[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whether you like it or not, Vin, your views do carry some weight with readers of this site, in forming their views of the SPGB.Unfortunately, for me at least, that is a negative view of the SPGB.

   You are coming to conclusions about a group of workers  by analysing the views of an individual member of that group. That is another very individualist and bourgeois approach.In the socialist movement the 'truth' is a democratic process. 

But this site isn't called "Vin's World", but is a site for political education and debate, set up by the SPGB, in an attempt to attract class conscious workers.I've got a class conscious view of science (including physics and maths, as much as sociology and politics), whereas you, robbo and YMS seem to think 'science' is not related to classes, and so don't call our science 'proletarian science', and don't think that 'truth' should be elected.So, I'm forced to take your contributions at face value as representing what the SPGB has told you, and think that your last statement, that "In the socialist movement the 'truth' is a democratic process", is not the case, because you won't allow a vote on 'scientific knowledge'.If you don't think that 'truth should be a democratic product', as a philosophical starting point, why would you build democratic science structures, and introduce the democratic principle into education, and teach critical thinking?You won't, because you'll see no need for these things. You believe 'science' has a non-political method which produces 'Truth', and so won't build for a democratic science which knows that it doesn't produce 'Truth', and all knowledge must be criticisable. We humans can never say 'We have 100% knowledge of matter/nature'. Unless this is taught from the beginning, we won't have a class conscious movement of workers.We'll continue to have a movement that defers to 'experts', who have a special ability/training/desire/consciousness, which isn't available/possible/practical/desirable to the masses.We'll reproduce that society we have now: educators and educated. I can read Marx, and I know he warned against this. I think we need to prepare structures and ideas to prevent this separation, because I think it is not only politically necessary, but, since Einstein, scientifically necessary.To you three, this is just incomprehensible jibberish, and a diversion from 'political practice'.To me, 'practice' is based upon 'theory', and I'd rather be open about the 'theory' that I think workers need, before they engage in 'practice'. Again, I thought that this attitude fitted with the SPGB's well-known (and often derided) approach to building a conscious mass movement of workers, through education, debate and democracy, which I politically agree with.But… I find a party that seems to be happy with 'experts', and doesn't think workers will run physics. Go figure.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…AFAICS your 'vote of truth' is an inessential frippery…

As I say, that's where we differ.

YMS wrote:

We're an oversite committee voting to validate, not verify.

You've never told us how 'verification' happens. The 'verification' must be a 'truth vote'. 'Truth' is a product of active consciousness, not a passive copy of 'matter'.

YMS wrote:

So, what we're both arguing for is for democratic control of resources, with the community setting research principles and priorities, upon which we will debate.

No, I'm arguing that 'truth' is a human product, and that it must be elected, if we have a democratic society.We disagree about this, and it's best to be frank, rather than pretend we have some essential agreement, and our differences are minor.In effect, my arguments are revolutionary, whereas yours are radical, at best.You want a "works' committee", who have a 'say' in production.I want "workers'power", that controls production. And 'truth' is a social product.If workers don't control 'truth', someone else will. Simples.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For both you and ourselves, LBird, perhapshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKSPOUEuqAE

LOL!!!Brilliant – just prefer it in French.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtGfyruroU

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For LBird, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjHSOzVU5j0

For the SPGB, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIHusZEIwio

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB 

Very individualist bourgeois phylosophy, LBird.   The position of the SPGB on this subject will be issued by the party not an individual. Having said that, I am sure there will be no statement forthcoming on the nonsense you come out with.

Yes, I think I have to accept, that in the absence of any 'official statement', that my views do constitute 'nonsense' in the opinion of the party members and fellow travellers.Whether you like it or not, Vin, your views do carry some weight with readers of this site, in forming their views of the SPGB.Unfortunately, for me at least, that is a negative view of the SPGB.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

 

You should congratulate yourself for the immense part you've played in bringing enlightenment to me, Vin.I'm not sure if robbo and YMS are party members, and so their undemocratic, elitist and individualist perspective perhaps can be explained and excused by me, but I know that you're the Real McCoy, and an active party member, if not a Branch official of some sort.I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB in some sense at least, especially given the lack of any other 'official' response to these philosophical issues.Perhaps I should just leave the SPGB in the 19th century, where it seems happiest.Indeed,

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own.

