LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Paddy Shannon on this aspect influenced me (Lbird, Paddy rarely visits this forum)
Yeah, someone (you?) mentioned that Paddy recommended Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, which I bought and read, and Lee seems to confirm many of the problems with the myth of physics that we need to discuss. Lee is a working physicist, but not a Commie, like us.
ajj wrote:Can the basics of this bpplied to society/science…i think so. Perhaps the division of labour as Robbo has indicated may have a fuller role but any specialised committees/organisations making recommendations can be judged and challenged by communities who possess overall control of the committees.Yeah, I too think that whatever 'basics' of political control are applied to 'society', not only could, but must be applied to 'science', too. The rest is a discussion of 'how', rather than 'is it possible?'.
ajj wrote:I guess i'm a utilitarian, at heart….what works the best is proof of correctness …The problem is, alan, that 'utilitarianism' is an ideology, and one not compatible with 'democracy'. It is an individualist ideology, a bit like US Pragmatism, that argues 'if it works for the individual, that it's true'.But philosophers of science, and physicists, already know that something 'working' is not proof of its 'truth'.The geocentric system of Ptolemy 'worked', but we no longer regard it as 'true'. Apparently, according to priests, praying for grace in the eyes of the Lord works too, but I have my doubts.I know that you're reluctant to go too far into something that you're very unfamiliar with, alan, and I can't make you look deeper.I can only offer the warning that 'science' is a social activity and doesn't produce 'The Truth', and that science has an authority and legitimacy that the bourgeoisie use to bamboozle workers.If we workers don't take an interest in science and try to develop our understanding, we might as well leave the bourgeoisie in charge of production, too, and retain their scientific economics and market system for individual consumption, too.Oh yeah… it 'works', alan
alanjjohnstone wrote:Obviously this new thread sprung up as i busied my response on the existing thread so i refer you to this as there appears to be some similarity of themehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/russell-brand?page=6#comment-22705And from alan's post on the other thread:
ajj wrote:Hope the above elucidation goes a way to show where i stand on how i consider the revolutionary process should be like….giving you a blueprint of my political stance …my ideology, LbirdThat's great alan – one's ideology determines how one sees 'science'.If you are like me, and consider socialism to be 'the democratic control of production', then we can move to discussing how, perhaps, possibly, being suggestive, we can democratically control the production of knowledge.robbo's problem is that he doesn't agree with workers' control of physics, which anyone agreeing with 'the democratic control of production' would obviously agree with, and so he's not concerned with how to do this, but to prove that we can't do this.So, the first point would be for those wanting to participate to declare their ideological basis regarding democratic production.If they define 'democratic production' to be 'control of widgets', but not 'control of knowledge', then we also have a problem.So, we have three potential starting points:1. those who want 'democracy in socialism' – meaning everything, including physics;2. those pretend to want 'democracy in socialism' – but really don't mean it, and restrict it in practice to 'democracy in widget production'
. those, like robbo, who have no time for 'democracy in socialism', and define 'socialism' as 'free individuals'.I'm inclined to point out, to help those comrades unaware, that those who adopt position 2 are very likely to agree with the separation of 'natural' from 'social' science, whereas those who adopt position 1 are very likely to agree with Marx, and wish to unify 'science'.Well, here goes: my position is number 1.What about you, alan?robbo203 wrote:Predictably LBird will decline to answer this question because he knows in his heart of hearts that even to attempt to do so will expose once and for all the folly of his whole positionThe TRUTH!robbo does have a neutral method!Congratulations, robbo!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Wasn't that Robbo who said LBird was bullshitting because he doesn't explain the way we vote on such questions as correctness of ideas….By the same token, then, any worker can criticise the SPGB for not explaining how socialism will work.The SPGB, quite rightly in my opinion, follows Marx's lead, and insists that the actual functioning of socialism must be a future decision for the class conscious workers, and refuses to give a 'blueprint' for socialism.It's the principle that 'socialism is democratic' that is insisted upon.If robbo wants to know how 'democracy in science' will work, let him suggest some ideas.The real problem is not 'the working', for robbo, but the very principle.He's not a democrat, but an individualist; he doesn't want workers' power, but 'free individuals'; he doesn't want democracy in science, but wants to rely on those special individuals, the elite-experts, who pretend to have a special method, that is not democratic, that tells them the truth.What's more, I, like Marx, talk about 'theory and practice', not about 'correctness of ideas'.But robbo's elitist, individualist smoke-screen is doing its job.I can't say it clearer: as a point of principle, any questions about 'truth' in a Communist society must be determined by that society. And as that society will be a democratic society, it follows that those determinations of 'truth' must be democratic.Once this principle is established, the discussions about 'how' are on the same footing as those about the 'how' of socialism.2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Ozymandias wrote:Btw the guy (Lbird?) who lumped the SPGB in with all the other arseholes calling themselves socialists is wrong. The SPGB has never bulshitted a worker in its 111 year history. It's is the anthithesis of bullshit mate. You're the bullshit artiste.And you're the member of a party that still thinks that rocks talk to humans?I'm the non-member desperately trying to reason with the 'materialists' who argue this, and who refuse, on the grounds of bourgeois scientific principle, to allow workers to elect knowledge." 