[LBird]

ALB wrote:

So you are saying that in socialism/communism literally everything (including for instance what people should eat and what they should wear) will in principle be subject to democratic social control and that only a democratic social decision can make exceptions to this? So the sort of "basic law" of society would be: the individual is only free to decide individually what society decides they can. In other words, society decides to grant certain "rights" to individuals rather than the classic Liberal position that it is individuals who grant certain rights ro society (the social contract myth)..The end result would be the same of course: that in practice democratic control would not be applied to everything (eg not to what people should eat or wear), i.e would be widespread not total. There will be limits but they would be self-imposed.

That just about sums it up, ALB.'Self-imposed'. Why lie to ourselves or to others looking to Communism? A political movement that is honest – that'd be a novel experience for workers! Humans inescapably live in society – and we should all control that society and its 'impositions'.The only alternative is that somebody else will do the 'imposing'.Of course, there's always the bourgeois myth of the 'free individual'. But I think we all know where that one goes…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.

Unfortunately it seems no one else shares this opion.

No, they don't do they.Ah well, there you go.

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

Wideranging and disparate discussion is, to my mind, a necessity if we are to come to any conclusions re, "Science for Communists".

I couldn't agree more, steve. Eventually, all disciplines will have to be discussed.The only reason for my focus upon 'physics' is that in every discussion I've ever had about 'science', and I've mentioned chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, history, etc. etc., as a source of explanations or analogies, the response from the bourgeois-brainwashed is always "Ah, but that's not real science!".For those brought up in this society, the only 'science' is 'physics', and they demand that all models or theories pass the test of 'physics', even when the models and theories are really for a different 'science'.So, if Communists are ever going to argue about science, they need to already be aware of this, and be able to tackle the issue head-on, and destroy the ideological notion that 'physics' is the only 'real' science.'Physics' is a human activity, just like 'sociology', which is why I've tried to take this discussion forward on the basis of Marx's desire for a 'unified method', which applies equally to physics and sociology.I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.But first, we've got to get past the 'physicalists' and naive realists, who reject democracy in science.Whilst science is still regarded as an activity not amenable to proletarian democratic control, we're lost. We'll be at the mercy of an elite, who'll pretend to have a 'neutral method'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

And there will no doubt be things that people will be told they cannot do.

As long as this is a democratic decision, that's the way things must be. It's the same for every society.

ALB wrote:

But what you said was that people could be told what to think. That's a different matter altogether.

But this is contradicted by:

ALB wrote:

If all you are saying that people in a socialist society will be brought up and taught to respect certain values and codes of behaviour, fair enough, of course.

To me, 'brought up and taught' 'values and behaviour' involves 'telling people what to think'. All societies do this, and I think we should be honest with ourselves (and to me our 'social consciousness' demands honesty, to be totally aware of what we are doing, when we necessarily brainwash our members), rather than pander to the 'individualists', and give them false hope of 'individual sovereignty'.I think we're either lying to others or unclear ourselves, if we don't make our aims for 'social consciousness' as clear as possible.

ALB wrote:

But in the context in which it was uttered (a vote on some scientific question) you gave the impression that people would be obliged to think the majority position.

Well, I've already made clear on the other thread about the necessity for diverse opinions, unlike, for example, Vin, who argued for Kuhn's 'single dominant paradigm' model, whereas I've argued for 'multiple, competing research programmes' from Lakatos' model. Why no outcry at Kuhn's (and thus Vin's) "totalitarianism"? Your use of that term regarding my views is entirely ideological, rather than merely your 'personal opinion'. You've been brainwashed your entire life (as we all have) to repeat ruling class modes of thought, like 'complete democracy is dangerous', and so you opt for the softer 'widespread democracy', so you don't frighten the 'individualist' horses in the party.To me, the Mengele crowd can 'think' all they want in private of their 'elitist fantasies' of 'human vivisection', but they won't be allowed to 'do it'. And if they even attempt to spread their 'fantasies', I'd argue that we prevent them, by armed means if necessary. So, I openly declare that some 'individuals' and 'their ideas' will be suppressed.

ALB wrote:

You can't stop people thinking what they think. All you can do is get them to keep silent about it and pay lipservice to the majority view.

