moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
imposs1904 wrote:"(Only slightly a joke – the music of the period was made possible by full employment and the welfare state.)"Don't forget the Art Schools.My favourite period of music is – surprise, surprise – 1978 thru' 1983, and many a NME type has made the point that that period blossomed musically only because of high youth unemployment and a crumbling infrastructure which meant that the youth of the day had nothing better to do than create brilliant post-punk music and practice their (post) punky sneer in the bedroom mirror.It works both ways.
1st Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
LBird wrote:ajj wrote:Socialism hasn't happened because its time has not yet come to paraphrase that well known saying. Why is not an easy question to answer but if the objective conditions now exist for its establishment then there are subjective reasons why it has not occurred. In defence of the Party, we have always been a negligible influence so how can it be said we are culpable. This can be widened to the Left as a whole.Not least of the reasons that 'it has not occurred' is because so-called 'revolutionaries' have been telling workers for 130 years that 'the rocks talk to the revolutionaries'.I was shocked to find that the SPGB also does this.If workers can't democratically control physics, why should they be able to democratically control politics?Unless maths, physics and all scientific knowledge production, which is always social, is under our class' control, then we can't control 'the means of production'.Whilst the 'revolutionaries' are telling workers that 'workers can control the factory production of widgets, but not the clever stuff', why should workers have any faith whatsoever in either themselves or the 'revolutionaries'?It's elitism, pure and simple. And so anti-democratic.
3rd Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This poster is suspended for an indefinite period.
LBird wrote:You're one of the main culprits, Vin.2nd Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:I put it down to a complete failure of revolutionaries to actually explain anything to their fellow workers, and to even have any faith in the abilities of those non-Communist workers to develop themselves.Socialism has not happened because of 'The failure of the revolutionaries' ? If only those with knowledge could explain to the workers! This is an elitist position. By your own definition. You have no faith in workers being able to work it out for themselves.
1st Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
SocialistPunk wrote:A lot can happen in twenty four hours.LBird,The production of knowledge is a similar issue for a socialist society as that of producing widgets. It's about "whys and wherefores".The issue of democratic control of production and allocation of services in a socialist society has been discussed before and will no doubt be discussed again. It's a subject I've thought about quite a lot over recent years. One thing is clear from the start, it's an issue of immense complexity. It reaches into numerous areas of discussion regarding logistics and is something we on this forum could never seriously do justice to, as a whole. It is the reason, you will hear the phrase in various forms " we'll have to leave that up to the future socialist community to decide". It defers difficult issues to the future. While I often find it irritating, I understand the response. All we have here and now is a basic framework for socialism, common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by the community for the community.LBird wrote:But, to anyone who, like me, looks to Marx for inspiration, then this explanation about 'practicalities' being an issue for the future class conscious proletariat, is usually acceptable.The reason I say the "deferral to the future" response annoys me, despite my understanding it, is because it shouldn't prevent individual socialists from adding their ideas, regarding practical matters, to the melting pot. It doesn't mean it must then compete to become a socialist policy. (Although some reluctance for SPGB members is the possibility that individual viewpoints may get taken for party policy.) It's just an idea and like any idea it has a chance to become a permanent fixture for future discussion, and possibly action.So when I ask for "meat on the bones", I'm simply asking for your ideas on practical approaches to democratically controlling knowledge. I'm sure you would agree that ideas are a prelude to action?As knowledge is a social product, it might be a good idea to look at how it is produced. That means taking a look at education and how it could look in socialism. That would need a new thread on education under socialism.
