[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 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I'm not saying that this is what you are actually suggesting LBird but it could be interpreted in that way.   Which is why I suggest you need to clarify what you mean by "democratically controlling the production of scientific knowledge".

Yes, I DO MEAN what you've suggested I might mean.I can't be any clearer.The production of 'scientific knowledge' (and 'truth'), whether by astrophysicists or ANY other form of 'scientist', involves social decisions, which are intertwined with politics and ethics.

 OK then if that really is what you mean could you then address the two points in my earlier postFirstly, how is possible for everyone to make an informed decision as to "truth" of a scientific theory when most of us are never likely to possess the necessary information to make such a decision? And we are not just talking about one scientific theory but thousands upon thousands of scientific theories.  If  you don't know what  you are voting about then what is the point of voting? True,  there would be no barrier in communism to you equipping yourself with the necessary knowledge to vote on some of the scientific controversies raging but there is a limit – if only a time limit  – to how much knowledge you as mere mortal can humanly accumulate  that would allow you to meaningfully participate in every scientific controversy going.  Ergo, if scientific debates are to boil down to a democratic vote then of necessity only a tiny minority  are ever likely to be involved in casting such a vote.  What then becomes of your "workers democratic control of the production of scientifc knowlege"? I might as well just thrown in a further, related, questions at this juncture  which is what precisely are the mechanics of  this democratic control  going to be in practical term? What are the practical means by which a global population of 7 billion people are going to meaningfully participate in and cast their votes on the scientific veracity , or otherwise, of String Theory for example? Secondly, and perhaps more to the point – even if you could somehow managed to collate global opinion on the veracity of String Theory -what then? What exactly was the purpose of that whole (very costly) exercise.  Was it just for the benefit of the main protagonists of the theory  so they could bask in the glow of public approval?  Is no one henceforth allowed to question what they say because it has been duly stamped  with the seal of approval of the a democratic vote.  You see this is what I don't really understand about your argument at all.  On the face of it  what you are seemingly promoting  – though I dont want to put words in your mouth – is not a self critical experimental and open ended  (and open minded) model of scientific endeavour  but a rigidly controlled, centrally planned,  model of the same.  A kind of Lysenkoist version of science With respect  I think your problem is that you don't really understand what democracy is about and what it is actually needed for .  Of course the production of scientific knowledge is a social activity but it does not therefore follow that  it must be under democratic control – at least not in  the sense you seem to mean (I agree that when it comes to providing the MEANS by which scientific knowlege is produced then a democratic input is needed but that is different to what you are proposing) .  You are trying to stretch the term "democracy" to cover virtually everything that is entailed by the term "social" which is absurd.  Democratic praxis is part of what is meant by the term "social" –  it is not and cannot be everything  "social" I repeat – the need for  democratic decision making arises in the specific context of social activity where there are conflicts of interests – not conflicts of theory – that needed to be resolved.  Trying to extend democratic decision into areas where it is simply not needed and would be actually quite pointless  is playing into the hands of those who wish to caricature communism as an endless round of public meetings  and heated debates where nothing  ever actually gets done and the drains continue to remain stubbornly blocked.

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.

That is because you believe that there will be 'class conscious workers' in a classless communist society. No wonder your arguments are confusing. You have a completely different view of communism/socialism than I have. Your idea of communism/socialism is closer to the left wing.To answer your question : there will be no class control of science because there will be no classes.

 To be fair,  though, LBird may have been using the term "worker" in the sense of someone who works without this implying the existence of economic classes in the Marxian sense and the reference to "class conscious workers" may simply be a slip of  the tonque (or the pen). I'm sure he understands well enough that a communist society would be a classless society. I dont think oine should make a big thing about it, to be honest. Marx himself used the term "worker" in the above sense as well – for instance in his Critique of the Gotha Programme when he was talking about the lower phase of communismBut one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Some of the points you make, LBird, strike me as being pretty sound and spot on; others I'm not too sure about.  It perhaps with regard to the latter that much of the confusion and subsequent backbiting has arisen.

