[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'd have thought trust was an essential prerequisite for socialism.

No, 'activity' is an essential prerequisite for socialism.As Marx argues, we must develop the 'active side' in ourselves. That is a social task.Not passive 'trust'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.

This, in reality, means:

Dr. Mengele wrote:

If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.

YMS is arguing for vivisection of pregnant women, or injecting petrol into the eyes of twins.Funnily enough, being a Communist and a democrat, I'm opposed to 'individuals' being able themselves to decide on what they 'research'.'Research' is a social activity, not an individual choice.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

… domination…

This ahistoric and asocial conception is not Communist, but Anarchist.Communism means the domination of individuals.Democracy is the means for ensuring that all individuals have a say in everything that affects them, including science.We should be open about Communism. It is not Individualism.We must have a society that produces individuals, unlike the one we have now, which produces fools who believe myths.Ask any worker who goes to work about 'freedom' and 'individuality' in the workplace. It's a myth.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The freedom to sod off and set up a new Rome is the central underpinning of freedom proper…

This is an individualist conception of 'freedom'.There is no 'new Rome'.'Rome' is our society, the one we have to deal with, the one that produces us.It's a bourgeois myth that society can be rejected, and sought anew.Communism is a collectivist ontology. We have what we inherit from capitalism, and we have to collectively deal with that.'From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs' is our slogan.Not 'Fuck you, I'm alright Jack, I'm off to build my new Rome!'All 'individuals' will support the weak. They won't have the choice to ignore poverty, ignorance or want.If bourgeois individuals don't want to work together with us to produce a better society, then let them support and fight for the capitalists, and the myth of 'individual freedom'.'Freedom' must exist for all humans, not a lucky few. But that task of producing 'freedom' is a social task. And it requires democracy.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

As I understand it LBird is searching for a way to allow a socialist society to control science. As science is another  activity based social resource, it isn't unreasonable for socialists to seek to gain some form of control.The other side of the debate, championed by YMS, sees democratic control as impractical. Trust seems to be the method implied.However trust is not enough in a socialist society, as without checks and balances a scientist could engage in research of a dubious nature, even in a socialist society.It then becomes a case of how do we figure out what checks and balances to use and who gets to decide them.My apologies to both sides if I've got things wrong, this is just my simplified take on things, so please correct me if I've cocked up anywhere.

No, I think you've summed it up quite well, SP!"Do we 'trust' elites?" is as good a way of putting it as any other.If we do, why not 'trust' them with 'production' in its entirety. Why let those mucky, uneducated, ignorant workers have a say?It's not much of a basis for Socialism/Communism, is it? – 'trust', I mean.Trust implies passivity; Communism implies activity.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

That's right, findings are produced by society, by an ongoing debate: there is no final finding, just a succession of opinions.

This is simply not true of human science.There has to be a 'final finding' (in fact, it is always a temporary 'final' finding, but that complication can await the need for agreement about democratic control), because it is this 'final finding' (your term) which is employed by society to change reality in our social practice.We can't argue that the fact that something is useful in our practice is the end of the matter, because we already know that what works according to science in one period, doesn't work in other periods. We understand our practice differently. The 'sun/earth' 'earth/sun' debate is relevant here.

YMS wrote:

There, so, I note Lbird's response to a direct question is a lot of questions. I believe I've answered the pertinent ones.

No, unless you say that "the social findings of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society", then we haven't come to an agreement about the power of the proletariat. We cannot have any elite above us, who pretend to have a neutral method for producing a 'truth' which is not available to the democratic proletariat.

YMS wrote:

So, I'll ask again. How does Lbird see the voting happening? Will everyone gather the data together? Will everyone analyse the data? Will everyone get a turn on the electron microscope?I'd counterpose genuine free association and democracy in action to Lbird's one sided closure of debate, which is simply undemocratic.

