Good article by the SPGB 1973 Brendan Mee

April 2024 Forums General discussion Good article by the SPGB 1973 Brendan Mee

Viewing 9 posts - 91 through 99 (of 99 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #124676
    LBird
    Participant
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    LBird wrote:
    Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

    That doesn't follow.  they could argue that the magic fire dragon makes the world: they could argue that there is no reality and each lives in a world of their own: they could argue that we are in a virtual environment, simulating existence and reality is determined by the programmers: they could argue that reality is unknowable: they could argue that reality is an ideal unfurling in the mind of god and each can know reality through faith alone: they could argue each person has access to direct experience of the world, but we live as we dream, alone: they could argue only non-producers can vote on reality: they could argue the vote has already been taken and can't be re-run.

    Yes, 'they' could, YMS.But two points jump out:1. All these options, that you suggest, involve a 'knowing elite' (rather than a self-conscious majority) – dragon, individual, programmers, no-one (but then we wouldn't 'know'), god, individual (again), inactive non-producers, a past elite;2. None of these options, and noticeably you don't even suggest it, involve the revolutionary, class conscious, self-determining, self-developing proletariat.

    YMS wrote:
    Sloppy argumentation.

    You wouldn't know, YMS. You certainly have no idea whatsoever about Marx, class, production or revolution.But there are others here, who do claim to know about Marx, etc., and yet they appear also to be influenced by your bourgeois, elitist 'slop'.

    #124677
    LBird
    Participant
    Tim Kilgallon wrote:
    They could also argue that the existance of matter should be decided by an interpretation of the entrails of a goaat cast down on a stone plinth.

    Tim… yes, 'they' could.

    #124678
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

     

    Tim Kilgallon wrote:
    As to your nonsensical proposal to have votes for every single scientific development, I'll put forward a scenario for you to consider with regard to your proposal. I heavily suspect that you will resort to you usual tactic of obfuscation and sophistry, however we live in hope.This is the scenario. We are living in a socialist society which works along the lines of your proposal for voting re scientific theories. In an area of the world an outbreak occurs of a particular illness at a level of deadliness previously unknown, perhaps a little like the recent Ebola outbreak. Would the development of an effective treatment for this illness be required to go through the lengthy, time consuming process of organising a worldwide vote, with all of the requisite sharing of relevant information, etc.at every stage of the process, before a treatment for this deadly disease could be given to the victims of the disease?

    So you have woken from your slumber. As you are now awake, could you please, in the interests of democractic discussion, give an honest straightforward answer to the above scenario. I (and I presume all of the other readers of this thread, apart from you) will take the absence of a straight answer to signify the fact that you have no answer, so come on Birdy boy, knock us all dead with you erudite, reasoned explanation of what would happen in the above scenario, we know you've got it in you!

    #124679

    Since Lbird asks: they could say that reality can only be discerned by absolute consensus of all human beings, reality could be decided by a qualified majority, by a simple majority, by proportional representation, by finding the condorcet winner, by a lottery ("This week, gravity is….*drumroll*… off"), oh so many things.All of which returns us to:

    Quote:
    Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

    which is a demonstrably false proposition.Oh, and in his response Lbird again failed to mention apartheid.

    #124680
    Bijou Drains
    Participant
    Tim Kilgallon wrote:
     

    Tim Kilgallon wrote:
    As to your nonsensical proposal to have votes for every single scientific development, I'll put forward a scenario for you to consider with regard to your proposal. I heavily suspect that you will resort to you usual tactic of obfuscation and sophistry, however we live in hope.This is the scenario. We are living in a socialist society which works along the lines of your proposal for voting re scientific theories. In an area of the world an outbreak occurs of a particular illness at a level of deadliness previously unknown, perhaps a little like the recent Ebola outbreak. Would the development of an effective treatment for this illness be required to go through the lengthy, time consuming process of organising a worldwide vote, with all of the requisite sharing of relevant information, etc.at every stage of the process, before a treatment for this deadly disease could be given to the victims of the disease?

    So you have woken from your slumber. As you are now awake, could you please, in the interests of democractic discussion, give an honest straightforward answer to the above scenario. I (and I presume all of the other readers of this thread, apart from you) will take the absence of a straight answer to signify the fact that you have no answer, so come on Birdy boy, knock us all dead with you erudite, reasoned explanation of what would happen in the above scenario, we know you've got it in you!

    C'mon Birdy boy, answer the question. I'll tell you what in an attempt to speed along the process and make it democratically accessible, even to dullards like me. Howsabout f you answer the question, without obfuscation, sophistry, derogatory comments or the use of the word Leninist, I'll throw in a box of Trill and a nice piece of cuttle fish, can't say fairer than that.

    #124681
    LBird
    Participant

    So, according to the SPGB, almost anyone, or anything (dragons and entrails included), other than the social body which aims to bring socialism. That is, workers.Revealing.

    #124682

    Lbird, I'm not the SPGB.Your said:

    Lbird wrote:
    Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

    (emphasis added).  I rejoined, that it is not true that we "must argue that this issue is determined by elite specialists".  That is untrue, and demonstrably so, as I have demonstrated, there are other options, you are committing a birfucation fallacy.

    #124683
    Bijou Drains
    Participant
    LBird wrote:
    So, according to the SPGB, almost anyone, or anything (dragons and entrails included), other than the social body which aims to bring socialism. That is, workers.Revealing.

    I think you're trying to avoid the question, Tweety Pie, just 'cos I'm black and white, that doesn't mean I'm that bad old puddy tat, I promise I won't eat you, just answer the question, sufferin' succotash!

    #124684
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    Is it just me, but is there a bit of an absence of squawking today, hope Bird flue hasn't hit Liverpool?

Viewing 9 posts - 91 through 99 (of 99 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.