That's right. The Mengele crowd will be 'kept silent and be compelled to 'pay lip service to the majority view', if only to demonstrate to them our power.

ALB wrote:

What this thread is aimed at discussing is how far would/should democratic control extent in a socialist society and would there be any limits to it. You seem to be arguing that there won't be any. That's a position, the opposite of the individualist anarchist one which says that there should be no democratic control but only "individuals" free to do what they want. I can't see people in future socialist society accepting (democratically of course) either of these extreme positions, though I would imagine that what they decide will be nearer your end than the anarchists'.

Yeah, as long as it's 'what they decide', and not a minority or an individual, I regard that as democratic control.Those who argue that there will be 'limits on democratic control' must specify who determines this argument. I think that it's those with a 'fear of the mob'. They don't really believe that the vast majority of our society can really be trusted to make decisions that affect them as individuals.If the majority don't set these 'limits' (which they themselves can do, because if they can impose them, they can lift them, too), who is the minority or individual outside of any democratic controls whatsoever?As I've said before, to me Communism isn't Liberalism. To me, Communism is the only way to get anywhere near the ideals of Liberalism. In effect, 'Liberalism' is actually 'Liberalism for the Few', whereas 'Communism' is 'Liberalism for the Many'. But we must build a society which produces critical social thinkers, rather than individual passive consumers (of both ideas and commodities).This is a collective social task, not an isolated individual task.Thus, democracy. Plain, unqualified 'democracy'. No 'if and buts' like 'widespread'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

We in the Socialist Party have tended to steer a middle course with decisions concerning a community as a whole to be taken democratically by them, either directly in a general meeting or a referendum or by elected committees. A vast extension of democratic control compared to today, particularly with regard to the use of means of production, but not embracing every single decision.

This is a statement of 'democracy' that I can agree with.That is, "decisions concerning a community", in which I would characterise 'concerns' as those relating to 'power', 'authority' and 'legitimacy'.So, if any issue involves those 'concerns', I think it should be 'decided by the community', collectively and democratically.This, clearly, doesn't involve 'what people consume, wear, or how they lay out their front gardens'.

In view of what you've just said, why doesn't it?

Because I didn't think that we'd want to tell each other what we consume, wear or how we garden.But that's only my off-the-top-off-my-head opinion, expressed in the context of your post.With further consideration, though, I can imagine all sorts of reasons why what we consume, wear or how we garden, would be interfered with by our community, local or world.Consuming humans (cannibalism), wearing nothing (street nudity in front of kids), or introducing plants which are damaging to the local environment (Japanese knotweed) could all be forbidden by a democratic vote.As I've said, I'm a 'totalitarian' when it comes to 'democratic controls'. My ideology is Communism, not Liberalism.Anyone who longs for 'individual freedom', should stick with capitalism, become a billionaire, and live the life of a 'free individual'. And bollocks to society and democracy, eh?The people for whom 'widespread democracy' is code for 'democracy, unless it involves me being told what to do'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Are you really suggesting that in socialism people will be told "what to think" by a vote in their local area?

All societies brainwash their members.Sociologists like to call this 'socialisation', but we should be honest, and spell out what 'socialisation' really means. It means 'brainwashing'.We live in a society now in which the central idea of its brainwashing is 'individualism'.So, we have even Communists, when asked "Are you an 'individual'?", will reply "Yes".The answer for a Communist should be "No, I'm not an 'individual', I'm a 'worker'".A 'worker' is a position within an exploitative structural relationship; an 'individual' is someone repeating ruling class ideas.One of the key ideologies within science is 'physicalism', which is the match to 'individualism', because it essentially reduces to the lowest 'component'. The 'real' for this ideology is the component, upon which the structure sits. On the contrary, for those who reject 'componentism' in both science and society, the 'real' is the structures, both 'physical' and 'social'. Thus, 'worker' is a structural identity, whereas'individual' is a component identity. And focus on 'component' hides 'structure'.So, in all societies, "people are told what to think". Within this one, they are told to think "I'm an individual".In Communism, too, "people will be told what to think". That is the nature of human society.But, since we will be fully aware of this necessary brainwashing process, we will ensure that all members are fully aware of the relationship between themselves as a 'component' and their society as a 'structure'.The reconciliation of 'individual' and 'society' is, of course, democracy. That's why it is essential that any elitist, expert, academic, individualist, tendencies with the workers movement are ruthlessly exposed.

