LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Since you seem to have approved of some of my first post, at least, stuart, perhaps I can elaborate the concept 'abundance-for'.If we start from 'abundance-for', the next question that arises is "for whom or what is the 'for' ".I'd suggest that this could be either a 'for' for 'individuals' or for 'social groups'.So, we would have, from the first perspective, 'abundance-for stuart', 'abundance-for-LBird', 'abundance-for-alanjjohnstone', etc., until all 7 billion individuals on this planet have their own, personal 'abundance-for'.There could be a perspective that is social, but not socialist. For example, a nationalist perspective could argue for 'abundance-for-British', 'abundance-for-French', etc.There could even be a conservative universalist perspective, which would stress 'abundance-for-all', an 'organic' view of humanity (which, to us, would be ignoring social and historical factors).But the perspective I would argue for is social and socialist, so that I would begin from the concepts 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', 'abundance-for-proletariat', 'abundance-for-peasantry', etc. This is clearly a class-based perspective, which you would expect me to embrace.So, in this discussion, I would be concerned to differentiate 'abundance-for-proletariat' from 'abundance-for-bourgeoisie', in any discussion about 'abundance' and 'satisfaction', which were the two concepts that you outlined as worthy for discussion in an earlier post.Whilst 'abundance' is not linked to a 'satisfaction', it remains an empty discussion about 'piles of things'.Which concept do you wish to use, stuart? The separation of 'abundance' and 'satisfaction' (which I don't think you do, from what you've said), or from a version of 'abundance-for'?Do you wish to employ 'abundance-for-stuart', etc., as your latter posts suggest?
stuartw2112 wrote:LB: I'm not using any political theory to understand these things, just my mind. But I think we've been here before.[my bold]Yes, we have, haven't we?So, to you, 'just using your own individual mind' is in no way based upon a 'political theory', or the perspective of a class which since the 17th century has stressed 'individualism' as a way to 'understand these things', and in whose society you've been raised, socialised and educated?It's an ideological belief, stuart, the statement that "I'm not using any political theory to understand these things, just my mind".What's more, the belief doesn't stand up to scientific examination.Even with 'rocks'. Ask Einstein.
stuartw2112 wrote:LB: Good points actually, mostly agree, except democracy is no answer to the economic question. See link above.Thanks, stuart.On the issue of 'economic democracy', this is an ideological issue.I'm a Democratic Communist, and I think that you've said that you're not.That's fine that you disagree with me, but I think that you should make clear exactly which political theory that you're using to understand 'abundance' and 'satisfaction'.Unless we clarify the perspectives from which each contributor is viewing the problem, we'll run into misunderstandings.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I want others to join in with this topic thread…Well, here's my tuppence worth.The core of the problem is the separation of 'abundance' from 'satisfaction'.The concept 'abundance' is defined in 'material' terms, outside of any 'ideal' terms.If we use Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (ie. theory and practice), and link 'abundance' and 'satisfaction' to both material and ideal factors, we would employ the concept 'abundance-for'. That is, the issue of 'material abundance' can't be separated from the issue of 'ideal satisfaction'.As a society, we have to decide democratically what 'abundance-for' means.To discuss 'abundance' in simple bourgeois economic terms (meaning 'as much of anything as can be imagined') is to fall into bourgeois thinking.This is related to the scientific notion of 'real' (meaning 'outside any consideration of consciousness'). This is a bourgeois invention, dating from the 'scientific revolution' of the 17th century.We must insist on the concept of 'real-for'. This is the lesson of Einstein, that 'reality' only has a meaning for a consciousness.So, the ideological belief in 'matter' (which can be known in itself) is related to the ideological belief in 'abundance' (which has no social relation to 'satisfaction').stuartw2112 is pointing the way to these answers, with his discussion about 'abundance' and 'satisfaction', but fails to link the two concepts together, and doesn't realise that to talk of 'abundance' as being about 'things', rather than to talk about the social relationship of 'abundance-for', which we humans can control by voting, because it is a social concept amenable to democracy, which leads stuart to 'Green', rather than 'Red', answers to the dilemma.I suggest we clarify what we mean, in this discussion, by 'abundance'.Is it an 'amount' out there, outside of our consciousness (ie. it's 'material') or a 'social estimation' (ie. it's 'ideal-material')?PS. this question is also related to our views of Marx's 'value'. Is it an 'amount' in commodities, which can be counted/measured because it's quantitative, or a social relationship, which can't be counted, and so is qualitative?Is 'abundance' quantitative or is it qualitative?
