LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:Methodology not ideology!
No, you're quite correct. One's method is based upon one's ideology.
mcolome1 wrote:Does a worker need all these argumentation in order to become a socialist ?Since 'science' is the supposed method for understanding our world, both natural and social, and workers aim to understand this world that they find themselves in, then I think it is necessary for workers to be able to take part in these discussions/arguments so that they can actively and creatively participate in the shaping of their world.For our part as Communists, I think it is our duty to make these discussions comprehensible to workers who don't yet have enough understanding of 'science' and its power (and, indeed, also 'value' and other concepts, which I don't think have ever been explained well enough).I think that a Communist society would require mass participation in many activities that are, at present, the preserve of the few. I think that this includes not only politics (power) and economics (production and distribution), but also academia and especially science (as sources of authority).Personally, I can't imagine a worker 'becoming a socialist' without them also having become increasingly curious about the world, in all its manifestations.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Since I think that science produces 'knowledge', and I believe that 'knowledge is power', then I think that all 'knowledge production' within a Communist society should be under the democratic control of that society.OK. But HOW does knowledge manifest itself as power?
I tell you and ALB that the earth does go round the sun!And you both, stunned, exclaim: "The Truth… He is the messiah!" After that, putty in my hands… heh, heh, heh….
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:I'll say it once again, comrades, if we don't collectively and democratically control the production of scientific knowledge, then that process of production will remain in the hands of a minority, who will thus have power over society.But in a society of common ownership and democratic control WHO are 'the scientists' and HOW do they exert minority control?
The form of your question, DJP, seems to equate 'property' with 'knowledge' (or 'economics' with 'science'), and so, to me, reads like an assumption is being made about 'economic determinism'. By that, I mean an assumption that 'social ideas' reflect 'economic reality'. I'm not an 'economic determinist', nor do I believe that there is a simple, one-way, causation or influence between 'economic base' and 'superstructural ideology'. That is, I don't believe that 'economics' determines 'power'.There is a good discussion to be had about our assumptions on these issues, but I don't want to divert this thread away from what I consider the main issue. I think that could be summed up by asking the question 'Is knowledge power?'.Since I think that science produces 'knowledge', and I believe that 'knowledge is power', then I think that all 'knowledge production' within a Communist society should be under the democratic control of that society.If one believes that 'scientific knowledge' is a copy of 'nature', then 'nature' itself determines our 'knowledge' of it, and so 'nature' has the power to determine our views.But if one believes that 'scientific knowledge' is not a simple copy of 'nature', and thus that 'scientific knowledge' has a socio-economic, cultural and historical dimension, then one would want that the production of that knowledge is as much under our democratic control, as other socio-economic, cultural and historical knowledge.
twc wrote:Fourthly, democracy simply can't dictate to nature what to do.This shows that you don't understand the problem, twc. No-one has argued that 'democracy will dictate what nature does'.I've tried a number of times to turn this and other threads into a discussion with you, but you won't discuss, and so you're not learning.'Nature' and 'knowledge of nature' are not the same thing, unless one is a naive realist and holds to a reflection theory of knowledge.Not only am I not a naive realist (and don't hold to a reflection theory of knowledge), but I don't think Marx was, either.If one starts from the assumption that 'knowledge of nature' is not the same thing as 'nature', then we have to ask who (and how do they) produces (and thus controls) 'knowledge of nature'.The tragedy of all these exchanges between us, twc, is that you're clearly interested in science (and I think that you have something to teach, as well as learn, and so I've tried several times to get you to discuss science), but you are unwilling to engage in essentially philosophical questions.I'll say it once again, comrades, if we don't collectively and democratically control the production of scientific knowledge, then that process of production will remain in the hands of a minority, who will thus have power over society.Marx warns us about this, in the Theses on Feuerbach.
