[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts