robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Now that Biden is President, all those people – like our friend Leon Trotsky on this forum – who urged us to vote for him on the grounds that he was the so called lesser evil, have made things very difficult for themselves to start criticising Biden with any kind of moral authority. They got the President they wanted and campaigned for. Shit sticks as the saying goes.
“Lesser evil-ism” is a very very bad argument and puts you in a very weak and invidious position afterwards. In one year’s time those people who urged us to vote Biden will be whinging about what an obnoxious bastard he is as he predictably carries out what capitalism (inevitably) bids him to. Soon enough he will metamorphize into a greater evil himself and his disappointed voters will search around for some other saviour to take up the reins of the “lesser evil”. Its either that or the attraction of another Trump like figure will grow as people get tired of and disenchanted with Biden. Lesser evil-ism almost always tends to pave the way for greater evil-ism
At least socialists can hold their heads up high having stuck to our guns and refusing to support any of the spokespeople of capitalism. In the long run being principled on this point is the only thing that makes any sense.
Said liberal democracy is a process of gradual reform, not revolution.
Mustapha
True but the the SPGB’s approach or attitude to the ballot box is totally different to that of liberal democracy or labour reformism. We don’t stand on a ticket of reforms, however well meaning. Our sole platform is the maximum programme of social revolution and nothing but.
Keep in mind that we envisage that as the movement grows socialists will be active and organising in many other aspects of life apart from just electoralism . This would include for example trade unionism. I have a soft spot for the IWW and I would like to think the growth of our movement would also spill over and assist the growth of the IWW as well
There are many other advantages to using the ballot box aside from those already mentioned It gives a reasonably accurate picture of the extent of support for socialism (which information the movement will certainly need). It also sends a clear message to those who are not in agreement with socialism that the writing is on the wall and as such is probably the most effective way of securing their compliance albeit grudgingly to the will of a socialist majority and thereby smoothing the passage to the new society, Also, for a large scale change over of this kind you need some mechanism to coordinate the changeover. I cannot really think of any else that could be as effective as the electoral approach in providing the signal to trigger that changeover on a mass socially coordinated basis
might there never be a majority wishing capitalism to end because it is easier to imagine the end of the world rather than the end of capitalism?
Mustapha
Ideas tend to grow in exponential rather than linear fashion. Tiny though the socialist movement is at present, once it reaches a certain critical threshold I firmly believe its growth will start to accelerate or snowball. As it grows it modifies the general social climate of opinion in ways that would favour its further growth. So if 10% of the population were fully committed socialists that would imply a much larger fraction of the population would be on the way to becoming socialists themselves.
The great challenge today is to reach that critical point of take-off. Historically we have never been even close to it. But there is no telling what the future holds
Hi Mustapha
If you type in “syndicalism” in the search facility (top right hand side of this page) there are quite a lot of links to articles published by the SPGB over the years on the subject. Generally speaking we tend to be a bit critical of anarcho=syndicalism as an approach to achieving socialism but I will have a look at your article nonetheless
Welcome to the forum anyway!
Hannah
I agree with your arguments although some of the points raised by Alan are valid too. There may be a middle ground position in this debate which acknowledges that there is validity on both sides
My main concern is that we should not feel ashamed of keeping pets. Pets are a source of immense pleasure to human beings even if there are aspects of what might be called the pet industry that are questionable – like the example Alan gave – of Ben & Jerry developing a pet ice-cream product in two flavors: pumpkin with cookies and peanut butter with pretzels. I mean that is a bit OTT, isn’t it?
Of course there are opportunity costs involved in everything we do and keeping pets is no exception. But I would be inclined to be more relaxed about this. When it comes to diverting resources etc there are far pressing things to be worry about under capitalism – like the diversion of resources for military purposes
In a post scarcity socialist society will the diversion of some our resources to keeping pets matter that much? Even to frame the question in this way – is slightly misleading. For what are these resources being diverted from? What is the purpose of life if not human happiness which is precisely what pets give to their owners in such abundance, I would sooner have a dog than a Daimler but also, Alan, I would sooner have a dog than a budgie. I personally don’t like the idea of caged birds
Pets give enormous happiness to their keepers and surely in a socialist society it is the happiness of individuals (and their animal companions) that should count. My partner and I have a little dog and like Zusammenhang with his/her cats, would not part with it for the world.
I think this is an unhelpful line of argument to pursue, to be honest.
and talking about consciousness how about this
“I find the professional atheists as unattractive as the evangelical fundamentalists”
Thomas
I’m inclined to agree. And I cant help but notice that some of the most hard-line atheists I’ve come across are also some of the most ardent supporters of capitalism. I don’t think this is entirely coincidental. Just dip a toe in the various “anarcho-capitalist” forums around on the internet and you will soon enough discover this to be the case
Atheism is no guarantee that people wont drift away from – or for that matter, be drawn to – socialism
I think it is possible to agree that women ought to have the right to abort but to acknowledge that abortion is far from being a desirable outcome compared with the alternative of practising effective contraception in the first place. For some women resorting to abortion can be particularly traumatic and if contraception can obviate the need for abortion so much the better.
The other question arising from the abortion issue is when to abort. I am not sufficiently familiar with embryology to make an informed judgement as to precisely when a fetus becomes a human being but at some point that is what happens. It is beyond that point that abortion becomes morally questionable.