Thanks for your considered questioning, robbo.I'm afraid I'm just going to have to settle for the result of you thinking that some of what I say as being 'pretty sound and spot on'. The rest, that you're not sure about (ie. the 'democracy' bit), I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave for you to investigate elsewhere, and with other contributors.I haven't got the heart any longer to carry on, having to argue the benefits of 'democracy' with comrades.

Hi LBirdWell I have read a fair bit of this lengthy thread, off and on, so I do kind of get the general drift of what you are saying.  But, with respect, I still don't get your point which I see you have  expressed in your response to YMS that "workers must democratically control the production of scientific knowledge".  What does this actually mean?If you said workers must "democratically control the means of  producing scientific knowledge'" that would make more sense.  But the production of scientific knowledge itself? At first blush that seems to be like suggesting  that  "the workers" will be voting on rival scientific theories in the various fields of scientific endeavour.  You can't surely be suggesting that, can you?  That would be daft because1) In order to vote on the matter you have to know what you are voting about.. An astrophysicist might be able to competently judge the merits of string theory but I freely admit I know virtually bugger all about it and am never likely to. That is not to make a case for a "them" and "us" set up – the elite versus the rest. That same astrophysicist may know virtually bugger all about things I know something about.  Point is that none of us can ever know enough about everything to be able to competently vote on everything which means that, perforce,  for any particular scientific controversy the voting is only ever likely to be done by a tiny minority2) What would be the point of voting anyway? If I were to be very literal minded about it, it sounds almost like what you are proposing is a form of thought control to steer scientific thinking in the direction that the workers had democratically decided upon in advance. Initiative, spontaneity , creative and lateral thinking would all seemingly go out the window because you can't produce new scientific knowledge off your own bat without this having been  democratically sanctioned in the first place.  On the other hand , if you could then where would your "democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge" be in that case. As I said, democracy is about practical choices. It is where there is a conflict of interests – where you want to do one thing and I want to do another and we have to decide which of these option to pick. This simply does not arise with the  "production of  scientific knowledge". There is conflict but the conflict lies in the rival theories or hypothesis; interests are not at stake.  Which theory should be prevail should be be a matter of which bests fits the facts (with all the caveats that go with that). A democratic vote in itselfs adds nothing to the merits of otherwise of the scientific arguments being used. Democratic decision making will of course be important to a communist society but is needs to be applied where it is needed and not where it is actually not needed. Its a matter of sheer logistics.  I still maintain that most aspects a of communist production system will not  require democratic decision making but will be a part of normal automatic response process at the heart of that system.  To suppose that every little decision that has to be made in a communist society has to be subject to democratic scrutiny and a vote is frankly ludicrous and logistircally impossible . It a raises the farcical spectre of a society in which there is endless talk and heated debate but nothing actually ever gets done. I'm not saying that this is what you are actually suggesting LBird but it could be interpreted in that way.   Which is why I suggest you need to clarify what you mean by "democratically controlling the production of scientific knowledge"

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I've said all this before, though, Brian, and those who disagree with workers' control of scientific knowledge (ie. the 'materialists') will never tell us what their method is.

