robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In any event a 30 percent rate of failure to stop people developing the symptoms doesn’t seem that impressive, even though they are saying that the failure rate for the flu jab is higher at 40 to 50 percent.
Here in Andalucía it has just been announced that flu jabs for people over 65 will be made compulsory. Coincidentally a local nurse in a medical establishment about a mile from me died just the other day day following administration of a flu jab.
I am not an anti-vaxxer myself. On balance the benefits, I think, significantly outweigh the disadvantages but I am somewhat troubled by the civil liberties aspect of this whole COVID-19 thing.
In our rush to enthusiastically endorse medical science come what may it does strike me that there is a certain cognitive dissonance in socialists appearing to get in bed with an authoritarian capitalist state.
While measures such as social distancing, mask wearing and self isolation may in themselves be beneficial, it worries that endorsing such measures forcibly imposed by the state, can be construed as lending authority and legitimacy to the state itself unless it is qualified in some way with a sort of socialist health warning concerning the capitalist state
Unfortunately, (though I might be wrong, its just my impression) the Party doesn’t really seem to be doing this effectively or sufficiently and to the naïve observer it might very well appear that we support the capitalist state by going along with the measures it has forcibly imposed on us.
How do we get round this dilemma?
What extent should local democracy have over issues that have wider implications?
I’m referring to any veto that can be exercised by NIMBYism.
Alan
A good point – although NIMBYism can apply at different scales of organisation. It depends very much on the nature of the decision to be made.
The construction of a hydroelectric project, for example, could have regional implications and involve multiple communities. The siting of such a project would be constrained by geological and topographical considerations and in a sense the appropriate decision might already be “objectively” apparent. But then again the local community most directly affected might very well object on all sorts of grounds, What to do about that, given the nature of a socialist society itself?
I think this example neatly illustrates the point that there will likely be a much stronger tendency towards consensual democratic decision-making in socialism than is the case today. This might involve a certain amount of horse trading and bringing into play the concept of “compensation”. So the local community might need to be compensated in some way for the loss of amenities and the destruction of habitat. This may be a necessary step to take in order to bring this local community on board.
I have long felt that this concept of “compensation” could play an important role in socialism – and in particular with respect to the rationing of those goods that might be scarce in relation to the demand for them. These goods would likely be located at the luxury end of the production spectrum since the tendency in socialism would surely be to allocate resources in a way that prioritises basic needs. So goods that satisfy basic needs will be made available on a free access basis while luxury goods would tend to be subject to rationing, The dividing line between what are rationed and non rationed (free access) goods will be dependent on many factors, social and technological
But how does one go about rationing? Here I think the concept of compensation can play a role with the quality of housing stock being the key variable
A socialist society will inherent huge disparities in the quality of housing stock which wont be swiftly overcome overnight. This could very well create social tensions and so a rationing system based on a rough grading of housing stock, by acknowledging these disparities , could help to diffuse such tensions with priority access being given to residents of poor quality housing. We already have such a grading system more or less in place in the UK inasmuch as houses fall under (6?) different bands for the purpose of local taxation .
But to go back to our hypothetical example of a hydroelectric scheme and the likely tendency in socialism towards consensual decision-making as opposed to the adversarial model of majorities overruling minorities to the chagrin of the latter – this will also probably influence the nature and direction of technological development itself in socialism, There has been a lot of debate about the pros and cons of mega projects like big dams with many critics arguing instead for a series of much smaller dams
The Three Gorges Dam Project in China is an example of such a mega project. Critics have pointed to the massive social an environmental costs it has entailed
I seriously doubt it would ever be possible to construct a project on this scale in a socialist society given its controversial nature. In capitalism it is money that speaks and those who are financially and politically empowered will get their way. In socialism, however it will only be flesh and blood human beings that will speak and collectively determine what happens.
This will inevitably require a much greater effort on the part of everyone to accommodate and overcome the divergent and even conflicting views within the population with significant implications for the nature of democracy, technology and economic development in a socialist society.
robbo, I’ve genuinely answered all the questions in your post, previously. You’re just ignoring what I say, so there doesn’t seem much point giving the same answers again.
No LBird there are loads of questions I asked which you haven’t answered at all
For example I asked you to give me a direct quote from Marx – since you are such a fan of him – to support your claim that he endorsed the idea of democratically controlling the process of scientific theorising. You declined to give an an answer
I asked you whether you endorsed the idea that local communities ought to be able to take decisions that affected them alone to the exclusion of other local communities since this directly calls into question your suggestion that the whole of society – meaning global society – should be involved in all decision making. Again you declined to give an answer
If you are able to provide a straight answer to even just these two questions (and there are more besides which you haven’t answered) we would be making progress
The difference between us seems to be a political one – I’m a democrat, who regards society as the active subject; you regard individuals as the active subject, and so you reject democratic controls.
