ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:We in the Socialist Party have tended to steer a middle course with decisions concerning a community as a whole to be taken democratically by them, either directly in a general meeting or a referendum or by elected committees. A vast extension of democratic control compared to today, particularly with regard to the use of means of production, but not embracing every single decision.
This is a statement of 'democracy' that I can agree with.That is, "decisions concerning a community", in which I would characterise 'concerns' as those relating to 'power', 'authority' and 'legitimacy'.So, if any issue involves those 'concerns', I think it should be 'decided by the community', collectively and democratically.This, clearly, doesn't involve 'what people consume, wear, or how they lay out their front gardens'.
In view of what you've just said, why doesn't it?
LBird wrote:There seems to be a widespread fear of the 'masses' on this site, and I find it very unhealthy. I must say, given the SPGB's propaganda line, I'm very surprised.When the SPGB gain a majority in parliament, they are going to disband parliament and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, to legitimise "Workers' Power", aren't they? So that all the current state organs obey orders given by the Councils?I really am beginning to wonder about the seriousness that posters here place upon Workers (the proletariat) actually running everything. There is an undercurrent of elitism, which is most noticeable in YMS's posts, with his focus on mathematics, etc.Ask YMS who's going to tell him what to do and think under Communism.I'll answer 'My Commune'. I'll bet YMS doesn't – or a few others here.{My bold]Are you really suggesting that in socialism people will be told "what to think" by a vote in their local area?Socialism is based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production but that doesn't mean that democratic control will extend to what people should think.Socialism will involve widespread democracy, but it won't be the "totalitarian democracy" your form of words above seems to be suggesting.
LBird wrote:I'm a Marxist and a Communist, YMS, stop prevaricating and playing silly. If you're not, I'm not interested on this thread in discussing these thinkers with you. Start a new thread called 'Science for bourgeois liberals', or some such.And indeed, take your hatred of democracy somewhere else.This is another typical of your outrageous distortions of those who disagree with you.YMS does not "hate" democracy. He's just making the point that it is pointless as a means of settling matters of opinion (such as scientific theories). It's essential of course for deciding important matters requiring action but that goes without saying as socialism/communism is based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interest of society as a whole.If there's a vote on whether or not the Earth is flat, no doubt the view that it is not would be carried overwhelmingly, but that wouldn't change the minds of those who think it is flat. So what would the vote achieve? It would only be an expression of opinion since those who don't agree won't be prevented from still expressing their opinion (would they?). Might as well leave people doing research in a particular field argue and settle things amongst themselves (if necessary even by a vote as the one a couple of years ago amongst astronomers on whether or not Pluto should still be regarded as a planet).I too don't see the point of voting on the "truth" of scientific theories (as opposed to research programmes and the running of research institutes). That doesn't make me an anti-democrat but just a democrat who accepts that a vote is not necessarily the way to settle matters of opinion. Anyway, see the separate thread you asked for on the extent and limits of democracy.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:I still think that "materialism", even "physicalism", is not incompatible with a "monist" view which gives equal status to physical and non-physical stuff as long as it is considered one theory of the relationship between the physical and the non-physical parts of this "monist" world.I don't agree, ALB.To me, the simple test is to ask any random physicalist if the material can supervene on the ideal.For us, given the ontological identity of 'material' and 'ideal', we would answer 'yes'.
As so often, we are talking at cross purposes. I'm not talking about the content of a theory but about its status. No doubt some of those who call themselves "materialists" or "physicalists" do think that the physical does "supervene" on the non-physical in "reality" (and so are "dualists"). But It's a theory and, as we are agreed (or at least I am), theories are descriptions of phenomena that are either useful or not useful in terms of predicting the future course of phenomena, useful or not useful that is for human survival and its improvement.As such a description "physicalism" may or may not be useful. It could well be, since this would explain why it can be said that the physical preceded in time the non-physical and why it cannot be said that the mind can exist separate from the body. In fact, I would say it's got a lot going for it as a useful description (even though I don't like the word).In other words, "physicalism" is one among other theories describing the passing world of phenomena. It's not a theory of the nature of reality or, if someone of its adherents say it is, they are mistaken (now that we can use this word).
Here she is making the news about a radio debate with Militant/TUSC yesterday:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11077637/Ukips-radio-rant-candidate-Elizabeth-Jones-worse-than-Katie-Hopkins.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11077148/Ukip-candidate-Elizabeth-Jones-flips-out-on-live-radio-broadcast.html
I still think that "materialism", even "physicalism", is not incompatible with a "monist" view which gives equal status to physical and non-physical stuff as long as it is considered one theory of the relationship between the physical and the non-physical parts of this "monist" world. After all, I'm prepared (like Dietzgen and Pannekoek) to call myself a "materialist" in the monist sense (of "stuff", i.e. "matter", being both the physical and the non-physical). I must confess, though, that I'm not too keen on the term "physicalism".
LBird wrote:There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.LBird wrote:The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.That's a turn-up for the books. What's all the fuss been about? But just as a matter of interest what is the current "Socially-objective Truth" (not need for a capital T if you don't want) about, say, the solar system or in astronomy generally?
Anyone know what has happened to Left Unity? They seem to have been and gone, maybe because the Green Party has stolen all their clothes or maybe because they tried to steal that party's clothes and failed.
I don't think it's me that's playing with words. I just used the word "bad" to mean "mistaken", actually in relation to ideology/false consciousness but it could be applied more widely. I know you'll come back and say that this implies the opposite — that there can be a non-mistaken understanding. But surely there's a sense in which this must be the case, without having to be committed to Knowledge as Absolute Truth?Suppose the generally agreed selection of some phenomenon is to name it "green" and somebody seeing something that meets the criteria for calling something "green" but calls it "red". Is that a mistake or not?You're perfectly free to say it's not but just somebody with a different "ideology". In fact that nobody could ever be mistaken about anything or draw a "bad" conclusion. This can't be your position can it, as you repeatedly insist that you are not a post-modernist who thinks that anything goes?So, tell us, can anyone ever be mistaken?
There's nothing much in Newport to see anyway. I should know. I was born there. They have even taken down a mural there to the Chartist Uprising in Newport in 1839. And that Celtic Manor is a monstrosity and folly built by a Canadian billionaire born there who has more money than sense.
LBird wrote:I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.No I'm not. Why on Earth would I want to do that.
Forgot to add that a member got in a comment on the Grauniad's article:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/03/eccentric-memories-and-summer-snow
One of Weidberg's famous put downs was on the EC, when a member with a certain reputation said "Let's face it, we must …", he interjected "Which face would that be?".
I know that the weekend before I'll be rushing around trying to spernd all my money before it becomes useless.
I don't think that Marx did use the term "ideology" in more than one way. I think he just used it in your first sense, Vin, i.e. to mean "false consiousness" (and which is something more than simply a wrong understanding), as pgb explained in his post a few days ago:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/science-communists?page=58#comment-16151So I don't think there could be such a thing as a "socialist ideology", at least not today, though I suppose it might be applied to the Bolshevik revolution where those who were carrying out a stage of a capitalist revolution thought, and sincerely believed, that they were carrying out a socialist one. But, obviously, it can't apply to us. Of course not as the word has prejorative connotations for Marxists.Mind you, this is just a question of definition and terminology which needn't cause difficulties if we agree on a definition or understand what the other's definition is.