If I might intervene in what, unfortunately, seems to have become a perpetually belligerent and pointless slanging match….Some of the points you make, LBird, strike me as being pretty sound and spot on; others I'm not too sure about.  It perhaps with regard to the latter that much of the confusion and subsequent backbiting has arisen.  So it would be mutually beneficial for all concerned if you could perhaps clarify your position with respect to the latter.You see,its like this.  I'm totally in agreement with you when you say science is a social activity.  We don't live in the 18th century era of amateur "gentleman scientists" (and even their activity was still "social" inasmuch as their discoveries were built on the discoveries of others). I also fully agree with you that in a communist society the barriers between the so called "scientific community" and the "general public" should be broken down as far as possible, Science should become a matter of concern and interest to everyone.Where I begin to depart from you is what I perceive to be – correct me if I am wrong – your apparent fetishisation of , or a totalising approach towards, the "democratic control of science" and scientific endeavour.  I really don't get the point of this but then again I might have misread what you are saying…Let me explain myself by way of an analogy.  I look at this matter from the perspective of someone who has engaged in numerous debates over the years with individuals of an anarcho-capitalist persuasion.  Almost all of them, I find, are wedded to the idea that a communist or socialist economy  would be a centrally planned economy – that is, one in which there would be one single society wide plan (or matrix) covering to the totality of inputs and outputs for the entire economy and specifying in advance the quantitative targets for each and  every single conceivable good that would be produced.  There are several different arguments our anarcho-capitalist friends make against this proposal, the most important of which is the informational complexity argument chiefly associated with FA Hayek.  Hayek's argument is that the dispersed nature of knowledge in society necessitates a self regulating market.  Trying to concentrate this vast amount of information within the rigid framework of a single giant plan is totally unrealistic.  Moreover, we are talking about millions upon millions of different kinds of goods – from 3 inch screws to stainless steel tumble dryers. Trying to reach a decision about how much each of these goods ought to be produced is daunting enough in itself; trying to reach that decision democratically would be infinitely more difficult.  How on earth is the global community going to decide on the global output target for, say, 3 inch screws? The whole idea is a preposterousSo Hayek and co are correct in that respect and they are also correct in deducing that if you are going to have centrally planned economy in this classic sense it almost lends itself to a form of governance that might be called a technocracy – rule by a tiny technocratic elite.  The logistics of decision making under this hypothetical arrangement virtually guarantees such a form of governance.My response to our anarcho capitalist friends is to say this is a complete straw argument. Communism will not and cannot be, a centrally planned economy but, on the contrary, will be a mainly decentralised economy  Indeed, most of the decisions that will be made in a communist system will not even need to be subjected to democratic control at all but will simply be part and parcel of an automatic self regulating system of stock control. Production unit X123 receives an order for 200 tins of baked beans from distribution centre Y445.  You don't need a democratic debate on whether to meet  that order; you just do it!  Because a communist society is about meeting needs, which needs are expressed as an order for 200 tins of baked beans in this case. This kind of response, of course, always floors our anarcho-aps since they imagine in their folly that they have cornered the market in the idea of a "self regulating system of production" .  The market is such a system but there is another much more effective version of that which dispenses with the market altogether: real communismSo what place has democracy in this mainly decentralised communist scheme of things?  The need for democracy arises where there is a potential conflict of interests and this has somehow to be resolved.  This can happen at different levels of spatial organisation – local regional and national.  It would not make much sense, for example, for the global community to debate on whether my local community should go ahead and construct a childrens nursery but it would make sense for the global community to talk about action to counter global warming for example. The level of decision making should be appropriate to the kind of decision that needs to be made and vice versa.So returning from this longwinded detour back to where we started off – what precisely is the point of the democratic control of scientific activity and how precisely would it be implemented?   Forgive me if I am grossly misinterpreting you but you seem to be almost suggesting that if there are several rival theories attempting to explain a particular phenomenon a vote needs to be taken to determine the truth of the matter. But why? This seems to me to be a very peculiar way of proceeding. You are not  going to dissuade a person from holding a particular theory just because he or she discovers s/he finds her/himself in a minority.  Nor should you even try to – at least not on those grounds!  Several centuries ago if the advocates of a heliocentric universe had had their theory tested against the rival theory of geocentric universe by democratic debate and voting rather than by authoritarian diktat on the part of the Church authorities would you have recommended that the former relinquish their silly idea about the earth revolving around the sun just because a majority believed to the contrary that it was the sun that revolved around the earth?  No of course you wouldn't.  A sample poll of scientists might conceivably  be useful for some purposes but I don't quite see where the need for democratic control of scientific knowledge as such comes into the picture.  A healthy science is a self-critical science – one which always opens itself up to rival theories as opposed to bludgeoning its practitioners  into conformity with the prevailing paradigm – duly interpreted as the democratic will of the majority.  There is also the also the question of whose democratic  will are we talking about.  To go back to my argument-cum-analogy  about central planning, you wouldn't expect the citizens of Shanghai to vote in a communist society on where the citizens of Seattle should site their brand new mainline railway station.  Unless maybe you had been to Seattle and knew its layout.  Similarly there is little point in democratically voting on certain rival  scientific theories unless you were familiar with the subject matter. Its a question of what is humanly and logistically possible.It is thus not really the scientific knowledge as such, I suggest, that should be the subject of democratic control but rather the application of that knowledge or even the process of making resources available for specific areas of scientific endeavour to generate more such knowledge.  These latter things I can sort of understand as being appropriate to democratic control but I would still like to hear from you how in practical terms you would want to have democratic control implemented in these cases. What would this democratic control actually look like?