ALB wrote:The key phrase for us (of cours) is:Quote:I haven’t really read as much of Marx as I should have done.From what I've read of Marx, ALB, I think that that quote from Corbyn also applies to the SPGB.So, it is a 'key phrase for' the SPGB, but not in the way you mean it.If fact, the quote really should be aligned to:
SPGB Materialists wrote:We have really read too much of Engels than we should have done.alanjjohnstone wrote:LBird might well be right…science is not reality. It creates a false world so it can answer its own a prior questions and answers… Now i'm becoming more anti-science as i am anti-intellectual because of this thread..It's important to realise that those espousing Marx's 'idealism-materialism' are not 'anti-science', alan.We have to define 'science' and its activities/methods in a different way to that of the bourgeoisie.So, we are pro-proletarian science, and we are anti-bourgeois science.You're correct to say that 'science creates the world' (human theory and practice), but it doesn't create a 'false world', but a world which 'makes sense' to the class that controls (and defines) 'science'.Clearly, our 'science' will understand the world in a different way to the bourgeoisie: one example of this science from the proletarian viewpoint is Marx's Capital. This critiques bourgeois ways of creating the world we live in, from a different class perspective.
Yes, I thought that you would understand my Marx-inspired response, SP! If it's good enough for Charlie to prevaricate on details, it's good enough for me.But, like most workers discussing socialism, I too share your 'annoyance' (though I'd probably term it 'enthusiastic anticipation' to hear more details, to help inspire more workers).
SocialistPunk wrote:So when I ask for "meat on the bones", I'm simply asking for your ideas on practical approaches to democratically controlling knowledge. I'm sure you would agree that ideas are a prelude to action?As knowledge is a social product, it might be a good idea to look at how it is produced. That means taking a look at education and how it could look in socialism. That would need a new thread on education under socialism.If you start a new thread, on 'knowledge production and education', we can move over to that – I'm sure that the mod's toleration, of the diversity of this one, is stretching to breaking point, now.
robbo203 wrote:…totally impractical and unrealisable utopia…complete and utter destruction…So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'.I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.If you want 'physicists' to run 'physics', I don't. I want workers to run physics.If you think 'physics' is a activity outside of politics, I don't. I think physics is political.If you disagree with me, then you don't share my ideology. Whatever concepts of class, revolution, democracy, science, knowledge, truth and socialism you have, I don't share them.
robbo203 wrote:…or even explain why it is necessary…I've just done this very thing, in my measured reply to SocialistPunk.If, If, If, [read it, for once], one is a Marxist and wants to see the democratic control of production by the producers, then control of all sources of 'power' is necessary.Now, read carefully, you */$£%, YOU ARE NEITHER a Marxist nor want "workers' democracy", so from YOUR IDEOLOGICAL perspective, you won't agree with me.This ideological disagreement of yours with me is entirely different to me supposedly not explaining.You just don't like my explanation.What can't your tiny mind grasp about this issue? You are not a democrat, nor a Communist. I am. That's the answer.
