[LBird]

Robbo, you say you agree with most (nearly everything?) that I say, and yet the bit that you don't understand you accuse me of using 'smear tactics'.You (and the others) have the problem. Youse don't understand.When I first tried to engage in these issues, 18 months ago, I started by discussing ontology, epistemology, the subject-object-knowledge triad, with quotes from Communists like Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Dietzgen, and philosophers of science like Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos, commentators like Schaff and Chalmers. Since then, on the recommendation of comrades here, I've read Kolakowski, Untermann, Bogdanov, and off my own back Labriola, Lukacs, Korsch and Gramsci. Believe me, that's just a fraction of the books that I've bought and read in the last 18 months (Murray, Hook, Avineri, Lichtheim, Schimdt, Carver, Ball, Sohn-Rethel are just a few of the others).Oh, yeah, Rovelli. And others. And more.Whereas, from what I can tell from the ill-informed responses throughout that period, no-one else has read a single book. Certainly, no-one is critically reading the ones I've recommended and then critically discussing them. The single partial exception that I'm aware of is twc, who had a look at Schaff, but then, disappointingly, refused to discuss it. twc does long pronouncements which must not be queried, unfortunately, rather than discussion.So, why I am listing these books? From my ego? Trying to impress?No, simply because I'm trying to help, to help comrades actually avoid much of the reading (lots of it is simply wrong, from a Democratic Communist perspective). But apparently, you and the others don't need my help, because you all already know the answers, and argue with me constantly from a position of abject ignorance.You want 'smear tactics', robbo? I haven't started them, yet.Now, if you're fed up with simple answers, fine, let's get back to the subject-object-knowledge triad, and perhaps Kant, but you're going to have to read and discuss, both critically. Especially about Engels and 'materialism', which is nothing to do with Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (which retains the subject-object relationship, unlike physicalism, for example, the modern form of 'materialism').Some comrades have actually admitted that they've never read Marx, and prefer Engels, because they can understand Engels! The fact that Engels is totally confused, and thus confusing to readers, doesn't seem to bother them. Some others haven't even read Engels,  and just take their ideas from either 'materialism' (read: Leninism) or from bourgeois thinkers, without any critical distance!So, robbo, you can either start to look at the questions being posed (take a look at the Rovelli quote, above), or remain in the dark.On a final note of conciliation, surely your socialist intuition tells you that there must be something to a viewpoint that argues for workers' democracy, and is being combatted by arguments that deny democracy and stress 'expert' decision-making?In some ways, it's a simple choice: who determines human knowledge (and ethics and truth)? An elite, or our whole society, by voting?The whole tone of the SPGB response has been elitist and anti-democratic. What do you all think a revolution is going to look like?Do you really think physics (and all science) will be untouched by the earth-shattering events of a proletarian revolution, where workers take control of the production of this planet?I'm seriously beginning to wonder just how far the 'parliamentary road' has affected the party's thinking. As a measure of 'temperature-taking', I can see the argument for contesting bourgeois elections. But you don't seriously think that power will reside in parliament, do you? The only purpose for this method is the end of 'parliamentary suicide'.I think you should name your strategy just that, to clarify for those who accuse the SPGB of thinking that election to parliament is the same as workers' control.The ideological belief in elite science and 'expert truth' seems to me to be read into 'elite and expert parliament'.On my part, I think Workers' Councils will be formed in parallel with the election of an SPGB majority, and the task of the SPGB will be to disband 'elite expert' parliament, and ensure that 'bourgeois legitimacy' is handed over to Workers' Councils, which will be democratically run, and will control science, too. That's the 'means of production', to those who don't seem to see the identity of 'science' with 'production'.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Are you saying that all successful practice must be validated by a vote so it determines what is 'truth' for a socialist society?Is this absolutely necessary in all cases?  If so does this mean all past scientific discoveries will have to be validated by a vote, or do we just take them at face value and thereby presume that the evidental practice is sufficient 'truth' to get on with?  Obviously, we would have to have a vote on that under your theory.

