[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

However you look at it,  that is an ideological battle  that you are engaged in, at the heart of which is what we perceive human beings to be and to be capable of.  On that point I agree with LBird…

Thanks, robbo.I think we agree about much more than we don't.On the rest, the debate will continue, hopefully with others, including Vin, involved.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

And if it is a thing, might we not agree, by reference to the thing, whether or not, for all its complexity, "round" or "flat" best captures it?

You've got it now, stuart!'Agreement', 'reference' and 'best'.Just like hunter-gatherer society – we need to agree the best way of referring to it.Liberals will 'agree' that 'violence' exists, and Communists will 'agree' that 'violence' doesn't exist.It's best to clarify your own definition of what 'violence' is, and apply it to your readings of various accounts of h-g society.I think that the earth is 'round' and that h-g are 'non-violent'. But that's because of my social and historical context, and my social education, and my social ideology.I'm aware that in other contexts, neither is the earth 'round' nor are h-g 'non-violent'.As you say 'best' is what 'captures it' – 'best' being a social judgement.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

It's a very complex thing – so it is a thing?

It's just like 'hunter-gatherer' society.

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

Vin, i might be mistaken but isn't the context we discussing about pre-socialism and about the actual process of achieving it…and LB is referring to the lack of consciousness amongst the working class, something we do require to get to socialism.

alan, I've had this discussion with Vin many times, and he doesn't want to understand. Even ALB has tried to same trick to divert discussion.robbo has provided evidence that Marx too employed 'workers' to refer as a catch-all for 'producers', covering both communist and capitalist society.If I say 'producer', Vin and ALB object that I haven't mentioned class and workers…If I say 'worker', Vin and ALB object that classless society doesn't have workers…It's all a ruse to avoid the meat of any discussion, by those who can't keep up with subtleties, I fear.This has happened so many times, I have to believe that it's a conscious attempt to derail me.Clearly, the 'proletariat' will evolve into 'all society', as the process of revolution proceeds.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I know it means god!But you still won't tell me how we are to decide whether the earth is flat or round. I mean, does the earth's actual shape in reality have anything to do with the decision?

If you know a method that gives us 100% truth about the shape of the earth, please tell us!If not, we're back to discussing what we humans think the shape is, given our 'best' 'evidence'.Both 'flat' and 'round' are human attempts to explain the 'shape' of the earth.The "earth's actual shape in reality" is a very complex thing…

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Or, to return to the thread topic, does not the term "hunter-gatherer" actually refer to something in the real world? Does not the question of whether they live more or less violent lives than us have some meaning, ie, refer to something "out there" rather than just "in here" in our minds? If not, I scarcely see the point of discussing anything with anyone.

[my bold] 'Meaning' is socially constructed. What 'out there' means to one society, it doesn't to another.I think that you're forgetting the rest of what I've argued, though, about 'theory and practice'.Science is not a isolated 'mind' activity.Marx's Theses on Feuerbach refer.The application of theory to what theory tells us counts as 'evidence' produces social knowledge.But different theories applied to the same 'hunter-gatherers' will produce different 'truth' about those societies.As I've said, liberal anthropologists will produce a liberal account of hunter-gatherers; communist anthropologists will produce a communist account of hunter-gatherers.Humans can't take the human out of science.If you want a scientific account, find out about your ideology of science, and the anthropologists' ideology of science.The idea that 'a disinterested search for The Truth' is going on, is scientifically and politically naive, given what we know about science, since Einstein.Just look at your link, again.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

What are we talking about? What are we referring to? Not the real world? Are we not arguing about which of the ideologies is the best approximation to the real world – which of the expressions of relative truth (our ideologies) best point to the absolute truth (the universe)?

[my bold]'Best' is a human decision – 'reality' does not talk to us.What one society sees as 'best', another doesn't. That's why 'truth' has a social and historical context, and changes.And 'absolute truth' is, in effect, a religious concept. It simply means 'god'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

OK, so there's a vote between competing ideologies. Let's say one side is saying the earth is round, the other that it's flat. How am I to cast my vote? On a whim? On the idea I find more personally congenial or politically convenient? On what basis?

