Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SB_UK wrote:There may be some decisions to be made – but they'll all be technical and can be sorted by techno-types pre-calibrated to select the best possible solution.
What makes you assume and conclude that all decisions will be of a technical nature? Does this mean that even policy decisions are not even considered to be of any importance for they will also be "sorted by techno-types pre-calibrated to select the best possible solution"?
SocialistPunk wrote:Brian wrote:Nevertheless, to even attempt to make the case that all science is ideologically biased towards the profit motive would in my estimation not only be throwing the baby out with the bath water, for its also seemingly proposing we reject all science because it is "class based" (LBird #1.)? When the simple fact is that the revolutionary process will demand we will have no alternative other than to use the tools we have to hand which by default includes the scientific method as we know it and understand it, and despite its class bias.I've checked out LBirds opening post quite a few times over the last few days and I've done it once more today. But try as hard as I can, I just can't seem to find any reference to proposing to reject all science.What we have here is assumption.
You are right the opening post is not directly stating that "all science is ideologically biased towards the profit motive". I never said it did, but nevertheless what I did infer is that the discusion is "seemingly" heading that way due to the conclusion that science is class based. My post was merely pointing out that there are two sides to the coin when referrring to ideas being class based, or that science in particular is dependant on support from capitalism, or that science only investigates fields which expand profit margins. It does in most cases do all of this but there are examples like the climate change debate which illustrate that there are certain scientists who go against the grain.Hence, not all fields of scientific investigation are ideologically biased towards capitalism. And to treat it as such is not in our interest.
In light of this very lengthy discussion and the very tortuous route it is taking to establish whether or not science and the scientific method is dominated or contaminated by the ideology of capitalism this article maybe of interest: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/12/destroying-science/ The article clearly illustrates that not all of the scientific community are strictly speaking followers of capitalist ideology and despite the death threats and allegations of criminality they rigidly stand by the visible evidence and the mathematical data collected over the last 100 years on climate change. This being the case is it any wonder why socialist insist on applying the social analysis to the question of science under capitalism in much the same way as we apply it to economics, the market, globalisation, et al? Of course there is good and bad science but we neither shy away from the fact that even the 'good science' has had unintended consequences and brought about 'bad' side effects. And even though in a socialist society the issue of an ideologically biased scientist will no longer exist under the scrutiny of Direct Participatory Democracy, we'll still be confronted with the problem of unintended consequences and 'bad' side effects being produced by natural law and human dynamics impacting on the environment.Nevertheless, to even attempt to make the case that all science is ideologically biased towards the profit motive would in my estimation not only be throwing the baby out with the bath water, for its also seemingly proposing we reject all science because it is "class based" (LBird #1.)? When the simple fact is that the revolutionary process will demand we will have no alternative other than to use the tools we have to hand which by default includes the scientific method as we know it and understand it, and despite its class bias. Which in itself implies we will be discerning in what scientific tools we actually use to bring about the end of capitalism.This of course will be the result of the battle for ideas and the relevance of science to the revolutionary process itself in respect of preparing and planning for the distribution of human needs.
SocialistPunk wrote:A bit of info seeking about taxation. Does anybody have any info, proof etc that the burden of taxation falls on the capitalist class? I've been searching on the net for any figures etc and can't seem to find anything through the minefield of info.Many years ago I done some research into who actually pays for social security. It took many months but eventually got a result which not suprisingly confirmed that the payments of national insurance by the working class did not even cover the cost of administration of social security, let alone the payment of benefits. If I remember correctly the direct taxation payed by the workers did not amount to much either.However, the figures you seem to be after wont just cover social security costs but also a whole host of other costs for administrating the system e.g. central and local government (including the NHS), quangos, grants and subsidies, etc. You need to go to the General Revenue Account and calculate what is taken in taxation and national insurance from the working class and then compare this figure with the total taxation on profits and high incomes and then find out what is payed out to run the system by the state. The payment of VAT could be a minefield. Best of luck with that!I think you'll find only a rough figure, even for an accountant, is possible to arrive at . But common sense tell's me that its impossible for the workers to pay for their own maintenance.