'Democracy in the production of scientific knowledge and truth'? That's bullshit, LBird!"My 'bullshit', Oz, involves radical democracy within all productive activities of humans.Your 'bullshit' consists in pretending to be a democrat, like the SPGB, whilst having already decided that you won't have workers determining the truth of reality. Because 'reality' speaks to the party.The key here is for workers to decide who's the bullshitter – whilst I'm "the bullshitter", materialists like you will continue to infect those within our class, who come to some form of disquiet with capitalism, with the myth of materialism.111 years and counting, Oz.1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Victor wrote:I think it's useless pretending that you are typical just so as to appear 'nice' or politic. If you're typical or, to use your own turn-of-phrase, 'no different to most other workers', then why doesn't the SPGB have more members?'Nice'? Me? Have I logged into the wrong site?Thanks, Victor… the most agreeable assessment of me ever!As for 'no different to most other workers', I'm not an SPGB member.Like most workers, I have a healthy suspicion (from experience) of 'socialist parties' who want to tell workers what the 'truth' is. In my experience, they never listen to workers. And when they recruit them, they still don't listen!In fact, my analysis of the 'failure of workers to develop class consciousness' places more emphasis on all the parties that have tried since Marx to supposedly help develop this.I think that they've been an impediment, not a help, in this necessary process.Never once, in over 130 years, has a socialist party successfully explained 'value' to workers. They've all said 'Read Marx', which is awful advice, since Marx must be one of the least understandable writers ever – perhaps with the exception of Hegel. Other explanations always involve other mysterious concepts, like 'abstract labour', which just piles on more nonsense upon nonsense. There has never been an explanation in terms of something workers already understand, so that once they grasp the general idea in non-economic terms, they can then move onto the difficulties of Marx's theories.And… you won't believe this, Victor… when I've tried to make value understandable by using metaphor, I've been roundly criticised, by all, not just the SPGB.IMO, most party members want to believe that they know more than workers, and they like it that way, and want it to stay that way. The last thing party members want is someone simplifying Marx's ideas, so that they are common currency!No, Victor, I don't place the blame on workers, who've often joined 'revolutionary' parties (for me, it was the SWP), but on the parties and their 'materialism', which is a religious approach to the world, which allows 'those in the know' to understand 'material conditions' better than workers. That's why 'materialists' won't have workers voting and telling the party what's right or wrong, whether in politics or physics.
Victor wrote:I agree that socialism cannot work unless the majority of people have the capacity to understand it, and then choose to understand it and accept it. I am not saying socialism won't happen, and I do hold to a democratic position similar to yours, but the issue remains of whether people (workers), on the whole, are able to understand. (i). Is LBird special? (ii). Or are you really just typical and for some odd reason humanity has never had socialist societies…Yes, I share your democratic position – even in physics and the production of all human knowledge. But most don't. They still look to academics and physicists, not workers, to tell them what the 'truth' of the social and natural world is.So, (i), I'm not special;and (ii) I'm a typical worker, wary of the self-appointed saviours.The reason is not odd, but that the socialist parties have made the very idea of 'socialist societies' seem like nonsense to workers.The simple fact is that, for most workers who have lived until today, the capitalist system has suited them. Even those prepared to struggle for higher wages and better employment conditions have not wanted a different society.The one thing I do agree about with the SPGB is the need to educate, develop and organise amongst our class. But no party is doing this, not even the SPGB, which, as far as I can tell, still subscribes to the religion of 'materialism', which maintains that 'knowledge' doesn't come from workers, but from 'matter'.Unless this nonsense is addressed, we'll all still be here in another 130 years… well, not 'us', but our political descendants.Parties have bullshitted workers since Marx's day, and workers aren't stupid. They might not know the answers, but they do know that the so-called workers' parties don't have them.Thanks again, for calling me 'nice', Victor. A refreshing change, comrade!
