[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.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird, I am not sure what you mean by 'workers democracy'. Can you explain it more fully. Are you saying that 'workers' refers to everyone? If so, why refer only to 'workers'? Why not just democratic control of society? 

By 'workers', Vin, I mean the 'producers' of the means of production.In this capitalist society, 'producers' are 'workers' (as an exploited class).In a future socialist society, 'producers' will still be 'working' (but as a world community of producers, not a 'class').As robbo has shown on the other thread, Marx seems at times to have used the term 'workers' interchangeably with a notion of 'universal producers', as an attempt to link us now with us then.This is inherently confusing, for those who don't have any knowledge of 'class struggle' or 'socialism', but the use of the term 'workers' on a socialist site, as a shorthand for 'class-conscious-workers-in-this-bourgeois-society-building-for-socialism' and also as shorthand for 'producers-in-a-future-socialist-society', because we are talking essentially about the same social group ('producers'), and that the theory and practice of the former is to prefigure that of the latter, seems to me to be eminently sensible.So, by 'workers', I mean the both of the terms above, which I consider to be the same social group.By 'democracy', I mean the 'power' of the 'self-constituted social group' (from the Greek 'demos' (a self-constituted social group) and 'kratos' (power).Since socialism will require the proletariat now to have both theoretically have constituted itself as the 'demos' and to have practically have taken 'power', I regard 'socialism' as synonynmous with "workers' power", or "workers' democracy".So, in a socialist society, 'just democratic control of society' would be "workers' power".I keep asking those who disagree with me to tell me who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power.They seem to argue for either 'individuals' (alledgedly 'free'; often from robbo203) or an 'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet).I disagree, and argue that socialism equates to "workers' democracy", and that the 'means of production' clearly includes 'science' and the production of knowledge/truth, and that the means of production will be under the control of workers' democracy.Hope this all helps, Vin.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…for clarification material of a criminally abusive nature does not come under the heading of "free speech"…

'Who determines' what is 'criminally abusive'?The problem is, when I ask 'who determines', if not "workers' democracy", those disagreeing with me about the right of workers to determine either 'No Platform' or 'No 'No Platform'', the question is never answered, and it is assumed that 'free speech', or 'free association' or 'criminally abusive' are in themselves entirely unproblematic concepts that are outside of the considerations of "workers' democracy".

SP wrote:

That could mean I wouldn't be allowed to set up a web site dedicated to the concept of a green cheese moon, because the sub-committee have decided on behalf of the majority that it is stupid, un-scientific, and therefore unnecessary.Such a body would in essence be an elite.

Not if the 'body' is under the control of "workers' democracy", because clearly any sub-committee is answerable to all of us, in the final analysis.If you're asking me that if workers decided democratically, after all the necessary appeals processes, to 'ban a web site', would I then support the ban, my answer is 'yes'. For this to happen, there must be a very good reason, and that reason will have been discussed, debated and voted on, so the necessity of the ban must have been clearly understood.The alternative is for individuals (or elite groups outside of our social control) to have the right to set up any website that they liked, no matter how harmful to other individuals or groups, and how causing of great concern to the rest of us.

SP wrote:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, LBird.

About "workers' democracy"? Yes, it seems so.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

He goes further than this in fact and says that the majority can and should also decide what is scientifically true or not, but that's another argument which I think we've exhausted on other threads…

If fact, we haven't exhausted this, because neither you, nor any other poster, nor the SPGB officially, has told us 'who determines' what is 'scientifically true'.We know from scientists that they don't have a method for determining 'truth' outside of society, and so we must say, to workers who are looking to socialists for answers to their questions about political control, legitimacy and authority, who shall determine 'truth' in a socialist society.To me, as a Democratic Communist, that only acceptable answer is "workers' democracy" shall determine 'truth'.After that axiomatic declaration, the only issue is 'how'.The details of 'how', though, are of course a matter for the class conscious proletariat, one of the many questions that workers are going to have to formulate, wrestle with, and answer, during the course of building towards socialism.The apparent insistence on this site that 'elite experts' shall be determining 'who' has power, 'who' tells us the truth, and from 'who' originates legitimacy and authority, is a denial of "workers' power".If workers are not to control 'the means of production', who is?Or by 'means of production' do you all mean 'factories', but not the important stuff, like the production of ideas?I sense the 'materialist' bluffers at work!Beware Workers of the World – the 'materialists' deny democracy!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.

[my bold]This is, of course. what I'm pointing out.But I'm consistent.For you ALB, who determines the 'not on everything'?You must be advocating a non-democratic decision: either individuals or an elite group, who are outside of democratic control.There are problems, and it's best to be open about them with workers, and prepare ourselves and other workers.Blathering on about 'free association' for individuals doesn't cut the political mustard, I'm afraid.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But society cannot democratically do the censoring, since in order to vote on what information to suppress society would have to disseminate it, in which case, it's not suppressed. You'd need a technical elite to do the censoring.

Couldn't put it any better.

Disagree with you here, SP!YMS's argument amounts to:If you haven't been to the moon, you can't know that it's not made out of green cheeseOf course we can censor 'information' which we can know about, and think is socially dangerous/unethical/undesirable, without every individual having to experience it personally.A democratically-elected sub-committee can do the 'dirty work', not YMS's political dream of a self-selecting 'technical elite'.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I found that a number of SPGB members either denied censorship was being used or that a little was necessary for maintaining control.

This sums up my point, really.I think censorship is inescapable, and it's better to admit this, and state clearly who has the power to censor.Otherwise, it will just happen, and be denied, and it will be certain individuals or elite groups who censor, without the knowledge or permission of workers' organisations.To me, claiming there will be a regime of 'entirely free speech' in the future is misleading now, and in effect a lie, since those claiming that it will happen, surely can't be so naive as to believe that they're telling the truth. Or are they so naive about power?Mind you, if they can define 'democracy' as 'free association', anything's possible.'Democracy' means "workers' power", not 'free association'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Simply, all societies find something to be 'beyond the pale', and I'm sure that we can find things now that we'd prevent being published, and I think Communism will be no different.

I can't think of any view on how society should be organised or on what policies to adopt that should be banned under capitalism let alone in socialist/communist society. Maybe you can. If so, I'd be interested.

Well, under capitalism, slavery, eugenics, beating wives, breeding low IQ humans for hunting, torturing animals, etc., etc.Under socialism/communism, private property, wage labour, propagating nationalism…There's always the 'crowd-rousing' issue of paedophilia to be considered, of course. But I think paediatricians will be allowed…

[Author]

Posts