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian wrote:Our attack on the SWP focused on how they decided to deal with the allegations not on the act of rape itself.I am talking about the same thing. There has been a massive coverup in this case. I think there is a lot more energy used attacking the SWP than attacking the Tories.The party would have a lot more appeal if it spent more time attacking the actions of Tories and LibDems.
Agreed, but until there is some substance to the allegations of a cover up by the political establishment best if we stay well clear of the sleaze brigade. For no section of the community is going to be squeaky clean on the issue of child abuse. The stats on the subject estimate a figure of below 5% in the general population as perpetrators, and I have no idea how that figure was arrived at. Nonetheless, even if its 2.5 it means we are living in a very sick society.
Vin Maratty wrote:As the forum has been discussing rape and the SWP then I think it is fair game to attack openly capitalist parties for their alleged abuse of childrenhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-child-abuse-inquiry-theresa-may-under-fire-over-appointment-of-lady-butlersloss-9605847.html Is this subject really of interest to socialists? If it is not then why attack the SWP and not the conservative party?Our attack on the SWP focused on how they decided to deal with the allegations not on the act of rape itself.
Yes the Media Committee. The I.C. is also on the lookout on ways of promoting the web site and forum. Do you have any ideas?
J Surman wrote:"Who did Piketty write his book for?"Couldn't it be for himself? Expecting good returns – or am I being just too trite?"I did deliberately aim the book at the general reader," says Piketty as we begin our conversation, "and although it is obviously a book which can be read by specialists too, I wanted the information here to be made clear to everyone who wants to read it.'
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:Wow LBird you've just gone and written a brill review, unfortunately my opinion – like your post – is ideologically biased and falls at the first hurdle.But 'ideology' is not a 'hurdle', to be either 'fallen over' or, perhaps you are suggesting, to be best avoided entirely.'Ideology' is the inescapable enabler, the horse which we ride, to jump the hurdles.I openly give the name of my horse, because I employ the proper scientific method in the horse race that is science.Those who refuse to name their horse are not actually running the horse race on foot, they are just pretending. Believe me, they're on a horse!Come on, Communist! We're in the lead!
Brian wrote:Nevertheless, it clarifies it lot of the points you have been making over several months. Just hope when the review does appear in next months Socialist Standard it carries a disclaimer along the lines you are suggesting.Well, I would expect the the periodical title of Socialist Standard would give a clue as to the mount!But, yes, perhaps the reviewer will make explicit their particular hobby horse.Is your horse named 'positivism', Brian?
Your further clarification on the need to be open on declaring our ideological bias before using:The proper scientific method (and it always has been this, the positivists were pretending otherwise) is:1 raw data (ie. everything, everywhere, at every time)2 human social consciousness (including ideology and theories)3 selection from ‘everything, etc.’ based on human parameters4 presentation of pre-chosen ‘facts’ (allegedly ‘raw data’, but in reality ‘pre-cooked data’)5 implications, lessons drawn (the second ‘active’ stage)is how I've tried to approach any subject area which catches my interest. Hence my signature is to underline what I'm after are "positive outcomes" which are not based on observations but quantifiable results which makes an appreciative difference in the number of workers who have come to accept the case for the need for socialism.Just to keep on thread. I appears imo Piketty is just another apologist for capitalism by providing the data which fits his theory that 'the trickle down theory' is not working and is not going to work – ever – so we are stuck with capitalism whether we like it or not. The danger is if we accept some of his data as helpful to our case this could be misconstrued that we are endorsing positivism.
