[ALB]

There was actually quite a good reply (along side two other letters praising Bird's bullshit) in the next issue:

Quote:

The official World War One fanfare represents a tragic smokescreen about the contradictory truths of this devastating war. I am the grandson of a Sikh soldier who left home in north India to fight for Britain and its allies in France in World War One.There is no honour in World War One, except heroism of civilians and soldiers. World War One was an extension of the murky politics of Europe's competing governments, heads of state and rulers, in endeavoui to get a bigger slice of the global cake. Millions of civilians and hundreds of thousands of British, European, Sikh, Gurkha, Indian and African soldiers we used as military fodder to further the interests of the elite.Decision-makers sat back in their capitals and secure hide-outs while ordinary people bore bombings, starvation and death. Civilians and soldiers were ordered to fight to secure territory for their masters. Jagdeesh Singh, Sikh Community Action Network.

 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

To be 'convinced' is not to be 'open', and ALB's belief in the separation of 'science' from 'sociology' is an ideological belief, which he's learnt from our society. But he doesn't declare where he 'learnt' this, and so leaves us with the impression that it's his individual opinion.When I 'prefer' something, I'm recommending it to the proletariat for a vote, and I openly tell the proletariat where I've got my ideas from (Marx, Pannekoek, Schaff, Lakatos, etc.).So, my scientific method is 'democratic' and 'exposed', whereas ALB's is 'personal' and 'hidden'. The latter is a bourgeois method.

That's bollox. I was merely using the word "personally" to show that this was my view and not necessarily the views of the others continuing the discussion here (YMS, DJP, Vin). And could just as easily have used the word "prefer" as "convince". I can edit my comment in that way if you want. Believe it or not, I was actually starting from a position of agreement with you !The question I was raising was not incompatible with your view that there is no such thing as an ideology-free science. I was just questioning whether the ideology had always to be a class ideology. You yourself say (I think) that in socialism/communism this will not be the case. I was just asking whether, for some things, this could not be the case under capitalism too. (Incidentally, I prefer to think that the physical science biology is also class-ideology based).You haven't answered this.

[ALB]

SB_UK wrote:

Politics and the legal establishment are a major part of the problem – and I'd argue more so than money.

In that case, all the more need to win control of political power and dismantle it. So that those who currently control it can't use it to resist the establishment of a world community based on the Earth's resources being the common heritage of all and which will make money redundant.  

[ALB]

After Putin another bull-shitter. The August 4-10 Big Issue carries a three-page article defending the First World War by John Bird, "Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Big Issue":http://www.bigissue.com/features/4204/john-bird-the-necessary-warAs is well-known he's a pompous and pontificating ass and he lives up to his reputation. Pity the poor sods obliged to sell this and pity those who bought it thinking they were helping the homeless but found instead that they were re-inforcing pro-war propaganda (both that.of 1914-18 and of today).Having said that the same issue containing our usual ad stating:

Quote:

The Socialist Party aims at building a moneyless world community based on common ownership and democratic control with production solely for use not profit. It opposes all leadership, all war.

[ALB]

Like you it appears I have to repeat myself. This is not a case of you v SPGB but of you v certains other socialists, some SPGB members, some not.Quite prepared to carry on without the insults and acrimony if you'll comment on what I said about the possibility of a "class ideology free" astronomy even under capitalism and explainwhat  the differences are or would be between a bourgeois and a proletarian astronomy.Incidentally there is someone from Zeitgeist on the Zeitgeist thread who is actually arguing the position you have sometimes attributed to us of leaving scientists to decide everything:

SB_UK wrote:

Now what's wrong with doing it by elections ie the standard way ?Well – there's no alternative to global equality.There may be some decisions to be made – but they'll all be technical and can be sorted by techno-types pre-calibrated to select the best possible solution.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Adam, I think you made an unintentional error here,

ALB wrote:

This does mean a violent insurrection but,  ……

I think you meant to say "doesn't"

Thanks. Of course. Hope it wasn't a Freudian slip.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

But I do rule out 'ideology-free' physics, as I keep saying, because, according to bourgeois science, it's part of the human condition. All societies employ ideas to understand the world. Science employs ideas to understand the world. Humans employ ideas to understand the world. THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY-FREE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING

No need to shout. I know what your basic position is. You've missed the point I was trying to make. I was starting from your basic position that "there is no ideology-free human understanding" and asking whether, in some of the physical sciences, it was not possible for the ideology involved to be one that was shared by everyone irrespective of class.So I was talking not  about an "ideology free physics' but about a 'class ideology free physics'. In other words, assuming agreeiment with you that there is such a thing as bourgeois and proletarian economics, history, sociology, etc bur raising the possibility of at least some "class-free" science. You might not agree with this position (you probably won't) but at least it would shift the argument away from being over the basic premises to their application.Personally, I'm convinced (in fact I already held this view) that there is a bourgeois and a proletarian economics, but not that there is a bourgeois and proletarian astronomy. Try to convince me that there is but showing me where the two types of astronomy differ.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you)

Here we go, the Stalinist-like rewriting of history. Just like any other so-called "workers' party".I keep explaining things, in great detail, in as simple terms as possible, trying to help others with very complex issues, and keep getting personally attacked for it.So, having BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND INSULTINGLY, I proceed to THEN SHOW ACRIMONY.

