No “No Platform”
- This topic has 179 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:…for clarification material of a criminally abusive nature does not come under the heading of "free speech"…
'Who determines' what is 'criminally abusive'?The problem is, when I ask 'who determines', if not "workers' democracy", those disagreeing with me about the right of workers to determine either 'No Platform' or 'No 'No Platform'', the question is never answered, and it is assumed that 'free speech', or 'free association' or 'criminally abusive' are in themselves entirely unproblematic concepts that are outside of the considerations of "workers' democracy".
SP wrote:That could mean I wouldn't be allowed to set up a web site dedicated to the concept of a green cheese moon, because the sub-committee have decided on behalf of the majority that it is stupid, un-scientific, and therefore unnecessary.Such a body would in essence be an elite.Not if the 'body' is under the control of "workers' democracy", because clearly any sub-committee is answerable to all of us, in the final analysis.If you're asking me that if workers decided democratically, after all the necessary appeals processes, to 'ban a web site', would I then support the ban, my answer is 'yes'. For this to happen, there must be a very good reason, and that reason will have been discussed, debated and voted on, so the necessity of the ban must have been clearly understood.The alternative is for individuals (or elite groups outside of our social control) to have the right to set up any website that they liked, no matter how harmful to other individuals or groups, and how causing of great concern to the rest of us.
SP wrote:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, LBird.About "workers' democracy"? Yes, it seems so.
LBird wrote:Not if the 'body' is under the control of "workers' democracy", because clearly any sub-committee is answerable to all of us, in the final analysis.About "workers' democracy"? Yes, it seems so.LBird, I am not sure what you mean by 'workers democracy'. Can you explain it more fully. Are you saying that 'workers' refers to everyone? If so, why refer only to 'workers'? Why not just democratic control of society?
Vin wrote:LBird, I am not sure what you mean by 'workers democracy'. Can you explain it more fully. Are you saying that 'workers' refers to everyone? If so, why refer only to 'workers'? Why not just democratic control of society?By 'workers', Vin, I mean the 'producers' of the means of production.In this capitalist society, 'producers' are 'workers' (as an exploited class).In a future socialist society, 'producers' will still be 'working' (but as a world community of producers, not a 'class').As robbo has shown on the other thread, Marx seems at times to have used the term 'workers' interchangeably with a notion of 'universal producers', as an attempt to link us now with us then.This is inherently confusing, for those who don't have any knowledge of 'class struggle' or 'socialism', but the use of the term 'workers' on a socialist site, as a shorthand for 'class-conscious-workers-in-this-bourgeois-society-building-for-socialism' and also as shorthand for 'producers-in-a-future-socialist-society', because we are talking essentially about the same social group ('producers'), and that the theory and practice of the former is to prefigure that of the latter, seems to me to be eminently sensible.So, by 'workers', I mean the both of the terms above, which I consider to be the same social group.By 'democracy', I mean the 'power' of the 'self-constituted social group' (from the Greek 'demos' (a self-constituted social group) and 'kratos' (power).Since socialism will require the proletariat now to have both theoretically have constituted itself as the 'demos' and to have practically have taken 'power', I regard 'socialism' as synonynmous with "workers' power", or "workers' democracy".So, in a socialist society, 'just democratic control of society' would be "workers' power".I keep asking those who disagree with me to tell me who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power.They seem to argue for either 'individuals' (alledgedly 'free'; often from robbo203) or an 'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet).I disagree, and argue that socialism equates to "workers' democracy", and that the 'means of production' clearly includes 'science' and the production of knowledge/truth, and that the means of production will be under the control of workers' democracy.Hope this all helps, Vin.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,in this thread I also mentioned the principle of association, which means people may wish to control the manner of expression. No topic has been censored on this forum, the manner of behaviour of forum members has been censured. All such controls are due to channel limitations, and the need to share the resource. The fact that people can go elsewhere to discuss topics in the manner they choose fit is relevent.Here we go again YMS, or at least I hope not.I understand that internet forums exist to discuss a whole host of topics, and in general they attract those who wish to discuss those subjects. So if a football forum is faced with someone who insists on trying to discuss baking cakes every time they turn up, then the forum members have every right to be annoyed and would surely ignore such a poster, but if necessary the offending poster may end up being barred from the site. But if they are allowed to remain on the football site, yet have their posts vetted and/or deleted, etc then that is censorship.I don't understand the problem you and a few others have in admitting this fact.
Wikepidia wrote:Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.I think it necessary to state once again that the censorship that took place on this site was not regarding cake baking, but issues relevant to this site.
Quote:who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power….'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet)I have never argued this. Indeed, I've argued the exact opposite, but never mind. The whole community (including those not directly involved for one reason or another in production) should be involved in democratic decision making, in socialism.
