[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.

 Worker's councils are a time-honoured and unobjectionable means of building a bottom-up administration, but not all workers around the world are organised into workplaces according to the tradiitional western capitalist model.  Other forms of collective organisation are possible, or may be already in existence among peasant and non-hierachical communities, or may arise spontaneoudly in different parts of the world. We need to ensure that we don't get fixated on one way of organising things, since one model may not be appropriate everywhere or in every circumstance.  Moreover, neither we nor any one group will be in control of a revolutionary situation when it happens, or be thinking from the same ideological viewpoint, and lines of communication may be broken or may not exist.  It is not a matter of a 'third position' or even of a first or second position but of tolerating a situation where many different formal and spontaneous approaches may exist side by side not all of which can be integrated into an efficient whole.    

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

 I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.I think that these can be summed up as "Workers' Councils" versus "Democratic Parliament". 

I disagree entirely.  I am not specifically arguing for workers councils, and I do not think there is a necessary opposition here.  

[Hud955]

It wouldn't be at all easy to build an administrative structure from scratch, Adam, I agree, but this is a relative matter.  Neither would it be at all easy to adapt the workings of central and local government to the needs of a socialist society either.  Most existing computer systems would be useless, for instance and would have to be replaced with those geared to new needs, priorities and social relationships.  Undemocratic and bureaucratic administrative systems would have to be reimagined, and so on. And the confusion that would result from trying to adapt one set of arrangements to another of a very different character especially given the creaky and inefficient nature of what we currently have would be horrendous.  I would suggest that ultimately it would be more time and labour consuming than setting up new systems, which we could begin to prepare in advance.  

[Hud955]

Hi BrianI'd certainly agree to the need for both workplace and community organisation, but I don't like to go very far down this road in the matter of detail.  I'm happy to leave that to evolve socially when it starts to become a real issue for a growing socialist majority. My suspicion, though, is that a socialist society would evolve ways of thinking about social organisation that are quite alien to our own. I suspect, for instance, that the community would be far more individualistic than most of us are at present preparted to contemplate.  A strong sense of social cohesion and an ethos of individualism are mutually reinforcing, not opposites.  On the issue you raise, informal social norms will always arise, but within them, it seems reasonable that individuals would be left to determine the quality of their own home.  Personally I only see a layer of organisation existing to establish a 'Housing Quality Standard' in situations of limited resources, when the limit would be an upper rather than lower one.  This is all  crystal ball gazing, of course, and we shall have to wait and see.  In speculating about this kind of thing, though, I think we will come closer to what might actually evolve if we imagine a future that is well outside the format set by capitalism, A strong administration would be particularly needful in the early days to organise  social recovery from the problems created by our own far from egalitarian society.  Beyond that though, I would guess that administrative structures would become weaker and more informal as time went on.  Capturing political power would in my view be of secondary importance to reworking social relationships in these kinds of ways.

[Hud955]

I've always thought the distinction made by many anarchists between the state and the government is a good one.  The state is far wider than the government, and some parts of the state, under some circumstances can have a separate existence from it.  The SPGB talks about taking control of the state through the ballot box.  What this means, strictly, is taking control of the government machinery.  If the military and other coercive forces of the state choose not to accept government control by socialists, then the chances of the revolution being successful are much reduced and taking control of the government of minor significance .As far as I understand it, the SPGB believes that workplace organisation by the working class is essential for a successful revolution.  That to me is a much more important part of the argument.  If the coercive forces of the state are on board with the revolution at that time, then taking control of parliament would seems perhaps useful, but inessential.  Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether.     

[Hud955]

There is no obvious reason why people wouldn't choose to organise themselves in a variety of ways, using  different decision-making processes at different levels (local, regional, global etc), in different circumstances and for different purposes.  There is no need to imagine they would be constrained by any of the limits that capitalism places on our own imaginations.  For fast, perhaps urgent decision-making then a straight vote might be sought of whatever section of the population will be affected by the decision, and the rules set for the assessing the outcome might be different depending on the circumstances.  The vote might be direct  or a delegated one.   For slower, more considered decision making, much broader forms of social choice might be adopted which consider the needs of minorities as well as majorities.  And at more local levels communities may seek simple consensus, using a variety of available techniques and skills.  Democratic decision making applied to possible actions is one thing; applying it to  on 'truth' is quite another, since no-one would be under any compulsion to accept the outcome of such a collective decision, whatever form it took – you cannot compel someone to believe that something is true, even in capitalism.  You can have a damn good go at brainwashing them if you are in a position of power, or you can just allow a general process of social reification to do the job for you.  The production of truth would be a complex matter in a socialist society.  In a small so-called simple society like a hunter gatherer band, what is true is usually an matter for the individual band member, though each is  deeply influenced by the dynamics of the group.  Ideas about what is true, therefore evolve rapidly and generally in accordance with the ideological needs of the band.  All this seems to reflect the fact that hunter gatherers are at one and the same time both highly communistic and highly individualistic (in the sense that they have no status relations and no-one can tell anyone else what to do.  These relationships are strongly defended, so that their individualism is maintained by strong communal pressure.   The only thing in their forms of social organisation resembling class or a division of labour are their gender relationships.    Hg's tend to form gendered coalitions in which men live quite separate lives from women and the two often have separate ritual practices and beliefs.  There is no such thing as the family as we conceive it.   As soon as there is a greater division of labour as would be likely in a highly technological society, then the production of truth becomes a much more complex matter.

