[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

For example, whether one's definition of 'individual' is biological (and so transcends history and society, and thus one can discuss 'individuals' and their own actions without reference to the place of that 'individual'), or whether one's definition of 'individual' is ideological (and so is embedded in history and society, and thus one can't discuss 'individuals' and their actions without reference to their time).I'll be explicit: my definition of 'individual' is ideological (I'm a Democratic Communist), so I will regard any talk by authors or posters about 'individuals' as contaminated by bourgeois ideology. I would only refer to 'social-individuals', and situation any action by a hunter-gatherer in a political context.

 Of course individuals are embedded, and act, within a social context – no one is disputing that  – but it is nonsense to assert that merely  to talk about "individuals" as "being contaminated by bourgeois ideology".  You can't talk about society without acknowledging also the existence of individuals who compromise it – just as you can't talk about individuals without acknowledging the existence of the social  context  in which they are embedded.  Your "social-individuals" obscures the necessary reciprocal relationship that goes on here and amounts to a form of mystic holism from which effectively the very idea of "individuals" is expunged Contrary to the ideas of holists like Durkheim with his talk of "mechanical solidarity" and undifferentiated "group think",  traditional societies such as hunter gatherers were characterised by a high degree of individuality  (which is not the same as "individualism") leading to individuals breaking away from the group to set up another group as a form of conflict avoidance – the fissioning process endemic to HG groups.  In other words, they saw themselves as individuals who could be slighted and wronged and so able to respond accordingly – just as much as they saw themselves also as part of a group.  Thats is precisely why conflict within a HG societies tended to be radically decentralised and this in turn may be part of the reason why war as a systemic expression of group based conflict did not seem to have been evident in such societies – at least in the paleolithic era

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've lost the reference, a book recently came across my desk looking at early warfare.  The conclusion (all I had time to look at) was that if you defien war as "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" (I think that was teh formula) then war has always been with us, including among hunter gatherers, however, if you don't take on that definition, and become stricter in your definition of war, then it hasn't been.

YMSDid the book provide any evidence that there was "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" in the Paleolithic era and what was this evidence? The anthropologist , R. Brian Ferguson, considered to be the foremost expert on the early history of war, has pointed out:  "Many hominid remains once thought to establish the most ancient evidence of homicide or cannibalism were actually gnawed by predators or just suffered postmortem breakage" (R. Brian Ferguson , Jul/Aug 2003, "The Birth of War" , Natural History  , Vol. 112, Issue 6).  Ferguson himself has conducted an extensive global survey of archaeological records and has found no substantive  evidence of systematic violence in  prehistoric human societies. Its worth reading the link I supplied above in which Ferguson effectively demolishes Pinkers argument. Around  the time of the neolithic revolution you might possibly begin to see signs of systematic organised violence but this would have been chiefly among tribally based agriculturalist societies where territorial defence becomes an issue unlike with nomadic HGs.  If there was any evidence of HG violence around this time it would probably be the result of their interactions with these tribal agriculturalists.Even Keeley whose 1996 War before Civilisation which Pinker relied heavily upon admitted that HGs were significantly more peaceful than agriculturalists

[robbo203]