I have no problem with supporting a woman’s up to that point in a woman’s pregnancy but would be increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of abortion beyond that point when we are no longer talking about just a fetus. Only under extraordinary circumstances would it be justified e.g. a threat to the woman’s life
The “Great Reset” – another buzzword that seems to be doing the rounds on the various forums I belong to – a post COVID “stakeholder capitalism”. As if…
Now is the time for a ‘great reset’ of capitalism | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
In principle I am not against the idea of being vaccinated but the current vaccines being hyped and pushed on the public dont fill me with a great deal of confidence. Amongst other things the fact that Big Pharma is exempted from liability is extremely worrying and gives the green light for overhasty and inadequately trialled vaccines – particularly given the competitive pressure on companies to win the race to produce a vaccine
I saw on France 24 TV channel that 60% of the French public say they will not submit to being vaccinated with concern over possible side effects being cited as a major reason. I wont be rushing to get vaccinated either but will stick with the normal preventive measures such as social distancing and mask wearing
This link raises some interesting issues surrounding the proposed vaccination programme
LBird
You say “The problem is, whose ‘physics’?”
Just to make myself clear I am fully supportive of the notion that everyone should be be able to access scientific knowledge and freely contribute to that body of knowledge should they so choose. In no sense am I suggesting some kind of proprietorial arrangement. Knowledge is social and to that extent I have agreed (from the very start of this debate actually) with your comment about the “social production of knowledge”.
Where you and I part company is over your inference that just because something is a social product that necessarily implies that the making of that “social product” requires “democratic control”. This does not follow. It is in fact based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of democratic decision-making.
I had an old Berlingo van a few years ago. Like a scientific theory, this too is or was (its probably been scrapped by now!) a “social product” . Its final assembly stage may have been in a factory somewhere in Spain (where I live) or France but the components parts might have been manufactured in multiple units spread out right across the globe. This is to say nothing of the primary resources like minerals or oil which would eventually be manufactured into the various metal or plastic pieces that comprised my old van.
It is literally impossible to exercise democratic control over this vast immensely complicated process from the extraction of the raw materials right through to the design and final assembly of the product in question. Sure , the workers in the all the many production units involved in this process can organise themselves democratically in their production units (and I would fully endorse that) but your whole basic line of argument to date has been that the whole of society should be involved in the democratic control of this process from start to finish. This follows according to you from the fact that what is produced is a social product. Therefore, according to you ,it has to be democratically controlled.
But as I’ve tried to explain to you many times that is not just logistically possible. 8 billion people on planet Earth cannot possibly be involved in the decision-making involved in producing a van from start to finish – let alone the millions of other social products produced today!
So just because something is a social product this does not mean it has to be democratically controlled. Its the same with scientific theories. Inescapably a deep understanding of say, Physics , is going to be limited to those who have spent a considerable amount of time studying this subject and who also have an interest in it. The vast majority of us are not particularly motivated to study Physics to this degree of intensity and even if we were we dont have the time or opportunity to do so. We have other pursuits that claim our time and intention.
This applies to trained physicists as well. They too dont have the time or opportunity to develop a deep understanding of neurology or structural engineering . They are just as much lay people as the rest of us with respect to these latter disciplines. Ironically you comment “The upshot of this, robbo, is that current ‘physicists’ don’t know their arses from their elbows when it comes to the politics of social production.” Exactly. So you are proving my point
What this means is that any real advances in the scientific discipline of Physics is perforce going to be restricted to the contributions of specialists in this field. There is no way you can get round this fact unpalatable though it may be to you. But that does not make physics any the less a social product. Physicists learn from each other and from physicists long gone and dead. Physics involved an accumulation of knowledge
However if the development of scientific theories cannot and indeed should not be subject to democratic control, the application of those ideas in practice – for instance in the development of technological innovations – is an entirely different matter. This is the province of “democratic control” – in the practical business of our daily lives and the decisions that shape our lives and not in the thought processes going on in the heads of scientific specialists themselves
Of course, if you were to argue that ‘most people are thick as pigshit, and can’t become informed‘, I’d disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of people can understand ‘physics’, for example, especially if its theories and concepts were not hidden from view by a refusal to actually explain them in a way that the majority can understand. It’s part of the role of workers to make themselves collectively able to take control of our social production
LBird
Of course, its a good thing that workers should be encouraged to learn more about physics and that no obstacle should be placed in the way of them becoming better informed. And of course we would agree with you that most people are NOT “thick as pigshit”, and can’t become better informed.
However, what you still dont seem to grasp is that there is a limit to how much better informed ANYONE – even the most brilliant physicist in the history of the universe – can become better informed in general. He or she may know more about physics than anyone else on the planet but there are hundreds of other scientific disciplines around and his or her knowledge of any one of these will likely be no different from that of the average person in the street
No one can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. The opportunity cost of acquiring a deep understanding of Physics is to forsake the idea of acquiring a deep understanding of Neurology or Structural Engineering . It is for this reason that specialisation of knowledge is an absolutely inescapable fact of life under ANY social system with any kind of advanced or developed infrastructure. Meaning some form of social division of labour is inevitable even if work is done on an entirely voluntary basis as in socialism
What socialism will do is ensure that the specialists are subject to democratic control by the generalists – us , the general public. But that “democratic control” will NOT be over the development of ideas as such (namely, scientific theorising) – how can you possibly exercise “democratic control” over a theory if you dont know what the theory is about anyway and why would you want to do that anyway? – but rather, over the application of those ideas in practice in the form of innovations and so on which affect our interests and wellbeing.
There is simply no other way…
Giving knowledge of science to a vote, (and may the best remark trump) is harmful to the variation of postulations. Psychology and soc. sc. has many schools of thought and compliment often, and at times oppose.
Yes L B Neill,
The fact that knowledge is a social construction does NOT to mean it ought to be subject a democratic vote. An absurd idea anyway since it is totally impractical and more akin to a religious dogmatic approach to the “Truth”
