PartisanZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Who do you think labours in any mode of production? The fairies?
If Marx didn’t think humanity was the active subject, who (or what) did he think was?
What are you on about? Stuff your active subject philosophical abstractions. All wealth comes from labour applied to nature. Now answer Robbo’s question where the heck did Marx say we would vote on scientific theories.
Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
Rubbish.
============================
The aim of the Socialist is to get all to work harmoniously together on a basis of equality, as only by doing so can each develop himself to the fullest degree and enjoy the best of life—”Man is a social animal.” This idea is no non-material element, it is the heritage of the herd. Hence the assertion that “materialist Socialism” is “individualistic” is foolish and futile.Our opponent is blind to the practical facts of life and has lost his way in the maze of metaphysics and thus, instead of seeing the principle of the individualistic pursuit of profit and the robbery of the wage worker that faces him at every turn, has discovered somewhere in the by ways a vague abstraction, the “principle of the common good.” In its essence he has again got hold of the wrong end of the stick—society should exist for the benefit of man and not man for the benefit of society.
=============================Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
If you can’t defend this idea or are unwilling to do so then at least have the grace to say so. Its pointless arguing with a brick wall.
ALB wrote:
“By coincidence in the course of scanning articles from the Socialist Standards of the 1920s I have just done one from August 1925 in which an opponent makes this criticism:
It is certainly a good article and reply.
No just you answer the straightforward damn question below instead of waffling.
why you think they should be voted upon – what purpose would a vote serve – and also why you consider Marx felt they should be voted upon as well. Citation needed
Your silence on this matter will finally confirm you haven’t got a clue about what you have been gabbling on about for so long…..
Once again you have dismally failed in your desperate efforts to substantiate your non-Marxist gloss on what you call “Marx’s theory” by failing to provide even a single citation where Marx suggested anything so daft as voting on scientific theories!
You still ignored the direct question Robbo asked.
The practice of the new society will proceed from the new society.
We will not need to vote on ‘truth.
Answer Robbo, Bijou Drains and twc.
So, you seem to agree with Marx and me, Matthew.
Within democratic socialism, truth will be elected.
No, I agree and the Party agrees with Marx. Not your returning hogwash.
” The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”(1879 Marx and Engels )
What nonsense that ‘truth’ will be elected.
There is no ‘absolute truth’ to be elected.
Save possibly that fact.
Deal with Robbo’s practical questions to you.
The ‘specialists’ will be qualified in their respective fields, from ‘us’all, in the classless society, by examination or whatever measure of educational or practical requirements will be deemed necessary for their functions.
The philosophical considerations will be informed and proceed from the organising tenet of,
“from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
It will be unthinkable in the new zeitgeist that specialists freed from the shackles of war science, will be deliberating other than that above.
Using the current Covid vaccine development, will we be letting a number of developments in different locations compete to produce varieties of vaccine?
Yes very probably. The differerence being the pooled and shared results, being widely available and smaller teams breakthroughs not being stifled or blocked as at at present by commercial considerations.
The rolling out of approved solutions for application in the local regional and global areas having been subject to prior scientific criteria ‘consensus’ approval.
Scientific proofs, are not the same as philosophical ‘absolute truths’.
You are obviously happy for children, then, to be sat over a keyboard and not be encouraged in the manual dexterity and spontaneity of using pens, pencils and brushes. As adults they will find it much harder, without having used key nerves and muscles for dexterity. You see no place for drawing, sketching, painting and calligraphy, paper crafts, etc? You are to limit everything, from the earliest years, to screen dependency.
It does not follow on, from being happy for children to use keyboards as in 21st century communications, that they will be discouraged from exploring other ones.
Indeed the reverse may be the case, arising out of ‘searches’ by inquisitive children, artistically inclined or who would have been, as in my own case historically inclined, children.
A close personal friend of mine was taken aback by his 12 year old son’s choices of subjects for his senior year at school, of science and geography as there had been no indication of this except to his teachers.
Children don’t always need ‘controled’.
Here you go, Matthew, your own chance to refute the accusations of a ‘troll’, that ‘you won’t have democratic science’.
I have already done so.
Socialism/communism, it means the same in the classical Marxian, pre-Leninist sense, will be an advanced , post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in administration over resources and not a government over people.
It will be a market -free, money -free, production for use (not for sale), free access (not rationed access) commonly owned,(not private, corporate or state owned) revolutionary permanent break with the present capitalist one.
It has never existed anywhere.
It is not a ‘reformist’ nor a ‘statist’ version of capitalism which retains wage slavery in any form.
It will be the mature, politically conscious task of the immense majority to make it happen and not the minority vanguardist led actions of pseudo-revolutionaries.
“The organising tenet will be from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
” The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”(1879 Marx and Engels )
The workers themselves,(no longer workers as a class as classes will not exist) will decide which functions will be recallable delegatory, local, regional,global.
Permanently in the hands of the immense majority, always with recourse to overall decisions about resources and theoretical informational decision making apparatus, being allocated to permanently prevent the formation of bureaucratic, technocratic or scientific potential usurpation of control over resources.
How those will be organised will be decided by the people who make the revolution then and not armchair keyboard warriors from the 20th and 21st century..
If everyone is so opposed to democracy, and this seems to be the official stance of the SPGB, why not just say so?
I’ve never made any claim whatsoever, robbo, never mind any ‘disgracefully dishonest’ ones, that you ‘reject democracy altogether’.
Obsfucutory. Complete and utter nonsense. A troll like travesty of everything any member has said on here.
If everyone is so opposed to democracy, and this seems to be the official stance of the SPGB, why not just say so?
Complete and utter nonsense. A troll like travesty of everything any member has said on here.
corona virus
“The life of just one person is worth more than the private property of the richest man.” This is what’s written on the Calixto Garcia public hospital in Havana Cuba as a testament to the country’s commitment to free public healthcare, and to putting people before profit. I know this about Cuba because in March, at the onset of the global Covid-19 pandemic, I spent a week in the ICU at Calixto Garcia. I had been hit by a speeding ambulance, and Cuban doctors saved my life, operated on me twice, and nursed me to stability before putting me on a private medical evacuation flight back to the U.S. All of this, including the flight, was free of cost to me- covered by Cuba’s government-run insurance for foreign visitors. From my hospital bed, as the global emergency around me escalated, I witnessed how the Cuban government swiftly mobilized resources to protect its citizens from Covid-19: at-home testing for anyone with symptoms, door to door preventative education in the most vulnerable neighborhoods, and coordinated isolation when necessary. While deaths soared toward 100,000 in the U.S., Cuba was able to get the average daily Covid-19 related deaths close to zero for most of May-August.
