[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

As I've said, I'm a Democratic Communist, and I do recognise a social and political authority outside of individuals (persons or groups).That's why I'm not an Anarchist or, from what I've read and tried to discuss on LibCom, a 'Libertarian' Communist. From what little response I got, their 'Libertarian' forms seem very similar to robbo203 and Young Master Smeet's ideological views.The best that I've come up with so far as a way of illustrating these divergent positions is the ask the questions:1. Are you an individual?; and2. After the revolution, who shall tell you what to do? (ie. who shall you obey?).My own answers to these ideologically-loaded questions are:1. No, I'm not an individual, I'm a worker (ie. I regard myself as a constituent part of a social structure); and2. The Democratic Commune of which I'm a voting member will tell me what to do (the Anarchists always seem to reply that, after the rev., no-one will tell them what to do, implying, to me, no society, no political structures, and no authority whatsoever, just 7 billion individuals).If I was pressed to give a short answer to the differences, I think one starts from 'society', and the other from the 'individual'.I start from society, and its history, as I think Marx does, too.

 This is nonsense. The position that LBird is trying to defend is as  indefensible and untenable as Margaret Thatcher's notorious  claim that there is no such thing as society – only individuals (and their families) . Except that LBird is making the equivalent and opposite theoretical blunder  of asserting that there is no such things as individuals only society. In fact there is no society without individuals and there are no individuals without society. Both are just two sides of the same coin. LBird's comments remind me of some of the writings of Emile Durkheim , the famous 19th sociologist who espoused at times an extreme form of holistic thought.  Extreme holism has a long association with authoritarian conservative political thinking and the notion of subordinating the individual to the needs of the state (no wonder  LBird feels incomfortable with the arguments of libertarian communists like myself and others here!).  When confronted by criticism that he was seeking to "reify" society and endow it with some kind of quasi-objective reality separate from, and over and above, that of individuals, Durkheim tried to extricate himself somewhat from the hole he had dug himself into in his  "Rules of Sociological Method" in which he tried to moderate his extreme holism but not very successfully L Bird's implied suggestion that Marx starts from a holistic perspective is questionable.  Louis Dumont makes a strong case against this in his classic work "From Mandeville to Marx : The Genesis and Triumph of Economic Ideology".  But I think Dumont goes too far in suggesting that Marx starts form an individualistic premisses. There is an intermediate position and it is one that I take – namely that of emergence theory Emergence theory steers clear of the pitfalls both extreme individualism and extreme holism and in my view is the way to go

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

To extend the concept of democracy to people's thoughts or modes of self expression implies the suppression of those very things that democracy is supposed to be about. This is not democracy, it is totalitarian thought control. It is fascism.  We are no longer allowed to think what we think.  We must toe the Party Line, embrace the Party Line, become the Party Line.  Sod that. I say.  Who wants such a Brave New World?

This just sounds like 'libertarianism' to me, robbo.Replace "people's thoughts" with "people's property", and I think you'll see what I'm driving at.

 And what you are "driving at" is nonsense.  You completely overlook the distinction I made.  "Property" is a practical matter and so falls within the legitimate realm of democratic control.  Whether or not you think a particular scientific theory is correct or a particular form of artistic expression is good or bad is not a matter  for "democratic control".  Or are you seriously telling us that in your version of "communism" individuals will not be allowed to think differently , express different thoughts and disagree with each other on anything because some "democratic mandate" has been issued. Yes or no LBird? (You have still to explain how a democratic vote by 7 billion people on the merits of String Theory, and thousands of other scientific theories besides,  is even going to be remotely possible in a  practical sense but I have given up trying to press you on a matter on which you are clearly reluctant – and for good reason – to offer an opinion)If what i say is "libertarianism" then I'm proud to call myself a libertarian communist.  I don't think any other kind of communist is actually possible.

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Of course we must respect and abide by majority decisions…

But this is inconsistent with your former rage against 'democracy' as 'thought control'…

[/quote] No, it is not at all. The "thought control" I'm talking about and what you seem to be proposing is the absolutist elimination of all differences of opinion in the heads of individuals  on the pretext that some mysteriously arrived at "democratic mandate" has authorised that. from on high.   That is fascism not democracy in my opinion.  Democracy must acknowledge the right of individuals  to disagree or else it ceases to be democracy.  Disagreeing with others is wholly consistent with  respect ing and abiding by the decisions of the majority. That doesn't mean you agree with the decision per se but rather that you agree to go along with the decision. An important distinction which you seem to completely miss. And you miss it becuase you dont understand that democracy is about practical matters.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

Altruism is part of our human nature

 Absolutely. And without  it human society would not have been possible. In fact not only human society but many forms of animal and insect life

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I have no fear of democratic mandates. I just think that there are some fields where this should not apply, precisely over what ideas individuals hold and express as well as over what food they eat or clothes they wear. Some decisions should be taken democratically, others individually. Obviously I don't think that an individual should be able to dictate decisions on such matters either, though they can seek to change people's minds about them.Anyway, supposing that a decision has been taken to try to prevent the expression of some point of view, what do you envisage should happen to those who persist in expressing it?

 Exactly!  Its got nothing to do with "fear of the mob". That is a complete straw argument. Its got everthing to do with where democracy is required and where it is simply not required – where in fact trying to impose a "democratic mandate" is utterly pointless , stupid , impracticable and a complete waste of everyone's time. In fact the whole argument is self contradictory.  Democracy is supposed to be about the resolution of conflicting differences of opinion over some proposal about  some practical course action and so presupposes those differences in the first place.  To extend the concept of democracy to people's thoughts or modes of self expression implies the suppression of those very things that democracy is supposed to be about. This is not democracy, it is totalitarian thought control. It is fascism.  We are no longer allowed to think what we think.  We must toe the Party Line, embrace the Party Line, become the Party Line.  Sod that. I say.  Who wants such a Brave New World?Agreement and consensus should be allowed to emerge naturally and spontaneously though human interaction and debate and not be  forcibly in the sense of wanting to eliminate the different ways of looking at the world by means of some kind of insiduous thought control:  "You shall henceforth not think these thoughts again because society has determined they are unthinkable.  You shall henceforth conform to what society has determined by democratic mandate"".  That is pointless and it will in fact make democracy pointless even if it could be implemented.. Of course we must respect and abide by majority decisions but that does not have to entail relinguishing our own point of view – does it? – and if we were forced to can we truly be said to be living in a democratic society at all?

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Some evolutionary psychologists theorise there is no such thing as true altruism – only reciprocal altruism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec…)

 And "kin altruism" too which is something different to reciprocal altruism…However, while "some" evolutionary psychologists may theorise that, Dave, it is important to what it is they are actually referring to. “Evolutionary altruism“ is not the same thing as psychological altruism; it does not involve motive.  It is simply a question of consequence.  In this context, it means behaviour in which a donor incurs some cost, and the beneficiary reaps some benefit, in terms of reproductive success.  This is what these evolutionary psychologists may be questioning from a "gene centred" point of view  popularised by Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.  But even Dawkins did not deny the fact of psychological altruism and even applauded it.   Psychological altruism involves motive and is the basis of human morality and may even sometimes be damaging to the reproductive success of its intended beneficiaries as when good intentions to help others backfire disastrously and, in such instances, may run counter to evolutionary altruism.  Like the patriotic soldier who opts to die for his country before he has  had the opportunity to sow his wild oats.  This is an example of what Durkheim called "altruistic suicide"  We may say that in this case it is thoroughly misguided  but it still a form of altruism that fundamentally refutes the claims of psychological egoism.

gnome wrote:

According to this theory, every act of altruism, such as jumping into a river to save the life of a stranger, is done with some inherent expectation of reward that would offset the risk of losing your own life. The theory states that we perform such acts with the expectation that others might do the same to save the lives of our own genetic relations at some point in time.In addition, every act of apparent altruistic kindness, such as giving to charity and performing social work, also makes the altruistic person "feel good" about themselves in some way, such as the recognition they receive for their good acts.

 Yes, this is a fairly common sort of argument that it is made against the claim that people can behave altruistically.  It serves to reinforce a view of human beings is being exclusively driven by self interest, which in turn feeds into a more general argument that goes to reinforce capitalist ideology and thus capitalism itself.  Remember Adam Smith and his invisible hand of the market and his assertion that it is not out of benevolence that the butcher enables his customers to obtain meat  but out his own self interest.  We have to be very very wary as socialists of engaging with those sort of arguments that place undue stress on self interest as a motive for wanting socialism.  Self interest is part of the reason for wanting socialism but not the whole reason and socialists who want to make it the whole reason completely undermine the whole case for socialism in my view becuase the logic off what they are saying beckons them not to unite with their fellow workers but – instead –  to promote their own interests at the expense of their fellow workers In any event, I think the argument you refer to  that every act of altruism is really self interested is,  at base, baloney.  This is what  the moral philosopher, James Rachels has dubbed the egoistic “strategy of redefining motives”  Self interest is held to be  the real , or ulterior, motive for a  person's actions. An obvious example  is the social approval or esteem we are supposed to obtain from helping others.  But even where the donation is made anonymously, the donor is still held to derive some personal satisfaction (and, hence, benefit) from this act which is what, according to our psychological egoist, purportedly motivated him or her to make this anonymous donation in the first place. .Plausible though this argument may seem at first blush it is nevertheless suspect on several counts.  To begin with, all that it shows, as Rachels points out, is that it is possible to interpret such behaviour as evidence of egoistic motivation;  it does not necessarily prove that the individual in question is egoistically motivated in fact.  And there’s the rub – an individual’s motives are essentially subjective and hence inscrutable to others. So how can the claim that this individual is egoistically motivated be empirically tested? On the face of it, psychological egoism would appear to be a closed theory, incapable of  falsification; it is based on a mere assertion that could just as easily be countered  – and with just as much, or as little, validity – by the assertion that all behaviour is altruistically motivated.True, one could perhaps persuade such an individual to undergo a lie-detection test, assuming such a test to be reliable, but even this would not provide the conclusive proof we require.  After all, such evidence that a test of this kind might reveal, pointing to the fact that one wanted to benefit oneself in some way,  does not preclude wanting others to benefit as well and, consequently, need not be taken to imply egoistic motivation in its strict sense at all. After all psychological egoism is based on the proposition that not only do we not care about other people  but that we are incapable of caring about them and this is precisely what is not the case when we say we want others to benefit from our actions as well as ourselves.Nevertheless, a  psychological egoist, while acknowleging  that people  may well appear to be acting benevolently or altruistically towards others, might still want to argue that their actions spring from  a choice and, given that a choice is involved , the individual actor must ipso facto be doing what he or she wants to do – otherwise, he or she would have chosen something else to do.   In this sense, it is claimed, the individual  is still acting "egoistically" or selfishly. The difficulty with this argument is that saying that we are motivated by our wants really boils down a mere tautology.  It overlooks the obvious point that merely wanting something is not in itself selfish; what makes a want selfish has to do with the object of such a want.  If what I want is to help other people then, by definition, my want cannot be construed as selfish since I am including those other people within its purview.  In any case, what I want may not necessarily accord with my self interest. Thus, I may want to consume copious amounts of alcohol every day but it would hardly be in my interest to do so. Psychological egoism is predicated on the assumption that human action is motivated solely by what individuals rationally consider to be in their "best interests" and is therefore unable to explain why individuals should behave in a way that is quite contrary to this. It might be argued that this is just a simple case of mistaking what one subjectively believes to be in one’s best interest for what is objectively in one's best interest.  However, such an inference would not be reasonable: there is no reason to suspect that an alcoholic, say,  is necessarily incapable of recognising the considerable harm that excessive drinking can do to him or her. In the final analysis, while I may very well derive pleasure from helping others, it does not follow that this is what prompted me to offer this  help in the first place – such pleasure may simply be the inadvertent  consequence, or by-product, of my action rather than its cause.  Suppose a situation arose in which one was called upon to save a drowning child in a stormed-tossed sea.  One surely would not stop to consider the pleasurable benefits that might result from doing this before committing oneself to this course of action; in an emergency of this nature it is unlikely that there would even be enough time to engage in such idle speculation, anyway. In these circumstances people tend to act on impulse.  In fact , study after study seems to bear out the truth of this – that  people in this sort of situation tend to  that  "rescue first and reflect second" (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/psychology_of_heroism_and_altruism_what_makes_people_do_good_deeds.1.html),  I think this stems quite simply,  from a natural sense of empathy towards others       

[robbo203]

sarda karaniwan wrote:

"Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness." I think the word said it all. "altruism is a thoroughly normal and omnipresent aspect of the human condition – just as much as selfishness"So how come you have to look for it?sardaan Ordinarian

 You dont have to look for it , Sarda. Its right there under your nose and it manifests itself in countless ways – how we behave towards members of our own family, towards our friends, towards the wider community in which we live. Do you think the lifeboat people who give up their time and without any thought of financial remuneration, are acting out of selfishness to save people from the sea?  Do you think the volunteer who rattles a money tin for some charity on some windy street corner is merely doing this on a whim and not becuase he or she feels some burning desire to help others?  Of course not.   Altruism is nothing special. It is a completely normal part of what makes us human beings

[robbo203]

sarda karaniwan wrote:

rodshaw wrote:

Altruism comes from the Latin alter, meaning other. Its has nothing to do with elevation.[/quote/]Maybe so, but altruism does, because it is not for a human being to uphold. But if some of you really insist, then I'm not gonna prevent you, do it. Let us see how far you can go before you realize, "hey, I'm only human!".sardaan Ordinarian 

 Again, Sarda, Im afraid you are quite mistaken with this line of argument of yours. You present "altruism" as if it is something to aspire to , to uphold – something almost unnatural or otherworldy. The impression I get is that you think you need almost to be a saint in order to be an altruist.   In an earlier post you saidAltruism, from the word alt or alta, which means, to raise up, elevate, higher, above, because adopting this imaginary virtue is sure to raise ones being into a higher level, not the level to become human, but in a transcendental level, the near to God level, if not God.Your misunderstanding of what altruism is about is reflected in your misconstruing the etymological origins of the word as Rod pointed out:  It doesnt come from the world "alta".  Here is the standard explanation:Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. The word was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of egoism.[1][2] He derived it from an Italian altrui, which in turn was derived from Latin alteri, meaning "other people" or "somebody else".[3](Wikipedia) Contrary to what you suggest altruism is a thoroughly normal and omnipresent aspect of the human condition – just as much as selfishness.  It is what underlies any kind of human morality.  Even the capitalists to whom you referrred earlier practice a form of altruism in the guize of "kin altruism". In fact, human society would simply not be possible had we not evolved a capacity to behave altruistically towards each other. We are social animals and therefore necessarily also altruistic animals – nothwithstanding the fact that we are also inclined towards selfishness

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

'Inference', eh? As I said, robbo, yours, not mine.As for the 'Mengele jibe' (actually a philosophical explanation), it explains why the notion of 'anyone anywhere, without controls' argument is, well, to use your terminology, 'idiotic'.You made the argument, not me. Idiot, QED.

 Er, why would you volunteer a comment like thisI wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?in the context of your response to me if you did not think that was the position I held i.e. that I was against the idea of  "workers determining the production of  ideas".  Of course it is what you are infering – what else could it be, eh?   Duh!And Im still waiting to hear from you what are those "barriers" I want to place on said workers as per your comment:But you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?Given that what I actually said was:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debateHowever, knowing you,  I will be waiting till the cows come home.  And to think I was once sympathetic to you on this forum.  Well, you've sure shown yourself to me in your true colours, haven't you sunshine?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…a version of "communism" that made it "mandatory" for workers to vote…

Where did you get this gem from? It isn't anything that I've written, so you must be arguing with your own demons.

 Open your eyes and read what you yourself wrote, LBirdHere is what I said:What if 6.999 billion people decide not to cast their vote on the merits of String Theory?  Are you going to make voting mandatory? I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nailHere is how you respondedI wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?The direct inference to be drawn from that is that you consider my objection to forcing people to  have a say in the production of ideas amounts to me wanting  to prevent them from having a say.  This is a dishonest inference on your partAnother example – here is what I say

robbo203 wrote:

I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate.

To which you respondBut you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?So what barrier is that which you say I want to place on workers determining the truth of string theory, eh, LBird?  Come on.   Spit it out. Enlighten me.  Show me where i want to prevent workers determining the truth of String theory? What I actually said was:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debateWhat part of this sentence do you not understand?You are a complete fantasist, L Bird, and seemingly, you lack the wit to even see that you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole of your own making with this pathetic wriggling and eel like evasivenessI wont bother gracing your idiotic Mengele jibe with a response; it doesn't deserve one

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

LBird in effect wrote:

I take seriously the beliefs that workers should control the means of production, and that that control should be democratic.

robbo203 wrote:

I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nail

Evidently you're in the vast majority here, robbo, and I seem to be in a minority of one.The very idea of 'string theory' being dealt with by workers, eh? Outrageous! They'll be too busy sweeping the streets, and other 'proletarian' activities. We [never specified] are certainly never going to let them anywhere near the nuclear research facilities!We seem to have very different interpretations of the meaning of 'the means of production'.To me, that includes 'string theory'.Wacky idea, eh?I wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?And ajj still seems to think that there's room for me in the SPGB.

 Seems there is no end to your capacity to distort and misrepresent what your critics are saying.  What I said quite explictly was that i would fight tooth and nail against a version of "communism" that made it "mandatory" for workers to vote on such things as String Theory or anything else.  Did you even bother to read what I wrote?And to suggest, as you have done, that I would be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas' is truly plumbing the depths of dishonesty.  On the contrary I said quite explicitly and categorically thatI would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate. That applies to any of the workers you refer to above…You have seriously gone down in my estimation,  LBird.  I never thought you would sink so low as to resort to tactics such as this.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

After some consideration, I feel obliged to give you some well-meant advice, robbo!Forget (for now, at least) about your 'problem' about '7 billion voting on string theory', and focus on the issue of 'if not the proletariat, who?'.The knub of the issue is 'who? or what?', rather than, once we've identified a 'who' (or a 'what'), then turning to 'how' that specified 'who or what' can implement their power to decide.For example, we could decide that a 'who', like 'scientists', or a 'what', like 'matter', are the 'decider' of 'truth'. That's logically prior to 'how' scientists or matter go about determining truth.In my case, I think that the 'decider' should be 'society', as a whole (clearly, I mean within socialism, when there will be no classes, but, during the build-up to revolution in bourgeois society, it must be the 'proletariat' who are regarded as the 'decider', because that stance would prefigure our belief that the working class must take control of the means of production, and abolish classes).If you toss that problem around, and identify what you consider the best 'decider', we can compare notes. You have the advantage of already knowing my 'decider': 'the whole of society'. If you disagree with me, fine, but specify your 'decider', and we'll explore that.[edit – cross-posting]

I have already  touched on some, if not all, of the points you raise here, LBirdFirst off,  why should there be some kind official stamp of approval as to what constitutes "The Truth" anyway?  Why is it deemed necessary at all  to decide via the vote, as your have recommended, whether (say) String Theory should be admitted into the hallowed hall of the Offical Party Line or be banished henceforth to the wilderness of underground thought crimes?  This smacks of Kim Jong-un and North Korea, frankly.  If people want to hold conflicting theories in the realm of science or any other branch of knowlege then so be it.  I am for pluralism and continuous open dialogue, not turning science into a dogma.Secondly you ask who should be the decider of the Truth and suggest that this should be "society".  If all this is meant to convey is the idea that knowlege is social then this is a pretty meaningless statement.  If you mean society literally as comprising some 7 billion inhabitants of planet Earth, then as I suggested to you before, the idea is – to put it mildly – utterly insane.  The vision of 7 billion people voting on the merits of String Theory  – not to mention thousands upon thousands of other theories – is spectacular in its surreality.  Quite apart from the sheer mechanics of collating the views of 7 billion people to come to a "decision" of this magnitutde –  which implies a high centralised Leninist mode of social organisation as i said –  99% of the population (myself included – before you go on about "elitism") are never going to master the complexities of String Theory and, to be quite frank here, String Theory is not really my cup of tea, anyway.  Im just not interested enough in rousing myself to study the subject,  That probably goes for most other people as well.So to answer your question  – who "decides" whether String Theory is sound or not? Simple answer – whoever is interested enough! I  might not be interested enough but I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate. Point is you simply dont need to define a constituency of decisionmakers which in your case seems to be "the proletariat"Why can you just not let scientific opinion develop naturally and organically through open continuous  dialogue amongst whoever choses to interest themsleves in the subject? Why the need to mechanistically impose some vast, large scale schema on the population which lays down the law in these matters?  What if 6.999 billion people decide not to cast their vote on the merits of String Theory?  Are you going to make voting mandatory?I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nail

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

My experiences on this site, unfortunately, have bolstered my previous experiences, both online (LibCom, ICC) and cadre-priests. Democracy carries many fears for them all. Fear of the mob, I think. They don't really mean workers to control the means of production. That's just a line.

 More caricature, I'm afraid.  The problem is entirely your own doing LBird.  You are the one who defined democracy in terms of  voting and came out with this mindboggling statementIn some ways, it's a simple choice: who determines human knowledge (and ethics and truth)? An elite, or our whole society, by voting?It is not fear of the mob or elitism that makes one reject this insane idea of yours.  It the utter impracticality of what you suggest.  How does "our whole society" vote  on the "truth" of  String Theory or any other high falutin scientific theory (and why should it?) as you suggest.  You provide absolutely no answer to these and other questions and then perversely interpret people's rejection of what you are suggesting as somehow signifiying a fear of "democracy" and the "mob".Do you have any idea just how arrogant and offensive that comes across as being? You would do well to begin by looking at yourself for a change…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Christ, there I was actually starting out rather sympathetic to much of what you were saying (I still am).  You sure have a knack of alienating your sympathisers, LBird, you sure do….

I started to write a longer post, robbo, but on reflection I think that it's probably best left there. You'd probably be better reading some books or something, because I can tell when I'm beaten!

 I dont need to read a book on the subject LBird.  All I need – or wanted – was a straight answer to a straight question.  Can you address the two points I raised earlier, directly and to the point?  I would be much appreciative of a reply along those lines

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Robbo, you say you agree with most (nearly everything?) that I say, and yet the bit that you don't understand you accuse me of using 'smear tactics'.

 Not quite, LBird, not quite.Part of what I understand I agree with,  part of what I also understand I recognise as being outright mischievous misrepresentation. I refer to your earlier claim that I endorse a position:that starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS NOT necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is not necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.This is not my position at all and you know it. I said repeatedly that, of course, democracy is necessary.  – where there is a conflict of interests to resolve .  Where there is no conflict of interests to resolve, where we are merely  talking, for instance, of diffferent scientific theories being advanced to account for some  or other phenonmeon then obviously democracy is not  necessary.  What is the point in putting the theories to a vote?  So you vote on the matter – what then? Does that mean the protagonists of the rival theories that have lost out  should just shut up shop  since clearly their therories, having been outvoted, cannot possibly be "true".  This is such a silly argument I cannot believe someone who  is clearly as intelligent as you are, can actually advance it. And yet that is precisely what you are doing:In some ways, it's a simple choice: who determines human knowledge (and ethics and truth)? An elite, or our whole society, by voting?FFS, LBird, how can I vote on the merits of  something like String theory when frankly I no bugger all about it?  –  like probably 99.9% of my fellow workers.  But does it really matter that only a small minority  – what you call an "elite" – that have had the necessary training and education, grasp what it is all about? NO IT DOES NOT!!  I bet most of those astrophysists who know all about String Theory  wouldn't know the first thing when it comes to pruning an olive tree or drystone walling – something that I do routinely every working day.There are thousands upon thousands of scientific theories out there covering every conceivable field of scientific endeavour.  And you seriously expect  the world's workers – all 7 billion of us – to familiarise themselves with each and every one of these theories and then vote on their merits.  Are you for real?  You have still to explain how this distinctly Leninist style proposal of yours for a highly centralised global society that coordinates and collates the opinions of billion of individuals is even going to work on your terms but I wont press you on that; you have problems enough trying to justify your dotty ideas as it is! Look, it really doesnt matter a damn as far as I am concerned that some people know a damn sight more than I do on subjects that I will never know much about and, to be frank, have little interest in – like String Theory. I evidently dont possess your obsession with with wanting to have my say on every conceivable scientific (or other) point of view doing the rounds.  What matters to me is that I should be able to have my say where it matters – where there is actually a conflict of interest, where people have different views as to what course action to be taken.  Democracy is about practical matters, about the lives people lead, not some high fulutin scientific (or other) theory… Instead of serving up to us your long pretentious reading list of 19th and 20th century intellectuals – how ironic for someone who claims to be an anti elitist!- you could have addressed those two very  simple straightforwad points I raised but no , you are more slippery then an eel when it comes to providing a  straight answer to a straight question.  Instead we get from you, this: I'm trying to help, to help comrades actually avoid much of the reading (lots of it is simply wrong, from a Democratic Communist perspective). But apparently, you and the others don't need my help, because you all already know the answers, and argue with me constantly from a position of abject ignorance.I bow down to your superior knowlege O superior one. Actually, I dont know all the answers and that is precisely the point I have been trying to make. And I am never likely to know more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge – and that goes for everyone else (including, believe it or not, you too) – and yet you expect all of us – all 7 billion of us – to all vote on everything that constitutes this immense stock of human knowlege!!!!  Absolutely bleedin unbelievable!  This is insane.  What planet are you from,  LBird?Christ, there I was actually starting out rather sympathetic to much of what you were saying (I still am).  You sure have a knack of alienating your sympathisers, LBird, you sure do….

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I wish to acknowledge your post above, but I think that I've covered the points you seem to be trying to make in my reply to Brian.The key point you seem to be asking about is 'practical application'. As I've said before, the issue of 'practice' is an ideological and philosophical issue.Unless you engage with the discussion, at least at first, on that theoretical level, you will not understand the problems with both yours and Brian's stance, from which you ask your questions.If effect, for the purposes of this discussion, it could be considered that there are two frameworks in play.The first starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS NOT necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is not necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.The second starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.The framework one chooses to start from is not an objective choice, but is a socially-determined one.As a Communist, I choose to use the second framework, which I consider appropriate for workers' democracy.The first framework is entirely compatible with bourgeois science and politics, so I warn comrades to be wary of choosing that framework. It is also the framework entirely appropriate for Leninism.The arguments put forward by you and Brian would sound just the same coming from a supporter of capitalism. They, too, start from an assumption that 'democracy is not necessary', and then go on to prove this by reference to 'current practice'. Markets do not require democracy. Money is like Matter, and humans should keep their ideological beliefs in democracy out of the areas which don't concern them. That is the social basis of this ideology: bourgeois society, and its 'ruling class ideas'.

