[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Happy, erm, hunting.

And a happy, erm, avoiding difficult ideological questioning, to you, too, YMS!

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…I recognise that this is also a question of power …

As usual for 'individualists', because you've done some reading, you genuflect to the question of 'power', and note it.But… for you, it plays no part in explaining power relationships within societies in particular historical contexts.You simply revert to asocial and ahistoric 'individuals', who suffer universal 'slights' and make universal 'responses'.You believe that you are an individual, and your activities and beliefs are entirely 'free', and that society should be composed of these 'free individuals'.This is bourgeois thinking, robbo.Unless you situate your 'individuals' in their society (ie. stop talking about 'individuals'), then you won't understand either hunter-gatherer society or our own.I'm a 'worker', by the way, not an 'individual', and power relationships are a part and parcel of my social existence, just as they are yours, and were for 'hunter-gatherers'.And as they are for anthropologists, and all scientists…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Or does your mystic holism rule this out as being at all  possible?

You hide your ideology, yet pretend to know mine.I've openly said that I'm a Democratic Communist, but you can't accept that, and 'slight' me as a 'mystic holist', whatever that is.I think that your ideological individualism compels you to regard any 'social' limits upon 'individual free will' as 'holist'. The 'mysticism' is frankly just abuse, which you turn to whenever you can't (and won't) answer a question relevent to this discussion, about your ideology.Or perhaps your regard 'democracy' as the 'mysticism'?'Individuals' won't stand for 'democratic' social controls on their 'own' behaviour, will they, robbo? So, it becomes a 'myth'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Hunter gatherers, on the other hand, had the freedom to roam where they wished and to break away from the group whenever they wished.  They lived in egalitarian societies  in which no individual could  expect to slight another and get away with it.

All this stuff about 'freedom to roam' and 'break away from the group' as individuals 'whenever they wished' seems very like bourgeois mythology, from my ideological perspective, robbo.And 'egalitarian societies' aren't necessarily 'free'. A member can be 'equal', but still be hidebound by social rules, mores, customs… from my ideological perspective, they still live within social structures, not least to feed, nurture and protect themselves, which are not 'individual' activities, but social ones.'Slights' and 'responses' are social, too. Members are also in subgroups, like families and kin, and 'slights and responses' would be 'group-based', rather than 'individual-based'.What counts as 'getting away with it'? If a tribal/kin elder tells a younger member to 'drop it' (because of reasons know to the elder, not the 'individual' slighted), then the 'individual' drops it, and the slighter could be seen (by us) to have 'gotten away with it'.

robbo203 wrote:

So to answer your question –  of course, they could be slighted and by all account the slighting of one individuals by another seems to have been an a significant factor in what violence there was in that form of society if the anthropological evidence is to be believed.

Once again, this is just ideological belief, dressed up as 'fact' (your 'of course' denotes this).'Significant'? 'Evidence'? 'Belief'?From what perspective, robbo?Why won't you reveal your 'position of observation'? Or do you 'believe' that there is 'objective position' in the universe? Who tells you this? That 'individual position' is acceptable, and that 'individual actions' are 'significant factors'? What is 'violence'?

[LBird]

Let's be frank.Anthropologists who are in favour of 'private property' in their society want to see this as based in 'human nature'. Thus, any forms of 'human nature' (such as 'violence' or 'conflict') which appear to be 'transhistoric', are 'discovered' as pointing to support for an ahistoric account of 'private property'.On the reverse side, anthropologists opposed to 'human nature' arguments will use definitions of 'violence' or 'conflict' which are themselves social and historic, and so these terms can't simply be transferred from 'the past' to 'now'.I'm simply saying that for any comrades who are reading, but are not aware of the ideological basis to all science, should try to discover the ideological foundations of Pinker, YMS, robbo, me, and any other authors later quoted, or any comrades who later contribute to the thread.

robbo203 wrote:

…they saw themselves as individuals who could be slighted and wronged and so able to respond accordingly…

Comrades will note robbo's ideological stress upon 'individuals' being 'slighted or wronged' and responding 'accordingly'.I think this requires an examination of what counts as 'slights and wrongs', and why, and who determines, and what counts as 'accordingly', and why, and who detemines.For example, what evidence of a 'slight' exists in the 'material record'? Or is robbo making assumptions about 'individuals' in our society, and assuming that 'individuals' in other societies recognise and react to 'slights' in a similar way (based upon, say, 'human nature'?).If 'slighting and reactions' are ahistoric, why didn't slaves respond to slights from their masters, but overwhelmingly just accepted them? As too for unresponsive serfs and their lords?Can a 'hunter-gatherer' be slighted, as an individual? If they can, must they respond accordingly?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The conclusion (all I had time to look at) was that if you define war as "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" (I think that was teh formula) then war has always been with us, including among hunter gatherers, however, if you don't take on that definition, and become stricter in your definition of war, then it hasn't been.