On the basis of your enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions with your comrades. If all your comrades say to you that 'the earth is round', based upon their enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions, and you disagree (perhaps for reasons 'personally congenial or politically convenient'), then you'll probably be outvoted.If, after later social enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions, your comrades come round to your way of thinking, and now agree that 'the earth is flat', then you'll now win the vote.And we'll all know that science is a social activity, and 'truth' is produced by humans.The difference is, the social actor will be the producers (not an expert elite), and we'll be able to account for the twists and turns of 'truth', which often changes, due to it being a social and historical production.If you're not interested, though, for any reason, why would you vote?If you are interested, then you'll be provided with the education, time and materials required, just like everybody else, to indulge your interests.What we won't be having, though, is a bunch of bluffers, a small minority, insisting that they are 'disinterested' and simply telling us 'how it is'. The priests will be prevented from insisting they have an access to the god-matter that we don't have, and that they can continue to hide their discussions in latin-mathematics.We can all have access and participate in whatever discussions we want to. That will be the purpose of our society, won't it? To develop all people on the planet as far as is possible. Truly, for the first time, we'll have a society dedicated to producing social-individuals, not the truncated specimens we are all, now, as 'individuals' [sic].

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Surely Duncan's 'truth' is that workers are voting for the SNP. 'Workers democracy' in action? I don't think it's right but there you go.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, jd."Workers' democracy" implies a class conscious and politically organised proletariat, not 'isolated individuals' who don't most often even call themselves "workers" voting for bourgeois parties.What makes you think unconscious scots voting for the SNP is 'workers' democracy in action'?I'm surprised at your statement, given the emphasis, as I understand it, within the SPGB, of the need for consciousness amongst workers.They're eating shit, as far as I can see, and I think that it's best to be open with them about it, and say 'don't eat shit!'.

[LBird]

duncan lucas wrote:

Stuart I base realism on actual actions not words and the fact that the SNP is being voted in by a majority of sCots thats realism not wishful thinking . I know you would rather they voted for the Socialist Party but they dont thats a fact .

duncan, I'd tell your fellow workers that voting 'No' is voting for shit with sugar on it, and voting 'Yes' is voting for shit with honey on it.And after the vote, either winner will withdraw the sweetener, and force them to eat shit.The answer is not to eat shit, and become a socialist.If your fellow workers are determined to eat shit, you can't prevent them, and can only try to provide an alternative, that might one day become a palatable alternative to shit, for them.That's 'realism' and 'fact', for them.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I know what you're saying, and agree with it to a point, but the point is the rub. You've not answered my question. You say that instead of a disinterested pursuit of the truth we should instead vote between competing ideologies. But how is one to vote? On what basis?

I thought I had answered your question: one votes on the basis of 'competing ideologies'. That democratic method produces a 'truth'. If we have reason for a later vote, and change our vote, then 'truth' changes, too.And what's all this guff about 'a disinterested pursuit of the truth' being a methodological option?You're the one who rightly said earlier that theories and evidence are ideological!Now, in contrast, you're claiming there's a basis in 'disinterested theories' seeking 'truthful evidence'?The problem's not with me failing to answer your question, stuart, but with you not understanding your own questions, and what they imply, in ideological beliefs, prior to the question's formulation. You're being inconsistent, from post to post.If you 'believe' in the 19th century religious dogma that 'reality' speaks to you, why not tell us 'how' it does so?The philosophers of science, who have debated this question throughout the 20th century, would be keen to hear your answer!Perhaps you know why Einstein was wrong?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What should the time- table be?Those bodies cannot be created artifically by any party but must in a sense grow organically from the working class themselves…

Time-table? Christ knows, because I don't.As you say, and I agree, workers' councils (or at least their embryo in, initially, perhaps, discussion groups of workers seeking to pose questions, to critically think, discuss and learn) must grow organically.Has there been any sign of this development, anywhere? Not as far as I know.

ajj wrote:

…Should we merely acknowledge their important role more in our literature …perhaps insisting upon their essential part of the revolutionary process in comparison with the political action…

Yes, I don't think that it's stressed enough. If the party is planning to hand over to Workers' Councils, given a parliamentary majority based upon just such an argument, then this should be clarified.

ajj wrote:

Or shall we be pre-emptive like the IWW and the SLP and laydown the guidelines prematurely and politically ineffectually since it would be a token gesture and ineffective.