One other point – and this ties in with the claim that has been implied, if not openly expressed, on this forum, that there are no such things as individuals, only society  (which is as equally untenable as Margaret Thatcher's notorious claim that there is "no such thing as society only individuals and their families")  – the pattern of violence, such as it occurs in hunter gatherer societies, seems to be very much individually based. Group violence is rare and the argument that organised warfare is a comparatively recent phenomenon going back no more than 10,000 years ago is, I think, a very persuasive one Very interesting in this regard is this article by John Horgan http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ .  Note in particular this:Of the 21 societies examined by Fry and Soderberg, three had no observed killings of any kind, and 10 had no killings carried out by more than one perpetrator. In only six societies did ethnographers record killings that involved two or more perpetrators and two or more victims. However, a single society, the Tiwi of Australia, accounted for almost all of these group killings.Some other points of interest: 96 percent of the killers were male. No surprise there. But some readers may be surprised that only two out of 148 killings stemmed from a fight over “resources,” such as a hunting ground, water hole or fruit tree. Nine episodes of lethal aggression involved husbands killing wives; three involved “execution” of an individual in a group by other members of the group; seven involved execution of “outsiders,” such as colonizers or missionaries.Most of the killings stemmed from what Fry and Soderberg categorize as “miscellaneous personal disputes,” involving jealousy, theft, insults and so on. The most common specific cause of deadly violence—involving either single or multiple perpetrators–was revenge for a previous attack.This confirms the view that conflict was radically decentralised  in hunter gatherer societies and  tended to involve only those immediately affected.   It also overthrows the traditional view of hunter gatherers as lacking in individuality and being completely  subject to group think (note that "individuality" is not the same thing as "individualism", though – a mistake that is often made). In  fact, the radical decentralisation of  conflict may be one of the reasons why there was no warfare in traditional paleolithic hunter gather societies – conflict was simply not allowed to escalate or widen. That apart , the grounds for group conflict  (and the above data bears this out),  such as the struggle  over resources would simply not have arisen to any extent because of the ability of hunter gather bands to simply  move on whenever food resources declined within a given locality.  It is when nomadism is checked, as with the imposition of national boundaries or the confinement of HG groups within designated "reserves",  that the possibility of conflict arises. Which is why contemporary HG groups may well register higher levels of violence than was traditionally the case This is an important subject to discuss because it ties in with arguments about human nature – and by extension about the possibility of a stateless communist future society.  Pinker et al are arguing that the Hobbesian state was the decisive factor in the alleged mitigation of violence under a statist form of society. Insofar as the state is the instrument par excellance for the social regulation of class society,   what is really being debated here  is whether we need a class based society at all

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I'm not going to reply to your last post, because I don't think that you're reading what I write, about the problematic context of these issues.I'm going to say something that I regret, and I don't want to be banned again (how ironic would that be, given the context of this thread), so you're going to have to address your questions to other posters, or just deem me to be a fool and not worth engaging with.

 I understand very well the "problematic context  of these issues" you speak of and I am not disputing that the production of scientific knowledge is a "social "process which is the basic point you are making.  What I wanted to know from you is your answer to the practical questions I raised.  Don't just patronsingly  brush these aside  with the suggestion that because you imagine that I haven't read what you have written that this entitles you to say that you are not going to reply to my last post. But, of course, at the end of the day you can't get blood out of a stone. I can't force you to answer those questions I raised. But don't be surprised, then,  if some of us draw the conclusion that you are little more than an internet  troll with no serious intention of engaging in genuine discussion

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I've answered your questions time and time again, and not just yours, but others too, but none of you will engage in a discussion, and simply appear outraged that someone should argue that workers as a collective might know better than scientists as a collective.

 You are deluding yourself.  You haven't even begun to answer the questions posed.  How specifically are the workers expected to gain a working acquaintance with thousands upon the thousands of scientific theories in order to determine the "truth" of each of them by means  of a democratic vote when not even the most brilliant and accomplished scientist today would be familiar with more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge?  Whats more.  you have flatly refused to explain the logistics behind this mind boggling proposal of yours.   Specifically, how are 7 billion people on our planet going to vote , not just on one or two, but the thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that are churned out each and every year? What are the mechanics of such a voting procedure? And if , as seems likely. no more than a tiny minority are likely to "vote" on any one theory anyway arent you going to end up with the  same "elitist" outcome that you accuse your critics of proposing? Don't run away from these probing questions as you usually do, LBird.  Answer them with a straight answer or risk being exposed as a disingenuous fraud.  

LBird wrote:

Once more, from a physicist: If workers are not the ones to vote on these issues, who are?Who determines 'best'?Read the bloody quote, slowly and properly, and give us all an answer to Rovelli's conundrum. The physicists don't know. Matter doesn't tell them. So, who should determine the 'best' for science? And stop pestering me with inane rants.