SP,If someone sends a message to this website in the wrong code format, it simply won't appear, that isn't censorship, merely a technical fact of the forum's set up. If someone is persistently disruptive, then it is no different to stop accepting their posts, they're sending English in the wrong format. Pre-moderating posts is no different from a chair at a meeting allowing someone to speak, but then cutting them off when they go off-topic. In fact, it is less censorious than simply banning them from the forum.No topic has been censored on this forum.
YMS wrote:The whole community (including those not directly involved for one reason or another in production) should be involved in democratic decision making, in socialism.We agree then, YMS, as long as you include 'scientific knowledge' and 'truth' as synonymous with 'production'.I agree that 'the whole community' (up to every individual on the planet, if necessary to resolve any issue by a vote), whether or not they are 'directly involved' in the production of 'truth', 'should be involved in democratic decision-making'.As you imply, those 'not directly involved' can expect those who are 'directly involved' to have the social responsibility to have to explain to those 'not'. There will be no 'truths' or 'scientific knowledge' only perceptible to an elite, who employ a modern version of the priesthood's Latin (that is, 'maths').The 'science' of a socialist society must be comprehensible to all, to allow all to vote on any contentious issues.We now know that scientists do not have a special elite method which allows them access to a 'truth' which can't be understood by 'the masses'.We've know this since Einstein, and the quote I give from Rovelli shows that at least some physicists are aware of the philosophical problems that this has engendered as the 20th century progressed.We have a chance to integrate this human knowledge into our project to build for socialism, and if we don't, we'll be left behind. Furthermore, with our rejection of 'private property' and introduction of Communism, we are the only ones suited to take this insight forward, that there can be no 'private knowledge' and that democracy must penetrate all and every area of human activity, including science and 'truth' production.
Thank you for your clarification, LBird in post #93. So 'workers' in capitalism means the working class and 'workers' in socialism mean everyone; scientists, road sweepers, disabled, the lazy, Doctors, researcers, artists, writers, Brain surgeons etc, etc,.?I still think that the term 'workers control' in socialism is easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Surely democratic control by the community is less ambiguous.?
Vin wrote:Thank you for your clarification, LBird in post #93. So 'workers' in capitalism means the working class and 'workers' in socialism mean everyone; scientists, road sweepers, disabled, the lazy Doctors, researcers Brain surgeons etc, etc,.?I still think that the term 'workers control' in socialism is easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Surely democratic control by the community is less ambiguous.?Thanks for your generous acceptance of my long-winded explanation, Vin!As to 'democratic control by the community', you might be correct.On my part, I think linking 'workers' now is important, because if we just use 'community', it lessens our emphasis in this society on 'class struggle'.'Bosses' won't get a vote now, (and won't exist in socialism) and if those who stress 'individuals' (which is a bourgeois concept, and ahistorical and asocial) don't realise that 'individual bosses' won't be getting a vote, then those thinkers are being mislead by those of us who stress 'class struggle'.As an aside, I'm not sure of your characterisation of 'lazy Doctors' – why would anyone want to be a 'doctor' if they're not enthusiastic about helping the sick and injured? I can't imagine a doctor in socialism being asked to help an injured child, and replying 'I just can't be arsed, at the moment, I'm watching telly…'.I'm sure that the doctor's community/commune would have something to say – after all, production is a social task, under democratic control, not the idling away of time by lazy individuals (who claim to be 'free' from society).
Young Master Smeet wrote:No topic has been censored on this forum.you may say that but if I engaged in this discussion with you then you would see differently. I would receive a warning and I would be 'disruptive' and 'off topic'. SP calls that censorship, what do you call it?
LBird wrote:As an aside, I'm not sure of your characterisation of 'lazy Doctors' – why would anyone want to be a 'doctor' if they're not enthusiastic about helping the sick and injured? I can't imagine a doctor in socialism being asked to help an injured child, and replying 'I just can't be arsed, at the moment, I'm watching telly…'.lol. missed out a comma. I meant to say 'the lazy' and 'doctors'. Doctors I know work blood hard!
LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:…for clarification material of a criminally abusive nature does not come under the heading of "free speech"…'Who determines' what is 'criminally abusive'?The problem is, when I ask 'who determines', if not "workers' democracy", those disagreeing with me about the right of workers to determine either 'No Platform' or 'No 'No Platform'', the question is never answered, and it is assumed that 'free speech', or 'free association' or 'criminally abusive' are in themselves entirely unproblematic concepts that are outside of the considerations of "workers' democracy".