1st Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?You already know what my take is but are feigning ignorence. I obviously, as a revolutionary socialist, support "workers democracy" but I argue that there are clear structural limits to the process of democratic decision making in society. You don't think so but that's because you are an impractical idealist who hasn't thought through this matter at all
LBird wrote:Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.I thought it would have been obvious even to you that I don't share your ideology! I am not a Leninist who holds a totally centralised vision of a post capitalist world in which all decision making flows through a single global centre. That vision, which you clearly hold, would iroincally completely destroy workers democracy and ensure the relentless rise of an all powerful elite though you don't seem to understand this argument at all
LBird wrote:You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).You are just being stupid now. Of course I have read Marx and have quoted him. Of course, I favour workers power but my differences with you is over how that power expresses itself. Of course I am not an "individualist" (you have never understood this term) but that does not mean I don't think individuals don't exist. I agree with Marx when he says the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all.”
LBird wrote:You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'Absolute rubbish. I was arguing against the fact-value distinction long before you turned up on this forum trying to teach everyone's grandma how to suck eggs. You seem to see yourself as some kind of guru on a mission to educate the great unwashed. You're an elitist through and through. When have I ever said "scientific knowledge must be true". On the contrary, part of my objection to your ridiculous idea of democratically voting on scientific theories is precisely that what is true for one person may not be true for another so what is the point of voting on such a thing at all. What are you going to do with this Truth as democratically established by a global vote?. If anything, you are the one who is entertaining an absolutist idea of truth. Its was democratically vote upon by an absolute majority therefore it must be absolutely true…
LBird wrote:I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.Sigh . what can you say in the face of such rambling tosh?
LBird wrote:Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.I repeat – I was arguing against the fact value distinction and for the ideological nature of human knowledge long for you turned up like some Johnny come lately smart arse who thinks they and they alone are in possession of the "Truth"
LBird wrote:You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.Then you obviously haven't read a thing I've written
2nd Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…totally impractical and unrealisable utopia…complete and utter destruction…So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'.I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.If you want 'physicists' to run 'physics', I don't. I want workers to run physics.If you think 'physics' is a activity outside of politics, I don't. I think physics is political.If you disagree with me, then you don't share my ideology. Whatever concepts of class, revolution, democracy, science, knowledge, truth and socialism you have, I don't share them.
2nd Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…or even explain why it is necessary…I've just done this very thing, in my measured reply to SocialistPunk.If, If, If, [read it, for once], one is a Marxist and wants to see the democratic control of production by the producers, then control of all sources of 'power' is necessary.Now, read carefully, you */$£%, YOU ARE NEITHER a Marxist nor want "workers' democracy", so from YOUR IDEOLOGICAL perspective, you won't agree with me.This ideological disagreement of yours with me is entirely different to me supposedly not explaining.You just don't like my explanation.What can't your tiny mind grasp about this issue? You are not a democrat, nor a Communist. I am. That's the answer.
Bollocks. You didn't explain at all why you considered it is necessary that the truth of a scientific theory had to be subjected to a democratic vote by the global population and, in any case, that was not the question that Socialist Punk asked of you . He asked if you could "put some "meat on the bones" of how knowledge, scientific "truth" etc, can be democratically controlled by a global, socialist population. I'd still be up for some ideas on the practicalities of your position?" . You didn't answer that question either – which is a "how" question rather than a "why" question – but as usual completely evaded the point with your predictably boring waffle about nothing much in particular. You sneer at the very term "practical" believeing it to be some kind of bougeois prejudice I am more convinced than ever that it is people like you with your Leninistic take on a post capitalist society as some totally centralised massified society in which all decisions on literally everything flow through one single global centre , does more damage to the communist cause that any amount of overt capitalist propaganda. It condemns communism to the status of being a totally impractical and unrealisable utopia which is exactly what the capitalist propagandists want to achieve. Better that it comes from the mouths of useful idiots such as yourself who claim to be "Marxists" and "democrats" And though you lack the wit to realise this, LBird, the operational principles of the kind post capitalist you want to put in place will spell the most complete and utter destruction of any kind of "workers democracy" and the certain and unstoppable rise of technocratic/political elite – whose world view and interests you are unconsciously reflecting – in response to the complete social chaos and social paralysis you are unwittingly wanting to bring down on our heads
1st Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