 Thats rich coming from you!  You are a past master in "inane rants".  In fact the Rovelli  quote which you evidently cling to in a desperate bid to sound remotely plausible,  does not even address my point at all which you too have, once again, deftly sidestepped.  That point is – why VOTE on  a scientific theory at all? What  is the point of it ? What are you trying to prove by voting on it?  That  the scientific theory in question is  "true"?  So what? Does that mean we must abandon criticising it? Isn't science supposed to be constantly self critical? And if a minority continue to think the theory is flawed you are not going to persuade them that they are wrong by just pointing out to them that they are in a minority, are you now? Your problem is you don't what democracy is about or what it is for.  Democracy is about practical issues that affect our lives . It is not about the merits of some or other scientific theory.  Of course the production of scientific knowledge is "social" in the broad sociological sense of the word and I for one would certainly be opposed to any restriction whatsoever on anyone contributing to the stock of scientific knowledge  and participating tin scientific debates of the day to whatever extent they can. However,  I am also saying that IN PRACTICE  no one – not you, not me , not even the most brilliant scientific mind in the universe  – can grasp more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of scientific knowledge.  You just airily brush this aside as if this it  is of no account, as if there is no such thing as scientific specialism,  as if the years and years of study and research that any scientist puts in to become competent in his or her field, counts for nothing , and that anyone whatsoever can just assimilate all this knowledge in just a trifle and vote on the matter knowing what its all about.Sorry L Bird but what you are saying is bonkers.  You are turning the the very concept of democracy into a laughing stock by misrepresenting what its supposed to be about.  And you have absolutely no clue about the practicalities of what it is you are proposing  but hide behind pious platitudes  – "I'm a democratic communist" – in order to avoid having to provide real answers to the real questions being asked of you

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

Answer the questions in post 105, LBird, or stand accused of being a peddlar in delusions yourself

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, in a socialist society, 'just democratic control of society' would be "workers' power".I keep asking those who disagree with me to tell me who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power.They seem to argue for either 'individuals' (allegedly 'free'; often from robbo203) or an 'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet).I disagree, and argue that socialism equates to "workers' democracy", and that the 'means of production' clearly includes 'science' and the production of knowledge/truth, and that the means of production will be under the control of workers' democracy.

 Here we go again.How  can the workers as a whole democratically "control the production of scientific knowledge". You never ever answer this question. Why is that LBird?To vote on a scientific theory, assuming for the sake of argument there was any point in doing this, you have to know something about the theory – yes? But not even the most brilliant scientist today is acquainted with more than a small fraction of the sum total of scientific theories in circulation today  And yet you expect a global population of 7 billion individuals to vote on, not just one, but the totality of scientific theories in circulation – thousands upon thousands of them.  Thats bonkers!That apart , you have never explained even once why the workers need to vote on these scientific theories .  If you can't answer the above question, can you at least answer this one – why do you think workers need to democratically determine whether a scientific theory is true or not.  I just dont get it. What difference will it make if they don't bother to vote? I can perfectly understand the need for workers democratically vote  when it comes to something like, say,  the allocation of resources among rival projects but the "truth" of a scientific theory? Are you serious?What is the point of voting for such a thing? Please explain

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If fact, we haven't exhausted this, because neither you, nor any other poster, nor the SPGB officially, has told us 'who determines' what is 'scientifically true'……To me, as a Democratic Communist, that only acceptable answer is "workers' democracy" shall determine 'truth'.

 And you haven't told how this  "workers democracy" – all 7 billion of us! – is going to be able to "determine" what is "scientifically  true".  How are each and every one of us  going to acquire the necessary knowledge and understanding of,  not just one scientific theory but every scientific theory doing the rounds,  in order to determine the truth of these thousands  upon thousands of theories when not even the most brilliant scientist in the world today would be able to speak authoritatively on anything more  than a tiny fraction of those thousands of scientific theories.  You are asking for the impossible. Why you need to "determine" the truth of a scientific theory by means of a democratic vote is completely baffling anyway.  It seems pretty pointless – unless, that is,  you want to forbid any rival  theory being expressed that questions what has been democratically approved  and sanctioned as the "Truth" by this  workers democracy of yours.  If that is the case  well,  then,  you might as well admit that you have abandoned science as a self-critical open-minded  activity  and turned what you call scientific truth into a mere dogma. Oh and here's one more question – why do you constantly run away from answering these questions that have been put to you time and time again but to no avail? Its beginning to seem like a complete waste of time even engaging in discussion with you.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I'm not sure what to call this truncated theory of democracy. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind but "totalitarian democracy" seems a contradiction in terms. All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.Can anybody think of a better term?

