robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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?
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!
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
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?
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
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:L. Bird is arguing that a majority could in theory do this if it wanted to (even if he doesn't think they should do so in practice).Yes, this sums up my position. That "workers' democracy", in the final analysis, trumps "individual/minority freedom".As ALB recognises, in practice I'd probably be as 'liberal' in my approach to 'freedom for minorities' as ALB or robbo (because we all agree that 'minority' opinions are the essence of democratic practice, and allow criticism of 'what exists', and have the ability to become a 'majority' opinion).But, the 'definition' of what democracy is, and how it works in practice, must be subject to workers' democracy.So, my baseline ideological position is "workers' democracy", and not "individual/minority freedom".If there is a clash between the two, I'd argue for the former. I think that this is entirely consistent with Communism and workers' control of the means of production.I think that the latter is a hangover from our bourgeois conditioning, where, at base, the 'free' individual has the 'right' to ignore their comrades (that is, their comrades' democratically expressed opinion).To me, this notion of 'free' as opposed to 'mass authority' is rooted in 'fear of the mob' and private property.And when it comes to 'matter', well… why should a vote tell us 'what matter is', when matter is perfectly able to speak for itself, to each and every individual… well, at least to 'special individuals' and to 'minorities of scientific experts'…There simply has to be a brake upon the power of workers to make decisions…No, workers' democracy is the last resort for decisions about how our society would be run, not ahistorical and asocial 'freedom' and 'individuals'.
So – finally finally FINALLY – you have been brought, kicking and screaming, to acknowledge the simple undeniable fact that was stated at the outset that there are indeed limits to how far you can or ought to push democratic decision making, that the freedom of individuals and minorities to take up and express positions contrary to those of the majority is important – not only for itself but for the sake of democracy as well – and without which there is no democracy. It seems the only argument worth having now is where we actually place those limits. 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. I have still to hear from you how you hope to organise the logistics of such a mindboggling vote among a global population of 7 billion to determine the "truth" of, not just one but thousands upon thousands of scientific theories but I know I will never get a sensible answer from you or even any answer at all. You know in your heart of heart you cannot defend what is a demonstrably indefensible and crackpot idea. Yet despite the apparent progress made you still cling to this silly mantra of yours that insisting on this freedom of individuals and minorities to dissent is rooted in "fear of the mob and private property". This is dire mechanistic rubbish. If you have studied hunter gatherer band societies you will know that one of the features of this form of society was its constant tendency towards fissioning or breaking up – not just in response to environmental factors where the carrying capacity of a particular locality had been exceeded but also in response to internal disagreements. In fact this is one of the reasons why levels of violence in this form of society were comparatively low – contrary to the claims of people like Stephen Pinker. Where there is a fall out , a section of the band could just peel off and move off elsewhere. Voting with your feet was a form of conflict avoidance. In fact the ethnographic evidence suggests that conflict in HG groups is often radically decentralised involving just the parties concerned without third party intermediaries. Its a myth that such a societies do not display a high degree of individuality in their dealings with each other. But note that we are talking about a society in which there is no private property. Individuals in this society vigorously assert their right to disagree. They are proudly and defiantly independent minded in some ways even as they collectivist in others. I see communist society in analogous terms. Free access to the means of living by everyone deprives anyone of the means to enslave others. It will be our equivalent of the hunter gatherers ability to vote with their own feet. Necessarily, that will influence and condition the way democracy is perceived and practised. We depend on each other in a world of socialised production and to that extent we need to come to decisions about matters that affect us all and the only way to really come those decision is democratically – recognising that minorities have the right to disagree but also recognising that majorities have the right to have the final word in such practical matters. But, and this is the key point , the legitimacy and the moral authority of the majority decision MUST stem ultimately from the fact that everyone is treated as an equal regardless of their point of view and that on no account should any attempt be made to suppress that point of view. To do so would corrupt and undermine the democratic process itself
sarda karaniwan wrote:So who do you think will represent the authority of trust here? Just play naive?Just make sure it doesn't opiate the mind of the masses.By the way, I think Engels touch that subject about altruism, along with Robert Owen and the Owenite commune who believe in "pure kindness", I don't know, It's been a long time since I read that book Revolution in Science (Anti-Duhring).It is the social condition that determines consciousness not altruism.I'm not quite sure what your reasoning is here, Sarda, or how putting your trust in some authority relates to the subject of altruism. In any event altruism is inherently part of the "social condition" you speak of. I repeat again – human society would have been inconceivable without group solidartiy and the concern of members of the group for the wellbeing of each other (what we call altruism). How would our paleolithic hunter gatherer forbears have even surivived without such a thing? Ken Smith, a great guy who sadly passed away a few years ago – he was a member of the SPGB – wrote one or two books and in one of them said this: "Morality, defined as sociality, as love of others, as unselfishness, as concern for the weak of the suffering, is not just a good idea, a pragmatic sanction. It is a condition of survival” (K Smith, 1994, The Survival of the Weakest: Love . Science and Social Change, John Ball Press, Gloucester, p.317). I think Ken hit the nail on the head: And it is not just among human beings that altruism is to be found, you know. Here are a few examples from Wikipedia of altruism that are to be found among mammals: Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.