Well, let's look at what at least one practicist physicist says:

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/1594161313So, the short answer to your question, Brian, is 'Yes'.

Brian wrote:

What if society decided via the ballot that a vote is unnecessary where would that leave your theory?  On the other hand if society decided that a vote was necessary on every single scientific discovery would that not stop the clock on any future scientific investigation?  After all until we get to the bottom of this deep philosophical issue and problem it would not be safe to venture any further according to your parameters.Finally, the big if.  What if in the final analysis society democratically determined that not all scientific investigation needs democratic scrutiny?  What happens next?

If you're arguing that is it possible (even likely) that after a world revolution, during which the vast majority of the population of this planet will have come to consciousness of their abilities as humans to control the entire means of production, and will have grown in confidence and will necessarily have developed a great thirst for new knowledge, so that they can control the means of production, that after all this, that they will vote to hand the power to make decisions back to a elite of experts, the same elite of experts that had got the planet into the mess that it was in, and because of which mess we had to build and fight for a revolution…If that happens, then, yes, I agree that society should hand power back to a scientific (and thus political) elite.I'll be voting 'No!', comrades.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…I don't get the impression LBird wants a future without doctors, scientists or engineers…

I can gladly confirm that I think a socialist society should have an endless supply of ever more 'doctors, scientists and engineers'.The productive activities of those 'doctors, scientists and engineers' (and of all the other workers who choose to specialise in whatever area, including physics or sociology, and every discipline inbetween), including any alleged 'truths' that they produce, should be subject to a democratic vote.Thus, society will collectively and democratically determine the ethics, politics and science of that society.I can't see how relying upon experts, when many the experts (like Rovelli or Einstein) are already aware that they are human, just like us, and are products of their society, just like us, is held forth as the basis of socialism.I've made this point too, before, but it doesn't seem to worry most of the SPGB:The religious thinkers are already aware of the shortcomings of the myth of 'objective science', and presently most socialists (who rely, often unspokenly, on 'materialism') are behind (in the sense of trailing behind in their wake) the thinking of the religious.This bothers me, if not the rest of you. The religious are closer to the cutting edge of human thought than we are.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

In an effort to continually confuse the issues and problems it appears you have developed distortion and put downs into a fine art.  I have never suggested or implied that practice becomes before theory.

You've implied that successful 'practice' is the arbiter of the truth of a theory.I've shown that successful practice can result from different theories being applied to the same 'material'. And I've, in the past, given a quote from Einstein to show that his realisation that two different equations can give the same result, and so undermined his belief that by induction that the 'equations' emerged from either the 'material' or 'successful practice', was part of his understanding that the human can't be taken out of decisions about 'truth'.Once we realise that humans musr decide the 'truth' or otherwise of a 'material fact', then we need to realise that this decision about what constitutes a 'fact' or a 'truth' must be democratic. Your belief that 'practice is the deciding factor' is an ideological belief, and wrong.Unless one believes in a society of elite experts, making decisions for us, which is precisely what we have now.  Where's the revolutionary in that?As to 'confusing the issues', I suggest that you look closer to home, and your lack of understanding, rather than my 'distortion and put downs', as the source of your confusion. Try reading some the dozens of references that I've given in the past.

Brian wrote:

You on the other hand seemingly discount the need for practice in all instances, which means its impossible to substantiate the theory.

This is simply nonsense: if I've stressed 'theory and practice' once, I've stressed in a hundred times.Your problem is that you don't understand that 'theory substantiated by practice' does not produce 'The Truth'. Many different theories can result in success when applied to the same practical situation. Humans have to decide between potentially numerous 'true results'. This can either be the decision of 'experts' or of 'society'. As a Democratic Communist, I think society should decide, using demcratic methods. As a supporter of bourgeois science (which you don't recognise, because you believe the bourgeois myth that 'science produces the truth by a neutral method), you think scientific experts should make the decisions. How this can be seen as 'revolutionary science', I don't know. Probably, you'll poo-poo the notion of 'revolutionary science', and think that socialism will carry on is the same old bourgeois way.