Well, if you eliminate the "minority" in the sense of depriving it of the right to disagree then it is no longer even sensible to talk of a "majority".  A majority only exists by virtue of the existence of a minority which is why I think what LBird is talking about is not democracy at all but a form of totalitarianism.  And his whole conception of it is built on a fundamental contradiction which he cant seem to see and whuch YMS pointed out to himThat apart, I think he ought to pressed on this particular fetish of his concerning a technocratic elite and the need to submit such things as scientific  theories to a "democratic vote". I don't think he has a leg to stand on here which is why he never gives a straight answer to a straight question  but runs away from the question and covers his tracks with vague generalisations and pious platitudes.So here's another question to L Bird . He talks of "workers democracy"  and the need for workers to socially determine everything that goes on in society by means of a democratic vote.  But in my last post I raised the hypothetical case of a local community trying to decide on where to site a new medical centre in its locality.  Does L Bird think this is  really a matter for the locals themselves to decide or does he consider that in his so called "democratic communist" society  the global population of workers should be involved in this (and of course the millions of other such "local" decisions….)If he thinks the latter is the case can he please explain how  7 billion workers are going to meaningfully and democratically participate in making these millions of decisions.  I want a direct answer to this from himIf he thinks the former is the case can he please explain what is the difference between this and the situation where inevitably you are going to find only a small number of people knowing enough about some complex scientific theory to sensibly comment on it?  Let us not have any more straw arguments about people wanting to put barriers in the way of others wanting to come to an understanding about such theories. No one here is wanting to place barriers on anyone acquiring more knowledge. Its got nothing to do with that. Its got everything to do with the simple undeniable fact that no individual can ever acquire anything more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge. Specialism is the direct consequence of that undeniable fact and it does not in the least signify the absence of democracy  But then LBird has never really understood what democracy is about and, more to the point,  what it is for.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I found that a number of SPGB members either denied censorship was being used or that a little was necessary for maintaining control.

This sums up my point, really.I think censorship is inescapable, and it's better to admit this, and state clearly who has the power to censor.

Censor what, though? That is surely  the  crucial  point,  isn't it?  You have put forward  the preposterous and totally unworkable idea that scientific theories, among many other things,  will be voted upon in order to establish what you call "The Truth".   Here is what you said on the "Science for Communists" thread:"The productive activities of those 'doctors, scientists and engineers' (and of all the other workers who choose to specialise in whatever area, including physics or sociology, and every discipline inbetween), including any alleged 'truths' that they produce, should be subject to a democratic vote. Thus, society will collectively and democratically determine the ethics, politics and science of that society.So going along with this crackpot suggestion for the sake of argument, the workers – all 7 billion of us – have fully equipped ourselves with  a comprehensive understanding  of, say, String theory.  We decide that it is a load of bollocks and vote it down.  What then?  Clearly, the implication of what you are saying is that the advocates of String theory would no longer be permitted to advance String Theory.  In short , they would be censored.  Otherwise what would be the point of the democratic vote?. If  it  is just to piously affirm what a majority think anyway why bother?.  They will think  that anyway and the minority will think what it thinks too anywayFrankly, your whole argument is just plain daft. You haven't really thought through this have you? We need democratic decision making where it is needed  – to reach decisions that have some kind of practical bearing on our lives – where there is conflict of interests of sorts to resolve.  By no stretch of the imagination does deciding whether String Truth is true or false fall under the heading. If someone wants to continue believing in String theory then so be it. It s not going to affect me in the slightest We can argue what might possibly be an appropriate  subject for censorship  e,.g, the exposure of pornographic material to kids  – and how that might be managed in communist society  but I would like just once to get off your high horse and at least acknowledge the point that in other areas of human activity such as science the very idea of censorship is indeed utter nonsense.  And if it is nonsense then the whole idea of "voting" to determine the "truth" of a scientific theory is equally nonsense 

LBird wrote:

Mind you, if they can define 'democracy' as 'free association', anything's possible.'Democracy' means "workers' power", not 'free association'.

But its not one thing or the other is it?  Its both.  You certainly cannot have democracy without the right to disagree, to dissent  and to freely associate.  Your thinking on this matter is far too black and white.  And then there is also the question of what you mean by "workers power" Is the global population going to democratically vote on where your local community is going to site its new medical Centre? No? Oh so then its not all the workers who are going to decide on such a pressing matter but only some of them – in fact only a very tiny minority of them – presumably only  those who live locally . All of which makes a complete mockery of all your nonsensical talk about "elitism".  If you really took what you are saying at face value then every decision decision taken in the world  would have to be subject to a vote of the entire world's population,Is that what you are saying LBird? Do tell us.  Because if you are not saying  then you would be contradicting yourself and your whole argument for "workers democracy" would be exposed as the total sham it is

[robbo203]

This might be of interest to some – "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070 Thoughts?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I'm just being realistic here.