That’s simply not true LBird and you know of it. I’ve made it clear many times that I fully support the idea of democratic controls being applied at different spatial levels of organisation in a socialist society – local , regional and global. And I fully support the democratic capture of political power by a socialist minded working class in order to get rid of capitalism and dismantle the state.
I just dont support the daft idea of applying democratic controls to the process of scientific theorising. Its pointless and totally impractical anyway
robbo203 wrote: “I, by contrast, am saying there is simply no need for democratic control to be exercised in this case. It serves no useful purpose”
LBird wrote: Yes, I know your political position. Marx’s political position is that ‘democratic social production’ does serve a useful purpose.
But “democratic social production” of WHAT, LBird??? This is the question you keep on evading. Where did Marx talk about the need for scientific theorising to be subject to democratic control? A reference would be handy. Not that it matters that much because if Marx did say that I would say he was talking rubbish
robbo203 wrote: “…it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”” [my bold]
L Bird wrote: But this ‘them’ is not ‘society’, robbo.
A further thought occurred to me LBird. If you are talking about society you presumably mean global society. Does this mean you rule out the possibility of local communities making democratic decisions that pertain only to them? By definition such local democratic control likewise precludes the rest of society (meaning global society) – in the same way that the cognitive process by which obscure scientific theory comes to be accepted is likely to involve only a minuscule number of individuals trained in the relevant scientific discipline we are referring to
How can I participate in the democratic decisions made by a local community on the other wide of the world when I know nothing about that community? In the same way how can I vote on some obscure scientific theory when I simply dont have the scientific knowledge or background anyway. You might want to argue that in principle uninformed laypeople like myself should be allowed to vote in principle anyway but then any decision I make would be pure guess work on my part.
So we are back to the original question – what is the point of democratically controlling or voting upon scientific theorising?
Unless we clearly root our politics in ‘democratic social production’, we’re going to come unstuck. This isn’t just a pointless ‘theoretical’ debate. It concerns the whole of humanity.
Sure, the democratic control of the production of wealth locally regionally and globally but NOT the democratic control of scientific theorising about the nature of the universe or the sexual reproduction of ants!
That’s pointless and totally impractical
robbo203 wrote: “…it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”” [my bold]
But this ‘them’ is not ‘society’, robbo.
You are missing the point LB . It is not the product of an “isolated, biological, individual” as you falsely claimed I suggested THEREFORE it has to be a social product. You dont have to have the whole of society involved in producing something for it to be a social product. For instance we talk about commodities being “socially produced” today as an expression of the integrated globalised nature of production under capitalism. But vast swathes of the human population are not involved directly or indirectly in the production of these commodities . For example children or elderly. Are they not part of society then?
We get to choose: theories, methods, philosophies, practices, universities, curricula, funds, actions, matters, allocation of resources, ideas, applications, developments, technologies… these are not in the hands of an elite.That’s democratic socialism, robbo. The democratic control of all social production.
See, what you are doing here is mixing up a whole bunch of things some of which quite rightly should be subject to democratic control whereas others should not – and cannot -be
How for example are you going to democratically control “theories” for example?
Take string theory in theoretical physics
So take someone like me who knows precious little about these sort of things. How am I going to exercise my “democratic control” over this theory when I know virtually sod all about . What does it even mean to say I should exercise democratic control over this theory. To do what exactly? To affirm that it is a sound theory or unsound theory (when I know nothing about it)? And why? Or is it to forbid the scientist from developing the theory further . Or what?
You see , this is what I dont understand. You dont explain what is the purpose of “democratic control” with respect to something like a scientific theory. What is it is supposed to achieve? And since the vast majority of us – nearly 8 billion – know little or nothing about string theory (or are even bothered about it frankly) what you are advocating will turn out in practice to be an elitist version of control. Because in the end only an absolutely minuscule minority will actually even bother to vote in this case or know what they are voting about .
I, by contrast, am saying there is simply no need for democratic control to be exercised in this case. It serves no useful purpose
‘The cognitive process itself‘ is a social product, not the product of an isolated, biological, individual.