Brian wrote:

Neither have I ever suggested or implied that the democratic method and the decision making process is not in the hands of the community as a whole.  Indeed its impossible to isolate the community from Direct Participatory Democracy in a socialist society.

You keep saying 'practice' determines 'truth'. Successful practice can be done by individuals or an elite, and thus a vote is not required.I keep saying 'voting' determines 'truth'. Successful practice requires to be validated by a vote, and thus can't be determined by either individuals or an elite. Society must determine what counts as 'truth', not simple 'successful practice'.If you agree, why not just say 'truth depends upon vote'?

Brian wrote:

Nevertheless, according to your 'theory' this amounts to being Leninist claptrap.

Yes, the belief (and it's an ideological belief) that 'experts in science' should determine 'truth' in science, is the root of Leninist politics.If you all have so much faith in elites and experts, whether in physics or astrophysics, how come working physicists say there are massive problems within science? I've given the quote so many times from Rovelli, that you probably know it now by heart.Why will no-one address these philosophical issues that physicists themselves have identified?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism.

Separation of 'ends' from 'means', eh?Where've I heard that discussion previously?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Try to imagine!  How will I and others participate?

I thought I had 'tried to imagine', in my post #1131.Perhaps a bit less 'imagination', eh, Vin, and a bit more 'dealing with the real world'?If you don't have any imagination of how socialism will differ from capitalism (in a much wider sense that just 'economics'), then I'm not sure that I can provide it for you.I'm not sure the slogan "Leave it to the experts! Leave heart surgery to the heart surgeons, leave twin experiments to Dr. Mengele!" will have much purchase upon workers who've learn to ask questions of the so-called 'experts', but perhaps I'm wrong.Ah well, time for my old mum's appointment with the good doctor… Dr. Shipman. You should see his qualifications! Kosher as they come.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird I genuinly  think you don't understand communism. Science will not be controlled by a class conscious working class. You are having difficulty recognising the transient nature of class and class control. How can there be elites in communism. They can only exist in your distorted vision of communism.I take it that  you believe that one day the majority of people will have a deep understanding of physics, string theory, black holes, relativity. Everyone willl be capable of carrying out heart and brain surgery and indeed carry out the research required to do it. They will need a comprehensive knowledge of medicine.  Not only will we all need to be doctors but we will need to have practice at nursing, psychology. Every one will have to have the knowledge to research ALL these subjects AND have the practical experience. Do you really believe that? 

You are misunderstanding me, Vin.I don't know how to discuss these issues more clearly.If you think that I'm saying that every individual will need to do heart surgery, you misunderstand me.These are philosophical issues, and must be addressed at that level.Perhaps if I ask a question, in your terms, that we could be asked by a pro-capitalist:'Do you Communists think that you can all become bank managers, and have perfect access to market knowledge? Why wouldn't you leave decisons about money to financial experts?'I suspect that this won't help, but I'm having a sinking feeling that you'll never grasp what I'm saying, and whilst that might be my fault, not yours, it makes me both sad and start to think democratic socialism is impossible.Perhaps you, YMS and Brian are correct, and it's all best left to the experts.

[LBird]

YMS,I've pointed out before that your political views seem to me to be very similar to those of many of the anarchists on LibCom.That is, the stress is upon individuals, 'free' association and lack of 'compulsion'. AND, the identification of 'democracy' with 'individual freedom'.These are concerns that clearly we are all concerned about, but there are other concerns, which I think Communists place prior to 'individual freedoms' from 'authority'Marx makes it clear that nature imposes the need on humans to produce. This is an unfreedom, a compulsion that does not orginate in society, but in nature.I'm much more likely to stress the slogan "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", and to stress that 'abilities' and 'needs' are socially determined, not 'individual choices' or 'individual rights'.We don't live in a world of 'individuals' (as the bourgeoisie alleged), but in a natural world in which social humans have to organise the necessary production and consumption which nature imposes upon us.I think that democracy, not individual chioce, is the best way to organise social production.Thus, at some points, some individuals will experience unfreedom and compulsion (birth and death?), whatever society we have, even if we could achieve a 'proper' 'free market', that did work for all as individuals.In essence, democracy means social freedom. I want as much personal freedom for you as I have, because that is the best option for us all. But we live in nature and society, and we need to discuss and manage the issues of unfreedom and compulsion.I don't regard Communism as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'free individuals', but as a society that democratically organises all forms of production.At bottom, I see you as a 'Libertarian Communist', as opposed to myself as a 'Democratic Communist'.To me, these philosophical differences express themselves in our debates about science.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Does that mean everyone will need to have full knowledge of string theory, relativity, Brain Surgery, Blood science in fact full knowledge of all science in order to take democratic process in the scientific method?I ask because it would not be informed democracy, most would be voting on subjects they know little about.

