- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by Anonymous.
September 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm #103949AnonymousInactiveLBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:There won't be a proletariat
This touches on what i asked earlier…will socialism be a static society? If ideas and material conditions do arise to create ideology what can we expect to replace the proletarian one when the proletariat is no more. hmmmmmmm…?
The 'proletariat' is a special category of 'producer': a 'producer' that is 'exploited'.Of course, socialist society will see the end of the 'proletariat', but not of the 'producer'.The 'producer' is the 'social subject', that creates its own 'object'.Social 'theory and practice' (your 'ideas and material') will create new 'ideologies' to suit our own purposes and interests, and if we decide to actively change our own purposes and interests, then those 'ideologies' will change, too.
This seems the same as child once said to me , "the same, only different".September 5, 2016 at 3:49 pm #103950AnonymousInactive
This society is run by the working class, the only problem is that workers do not have control over the means of production.September 5, 2016 at 5:23 pm #103951WezParticipant
There were wars long before capitalism arrived. It is the case that contemporary wars are caused by capitalism (as the most recent incarnation of private property) but wars are not a bourgeois invention! It's the same with science, it predates capitalism and will continue to exist after it ends.September 5, 2016 at 11:38 pm #103952alanjjohnstoneKeymaster
When you have dug yourself into a hole, Wez, the first thing you do is stop diggingSeptember 6, 2016 at 6:30 am #103953LBirdParticipantrobbo203, post #1399, wrote:Though I agree that it is very probable that for any given subject area in science only a minority is likely to be sufficiently competent to judge on the particular merits of a given theory, this is not in any way a elitist view as I explained, It is purely a function of the social division of labour which L Bird completely ignores.
[my bold]The problem is, robbo, who or what actively determines 'the social division of labour'?You talk of this category as if it were something outside of our own production, something outside of our political control, something that is active, in the face of which we are passive.Any workers' organisation built upon your principles will tell workers that they are not the 'active, conscious, subject', but that the 'social division of labour' is, and that they must obey the 'social division of labour'.Anyone with any political nous whatsoever, can see that humans determine their 'social division of labour', and that if this political truth is hidden, that a 'special minority' will be the ones who 'determine', whilst they hide this truth from the masses, who will believe that this actually socio-historically-produced 'division' just 'is', timeless, ahistorical, and outside of human interference, and they have to 'obey it'.It seems bloody obvious to me that any Leninist would tell the passive workers that the power structures which allowed Stalin to control production was "purely a function of the social division of labour", and that those workers should avoid the troublemaker LBird, who is 'ignoring' a reality, which is 'out there', and not socially-produced.I don't agree with you, robbo, because I'm a Marxist, and I argue for the democratic control of all human production, including everything from widgets to scientific knowledge. That is, 'socialism/communism'.You're not a Marxist, nor a Communist, nor a democrat, but you are an elitist. Although, I'll grant that you seem to be unaware of this.September 6, 2016 at 10:03 am #103954WezParticipant
Again LBird seems to flatly contradict the socialist organisation of labour which states: 'From each according to his talents, to each according to his needs'. This implies to me that science, together with all forms of social labour, will be practised by those who are talented in, and inspired by, the particular discipline. The resources allocated to such a 'division of labour' will be decided by the whole community – isn't this Marxist/Socialist democracy?September 6, 2016 at 10:39 am #103955Young Master SmeetModerator
Well, as an Anarcho Monarchist, I largely agree with Lbird: truth is only what the King says it is (obviously, advised by the wisdom of ancients from times before we fell to our modern parlous state).September 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm #103956moderator1Participant
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’). 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.September 6, 2016 at 1:53 pm #103957twcParticipant