Quite.As are all 'practical men'.For my part, I'm an 'unrealistic' revolutionary, who proceeds from criticism of 'what exists'.If you want to start from the political and ideological assumption that only a few can understand ''string theory", that's fine by me, but why not tell everyone what political ideology that position represents? Why are you reluctant to expose your ideology?Since I'm a Democratic Communist, and that means I assume that the vast majority of humans can understand their world, I don't share your version of 'being realistic'.From that Communist ideological position, the question is 'WHY don't many people in this society understand 'string theory?'.You no doubt, given your ideological elitism, will happily reply:'Because most people are thick, and the world is difficult to understand, only a few 'special individuals' have even the capacity to begin to understand!'.After all, you're just 'being realistic' – about this society.I would answer that question by saying:'Because scientific knowledge is restricted to an elite (our present society prevents all and any individual from having the freedom to study physics from kindergarten to post-PhD research) and that specially-chosen elite present their own findings in a special language (mathematics), the result is that few people in our present society understand 'string theory' '.After all, I'm just 'being realistic' – about a future Communist society.

 Once again, LBird resorts to misrepresentation and evasion. This is getting oh so predictable now. I've explained the point I  was making several times  and  I find it hard to believe that even he could not understand what the point was. Instead he offers this utterly disingenuous interpretation of  what I said – namely thatBecause most people are thick, and the world is difficult to understand, only a few 'special individuals' have even the capacity to begin to understand!'.I said nothing of the sort and LBird is being dishonest in suggesting that I did. What I actually said  is that no individual whatsoever can ever obtain more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge.  Do you understand what I'm saying LBird? "No individual " means NO ONE – no elite, no small minority, no tiny group  of specialists  just… no one.   Zilch.   Zero.  Nada de nada .  Comprende? If you understand this point then you will understand my next  point which is that if it is literally impossible for any one individual, no matter how clever or gifted,  to understand anything more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge  then that means she or she cannot sensibly vote on anything except that on which she knows something about – which relatively speaking is not much at all  in comparsion with what there is to know.  If  I know nothing about String Theory how can I possibly vote on whether it is sound or not? You dont say.  You just avoid the question What that means is that  for every scientific theory that is put forward there is only likely to be  a relatively small number of  people who will have either the inclination or the necessary knowledge to "vote" on it.  That does not mean the rest of us are "thick" –  those same individuals who know a lot about String Theory may know nothing about some theory in Molecular biology while a molecular biologist may know nothing about String Theory Two points. Firstly let us be clear what we are  NOT talking  about something so vague as  the world being "difficult to understand".  We can all "understand the world" in broad general terms and I have not  suggested otherwise.  What I am talking is specific detailed scientific theories  about the world  – like String Theory.  LBird knows this but dishonestly hides behind a vague generalization to escape the consequences of his own idiocies. Secondly, let us be clear what L Bird is saying – that as far as these specific detailed scientific theories a vote should be taken to determine the" truth" of  the theory in question. He has not explained  how a  vote under his so called "workers democracy" is going to be organised  amongst a global population of 7 billion individuals – not just on the merits of String Theory but literally thousands and thousands of other scientific theories.  He runs away every time he is challenged to show the logistics of how this is all supposed to work. Nevertheless he is adamant that a vote must be taken and those theories that are voted down must be "censored" meaning they must not be allowed to be expressed, must be bannedThis is the mind set of the Catholic Church in the pre Copernican era .  In that era it was heretical to express the idea that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the sun around the earth. People were burnt at the stake for thinking or saying that. In contrast to  the anti democrat , LBird, with his absurd  fascistic obsession with censorship and toeing the Party Line , I say there should be no censorship at all.  None whatsoever.  Remember  that we are talking about specific detailed scientific theories about the world. I maintain that if people want to believe that the sun revolves around the earth then let them! So what if they do?  You are not going to stop them thinking that by simply and piously declaring that a majority thinks otherwise. If LBird had his way people would STILL be thinking the sun revolves around the earth because that was indeed the conventional wisdom of the time held by virtually everybody.  Only a few brave souls dared to question it at first.  But under LBirds totalitarian fascism – its laughable that he calls himself a "Democratic Communist" – no  theory would be permitted that contradicted the established view.  There would be no debate, no science , no difference of opinion just mass conformity under a regime of total censorship Actually, despite his claims to be a democrat LBird is bringing democracy into disrepute. You cannot have democracy without the right to disagree but, more than that,  he is obscuring or diverting attemtion away from, what democracy is all about.  Democracy is about practical issues that affect us in a practical way – whether for example this or that road should be built, whether we should construct nuclear power stations or opt for alternative energy.  Democracy is not about voting whether String Theory is correct.  That's just stupid. The fact that a minority who  have gone through the farcical  business of voting on the matter continue to think the theory is not correct , is not going to have practical consequence for us will it now? One last thing, LBird with his ever fertile imagination,  imagines that because I say no individual can acquire anything more than a tiny sliver of the stock of human knowledge that that means I think most people are "thick". . Well no it doesn't mean that because, as I say, this applies to everyone without exception while using the word "thick" implies thart there are some who are "not thick".  But more than that, the expression "thick "implies people are incapable of understanding.  Its a reference to their capacity to learn. It is quite different from saying most people are ignorant about most things and I am not even saying that.  I am saying that everyone – not most people – is NECESSARILY ignorant about most things.  We are all without exception merely human However I am not saying, and have never suggested,  that people are incapable of understanding some particular detailed  scientific theory like String theory – only the sum total of scientific theories.  Yet this is what what the word "thick" implies, that people are incapable of understanding,  and LBird dishonestly suggests that that is what I am saying. But I am not saying that at all!!!  Of course it is possible for most, if not exactly all,  people to acquire a working grasp of, say String Theory, given the inclination and the time to do so. Nevertheless I suggest that most people will have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. LBird doesn't grasp this because he lives in a fantasy land in which there is no such thing as opportunity costs. He doesn't seem to understand we cannot possibly become specialists in everything. Christ, how long does it take to become an accomplished neurosurgeon? Years and years!!. And yet  you, LBird, expect  this same neurosurgeon to become  an accomplished nuclear physicist, an accomplished land management consultant,  an accomplished child psychologist , an accomplished zoologist and a thousand and one other things Get real L Bird!