I'll take your question at face value, Vin.Your underlying philosophical assumption is that 'most would be voting on subjects they know little about'.Would this be true, in a Communist society? It would certainly be true now, but isn't that a function of our elitist educational system, rather than a 'universal truth' about 'everyone'?Couldn't we set up democratically-controlled social structures to educate, inform, give experience of philosophy and science, and to determine what truth, knowledge, and science actually are?Unless we argue for this approach now, whilst we're attempting to build prefigurative democratic structures for the proletariat, in all areas of society – political, ideological, philosophical, scientific, economic, social, educational, etc., etc. – then we won't find these necessary democratic structures and ways of thinking emerge with 'socialism'.In fact, in my opinion, if we don't produce these necessaries, then 'socialism' will look very like bourgeois society. The experts and elites will determine our world, rather than the organised, class conscious proletariat being the creator of a new world, which will be revolutionised in every way, not simply economically, by the destruction of the market, but by the extension of conscious human activity to all areas of society, including physics.

[LBird]

YMS, I simply don't agree with you on political grounds. I don't recognise your notion of 'socialism' as anything like my view, of the democratic control of production.That's a definition. That's my starting point. The DEMOCRATIC CONTROL of PRODUCTION.Not 'control of production by affinity groups'.We have a philosophical disagreement, and thus you won't agree with my views regarding science and the social production of knowledge.

[LBird]

YMS, why not just give your 'affinity groups' the more resonant political name of 'cadre'?You don't believe that the proletariat should control the means of production by democratic means.You say so now, and you have said so earlier, many times.It's up to other comrades to determine which of us is 'anti-democratic'.

[LBird]

robbo, I wish to acknowledge your post above, but I think that I've covered the points you seem to be trying to make in my reply to Brian.The key point you seem to be asking about is 'practical application'. As I've said before, the issue of 'practice' is an ideological and philosophical issue.Unless you engage with the discussion, at least at first, on that theoretical level, you will not understand the problems with both yours and Brian's stance, from which you ask your questions.If effect, for the purposes of this discussion, it could be considered that there are two frameworks in play.The first starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS NOT necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is not necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.The second starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.The framework one chooses to start from is not an objective choice, but is a socially-determined one.As a Communist, I choose to use the second framework, which I consider appropriate for workers' democracy.The first framework is entirely compatible with bourgeois science and politics, so I warn comrades to be wary of choosing that framework. It is also the framework entirely appropriate for Leninism.The arguments put forward by you and Brian would sound just the same coming from a supporter of capitalism. They, too, start from an assumption that 'democracy is not necessary', and then go on to prove this by reference to 'current practice'. Markets do not require democracy. Money is like Matter, and humans should keep their ideological beliefs in democracy out of the areas which don't concern them. That is the social basis of this ideology: bourgeois society, and its 'ruling class ideas'.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Yes now I can see what your problem is.  You have gone and mixed up the democratic method with the decision making process.  Like Robbo has tried to explain the democratic method comes into force when there's a conflict of interest, particulary over social policy, within the community.  Whereas the decision making process comes into play with the production of human need and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Here, once again, as I point out time after time, is the classic bourgeois ideology of the separation of the 'social' from the 'natural'.In fact, one  could interchange the use of 'democratic' with 'social', and 'decision-making' with 'natural', in the explanation above.According to Marx, this cannot be done. It results in a separation of a group from society, a group which is above society. The Theses on Feuerbach refers.Marx argued for a unified method in science, and, as I never tire of saying, I agree with Marx about this.

