[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

However, knowing you,  I will be waiting till the cows come home.  And to think I was once sympathetic to you on this forum.  Well, you've sure shown yourself to me in your true colours, haven't you sunshine?

Mooo….

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I doubt we could do without the mathematics, though.

Yeah, makes you wonder why I suggested getting rid of mathematics.Bit like Morton, when he recommended getting rid of Latin and all human culture, eh?Communists, eh? They plan to destroy all learning, don'cha know?

YMS wrote:

I believe your Mengele example, aside from being ad absurdam is a category error.  He is not an example of scientific thinking (or scientific thought) but a question of research ethics (and power).

That's just plain bollocks, YMS. Mengele was a well-educated scientist, who retained his links to the research department of his university, and supplied results to his mentor, a respected professor whose name you can look up.

YMS wrote:

In a society without an armed central power, his sort become an imjpossibility, and any science that exists will be on the same vo,untary free associating basis that all social activity is undertaken with.

So, no democratic control by workers, then? Just an 'voluntary, free' individualist paradise (tm. Bourgeois Productions, 1600-1900).Why don't you just plainly say that the means of production will not be under democratic control, in your version of 'socialism', YMS?You're confusing other comrades who have enough difficulty with this subject, already.

[LBird]

'Inference', eh? As I said, robbo, yours, not mine.As for the 'Mengele jibe' (actually a philosophical explanation), it explains why the notion of 'anyone anywhere, without controls' argument is, well, to use your terminology, 'idiotic'.You made the argument, not me. Idiot, QED.

[LBird]

By coincidence, between bouts of wasting my time with this site, I’ve been reading up on the relationship between the Tudors and the developing bourgeoisie, and happened upon this little historical and social indicator.

A L Morton, A Peoples History of England, p. 181, wrote:

One innovation did have an immense though delayed effect. This was the publication of an English version of the Bible. Once the Bible was common property and not a book in an unknown tongue available only to the priests, the key to the mysteries lay in the hands of any man who could read… it was a veritable revolutionists’ handbook, making the priestly monopoly of grace forever untenable.

If we supporters of workers’ democratic control of the means of production (OK, just me) replace ‘Bible’ with ‘research papers’, ‘Latin’ (the ‘unknown tongue’, for those ‘individualists’ here who have no knowledge of history) with ‘maths’, and ‘priests’ with ‘scientists’, and ‘grace’ with ‘physics’, this might give us Communists some indictors of ‘how’ the claims of ‘string theory’ might be available to most workers, for their consideration and determination.But then, this is to stray into the realms of ‘how’, when most here won’t even countenance the ‘who’ not being the priestly Latin-reading elite.So, we’d have:

LBird, A Beastly History of Physics, p. 666, wrote:

One innovation did have an immense though delayed effect. This was the publication of an English version of the research papers. Once the research papers were common property and not a book in an unknown tongue [ie. mathematics] available only to the elite scientists, the key to the mysteries lay in the hands of any [hu]man who could read… it was a veritable revolutionists’ handbook, making the scientific monopoly of physics forever untenable.

‘Revolutionists’, eh? Whatever happened to that way of thinking?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…a version of "communism" that made it "mandatory" for workers to vote…

Where did you get this gem from? It isn't anything that I've written, so you must be arguing with your own demons.

robbo203 wrote:

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

Yes, your own demon.

robbo203 wrote:

You have seriously gone down in my estimation,  LBird.  I never thought you would sink so low as to resort to tactics such as this.

Yeah, 'workers can deal with string theory' – foul tactic, according to 'elitist robbo'.Oh shit, more 'low tactics'…

robbo203 wrote:

I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate.

But you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?Your 'anyone' sounds like a synonym for 'individuals'.Curiouser and curiouser.No class analysis, or democratic controls – or social or historical analysis of 'science' as it has developed today, just a rant about 'barriers to anyone whatsoever'.Presumably Mengele gets to do live twin experiments, on your personal planet of 'no barriers or obstacles to anyone whatsoever'.So, 'Mengele, Yes', but, by christ, 'Workers, No!''Sinking low' is my speciality with those opposed to workers' democracy and their control of the entire means of production.I'm a Communist, funnily enough. In a sea of 'individualists', it seems. Say hello to Young Master Smeet for me, robbo.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

This generalist approach to our listening skills  means we only pick up those bits of conversation which relate to our everyday affairs and we tend to  leave the nuances and niche details to the specialists.  And with the majority of humanity being composed of generalists and not specialists we tend to switch off when a specialist subject is intoduced to the conversation and comes under scrutiny

There's a political ideology struggling to make itself heard within that approach, Brian, and I wouldn't recognise it as anything to do with Socialism. Or, indeed, democracy.