From Science to UtopiaPoor uncomprehending Robbo, let me explain LBird’s democratic Communist Utopia for us, the equally uncomprehending.LBird’s Utopia can:abolish, by fiat, the division of labour.abolish, by fiat, inequality of talent, aptitude and inclination.abolish, by fiat, diversity of thought.LBird’s Utopia can:force, by fiat, everyone to level everyone else.force, by fiat, everyone to police his/her neighbour’s thought.force, by fiat, everyone to vote jointly and severally, and perpetually, on any and every socially created conceptual object from widgets to W-bosons — i.e. on anything and everything.LBird’s Utopia can educate everyone to be simultaneously: “Very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, Understand equations, both the simple and quadratical, About binomial theorem be teeming with a lot o’ news, With many cheerful facts/ about the square of the hypotenuse. Be very good at integral and differential calculus; And know the scientific names of beings animalculous.” [Pirates of Penzance — G&S]Auch, in Fremdsprachen, … »Bin Akademiker Doktor und Chemiker, Bin Mathematiker Und Arithmetiker, Bin auch Grammatiker, Sowie Ästhetiker, Ferner Rhetoriker, Grosser Historiker, Astrolog, Philolog, Physiker, Geolog.« [Der Barbier von Bagdad — Peter Cornelius]And, also in aesthetics, where LBird’s Utopia demands, by fiat, that each must censor the social art of all, whether… “tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited.” [Hamlet — Shakespeare]And, least of all not forgetting the multifarious branches of science, in which LBird’s Utopia confers upon us all, by idealist fiat, frontier expertise in for starters only listing sciences whose names begin with the letter ‘A’…Acarology – study of mitesAccidence – grammar book; science of inflections in grammarAceology – science of remedies, or of therapeutics; iamatology.Acology – study of medical remediesAcoustics – science of soundAdenology – study of glandsAedoeology – science of generative organsAerobiology – study of airborne organismsAerodonetics – science or study of glidingAerodynamics – dynamics of gases; science of movement in a flow of air or gasAerolithology – study of aerolites; meteoritesAerology – study of the atmosphereAeronautics – study of navigation through air or spaceAerophilately – collecting of air-mail stampsAerostatics – science of air pressure; art of ballooningAgonistics – art and theory of prize-fightingAgriology – comparative study of primitive peoplesAgrobiology – study of plant nutrition; soil yieldsAgrology – study of agricultural soilsAgronomics – study of productivity of landAgrostology – science or study of grassesAlethiology – study of truthAlgedonics – science of pleasure and painAlgology – study of algae or the study of painAnaesthesiology – study of anaestheticsAnaglyptics – art of carving in bas-reliefAnagraphy – art of constructing cataloguesAnatomy – study of the structure of the bodyAndragogy – theory and practice of education of adultsAnemology – study of windAngiology – study of blood flow and lymphatic systemAnthropobiology – study of human biologyAnthropology – study of human culturesAphnology – science of wealthApiology – study of beesArachnology – study of spidersArchaeology – study of human material remainsArchelogy – study of first principlesArchology – science of the origins of governmentArctophily – study of teddy bearsAreology – study of MarsAretaics – science of virtueAristology – science or art of diningArthrology – study of jointsAstacology – science of crayfishAstheniology – study of diseases of weakening and agingAstrogeology – study of extraterrestrial geologyAstrometeorology – study of effect of stars on climateAstronomy – study of celestial bodiesAstrophysics – study of behaviour of interstellar matterAstroseismology – study of star oscillationsAtmology – science of aqueous vapourAudiology – study of hearingAutecology – study of ecology of one speciesAutology – scientific study of oneselfAuxology – science of growthAvionics – science of electronic devices for aircraftAxiology – science of the ultimate nature of value.This is all possible in the idealist fantasy Utopia of LBird’s mind.I trust this clarifies everything and anything.September 6, 2016 at 2:17 pm #103958LBirdParticipant
At least it's clear that, for the SPGB and its supporters, almost any elite, rather than the class conscious democratic proletariat, is going to have political power in their version of 'socialism'.So much for socialists helping to develop the class consciousness of workers, and bringing the class up to the abilities of the bourgeois elites.Whatever happened to the SPGB's educational and propaganda role? That's one of the things that made me look to the SPGB, together with its 'democracy'.Unfortunately, neither of these things play any part in the thinking of today's party, from the evidence of these threads.No vision for a socialist future, together with a strategy for achieving it, just simply 'more of the same', as the bourgeois experts do things currently.It doesn't bode well for the party – it certainly doesn't attract me; although, I'm sure that comes as a relief to those who want to keep science and academia much as they are, and workers out of their activities.September 6, 2016 at 2:56 pm #103959AnonymousInactive
Twc – your post # 1419 – very good!So, who is currently taking the course in Acology in the SP? I would like to enrol.September 6, 2016 at 9:22 pm #103961robbo203ParticipantLBird wrote:robbo203, post #1399, wrote:Though I agree that it is very probable that for any given subject area in science only a minority is likely to be sufficiently competent to judge on the particular merits of a given theory, this is not in any way a elitist view as I explained, It is purely a function of the social division of labour which L Bird completely ignores.