[my bold]So, one's definition (which will emerge from one's paradigm/ideology/perspective/metaphysics/research programme) will determine one's conclusion.Surprise, surprise.That is simply the scientific method.It applies as much to physics as to anthropology.What counts as a 'fact' is determined by one's theory. 'Facts' do not present themselves to us unbidden. The same applies to 'matter' or 'material conditions'.This subject (a very interesting one for all socialists, I would've thought) requires, for a proper, enlightening discussion, that we expose both the 'theories' of any authors that are referred to, and also our own 'theories'.For example, whether one's definition of 'individual' is biological (and so transcends history and society, and thus one can discuss 'individuals' and their own actions without reference to the place of that 'individual'), or whether one's definition of 'individual' is ideological (and so is embedded in history and society, and thus one can't discuss 'individuals' and their actions without reference to their time).I'll be explicit: my definition of 'individual' is ideological (I'm a Democratic Communist), so I will regard any talk by authors or posters about 'individuals' as contaminated by bourgeois ideology. I would only refer to 'social-individuals', and situation any action by a hunter-gatherer in a political context.I won't be drawing any ahistoric or asocial lessons about the actions of hunter-gatherers, as having any bearing upon the issues of our society.The searching for anwers to our socio-economic-political problems in the distant past is a fool's errand.This, though, is precisely what many authors do, because all anthropologists are ideologically-driven, and we must take care not to be fooled by their 'scientific' findings.They are scientific, of course, but that is not code for 'true'. Their science is not ours. Their 'theory and practice', upon the source material, will produce different results to our 'theory and practice' upon the very same source material.Source material does not simply talk to us, any more than rocks do.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Back on topic.There are three main reasons I can think of why censorship is a problem. It fails to tackle problematic areas by hiding them from view, rather than deal with them openly. It is patronising and elitist to assume a role of deciding what people can or can't think and/or decide for themselves on various issues. It is often used to airbrush history, thus altering events and restricting the ability to examine and learn from past events.

This is the key to understanding science, as we now know it to be, since Einstein.One's framework/ideology/perspective/metaphysics/paradigm/research programme censors as much as it reveals, in the three ways you list, SP:It 'hides problematic areas from view';It 'decides what people can or can't think for themselves';It 'airbrushes history, and restricts our abilities to learn'.Hence, the necessity to expose one's own 'censorship program', to try to illuminate it for oneself as much as for others.Whilst we pretend to stick with 19th century science (objective and material), we pretend not to censor. The 'Truth' is alleged to be final, eternal, and beyond criticism. But we now know that 'truth' is a social and historical product. The production of 'truth' requires censorship.To think is to censor. The lesson of the 20th century philosophy of science.And it's now the 21st century, comrades…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Maybe because there will be no "workers" in socialism as all classes, including the working class, will have been abolished.

That old diversion, taken by those who can't follow, never mind engage in, a discussion.You stick with that 'comfort dummy', ALB, to avoid thinking about these issues, and perhaps Vin or robbo will do the comradely thing, and explain to you.I wouldn't mind, but the answer's on this very thread! In great detail, which I apologised to Vin for!

[LBird]

robbo, I'm not going to reply to your last post, because I don't think that you're reading what I write, about the problematic context of these issues.I'm going to say something that I regret, and I don't want to be banned again (how ironic would that be, given the context of this thread), so you're going to have to address your questions to other posters, or just deem me to be a fool and not worth engaging with.

robbo203 wrote:

…having to provide real answers to the real questions…

'Real', eh? Now, there's an ideological discussion to be had!

[LBird]

YMS, a reply to SP that doesn't mention "workers".

YMS wrote:

…preferably in a democratic context.

A bit grudging to 'democracy', too. Only 'preferable', rather than 'essential', as a socialist would maintain.And we're still a million miles from putting the two together, in revolutionary change, of "workers' democracy"!

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

Answer the questions in post 105, LBird, or stand accused of being a peddlar in delusions yourself

robbo, I've answered your questions time and time again, and not just yours, but others too, but none of you will engage in a discussion, and simply appear outraged that someone should argue that workers as a collective might know better than scientists as a collective.

robbo203, post #105, wrote:

That apart , you have never explained even once why the workers need to vote on these scientific theories .