ALB wrote:

Socialism is based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production but that doesn't mean that democratic control will extend to what people should think.

Oh yes it will.This doesn't mean 'dictatorship', but a society composed of members conscious of this paradox, rather than a society composed of 'individuals', who really believe that they are individuals. That is the bourgeois wet-dream, not a class-conscious movement which insists on democratic controls by all over all.

ALB wrote:

Socialism will involve widespread democracy, but it won't be the "totalitarian democracy" your form of words above seems to be suggesting.

Once more, the backtracking from 'democracy' to only 'widespread democracy'. Not 'complete democracy', which means, to the 'individualist' mentality, a restriction of their 'freedom'.I've come to realise over the years that many so-called 'Communists/Socialists' are only so because they want to be 'free individuals', but recognise that that aim can't be realised within capitalism, and so turn to an ideology which they think will give them 'individual freedom'. This attitude is rife on LibCom, and seems to be so here, too.When confronted with the tenet:"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"they always counterpose the quote, as did YMS, about "free association".But, in a Communist society, 'abilities', 'needs' and so 'contribution' will be determined by our society, democratically, not by 'individuals', who can 'choose' to 'not contribute', or define their own 'ability' or 'need'.To an 'individualist', concerned with 'freedom of the individual', these 'impositions' (although they'll be a part of the 'impositioning structure' through democracy) will be regarded as "totalitarian".The phrase "totalitarian" is itself a product of liberal ideology (and US bourgeois views of society and relationships), but it no longer surprises me that a member of the SPGB should counterpose "totalitarian democracy" to "widespread democracy".Of course, on this issue, I'm a "totalitarian".Not through choice, but because the recognition that society will always 'brainwash' its members is actually a step on the road to individual enlightenment.'Individuals' are produced by society, and we have to ensure that we build a society of 'individuals'.That is, 'we' are compelled by 'us'. We have to define what 'we' want from our 'individuality'.But it's not the choice of 'isolated individuals', merely embracing 'bourgeois ideology', but the act of a society conscious of itself and controlling itself, by democratic means. Totally, not 'widespread'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm a Marxist and a Communist, YMS, stop prevaricating and playing silly. If you're not, I'm not interested on this thread in discussing these thinkers with you. Start a new thread called 'Science for bourgeois liberals', or some such.And indeed, take your hatred of democracy somewhere else.

This is another typical of your outrageous distortions of those who disagree with you.YMS does not "hate" democracy.

Look, I'm sick to the back teeth of you accusing me of 'outrageous distortions'.Can't you read what YMS is writing?He does 'hate democracy'.And not just in 'science', but in his estimation of Communism.He thinks it means 'individual freedom'.

ALB wrote:

Anyway, see the separate thread you asked for on the extent and limits of democracy.

No, you tell YMS to take his anti-democratic tirades to the other thread; whilst he persists on this thread, I'll keep pointing out his 'anti-democratic hatred' of voting.

ALB wrote:

That doesn't make me an anti-democrat but just a democrat who accepts that a vote is not necessarily the way to settle matters of opinion.

So, how will society 'settle matters of opinion' in science? Ordeal by combat? Ordeal by fire? Consensus? Vendetta?Let Mengele decide, because he's educated?There seems to be a widespread fear of the 'masses' on this site, and I find it very unhealthy. I must say, given the SPGB's propaganda line, I'm very surprised.When the SPGB gain a majority in parliament, they are going to disband parliament and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, to legitimise "Workers' Power", aren't they? So that all the current state organs obey orders given by the Councils?I really am beginning to wonder about the seriousness that posters here place upon Workers (the proletariat) actually running everything. There is an undercurrent of elitism, which is most noticeable in YMS's posts, with his focus on mathematics, etc.Ask YMS who's going to tell him what to do and think under Communism.I'll answer 'My Commune'. I'll bet YMS doesn't – or a few others here.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is different to Marx and Dietzgen's ideology, which is 'real=(material/physical/concrete) or ideal'.

