[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I'm not saying that this is what you are actually suggesting LBird but it could be interpreted in that way.   Which is why I suggest you need to clarify what you mean by "democratically controlling the production of scientific knowledge".

Yes, I DO MEAN what you've suggested I might mean.I can't be any clearer.The production of 'scientific knowledge' (and 'truth'), whether by astrophysicists or ANY other form of 'scientist', involves social decisions, which are intertwined with politics and ethics.So, the determination of what is 'science', or 'scientific', or 'knowledge' or 'truth' (and any other term you might like to use about anything produced by humans) must be under human collective control, employing democratic methods.For those having difficulty with the term 'worker', in present capitalist society whilst we're attempting to build prefiguratively for socialism 'human collective control' means 'the working class'. When we've achieved communism, and there are no longer classes (bosses or workers, speaking strictly), 'human collective control' means 'all of society'.Personally, I'd just use the short form 'worker', but this seems to cause some trouble, especially for poor Vin.Perhaps 'producer democracy' is better?I don't know, but the question still stands, 'if the producers aren't to democratically control the production of scientific knowledge, who should, and how?'.Put simply, this is a question of 'power' and 'authority'.I'm not impressed with the responses of the SPGB (or lack thereof), so far.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Once again you are confusing the discussion by stating there will be a working class in a classless society.

Why this red herring keeps coming up baffles me.If I say 'humans', referring to a Communist society, the latter is ignored, and it's pointed out that we live in a class society.If I say 'workers', referring to present society, the latter is ignored, and it's pointed out that workers won't exist in a Communist society.This has happened a number of times, and I've pointed it out before.I'm starting to think that this is a method being consciously used to avoid answering the question 'who controls production, if not a democratic vote?'.Do I really have to use a clunky phrase, like 'humans who used to be workers previously', to avoid confusion?As I said, I think this 'query' is now being used to avoid answering a political question, by the SPGB, because several comrades have posed this question.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

 However, the disagreement is over the decision making process itself with you strongly resisting any suggestion that by default this method will need to be adapatable and flexible to the conditions, the circumstances and to the tools at hand in order for it to be effective.

Brian, if a worker asked the question of the SPGB 'Will workers democratically control factories after the socialist revolution?', would you give the above answer?Because to me, any party that suggested that democracy wasn't necessarily the correct political method, and that workers would 'need to be adaptable and flexible to the conditions, etc.', would be a party that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the workers, and would go on to suggest 'party control', or the 'need for experts to make decisions', or a 'professional cadre' or a 'central committee'.Can you see my problem?

Brian wrote:

Its you whose making this thread controversial by arguing – like Robbo pointed out – that one size fits all and in the process forgetting that democracy can not be imposed and neither can the actual form of the decision making process be made to order when we are unaware of what the conditions, circumstances or the tools which will be available in a communist society.

I don't know how a worker arguing for workers' democracy in all aspects of production is being 'controversial'.If you or Robbo think that, then can either of you give your 'uncontroversial' method for workers' control, that does not involve democracy?I think that the ball is in the court of those who suggest that 'democracy might not always be the best method' to give some indication of what they do consider to be a workable alternative. I've given some above, but I consider them to be Leninist methods, and so I would reject them, because I'm a Democratic Communist, and I think workers democracy is the only alternative, and think that that should be said from the outset by any party wishing to attract class conscious workers.

[LBird]

Can't you go back to your mud pies, and leave the philosophy to the grown-ups?

[LBird]

I see you've reverted to idiocy, Vin. No surprise there, I suppose.Any attempt to treat you with respect and engage in a sensible conversation is doomed to failure.I'm not sure what effect you're trying to produce regarding the ability of the SPGB to answer simple questions.Oh, yeah, and since you don't think workers' democracy is the essence of Communism, I do think that you're a Leninist.A Leninist is someone who thinks workers shouldn't control their society, and that the power to do so should be in the hands of an elite.You believe the production of truth should be in the hands of an elite.What's laughable, though, is that you don't even comprehend the seriousness of these discussions.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.

 That is because you believe that there will be 'class conscious workers' in a classless communist society. No wonder your arguments are confusing. You have a completely different view of communism/socialism than I have. Your idea of communism/socialism is closer to the left wing.To answer your question : there will be no class control of science because there will be no classes. 

So, who will control science?If we're talking about a classless Communist society, everybody will determine 'science' by democratic methods. That is, 'truth' and the production of scientific knowledge will be determined by a vote.If you disagree with this democratic method, Vin, you'll have to specify 'who' (which elite) and 'how' (what political method they'll use) 'truth' will be produced.I'm a Communist because I'm a democrat and a worker, and I want to see a society in which workers democratically control the means of production. That necessarily includes science and truth.Can you spell out what you mean by socialism and its relation to science and truth?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers 

 This is absolute nonsense. 

That's an arguable point of view, Vin.But then, if one argues that it is nonsense that class conscious workers should control the production of scientific knowledge, that leaves the problem of just who should have this power.Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…but also from scientific freedom to experiement and utilise the technology before them.

I know from our ongoing discussions, YMS, that you're not a democrat regarding these issues, but, given what I've asked earlier of Brian, about my assumptions that the basis of socialism is class conscious workers making production decisions by democratic methods, my question still stands.Who (or what) determines the extents of 'scientific freedom' and the proper 'utilisation of technology'?Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers (and these methods must be argued for by the workers movement within this society, as we go forward, because the methods argued for now will prefigure those of a future socialist society).If you disagree, it is in your court to tell us who determines these issues, and by what methods.Neither you nor anyone else who disagrees with my view, that 'workers must democratically control the production of scientific knowledge', ever answers that political question.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Take his advice and have a look at his past posts, you will see what I mean.

For once, I can concur with every word of a statement of Vin's.

[LBird]

Since your post concerns me the most, Brian, I’ve decided to give a further response, after more consideration. You said:

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.

My assumptions are that, as socialists, we all already agree that socialism involves four things:Workers;Class consciousness;Democracy;Production.That is, socialism would involve an already developed proletarian movement, that was self-conscious of itself as a class, and was employing democratic methods of decision-making within all areas of the production of goods/services/power/authority/legitimacy/knowledge.As a corollary, there would be no elite/bosses/experts other than as class-conscious workers, there would be no consciousness outside of workers control (religion, god, for eg.), there would be no decision-making by elites/bosses/experts other than as class conscious workers, and the production of anything social (including knowledge, truth) would be by class conscious workers. Finally, all these production decisions would be democratic.To me, that would be Communism (or socialism, as the SPGB has it).Hence, for me, any discussions about the ‘future’, regarding anything whatsoever about any prospective Communism/Socialism, would inherently involve class conscious workers employing democratic methods of production.If you really believe that…

Brian wrote:

No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

…then I don’t think that we’re talking about the same meaning of ‘socialist’, Brian. If the other comrades here fundamentally reject my positions outlined above, regarding socialism, no wonder we’re having so much trouble about ‘Science for Communists?’.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

Arguing now for democracy in the future, is hardly a 'blueprint'.I'd've thought that the notion that 'a Communist scientific method should be democratic' would've been the least controversial thing that I could argue, amongst comrades who're in a democratic party, but it seems to actually be the source of profound disagreement.Whilst 'no socialist agrees with that method of thinking', that is, 'democratic method', then I think we can start to grasp why 130 years after Marx's death, the socialist movement has such little purchase amongst workers.Property is safe from the grubby hands of the workers, whilst such anti-democratic sentiment is agreed amongst 'socialists' who have 'science' on their side.Well, Brian, you'll have to stick with science, as you know it. Good luck.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Some of the points you make, LBird, strike me as being pretty sound and spot on; others I'm not too sure about.  It perhaps with regard to the latter that much of the confusion and subsequent backbiting has arisen.

Thanks for your considered questioning, robbo.I'm afraid I'm just going to have to settle for the result of you thinking that some of what I say as being 'pretty sound and spot on'. The rest, that you're not sure about (ie. the 'democracy' bit), I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave for you to investigate elsewhere, and with other contributors.I haven't got the heart any longer to carry on, having to argue the benefits of 'democracy' with comrades.My sincere apologies for not responding at greater length, robbo, but perhaps a re-read by you of the many threads and hundreds of posts that I've already made regarding these issues will, upon a second reading, make more sense. If not, it seems pointless me merely repeating myself to those who already have fears regarding 'democratic controls'.Neither property, money nor matter can be allowed to come under democratic control, it seems. A profound fear of democracy is rife in our society, not surprisingly, and it seems that that 'ruling class idea' affects even good comrades.If this fear affects even the SPGB, well known as the most truly democratic of the so-called 'workers' parties', then I'm beaten.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

You have alleged I am a 'Leninist', 'materialist', undemocratic and unreasonable.

Yes, and you've proved those allegations, by your theory and practice.

Vin wrote:

And all because I asked what ideology you were adopting. Which is a question you ask of everyone.

The difference being, that I answer willingly about my Democratic Communism, whereas you avoid all mention of your 'Leninist, materialist, undemocratic, unreasoning'.

Vin wrote:

I don't think you will get many takers.

That says more about the SPGB's inability to discuss science and Communism, rather than my attempt to link proletarian democracy and scientific method. The SPGB seems only able to provide your witless irritations.Keep them up, Vin, and I'll accept defeat pretty soon, and I'll go for the terminal ban. It's the SPGB's loss, not mine.

[LBird]

Is there anyone out there in the SPGB that does reasonable discussion?Vin, I'm afraid, is just 'ban-bait'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

If any comrades post, and don't appear to share my 'ideology', the first thing that I'll do is to ask them what ideology they are employing.

 What ideology are you employing?  

You've asked this before, Vin, and I've always replied, so why you're pretending that you don't know is a reason that other comrades must ascertain for themselves.My ideology is 'Democratic Communism', which applies to all human social productive activities, including 'science'.Thus, all scientific knowledge or 'truth' must be subject to society's vote. The only form of society that can implement this democratic control is a Communist society.You appear to be baffled by the very notion of 'democratic control', Vin. Is this bafflement the source of your repeated question?Or are you a 'materialist', and have an access to 'matter' that the rest of us workers don't share? Otherwise, why would you oppose 'democratic production of scientific knowledge'?You keep saying that you're not a Leninist, and yet you deny democracy to workers in their production of scientific knowledge.

[Author]

Posts