LBird
I never said this – by which I mean the development of a particular scientific theory – was the product of an “isolated biological individual”. As I clearly explained scientific theories tend to be developed almost exclusively by scientists or specialists in their field and it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”. The rest of us, myself included, dont contribute anything to the development of these particular scientific theories. I know for a fact I have contributed absolutely nothing to the development of string theory in theoretical physics and am never likely to. I’m OK with that . It doesn’t bother me at all. Each to their own, I say.
Social production must be subject to democratic control. If not, who is to control, and how, ‘the cognitive process itself’
But WHY does the social production of scientific theories by scientists interreacting with each other need to be “democratically controlled”. I dont see the point. Actually, even if it was possible to implement this it would almost certainly result in the destruction of the entire scientific enterprise. Scientists should be left free to formulate and express their theories and not intimidated by the threat of being sanctioned by their colleagues or, as in capitalism, having their funding withdrawn. Of course , other scientists should be equally free to criticise and debate these theories. But this is not really what I would call “democratic control” . Democratic control is about arriving at some kind of collective decision at the end of the day. It is what I call action oriented and concerns practical matters – like the allocation of resources for example It is not really about the development of ideas or theories as such but rather their application in practice – for instance in the development of new technologies
Instructing a scientist to discontinue pursuing a particular line of scientific enquiry because a majority of her colleagues had “democratically decided” it was not worth pursing seems bonkers to me. And against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry
Also LBird I still want to know from you is whether you believe the cognitive process itself of contributing to scientific theory is something that ought to be subject to “democratic control”.
I agree that the cognitive process of contributing to a scientific theory is a form of social activity but clearly it is not one in which the vast majority of people participate as I have explained. It tends to be restricted to the specialists in the field who have had the requisite kind of training to engage in this particular form of social activity.
I’m perfectly OK with that. Providing us generalists are able to exercise democratic control over the specialists when it comes to putting their theories into practice what’s the problem? There is no leverage anyone can exercise over anyone else – even the most gifted of scientists – in a socialist world where goods and services are distributed on the basis of free access and labour is performed voluntarily
That is the material basis for the complete dissolution of political power as such
I find your statements contradictory, robbo.
If ‘all knowledge is a social construct’, what is this ‘itself’ that is outside of ‘all knowledge’?
There is no contradiction at all LBird
The great majority of people , myself included, have made no contribution to the development of theoretical physics. However theoretical physicists did not derive their theories from a vacuum but from other theoretical physicists, some going back to the very distant past.
It is in this sense that theoretical physics is a “socially constructed body of knowledge” which is not the same as saying that the entirety of human society contributed to this body of knowledge. I haven’t, for example. Have you? If so what was your particular contribution?
I remember looking at a TV series “Connections” presented by James Burke . I think it is quit a good illustration of what is meant by “social” in the context of socially constructed knowledge
Connections (TV series) – Wikipedia
I dont think democracy has got anything to do with it. ”
I know, robbo.
That’s where you differ from Marx and me – we both think ‘democracy’ does have something to do with it.
No LBird
Nowhere did Marx ever suggest that scientific theories should be put to some sort of popular vote THAT is what I was referring to when I said “I dont think democracy has got anything to do with it.”
If you think Max did say something along those lines then can you provide some evidence please?
If will not suffice to argue that all knowledge is a social construct because I fully accept that this is the case. What I wanted to know from you is whether you believe this cognitive process itself is something that has to be subject to “democratic control”.
I think that idea is frankly daft and totally unworkable. As I keep on saying democracy is about practical matters that affect our interests and our wellbeing where joint or collective decision-making is required, Its got nothing to do with the development of scientific theories as such
If you applied your reasoning in your post to ‘education’, you’d end up defending the current bourgeois education system, with its lack of democracy, rule by ‘teachers’, an assumption of ‘mass ignorance and uninterest’ in most academic subjects, etc.
LBird
I dont think democracy has got anything to do with it. It just plain obvious that the vast majority of us are going to be less informed about (and doubtless less interested in) any particular scientific discipline than the scientists who have specialised in it. It does not matter what society we live in – capitalist or socialist – there are going to enormous differences in levels of understanding. Unless you want to get rid of specialisms, that is, which would be catastrophic for society and frankly unenforceable anyway .
Does it matter that there is bound to be these enormous differences in levels of understanding? I dont think so. For instance I dont know much about astrophysics and, to be honest, am not that interested in it. So if astrophysicist comes along with some grand theory about the origins of the universe I might just casually glance at the general summary of the theory providing it is written in suitable layperson’s language. But I’m not going to pursue the matter. There are other things I would far rather do.