[my bold]The problem is, robbo, who or what actively determines 'the social division of labour'?You talk of this category as if it were something outside of our own production, something outside of our political control, something that is active, in the face of which we are passive.Any workers' organisation built upon your principles will tell workers that they are not the 'active, conscious, subject', but that the 'social division of labour' is, and that they must obey the 'social division of labour'.Anyone with any political nous whatsoever, can see that humans determine their 'social division of labour', and that if this political truth is hidden, that a 'special minority' will be the ones who 'determine', whilst they hide this truth from the masses, who will believe that this actually socio-historically-produced 'division' just 'is', timeless, ahistorical, and outside of human interference, and they have to 'obey it'.It seems bloody obvious to me that any Leninist would tell the passive workers that the power structures which allowed Stalin to control production was "purely a function of the social division of labour", and that those workers should avoid the troublemaker LBird, who is 'ignoring' a reality, which is 'out there', and not socially-produced.I don't agree with you, robbo, because I'm a Marxist, and I argue for the democratic control of all human production, including everything from widgets to scientific knowledge. That is, 'socialism/communism'.You're not a Marxist, nor a Communist, nor a democrat, but you are an elitist. Although, I'll grant that you seem to be unaware of this.
Groan. Once again its back to the drawing board to explain to LBird in terms that he can hopefully understand just how ridiculous is his whole argument.. But first of all let’s cut out all this crap about me not being a Marxist or a communist or a democrat. I fully support and actively advocate the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. That makes me all the things LBird claims I am not. I just dont support his crackpot idea that the truth of scientific theories – tens of thousands of them – should be voted upon by the entire global population. Not once has LBird ever explained what would be the point of these multiple and indeed endless referenda on scientific theories. What difference is it going to make if a particular scientific theory is rubber stamped as The Truth by virtue of this being decided upon by a democratic vote? Lbird never explains. All we get from him on this subject is a resounding silence. It makes me wonder how serious LBird is about a genuine exchange of ideas. How you determine the truth of a theory in a communist will makes absolutely no difference that I can detect at all. In fact this kind of fetishistic obsession LBird seems to have with formally rubber stamping a scientific theory as The Truth seems to me to be the very opposite of the kind of view expressed by Marx that we should “doubt everything”. LBird’s proclivity towards absolutism and formalism is redolent of the Leninist concept of the “Party Line” Democracy is about power. The fact that I know nothing about String theory in a communist society does not vest the astrophysicists in a communist society who knows about these arcane matters with some kind of power over me. This is where LBird goes completely off the rails. He does not understand what democracy is about or indeed how a communist society would function – its basic dynamics, if I could put it like. His attitude towards democracy is almost childlike in its naiveté. I’m surprised he hasn’t yet come up with the suggestion that the total global population in a communist society should decide by means of a democratic what I should wear, what music I should listen, who I should associate with and what kind of restaurants I should patronise. Clearly anyone with a modicum of common sense will understand that when we talk about democracy there are limits to how far we can or should take this concept. What LBird is suggesting goes way beyond any kind of sensible notion of what those limits are. I mean really – how on earth does LBird propose to organise a global vote on even a handful of scientific theories let alone tens of thousands every year. Has he even once thought about the logistics or organising such a vote never mind the purpose its isupposed to serve. The truly hilarious aspect of mind-numbingly dumb idea is the plain fact that for each of these tens of thousands of referenda carried out year only a tiny tiny proportion of the populace is ever going to even bother to vote. So we are going to end up in any case to what amount to, in LBird’s terms an “elitist” outcome. If you don’t know about String