You still won't tell us how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.You're positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass', and suggesting that the 'elite' have a 'method' which is a better way of determining the truth of a 'view', than is a democratic method.This is simply bourgeois ideology, not an incontrovertible truth.It is a product of 'materialism', and is suited to Leninist political organisation.Put simply, robbo, you have a fear of democracy, and a faith in scientists. It is not a revolutionary view.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.

So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.None of that 19th century bourgeois science nonsense about 'neutral, non-political physics' and 'scientists' producing 'Truth' which is a copy of the 'Real World' and is true forever.Well?I'm waiting, YMS.

Because that's not true, nor necessary.  Voting can only reveal the desire of the voter, that's the only truth it reveals.  So it can reveal what lines of research society wants to pursue, it can pronounce research ethical or unethical, it can pronounce it valid or invalid, but it cannot make black white or day night.

So, why claim that we're not 'saying, in practice, anything much different'?You either still don't understand what I'm saying, or are falsely presenting to others that there is nothing really radical about what I'm saying.I'm inclined to think the former is correct.You won't enter a philosophical discussion about the relationship between subject, object and knowledge, and think this issue is merely one of 'practice'.This focus on 'practice', and the avoidance of 'theory', is essentially a conservative method of approaching any issue.It's like trying to get people to read Marx's Capital, as a prelude to a discussion about exploitative social relationships, and being met with 'practical' questions, like 'But, but… under socialism, will I still be able to buy beer and fags?'.In fact, this issue, about the social production of scientific knowledge, and my views about it, are not just radical, but unavoidably revolutionary.The bourgeois-inspired view that 'scientists' just do 'science', and it is essentially a non-political activity, best left to 'experts', is one that is dying hard in our society.It is, in fact, a ruling class idea.And, on the contrary, the notion of the democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge (ie. that 'truth' will be elected by humanity) is a revolutionary idea, and one suited to a class conscious proletariat attempting to build its confidence in the face of our bourgeois brainwashing.I know that you don't share these beliefs or aims, YMS, but why you just won't say that you're neither a revolutionary nor a democrat, baffles me.You think that 'science' is best left to 'an elite', who employ a 'scientific method' that is non-political, and that 'scientific knowledge' is a reflection of 'reality' (rather than a human construction, influenced by social and historical factors, and so changeable).You don't really think that 'workers' can take power of their production, and you don't believe that that production includes 'ideas'. At best, you'd allow workers to have a 'factory works' council', to advise those in charge on the best way to produce 'widgets'. You don't aim for 'workers' control', as I do, and you certainly won't have workers determining what 'scientific truth' is.In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote..

A vote on competing expert elites? So you now admit that there will be experts in their field? Come on LBird just say it: 'There will be experts in socialism'Not so Easy-peasy for you

What's the matter with you, Vin? Can't you read what I wrote on the other thread, and YMS quoted on this?It's the power that experts have, that we have to control. If you think that I think that there will be no experts in socialism, why would I carry out 18 months of posting to try to argue that we should democratically control the power of experts in socialism, and, indeed, before, if possible?Up until now, I've just assumed that you just don't like me, and that you're conducting a personal vendetta, which is fair enough, as I've been pretty frank about what I think about your intellectual abilities……but this is becoming rather concerning. I'm starting to feel that there is some other problem going on.Could someone PM me, if there's something I should know?