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Where on earth did you get the idea I was an academic, by the way?

You displayed the same concern for 'facts' and 'details', which you clearly have read about, and can remember and recite, without any understanding whatsoever about the relationships between them, and others that you haven't looked for. This inability to rise above what's in front of one's face is a common trait in academia. Some of them still believe in induction from evidence.

Hud955 wrote:

That's a laugh!

Yes, it's become very obvious that even 'academic' status was setting the bar too high, for you.

Hud955 wrote:

These are interesting questions you are rasing.

This is the real shame – you show potential, but then shy away at where your questioning might take you.

Hud955 wrote:

It is just a shame that you are unable to respond to the views and challenges of others except in a dogmatic and abstract way.

Yes, always the response from the ignorant, to things they don't understand. You, of course, are undogmatic and deal with the real world, just like all conservatives. Not like those 'head in the clouds' revolutionaries, eh?

Hud 955 wrote:

I've had some very fruitful discussions about these issues with other people.

With this, you're showing a remarkable ability to deceive yourself. Other than being vaguely aware that 'something is going on', you are completely at a loss.

Hud955 wrote:

You are no more or less a worker than anyone else who has been posting on this forum.

That's odd, because when I ask whether other posters identify as a 'worker' or as an 'individual', they always plump for the latter. Mind you, you wouldn't understand the ideological difference, between identifying oneself as holding a structural position in a society, and one's biological existence. For you and them, it's just a descriptive term, not an analytical category. Ohhh… I'm being dogmatic and abstract, again! Big words and difficult concepts, Hud, a bit scary, eh?

Hud955 wrote:

I'm about to lose connectivity for a while, and will not be able to continue with this for much longer.  I'll just make one observation, for now, though – it's a quote in fact, from someone whose opinion I know you hold in the highest regard.

I'm touched, Hud! Quoting me, as an authority.All you have to do now is to digest my advice, and then follow it. But I think you lost 'connectivity' with critical thinking a long time ago, if you ever were connected to it.On a biological level, have a nice time.

LOL.    Well, thanks for allowing us to  evesdrop on your inner efforts to put this  person you call 'hud'  in his place, LB.  Ignorant, conservative, self-deceptive?   That's a good list of private bogey men.  So long as the spider remains in the centre of its web, then all will be well, eh?My challenge to you, as ever, is simply this, spin a thread, come down to earth and answer the questions that have been put to you.  Or, if that is so difficult for a self-confident worker such as yourself,  perhaps you would like to explain the reason for it?  

[Hud955]

"This tells us everything about your (and your sympathisers') attitude to learning.I would never accuse any of you of being 'dishonest'; I'd accuse you of ignorance, but I have no fear of you being 'dishonest'. You're all entirely honest, according to the lights of your ideology."LOL, you do appear to have a remarkably limited understanding of human beings, LB!Maybe this is why you chronically misinterpret and misrepresent the points people put to you?Where on earth did you get the idea I was an academic, by the way?  That's a laugh!  That's what happens when you spin theories out of inadequate evidence.  Or am I now to be accused of holding a correspondence theory of truth for claiming my actual occupation and life history might just have some bearing on what you can legitimately say about me?  Maybe though, my perception of my life history is too influenced by my ideological beliefs for me to be able to say anything about myself that would challenge anything you might want to say about me.  Sorry, LB your crude and mechanistic interpretation of what would otherwise be a perfectly useful theory hardly merits anything other than derision.  You call it philosophy.  It sounds more like  'philosogising' to me.  (Marx warned me about vulgarians like you!)These are interesting questions you are rasing. It is just a shame that you are unable to respond to the views and challenges of others except in a dogmatic and abstract way.  I've had some very fruitful discussions about these issues with other people.    Not so with you, I'm afraid.  You see yourself as a"self-confident worker"?  Clearly more workerish-than-thou, though, eh?  Get over yourself LB.  You are no more or less a worker than anyone else who has been posting on this forum.I'm about to lose connectivity for a while, and will not be able to continue with this for much longer.  I'll just make one observation, for now, though – it's a quote in fact, from someone whose opinion I know you hold in the highest regard."Your problem is that you refuse to listen, learn and critically assess what you're being told." 