But you keep on going about democracy but democracy in relation to what? You cannot surely be suggesting scientific theories – like a theory about the origin of the universe – being put to a vote. What on earth would be the point? And how would you organise such a vote? We have gone over this many times. It is utterly pointless trying to organise such a vote because scientists will still continue to disagree regardless (as they should) about how the universe began. And it is utterly impractical because the majority of the population – myself included – would not be sufficiently interested or informed – to make a “democratic decision” on this matter. A global plebiscite of 8 billion voters would probably register a return of 0.000087% of those registered to vote. If you’re lucky, that is!
HOWEVER…..
If our astrophysicist proposed that in order to demonstrate the validity or his/ her theory we need to build some super duper state-of-the-art observatory on a hill somewhere THEN we can, indeed, begin to talk about the need for democracy. This is because building such a structure has PRACTICAL implications that affect a large number of people. There are opportunity costs involved. For instance it might mean postponing some housing project in order to build this observatory. So the people need to have a say
Perhaps this is what you mean when you say
There is a need to ‘revolutionise’ our world, which will include (not the strawman, once again, of ‘no need for specialists’) the political control of all specialisms by generalists (to use previous SPGB terminology), which is democracy.
But this has always been the position of the SPGB anyway so I am really puzzled as to where precisely you think your disagreement with the SPGB lies….
The SPGB, being ‘materialist’, argues that an elite will change the world.
If ‘physics’ (for example) isn’t under the democratic control of your fellow-workers, whose control is it under?
So, once again, alan, who is to control ‘nature’ within your version of ‘democratic socialism’? It is democrats (the entirety of humanity by voting) or an elite? It’s a simple political question, alan, never yet answered by you or anyone else in the SPGB.
LBird
I thought we had agreed a long time ago that when it comes to scientific theories that there is obviously going to be specialists in the various scientific fields. It is absurd to imagine 8 billion people becoming trained physicists or virologists or molecular biologists or whatever and able to express an informed opinion on some obscure theory in their field.
Who would you prefer to perform an operation on your brain? A random person off the street or a trained neurosurgeon? Or are we all going to become trained neurosurgeons in socialism?
No doubt there will be a significantly greater involvement and interest in science by the lay public in science but there is inevitably going to be a gap in knowledge by comparison with the specialists in their field
Your position is essentially untenable. Unless you are arguing that there will be no need for specialists – meaning there will be no need for people to undertake 7 years of study to qualify as a doctor or neurosurgeon – the only other option available to you is to assert that we should all become specialists. Which is logistically impossible. Even a trained neurosurgeon counts as a layperson when it comes to some other scientific discipline which might equally take many years to get the hang off
Democracy is about practical decisions or policies that affect us all. This is what the SPGB means by “democratic control”. That requires that the means of production be brought under common ownership by everyone something that can be done if and when the great majority want it and organise to bring it about.
It is in this respect that the SPGB is opposed to elitism or vanguardism. But as far as democratic control of scientific theories is concerned there is simply no point in this nor is it remotely feasible. How are you going to organise a global plebiscite on the countless thousands of scientific theories that are churned out each year by scientists, What purpose would it serve anyway? There is always going to be dissenting views among scientists themselves
I genuinely dont understand why you persist with this futile and rather pointless line of argument, You are missing the whole point about what democratic decision-making is or should be about . It is about decisions that affect us in a practical sense not abstract scientific theories
I looked at the Wiki link. Yes it does look interesting!
Perhaps what’s at the heart of this thread is the belief that complex intellectual theories implicit in philosophy and psychology (and their dialectical synthesis) inhibits people from becoming socialists? I don’t believe this as I think it’s merely an excuse for anti-intellectual populism.
I dont think it is so much “anti-intellectualism” as a justifiable gut reaction against the over-jargonised and obscure writing which so many “left wing intellectuals” tend to specialise in. It is extremely off putting. It makes them seem like a bunch of poseurs. The whole point of writing is to communicate ideas and if you do it in a form that people cannot understand (unless they have undertaken several years study for a PhD in philosophy or whatever) you have to wonder what is the purpose of such writings
There is nothing wrong with developing or tackling complex theories per se. Its the manner in which one goes about doing it that is the problem. The basic concepts and terms need to be expressed in simply plain language
Given the States has passed 150K daily cases: which, given the lag between rising cases and deaths means a lot of deaths in about a months time. And the rate of infections is rising.
Just checked the worldometer site. There were 175,439 new cases in the US today (13th). Pretty alarming. By comparison China with between 3 and 4 times the population of the US had only 8 new cases though that could be a case of gross under-reporting. Still the difference is phenomenal