Once more, from a physicist:

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Scientist-Anaximander-Legacy/dp/1594161313 If workers are not the ones to vote on these issues, who are?Who determines 'best'?Read the bloody quote, slowly and properly, and give us all an answer to Rovelli's conundrum. The physicists don't know. Matter doesn't tell them. So, who should detemine the 'best' for science? And stop pestering me with inane rants.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Does your idea of an elected censor only extend to areas of abuse, once abuse has been clearly defined?

Yes.But that obviously includes 'political abuse' or 'abuse of power'. So that rather returns us to the question of 'who determines?'.Really, I think you've already answered my question.

SP wrote:

It would be up to a socialist society to decide what those parameters were.

This is my point. And since a socialist society woulde be synonymous with democracy or "workers' power" (as defined to Vin, above), then the issue of 'No Platform' versus 'No 'No Platform'' would be decided by workers' democracy, just like, in the final analysis, the issue of the truth of any particular item of 'scientific knowledge' would be, too.

SP wrote:

Ultimately those who peddle in such misery must be brought to account and dealt with severely.

I presume this includes those elitist scientists who bring us 'knowledge', that turns out to be nothing other than 'ruling class bias against workers', like the various 'eugenicist' strands.I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

An easier way is to allow free access to info' and freedom of expression so long as it does not involve the abuse of others. I think we may be confusing the issue regarding abuse and freedom of expression.

I think the separation of 'abuse' from 'freedom of expression' is not as clear cut as you seem to be assuming.To me, it's a bit like someone arguing that "common sense tells us the diference between 'terrorists' and 'freedom fighters' ".We all know that one's starting point (political ideology) has different 'common sense' with that issue, and I'm inclined to think that 'one person's 'abuse' is another person's 'free expression'. Perhaps a starting point for a reconciliation, though, would be to agree that 'abuse' should be censored.From that, we could identify the body that 'censors abuse', and then I would probably claim that it would be the 'censor' that I think is inescapable for any society.At bottom, this is a question of 'political power'. And I think that all political questions should be answered by workers' democracy, not by individuals' opinions or by unelected experts.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Thank you for your clarification, LBird in post #93. So 'workers' in capitalism means the working class and 'workers' in socialism mean everyone; scientists, road sweepers, disabled, the lazy Doctors, researcers Brain surgeons etc, etc,.?I still think that the term 'workers control' in socialism is easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Surely democratic control by the community is less ambiguous.?

Thanks for your generous acceptance of my long-winded explanation, Vin!As to 'democratic control by the community', you might be correct.On my part, I think linking 'workers' now is important, because if we just use 'community', it lessens our emphasis in this society on 'class struggle'.'Bosses' won't get a vote now, (and won't exist in socialism) and if those who stress 'individuals' (which is a bourgeois concept, and ahistorical and asocial) don't realise that 'individual bosses' won't be getting a vote, then those thinkers are being mislead by those of us who stress 'class struggle'.As an aside, I'm not sure of your characterisation of 'lazy Doctors' – why would anyone want to be a 'doctor' if they're not enthusiastic about helping the sick and injured? I can't imagine a doctor in socialism being asked to help an injured child, and replying 'I just can't be arsed, at the moment, I'm watching telly…'.I'm sure that the doctor's community/commune would have something to say – after all, production is a social task, under democratic control, not the idling away of time by lazy individuals (who claim to be 'free' from society).

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The whole community (including those not directly involved for one reason or another in production) should be involved in democratic decision making, in socialism.

We agree then, YMS, as long as you include 'scientific knowledge' and 'truth' as synonymous with 'production'.I agree that 'the whole community' (up to every individual on the planet, if necessary to resolve any issue by a vote), whether or not they are 'directly involved' in the production of 'truth', 'should be involved in democratic decision-making'.As you imply, those 'not directly involved' can expect those who are 'directly involved' to have the social responsibility to have to explain to those 'not'. There will be no 'truths' or 'scientific knowledge' only perceptible to an elite, who employ a modern version of the priesthood's Latin (that is, 'maths').The 'science' of a socialist society must be comprehensible to all, to allow all to vote on any contentious issues.We now know that scientists do not have a special elite method which allows them access to a 'truth' which can't be understood by 'the masses'.We've know this since Einstein, and the quote I give from Rovelli shows that at least some physicists are aware of the philosophical problems that this has engendered as the 20th century progressed.We have a chance to integrate this human knowledge into our project to build for socialism, and if we don't, we'll be left behind. Furthermore, with our rejection of 'private property' and introduction of Communism, we are the only ones suited to take this insight forward, that there can be no 'private knowledge' and that democracy must penetrate all and every area of human activity, including science and 'truth' production.

[Author]

Posts