robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
LBird wrote:Now, to non-Marxists like robbo and YMS, this 'explanation' is entirely useless, because like the good bourgeois that they are, they are 'practical men', who demand 'practical answers', which can be implemented now, in this society.As expected, our resident Leninist and ex SWPer , LBird, completely evades the question of how to organise a global democratic vote on the production of scientific truth or even explain why it is necessary , but relies instead entirely on feeble ad hominens to cover his tracks. It is this sort of thoughtless pie in the sky approach of his to what are actually seriously practical questions – though he sneers at the term – that gives Marxism a bad name and reinforces the false idea that socialism is an unobtainable and impractical objective. He could not be a more effective stooge of the capitalist ruling class if he tried but then at bottom he is a Leninist after all. So that figures
alanjjohnstone wrote:Our political position should be based on the effects of technology as used by capitalist institutions in the here and now, not wishful thinking of how it could be used in socialism. I am sure super-surveillance of the individual with implanted chips can have many benefits in a benign society eg monitoring health or searching for lost little children, but i don't think Cheltenham GCHQ should in capitalism be given that power of technology. It is not Luddism to desire restraint on certain technology because of the simple fact that we already have and have had for a long time the production capability of implementing socialism and ii am not talking about the bread and butter basics for it.AlanThere is a huge qualitative difference between the application of technology and the "production of scientific truth" which is what LBird is forever rabbiting on about. I have never understood the point of subjecting the latter to a democratic vote; nor has he or, at any rate, he has never bothered to explain why. Democracy is about the practical real-world consequences of our actions where these significantly affect large numbers of people; its not about abstract ideas. Yes, you can take a straw poll among a group to ascertain the level of support for a particular theory if you so wished if only out of curiosity. If then it is discovered that a 76% support the theory and 24% oppose it, what then? What are you supposed to do with this poll result? LBird doesn't tell us. Is it intended that the minority ought now to relinquish their minority view and toe the line. I would maintain that would be bad for science and bad for democracy too , ironically. This is to say nothing of the logistics of trying to implement "democratic control of the production of scientific truth". Socialist Punk has asked LBird whether he could put some "meat on the bones" of how knowledge, scientific "truth" etc, can be democratically controlled by a global, socialist population. He won't get an answer. LBird has been asked this question on numerous occassions but has flatly refused to answer. I would contend that even to organise a global vote on just one single issue alone is a mammoth undertaking in itself in terms of the registration of (approximately 7 billion) voters, the coordination and monitoring of the vote to prevent fraud etc, and counting the figures. But the so called "democratic production of scientific truth" involves not just one single one-off global vote but multiple tens of thousands of them in every conceivable discipline of science. Its quite absurd. The pie in the sky approach of LBird is to just simply brush aside these issues as being of no consequence. He is just not being serious, in my view
Dont kid yourself, LBird. You not a Marxist at all. You are the political equivalent of a Jehovah Witness neophyte who refuses to answer any probing question whatsoever lest that unsettles his dogmatic fixed view of the world. Marx's motto in life was to question everything. You question nothing. You are the epitome of the poltical dogmatist The real question is – what are you doing on this site?
Your right in some respects LBird. I oppose what is effectively your Leninist totalitarian pespective on the future (which probably owes to your SWP background!) which, though you lack the wit to realise this, is a recipe for the emergence of an all powerful and utterly ruthless elite out of the complete chaos and social paralysis brought about by the very utopian schema you propose to inflict on us – notably, 7 billion deciding by means of a "democratic vote" on all the nuts and bolts of the entire vast machinery of globalised production , not to mention the veracity of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories churned out each and every year. It is difficult to organise something as fairly straightforward as, say, a capitalist general election. Yet what you are proposing in terms of the commitment and dedication of time and resources is probably several trillion times greater and more complicated Only a complete buffoon who has completely lost touch with reality could propose such a crackpot idea. And you know, LBird, for all your crass sociological naivete and your mindlessly ranting on about "individualism" (which you don't seem to have the foggiest notion about) the very "democracy" that you so brazenly flourish as the touchstone of your belief system presupposes the very individuals who you want to submerge and obliterate in some kind of collectivist soup – the reflex thought of every elitist – which individuals you would have us believe are nevertheless expected (by you) to vote yes or no on the literally millions of plebiscites you want them to be – nay, insist that they be – engaged in – that is, of course, if they have time to draw breath dashing from one voting booth to the next in your future utopia. Now thats a rich peice of irony , innit?
LBird wrote:Here we have it all: Marx's 'idealism-materialism', social knowledge and 'things' produced by humans, by 'theory and practice', in which human purpose and will determine the production (not passive reception of 'nature', as bourgeois science alleges) of 'organic nature', 'under the control of the general intellect' (which, if it doen't mean "democratic control of the production of 'truth' ", doesn't mean anything at all).Of course it doesnt mean that. Only a Leninist central planner with his head in the clouds could possibly arrive at such a daft and impractical suggestion that assimilates the "intellect" or knowledge of discrete concrete individuals to the "general intellect" of everyone, of society itself. I repeat what has been said many times before but incredibly has to yet grasped by LBird. No one, not even the most brilliant scientific mind alive, can grasp anything more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge. Democracy presupposes the activity and involvement of discrete individuals qua individuals deciding collectively, but as individuals, whether to support or oppose a specific proposal on the table. It depends upon informed decision making. But the growth of socialised knowledge – what Marx calls the general intellect – has vastly outgrown what the discrete individual is capable of comprehending and the gap is steadily widening with the passage of the time and with the increasing complexity of the social division of labour, something which LBird seems not to understand The thoughtless and knee jerk mantra of his that is the "democratic control of the production" is becoming even more of a mirage and will o the wisp than it ever was – not because anyone is forbidden from expressing an opinion on any of the countless thousands of new scientific theories that come into circulation each years but because this growth of socialist knowledge has vastly outstripped, and is more and more outstripping, our capacity as individuals to absorb it. And if we cannot absorb it as individuals how we can meaningfully make informed decisions and without which democratic decision making itself would be impossible Democratic decision making has therefore to be disaggregated as a concept and tailored to what is realistic and possible and where it is needed in a direct practical sense. It should not be turned into some pie-in-the-sky dogma, the pursuit of which will actually bring democracy into disrepute and ironically bring about a collapse of those democratic strucutures in place when the Leninist central planers take over in the face of social paralysis brought about by the very futile attempt to initiate society-wide decision making over literally everything, including "truth production"
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Is that 'bourgeois logic' or 'True Logic, as given to us by God himself'?Back to the playpen, YMS.Logic you are unable to refute, and which seems to have reduced you to bluster.
Hear hear
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:Truth can be elected, and thus the good life for humans can be established, by active humans employing social theory and practice.This is demonstrably untrue.A) A truth claim can only be verified by a vote.
The polity votes on the truth claim.C) The result of the vote is itself a truth claim.D) The result of the vote can only be discovered by a further vote.Science is necessarily ideological in some sense – and I don't think anyone here disagrees with that – but the proposition that we, all 7 billion of us on planet Earth, must therefore vote on scientific theories in order to determine their supposed "truth" status – a ludicrous and totally impractical idea anyway – is to completely misunderstand what democracy is about and what it is for. It is about practical decisions that affect our wellbeing. In other words its about the application of scientific discoveries to particular end uses not about the process of scientific discovery itself even if the latter may be indirectly influenced by the former. And yes you are right. There is something inherently absurd about the the whole idea of voting to determine the truth of a scientific theory . This is an idea that springs from a religious cum dogmatic cast of mind. So 4.2 billion people vote in favour of String Theory in Astrophysics while 2.8 billion vote against it. So what?!? What actually has been accomplished by this grand folly of a gesture? Absolutely nothing except an incredibly pointless waste of peoples time and resources. Are the 2.8 billion minority of the global population now expected to toe the Party line and renounce their adherence to any rival theory. If that is what is being asked of us than frankly we would still be stuck in a geocentric ptolemaic paradigm of the universe when the great majority of people believed the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way round.. It is intrinsically conservative in its implications The proposition that we should vote on scientific theories is anti scientific and stems from the mindset of religious Ayatollahs albeit dressed up in the paper thin veneer of a commitment to "democracy" but which will soon enough reveal its true character in the crushing and banning of any kind of dissenting scientific opinion in order to give credence to the empty ritual of such a vote in the first place
LBird wrote:I'm not allowed to answer you yet again, robbo, on pain of yet another ban.Please stop asking me the same questions (founded upon your wish to deny workers' democracy), all the while continuing to ignore the same answers.This thread is about your Religious Materialism, and I wish to adher to that topic.If you wish to pursue your topic, please read the answers that I've given before, time and time again, on other threads.You are clearly suffering from some kind of delusion LBird. No you havent given the answers to the questions I ve asked at all. Not at all. On every single occasion WITHOUT FAIL you've simply run away from the questions asked. And now you have the effrontery to lie through your teeth about it all declaring that I wish to "deny workers democracy". Quite the opposite is true and I said quite explicitly Im all in favour of workers democracy but where it is needed and not where it is not needed. So, I dont think it is needed to determine , for instance, what I should wear, what I should consume,. where I should live , what music I should listen to, what interests I should pursue and so on. These are personal choices and it is ridiculous and totally impractical trying to subject them to "democratic decisionmaking". The same is true of your utterly daft and ill thought out idea of democratic "truth production". It is such a stupid impractical idea I can hardly believe any rational human being could come up with such a thing. You say this thread is about "religious materialism". That is ironic because, compared to you, a devotee of the Hare Krishna sect or a Jehovah Witness, would come across as a positively reasonable. You are the quintessential expression of the religious dogmatist who has nothing useful to say and finds some kind of weird comfort in the repetitive utterances of mantras, boring the pants off .all and everyone around him/her in the process. Youve completely lost the plot, LBird
LBird wrote:I can feel yet another ban coming on… to keep the site safe from critical thought, and safe for the Religious Materialists, like robbo, who won't have workers' democracy in truth production.So not content with dodging all my arguments and flinging round the odd cheap insult to cover your tracks , now your are resorting to down right porkies to plug the holes and stem the draining away of what little credibility you have left on this forum. So I'm a "religious Materialist" now meaning, in your terms, a positivist, some one who thinks that "rocks talk" as you put it. Ill have you know, LBird, that long before you announced your triumphal entrance on this forum in a fanfare of trumpets, I was doggedly critiquing positivism and the so called "fact- value" distinction . Your initial comments on the subject actually attracted my support, if you recall. However, your pattern of behaviour since then – abusing those who dare disagree with you, twisting their arguments or just simply walking away from them when attempting to deal with them would expose your own argument for claptrap it is – has all but lost my sympathy vote. A case in point is is this idiotic mantra of yours – "workers' democracy in truth production". What the hell does that mean in practice LBird? You wont say. You adamantly refuse to say time after time after time when repeatedly asked to elaborate. Frankly, arguing with you is like debating with a Jehovah witness zealot on the merits of creationism. Are you seriously trying to tell us that 7 billion people are going to be voting on the "truth" of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories every year. (why they even need to vote on the truth of such theories is another matter). It is not as you stupidly continue to assert that I am saying workers should not be allowed to have an opinion on some scientific theory and that this should be left to expert elite. I have no problems with anyone whatsoever venturing an opinion. I'm just saying that no one individual, however clever or gifted, can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge and that consequently for any theory it is more than likely that most people (including the experts in some other field) will have neither the knowledge or the inclination to pass an informed opinion on the subject, I have precious little knowledge of, for example, molecular biology and wouldn't presume to pass an opinion on some theory relating to this field. Does that bother me? Nope. Not at all. I am quite happy for the molecular biologists to discuss among themselves the rights and wrongs of this particular theory. You on the other hand have no conception whatsoever of the simple fact that there is such a thing as a social division of labour and that with advances in human knowledge this is becoming more and not less pronounced. Your head is completely in the clouds and that is why you never seem to progress beyond the utterance of empty mantras My point is that there are structural limits to democratic decision making and my interest is in trying to delineate where these lie. I'm all for democratic decision making but where it is needed and not where it is not needed. Are you trying to tell that global population should determine what I read, where I live , what clothes I wear , what music I should be allowed to listen to and so on, No? Well then if you say no then you too by implication accept that there must be structural limits to democratic decision making. That is why I mentioned local or decentralised decision making in a future socialist society. You didn't seem to understand the point of this example. In fact it serves as an analogy for the example of expert elites. If you agree that a local community knows best what it needs locally and does not need the global community to determine whether it requires a local hospital and where to siute it then what is the difference between that and saying that some people know more about a particular theory than others and are therefore in a better position to pass comment. In principle not much This is nothing wrong in admitting you know less about a particular subject than someone else and it is nothing short of arrogant self delusion to pretend that the situation is different Of course if you dont think there will be some degree of decentralised decionmaking in socialism then that makes you a central planner. In which case would you care to demonstrate how you imagine one single plan for the whole of global society is remotely practicable?
LBird wrote:Perhaps the real problem, robbo, is that you don't want to explain to workers, and you're quite happy with your own 'individual understanding'. That thesis would certainly fit with your refusal to democratise truth production, and your wish to retain 'elite expert' control in science. You could then pose as the 'elite expert' in philosophy and history, and prevent workers from controlling the production of history writing, too.In fact, this sequence is precisely what happens with the Leninist philosophy, of elite 'special consciousness' being embodied in a cadre party, who will 'lead' the dumb workers to socialism. No workers' democracy there, and none with you, either.You do talk a load of tosh at times LBird, as well completely evading my central point – that your so called "critical reading" of Engels may have quite misread what the guy was saying on the first place. As your nonsense about "democraticising truth production" perhaps you might care to respond to the relevant section in my earlier post – reproduced below -something else you completely evaded, preferring it seems to hide behind cheap and empty smears about "elite experts" and repudiating "workers democracy" Your problem, L Bird, is that that you dont know what democracy is for, what its purpose is, and that is why you come out with kind of idiotic kneejerk comments such as the above
robbo203 wrote:Groan. Not this daft idea again! It is not a question of anyone trying to stop anyone from saying what is the truth in their view. Its just a simple fact that none of us however talented or gifted can ever acquire more than the tiniest fraction of the sum total of human knowlege and therefore the idea that any of us, let alone all of us , can competently pronounce on the "truth" of everything is just plain ludicrous. Democratic control of production is a relative thing or are you seriously trying to tell us that the total global workforce (7 billion people) is going to have a say in what goes on in Factory no.156 in William Morris Avenue, Surbiton, Surrey in the new global communist world order? Pull another one, LBird! It does not follow from the fact that production is a socialised process that the totality of society has to be involved in literally every single decision made in the global economy. If this is what you are saying that makes you an advocate of crackpot central planning and an opponent of any kind of decentralised or localised decisionmaking whatsoever. Ironically that would make your perspective more of a Leninist one than you perhaps care to admitOn this last point, do tell us LBird – what is your take on central planning? Do you believe that the totality of production should be democratically controlled by the total global workforce (i.e. there should be no localised or decentralised decisionaking) and how in practical terms are you going to achieve this? C'mon lets hear from you on the subject. Why do you keep mum every time it is brought up?
LBird wrote:Engels then goes on to throw away, once again, Marx’s notion of human ‘production’ (theory and practice, plans and product, human social and historical creativity), and reverts to the ‘economic’ as ‘ultimately decisive’, and specifically says that ‘human minds’ do not play ‘the decisive one’.Engels, Bloch letter, wrote:We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one.[my bold]
But he doesnt say what you say he is saying. This is not a "critical" reading of the text as you claim but a display of your own prejudices in the pursuit of this hobbyhorse of yoursThere is a difference between saying Engels "specifically says that ‘human minds’ do not play ‘the decisive one’" and what Engels actually said viz But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one." Can you spot the difference? It is not the human mind as such which does not play a decisive part but rather the political conditions and traditions which haunt the human mind. There is nothing in what Engels says that the human mind per se (i.e. consciousness) is not also implicated in those conditions that do play an ultimately decisive role i.e. the economic ones Your claim that " His use of ‘economic’ excludes ‘mind’, and so he thinks that the term is equivalent to ‘material’, something to do with ‘matter’, to the exclusion of ‘mind’ is unproven. You say: It’s obvious to all that human ‘production’, being social, involves both ideas and materiality, in equal measure. Assume for the sake this applies to all forms of activity not just production and that that is what Engels actually meant Is it possible to argue that some forms of activity exhiting this fusion of what you call the ideal and material can predominate in influencing the course of history while other forms of activity are less influential. I think it is . Im quite persuaded by Keith Graham's (another ex SPGBer) way of looking at the matter thusRecall that synchronic materialism concerns the relations of a society frozen in snapshot, as it were. Some of these difficulties of verification may be eased by observing societies in motion, over time. Although relations of production cannot be observed without accompanying superstructural attributes, any pattern in successive relations of production and their accompaniments may allow inferences of subordination and domination to be drawn (Keith Graham , 1992, Karl Marx Our contemporary Harvester Wheatsheaf, p54-55) Or to ram the point home here is another , and one of my favourite, quotes from Carolyn MerchantAn array of ideas exists available to a given age: some of these for unarticulated or even unconscious reasons seem plausible to individuals or social groups; others do not. Some ideas spread; others die out. But the direction and accumulation of social changes begin to differentiate between among the spectrum of possibilities so that some ideas assume a more central role in the array, while others move to the periphery. Out of this differential appeal of ideas that seem most plausible under particular social conditions, cultural transformations develop (Carolyn Merchant, 1980, The Death of Nature: Women , Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, Harper and Row p.xviii)It is in this context that economic circumstances can be seen to act as a crucial part of the "sifting process" that leads to cultural transformation – not as something separate from the realm of ideas but as the expression of ideas like the idea of property rights or the idea of self interest, say
LBird wrote:So, WHY call it the 'materialist'?I agree that, not only does Marx's 'conception' of history 'not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas', but argue also that 'consciousness and ideas' play a central role in 'theory and practice'.If the 'term' doesn't have any significance, why not call it the 'chocolate conception of history'?For the reason hinted at, I think, in the Bloch letter – it was called the materialist conception of history to redress the balance somewhat in the light of the predominately idealist conceptions of history making the rounds at the time. Whether or not "materialist conception of history" is the right phrase or an inappropriate description – I am sympathetic to the latter conclusion – the main point is that at least in the hands of Marx (and Engels despite what you say) it does not preclude consciousness and the role of ideas in history at all.[quote-LBird]No, most workers seeing, for the first time, the word 'material' attached to Marx's concept, naturally think that it's something basically to do with 'material' things.Then, when they meet the Religious Materialists, who tell them that 'idealism' is an evil best avoided, the die is cast.[/quote] I think you are engaging in a bit of caricature here. Opposing "idealism" is not the same as saying ideas dont count. Rather it is oppposing the idea that ideas alone count. Material circumstances likewise count. Of course it is quite true that material circumstances are never presented to us unmediated by ideas but that is not what an idealist theory is saying. It is saying something rather more than that, is it not? The main reason why I dont like your clumsy formulation- the idealist-materialist conception of history – though I understand the point you are trying to make is that, taken literally, its a contradiction in terms
LBird wrote:Let's face it, there are even 'socialists' on this very site who won't have workers electing 'truth'. So much for the democratic control of production.Groan. Not this daft idea again! It is not a question of anyone trying to stop anyone from saying what is the truth in their view. Its just a simple fact that none of us however talented or gifted can ever acquire more than the tiniest fraction of the sum total of human knowlege and therefore the idea that any of us, let alone all of us , can competently pronounce on the "truth" of everything is just plain ludicrous. Democratic control of production is a relative thing or are you seriously trying to tell us that the total global workforce (7 billion people) is going to have a say in what goes on in Factory no.156 in William Morris Avenue, Surbiton, Surrey in the new global communist world order? Pull another one, LBird! It does not follow from the fact that production is a socialised process that the totality of society has to be involved in literally every single decision made in the global economy. If this is what you are saying that makes you an advocate of crackpot central planning and an opponent of any kind of decentralised or localised decisionmaking whatsoever. Ironically that would make your perspective more of a Leninist one than you perhaps care to admit
LBird wrote:So, if it involves 'ideas', why not call it the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'? Why do you continue, against the drift of your posts on this very thread, which, I agree, continuously stress the role of ideas and consciousness, to use the term 'materialist'?I didint invent the term. I am just saying what the expression "materialist conception of history " signifies and it does not signify what you think its does. Its does not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas
LBird wrote:I'll quite happily ditch 'materialist conception', 'idealist conception' and 'idealist-materialist conception', if we can get away from the Engelsian myth that Marx was a 'materialist'.But, whilst the Religious Materialists continue to insist, following Engels, that Marx was a 'materialist', we're compelled to argue about these 'labels'.Again, I ask the simple question – where is your evidence for this? Point me to the evidence where Engels expressed a crude reductionist standpoint. How difficult is that? You say you produced lots of evidence earlier on this forum. Where? On what thread? Can you be specific?
LBird wrote:I've read Alison's article (it was provided to me by a comrade from here), and I think that she is too influenced by Engels, and fails to see the differences between them.She still refers to 'Marx's materialism' (p. 20), and so clearly doesn't understand that Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. She then refers to 'his materialist conception of history'. This is Engels' term, not Marx's. Marx merely referred to 'our conception'. I've given all the relevent quotes, previously.I think you are too hung up on the fomality of labels. In no way does a materialist conception of history preclude a role for ideas as I explained. You say you have given all the relevant quotes concerning Engels previously but where? At least till me what thread your are talking about
