, is the root of Leninist politics.If you all have so much faith in elites and experts, whether in physics or astrophysics, how come working physicists say there are massive problems within science? I've given the quote so many times from Rovelli, that you probably know it now by heart.Why will no-one address these philosophical issues that physicists themselves have identified?

Are you saying that all successful practice must be validated by a vote so it determines what is 'truth' for a socialist society?Is this absolutely necessary in all cases?  If so does this mean all past scientific discoveries will have to be validated by a vote, or do we just take them at face value and thereby presume that the evidental practice is sufficient 'truth' to get on with?  Obviously, we would have to have a vote on that under your theory.What if society decided via the ballot that a vote is unnecessary where would that leave your theory?  On the other hand if society decided that a vote was necessary on every single scientific discovery would that not stop the clock on any future scientific investigation?  After all until we get to the bottom of this deep philosophical issue and problem it would not be safe to venture any further according to your parameters.Finally, the big if.  What if in the final analysis society democratically determined that not all scientific investigation needs democratic scrutiny?  What happens next?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

Yes now I can see what your problem is.  You have gone and mixed up the democratic method with the decision making process.  Like Robbo has tried to explain the democratic method comes into force when there's a conflict of interest, particulary over social policy, within the community.  Whereas the decision making process comes into play with the production of human need and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Here, once again, as I point out time after time, is the classic bourgeois ideology of the separation of the 'social' from the 'natural'.In fact, one  could interchange the use of 'democratic' with 'social', and 'decision-making' with 'natural', in the explanation above.According to Marx, this cannot be done. It results in a separation of a group from society, a group which is above society. The Theses on Feuerbach refers.Marx argued for a unified method in science, and, as I never tire of saying, I agree with Marx about this.

Brian wrote:

On the other hand the decision making process is about deciding the most efficient way of producing and distibuting human needs through inputs and outputs – in kind.  For which its unnecessary to have a democratic vote…

[my bold]Here we have the parallel with 'money', as a decider about 'most efficient way' to make decisions, outside of human, social (therefore, democratic) opinions. This is the bourgeois belief that 'efficiency' is not a matter of human judgement, but merely a technical exercise, which is best made by someone/something other than society as a whole (the latter which would imply democratic methods).

Brian wrote:

There will be conflicting opinions and theories on which is the most efficient way of production and distribution but only practice will be the deciding factor on that score.

Once again, we have the ideological belief that 'practice' determines the 'truth', rather than social theory and practice, as Marx argued for.This is nothing other than induction, 'practice and theory',  which has been entirely discounted as a scientific method for approaching 100 years. Humans know that 'knowledge' is a social product, produced by 'theory and practice'. Because we know that different theories applied to the same object (by 'practice') can produce different knowledge, we know that 'practice' cannot be the arbiter of decision-making because one society's practice (on the same nature) produces an notion of 'efficient' that is different to another society's. I've given Einstein's opinion on this issue, referring to physics and its equations.The belief in 'practice' is most closely identified with  American 'Pragmatism', which is an ideology most suited to the history of the development of US society (biological individuals in practice produce the truth, as opposed to Marx's social theory and practice).

Brian wrote:

Nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.  In fact quite the reverse for by putting this discussion into its social context we can basically figure out what will and not work in practice.

'Working in practice' is not sufficient – the geocentric theory of the solar system 'worked in practice' for one society. But we employ a different theory, the heliocentric theory, and so our practice is different. 'Practice' is a social activity, not an objective method for determining 'truth/efficent/objective', etc.In fact, the bourgeois 'wool' has been well-and truly 'pulled over your eyes', Brian.Unless we discuss science and the social production of knowlegde, and be open from the start that this is an ideological subject, in which we should be open about our own ideological perspective from the beginning.I've been trying to do this now, for 18 months. From your post, Brian, it appears that you've either not read or not understood  anything that I've said.Your views in that post are entirely ideological, not simply either 'your opinion' or 'an objective scientific opinion' which you merely reflect.

Brian wrote:

So yes there is a need for the demcratic method to be utilised in some instances, but not in all because the decision making process will suffice for everday production and distribution.

[my bold]This is dangerous talk, in a political sense.Workers should fear any party which implies that someone other than the democratically-organised proletariat will 'decide'. It's the philosophical roots of Leninism.Workers will be left to decide the 'everyday' (ie. unimportant), whilst the real issues of power in society will be in the hands of a smaller elite, expert, group ('scientists', 'cadre', 'priests', 'central committee', Uncle Joe…).