For anyone who's interested, a link to a PDF of Marx's The Fragment on Machines, from the Grundrisse. As discussed by Mason in his article.http://thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf
alanjjohnstone wrote:Don't we already do much of this democratic " truth" to the distaste of scientists, SP.We are rejecting their consensus on the safety of GMO, on fracking and nuclear energy through parliamentary legislation.We accept the truth of climate change but don't act upon it. We accept by majority decision the scientific position on other issues…vaccination and evidence based medicine …much to the distaste of some alternative health quacks.People vote with their feet, as often as not as irrationally as rational. Yes to a degree we choose what is scientific truth.Quantum theory is still basically little different from magic to me …And as one quantum physicists said …if you say you understand it, you don't — i apply that scientific principle to a lot of things !!!Don't forget the context of my discussions about 'democratic truth production', alan, when talking about the present vogue for the 'irrational'. The context is mass ignorance.We're talking about providing a 'theoretical approach' which can only be 'practised' given certain social conditions. They include complete openness with ideas, knowledge, data, etc (so that all information is openly published on the internet, for any interested workers to read), the provision of completely free education from kindergarten to post-PhD research to any worker on the planet who desires it, and a culture of democracy, as much in education as elsewhere, where the 'teacher' is subject to the control of the 'pupils' (the bourgeois world of 'experts' telling us 'The Truth' will be ended), and the world discussion would be the vernacular of those workers discussing (no so-called 'explanations' in Latin-maths – to allow that would be tantamount to publishing research only in Latin), and so much more.Underlying this would be a critical approach to 'knowledge', not just the ideological assumption that the bourgeoisie in the last 300 hundred years have been engaged in objective production of The Truth. They've had their reasons for their science, and we'll have ours.Finally, much of so-called 'physics' is magic – any reading of the history of science shows this. That's why many physicists, who I've quoted – Einstein, Bohr, Rovelli, Smolin, Cox – have made their doubts about 'physics' very clear.But… those still brainwashed by 'bourgeois science' at its height (19th century positivism) still cling to its so-called 'certainties'. Just like robbo and YMS. And those good comrades who, unfortunately, follow Engels.
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird wrote:Does anyone else have any comments to make, about Marx's views, or about how the democratically-organised proletariat should approach these issues?Hi LBird,I previously asked whether you could put some "meat on the bones" of how knowledge, scientific "truth" etc, can be democratically controlled by a global, socialist population.I'd still be up for some ideas on the practicalities of your position?
As I've said before, SP, if we regard 'science' and 'the production of truth' to have 'power', and we espouse an ideology/philosophy which stresses 'democratic control of power', then the issue of workers' control of science and truth production is precisely the same as any other issue regarding workers' power (ie. Socialism).So, the same approach applies, if we look to Marx, that the provision of detailed accounts of 'how' workers' power will actually operate is best left for the consideration of the organised proletariat, as it develops its class consciousness.So, on your question about 'practicalities', all you need to do is outline (even just to yourself, rather than in a public post) how you think workers' democracy will control the production of a widget. Then, apply that 'practical' method to 'truth'. Put simply, both widgets and truths are social products, and their production processes have a history, and if we re-theorise what we mean by a 'widget' and then change the process of its production (theory and practice), we find the 'widget' will change.Now, to non-Marxists like robbo and YMS, this 'explanation' is entirely useless, because like the good bourgeois that they are, they are 'practical men', who demand 'practical answers', which can be implemented now, in this society.But, to anyone who, like me, looks to Marx for inspiration, then this explanation about 'practicalities' being an issue for the future class conscious proletariat, is usually acceptable.Finally, I suspect that the real issue going on here, is that bourgeois science has brainwashed this society into thinking 'truth' is different from a 'widget'. Now, that's a philosophical question about the production of 'knowledge', and the 'objectivity' of 'science', and frankly I've done that discussion to death.The point, however, is to change the world (not to 'discover' it, or unfold 'The Truth'). Changing widgets and truths must be in our power. The alternative is not disinterested, objective 'science' (the bourgeois myth), but control of production by an elite of so-called experts.I hope that this helps, SP!
Given the replies from you and YMS recently, and the absence of any other discussion from democrats, workers, socialists or Marxists, I too really am beginning to wonder.Certainly, critical thought, and indeed any socio-historical perspective on science or knowledge, seems to be notable by its absence.But, there you go.
Look robbo, we inhabit totally different ideological worlds – I want to see "producers' democratic control of production", and you don't.I'm a Marxist, and you're not.I'm not even sure why you're on this site – of course, you have every right to be, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not a party member – but… what's the point?Your ideological basis has nothing to do with collective ideals, or with anti-authoritarian science.I'm baffled as to why you bother visiting the site, because you're not trying to learn anything.You seem to have a completely negative purpose.