Victor wrote:Perhaps I am being harsh, but at the moment the SPGB in most of its publicity asks for a level of intellectual engagement that, realistically, most people just don't have the capacity for or simply don't have time for.I have the capacity and made the time, and assume that I'm no different to most other workers.If we want socialism, most workers have to have the capacity and to make the time. If they don't, socialism won't happen.It doesn't surprise me, though, to find robbo agreeing with Victor:
robbo203 wrote:I would endorse every word of this…Yes, that's why you're not a democrat, but an individualist, robbo.You think you have the capacity, but that most workers don't. You think you can be arsed to find the time, but that most workers can't.You might be correct, but then if you are, the democratic control of production (ie. workers' power) is impossible.This leads me to conclude that your vision of Communism is not mine, because I think that the only Communism is Democratic Communism.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The bank testhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070It's laughable, isn't it?The paper's title:'Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence'should of course be titled:'Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The bourgeois theories and their respective empirical evidence'if there was any pretence whatsoever of 'social objectivity' (the only 'objectivity' that humans can produce), and scientific research.As we all know, 'data' is 'theory-laden', and so a theory provides parameters of what that theory considers to be 'honest' and 'empirical' evidence. Hence, 'respective empirical evidence', situated within one 'theory' amongst others, rather than the mythical 'empirical evidence', supposedly outside of any theoretical considerations (the conservative 'real world' falls into this fairytale category).And, of course, no mention of any non-bourgeois theories, like Marxism.And I think Mandy Rice-Davies' famous method tells us much more here.That is, assume that the author is a liar, with good reason to lie: he's a bourgeois ideologist.Bourgeois academics, eh? They're either liars or just pig-ignorant of science.
Tim Di Muzio wrote:…proper research…based on evidence rather than conjecture…actually do research rather than pontificate out of conjecture…empirically confirmed…given the evidence…In an honest world, after you've actually considered the evidence…Tim doesn't seem to know anything whatsoever about 'scientific method' or our openly expressed method, of 'theory and practice'.He doesn't mention which political ideology he's using to do 'his research', which political ideology determines his parameters of selection for 'his evidence', which political ideology he uses to 'empirically confirm', or which political ideology gives him his views of 'honest'.Scientific method follows Marx: theory and practice.It's incumbent upon any 'scientist/research/gatherer of empirical evidence' to openly state their standpoint, from the outset. This applies to physics as much as economics.So, Tim's fundamental scientific failure is to omit his perspective, and then to pretend that he doesn't have one. He appears to believe that a he's being 'honest', when in fact he's actually pulling the wool over his readers' eyes, and perhaps even his own.From his mythical 'objective/honest/empirical' position, he then precedes to condemn socialists for openly stating their ideological starting point for research, whilst hiding his.At least our 'Biblical Marxism' and 'Church of Marx' warns workers of the 'faith' inherent in any human activity, including research in physics. So, we don't hide our perspective, unlike Tim.If anyone's 'spreading confusion', it's those, like Tim, who believe in the bourgeois myth of 'objective research', conducted from a position outside of human society, and its theory and practice.Tim embodies the outdated scientific method, pre-Einstein, of pretending to produce 'The View From Nowhere'.We're always 'Somewhere', comrades, and we should openly admit it to other workers, and help to disperse the 'confusion' sown by the bourgeoisie for 300 hundred years, that they (and Tim, apparently) have a objective, politically neutral method, for understanding our world, physical and social.
Vin wrote:Then why do you call 'communist ideology' 'bourgioues science' when I use it to understand class? Or when I see 'class' as an exploitive relationship am I seeing it through bourgeois positivism?You're just confused, Vin.I've tried to help, like a good comrade should, but you don't seem to like me or my ideas. C'est la vie.
alanjjohnstone wrote:How often have we heard the refrain …pensioners…they are just same as capitalists living idle lives off investments of their occupational pension funds (or private annuities)…We're bound to 'hear' this, because it's crude bourgeois ideology.As if a worker who's worked their entire life selling their labour, and has eventually retired on a decent occupational, even final salary, pension, can be compared to an exploiter.They might as well identify billionaires with terminal cancer patients dying in hospital, because neither is working, and both are living off other workers.Only those ignorant of the system of socio-economic exploitation called capitalism could think pensioners are comparable to capitalists. Unfortunately, many are ignorant of just that, and so are open to crude propaganda.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:We must use Communist ideology: ….We do and we always have done.