There's no Dualism in Marx or Dietzgen so this is wrong. And as far as I know this is not the definition of "real" that is put forward by the critical realists either (see previous posts in the thread)…

There's no dualism in Marx, Dietzgen, Critical Realists or my views either.The ideal and the material are understood using the same method.I've said it before (but I've said most of these things before), but you seem to be interested in 'being', whereas Marx was interested in 'understanding'.That is, what 'reality really is' outside of humans; as opposed to what 'humans understand about reality', which unavoidably involves humans.Or, 'The Truth', as opposed to 'our truth'.Or, 'something which tells us', as opposed to 'something we produce'.Or, 'passive reflection' of the existing, as opposed to 'critical creation' of the new.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

At least 'real' will cause them to ask, 'what does that mean?', and we can answer 'material and ideal'.

And then awkward buggers like me will ask what do you mean by 'material' and 'ideal' and what it is that seperates the two?

That's fine by me!But, don't forget, if they've read Dietzgen…Your questions will probably be meaningless to workers who want to understand the natural and the social. And like Marx, demand a unified method for doing so.On the other hand, if workers want to remain in thrall to 'materialism', they'll turn to the elite, who, they are told, have a special consciousness, which means that the workers need not trouble themselves about these complex issues of science, epistemology, ontology… errr… production, distribution, consumption…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

This description and defence of a realistic materialist monism is pretty good, though I'm not sure I would take a panpsychist position as Strawson (and Deitzgen) do. Though perhaps that is me being inconsistent. As far as philosophy of mind is concerned this is my "ideology" LBird…http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Strawson.html

Thanks for that, DJP.

Galen Strawson wrote:

Materialists hold that every thing and event in the universe is physical in every respect. They hold that "physical phenomenon" is coextensive with "real phenomenon," or at least with "real, concrete phenomenon," and for the purposes of this chapter I am going to assume that they are right.

As I been saying for months (and threads), you follow Strawson, whose ideology is 'real=physical=material=concrete'.This is different to Marx and Dietzgen's ideology, which is 'real=(material/physical/concrete) or ideal'.So, DJP, mate, comrade, you won't agree with Critical Realism.It seems pointless me continuing, to the echo of "That's not true!" and "That's idealism!".We obviously don't share the same scientific ideology. We'd have to prefix every comment by "According to x ideology…", where 'x' would represent either 'Critical Realism' or 'Materialism', depending upon who's posting the comment. It would be very tiresome, when the better option is to keep this thread for those who want to get to grips with CR, and let you and the other physicalists/materialists start their own thread.What more can I say? You could call it "Science for proper, concrete, hard-as-nails Marxists, and non of those idealist counter-revolutionaries, like LBird", and I won't post on it.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I still think that "materialism", even "physicalism", is not incompatible with a "monist" view which gives equal status to physical and non-physical stuff as long as it is considered one theory of the relationship between the physical and the non-physical parts of this "monist" world.

I don't agree, ALB.To me, the simple test is to ask any random physicalist if the material can supervene on the ideal.For us, given the ontological identity of 'material' and 'ideal', we would answer 'yes'.For physicalists, the relationship, with 'base' at bottom, is:IdealMaterial; orMaterialMaterial.Whereas for us, the relationship can be:IdealMaterial; orMaterialMaterial; orMaterialIdeal; orIdealIdeal.And so on, with ideal appearing at any point in a hierarchy.This is clearly opposed to Engels' nonsense about 'in the final analysis'.

ALB wrote:

I'm prepared (like Dietzgen and Pannekoek) to call myself a "materialist" in the monist sense (of "stuff", i.e. "matter", being both the physical and the non-physical). I must confess, though, that I'm not too keen on the term "physicalism".

This is mostly my position, too.As long as 'materialist' is amended to 'realist', to keep things clear. Why cause difficulties for workers who will necessarily come to these issues in the future?If we continue to use the term 'material', they'll think we mean 'material'. And we don't, do we?At least 'real' will cause them to ask, 'what does that mean?', and we can answer 'material and ideal'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

3. Knowledge=product of interaction between Subject (NB. a society, not an individual) and Object (Social Objectivism, Critical Realism, 'the practice of idealism-materialism', Marxism)=Truth as a social and historical Product.