You've gor me wrong again. It wasn't you I was saying was being acrimonious but some of your critics.  Read what I wrote again. And  you've just done it again — unfairly insulting us (and me) by calling us Stalinists. A change, I agree from your usual insult of Leninist but still not very helpful.

[ALB]

What I don't understand, LBird, is why you make the opposite of your "socially subjective facts" (actually "social class subjective") a "bourgeois individualistic" approach. Surely the opposite is, rather, a "whole society subjective" approach?In other words, that there are some things that all humans can accept as "subjective" facts, e.g. about the things used for everyday living and how and why they work, but also for certain sciences, e.g astronomy. I can see that there can be, and is, bourgeois economics, sociology,. history, psychology but don't see why there has to be, or is, bourgeois physics, chemistry, biology.  It is not as if you completely rule out a "class-free" physics, etc since you take the view that this will be the case in socialism/communism.Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you) in describing your critics here as "bourgeois individualists". The most you could accuse them/us of is denying that your contention that there are "social class subjective facts" across the board .If you want to argue with "bourgeois individualitsts" I suggest you go on to their sites, eg of the Von Mises Institute, and take them on directly rather than attributing their views to us here.

[ALB]

SB_UK wrote:

Capitalism is an expression of an inner motivation (which can be overcome) of the individual to acquire money, power, stuff etc

No it isn't. Capitalism is a society where nearly everything people need to live and enjoy life a bit has to be bought. Hence, the need to acquire money — for all but the rich who already have plenty of it.  Most do this by going out and selling their working energies for a wage or salary to some employer. A few chose to steal or swindle. But, given capitalism and its nature, it is normal that people should seek to acquire money., not to become rich but to survive and getter a better life if possible. Most people in fact want more to avoid falling into poverty than to become filthy rich. We can't, and socialists don't, criticise them for this. After all, we too are obliged to do it.

SB_UK wrote:

It's the individual's motivation towards money and power which we as a society of individuals need to get over – rather than a capitalist ruling class.

THis follows from your premise above but since the premise is mistaken so is your answer. Capitalism is a system of society based on a minority owning and controlling the means of wealth production and where production is geared to making a profit. This minority ownership is backed up by the power of the state through laws, police, courts, prisons and in the end the armed forces. This is why, if we are to transfer ownership and  control from the minority ruling class to the community as a whole and make them the common heritage of all (the aim of Zeitgeist as well as us), it is necessary to take political control from them. This does mean a violent insurrection but, since what we want can only come about with majority agreement, support and participation, the political action can be democratic and essentially peaceful.To ignore the fact that the minority owning class control political power would be foolish and risk the changeover being a lot more messy than it need be.Anyway, what's so wrong with majority, democratic, peaceful political action via the ballot box and elected parliaments?

[ALB]

SB_UK wrote:

So – no need for politics.

depends on what you mean by "politics". Capitalism continues to exist for two main reasons: because people accept or acquiecse in it (the problem you are addressing) and because those who benefit from it currently control political power.Once enough people who want to end capitalism have emerged they will be faced with deciding what to do next. You suggested at one point, I think, that they go off and try to lead the simple life. But only a few can do this and it won't really isolate them from the effects of capitalism. Much more constructive is to confront capitalism and organise to take political power out of the hands of the capitalist class so that it can be used to coordinate the transition from capitalism to socialism. It is naive to imagine that this confrontation can be avoided.Agreed, no need for the sort of politics that exists today (of professional poliricians making empty promises to get voted into office to further their careers and/or line their own pockets). But still the need for democratic political action to dislodge the capitalist class from power and pave the way for the Earth's resources to become the common heritage of all. I can't see how this can be avoided at some stage.

[ALB]

Oh, that's clear enough but i thought that the distinction you were trying to draw was between "socially subjective" and "individually subjective".  I see, though, that you think it's a distinction between two "socially subjective" points of view which are equally "right".I'm not prepared to be so indulgent towards "the bourgeoise (or anyone under their influence" who claim that socialism is impossible. I can see where they are coming from but, as far as I'm concerned, they are just plain wrong. However you describe this, socialism is possible whether or not they agree or whether or not they like it. It is not just a matter of opinion or of class position. I don't know why you are reluctant to admit this and find a way of saying so not even one which avoids the word "objective"..

[ALB]

OK, it's a "socially subjective fact"  that socialism is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved.  But this goes for everybody even for those who deny this.  There must be some way of distinguishing between those who accept this and those who deny it. What words would you use to do this? Both can't be "subjectively right". Or can they?.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

And so unfolds an SPGB tutorial on the difference between "fact" and t"ruth", with a discourse on "objective" thrown in for good measure.

This is not an argument about the SPGB position (which doesn't exist at least not in the detail some are assuming) but among socialists some of whom are not SPGB membersThere is only one tutor here and it's not the SPGB

[ALB]

That just makes me a naive socialist not a naive realist !Anyway, you said you agreed that socialism was the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved. I was just making the point that this was the case irrespective of whether or not people agreed with it, i.e that it was not a matter of opinion but was actually so. I agree with it. You agree with it.  Millions don't. Can we not say that we are right and they are wrong without being labelled (or labelling ourselves) as elitist?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Go and speak to some scientists, you'll find none of them believe in naive realism or think they are uncovering the absolute unmediated "Truth".

Well, YMS and ALB do. They've both said so, finally..

I don't recall saying that. When and where was it?

[Author]

Posts