[robbo203]

What's happening about the enquiry into that Malaysian plane that was shot down? I understand there was some evidence that it could only have been done by a jet fighter, not a BUK ground to air missile – judging from what seems to be bullet holes in the fuselage.  Is this the case? If so it could turn out to be a massive  embarrassment to western governments and media who unhesitatingly blamed Moscow

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

There should be no elites when it comes to decide what people should DO.

So, presumably, since you introduced the qualifier about elites, 'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK'?And since, for Marxists, our method is 'theory and practice', and thus 'thinking precedes doing', 'doing is a product of thinking', really your slogan in fact becomes:'the re should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK and DO'.

 Groan. No, I am not saying anything of the sort. Christ, you've sure got a fertile imagination if not much of a grasp of logic.As I said before,  there there is no question of "should" about it. One wonders what goes on in that brain of yours when you imagine that I am saying 'there should be elites when it comes to deciding what people should THINK'?  ALL I am saying is that in de facto terms only a small minority are likely to end up being familiar with  the complexities of , say,  String theory and therefore in a position to say something about it. I'm just being realistic here.  As I said, the most any of us , however clever, can ever know is a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge. Therefore there is no way any of us could ever meaningfully  " vote" on everything, even if there was any point in voting on theory at all – which there isn't!!!  – since if you don't know what you are voting on how can you vote on it? Now think about this slowly – take you time to answer this question – how does that translate into me  saying therefore that only this small minority should be allowed to "decide what people think" eh?  I mean c'mon – what a dumbass inference to draw! "Think about what" may I ask anyway? If you are not particularly interested in String theory you are unlikely to be thinking much about it anyway.  If on the other hand you are interested in String theory then I have absolutely no problem whatsoever about you or anyone else joining the merry band of String Theorists and I certainly would oppose absolutely  any restrictions on you or anyone else joining this group of people who do actually know something about  the Theory if that is what you want.  I don't and most people don't and we are not ever  likely to but in no way does that mean we are being "told what to think" .  We think what we think because we chose to think it and we don't happen to think much about String Theory for that same reason. Oh, and tell me once again – how do you propose to organise that vote of 7 billion people on the merits of String Theory and all those thousands of other scientific theories? You did, after all, say it would be put to a vote, did you not?  So come on –  explain the logistics.  I'm all ears. Why are you constantly dodging this question might I ask?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It seems the only argument worth having now is where we actually place those limits.

