LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
MS wrote: “Socialism/Communism will eliminate the concept of nations and borders, but it will not eliminate the cultural and local practice of some peoples around the world, and they would be able to do their own communal decisions”
You’ve expressed a very clear political position, MS.
My political question is ‘who determines what is a valid (in the eyes of humanity) ‘cultural and local practice’, within your ‘Socialism/Communism’?
Unless there is democratic control by humanity, then what would your society do with ‘locals’ who insist, for example, in cutting the clitorises off little girls? That is a dramatic example, but sums up the problem. It could be ‘locals’ who kill gays, ‘locals’ who are an elite and who want to maintain capitalist relations by force over their communities, etc.
Your political position, which is to leave power within ‘localities’ to the exclusion of the democratically-expressed wishes of humanity within socialism, would prevent us intervening in ‘practices’ which we democratically declare to be abhorrent.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Humanity regularly votes BD’s views out of kilter since he is a member of an organisation that places its position to the vote. And that position is frequently rejected.”
The same happens to me and you, too, alan. And always will. Democracy involves majorities and minorities.
If you want to move the discussion onto ‘how will socialism organise its democratic production?’, that’s fine by me. It’s both an interesting and needed discussion, IMO.
But first, we have to agree that your notion of ‘democratic socialism’ is the same as my (and I claim, Marx’s) notion of ‘democratic socialism’.
I think ‘democratic socialism’ means all social production will be democratic. To me, the clue is in the name.
If you disagree, then fine, let’s discuss that issue first.
My first question is ‘who will be in control of this (portion?) of social production that is not under democratic control? And why term it ‘democratic socialism’ if all or parts of it are not democratic?
robbo, I’ve genuinely answered all the questions in your post, previously. You’re just ignoring what I say, so there doesn’t seem much point giving the same answers again.
The difference between us seems to be a political one – I’m a democrat, who regards society as the active subject; you regard individuals as the active subject, and so you reject democratic controls.
Bijou Drains wrote: “If, in a socialist society, a vote was held re Marx’s view of the social production of theories (which by definition must be a socially produced theory) was held and the vote rejected Marx’s theories, would you subsequently also reject those theories also, knowing that not to do so would be anti democratic and anti socialist?”
When the time comes to reject Marx views (as it will come, as history shows, because humanity constantly changes its views), then I (if still alive, it might take generations of social development to occur) will adopt the newly democratically-produced scientific views of humanity.
I can ask you the same question – what would you do, BD, if humanity democratically pointed out that your views were out of kilter with the rest of humanity?
Yes, twc, I’m a democratic communist and a follower of Marx.
If ‘TRUTHS’ aren’t to be determined democratically, who is to determine ‘TRUTHS’, in your version of a clearly non-democratic ‘socialism’?
It’s a political question, and the SPGB should be able to answer it.
Bijou Drains wrote: “So just to clarify, L Bird, for those of us who haven’t been following this thread particularly closely, your view is that Marxist theory states that all science is social produced and that it therefore follows that as it is socially produced it, alongside all theoretical approaches, should be subject to democracy, and not to follow the outcome of that democratic decision would not only be anti democratic it would be anti socialist?”
If you don’t agree with ‘democracy’ in all social production, BD, you’ll have to tell us all what you do propose for ‘democratic socialism’.
Are you going to propose that, for example, Mengele should be the arbiter of his own science?
So, if ‘anti-democratic’ is not ‘anti-socialist’, who are the ‘anti-democrats’ that you support?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “And MS is right…without action, without translating ideas into practice…”
But MS, like robbo, doesn’t argue for ‘translating ideas into practice’, but for ‘practice’. That is, supposedly ‘theoryless’ practice.
Because, if they did argue for that, they’d have to explain their ‘ideas’ to us – which is just what they refuse to do.
Marx’s point is that ‘theory’ precedes ‘practice’. And the proletariat has to consciously produce its own ‘theory’, before it ‘practices’.
Or, we could leave the ‘theory’ to The Party, and just do what they say. I’m not convinced, and I don’t think history aids your case, alan.
robbo203 wrote: “I, by contrast, am saying there is simply no need for democratic control to be exercised in this case. It serves no useful purpose”
Yes, I know your political position.
Marx’s political position is that ‘democratic social production’ does serve a useful purpose.
His whole political output was based upon that premise.
You don’t agree – fine. It’s just pointless arguing that Marx supported elites controlling social production. You’d be better outlining what/who you think should control social production.
To some extent, you already have – and it’s not ‘humanity’, but sections of it. If you honestly believe that, argue for ‘sectional political control’, in contrast to my ‘democratic political control’.
We have a political disagreement, robbo. No amount of debate is going to change our contrasting opinions. We’d be better arguing openly about what our politics are. We don’t share the same politics.
MS wrote: “What peoples must do at the present time is to take consciousness and overthrow capitalism and create a new society, to eliminate hunger, unemployment, homeless, and diseases, we are not going anywhere with theoreticians and philosophers”
But what would you do if Lenin declared that he was employing ‘Scientific Socialism’ (Engels’ term), and following robbo’s recommended ‘scientific method’ (let the ‘scientists’ determine for us, because we’re busy with our individual ‘each to our own’ activities), and he decided to ‘eliminate hunger, etc’ by instituting an undemocratic Party regime?