[LBird]

LBird in effect wrote:

I take seriously the beliefs that workers should control the means of production, and that that control should be democratic.

robbo203 wrote:

I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nail

Evidently you're in the vast majority here, robbo, and I seem to be in a minority of one.The very idea of 'string theory' being dealt with by workers, eh? Outrageous! They'll be too busy sweeping the streets, and other 'proletarian' activities. We [never specified] are certainly never going to let them anywhere near the nuclear research facilities!We seem to have very different interpretations of the meaning of 'the means of production'.To me, that includes 'string theory'.Wacky idea, eh?I wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?And ajj still seems to think that there's room for me in the SPGB.

[LBird]

Well, I've tried to help you develop, robbo.It's up to you now. You clearly think that you don't need my help.Ignorance and outrage are common bedfellows.

[LBird]

After some consideration, I feel obliged to give you some well-meant advice, robbo!Forget (for now, at least) about your 'problem' about '7 billion voting on string theory', and focus on the issue of 'if not the proletariat, who?'.The knub of the issue is 'who? or what?', rather than, once we've identified a 'who' (or a 'what'), then turning to 'how' that specified 'who or what' can implement their power to decide.For example, we could decide that a 'who', like 'scientists', or a 'what', like 'matter', are the 'decider' of 'truth'. That's logically prior to 'how' scientists or matter go about determining truth.In my case, I think that the 'decider' should be 'society', as a whole (clearly, I mean within socialism, when there will be no classes, but, during the build-up to revolution in bourgeois society, it must be the 'proletariat' who are regarded as the 'decider', because that stance would prefigure our belief that the working class must take control of the means of production, and abolish classes).If you toss that problem around, and identify what you consider the best 'decider', we can compare notes. You have the advantage of already knowing my 'decider': 'the whole of society'. If you disagree with me, fine, but specify your 'decider', and we'll explore that.[edit – cross-posting]

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Christ, there I was actually starting out rather sympathetic to much of what you were saying (I still am).  You sure have a knack of alienating your sympathisers, LBird, you sure do….

I started to write a longer post, robbo, but on reflection I think that it's probably best left there. You'd probably be better reading some books or something, because I can tell when I'm beaten!

[LBird]

What was I saying about 'cloth-ears', alan?robbo, can you explain once again to Vin – mind you, if even a quote from Marx the first time didn't have any effect…

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

I think your frustration is getting to you, LBirdThere is always a little boy in the back of the class-room who doesn't understand or follow what the teacher says and therefore doesn't pay attention, stares out the window instead, doodles, pulls funny faces…a good teacher doesn't ignore or condemn that boy..but, as you often said before, instead seeks out better ways to communicate and convey the message, to reach the boy……the failing is yours…and you have conceded that in the past.

Yes, it is, and yes, I have, haven't I? My apologies.But sometimes we just have to realise that the 'little boy' just isn't interested in learning, and no teacher can make them so.

ajj wrote:

It isn't perfect but the only way we have and for all its weaknesses, the SPGB is best of the bunch.

Perhaps I might have hoped that, 18 months ago, but I'm far less certain, now. As you said yourself, my peculiar, nay perverse, focus on workers' democracy seems to be discomforting most, if not all. And my outrageous attacks on 'materialism' has shades of heresy, to some quarters.

ajj wrote:

You may have one bit of the solution on how to shape the world into something more worthwhile but the means to make it practical is still missing from your formula…The individualism is your problem…you won't join together with others to make change.

