LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?’.
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.
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.
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.
Is there anyone out there in the SPGB that does reasonable discussion?Vin, I'm afraid, is just 'ban-bait'.
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.
Brian wrote:If this is the case how are we going to arrive at a decision on what will be the "scientific method " in a communist society?[my bold]By voting.All decisions affecting society, within a Communist society, must be decisions which are taken democratically.If any comrades disagree with 'democratic methods', it's incumbent upon them to say what 'method' they think should be used by society.It seems to me that there are two choices open to them:a) deny democracy entirely; orb) deny that 'science' is a social activity, and so deny that 'democracy applies in this case'.In my experience, the bourgeois thinkers maintain the latter (often by the separation of physical science from social science, into 'the arts and the sciences'; Marx warns against this, and argues for a unity of scientific method, which is why he can claim Capital as a scientific treatise).Funnily enough, so do those 'socialists' who wish to prevent workers from controlling production themselves: these are the 'Leninists'. For them, their party has access to a 'scientific method' which is outside the understanding of the workers, and so workers can't be allowed to vote on something which is only within the purview of the party.These latter 'Leninists' also go under the name of 'Materialists'. This 'material' can't be allowed to be subject to a vote by workers; the party must tell workers what their 'material conditions' consist of. The workers cannot be allowed to vote on their own understanding of their 'material conditions', because they might disagree with the party, which argues that it has a 'neutral scientific method' ('materialism') which gives the party access to a knowledge that is outside of democratic controls.I've said all this before, though, Brian, and those who disagree with workers' control of scientific knowledge (ie. the 'materialists') will never tell us what their method is.In my opinion, the 'materialists' are still living in the ideological world of the 19th century. They pretend, of course, to be 'non-ideological', as do all conservatives.'Pull the other one', I say.
Brians link wrote:If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that the public is wrong…This is not a universal statement (or a 'truth'), but a statement about the poor educational standards within capitalist society, that we all suffer from, not least because of time constraints. The 'public' is not given the same access to science as are the elite selected as 'scientists'.This would not be true within a Communist society, where science would be a matter of general interest, just like any other productive activity, and all 'opinions on scientific questions' would be democratically-decided 'opinions'.Within Communism, the 'public' can't be 'wrong'. Minority opinions would be subject to 'critical social theory and practice', and then voted upon. Thus, a dissenting 'opinion' would become the 'true public opinion'.Thus, within Communism,
Quote:If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that Mengele is wrong…Socilialist Punk wrote:Within the SPGB there is probably only one area of unanimous agreement, that socialism is a a global, moneyless system of common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by and in the interests of the global community.[my bold]I certainly fall within this 'area of agreement'.I suppose my problem is that, from what I can tell by some arguments made here, I think that some within the SPGB don't.If 'scientific knowledge' doesn't count as part of 'the worlds resources', it must be a gift from the gods.I think humans produce 'truth'.Those who think, like Stanislav, that 'individuals' acting upon nature, rather than society, are the source of wealth, will also see the source of knowledge as 'individuals', rather than society.For if society is the source, it can be democratically controlled.Money equals Matter. A thing outside of society, a substance available to individuals, a neutral judge of the truth of human effort.
Socialist Punk wrote:Another thing, I've seen other forum members post stuff and never engage in discussion. Can any of us say we answer every question, enquiry and criticism put to us?Well, I always engage in discussion, but it seems the SPGB/WSM doesn't do 'discussion' about 'democratic science', if Vin's last thread is anything to go by.I suppose it's just easier to catalogue me with 'Stanislav', for most posters. Not you, though, SP!
It's almost neck-and-neck to that 3rd warning, Vin!But, on my counting, I'm six minutes ahead, so far…Maths, eh?3rd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This poster is suspended for an indefinite period.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:My New Year's resolution is to be nice to you, and not rise to your childish, ill-judged, ignorant outbursts!My new years resolution is to respond in kind to your moronic outbursts. You are a fascist and your aim is to disrupt and prevent intelligent discussion. You are a troll.
Ahhh…. irony… apparently not.2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:My New Year's resolution is to be nice to you, and not rise to your childish, ill-judged, ignorant outbursts!I can see why you get banned you ignorant twat. I wouldn't mind if your posts weren't full of absolute shit.
They're right when they say that humour doesn't translate on the internet, even with my codicil.Looks like I'm being given the opportunity to implement my resolution a day early.Unless Vin is starting to do irony…1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
moderator1 wrote:Reminder: The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.Come on, ref! I never touched 'im!
Vin wrote:northern light wrote:Welcome back LBIRD, (I'll try and sneak this one past the Mod. ….. well it is the season of good will)I like the well timed flamboyant entrance, a bit like this, I feel.https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rick%20mayall's%20flashmanYeah, he was an irritating bugger as well, lol
I take it that's a synonym for 'thought-provoking', Vin?My New Year's resolution is to be nice to you, and not rise to your childish, ill-judged, ignorant outbursts!Damn. It's not even New Year, yet, and I can't get through a sentence.BIG LETTERS: only joking, comrade!