 Hi LBirdI am trying to follow your reasoning above but , I'm afraid, it still doesn't  make much sense to me.  Also , you still haven't really addressed the two points I raised at all – just basically sidestepped them completely.  Let me first of all correct you. I did not suggest at all that "democracy is not necessary" – certainly not  in the kind of unqualified form you present.  What I actually said was democracy is necessary for some purposes in communist society where there are conflicting interests or viewpoints as to what needs to be done but that it was not necessary for other purposes.  You have misrepresented me in other words.  As an example of the latter I mentioned workers having to vote on rival scientific theories to determine which one should prevail (which, for some unexplained reason, is something that you think a communist society ought to be doing).  To me that is an utterly pointless gesture which is moreover alien to whole spirit of scientific enquiry which is self critical not dogmatic yet you seem to see the need for scientific theory  to get some kind of formal seal of approval which is precisely a matter of turning theory into a dogma.  I explained all this to you but you completely ignored my explanationWhat I am trying to get at, LBird, is that you seem unwilling to draw a line in the sand where you can say that "on this side of that line democracy is necessary and on the other side it is not".  I think I know what lies behind your reluctance to do so (although I may be wrong) and it ties in with your oft-repeated refrain throughout this long (and needlessly tortuous) thread that "The framework one chooses to start from is not an objective choice, but is a socially-determined one" – that there is no such thing as an objective value free science. Such a view of science or knowledge is what you have repeatedly characterised as 19th century postivism. As I think you put it "rocks don't talk"As a matter of fact I am very largely in agreement with you on this matter.  I agree that 'practice' is indeed an ideological and philosophical issue – although, of course. I don't think even you would rash enough to claim that it is PURELY   a question of ideology/philosophy.  Even so, I think you have become so used  to repeating this mantra of yours that it has become a crutch.  It has blinded you to the implications (and very obvious shortcomings) of other aspects of your argument.   It is precisely because I too start from your second framework above – that science can never be value free –  that I reject what you say about there being no possibility or need to draw that line in the sand.  Moreover, I don't  have to rely on  "current practice" to back up my claim.  With respect, your whole line of argument seems incredibly crude and simplistic. It amounts to a form of smear tactics to be blunt.  Markets ("current practice") don't require democracy, you say.  Democracy, you say (misleadingly), is something that I assert  will "not be necessary". Therefore  the arguments put forward  by Brian and I "sound just the same coming from a supporter of capitalism".   Next , you  will be saying we are advocates of markets and bourgeois science because you chose to slot us into a framework "that is entirely compatible with bourgeois science and politics"! That is very poor reasoning, LBird.  It is nothing more than clever device  that enables you  to evade answering the two pretty fundamental  points I raised in my earlier post.  Those points incidentally were not based on "current practice" but on what is very likely to be case in a communist society and if you think otherwise then show me why it should be otherwise.  Don't just make ex cathedra type statements to the effect from on high.  Answer the points I raised or admit you have no answers to themYou know, two can play at this game of yours.  I could if I was so minded to, demonstrate that for all your claims about the quasi-Leninist approach of the SPGB in these matters,  you are far more Leninist in the implications of what you are saying than ever the SPGB  has been.  I don't think you are Leninist anymore than the SPGB but by taking a part of your argument and inflating it into the whole (as you have done with mine and others),  I could show that you are a thoroughgoing Leninist whose vision of a future communist society is that of a thoroughly centralised social order which functions through the centralised collation of the opinions of literally billions of workers on everything under the sun – whether this be on  the veracity of one scientific theory versus another or on the global allocation of steel plate to automobile manufacturing plants worldwide.  Afterall everything that requires a decision to be made,  according to you, requires by that very token, the democratic input and seal of approval of a "workers democracy".  And since "the workers" are worldwide,  the basis upon which every decision to be made in the world must therefore be worldwide tooThis is central planning in its classic sense (albeit a hyper-democratic version of the same which is even less realisable than the undemocratic version).  Bingo. I've just *seemingly exposed you as an advocate of a certain kind of bourgeois way of thinking apparent in people like Lenin, with its veneration of giantism, Fordism , mass society and centralisation .  I could argue that your representation of communist society as a kind of impersonal massified society in which billions of workers are constantly engaged on  the process  of collectively centralising their opinions on everything under the sun and collectively actively acting upon these as the expression of this workers democracy mirrors precisely that way of thinking.Except of course that I don't actually think you are pushing a bourgeois way of thinking on the rest of us. I read between the lines of what you are saying and understand that there is much more to what you are saying.  It would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy to your critics instead of caricaturing them 

[Author]

Posts