LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:But to descend from the realms of philosophy to everyday political life…
Well, this is what every individual does, don't they, they 'decend from the realms of [their] philosophy [theory] to everyday political life [practice]…I mean, that's precisely what we Communists argue, isn't it?The only difference is that I expose my 'theory' which guides my practice, whereas some either pretend that they don't have a philosophy or consciously hide it.I've got no problem with any comrades here arguing that their 'theory' isn't Democratic Communism, and is 'Individualism', but there seems to be some reluctance to accept that WE ALL descend.I suspect that a vital part of 'Individualism' is that one doesn't have a philosophy/ideology/theory, and that one just does practice, outside of that nasty consideration of 'society', that the Commies are always bangin' on about…
ALB wrote:…what do you think of the "No Platform" policy, and attempt practice, of some groups aimed at any group or individual who are or who are deemed by them to be "fascist" or "racist"?My real issue with the Leninist/Maoist sects is that they are not democratic, so they don't comply to my ideological view that workers must decide policy democratically.But if, as a group, they were run on the lines of workers' democracy, then I think they would be justified in voting for and implementing a policy of 'No Platform for Fascists'.The problem arises when another group following the same method voted against such a policy.Then we'd have the problem of the possibility of two groups of workers battling with each other, one to defend the Fascist's rights, outside of a venue at which a Fascist was speaking, like the two revolutionary groups attempting to kidnap Caesar's wife, in the Life of Brian, with the Fascist's supporters shaking their heads, like the Roman guards…I think there needs to be a proletarian movement, far wider than a political party (embryonic workers' councils?), to which the issue could be handed to, by the warring groups, for a decision.However, the decision would be a democratic one, not that of an isolated individual [group]…This doesn't really get us much further though does it?Furthermore, I've noticed, on the 'Science for Communist' thread and others, the same tendency as expressed on this one; that of 'turning to practical matters' and leaving 'the realms of philosophy' aside for now…I've said this before: this is the method of 'practice and theory' (or, even, 'practice' all alone!) which I've criticised as not being socialist or Marxist.
robbo203 wrote:To extend the concept of democracy to people's thoughts or modes of self expression implies the suppression of those very things that democracy is supposed to be about. This is not democracy, it is totalitarian thought control. It is fascism. We are no longer allowed to think what we think. We must toe the Party Line, embrace the Party Line, become the Party Line. Sod that. I say. Who wants such a Brave New World?This just sounds like 'libertarianism' to me, robbo.Replace "people's thoughts" with "people's property", and I think you'll see what I'm driving at.
robbo203 wrote:Of course we must respect and abide by majority decisions…But this is inconsistent with your former rage against 'democracy' as 'thought control'…
ALB wrote:I just think that there are some fields where this should not apply, precisely over what ideas individuals hold and express…[my bold]I agree with you, ALB, but the issue is 'who determines' the 'fields'?In any specific vote on an issue, we're likely to be identical in our opinion, I think.But I think the validity of which 'field' is decided, is by a vote, not by lone individuals.It's the majority that gives legitimacy, not the individual.
ALB wrote:Anyway, supposing that a decision has been taken to try to prevent the expression of some point of view, what do you envisage should happen to those who persist in expressing it?Simple. They should be prevented.I'm a Democratic Communist.
ALB wrote:What frightens me, rather, is a "totalitarian democracy" in which a majority vote can determine which views can be expressed and cannot be expressed.But the reverse of this is just as 'frightening':
Quote:What frightens me, rather, is a "individualist democracy" in which a minority of one vote can determine which views can be expressed and cannot be expressed.We seem to agree about the latter:
ALB wrote:I agree that no "lone individual" should have this right either…But you go on to argue:
ALB wrote:…nor should any private association like UAF or the SWP. Nobody or no body should. On the other hand, "lone individuals" should be free to express their point of view without punishment or retribution.I find it inconsistent. Why should a 'lone individual' decide for themself whether their 'view' is socially acceptable or not?What if the individual persuades another 'lone individual' of their 'view', and they both argue it?Do these two now constitute a 'private association' (in effect, a tiny UAF or SWP)?I can imagine an argument being put forward that, as long as the views are 'non-political', then they should be allowed to determine their freedom to hold (and thus speak them and thus propagate them) their 'own' views.But, once again, 'who determines' "non-political"?For example, during the 1970s, the organisation PIE was formed, from 'individuals' holding views that many think should be banned. They could argue that their views are 'personal views', and ask why shouldn't they be allowed to disseminate and persuade others of those views.Clearly, PIE is an emotive case, but it serves as an illustration of the need to address social and historical context when discussing 'No Platform' and 'No 'No Platform''.
ALB wrote:I know you can come back and argue that a majority has first to determine that no decision can be taken "abridging the freedom of speech" and that it is by virtue of this decision that individuals can express themselves freely (as opposed to some inalienable right of individuals to free speech). I hope you do.Yes, I agree that it is a decision of a majority to determine the extent of 'freedom of speech'.I'm in favour, as I'm sure you and all other comrades are, of as much freedom of speech as possible. But, also as you say, this is not on the basis of the bourgeois ideology of 'some inalienable right of individuals', but on the basis of a majority committed to a 'freedom of speech' which they determine the extent of and can limit.I think a social majority is a better judge of 'as possible', 'extents' and 'limits', than are 'lone individuals'.As I've said before, fear of 'democratic mandates' or 'majority backing' is rooted in our experience of bourgeois society, and its underlying ideology of 'the fear of the mob', itself rooted in the 'inalienable right to property'.This 'ideological fear' can only be overcome by the democratic practices of a class conscious proletariat as we develop ourselves, in the process of building towards socialism.