Wow LBird you've just gone and written a brill review, unfortunately my opinion – like your post – is ideologically biased and falls at the first hurdle. Nevertheless, it clarifies a lot of the points you have been making over several months. Just hope when the review does appear in next months Socialist Standard it carries a disclaimer along the lines you are suggesting.
aliccam wrote:Sorry about my misinterpretation of reductionism. (looked up the definition). And sorry for misinterpeting your quote 'we will have inherited from capitalism'.There are a lot of similarities between TZM and socialism. I think the main difference is that TZM does not see the need for politics or political leaders, or with 'democracy' as these imply control of people with ideas or needs that differ from the majority. TZM would like people to be individuals cooperating for mutual benefit, rather than members of groups vying for control.Neither do the WSM/SPGB see the need for 'party' politics or Leaders in any shape or form. Politics and their outcomes – as social discourse – will however continue to rule and regulate our behaviour. In a true democracy (not the representative democracy we are currently experiencing) like DPD its the majority who will decide, but also unreservedly cater for minority views, albeit so long as they are realistic and don't cause harm to wider society. The change in social relationships will ensure that any groups vying for control will be dealt with under DPD. If such a threat does occur consensus on its own is not a suitable framework for dealing with such social issues, fine for the technical side and everyday matters but pretty useless when it comes to threats from those who will hanker for taking a step back to a class society.
aliccam wrote:There may be some debate about whether some things should be produced, but those that are can be produce in the best way currently possible using a formula of their individual components, including things such as time, resources, environmental impact, demand, user preferences etc.TZM is not promoting reductionism other than in cases of excess or inappropriate use of planetary resources. They want everyone to have the best possible quality of life.TZM does not suggest getting rid of the existing production capabilities (which you strangely attribute solely to the capitalists), more that we should start improving on them and the ways they are used.You can't have it both ways its either a "mathematical formular" or its not for the use of such a term strongly suggests a promotion of reductionism. Again the use of the term "adaption" as used in the context of this post its OK for TZM to use the tools but not for the SPGB according to #6&7.Again it appears you have misread what I wrote in my previous post. Indeed, I'm not attributing the production of tools to the capitalists but quite the opposite in that the majority have designed and produced them yet the capitalist appropiate the benefits. You are either putting up strawman arguments or you are failing to see there is a problem of language here. I'm reluctant to go down the path of requesting definitions for every turn of phrase when its so apparent we are on the same lines.
aliccam wrote:TZM sees the idea of ownership as an figment of our minds, and a now unnecessary concept with the ability to create abundance and provide for everyones needs. It is really about just doing things the best way whilst recognising the limitations of the planet. It does not need to be 'democractic' it is a mathematical formula. Yes we will need to have some kind of consensus on social aspects, but will hopefully have better motives underlying this, once our everyday needs are provided for.TZM like you agree the existing system sucks, but don't look at it as requiring adaption, more a complete change.Please don't run away with the idea that a democratic decision making process by definition means that this will result in a continual use of the vote. The everyday technical decisions will of course be arrived at through consensus. But even the consensus does not entirely consist of a mathematical formula. If it did it would be just a matter of pulling a suitable number out of the box which fits the formula exactly.Fortunately, its doubtful if humankind will ever go down that reductionsist route, even when using the consensus decision making process. That aside, Direct Participatory Democracy will have an essential role to play in human affairs when it comes to the bigger picture and important decisions need to be arrive at concerning our well being and the finite resources of the planet.Such a scenario strongly suggests a social process will be taking place utilising the tools of production, communication and distribution we will have inherited from capitalism and adapting these to serve human needs and not profit. However, this scenario also implies that a total transformation of the social relationships of Capital and Labour have taken place which in essence is non-adaptable in a society geared to production for use and free access to the means of living.So yes in many respects a complete change will have taken place but socialists are realists and have no intention of throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to using the the tools which we produced for the benefit of the capitalist class.
Neither does the WSM/SPGB propose individual ownership by either people or the state. So in that respect both organisations are in agreement. However, we do propose 'common ownership' of the means of production and distribution under the democratic control of society as a whole. Under such an arrangement there will be political control by the wider community over the administration of things. But this political control will not consist of 'party political control' which suggests a class society will still be in existence, effectively meaning the antagonism between 'us and them' continues to divide society.