[citation needed]Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals.[citation needed]Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn while the rest feed in case of predator attack.[citation needed]Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.[18]Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.[citation needed]Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.[citation needed] Chimpanzees will help humans and conspecifics without any reward in return.[19][20]Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.[21]Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.[22][23]Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.[24]Lemurs of all ages and of both sexes will take care of infants unrelated to them.[citation needed]Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.[25]Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.[26]African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators. (Battle at Kruger)[27] Though socialists are right to reject the crude biological determinism of the sociobiologists – the term "evolutionary psychology" which has largely replaced "sociobiology" also denotes a shift away from a hardline deterministic position – there is a sense in which we are indeed genetically hardwired and that some of our attributes are indeed the product of our evolution as a species. Linguistic capacity is a case in point. Culture determines the language we speak but not the fact that we speak at all.. Its the same with altruism. Culture determines who we are altruistic towards but not the fact that we are altruistic. Proof that we may be wired up for altruism came with the discovery of “mirror neurons” by Giacomo Rizzolati and his colleagues in the 1990s A mirror neuron is a special kind of brain cell located in the premotor cortex which “fires” in response to the observed actions of other individuals and causes the subject to involuntarily mimic or “mirror” these actions to some extent . An example of this would be the twitching and tensing movements we tend to make when watching, say, two boxers fighting in a ring. It has been suggested that, since mirror neurons may be implicated in our ability to empathise with others – putting ourselves in their shoes, so to speak – they might also have played a formative role in the emergence of human morality . Indeed, it has even been suggested that autism – a condition that involves inter alia impairment of an individual’s social skills – may be linked to mirror neuron dysfunction The biological basis of altruism may have only just been discovered but altruism itself has been around since the dawn of time…..
LBird wrote:It's revealing that you focus upon me as 'a very muddled individual'.I regard the social ideology that you have been persuaded of, to be the problem, in your case.But then, my ideology is social and historical at heart, whereas yours is about 'individuals'.Thats bollocks LBird. Your problem is that you cannot see things except in terms of black or white. As I said earlier, your sociology is at the same naive level as Mrs Thatchers when she declared that there is no such thing as society , only individuals and their families. Except that for you the opposite is true – there is no such thing as individuals, only society My ideology is not what you claim it is. For me individuals can no more exist apart from society than society can exist apart from individuals. Even you can surely see that is quite different from saying my ideology is just "about individuals". Individuals are socially constituted but individuals also constitute society. by interacting with each other. There is no such thing as a pre-social individual as per Hobbes and his mythical "social contract".You say it is revealing that I focus on you as a very muddled individual. Pray do tell me – what is this that we are engaged in if not an exchange of ideas between individuals. Or maybe its not that all. Maybe what we are witnessing is just the collision of abstract ideas that happen to be floating around in the ether and mysteriously find themselves landing on this forum where they materialise in this written form Of course individuals exist but they don't exist in splendid isolation . I recognise and that is precisely I endorse democracy as the only really effective and desirable way of resolving differences of opinion between individuals. Which is not the same as eliminating differences of opinion which is what you seem to want to push for Its a question of balance. The freedom of the individual which you sneer at is indeed a precious thing but it has to be constrained and held in check by the freedom of other individuals. My view of freedom is not an absolutist any more than is my view of democracy. For you on the other hand it is either one thing or the other which in effect means giving up on both
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy."In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."Communist Manifesto chapter 2
I know, robbo, but why not just come out and say what your ideology is?Your essential focus is, as is Young Master Smeet's, 'free individuals', or 'Libertarian Communism'.Mine is "workers' power", or Democratic Communism.We've had this form of discussion during our 'science' debates: everyone quotes from Marx to support their own views, and Marx supplies a steady source of 'confirmatory quotes' for everyone. We all know he can be selected from, just like The Bible.The more interesting discussion would be to reveal our own ideological viewpoints, and take it from there.Experience leads me to say 'Fat Chance!', right now.Those brought up in bourgeois society apparently love the word 'free': I wonder why?
You ask me to "come out" and tell you what my ideology is and then you go on to tell me what my "essential focus" is. Well, yes, thats right – my ideology is libertarian communism. And what of it? I agree with Marx about the free development of each being the condition for the free development of all. You claim your ideology is "democratic communism". I dont think it is . I think your ideology is totalitarian communism i.e. not communism at all. You are an antidemocrat posing as a democratic workerist. Dissent will not be tolerated under your so call "communist" dispensation. How can you have democracy without the right to disagree? I think you are a very muddled individual, personally. Even if your heart is in the right place, your mind is somewhere else, wandering through a rather barren wilderness of ideas
Talking of altruism here's a rather interesting and informative website. I particularly like the section on "Altruistic Economics"http://www.altruists.org/ EDIT: I see one or two of the articles tend towards the idea of reforming the money system which is rather disappointing but then I havent read them yet so perhaps I shouldnt judge
LBird wrote:I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy."In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."Communist Manifesto chapter 2
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
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.