[my bold]No, robbo, I'm afraid you still haven't 'got it'.The issue is 'who', not 'where'.I'll leave the rest of your 'individualist' rant for those who approve.BTW, say 'Hello!' to the 'hunter-gatherers' who've moved onto Mars, for me.At last, there, they'll be free from that nasty Earth Society and its inescapable social organisations.Perhaps 'Martian Individualism' is the more illustrating term for your version of 'Libertarian Communism'.[/quite] 

 Nope,  the issue is definitely not "who" places the limits since I am quite happy with the suggestion that those limits should be established democratically.  The question – I repeat – is what those limits are which amounts to  saying where you place them.  Are you going to democratically decide what people are allowed to wear, eat, what music they listen to or who they associate with? No? Well then in that case the limits do not enclose these kinds of things.  So what then do they enclose, LBird? You don't say . You wriggle and wriggle trying to escape the consequences of your own absurdities in hot pursuit after you every time you put pen to paper.  You are your own worst enemy I have no idea what the rest of what you gabbling on about is about.  I did not talk about  hunter gatherer individualism,  I referred to HG INDIVIDUALITY. . Individuality is NOT at all the same thing as individualism. You should try reading up on the subject before just opening your mouth and just opining Try Abercromie et al's "Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism" which explains the difference very well.As I said to you, my position is neither a holistic one nor an individualist one but is an intermediate one – between these two standpoints.  Do me the courtesy of at least attacking me on grounds that I actually do hold not those that I don't

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The ridiculous suggestions you have come up with in the past – like the idea of workers democratically "voting" to determine the "truth" of some scientific theory will hopefully now be abandoned by you as the complete nonsense it is.

Yeah, always the bottom line with the 'mob-hating' individualists: 'elite rule, expert knowledge, no workers' democracy'.

  So once again you have evaded the question I posed – how are you going to organise a vote amongst 7 billion people of the merits of String Theory. (plus thousands of other theories).  You never answer this question, do you?  You just come out instead with thoughtless knee jerk responses like  "elite rule, expert knowledge, no workers' democracy'."So what are you trying to say – that everyone in communism will know everything about String Theory (plus the thousands of other theories) to be able to vote on it/them? Huh? Are you for real  LBird? Never mind Martian hunter gatherers, what planet are you from?   Please explain how you think this is possible. Don't evade the question as is your wont. Answer it honestly and openly. Let us all hear what you have to say..  I know you wont – because you can't!  Because you will know  that even to attempt to answer it will make you look even more foolishI tell you what I have to say on the matter.  I know very well that I am never going to master the complexities of String Theory.  Same goes for a host of other theories.  I think most people are in the same boat.  Actually, ultimately everyone is the same boat – even the few experts on String Theory –  if you are talking about the total sum  stock of human knowledge. No one individual , however gifted and clever will ever know more a tiny sliver of what knowledge exists out there.  Thats a simple and absolutely undeniable fact.  What that in turn means is that no one will ever be able to vote on anything more than that tiny sliver of information they possess because how can you possibly vote on something when you don't know what it is you are supposed to be voting about?Does that matter to me as a democrat and a communist? No, not in the least.  I accept totally the fact that some people will know things I will never know.  For example I know nothing about how computers tick .  My grasp of computers is about at the level of a hunter horticulturalist living in the depths of the Papua New Guinea rainforest. To them its magic. To me its incomprehensible gobbledegook.  Same difference.So yes, "expert  knowledge "- the fact  that some people know more than others –  is inevitable. You are living in a complete dreamworld if you think otherwise LBird,The problem is not that there are people with expertise in some things; its what they can do with it that is the problem.  THIS is where democracy comes in. As I keep on saying , democracy is about practical decisions, it is about what course of  practical action we should collectively take as groups and as a society.  THIS is where the role of elites can be legitimately questioned .  There should be no elites when it comes to decide what people should DO. I suspect ultimately that is what you are trying to tell us and in that respect I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. However  you've locked yourself into daft  absolutist way of expressing yourself  that makes no distinctions and draws no lines when it comes to democracy.  So if  we are to take what you are saying at face value then the fact that some people know about String Theory, and others do not, means that there can be no democracy while this state of affairs last and that the only way you can ensure democracy  is by abolishing this expert knowledge or ensuring that everyone  is made aware of String Theory .Which needless to say is indeed a pretty  daft idea

[Author]

Posts