Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian, rape and paedophilia are not 'sexual preferences', so they don't come under the conference resolution.Quite. But that's not how Joe Public would perceive it which concerns myself.
SocialistPunk wrote:I would be interested to know where I advocate some sort of "plan"? I simply think that as human beings and members of the working class, the SPgb should not shy away from subjective human issues, as if the revolution must only be an objective process. You can't seperate messy human issues from a socialist revolution. This issue was sparked off with YMS stating the obvious about being against rape, yet when myself and Vin ask further questions, no one answers. But you are more than willing to jump on a single word I use rather than discuss the awkward issues being addressed here. Talk about distraction.The "plan" I refer to is not some "five year plan", with all answers to every issue, but a Party flaw when it comes to such issues as this that YMS stated.Young Master Smeet wrote:Now, at first, I wondered what a Socialist Speaker could say on the question: after all, we would have no party policy on the matter. But that sort of null answer is poor.So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer? The answer would be silence or worse still some fudged excuse. Hence a flaw in the "plan" to attract supporters and potential members, because if the SPgb is seen to condone such anti human behaviour, what message does it send?
Good point for the party has buried its head in the sand on this issue ever since Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference' which inadvertably opens the door to paedophiles.
ALB wrote:It's just been announced that Greater Manchester is to have an elected mayor like Greater London:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/03/manchester-directly-elected-mayorBy co-incidence at our Autumn Delegate Meeting a couple of weeks ago, we discussed the possibility of contesting the London mayor elections in May 2016.The discussion was not just about the practical difficulties (£10,000 deposit, 330 signatories) but about the principle. Some members felt strongly that we should not contest such elections at all on the grounds that mayors are leaders and we are opposed to all leadership. Here's an extract from the draft minutes:Quote:S. (West Midlands): his branch had doubts as wasn't the mayor a leader?D. (East Anglia): absolutely opposed to standing for mayor as this was a leadership post while we were opposed to all leadership.B. (non-delegate): contesting the mayor position would undermine our anti-leadership stance and could be used against us.J. (Swansea): if elected, any socialist mayor would be under party and working class control and would have to follow their instructions, so would not be able to act as a leader, only as a delegate.P. (non-delegate): MPs could be regarded as leaders too.It is true that we did denounce the proposal for an elected mayor in London as undemocratic but is not contesting them really a question of principle? And a principle that would apply to our US comrades too, preventing them from contesting not just mayor, but governor and presidential elections there? Which, incidentally, never worried the DeLeonist SLP of America there.An organisation calling itself the "Independent Working Class Association" did stand a candidate for mayor of London in 2004 (and got 9452 votes, or 0.5%). I thought they'd gone out of existence but apparently they still exist: http://www.iwca.info/
If the party decided to contest any mayoral election it would be for exactly the same purpose for why we contest any election: 1. It's a means of promoting the case for socialism. 2. It provides a benchmark on support. 3. It underlines our determination on using the ballot to capture political power.If we can overcome the practical difficulties contesting the London mayor elections is proportionally cheaper than contesting the European elections.
LBird wrote:To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.Could well be due to social conditioning promoting a dependency culture on Leaders?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff. No need for dots there.Not quite. I would re-phrase so it reads 'Epistemology is the study of how we come to understand stuff.’
ALB wrote:(c) that this is something they are going to have to do for themselves by their own actions (nobody is going to do this or could do it for them);(d) that democracy is the way to decide what to do.As to epistemology, to be perfectly honest I think that naive realism for all its philosophical inadequacy will do. At least it works for daily living. And making that better is what's socialism is all about.So we are not missionaries then out to convert 'stupid workers' to their better interests?
Just found this:Platform of the massesPLM advances a transitional program that represents the dismantling of the rotten capitalist system and its replacement by socialism. It consists of a set of key demands pertaining to the immediate economic reforms and political reforms that party will campaign for.It includes the nationalization of the basic industries and services, such as electricity, oil and water; the provision of basic needs of the masses, such as land, decent housing, education, jobs, and health; the establishment of a genuine government of the masses; and others.