[robbo203]

stanislavdoskocil wrote:

It seems you brain washed "Socialists" or whatever you may call yourself, don't understand the idea of owning what you worked for. I guess you slaves of collectivism don't have a sense of entitlement to your work, or as SocialistPunk suggested you could live in a system where there is no ownership for an individual and the man is simply a slave to the global Zionist system. Wow i knew you "Socialists" loved to sit on your masters lap and beg to have you property, wealth, work, everything even your humanity taken from you by not one man, but everyman. Thinking all the propaganda and all the altruism you thought saving the world was just enslaving it. I envisioned a dream where all men worked and they benefited from the labor they produced, a world where a crook government didnt strangle money from you, a world were people didn't ask for there share, instead they picked up there shovels and worked for it.

 So lets get this straight – you want a world in which individuals are not  beholden to anyone else,  do not ask for their share from others but simply takes possession of what they themselves produce by  picking up their shovels and working for it, so to speakWell lets look at this. Of course I assume your shovel is a metaphor for any kind of tool or implement – from JCB diggers to data communication equipment.  But sticking with the idea of  shovel in a literal sense,  allow me to ask – who do you think made this shovel?  Where did the steel that constitutes the shovel's blade come from?  What about the wood that forms the handle of the shovel?  Who operated the saw mill that sawed the wood out of which that handle was fashioned? Who produced the energy that powered the saw mill? Who produced the the rivets that hold together the turbines that produces the energy that powers the sawmill that saws the wood that forms the handle of your shovel?   And so on and so forth. You get my point, yes? The world we live in today is the product of our  COLLECTIVE labour. So for all you going about the evils of "collectivism" we live in a world that is, as a matter of fact,  essentially collectivised.  You and your little shovel wouldn't  last one day without you sharing in the fruits of other people's labour The problem is, Stan, it is not us, but you,  who does not understand the idea of "owning what you work for".   We socialists understood all too clearly  the totally interdependent nature of modern production.  We understand that nothing that is produced today does not also involve, directly or indirectly, the labour contributions of millions upon millions of other workers – all over the world Furthermore , since production is socialised so , we argue, ownership should likewise be socialised and that, when it comes down to it, there can be no justification whatsoever for private or sectional ownership of the means of production – the factories, farms , utilities etc However, the world in which we live is precisely one in which, overwhelmingly,  theses means of production are owned by a tiny minority.  According to a just released Oxfam report .  The combined wealth of the richest 1 percent will overtake that of the other 99 percent of people next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016.  The richest 80 individuals in the world own more wealth than the bottom 3.5 billion put together – thats 3,500,000,000 people!Now I ask you, Stan – do you think that those 80 stupendously wealthy individuals "worked" for their wealth?  Do you not consider that it is far more likely that they got their wealth from employing others to work for them? That means paying these others less than the value of what they produce while grabbing the surplus for themselves Actually for all your muddleheaded grasp of even the most basic facts about society, the nature of work and so on, we socialists want the very opposite of what your claim.  Far from wanting to "beg" our masters to take our property  and our dignity away from us , we want to get rid of our masters completely – or rather to get rid of a situation in which there exists masters and underlings at all. If you want that as well then there is hope that you might also some day become a socialist But please don't confuse us with the "Bolsheviks". The Soviet Union was a state capitalist society , opposed by socialists right from the start, and one in which  masters and underlings existed just as they would under your own absurd little anarcho-capitalist dystopia even if you cannot yet see this.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Your (Robbo, that is) long well-argued postings are a good example of the rationalist approach of trying to convince people by argument Keep it up.