This is precisely the debate I've been trying to get to for twelve months! The question of 'HOW does society democratically control its science?'.But to get to that, we must clarify our terms (what does 'society democratically controlling its science' mean?). 'Findings' or not? Once we agree that there is no science outside of our science, they we can proceed (though I think a new thread would be better for this serious question).But once again, you're defining 'democracy' as 'free association'. This is a serious ideological and political problem.'Democracy' refers to society, not individuals.I've told you earlier, that 'free association' is the definition used by the Anarchists on LibCom, and that is not a Communist definition.Sovereignty lies in society, not each individual.That's why democracy is so important, to ensure the link between 'society', a structure, and its component 'individuals'. More Critical Realism, I'm afraid.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…without having a vote on the findings. Your turn.

You're a pseudo-democrat.You won't tell us the supposed neutral method which produces 'findings', which you insist are out of the democratic control of the proletariat.'Findings' are produced by society, and must be under the democratic control of the proletariat.Why not be honest, YMS, about your political ideology?The 'neutral method' is a bourgeois lie. Why do you persist in propagating a bourgeois lie?Is it a conscious attempt to undermine workers' confidence, or are you just ignorant about power?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation:  no-one knows what you mean.  I certainly don’t and I’ve asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.

 Let me hold your hand. “For the fifth time.” “Do you know how big the number five is?  How many fingers do you have on your hand?  Five, yes that’s very good.” “Now, listen carefully.  Are you ready?  …  Good.” “Can you tell me how you know when your shoe laces are tied?” “Do you understand the question?  …  You do.” “Do you think you can you answer it?  …   You think so.” “Now, please begin…”

So, you were born with the concept 'five' in your individual mind, were you, twc?No social input eh? Not the name (which I'd argue is different in other languages) or the concept (which I'd argue that some societies don't even have a concept for), but twc's objective knowledge of 'five', which spoke to him like a burning bush.And no social input to 'tying shoe laces'? No, once again, twc from birth knew already what 'shoes' and 'laces' were, and didn't need to be taught because his own senses told him how to do it!I live in a society which socially produces mathematics and shoes. In fact, society 'cobbles' them together.You are truly the manifestation of the One True God, twc, omniscient from birth, not requiring society or its production.For you, the world 'is', and we should all bow down on bended knee to you and your 'objective world'.Because, you'll tell us what it is, won't you, twc?A follower of Lenin, if I've ever heard one.Or is it his brother, Cretin?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

This is something that no-one ont his thread has said, and I'm sure no one believes.

Oh yes, they do! And so do you.Or will you finally disclose the political ideology you employ to understand the world?No? I thought not.You're either a liar (who  does know their ideology) or ignorant (and don't recognise your ideology).

YMS wrote:

The technical language of science, and the detail of practice is no more than the technical notation used by musicians will the audience vote on the music?).

The audience does vote on music – never heard of the charts? Never been to a record stall/shop and bought a record?To liken the power of music (and it does have power, of course) to the power of nuclear scientists, and claim that we have an identical input to music and physics, is so laughable that even the 'mathematic meatbot' should have thought that one through.You're a fool, YMS. And a dupe of the bourgeoisie.Let's spell it out for you: P O W E R.If that is not in the hands of the democratic proletariat, it'll be in the hands of an elite.But you don't have a problem with that, do you?Be honest with the workers reading this thread, for once.You're not going to allow them to vote on scientific research, are you?Go on, answer a direct question, just once.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…is the vital cornerstone—the foundation principle—of your core “science”. It is the pivot, or fulcrum, on which everything else, including your mentally-repressive socialism, rests. It is not disposable.

The "the vital cornerstone", "the foundation principle", "the pivot, or fulcrum", on which my "core science" and "socialism rests" is the democratic proletariat.Neither you nor anyone else on this thread (SPGB members, SPGB ex-members or non-SPGB posters) can claim this.You're all bamboozled by 19th century positivist science, compounded with Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, and topped by most comrades' ignorance of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts.You all think rocks talk to us. So, you're all compelled to lie to the proletariat, and pretend that you're all arguing for the democratic  control of the economy by the proletariat, that is, Socialism/Communism, when you really already know that you're going to rely on elite experts: Party, Parliament and Physicists.On the contrary, I wish to smash Party, Parliament and Physicists, and build the power of the working class in all those arenas until the working class is in the saddle and with complete class consciousness proceeds to build Socialism/Communism.I can answer questions, with my answers being in the form any worker can understand, whether it's rocks, water, chips, cakes, value or Australian Aborigines tying shoelaces, whereas you all have to bluster, and refuse to answer questions.The truth is, none of you have the slightest clue about the philosophy of science, its interconnections with politics, or how to explain 'value' to workers.And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation: no-one knows what you mean. I certainly don't and I've asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.You should all ask yourselves: "Why am I opposed to democracy in every area of science?"It's simply because you think that physicists have a neutral method which gives them a truth not available to the common mass.They don't have this method, and the contempt you have for ordinary workers' abilities now and potential in the future, means that any notion of Socialism/Communism emerging under your guidance is erroneous.I can't be more forthcoming about the philosophical problems which underpin the SPGB. Your conservative philosophy negates your politics."Vote SPGB: Vote Party, Parliament and Physicists!"……and bollocks to workers.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