SocialistPunk wrote:A question party members may be able to shed light on. There seem to be a few groups advocating similar aims as the WSM, is this something new or has it always been an idea ebbing and flowing through the last century? Hopefully we are on the cusp of a major shift in peoples consciousness, perhaps driven by the necessities of environmental sustainability and survival of our species rather than a political argument.Imagine if all such movements, WSM, TZM, TVP, PLM and others could be united under an umbrella of commonality. The desire to achieve a moneyless, leaderless, global community of democratic common ownership, that could responsibly sustain our development as a species well into the future.That would be a force to be reckoned with.The idea of common ownership, production for use and free access always has ebbed and flowed and attracted some thousands in the industrialised countries. What's different now its attracting tens of thousands globally. Willy Morris comes to mind: "One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common maybe foolish, but can hardly be mad; ten men sharing an idea begin to act, a hundred draw attention as fanatics, a thousand and society begins to tremble, a hundred thousand and there is war abroad, and why only a hundred thousand? Why not a hundred million and peace up[on the earth? You and I who agree together, it is we who have to answer that question."The idea itself is the commonality, sadly a commonality of the means is in dispute and will remain so for some time. When the neccesity of a political challenge is posed on the TZM UK facebook its always been met with a mixed reception. Which in truth, despite TZM offically rejecting politics, illustrates their supporters are split over the issue.Not having the time to spare to sign up for TVP facebook I have no idea how TVP supporters have taken to the idea of the neccesity of a political challenge. However, the sooner we contact the PLM the better.Any further links yet?
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:The general agreement on the question of democracy controlling science for communists in a socialist society has always been a 'Yes' on this thread.You must be reading a different thread to me, Brian.
Brian wrote:For its socialist principles which will govern – in the last anaysis – the scientific method and the decision making process for scientists to follow in a socialist society.[my bold]This is an incorrect formulation.It should read "For it's socialist principles which will govern – in the last anaysis – the scientific method and the decision making process for workers to follow in a socialist society. "You have to get away from this notion of 'scientists' doing science, who, in your formulation, will be the ones to interpret these 'principles'.The principle is workers' democracy.We will build a society in which science is open to all, and all who choose to participate in science, will determine science and its principles.There won't be a set of 'principles' which another section of society then have the power to interpret. This is to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to the other, which Marx warns us against.Socialism/Communism will be a society in which we do control everything – there will be no 'minority' throwing our principles back in our faces. If we don't like it, we change the principle – we don't allow a minority to dictate to us. If the minority don't like the way the principle is interpreted for them (ie. for any worker/scientist), then they can attempt to get the principle changed democratically.FWIW, I still think that your separating of 'workers' from 'scientists' is the root of your problem. During the revolutionary process, most scientists (who are already workers) will have become, like most other workers, Communists.Thus, they will naturally put 'politics' ahead of 'physics' in their considerations, and the problem of a group of 'elite physicists' who don't hold with Communist politics, trying to struggle with 'principles' of which they don't agree with, won't be a problem.Science will be democraticised, unified, and thus humanised.
FWIW "scientists" is a job/occupation classification whilst "workers" is a classification describing a class in a stratified society. Need I point out that the use of such a term in a socialist society would cause confusion for it presumes there is a class of non-workers?Other than that its still not safe to assume that along with the majority on this thread you are in agreement with the contents of #879? One minute you accept the use of a set of principles and the next you reject them, "Any disputes are referred to a democratic body, not a 'set of principles'." which is failing to acknowledge that the democratic body will have no recourse other than to refer to the set of principles. What is it going to be?