Vin wrote:Lbird. I appreciated you not raising the issue of which scientific method we should use to determine 'truth' as it may go off topic a bit.No problems! Have a happy thread!
Vin, I'd just like to say that I think you are posing some very important questions, about the nature of 'democracy', 'science' and 'experts'.I know you won't thank me for any contribution I make, so I'll leave this thread alone; but I can't avoid saying that I consider your questions to be vitally important for workers, aiming to build for socialism.
ALB wrote:It's about whether anyone should determine…Well, if no social body 'determines', then each individual will 'determine'.To pretend 'whether anyone', is to answer 'each lone individual should'.I've long suspected that there is an undertone of 'liberal individualism' on this site, often made evident by posters opposed to my 'Democratic Science' views.Put simply, I think 'democracy' should determine, whereas you think 'individuals' should determine.There is no 'non-determination' for the social animals that we are.
Are there only two positions:1. No Platform; or2. No 'No Platform'.?Surely within any society there are always going to be some views that that society will insist has 'No Platform' within it?Isn't the real issue 'who determines' what counts as a view that should be given a platform, and one that shouldn't?That any view has historical and social roots, and that what is allowed a 'Platform' in one period, perhaps isn't in another, and vice versa?I'm in favour of neither 'No Platform' or 'No 'No Platform'' in the abstract; I can see grey areas and contexts, that need discussing, and voting upon.I can see why some societies would ban 'Mein Kampf', and why some wouldn't. I've read it, and regard it as laughable, but I can see why the symbolic importance of a ban of Nazi works could be justified, in a society which is coming under pressure from Nazis, who are organising and attacking working class people.To me, the real issue is 'who determines a ban?'. The problem with the 'No Platform' brigade is usually that they are not democrats, they are Leninists/Maoists etc.
Dave B wrote:how do you put stuff in quote boxes????????Just replace the first and last curly bracket, below, with corresponding square brackets:{quote=Dave B]how do you put stuff in quote boxes????????[/quote}and it comes out as at the top.
Vin wrote:If socialism/communism as defined by the Socialist Party were to be established, in what way would an elite gain an advantage and what would that advantage be? How would an 'elite' gain anything.Will there be groups with conflicting economic interests in 'democratic communism'?Not 'economic determinism' as well, to add to our other travails?
Is there anybody reading this thread, either party members or not, who approach issues regarding science from the perspective of class analysis?Or is everybody else 'individualist' in orientation?Frankly, it seems pointless me going on, if there is no-one else who is looking at science from a class perspective.I'm quite happy to leave the SPGB to discuss science from YMS and robbo's perspective, if that's the basic view being taken.Perhaps it's me on the wrong site, because I think I have very little in common with other posters, from a political perspective.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Ah, so, Lbird, you don't think that people who don't work should have any say in the scientific process?You're starting to baffle me now, YMS.I'm not talking about 'individuals' who do, or do not, work.I'm talking about a socio-economic class, proletarians, who sell their labour to exploiters.My political ideology doesn't recognise a category of 'people who work' or 'people who don't work', which is an individualist way of understanding and categorising 'individuals' by their 'personal activity'.My political ideology recognises two opposed categories, 'exploiters' and 'exploited' (or, 'bosses' and 'workers'). These are social, not individual, categories. They are determined by relationships between them, as social groups, especially the exploitation of one by another.You still don't seem to recognise that we have differing ideologies, YMS.Why you don't seem to be able to recognise this ideological and political difference between us, I don't know.
YMS wrote:…I see democracy as being the concrete individuals…Yes, I know, YMS.And 'I see' democracy as 'workers power'.If we're talking about 'science', I'm talking about 'workers' power' and you're talking about 'individuals'.I keep pointing this out, but you don't seem to acknowledge it.We have different ideological approaches to science.I'm a Democratic Communist, and you're a… ?
Vin wrote:This thread has become littered with personal off topic attacksIt's certainly littered with a party that seems to know nothing about politics whatsoever.Even basic ideology.No wonder no-one will answer the simple question 'what political ideology do you use to understand 'science'?'And this on a thread titled 'Science for Communists?'.
YMS wrote:Free association = democracy, no free association, no democracy.I've done my best many times to point out to you, YMS, that the defining of the term 'democracy' is an ideological act.We define 'democracy' differently, because we hold to different ideological beliefs.If you want to define 'democracy' as 'free association', fine, but then openly say what ideology holds that to be the definition of 'democracy'. It's a liberal/libertarian/individualist definition of 'democracy'. It focusses on 'freedom' and 'individuals'.I define 'democracy' as 'the power of the political community'. This is the Greek meaning of the term 'democracy': 'demos' is a self-defined political community (thus, in Classical Athens, the 'political community' defined itself as 'free Athenian men'; this 'democracy' did not include slaves, women or aliens (metics)); 'kratos' means 'power'.Communists define the 'political community' to be, neither 'individuals' (an ahistoric and asocial category) nor 'free' citizens, but 'the direct producers within a capitalist society: ie. 'workers'. So, no 'bosses' ('individuals' or not) or the 'free' (as Marx says, we're not 'free' from nature), but WORKERS.So, 'democracy', for a Communist, is 'workers deciding, as a collective'.In contrast, for a libertarian, 'democracy' is 'free association'.Are you catching on, yet? Political ideology is inescapable within 'democracy' and 'science'.Why are you avoiding declaring your political ideology?I clearly state that I want to see workers' democratic control of the means of production, Communism.You don't. But you're hiding it, from us, and perhaps yourself.