theory why would you be even interested in voting for it? I wouldn’t. What’s the point? This brings me to the point that LBird makes as follows in response to my point about the inevitability of the social division of labour:“The problem is, robbo, who or whatactively determines 'the social division of labour'?You talk of this category as if it were something outside of our own production, something outside of our political control, something that is active, in the face of which we are passive.” No L Bird the problem is NOT who or what actively determines the social division of labour. The problem, for your argument, is that there is a social division of labour to begin with! The implications of the fact that there is such a thing as a social division of labour utterly destroys your whole argument and reduces it to rubble. It really does not matter how the social division of labour was determined though, if you want my opinion on the matter, I would say it is an emergent phenomenon which no one individual or group actively brought about. But let us indulge you and run with your argument for a moment. Suppose your concept of “democratic communism” was implemented. Would the workers retain the social division of labour or scrap it? If the former, you would still have a minority of specialists in various fields of scientific endeavour. We cannot all expect to be neurosurgeons, for example, which takes years and years of practice and intensive study. Neurosurgeons know things about the workings of the brain which most of us, myself included, do not. And because they have this specialist knowledge that means they know things which we don’t. Which means when it comes to voting on such things we are not in much of a position to vote even if we wanted to which is unlikely. Still, as I say this is no problem as far as I concerned as along as neurosurgeons are unable to convert their specialist knowledge into a source of economic and political power over me. My contention is that there is no lever that they could possibly pull in a communist society that would afford them such power. You seem to think otherwise and my challenge to you is to explain how so. How in a society of free access to goods and services where labour is performed on an entirely voluntary basis can any individual or group exercise power of others? You don’t seem to recognise this but the whole logic of your argument is deeply anti-communist in its implications. Then there is the option of scrapping the social division of labour altogether which the workers could do under your concept of democratic communism. So let’s say they scrap the social division of labour. What would that mean? It would mean either that there would be no neurosurgeons or else everyone will be compelled to become a neurosurgeon. Since to become a neurosurgeon requires years of study and practice what this in turn means is that we can’t also become a competent mechanical engineer or geophysicist which also takes years to accomplish. Either way we are looking at a society without specialists of any kind. Is this what you want LBird? More to the point do you seriously believe this is remotely sustainable? In my opinion even to advocate it as a communist is to make a laughing stock of communism which is partly why I am so staunchly opposed to your whole line of thought. You make communism look ridiculous and impracticableSeptember 6, 2016 at 10:20 pm #103962twcParticipantMeel wrote:So, who is currently taking the course in Acology in the SP? I would like to enrol.
Meel, you happen to be in luck. Student LBird hastily pulled out in a huff.Student LBird proved constitutionally incapable of advancing beyond Acarology (mites) — things mite happen if you think them into existence, like Yahweh. External necessity is a myth!Student LBird failed for not advancing beyond a philosophical mindset.This explains why failed student LBird must repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, …September 6, 2016 at 10:35 pm #103963BrianParticipant
I put this exact argument by robbo in a private email to LBird many months ago. I pointed out to him that the majority of the population prefer to be generalists while a minority choose a specialist role. But he took no heed on the implications and consequences of putting every theory to the vote.September 7, 2016 at 12:02 am #103964alanjjohnstoneKeymaster
1st Warning to TWC7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.Keep it civil, comrades.This thread and its contributors have on experience of previous debates a tendency to become acrimonious so just be a bit careful that no-one does his or her part to escalated exchanges.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.