Except when you want to understand science, and the production of 'truth', eh, Vin?For that human activity, bourgeois ideology seems to completely suffice!Ooops… 'science' isn't an 'ideology', is it, it's an asocial, ahistorical activity done by apolitical elite physicists employing a neutral method to produce eternal, universal 'Truth'?Pull the other one, Priest-Physicists!
alanjjohnstone wrote:Now there are 9 classesAnything to pretend to be an intellectual, eh?It's just a variation on the usual liberal sociology: 'income' defines 'class'. And they only focus on 'earned income'.He muddies the water with a bit added about political power.We must use Communist ideology: 'class' is an exploitative relationship.If one knows the difference between vampires and victims, and recognises the flow of exploitation, then one can understand our definition of class.It's nothing whatsover to do with 'income' (most of the exploiters don't earn their income), or clothes, accent, cultural preferences, education, etc.One can wear a flat cap and keep whippets, and be an exploiter.One can earn £100,000 a year, and watch ballet and opera, and be exploited.It's not 'appearances' that count, but 'relationships'.Bosses and workers both come in all shapes and sizes.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It maybe that your own insistence upon "not having read either Marx or Engels regarding 'materialism'." may be imposing academic Marxism…for instance , i have never read Engels Dialects of Nature, although i have seen many references to it…should i wear sack-cloth and ashes and self-flagellate because of that ignorance?I think that the reason to read Marx and Engels is to criticise them! They certainly don't represent some 'academic ideal'! Lots of what Engels writes is nonsense, and lots of what Marx writes is incomprehensible!But, my opponents about 'materialism' argue from a position of profound ignorance, having read almost nothing whatsoever about 'materialism', and just push their 'faith', like a religious sect.You yourself have never claimed to have read or understood about science/materialism, which is fine by me, because you don't attempt to claim that I'm wrong. So, I have no problem with you not reading D of N. My advice? Don't bother!
ajj wrote:i now hazard to suggest another mistake is expecting such a comprehensive knowledge when only a relatively few ideas are really necessary…The real issue is that the knowledge is necessary, if we're to run physics, and the rest of production.But, the real problem is that the academics won't explain in plain language to us, and pretend that we can't understand what they do.This is always robbo's problem with democratic science: he really believes that science should be conducted in 'latin-maths', rather than in plain English (or whatever daily language workers use).So, your 'mistake', alan, is not 'expecting such comprehensive knowledge', but failing to regard physics as 'only a relatively few ideas'.You must start from the political position that 'the physicist must explain to you in the way you understand'. If the physicist can't do so, don't vote for them next time!This bourgeois notion that the elite-experts can continue to speak maths-latin to us, just as priests spoke latin to the peasantry to baffle them, has to be rejected.If you don't have 'comprehensive knowledge', alan, blame the bourgeoisie, not yourself!First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
alanjjohnstone wrote:As he says [particularly directed at for LBird )“Socialists welcome critical and searching questions. Thinking is not and never has been a violation of socialist discipline. Socialists are not dogmatic sectarians who are blindly and religiously faithful to socialist conclusions despite the lessons of unfolding experience.[my bold]They are 'dogmatic sectarians' and 'blindly and religiously faithful', almost every last one, to the religion of 'materialism'.We've had comrades arguing with me, who admit to not having read either Marx or Engels regarding 'materialism'. They've picked up some vague 'understanding' of 'matter', which is 'fixed and unchanging', and that this 'matter' is 'reflected' in 'consciousness', and which view just happens to fit both with Engels' piss-poor philosophising, and with bourgeois 19th century views about what 'science' is.If anything in the socialist movement, for over 100 hundred years, demonstrates the dogmatic, blind faith of religious sectarianism, it's the adherence to 'materialism'.Even the bloody thinkers of the bourgeoisie have dumped it, starting with Einstein and Bohr.'Matter', for the 'materialists', is simply 'God'.And He shall not be argued with.The 'lessons of unfolding experience' are that Marx wasn't a 'materialist'. If our 'knowledge' reflects matter, then once reflected, it can't change. So much for development, change and history.As our ideas change, so does our practice and thus understanding. This is 'theory and practice' or 'idealism-materialism'. And if human ideas are involved, those ideas are subject to democratic accountability.The notion that 'material conditions' determine consciousness is nothing but conservatism. In fact, it's a religion.Waiting for the 'material conditions' to have their effect, is just waiting for the day of revelation. It'll never come.The day socialists wake up to the recogition that physicists and mathematicians are ignorant liars, rather than an expert-elite who must be meekly followed, then we'll start to make some advance. They are the priests of the bourgeoisie.Think 'physicist-mathematician', think 'medieval monk'.That’s the ‘critical and searching’ attitude for socialists to have.