 Hi Adam. Well yes- there is nothing wrong with the rationalist approach.  Im all for it but I do think it needs to be complemented at times with another approach.  These things are not mutually exclusive – and thats me thinking with my rationalist hat on!

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 It sends to that “more politically inclined”, and so already politically committed, section of the population the anarchist message:  Abolish the national state! The national state is a necessary part of the social superstructure of capitalism.  All the hating in the world won’t abolish the nation state before we capture it and change its social base from private to common ownership and control of the means of social life.

Yeah and thats precisely why this would  afford you the opportunity to explain in your press statements leaflets etc that the nation state is bound up with capitalism and can only be made to disappear with the elimination of capitalism itself.  Your argument is akin to saying socialists shouldn't talk about abolishing poverty because poverty too is bound up with capitalism.  You have to start where people are at – with their existing state of consciousness.   Some people are vehemently opposed to nationalism without being necessarily socialists.  Its up to socialists to help them to join up the dotted lines

twc wrote:

Really?  Do you imagine we have so little confidence in our science that we can’t foresee the consequences?

 I think our "science" should always be self critical, open minded and experimental in approach. We are not in the business of consulting crystal balls.  We cannot really know apriori what the consequences of a publicity stunt like this may be

twc wrote:

No, I don’t think, maybe or otherwise, that people might sit up and ask anything at all; they’ll already “know” all they need to “know”, because provocative stunts fuel little more than existing prejudice.

 No I don't think so.  Here, I can only speculate  but, for the nationalistically inclined, I think the shock of  an incident that calls into question ALL nationalisms could, if anything, be disconcerting and disorientating, causing the person to rethink his or her position.  I say this because I think the logic of nationalism grounds itself  and sustains itself within a conceptual framework within which all other nations are viewed in fundamentally antagonistic terms – as "The Other".  I don't want to get into a long winded sociological treatise on the ontology of nationalism but I think at a fundamental level nationalism sees difference as an existential threat to itself – different cultures , different people, different ways of living.  Louis Dumont had something interesting to say about this and talked of the connection between nationalism and individualism. In individualist mythology, the individual is pre-social or "natural"  – which, incidentally,  is why capitalism relies so heavily on the "human natrure" argument.  We are said to be "formed in nature".  Remember Hobbes and Locke and all that nonsense about the Social Contract?  Well, "the Nation" is the Individual writ large in nationalist ontology. Consequently, differences  between individuals  must therefore signify the influence of society upon the individual which, in turn, represents a threat to the sovereign autonomy of the individual.  Which is why "other nations", being other Individuals writ large, are perceived as being in some deep sense a threat to the thoroughgoing nationalist..  It ties in with individualistic basis of modern nationalism Anyway, to cut a long story short,  I think the only way you are going to break through this nationalist-cum-individualist thinking is to fundamentally attack its basic premiss through the deployment of shock and awe tactics, so to speak. How else are you going to shift those "existing prejudices" you speak of?  It is precisely because they are prejudices – pre-judgments – that the mere presentation of the "scientific case for socialism" is just not gonna work, TWC – or at least not to any significant extent.  This bears it my long standing critique to the traditional SPGB approach to doing things  – its hyper rationalism. Rationality is a very good thing and I'm not knocking it, but it needs to be complemented by other ways of doing things that engage the more irrational side of human beings and tap into the enormous  power of symbolism. And we all have an irrational or emotional side to us.  You too TWC

[robbo203]

stanislavdoskocil wrote:

Hello, my name is Stanislav Doskocil I was born in communist controlled Czechoslovakia in 1966. I was a rather regular individual, but I believed in a certain conviction that would rouse me above the collectivists and made me truly great. This conviction was one could own what one earned. So in 1989 I made my exodus of such insanity, I left the collectivist Marxists to there collective farms and there four year plans. I came to America were I believed with the sweat of my brow I could create all that I have envisioned. I have been very successful, I have earned for all i have worked for. But you may ask what is the difference between me and others, nothing simply but i believe in working for what one earns. But it sickens me when parasites asks "wheres my share?", you create something they say "what will the neighbors think", you invent they say "watch out, or you might tread on the toes of god". This is what the collectivists long ago said to me. People like this only exist to weigh down the greatness of man.

 Yeah,  but according to you these collectivists are "altruists" and I'm still waiting to hear from you how you figure that a bunch of parasites " weighing you down" and leeching on your efforts are altruistically inclined?  The poverty of your argument is exposed for all to see and yet you make not the slightest attempt to address this great big glaring contradiction in your whole argument.. How come? And for your information, revolutionary socialists have been opposing what you call "communist controlled Czechoslovakia" and the like  – in reality, state capitalist Czechoslovakia – from the word go and long before you were even a twinkle in somebody's eye. You need to acquaint yourself with some elementary political facts before spouting your ill-informed nonsense. "Collectivism" is one of those empty headed terms bandied about by deluded free marketeers who still think America is the Land of the Free. Its more the land of Big Corporations, Big Brother NSA and Big Rip Offs inflicted on those  whose labour has ensured a tiny minority enjoy stupendous wealth while a majority endure varying degrees of poverty and debt servitude.   Talk about "working for what one earns". Do you seriously believe that the leaching  billionaire class have …erm …"worked" for what they earn?  For some reason, the words "pig" and "fly"spring to mind.  We live in a "collectivist" world anyway.  Who produced the laptop your are typing your posts on? Actually, directly and indirectly , your laptap is ultimately the product of the the world's entire collective labour force.  The only question is do we want this collective world to be run in the interest of the few or in the interests of all. You have made it quite plain where you stand on this matter.

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

   Totally agree with ALB.Such provocative voluntarism kindly gifts those in political power the opportunity to distort the self-styled “critical thought” supposedly behind the action in countless ways prejudicial to the Party.All voluntarist political “thought” should seriously think beyond the stunt itself to the political consequences of its proposed action.  Unfortunately, it is prevented from doing so by its essentially creative free-wheeling seat-of-the-pants nature.  Like Robbo’s proposal, voluntarist “thinking” stops short at the “cunning plan” stage.Beyond that, voluntarist “thought” turns into voluntarist delusion, imagining miraculous consequences of its action, where it perpetually dwells as “half thought”—or only half thought out—best characterized as thought’s coitus interruptus. 

 Not quite sure what you are going on about, mate.  Nor would I think Joe or Jill Public down in the Duck and Hounds enjoying a swift half.  But I would say this, though – whatever we do and however we do it, is going to be  "distorted" in an environment that is fundamentally antithetical to socialist ideas at the moment.  Socialists just have to live with that and do they best they can.I repeat again – a publicity stunt of this nature  doesn't have to be at the expense of critical thought; it can be accompanied by critical thought throughout in the form of press statements, leaflets and whatnot. Don't you want more publicity? Why is the SPGB standing in the General Election at great expense, if not? Of course you cannot control the way others perceive you at the moment but the more publicity you generate the more the public takes note of you and the greater the chance that people on the same wavelength making the effort to approach you.I can imagine a certain section of the population, the more politically inclined – the people you ought to be targeting first in my view – sitting up and saying "Blimey, the SPGB! Who would have thought of it., Good on 'em.  I hate effing nationalism too!"As I said , you don't know until you try it. The uniqueness of a publicity stunt of this nature is that it doesn't discriminate between any flag; it burns the lot. Don't you think maybe, just maybe. that might make people sit up and ask – what are these guys on about?

[Author]

Posts