[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 And what anyone reading needs to know is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and robbo isn't.That means that I argue that only the proletariat can decide what is 'true' and what isn't.robbo seems to argue that only an elite can decide what is 'true' and what isn't. He's given some of the reasons why he thinks that this is so.

 I am a democratic communist too but I  simply do not believe in the crackpot idea that democracy in a communist society should extend to the determination of scientific "truth" by means of a vote  by 7 billion people .  This is both pointless and totally impracticable – how can you possibly organise tens of thousands of plebiscites on global basis every year.  As usual LBird doesn't explain Though I agree that it is very probable that for any given subject area in science only a minority is likely to be sufficiently competent to judge on the particular merits of a given theory, this is  not in any way a elitist view as I explained, It is purely a function of the social division of labour which L Bird completely ignores. Here is a question for LBird to answer – does he consider that everyone is capable of  becoming an expert in every field of scientific endeavour.  If his answer to that is yes then he clearly has no understanding of just how much time and effort and years of study are required to acquire a level of competence in even just one field of scientific endeavour,  If his answer is no then he has no understanding of just how devastating this admission would be for his theory about how democratic communism would function since how can you vote on something you know nothing about?.  Either way he hasn't got a leg to stand on. I reiterate my position is not at all an elitist one.  An elitist position is one that would seek to put barriers in the way of anyone who would want to acquire a better understanding of a particular subject area.  This is not my position at all, My position is that everyone should be completely free and indeed encouraged to advance their understanding.  I have also pointed out that given the social division of labour the notion of some kind of single social elite is untenable. The scientific expert in astrophysics will probably know next to nothing about say genetics or molecular biology.  In that sense there is likely to be not one elite  but multiple "elites"

LBird wrote:

.It would be easier for all if robbo would be open about what he thinks 'socialism' is.I define it as 'the democratic control of production' – robbo seems to see it as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'individual freedom' 

 This is dishonest. I have explicitly indicated that I support democratic control of production, What I don't support is the  pointless and impractical idea of democratically determining the truth of s scienttic theories by means of a vote.LBird should know the difference between these two things by now.  It has been explained to him often enough

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If one is arguing for the democratic control of production, ie., socialism/communism, then this practice must be predicated on a theory, which determines the practice. Marx's 'social theory and practice'. I always ask, if not the theory of 'democratic control of production', what other theory can underlie your understanding of socialism? It's open to you to disagree with 'democratic control  I've always argued that the class conscious revolutionary proletariat can only decide what 'truth' is by a democratic vote. That can not only take place prior to a revolution, but must be a building block of class organisation.Otherwise, the decision of what is 'true' will be in the hands of an elite. That, in my book, is the political method of Leninism, that an elite cadre with a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the wider class, is to decide what is 'true or false'. 

 "Democratic control of production" and "deciding what is the truth by a democratic vote" are two totally different things and LBird has yet to grasp this simple point Democratic control of production is, of course, what socialist democracy is all about.  It is both eminently practicable and desirable. The  determination of what is the truth, on the other hand  (and LBird has previously talked about this in relation to the truth of scientific theory)  by means of a democratic vote carried out by  a" class conscious revolutionary proletariat" , is complete nonsense on stilts. Firstly its completely pointless, not to say absurdly ritualistic/festishistic.  Why go through the enormous expense of organising a democratic vote on the merits of , say, String Theory just to demonstrate its "truth"?  To what end?  What difference is it supposed to make? I can perfectly understand how a decision in respect of how to allocate a particular resource could make a difference but how is this true of a scientific theory?  If you were an opponent of String theory you would be pretty miserable excuse of an opponent if you were to be cowed into abandoning your rival theory merely because a majority favoured String Theory.   This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion Secondly, it is completely unpracticaable. There are literally tens of thousands of scientific theories being churned out every year.   How is the truth of each of these to be determined by a democratic vote of a global population of 7 billion people under socialism?.  There is also something called a social division of labour which L Bird seems completely oblivious to.  Most of us will know nothing of, and have little interest in, String theory though each of us might have some passionate interest in some other area of human knowledge.  By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of  interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this. This has got nothing to do with "elitism". The small minority interested in String Theory is not going to be the same small minority interested in some arcane theory in molecular biology or plate tectonics.  Moreover elitism implies the imposition of barriers that would prevent an individual joining the ranks of the few who have a special interest in some particular field. No one here is advocating the imposition of such barriers that I am aware. One should be completely free to pursue whatever interest(s) one has in  a socialist society as far as I am concerned What I am saying is that the fact that there may well be only a few with a special interest in some particular subject and knowledgeable enough to vote upon some abstruse theory pertaining to that subject is NOT a product of elitism but rather it is a function of the social division of labour which exists in society and, indeed, is getting more complex and elaborate with every passing year. LBird needs to learn the difference between these two things

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

mullrae wrote:

The only thing I could find was this but how Marx was supposed to have falsified anything is beyond me https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/blue-book-speech.htm any views gratefully accepted regards ian.

Thanks for that.  But until we have a direct link to the Quora post where the original accusations were made and be in a position to rebut them effectively this extract from the Marxists Archive is not that helpful.

 Here is the link to the thread in Quora where the accusation is made concerning Marx and the Blue Books.  Scroll down to the contribution by Lynx Keplerhttps://www.quora.com/Did-capitalism-in-the-West-change-to-contain-the-spread-of-communismI invited Mr Kepler to this forum to defend his claim. However, having somewhat pompously dismissed the contributors on this forum as a bunch of …er…"crybabies", he seemed strangely reluctant to take up the challenge, LOL Incidentally I see the peice about Marx's alleged falsification of the evidence in the site Alan linked to –  http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/marxs-dishonesty-in-his-quotation-of.html – was written up by someone with the initials "LK".  Same person, I wonder?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Like Dave B, i don't know why people are getting het up in this discussion. I don't think there is such a chasm between us and LBirdScience is determined by politics, by democracy and by beliefs.  

 Its one thing to say science is determined "by politics, by democracy and by beliefs" (although I would suggest this is a two way process); it is quite another thing to say that in a democratic society that is socialism/communism the specificities of science – that is to say , the "truth" value of particular  scientific theories, if I might put it like that, will be determined by a popular vote.  To me this latter proposition is so manifestly  ludicrous and unworkable that I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can put forward such a proposition. LBird has clearly not thought through what he is saying. I don't have much quarrel with LBirds assault on what he calls "materialism".  This is the old fashioned positivistic view of science as something that is value-free and totally objective.  Scientists are as much subject to irrationalism as the rest of us – read Kuhn on the process of paradigm switches – while developments within such fields as physics have radically subverted the influence of this positivism.  The "observer effect" is but one example of this. However I am much more interested in the practical application of this complex relationship between science and democratic culture, This has been largely neglected in this discussion and studiously evaded by LBird himself whenever questions have been put to him on the matter. This he refused to say whether there will be any kind of social division of labour in a communist society meaning a tendency for people to specialise in certain occupations (we can't all be neurosurgeons which requires years of training and no one in their right mind would allow some untrained person off the street to operate to remove a tumour in their brain).  Needless to say, the inevitability of a social division of labour has massive implications for the way in which scientific knowledge and understanding is developed.  Its not a question of clinging to a view of science as "elitist", this is a complete red herring.  Specialisation will inexorably in the end result in a de facto situation in which only a small number of individuals will concern themselves with concrete specificities of particular scientific theories even if they are broadly constrained by the democratic culture of the wider society itself ( which I thoroughly approve of)LBird has dismissed such talk of practicality as some kind of "bourgeois" or "individualistic" obsession.  Thats bunkum. On the contrary,  it is precisely the avoidance of such  serious practical issues that brings socialism or communism into disrepute.  It turns us into the laughing stock of cynics who can then dismiss us as "dreamers".

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

  A scientific theory or plausible logical explanation is just that; ie not the truth. But if it works then use it. We don’t give a shit if the theory is true really. 

 Yes indeed.  Which makes the whole idea of voting on a scientific theory particularly pointless. I am still at a complete loss to know what LBird's justification  is for such a vote. If I believe the sun revolves around the earth I am not going to be persuaded to change my mind just because a majority think otherwise. A majority think capitalism is OK. Does that mean we should give up trying to promote socialism?If it is not to persuade people to change their mind about a scientific theory on the grounds that a majority support or oppose it (which incidentally  is a recipe for bad science and for converting science into a stagnant dogma) then what is the point of such a vote. I can certainly understand the point of a vote when it comes to deciding on some  practical course of action, But this is not about that at all.Voting on a scientific theory strikes me as stupendously pointless, not to say time consuming and massively wasteful of human resources.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I've answered your question, and you really do have to try and read what I wrote in my last post. 

Sorry but you haven't answered my point at all, I've gone through your posts with a toothcomb and there is absolutely nothing in the way of an answer to my question (several questions actually). I wanted to know from you whether or not you accept that there will inevitably be to some extent a social division of labour in socialism/communism.  Meaning that were will inevitably be a degree of specialisation (we can't all be neurosurgeons).  This ties in directly with your claims about the democratisation of "scientific truth".  I've made my position clear.  I can't see the point in voting for a scientific theory assuming one even knew what it is about.  If you want to believe the sun revolves around the earth then I support your right to hold and proclaim that "truth" as you see it  even if I don't agree with it. The point is, though, if you accept that there will be a social division of labour with its accompanying specialisms then this has direct implications for your proposal about voting on scientific theories.  If most of us have never heard of some obscure theory in biochemistry how can we possibly vote on it if we don't know what it is about.  That just doesn't make sense does it now. That is not to say we are incapable of knowing of what it is about.and your big mistake is to assume that that is what I am suggesting. I m not.  What I am saying is that we simply do not have the time – any of us no matter how gifted – to acquaint ourselves with any more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge..  Inevitably we will focus on things that interest us and disregard the rest. At the end of the day that means that only a small minority are going to be bothered with voting on the merits of String Theory. Do you agree with this  or don't you and if not why not?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

This determination to reduce political and philosophical questions to questions about 'individuals' seems to have spread from robbo – or has it always been there, in the party?blah blah blah

 So when are you gonna answer the question LBird?Do you think that in a communist society everyone will become a skilled neurosurgeon, an accomplished biochemist and a knowledgeable mechanical engineer all together and at the same timeA simple yes or no would suffice. Anyone looking at your posts thus far might be forgiven for thinking that you dont wish to supply an answer out of fear that it might expose you as an empty windbag using convoluted language as a flak to hide your own utter naivete and your elitist posturingWhy are you so petrified of answering a simple question, LBird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I've given my political answer, robbo, in some detail.You don't like my answer, because it doesn't suit your political ideology.

 No you haven't answered the question at all.  I repeat the question for your benefit.  Do you think that in a communist society everyone will become a skilled neurosurgeon, an accomplished biochemist and a knowledgeable mechanical engineer all together and at the same time? Do you not believe that there will be to some degree a social division of labour in such a society such that some people will tend to specialise in some lines of work and others in others? Do you think it is OK that anyone can come off the street and operate on that brain tumour you have , irrespective of the fact that they might not even know which end of a scalpel to hold? Its a very simple question, L Bird.  A "yes" or "no" will suffice and then we can take it from there…"

LBird wrote:

Talking of giving answers, though, can you explain why you intend to deny the producers the right to decide for themselves what they produce? And to make it clear that I'm not talking about just 'widgets', but the right to decide 'truth'.This is the nub of the political debate on a political site, about 'power' and who will wield it, in your proposed version of 'socialism'.My answer is very clear: only the democratic producers can determine their truths.

 Where do you get the impression that I want to deny anyone the right to decide the truth".  If you want to believe that the sun revolves around the earth in a communist society then be my guest.  In no way would I want to stop you holding this belief though I might want to challenge that belief and present evidence that the opposite is the case. You are of course at liberty to reject the evidence I present  If anything it is you who seem to want to deny people the right to hold alternative views.  According to you scientific theories – tens of thousands of them! – ought to be subject to a democratic vote by the global population of 7 billion, Never mind how you organise such a vote which is mind boggling in itself , what happens if such a vote were to take place and the "truth" of a given theory has been established by democratic mandate. Are you going to forbid the expression of rival theories henceforth? If not , what then was the point of the vote?  Was it just an intellectual popularity contest carried out at enormous expense to determine whether some theory was correct or not , a decision which might very look foolish the day after the vote should some scientist accidentally stumble upon a discovery that completely overturns the newly endorsed orthodox theory. Are we then going to have to have yet another global vote on the matter? Of course the whole idea is silly.  Democracy is about practical decisions of a collective nature that impact upon our lives.  I don't really see the point of voting to determine whether String theory is a correct and truthful representation of reality.  Do you and if so could you explain in simple terms what is the purpose of such a vote?

[robbo203]

  LBird, your answer  to my simple question is evasive and full of red herrings There is no equivalence between my original statement:Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time.and your gloss on it:Do they not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished managers or directors let alone both at the same time. These are referring to two quite different things – knowledge/skills,  on the one hand,. and  the economic power to manage, supervise and dictate to others within an authoritarian structure called the capitalist corporation on the other hand.   I don't see how the latter could arise in a voluntaristic society of freely associated producers – communism –  but I can very definitely envisage in such a society some people specialising in becoming neurosurgeons or biochemists and others opting for other kinds of specialisms.  My point is that there is actually no way in which this could NOT happen.  Would you be happy to have just anyone walk off the street to operate on your brain to remove a tumour?  Of course you wouldnt.   You would expect such a person to be trained up and that takes years of practice and study, years that would prevent such a person becoming at the same time a skilled mechanical e gineer for example.  These are the inevitable opportunity costs of speicalisation and the social division of labour.  Get used to it What LBird does not seem to understand with his utterly naive view and simpliustic of communism is that specialisation and the social division of labour does not in anyway impact on or alter the patten of social power in communist society.  This is because he is still thinking through the prism of bourgeois ideology.  Being a neurosurgeon does not give you greater  leverage over others in a communist society though it certainly can in a capitalist society where your skill command a higher price It is amusing that L Bird should sayIf the question is asked from a socialist perspective, that is, 'Do you feel collectively everyone can become…'And to that question, I can answer 'Yes'. How telling that L Bird does not tell us what it is in his question that "collectively everyone can become…"!!!  Become "what" L Bird? If I rephrased or  interpolated into your comment the specific details that you evidently preferred to leave out , thusIf the question is asked from a socialist perspective, that is, 'Do you feel collectively everyone can become an accomplished neurosurgeon, a biochemist and mechanical engineer?…'And to that question, I can answer 'Yes'. would you still answer "yes" in this instance? Lets hear it from you LBird but this time without evasion.  Do you think everyone become an "accomplished neurosurgeon, a biochemist and mechanical engineer, all at the same time" Do you seriously there is absolutely no room for specialisation or a social division of labour in communism Yes or no, LBird?

[robbo203]

Answer the question LBird Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time. Do  you feel everyone can become an accomplished neurosurgeon , a geophysicist and a biochemist all at the same time?Yes or no?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Is this elitism the policy of the SPGB? Is the whole of the party membership bound to 'elitist materialism'? Will the SPGB, if they participate in a workers' revolution, really seek to deny the democratic participation of workers in the social production of 'scientific knowledge', as I know already, because you've said so, that you will?