SP wrote:That could mean I wouldn't be allowed to set up a web site dedicated to the concept of a green cheese moon, because the sub-committee have decided on behalf of the majority that it is stupid, un-scientific, and therefore unnecessary.Such a body would in essence be an elite.Not if the 'body' is under the control of "workers' democracy", because clearly any sub-committee is answerable to all of us, in the final analysis.If you're asking me that if workers decided democratically, after all the necessary appeals processes, to 'ban a web site', would I then support the ban, my answer is 'yes'. For this to happen, there must be a very good reason, and that reason will have been discussed, debated and voted on, so the necessity of the ban must have been clearly understood.The alternative is for individuals (or elite groups outside of our social control) to have the right to set up any website that they liked, no matter how harmful to other individuals or groups, and how causing of great concern to the rest of us.
SP wrote:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, LBird.About "workers' democracy"? Yes, it seems so.
What constitutes the abuse of one human by another? Well for the purposes of my post I had to assume we are already under some impression of what that entails, though at present it varies from culture to culture. But in a socialist democracy what is deemed abuse would, I hope, be decided upon democratically by the community. I would like to think that would be the global community, and that it would at the very least cover the basics of what already exist.Regarding the committee. How would the committee be answerable to all of us without all of us being able to access the information they decide, on our behalf, is unacceptable for all of us to view?An easier way is to allow free access to info' and freedom of expression so long as it does not involve the abuse of others. I think we may be confusing the issue regarding abuse and freedom of expression.
SocialistPunk wrote:An easier way is to allow free access to info' and freedom of expression so long as it does not involve the abuse of others. I think we may be confusing the issue regarding abuse and freedom of expression.I think the separation of 'abuse' from 'freedom of expression' is not as clear cut as you seem to be assuming.To me, it's a bit like someone arguing that "common sense tells us the diference between 'terrorists' and 'freedom fighters' ".We all know that one's starting point (political ideology) has different 'common sense' with that issue, and I'm inclined to think that 'one person's 'abuse' is another person's 'free expression'. Perhaps a starting point for a reconciliation, though, would be to agree that 'abuse' should be censored.From that, we could identify the body that 'censors abuse', and then I would probably claim that it would be the 'censor' that I think is inescapable for any society.At bottom, this is a question of 'political power'. And I think that all political questions should be answered by workers' democracy, not by individuals' opinions or by unelected experts.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,If someone sends a message to this website in the wrong code format, it simply won't appear, that isn't censorship, merely a technical fact of the forum's set up. If someone is persistently disruptive, then it is no different to stop accepting their posts, they're sending English in the wrong format. Pre-moderating posts is no different from a chair at a meeting allowing someone to speak, but then cutting them off when they go off-topic. In fact, it is less censorious than simply banning them from the forum.No topic has been censored on this forum.We've already done the "the role of moderation is that of a chairperson at a meeting" thing and it was ridiculous then as it is now. The issue of online pre-moderation is nothing like a chairping a physical meeting. At the physical meeting we get to see and hear everything that goes on. Transparency is one of the core principles of the WSM. If the chairperson is being unfair in their judgement it is instantly obvious. Online pre-moderation is done behind closed doors and so the audience hasn't a clue what is going on.
Quote:There is a further point: all censorship — especially censorship of this kind, allegedly exercised for the benefit of the working class — is an insult to the intelligence of ordinary working men and women since it implies that they cannot be trusted to hear or read certain ideas and are incapable of making rational judgements on the merits of rival ideas.Like the person who this quote is from, I like to be able to judge for myself whether or not someone is talking a load of bollocks, or has a valid point.
LBird wrote:So, in a socialist society, 'just democratic control of society' would be "workers' power".I keep asking those who disagree with me to tell me who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power.They seem to argue for either 'individuals' (allegedly 'free'; often from robbo203) or an 'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet).I disagree, and argue that socialism equates to "workers' democracy", and that the 'means of production' clearly includes 'science' and the production of knowledge/truth, and that the means of production will be under the control of workers' democracy.Here we go again.How can the workers as a whole democratically "control the production of scientific knowledge". You never ever answer this question. Why is that LBird?To vote on a scientific theory, assuming for the sake of argument there was any point in doing this, you have to know something about the theory – yes? But not even the most brilliant scientist today is acquainted with more than a small fraction of the sum total of scientific theories in circulation today And yet you expect a global population of 7 billion individuals to vote on, not just one, but the totality of scientific theories in circulation – thousands upon thousands of them. Thats bonkers!That apart , you have never explained even once why the workers need to vote on these scientific theories . If you can't answer the above question, can you at least answer this one – why do you think workers need to democratically determine whether a scientific theory is true or not. I just dont get it. What difference will it make if they don't bother to vote? I can perfectly understand the need for workers democratically vote when it comes to something like, say, the allocation of resources among rival projects but the "truth" of a scientific theory? Are you serious?What is the point of voting for such a thing? Please explain
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.