[LBird]

Ball, Serving the Reich pp. 251-2, wrote:

Science historian Joseph Haberer concluded in 1969 that ‘an idealization of science as a superior form of activity remains deeply entrenched in the contemporary scientific consciousness’. One can safely make the same statement today.            The dangerous complacency of this assumption is laid bare by the history of German science under National Socialism. It should be obvious from even a cursory consideration of the matter that the rational and impersonal viewpoint required in science here conferred absolutely no advantage in matters of morality….as Haberer has said,'The real issue is how it was possible for men trained in the sciences, like Lenard and Stark, to become fanatical National Socialists. If Nobel laureates can be so infected, what protection does scientific training and practice provide against the excesses of irrational personal, economic, social or political conduct? Most scientists have tended to assume that they (more than any other professional type) follow the paths of rational, disinterested, and even humane conduct. The evidence increasingly demonstrates that scientists as a whole are no more immune to the ailments of political man than other men'.

This is why our proletarian science must be democratic. We must place more faith in ourselves, than in any elite.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.

So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.None of that 19th century bourgeois science nonsense about 'neutral, non-political physics' and 'scientists' producing 'Truth' which is a copy of the 'Real World' and is true forever.Well?I'm waiting, YMS.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 This will be the proletarian scientific method. It's an issue, at heart, about power.Not that you understand anything about power, authority and legitimacy, in short, politics, apparently.God help us if you're representative of the SPGB's level of political understanding of power.

There will not be a poletariat in socialism. DOH  

No, but there's a proletariat, now, Vin, and it has to theorise its approach to science, now, before the revolution.Perhaps you think that on the glorious day, a divine consciousness will descend upon the producers, who, according to your method, won't have discussed and prepared for their taking of power?DOHPS. I've discussed this so often before, that the proletariat now is the seed of humanity in the future, and that Marx too spoke of 'workers' after the revolution in this context, that I really do know that you not only don't read, but fundamentally don't understand dynamics and change.We'll have to start calling you 'Divine Consciousness Vin', since that's your understanding of the development of class consciousnessSecond 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.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

If you simply mean voting on the 'truth' is voting on the evidence presented by 'experts' why didn't you say that at the start, for fuck sake.

Vin, you, robbo, and a number of others appear to have the visual equivalent of 'cloth ears'.How many times I've talked about 'elite-expert-maths' being 'priest-Latin', and the need for explanation which can be understood by all, I've lost count.You lot have already decided to stop reading anything I write, so I don't see why I should keep trying to explain to you anymore, especially robbo.

Vin wrote:

You have not knocked my opinion or analysis down, you have knocked you own Strawman. You have done it with everyone on the forum.

You haven't 'got an opinion' to 'knock down', Vin. You clearly don't know the first thing about science, knowledge or truth. Or democracy. Or power.Why you don't just read some of the books, articles or links that I've recommended, and then ask genuine questions, I don't know.

Vin wrote:

What is your motive?

My motive is to help comrades circumvent the years of reading required to get to understand these issues, if approached from ignorance, as was the case with me. I wasn't able to ask anyone for help, because all the bloody Leninist/Trotskyists haven't got a clue, either. And I'm talking about their supposed 'theorists', too.I've been shocked by the lack of willingness to learn, listen, read, and engage in an informed debate. There has just been a repetition of mainstream bourgeois myths about 'science' and 'maths', that are taught at school and are reinforced by the popular press, about 'disinterested' academics employing a 'non-political method' to produce 'True Knowledge' about the 'Real World' in a language not open to popular understanding.Even bourgeois philosophers have undermined that cosy, 19th century nonsense, so why it's so difficult to get so-called revolutionaries and socialists to think critically, I'm baffled about.Plus, it's the bloody philosophical viewpoint of 'elite science' that supports the bloody Leninist worldview, so why the SPGB should have so much difficulty accommodating criticism of 'elites' with a 'special consciousness', which is not available to the class as a whole, again, beats me.

Vin wrote:

By voting on an expert you are putting your faith in that expert.