twc wrote:However, LBird knows how to solve the problem of quantum interpretation, because it falls within the category of something he has expert knowledge of — a problem at the inconclusive forefront of science — which he vehemently cast a strong opinion on in a recent post.LBird solves all problems, especially those at the inconclusive forefront of science by voting on them. Voting? Yes, by voting on the inconclusive forefront. A standup could make a hilarious routine out of this.However, he is not joking. He is fanatically serious. He and his big-C Communists will decide what scientists are allowed to think by a poll That'll keep such distrusted elites in their proper place. I’m afraid that universal mediocrity is our sorry lot under big-C Communism.LBird romantically condemns anyone who refuses to go along with his hair-brained franchise, to vote on the nature of nature, as being anti-democratic and anti-proletarian. I am not joking. Sadly, this is the serious babble of a more-democratic-than-thou, pro-proletarian, poseur.Voting is entirely inadequate to the task at hand. Voting is impotent in the face of nature’s determinism, which determinism is something proletarian scientist LBird refuses to allow of nature herself, but only to us.For idealist LBird [actually he’s an idealist-leaning syncretist], nature is non-deterministic, and determinism being our social construct has a perfect right to be voted in or out, particularly at the inconclusive forefront of science.This is slurping the dregs of the residual stultifying Kantianism of Popper, partly evident in his influential students. LBird is a dualistic casualty of learning his science, ignorant of the context, primarily through such folks.Coming from someone of your elitist political perspective, twc, this is a tremendous accolade, which I willingly accept.I'm a Communist of the type that is denigrated and insulted for arguing in favour of complete proletarian democracy, both as the basis for our organising in this capitalist society, and as forming the basis of our future Communist society.I'm happy to be condemned as a democrat, because for the entirety of the 20th century, Communists were associated with undemocratic politics.I'm a Communist for the coming 21st century, unlike you, twc, and your outdated and discarded elitist politics of the 20th.If science isn't under our class's control, then it'll be under the control of those with power. Of course, those wanting to control science will argue that it is a neutral activity, of no political consequence. Just like those in favour of 'elite economics' argue that the 'market is neutral'.We have to learn, comrades, that a revolution will see 'the world turned upside down' in every sphere of human activity, including science.
twc wrote:Materialism explains thought from being. There could be nothing more determinist than that: being determines thought. It goes to the core of existence. If there is something more determinist than materialism, please tell us what is.What 'being' is being spoken of?
Marx wrote:It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm'Being' (reality, concrete, material) does not determine 'thought'.'Social being determines consciousness'.If it means anything, it means our human society 'determines' what individuals think.The 'material' is not the source of creative and critical thought. Once we remove society, culture and history, we're back to consulting the rocks about what they think we should do.And for that task, since workers can't tell what rocks say, we're back to needing an interpreter. A party above the class.
twc wrote:Argue against #119.Peremptory, eh? It's all falling into place, now!Materialism and its 'determinism' – a master for the proletariat that must be obeyed!No wonder there's no room for human creativity and proletarian democratic control of production, in your world, twc!Luckily, we've got the likes of you to translate for us what the 'rocks' are demanding of us, eh?
twc wrote:You seem to argue here in the official capacity of a troll.At least you seem to acknowledge that my activities fall under the label of 'argument'.I'm afraid, though, that I can't return the compliment.
twc wrote:Not contradictory. No-one argues on this open forum in any official SPGB capacity at all.That doesn't prevent them from arguing the SPGB case for socialism.This is "dialectical thought", presumably?
twc, do you write in any official capacity for the SPGB (that is, are you arguing the SPGB's position on these issues), or are the views expressed in your posts just your personal opinions?
twc wrote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of science, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unscientific a procedure.[my bold]twc, for me, you might as well have written:
Quote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of politics, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unpolitical a procedure.I trust neither politicians nor scientists, comrade.If I can't put my trust in my future comrades across the planet to make important decisions that affect all of us, I can't see the point of being a Communist.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science….'elites' in any sphere(Bold added) So, I provide an example of elites in society.And, by corollary, we can say that there are ability elites in science, some people are much better at doing sums in their head (whether by habituation and practice or any natural aptitude is irrelevent). So, we can have poetic elites, sporting elites and, yes, scientific elites.(p.s. and poetry has always had authority, the authority of the, er, author).
Wow! A killer quote!Well, you've got me beat, YMS.You're quite correct, on a politics site discussing power, I didn't specify political power.Next, you'll pick me up for not specifying 'Earth politics' (you could argue that I might be talking about Martian power struggles), or not specifying 'Human science' (you could argue that I might be talking about Aardvark science).Yes, my failures are now all too apparent, YMS. The SPGB are too sharp for me! Sorry for wasting your time.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,Lbird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I cited the example of sporting elites, they plainly exist, likewise I believe there are mathematical elites, and even linguistic elites. Try as I might, I can't write poetry what is as good as Shelley's. Or should we write poetry democratically?
This is becoming laughable, now!Since when has 'poetry' or 'rugby' had the authority of science?What's the matter with comrades on this thread? This is supposed to a political site! We're supposed to be discussing power.Perhaps ajj is right, and I should move tables with him! But the topic of footie only.
