LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
McDonald wrote “Democracy needs centralised organisation…”
Yes, but are you opposing ‘democracy’ to ‘centralised’? ie. the ‘centre’ is free from democratic control?
Surely any body with power under socialism/communism would be not only elected, but those elected would be ‘delegates’, not ‘representatives’?
So, the ‘centralised organisation’ would do as it is told by the electors. If the decisions of the ‘centralised organisation’ were opposed by the majority, the delegates would be removed.
Thus, ‘centralised organisation needs democracy’, to re-work your statement.
I think that we actually agree, McDonald, rather than disagree.
That is, we DEFINE ‘effective’ to mean ‘effective for the working class population and society’.
Ditto for ‘efficient’.
There is no elite minority who can determine ‘effective for us’ or ‘efficient for us’.
We are the democratic determiners.
This is as true in politics as in physics.
McDonald wrote: “efficiency … over … effectiveness”
Both of these concepts are socially (and therefore politically) constructed entities.
Especially, given our current scientific ideology regarding the mathematisation of physics, ‘efficiency’ is not a number, or a process ‘in-itself’, that can be simply ‘read’ as a ‘truth’ by an elite minority, but something of which we must ask ‘efficient for whom?’.
Only democratic debate can determine what is ‘efficient for whom’. Ditto for ‘effective for whom’.
No group of elite physicists can determine these issues for us.
Socialism/Communism means the democratic production of our world, of a ‘world for us’.
DJP’s link :”“If there’s a single ideal that guides the materialist Left, it isn’t a moral ideal. It is an aspiration to strengthen our grasp of how the world works…”.
I know DJP won’t welcome my intervention, but the above is nothing to do with Marx’s ‘social productionism’ (or, ‘idealism-materialism’).
Marx argues that we are the producers of our world, and thus we can change our product.
This social activity of course includes notions of ‘morality’. His method of ‘social theory and practice’ requires both plans and activity.
This must of course be a democratically controlled social production.The ‘materialist left’ are the followers of Engels (who misunderstood Marx), Kautsky, Plekhanov and Lenin. This political and ideological trend emerged prior to the foundation of the SPGB, and unfortunately the SPGB doesn’t seem to realise this.
Merely ‘grasping how the world works’ is 18th century materialism, the passivity of which Marx opposed.
When any supporter of this ‘materialist Left’ is asked about ‘democratic conscious activity’, they refuse to accept ‘democracy’, and retain the power to organise the production of our world to an elite. Marx fundamentally opposed this elitism, for example in his Theses on Feuerbach.
Wez wrote: “Thanks to LBird (and I don’t often get to say that) I have revisited the debate concerning the nature of science and in the absence of any agreed definition…”
.
Your thanks duly noted.I’ve certain tried for years to promote a “debate concerning the nature of science”, especially about its contemporary ‘elite’ nature, and the requirement for a democratic input to any ‘revolutionary science’ that Marx argued for, but, as you say, there is still an “absence of any agreed definition”, not just amongst ‘scientists’ themselves, but also amongst supposedly ‘democratic socialists’.
I think that this debate would require some clarification prior to evaluating Freud’s theories.
Lew wrote:
.
“L Bird wrote:
‘Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’In the past I have drawn attention to Bird’s inability to cite evidence. Here yet again he is using quotation marks to suggest he is quoting Marx.”
.
Marx wrote: “From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/index.htm
Bijou Drains wrote:
“Who knows, L Bird might even arrange a vote about it.”
Nah, not on this site, mate.
They’re all politically, philosophically, ideologically and methodologically, opposed to democracy!Wez wrote: “LBird – I’m a big fan of Feyerabend so I would be interested in what he has to say about Popper’s Falsifiability theory.”
Preface, and rest of text of book:
Hope this helps.
Lew wrote:
“LBird wrote:
“any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.Or, indeed, the SPGB.’.
Or, indeed, L Bird. Since you have no democratic mandate for this assertion, this is another ejaculation from a self-appointed elite.”
You’re making a strange argument, Lew, that a demand for democracy is somehow not democratic.
It’d make more sense for you to refute my argument for ‘democratic science’ with an outline of who you think should be in control of any ‘science’ within a democratic socialist society.
For example, you could argue in favour of individual ‘experts’, or of an organised ‘elite’, or that ‘science’ is ‘non-political’, or you could even argue that within socialism, there won’t be any democracy.
Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’, and given his democratic belief that only the proletariat could create their own ‘socialism’, that a ‘revolutionary science’ would be democratically control.
Of course, perhaps you disagree with Marx, and have a different view of ‘science’ – if this is the case, please outline your own position.
DJP wrote: “Perhaps we’ve already been over this, when LBird used to visit?”
I still do visit, from time to time.
Relating to this thread, I’m right behind Bijou Drain’s position.
Furthermore, Popper has been demolished by Feyerabend, Lakatos and many others, who’ve I’ve quoted many times.
And just to keep you happy, DJP, I’ll finish by reiterating that ‘materialism’ is an 18th century throwback, overthrown by Marx’s social theory and practice (idealism-materialism, in your terms), which ensures that any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.
Or, indeed, the SPGB.
‘Scientific Truth’ should be a democratic construct, and can, as Marx said, ‘change’.
Bijou Drains wrote: “Crystal Palace 4 Man Utd 0
I’ve been laughing like a drain for about 3 hours!”
Even the repellent ones have shared your joy!
Thomas More wrote: “Loneliness can often… actually be preferable…”
I think that The Guardian article is arguing against precisely that conclusion.
The social production of ‘loneliness’ (and by implication other so-called ‘individual psychological’ states)?