Having realised the implications of sticking to a set of principles as outlined in #879 you are now seemingly trying to wiggle from their consequences by attempting to disassociate principles from democracy. Can't be done for they go hand in hand. Democracy without a set of principles means nothing.The general agreement on the question of democracy controlling science for communists in a socialist society has always been a 'Yes' on this thread. Which I reiterated and outlined in #879. And to which you seemingly agreed with. But now you are saying forget all that and move onto the 'how' when the 'how' has already been explained in #879.I doubt if you'll get much further with this thread by attempting to sideline democratic principles. For its socialist principles which will govern – in the last anaysis – the scientific method and the decision making process for scientists to follow in a socialist society. Like I've mentioned previously its what occurrs after the ballot which will determine the outcome of democracy and without a set of principles drawn up before hand by socialists we will all be fumbling in the dark wondering what comes next!No thanks! That's not my take on preparing for the future society.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:LBird wrote:So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?That depends on whether or not you are referring to my post #897? I think you will find that most posters here are in broad agreement with that for it describes the outline and not the nuances.And as we are finding out its the nuances as described by yourself which is causing the fallout.
It's a simple question.I've argued constantly that science should be subject to our control, in every aspect, including the validation of its 'findings' and the permitting of 'avenues of research'.
If its a simple question why do you constantly refuse to provide a simple answer? If you had taken the trouble to digest what I had written in #897 the principles themselves would cover "should be subject to our control, in every aspect, including the validation of its 'findings' and the permitting of 'avenues of research'."
LBird wrote:So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?That depends on whether or not you are referring to my post #897? I think you will find that most posters here are in broad agreement with that for it describes the outline and not the nuances.And as we are finding out its the nuances as described by yourself which is causing the fallout.
I have always been under the impression that democracy really begins once the ballot has been counted. Which in my opinion means the vote itself is only the touchstone for democracy in principle and in practice. Thus the vote on "science and communists" would be about the set of principles the majority have decided to follow regarding the decision making process on what actually constitutes the scientific method and how it works in practice. Much like the DofP set out by the WSM/SPGB.What follows next is determined by those set of principles, but in practice they are open to debate as and when circumstances change in the light of new evidence which reveal that in practice the principles either needs a bit of polishing or are abandoned all together. Which in the case of the latter effectively means the principles have to be rewritten to reflect the new knowledge, understanding and observations revealed by the old set of principles.Nevertheless, democracy can only work when the technical decisions made on a day to day basis only come under scrutiny when they are in breach of these principles. In most cases the technical decisions will follow the principles in order to produce a given result, and conversely produce the wrong result when the principles are not followed. Which in effect means that there is no need for society in general to dot every i or to cross every t in respect of the technical decisions being made but just ensure the principles are being followed.On the other hand, when it comes to determining social policy e.g. how many mountains shall we destroy in order to produce x amount of houses, ships, tools, food, etc. Such decisions would obviously resort to the ballot box for they are policies which are determining the future human needs and not the present human needs.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:In order to bolster your hypothesis you make the claim that Marx puts theory first…I'm not sure where you're going with this, Brian.Don't you agree that 'Marx puts theory first'? I thought that that claim was uncontroversial.
You would think this claim is uncontroversial because you've become myopic to all the arguments put to you regarding materialism versus idealism. Marx not only turned Hegel the right way up but in doing so also turned Descartes contention "I think, therefore I am" the right way around i.e." I am, therefore I think". This materialistic perspective is then reinforced by Marx with his statement on, "Its not mans ideas which determine his circumstances, but rather his circumstances which determine his ideas."Which when considered together unreservably places matter in its rightful place – ahead of the queue – in terms of ideas springing from the practical observation of matter in motion. Whether its visible or invisible to the naked eye, or any of the other senses.Just because the term 'Theory and Practice' is in common usage and implies ideas have primacy over matter, in reality – and in practical terms – our work starts from what we observe in our environment, in respect of the current knowledge and understanding we have of the environment in practice.Like I mentioned previously you are searching for the unity of opposites. And you have yet to convince me that your hypothesis of a unity between idealism and materialism is on sound ground. For instance, I have yet to see any unity between the impossible and the possible. Any most probably never will.But not being a Leninist I do know that once what was thought impossible becomes possible revolution is on the agenda. And that's good enough for me. Of course I agree with you that this scenario on revolution entails socialist thought becoming the dominant form of mindset in respect of the scientific and academic communities. But being dismissive of all scientific and academic thought, just because according to you they are all ideologically unsound in terms of class bias, is a misjudgement and unproven.