If we were living in such a system, we’d have no theoretical basis on which to base our reaction. How could we argue with Lenin’s ‘Scientific Socialism’?
Unless we clearly root our politics in ‘democratic social production’, we’re going to come unstuck. This isn’t just a pointless ‘theoretical’ debate. It concerns the whole of humanity.
robbo203 wrote: “…it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”” [my bold]
But this ‘them’ is not ‘society’, robbo.
It’s the ‘interaction between humanity’ that creates social products.
All you’re doing, as Marx warned that all ‘materialists’ will do, is ‘separating society into two’, the one (an elite) above the other (the masses).
So, for you, ‘physics’ is an elite activity (thus not requiring democracy), and not a social activity (which would require democracy).
robbo203 wrote: “I dont see the point.”
As I keep emphasising, robbo, it’s a political point. About power.
robbo203 wrote: “Instructing a scientist to discontinue pursuing a particular line of scientific enquiry because a majority of her colleagues had “democratically decided” it was not worth pursing seems bonkers to me. And against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry”
That’s what every political supporter of bourgeois methods says: that ‘democracy’ equals interference in ‘individual freedom’. And they’re correct, it is.
Let’s take a ‘scientist’ – err…. Mengele, for example. Fully trained, academically-qualified, supported by his professors at their university, conducting cutting-edge research. If I was an occupant of his research facility, the least that I’d vote to do is ‘discontinue his line of scientific enquiry’. In fact, I’d probably vote to discontinue him.
I’m afraid Mengele, and every other scientist on this planet, must be subject to the democratic control of the masses.
We get to choose: theories, methods, philosophies, practices, universities, curricula, funds, actions, matters, allocation of resources, ideas, applications, developments, technologies… these are not in the hands of an elite.
That’s democratic socialism, robbo. The democratic control of all social production.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Hegel and Marx are a mystery to me but i somehow think that the answers LBird looks for are hidden there.”
If it works for you, alan, and helps you to understand Marx’s fundamentally social perspective, that’s fine by me.
robbo203 wrote: “Also LBird I still want to know from you is whether you believe the cognitive process itself of contributing to scientific theory is something that ought to be subject to “democratic control”.” [my bold]
Well, I thought I’d answered this, but once again, yes.
‘The cognitive process itself‘ is a social product, not the product of an isolated, biological, individual.
Social production must be subject to democratic control.
If not, who is to control, and how, ‘the cognitive process itself’?
I’ve given a clear answer to your question, robbo, so I hope you give one to mine.
Who? By what political process?
robbo203 wrote: “It is in this sense that theoretical physics is a “socially constructed body of knowledge” which is not the same as saying that the entirety of human society contributed to this body of knowledge. ” [my bold]
But it’s not your ‘this sense’ that counts, robbo.
It’s Marx’s ‘this sense’ that we’re discussing.
For your ‘this sense’, there would have to be an elite separated from ‘the entirety of human society’. Thus, your concept would, as Marx warned, divide society into two, one of which (the elite) is superior to the other (humanity).
So, for Marx, ‘the entirety of human society’ does contribute to any body of knowledge.
All you are doing, just as any ideological individualist would do, is dividing the entirety of humanity into discrete individuals, of which you are one, and claiming that because one doesn’t supposedly contribute, that this means that the entirety doesn’t.
‘Society’ is a political concept, as indeed is ‘individual’.
But Marx’s views are based upon “social production”, not on “an aggregate of individuals production”.
That’s why democracy can’t be removed from any social production.
It seems to me, robbo, that your fundamental disagreement is with Marx’s social perspective, rather than with me.
robbo203 wrote: “If you think Max did say something along those lines then can you provide some evidence please?”
For example, “revolutionary science“.
If you think that is equivalent to ‘science’ (what I’d call the ‘socio-historical product, bourgeois science‘), then that’s fair enough. I don’t share your political and philosophical opinion. I believe in the ideology of ‘revolutionary science’, which, because of Marx’s politics, I assume means ‘democratic science’.
If you disagree with this political interpretation of Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’, you should explain how your notion of ‘revolutionary science’ differs from mine.
robbo203 wrote: “If will not suffice to argue that all knowledge is a social construct because I fully accept that this is the case. What I wanted to know from you is whether you believe this cognitive process itself is something that has to be subject to “democratic control”.” [my bold]
I find your statements contradictory, robbo.
If ‘all knowledge is a social construct’, what is this ‘itself’ that is outside of ‘all knowledge’?
You must believe that ‘this cognitive process itself’ is outside of ‘social activity’, and that ‘itself’ means ‘inside an individual’ or ‘inside the brain’.
As you must know, that belief is an ideological belief (which has political ramifications), which I don’t share.
To democratic communists, following Marx, any ‘cognitive process’ is by definition a ‘social process’, not a simple ‘biological’ one.
robbo203 wrote “…practical…”.
I’ve already mentioned this political difference between us, robbo. I’d replace it with ‘…theoretical and practical…’, which is closer to Marx’s views, than merely ‘practical’. The use of ‘practical’ suggests that there is no ‘theory’ behind it – which is an ideological opinion itself.