It's a case of 'been there, done that', alan. Union rep, arguing with police on picket lines, ANL activity…Even joined the SWP. I soon found out that they weren't prepared to listen. It's a funny thing, that all so-called 'workers parties' say they want workers to join, and workers must be the active element in social change.But when self-confident workers, who're used to arguing with bosses and all authority, and thinking for themselves, finally make the ideological jump to 'the need for a revolution', and political organisation, actually join, they find that the so-called workers' party just won't listen to them. The parties seem to think that they're there to teach workers and tell them 'what's what', and don't realise that the boot is (or should be, according to the party's ideals) on the other foot, and the party is there to learn from and obey the workers who join.So, I'm keen to to find a crowd who are ready to listen and learn, but I'm always disappointed. The funny thing is, it turns out these workers' parties are more like religious sects – try criticising Marx's terribly unclear texts (which, for the most part, might as well be written by a random word generator – a Martian one, with the verbal shits) or Engels' schizophrenic meaderings, which say two different things on following pages. And if the matter-god 'materialists' hear you raise a word against physics – why, you're a destructive hooligan, out to destroy civilisation, the Enlightenment, and all human thinking! Kill the heretic! Burn the witch!Frankly, I have more educated and critical discussions with my relatives and friends in the pub, than I've ever had with a 'party-member' of any sect. It's only the ex-members who have something to offer – I've known loads of ex-SWP, Militant, RCP, WRP, Workers' Power, even CP(!), who after they've left, suddenly start to critically think and discuss with fellow workers, in an open-minded manner.My experiences on this site, unfortunately, have bolstered my previous experiences, both online (LibCom, ICC) and cadre-priests. Democracy carries many fears for them all. Fear of the mob, I think. They don't really mean workers to control the means of production. That's just a line.It's a funny old world, isn't it? When workers see workers' parties as part of the problem?When will they listen to workers? The cloth-ears here are in great evidence.

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

Not really the point i was trying to make on election vote loser, LBird.

I'm sure it wasn't!Perhaps you didn't really get the point, in the first place?

ajj wrote:

More that it would re-confirm the abstract nature of socialism of how many angels dance on a pin-head rather than its practical application.

This characterisation of a debate about one of the central pillars of bourgeois ideology (along with 'free markets and money' and 'individualism', 'scientists as non-political, non-ideological truth-producers, who can give us a neutral opinion') says more about your political failures than mine.If you don't understand it, fair enough. If you can't be arsed to read up on it, fair enough. If you have no interest in it whatsoever, fair enough. You can still be a better comrade than me.But to regard your individual characteristics as defining something as so 'abstract' as to be tantamount to discussing 'angels dancing on a pinhead', is a massive political mistake, in my opinion.When most workers question 'individualism', 'markets and money' and 'science', we'll know that we're on our way. Until then, any attempt to fudge any of those three will throw up even more problems in the future.Unless you're about to jettison all 'abstract' talk of 'socialism' and argue for anarcho-capitalism, freedom for bosses, and their constant companion 'neutral science'?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

See, where I'd say a woman on her own on an island thinking about stars is engaged in social production of science (or art) and you're model seems insufficient and to exclude vaste swathes of social effort.  Society is wherever people are.    You stand for the undemocratic curtailment of thought and the production of ideas, whereas I am for communal production.  You would have us serve under King nose count, whereas I am for practical democracy of co-operating human beings.

As I said, the views of a liberal individualist.No historical or social context to the analysis, hippie-like 'nice thoughts' ('society is wherever people are'), no focus on the class struggle linking all workers of any sex, and, yet again, the identification of 'democracy' with 'individual freedom'. The use of the 'cuddly' term 'communal', rather than the hard-nosed, anti-bourgeois, death-to-the-property-owners 'Communist', and a suspicion of 'nose-counting' (read: "fear of the mob", always a concern for liberals and their own right to 'stuff'), and an emphasis on reasonable 'practical democracy' (read: no scuffs voting on my manor) and 'human beings', rather than destruction of the rich as a class.Your going to get a shock, YMS. You're playing with revolutionary fire, without any recognition of its dangers. For the 'anti-democratic liberal', that is.

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

…you'd definitely lose us votes if you raised the questions raised here at an election meeting..

Yeah, my opinions are for class conscious Communists.If the vast majority dislike my revolutionary views, it's an indicator that we're a long way from any widespread, and necessary, consciousness.I don't agree with the reformist method of pretending to believe in something one doesn't.I want to see the end of elite control of all human production, and the institution of democratic controls.Even most here don't want that. So, yes, I'd lose votes for any reformist party…

[Author]

Posts