twc wrote:

Your whole integrity, and credibility as a socialist, depends on a direct answer—not one that hides behind 5000 year-old Aboriginal culture, which somehow your mother managed to avoid when she transmitted the objectivity of “sensuous” practice you now deny.Your entire intellectual and honourable humanity is at stake. No devious shifts this time.

Hi twcThis is an interesting one. A few times LBird was criticised for challenging party members socialist credentials.I wonder if the same party members will show the same concern now.

[my latter bold] It'd be nice to actually have a discussion with twc, but he'd rather have me condemned as an unbeliever, and burnt at the stake as a heretic.It's always the same with the religious fanatics. There's a few of them here, SP!'Socialist credentials'? My arse!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…merely transforming the marble into a statue, nothing is created…

Michelangelo would be weeping at that.It's the words of a bourgeois, who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing."David: the meatbot view", just about sums it up.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

That's where we differ. I keep saying this, but no-one seems to want to read.Marx argues that humans 'create' something that doesn't already exist.

 Like a bag of chips or a Cake.  I don't think I need Marx to tell me that. 

But you have to have the idea of 'a bag of chips or a cake' prior to creating them.Chips and cakes don't appear from spuds and flour talking to us, and saying, "Go on, dumb human, do as you're told!"That's the method of inductive science, employing individualist senses, and ignoring social factors.I know it's completely ludicrous, but some people listen to that sort of nonsense!Apparently, they do need Marx to tell them that. I've told you, the bourgeoisie are laughing at us.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'll re-iterate that information can only be a transformation of real events…

So, it's not 'created' by humans, then.That's where we differ. I keep saying this, but no-one seems to want to read.Marx argues that humans 'create' something that doesn't already exist.You (and the others) are arguing that humans merely 'transform' something which already exists.This all revolves around the 'active side' of idealism, which Marx praised, in the Theses on Feuerbach.Philosophers, sympathetic to Marx, have pointed out throughout the 20th century that to argue for 'revolution' requires critical and creative thought, because 'what exists' must be criticised (not simply 'taken in for tranformation') and something new must be created.Engels seemed to be completely unaware of the reversion he did, to the 'materialism' of pre-1845, a materialism which provided the philosophical basis for 19th century positivist science, which influenced Engels to the detriment of what he'd learnt from Marx. Elite science leads to elite politics.While socialists/communists look to Engels, 'science' (meaning induction) and individualism (of the biological senses), there won't be any revolution, because a conscious revolution is not possible without critical and creative thought by the entire working class.There'll be social upheavals, of course, but they won't be of the sort that we'd like to see.Most likely the "death camps, gulags and barbarism" sort of upheaval.

[LBird]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

In other words criticism which I think boils down to the usual dividing issues of socialist/communist consciousness, (how it comes about), the role of the Party/revolutionaries in general, and the nature of the revolution to come.

It seems to me it 'boils down to' fundamentally different politics.In effect, they're as different as 'reform' is from 'revolution'.I'm not saying either is reformist, but pointing out that the conceptions you mention are so different as to be unbridgeable.What's the point of attending each others' meetings? Neither side is listening to the other, because their core philosophies mean that they can't.Whatever 'similarities' they share are based upon appearances only – the same words, but totally different meanings.'Class consciousness', 'revolutionary organisation' and 'revolution'. All totally different.

[Author]

Posts