 Groan.  Not this same old rehashed nonsense from LBird yet again. Does he not recognise at all that in any kind of large scale complex society, there is inevitably going to be, to some extent, a social division of labour? We cannot all become accomplished neurosurgeons or geophysicists let alone both at the same time. This is not elitism; it simply stating the obvious – that the opportunity costs of acquiring expertise in one specialism means forsaking expertise in another. It takes time and years of study/practice to become a trained neurosurgeon. We only have three score years and ten within which to allocate our time to what become what we would like to become.  No individual, however talented, can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. I would have thought that was obvious but not according to LBird.  He seems to think human beings are potentially demigods endowed with the capacity for infinite wisdom and understanding. As for his silly rhetorical question "Will the SPGB, if they participate in a workers' revolution, really seek to deny the democratic participation of workers in the social production of 'scientific knowledge', as I know already, because you've said so, that you will?" – no, LBird no one here is proposing to place any barriers whatsoever on anyone contributing to the production of scientific knowledge.  On the contrary, any individual in a socialist society. I imagine,  will be encouraged to contribute whatever they can to the production of scientific knowledge.  The more the better as far as I am concerned However, it is one thing to say that, its quite another to expect every worker without exception to  contribute significantly to every conceivable branch of scientific  understanding.  Thats just plain daft in my opinion.  There are obviously going to be groups of workers more skilled in some areas of expertise than the population in general.  Or is LBird seriously trying to tell us that this will not be the case.  In which case, lets hear his argument for this if he has one!

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

 In my communism I want the amount of human effort required to make everything, it’s value, in the free access store recorded and displayed on the label. [Just like you get nutritional information you get on food products.  

 Dave But "value" is not the amount of human effort required to make everything, strictly speaking.  It is not actual labour time.  It is "socially necessary labour time" which is an abstraction baxsed on average levels of productivity etc . Marx argued that the only way  in which you could ascertain value is through the market and in the absence of a market economy it is a meaningless term.I really dont see the point of labour time accounting in a socialist society (not to be confused with labour vouchers which I also dont agree with).  How would you go about calculating the amount of labour time embodied in a tube of toothpaste as opposed to a bottle of hair gel? Woud you include in your calculations the labour time embodied in the machine that produced the machine that produced the machine  that produced the hair gel  by a process of infinite regress? It would seem to me to be adding another layer of unneccesary and resource-consuming bureaucracy to achieve a result of questionable validity and of dubious practical value.

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi Robbo,I think the article is a little easy on Bliar, suggesting cognitive dissonance. To those of us who were against the war, and saw through the half truths, the "sexed up" data, the apparent lack of understanding of the complexities of the history of the region, (despite having access to the best intelligence agencies in the world who had "experience" with Saddam), it wasn't cognitive dissonance at work, but simple manipulation. It's what politicians do, what they are trained to do.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911

 Hi SP.  Yes you are no doubt current in your comments on Blair. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the man lied through his teeth. However, I was more interested in the underlying argument presented in this article and the point that merely presenting factual evidence that seems to contradict a person's viewpoint might not necessarily undermine that view point and could even lead to it being reinforced. This has huge implications for the way in which we go about promoting the case for socialism and it is these implications which I wish to explore

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

Collecting facts that only support one side of the argument is just an exercise in confirmation bias. Wouldn't we be better off collecting arguments against socialism and then seeing if what we say stacks up against it? 

 That's precisely the point – what have we got to stack up against the the arguments against socialism? For that you need to do some basic research  which means collecting data to present an evidence-based against capitalism.  By all means "collect arguments against socialism" but the point is to be able to effectively respond to these arguments if you want to come across as credible

[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 I think there is a need to continue this practical work within the party, anyone else up to do some of this work?

 Tim  What about this practical work taking the form of a research department that draws on the research skills of individual members and collates the results in the form of regular bulletins along the lines of the Labour Research Department?My brother, Andy, who was a member of the SW regional branch before he died in 2014, started up something under his own initiative which provides a kind examplar of what I am talking about http://andycox1953.webs.com/database.htmhttp://andycox1953.webs.com/database2.htmhttp://andycox1953.webs.com/database3.htm 

[Author]

Posts