You really don't get it, do you?You are putting 'your faith' in your class, and their ability to smell a rat, which 'science experts' often produce, in physics as much as sociology.Give me democratic criticism, debate and voting (that is, MASS OPINION) over 'faith in experts', any day.The 'experts' contradict each other, all the time, it's our collective job to decide what's best for us, what 'truth' makes sense to us.Only we can decide what is best. It's a social judgement, and an elite can't make it for us.Unless you want the Central Committee to dictate to us all, Vin? No, I thought not – even you are not completely politically stupid.BTW, I vote for alan's explanation, given the reading I've done in the past, and alan's 'expert' opinion. LHO did it alone. That doesn't mean it's a 'Final Truth', but the only 'truth' we're likely to have, unless someone comes up with a better theory and evidence to support it.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.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Perhaps LBird has a valid point when he speaks of "individualists" having a preference for trust (admittedly in your case a selective one) in "elite-experts".

I think LBird's point is that there will be no 'experts' or expert opinion to choose between. We will all be experts in everything.

I'm not sure if you're joking here, Vin, or really don't understand democracy.Put simply, the producers elect 'experts', who explain to the electorate, and the electorate decide by a vote between explanations. Thus power lies with the producers, not 'experts'. If the expert can't explain in terms understandable by the producers, there is thus no 'explanation', and the expert won't be elected next time the producers wish to delegate research tasks.The 'truth' is elected. Given further developments in theories, research, presentations by elected experts, and voting, a new 'truth' might dethrone the old 'truth'.This will be the proletarian scientific method. It's an issue, at heart, about power.Not that you understand anything about power, authority and legitimacy, in short, politics, apparently.God help us if you're representative of the SPGB's level of political understanding of power.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I can't wait for that moment when i'm present when all those involved in these several related threads meet up in the pub and have had a few pints to lubricate their throats and thoughts….It will be a dynamite experience, dwarving Marx v Bakunin, Lenin v Martov …I'm serious about the drama and the spectacle i expect to witness when such an encounter materialises 

Only problem with that is that, unlike this forum,  LBird will have nowhere to run when the heat is on

The real tragedy here, is not that any of us pretend to be seriously comparable to Marx, Bakunin, Lenin or Martov, but that they were engaged in fresh arguments, that at the time no-one really knew how their ideas would pan out.In contrast, we're having a debate that could have (and should have) been settled a couple of generations ago. As I've said before, since at least the 1920s, with Lukacs, Korsch and Pannekoek, and many since, the need to clarify 'what science is' has been apparent.Is 'science' a neutral method, which, because it is outside of social and historical influences, can be adopted by anyone (not just small elites, but even single individuals), and which produces 'Truths' which are not relative to the society which produces them, that 'science' produces timeless and contextless knowledge of the external world?Or is 'science' inescapably itself a social and historical product, which produces social and historical context-filled, relative, knowledge, which is always a product of a society (and if that society has a ruling elite, the product is full of elite values)?If the former, democracy is not required; if the latter, and the society is a democratic society (ie. not private productive property), then democracy is required.I've become aware, during my political activities over the years, that the Leninist/Trotskyist parties embrace the former, because they think an elite can 'lead' society. They regard themselves as 'the scientific elite' of the proletariat.I reject this, and reject 'objective science', because since Einstein it has become clear that it is unsustainable to argue that humans produce 'objective knowledge', and every single Leninist/Trotskyist party that I've come across or read about, has refused to allow workers to determine 'their' party's policies by democratic means.Probably the biggest laugh is that Marx's ideas fit with 'relativism', and he was a democrat who thought that workers could develop the capacity to control production, but all this anti-democratic science worship is carried out by so-called Communists, influenced by Engels, and they claim the mantle of Marx.Nearly a hundred years have gone to waste, and most workers still cling to a faith in 'science'. The anti-democratic, elitist, 'Truth'-producing sort, introduced by the bourgeoisie.Perhaps, in another hundred years…

[Author]

Posts