No worker I know of, including myself, has ever paid a blind bit of notice to any 'party guidelines'.Workers know better than parties. The class will decide, not 'parties'. This attitude always seems to come as a shock to so-called "Workers' parties" – I'm not sure why, the parties pretend to be there to strengthen the workers, and when workers turn up, and who start telling the party what to do, the party seems a bit peeved.It's almost as if they intend to use the workers as a cover for party power……and they don't really believe in Workers' Power. They seem to have an attitude of 'who'd let that shower of fools run anything?' Lip service to democracy, too.As for the very notion of workers determining the validity of physics research…. god forbid, pass the smelling salts, Uncle Joe!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Have we given the necessary prominence to the extra-parliamentary power of the workers will have to create in parallel with the political action of the Socialist Party?

I'd answer 'No' to your question, alan.To me, the only justification for the SPGB strategy of winning a parliamentary majority is to allow that majority to legitimately hand parliamentary power over to Workers' Councils. Thus, those within the armed forces, police and civil service, who look towards parliamentary democracy for their legitimacy have an option of sticking to their self-proclaimed democratic views, and seeing a peaceful transfer of (their) legitimate authority.This all presupposes the creation of class conscious proletarian bodies, which also have armed force at their disposal.If all the state employees choose to reject their own professed loyalty to parliamentary democracy, and go with a coup against the elected majority, then a class war will follow. The alternative, that a majority or large minority choose peaceful democratic change, will undermine those elements who want to choose a coup. Perhaps Chile provides some examples of an officer corps, of which some at least tried to maintain their oath of allegience, to show that if a full majority have parliamentary authority, even a large percentage of (probably younger and more influenced by the revolutionary process) officers will take the peaceful route.I've suggested on other threads that the SPGB be clearer about this strategy of theirs, and name it 'Parliamentary Suicide', so that all workers and socialists in other parties are aware of just what it is that you propose.You do plan to hand over legitimacy to workers' councils, don't you, and dissolve 'parliament'?If you don't, then the critics of the SPGB are correct, and you plan for parliamentary party politics, and not revolutionary workers' power, direct democracy, and the democratic control of the means of production. These latter imply Workers' Councils, not a 'parliament'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

…the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality…

This notion of measuring an 'alternative' (ie. a product of science) with 'reality' (the thing itself) is known as 'the correspondence theory of truth'.The problem with it is: if we know how to get an account of 'reality' which doesn't involve humans and science, which we'd have to do to measure 'it' against the scientifically-produced 'alternative', the question arises:Why use 'science' to produce a series of 'alternatives'?Why not just go straight to 'reality'?The problem is 'what is the reality?' that you want to use to 'measure up to' when deciding between 'alternatives'?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

You say hold a vote, LB, but how is a rational individual to vote? Surely only by making a good faith effort to decide between the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality?

Sounds good, stuart.Remind me again, how can humans 'measure up reality'?As a Democratic Communist, I think that if humans are to 'measure up reality', they have to do it democratically.The alternative posited by the bourgeoisie, that 'reality tells us what it is', and we simply have to 'observe reality', has turned out to be not true.That's where we are today – the bourgeoisie argue that 'elite experts' should decide 'truth', because they have a neutral method. But we proletarians know that is not true, because the 'elite experts' do not have such a method, and the 'objective truth' they have produced has turned out to be nothing of the sort.If one believes in socialism (the democratic control of the means of production, including knowledge production), then one must believe in democratic control of all science.Of course, if one does not believe in socialism, then one is free to tell us just who, and how, a minority can tell the rest of us a truth that we can't discern for ourselves.Once more, stuart, it's a political choice. Does 'truth value' talk to you, stuart, because it doesn't to me, and I know it doesn't to 'scientists'?I'd define your 'good faith effort' as 'a democratic vote'.

[Author]

Posts