Brian wrote:

On the other hand the decision making process is about deciding the most efficient way of producing and distibuting human needs through inputs and outputs – in kind.  For which its unnecessary to have a democratic vote…

[my bold]Here we have the parallel with 'money', as a decider about 'most efficient way' to make decisions, outside of human, social (therefore, democratic) opinions. This is the bourgeois belief that 'efficiency' is not a matter of human judgement, but merely a technical exercise, which is best made by someone/something other than society as a whole (the latter which would imply democratic methods).

Brian wrote:

There will be conflicting opinions and theories on which is the most efficient way of production and distribution but only practice will be the deciding factor on that score.

Once again, we have the ideological belief that 'practice' determines the 'truth', rather than social theory and practice, as Marx argued for.This is nothing other than induction, 'practice and theory',  which has been entirely discounted as a scientific method for approaching 100 years. Humans know that 'knowledge' is a social product, produced by 'theory and practice'. Because we know that different theories applied to the same object (by 'practice') can produce different knowledge, we know that 'practice' cannot be the arbiter of decision-making because one society's practice (on the same nature) produces an notion of 'efficient' that is different to another society's. I've given Einstein's opinion on this issue, referring to physics and its equations.The belief in 'practice' is most closely identified with  American 'Pragmatism', which is an ideology most suited to the history of the development of US society (biological individuals in practice produce the truth, as opposed to Marx's social theory and practice).

Brian wrote:

Nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.  In fact quite the reverse for by putting this discussion into its social context we can basically figure out what will and not work in practice.

'Working in practice' is not sufficient – the geocentric theory of the solar system 'worked in practice' for one society. But we employ a different theory, the heliocentric theory, and so our practice is different. 'Practice' is a social activity, not an objective method for determining 'truth/efficent/objective', etc.In fact, the bourgeois 'wool' has been well-and truly 'pulled over your eyes', Brian.Unless we discuss science and the social production of knowlegde, and be open from the start that this is an ideological subject, in which we should be open about our own ideological perspective from the beginning.I've been trying to do this now, for 18 months. From your post, Brian, it appears that you've either not read or not understood  anything that I've said.Your views in that post are entirely ideological, not simply either 'your opinion' or 'an objective scientific opinion' which you merely reflect.

Brian wrote:

So yes there is a need for the demcratic method to be utilised in some instances, but not in all because the decision making process will suffice for everday production and distribution.

[my bold]This is dangerous talk, in a political sense.Workers should fear any party which implies that someone other than the democratically-organised proletariat will 'decide'. It's the philosophical roots of Leninism.Workers will be left to decide the 'everyday' (ie. unimportant), whilst the real issues of power in society will be in the hands of a smaller elite, expert, group ('scientists', 'cadre', 'priests', 'central committee', Uncle Joe…).

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Personally, I'd just use the short form 'worker', but this seems to cause some trouble, especially for poor Vin. 

You chop and change your argument to hide your ignorance. Come on tell me whaat capitalism is. Tell me what socialism is. Without the put downs . 

Can't the moderator have a quiet word with Vin, who's making no contribution to the discussion?Vin is 'ban-bait'.First warning:  14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

To be fair,  though, LBird may have been using the term "worker" in the sense of someone who works without this implying the existence of economic classes in the Marxian sense and the reference to "class conscious workers" may simply be a slip of  the tonque (or the pen). I'm sure he understands well enough that a communist society would be a classless society. I dont think oine should make a big thing about it, to be honest. Marx himself used the term "worker" in the above sense as well – for instance in his Critique of the Gotha Programme

Don't be taken in by Vin's feigned confusion.It's a mixture of ignorance and a wish to avoid a difficult political question.Thanks, anyway, robbo.

[Author]

Posts