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

 Sorry, I'm playing those 'kind of games', yet again, aren't I? Y'know, the grown-up ones, which you, robbo and DJP seem to abhor so much.

 Yes you  are, LB.  I don't know whether they are 'grown up' or not but I doubt that they are honest.   

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

I'm very happy to discuss the matter with you, but I am not playing these kind of games.

What? The 'kind of games' that involve philosophical discussion?I had higher hopes of you, Hud, but I'm to be disappointed, once again.

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

You're going to have to read, and think critically about what's being said, on the rest of this thread, robbo.We already know what your ideology tells you, because you keep repeating it, whereas you haven't a clue about mine.This is obvious, because I can give an account of yours that you can agree with.That is, I can say 'robbo is opposed to democracy in truth production', and you'll agree with this as an accurate account of your position on 'truth production'.But, you can't give an accurate of my position 'LBird is in favour of democracy in truth production', because you can't imagine that this is possible, whereas I agree that your position is, not only entirely possible, but the one taken by the bourgeoisie and academics.For me, locating our opposing positions within a class society, and looking at those positions historically in their emergence, and tying them to wider ideas about society and power, and ideology and politics, is the answer to trying to identify which is better suited for the proletariat, as it goes forward and builds for socialism, as it becomes ever more self-conscious of its power, legitimacy and authority, and as it challenges the power of the bourgeoisie, in every sphere of society, including academia.Which is the position that will suit a society within which the majority control the means of production?A. 'Democracy in truth production'; orB. 'Elitism in truth production'.

 Your A and B analysis is false dichotomy, a fundamental logical error.  (And one that you consistently make.)   Material possibilities are rarely if ever be constrained by just two choices.  You have set up your question here to try to control the direction of the future discussion. Another example, along with the usual patronising tone of your remarks, of your authoritarian attitude to this matter. Robin asked you for proposals on how you think a system of democratic truth production should work. All we get back is the statement that he is unable to conceive of how it would work.  We know that LB. He has clearly indicated as much.  What we want to know is how you think it would work.  Once more you have dodged the questions.  Can we, for once, get a direct response from you?I'm very happy to discuss the matter with you, but I am not playing these kind of games.

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

 I think that you regard political philosophy as not being at the root of science

Hud955 wrote:

You would be correct.     

LBird wrote:

Are you happy with my attempt to focus on this core issue, which I think will get to the heart of our disagreements on this site?I think once this issue is clarified, every other issue in your post will be seen in the light of our respective answers to this core philosophical issue.

Go ahead, LB.  Take this in whatever way you like.  I'm leaving the field to you.

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

Not fingding evidence of a universal grammar does not disprove the theory…

You'll know from your reading of the philosophy of science, YMS, that even supporters of capitalism like Karl Popper have argued that 'absence of evidence' can't disprove a theory.And that 'evidence absent' for one perspective, is 'evidence present' for another.Science, eh? Who'd've thought it?Bring back 19th century certainty, eh? And listen to the academics, who claim to have a neutral method, and ignore that trouble-maker Einstein?

When the range of application of a theory is limited, and research into all available instances of applicability fails to support a predicted consequence of that theory then there are only two options, to abandon the theory or to modify one of its hypotheses.  When the hypotheses that must be modified is the central supporting principle of that theory, then it is usually weakened to the point of untenability.  When that theory also assumes conditions rendered impossible by other substantiated theories, like the need for evolution to be able to predict future events, then, at that point it is usually abandoned – as Chomsky's theory has been by most linguists.  

[Hud955]

LB, to save you from the ignominy of a further warning or getting banned, I've transferred my reply to your last post over to a new thread.  Meet me there if you want.  Up to you.

[Hud955]

mcolome1 wrote:

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/02/pirahã-undermines-noam-chomskys-idea-of-a-universal-grammar.htmlPiraha undermines Noam Chomskys idea of a universal grammar  Chomsky should have studied Anthropology  instead of Linguistic

There is actually a debate going on about whether Piraha does or does not allow recursion.  Chomsky claims that even if it does not, it does not invalidate his position.  While recursion is latently available to all human languages, he says, it does not have to be manifested.  This appears to be yet another of his regular retreats in the face of new evidence and certainly knocks away one of the evidential supports for his theory.Everett's books on the Piraha are fascinating, BTW, for anyone interested in pre-state societies.

[Author]

Posts