I don't have any problems with this as a description of knowledge that produces small t "truth". But this is not incompatible with materialism.But if you reject materialism, what is the "object"?

[my bold]Yes, it is incompatible with materialism.It's 'idealism-materialism'. Why won't you read what I'm writing?The 'Object' is the 'Real'. We've done this dozens of times, and even ALB has provide you with Dietzgen's quote.You're not a Critical Realist, you're a 'physicalist/materialist'.If you're wanting to use 'materialism', that's fine by me, but why continue to post on a thread about 'idealism-materialism'?Why not start your own thread, named 'Science for materialists?'I can't take a discussion about Critical Realism forward, if you can't accept the tenets of it as the basis for a discussion about 'Science and Communists'.You're thinking and discussing at cross-purposes, and you won't get any joy out of it.Put simply, unless you think that the material and ideal have the same ontological status, as do Marx, me, Dietzgen and (apparently now) ALB, you won't understand the discussion.You'll just keep saying 'That's not true!' – and it won't be, from your ideological perspective.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I note that Lbird declines to explain the consequence of voting in any practical manner.

Spoken like a true 'practical man', the bourgeois who distains to philosophise, and wants to move immediately to 'practical matters'.Your method involves jumping in, feet first, to 'the real world' (copyright, Conservative Philosophy, Ltd.).No matter how many times I say it, you ignore Marx's method of 'theory and practice', which requires 'theory' to be addressed first.As all theory is ideological, I'm trying to expose both my ideology and yours (and DJP's, Vin's, ALB's, etc.), precisely so we can move on to employing our Communist theory in the world, both social and natural.Now, I've done this 'exposing' of myself from the very start (in fact, the thread title says it all), but you (et al) have consistently refused to expose your ideology to the gaze of other posters.You apparently don't even recognise the word, tossing it around like dog with an unfamiliar animal bone: "Ideology? What does that mean? Let's discuss 'ideology' and its manifold meanings… Why, once, as Wittgenstein said to me, or was it Kant…  no, no, it was Schopenhauer…".I'm a Marxist and a Communist, YMS, stop prevaricating and playing silly. If you're not, I'm not interested on this thread in discussing these thinkers with you. Start a new thread called 'Science for bourgeois liberals', or some such.And indeed, take your hatred of democracy somewhere else.I'm not interested in talking to elitist liberals, but democratic Communists.Why do you keep pestering me, with your meaningless, non-Communist, non-democratic, ideological musings?

[LBird]

No, I didn't think that you'd answer, DJP.And I'm not surprised that you're not even reading what I've written, this morning, in answer to ALB, on post #653.So, although the answer is on this page, you can't 'read' it, and have to continue to ask the same questions, which have already been answered, numerous times.PoMo is number 2.Critical Realism is number 3.And you're using number 1.Why won't you tell us your ideology, DJP?Or are you really just a troll, not interested in discussion and learning, but just wanting to be childish, and spoiling everything for others who are interested in these vital questions for Communists?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I can say both that "in the 21st century, the earth goes round the sun" and that "in the 15th century, the sun went round the earth".

OK you can say what you like.But to be consistence you are going to have to say that in the 21st century it is true that a God exists, and the non-religious are wrong. Since apparently 84% of the world population are still reliogious.Are you happy to do that?

[my bold]Yes, of course. But then I know my ideology, tell others what it is, and consistently use it, unlike you, on all three counts.Since I know that any 'truth' is a 'social truth', I'm happy to say that in the 21st century, for the non-Communist majority, especially the 84% of religious, that a God exists.As a Communist, I can also say that the 84% created a God, and for them it/he/she really exists.I do not discriminate between 'material' and 'ideal'. Humans create structures which have causal power over them.To 'God', for example, I can add 'Value'.Neither god nor value have substance (or as Marx says, 'not an atom of matter'), but are 'real', nevertheless.Since your ideology of physicalism defines 'real' as 'material', DJP, you can't agree with me.Tell us your ideology, DJP, now I've answered your question.Are you happy to do that?

[Author]

Posts