In an effort to continually confuse the issues and problems it appears you have developed distortion and put downs into a fine art.  I have never suggested or implied that practice becomes before theory. You on the other hand seemingly discount the need for practice in all instances, which means its impossible to substantiate the theory.Neither have I ever suggested or implied that the democratic method and the decision making process is not in the hands of the community as a whole.  Indeed its impossible to isolate the community from Direct Participatory Democracy in a socialist society.  Nevertheless, according to your 'theory' this amounts to being Leninist claptrap.

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

How about a little thought experiment. A test of both sides of the debate.John Oswald on the Marxist Animalism thread provided a link to a rather informative and disturbing  video on YouTube about a surgeon experimenting and ultimately performing a monkey head transplant. I assume the experiment at the time had to go to a hospital ethics committee to be sanctioned.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpmTf2kOc0What mechanisms would both LBird and his opponents on this thread propose a democratic socialist society put in place to control this type of "research"?

Good point to illustrate that such a projection would and could only amount to pure speculation on our part.  We simply don't know what specific democratic scientific method will be utilised under these circumstances.  LBird is obviously not satisfied with the broad outlines which have been sketched out and is frustrated that we will not indulge in drawing up any blueprint.  

[Brian]

Pleased to confirm I've arranged debates with the Greens and UKIP for the first Mondays in March and April in Swansea.  Details to follow.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

 However, the disagreement is over the decision making process itself with you strongly resisting any suggestion that by default this method will need to be adapatable and flexible to the conditions, the circumstances and to the tools at hand in order for it to be effective.

Brian, if a worker asked the question of the SPGB 'Will workers democratically control factories after the socialist revolution?', would you give the above answer?Because to me, any party that suggested that democracy wasn't necessarily the correct political method, and that workers would 'need to be adaptable and flexible to the conditions, etc.', would be a party that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the workers, and would go on to suggest 'party control', or the 'need for experts to make decisions', or a 'professional cadre' or a 'central committee'.Can you see my problem? 

Yes now I can see what your problem is.  You have gone and mixed up the democratic method with the decision making process.  Like Robbo has tried to explain the democratic method comes into force when there's a conflict of interest, particulary over social policy, within the community.  Whereas the decision making process comes into play with the production of human need and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.For an instance where the democratic method may be used let's suppose there is a mountain full of rare minerals which the scientific community are adamant they require to continue research on whatever.  However, that mountain is also a nature reserve full of endangered species.  The immediate community say no way are you going set up any type of extraction of these rare minerals.  Go away and find a suitable alternative!  That basically is the democratic method.On the other hand the decision making process is about deciding the most efficient way of producing and distibuting human needs through inputs and outputs – in kind.  For which its unnecessary to have a democratic vote and by default this also means the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.  There will be conflicting opinions and theories on which is the most efficient way of production and distribution but only practice will be the deciding factor on that score.Nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.  In fact quite the reverse for by putting this discussion into its social context we can basically figure out what will and not work in practice.  So yes there is a need for the demcratic method to be utilised in some instances, but not in all because the decision making process will suffice for everday production and distribution.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Since your post concerns me the most, Brian, I’ve decided to give a further response, after more consideration. You said:

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.

My assumptions are that, as socialists, we all already agree that socialism involves four things:Workers;Class consciousness;Democracy;Production.That is, socialism would involve an already developed proletarian movement, that was self-conscious of itself as a class, and was employing democratic methods of decision-making within all areas of the production of goods/services/power/authority/legitimacy/knowledge.As a corollary, there would be no elite/bosses/experts other than as class-conscious workers, there would be no consciousness outside of workers control (religion, god, for eg.), there would be no decision-making by elites/bosses/experts other than as class conscious workers, and the production of anything social (including knowledge, truth) would be by class conscious workers. Finally, all these production decisions would be democratic.To me, that would be Communism (or socialism, as the SPGB has it).Hence, for me, any discussions about the ‘future’, regarding anything whatsoever about any prospective Communism/Socialism, would inherently involve class conscious workers employing democratic methods of production.If you really believe that…

Brian wrote:

No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

…then I don’t think that we’re talking about the same meaning of ‘socialist’, Brian. If the other comrades here fundamentally reject my positions outlined above, regarding socialism, no wonder we’re having so much trouble about ‘Science for Communists?’.

Once again you are confusing the discussion by stating there will be a working class in a classless society.  When by definition one class does not exist in isolation from other classes.  Yet you also acknowledge that there will be elites/bosses/experts who are the "other" in socialist society. Other what I ask when there wont be any purpose for the elites/bosses/experts to exist?You are seemingly carrying the useless baggage of 'workers control' when community control is a more fitting description for such a society.  Yes its no wonder we are having so much trouble about 'Science for Communists'.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

Arguing now for democracy in the future, is hardly a 'blueprint'.I'd've thought that the notion that 'a Communist scientific method should be democratic' would've been the least controversial thing that I could argue, amongst comrades who're in a democratic party, but it seems to actually be the source of profound disagreement.Whilst 'no socialist agrees with that method of thinking', that is, 'democratic method', then I think we can start to grasp why 130 years after Marx's death, the socialist movement has such little purchase amongst workers.Property is safe from the grubby hands of the workers, whilst such anti-democratic sentiment is agreed amongst 'socialists' who have 'science' on their side.Well, Brian, you'll have to stick with science, as you know it. Good luck.

Of course a communist scientific method will be democratic, nobody is in disagreement there for its part and parcel of Direct Participatory Democracy where the whole of society will have democratic control over the production process and the distribution of human needs.  However, the disagreement is over the decision making process itself with you strongly resisting any suggestion that by default this method will need to be adapatable and flexible to the conditions, the circumstances and to the tools at hand in order for it to be effective.Its you whose making this thread controversial by arguing – like Robbo pointed out – that one size fits all and in the process forgetting that democracy can not be imposed and neither can the actual form of the decision making process be made to order when we are unaware of what the conditions, circumstances or the tools which will be available in a communist society.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

If this is the case how are we going to arrive at a decision on what will be the "scientific method " in a communist society?

[my bold]By voting.All decisions affecting society, within a Communist society, must be decisions which are taken democratically.If any comrades disagree with 'democratic methods', it's incumbent upon them to say what 'method' they think should be used by society.It seems to me that there are two choices open to them:a) deny democracy entirely; orb) deny that 'science' is a social activity, and so deny that 'democracy applies in this case'.In my experience, the bourgeois thinkers maintain the latter (often by the separation of physical science from social science, into 'the arts and the sciences'; Marx warns against this, and argues for a unity of scientific method, which is why he can claim Capital as a scientific treatise).Funnily enough, so do those 'socialists' who wish to prevent workers from controlling production themselves: these are the 'Leninists'. For them, their party has access to a 'scientific method' which is outside the understanding of the workers, and so workers can't be allowed to vote on something which is only within the purview of the party. 

My apologies but what I meant to say was, "how are we going to arrive at a decision 'in the here and now' on what will be the scientific method in a communist society."  And as your response states its not up to us to decide now but the future communist society.  So if we are unable to decide in the here and now what will be the scientific method in communist society and I'm absolutely certain that no poster or socialist would disagree with that, or that science and scientists will come under the democratic contol of the global communist society, how come you question our democratic credentials besides labeling us Leninists?Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brians link wrote:

If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that the public is wrong…

This is not a universal statement (or a 'truth'), but a statement about the poor educational standards within capitalist society, that we all suffer from, not least because of time constraints. The 'public' is not given the same access to science as are the elite selected as 'scientists'.

Quote:

If this is the case how are we going to arrive at a decision on what will be the "scientific method " in a communist society?

[Brian]

Just come across this article which at first glance seems to be relevant to this thread;  http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gap-between-public-and-scientific-opinion/

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

Seems like the US senate has taken LBirds advice on board:http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/229381-mcconnell-to-allow-climate-change-amendment-on-keystone-bill

Not quite.  LBird could well argue that by definition the result of the vote – not the question – is a reflection of capitalist ideology.  In short they might well agree that climate change is man-made but they have no intention of doing anything positive about it because profits comes first.From the tone of your post you seem to be missing LBird?

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

How does being gay link to rape an paedophilia? I don't see the connection.

It doesn't.I guess the only link with those and the resolution is if you classify paedophile or rapist as a sexual orientation.

Which is what Joe Public does.  I agreed that the jury is out on establishing the difference between 'orientation' and 'preference' but why should we wait when a simple addition/amendment to this Conference resolution would clarify where we stand on the issue of applying sexual discrimination when it's obviously harm against the person.

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference'

What resolution are you talking about? I can't find it.

It is the one referring to admitting homosexuals into the party.  Passed in the 90's?  

BrianWould it be possible to provide a link or paste the details here?

I've only got an iPad.  Don't worry Adam will get it.

[Author]

Posts