[LBird]

So that's a 'No', then, to "workers' control"?You mention 'everyone', 'people', 'authorities', 'association', and 'community', but no mention of 'workers'.What sort of 'Communism' do you stand for, YMS?It doesn't seem to have much to do with Marx, production, class, exploitation, democracy, history or, indeed, workers.Just some vague mutterings about 'free' and 'rational', 'not abiding by rules' and 'the right of a minority'.Sounds like some sort of liberalism to me, YMS. Ahistorical, asocial, individualism.Oh yes, and an as yet only implied and unspoken fear of 'the masses'.

[LBird]

I think you should be open with us, YMS.Who will 'control' science, in your opinion?Since it must be logically a minority (otherwise, you would be happy with democratic controls), who are this 'minority' who will insist to workers that those workers will have no collective say in a fundamentally important aspect of society's production processes.Does your fear of workers extent to other areas of production?If the universities are under our democratic controls, surely the universities will teach democratic methods within all disciplines, and your minority will be compelled to adopt these university-sanctioned approaches.Or are you opposed to our democratic control of the education system, too?Are the universities also to be left in the hands of an 'academic elite'?Just what parts of society will be under the control of the Communist majority?None, perhaps?You don't trust 'workers', do you, Young Master Smeet?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I continue to counterpose my democratic methods to your nose counting.

So, 'workers' who think that they should have a say in the conduct of science in their society are 'noses' now.Interesting.And your 'democratic' methods – did you learn them in 'Democratic Kampuchea'?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

here I'm actually arguing against you, in favour of democracy.

Of course you are. The fact that you've constantly stressed your opposition to 'democratic methods' throughout this thread must be a figment of my imagination.For example:

YMS wrote:

I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless.

Right, I'll leave you to your own definition of democracy, YMS, and await any other posters' comments about 'science' and its method.If you want to discuss the meaning of 'democracy' further, YMS, please do so on the new thread started for that purpose.

[LBird]

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'.But, since, for example, 'science' has a "power, authority and legitimacy" within our society, I think that that, too, should be classed as an issue "concerning a community". In fact, the 'world community'.

ALB wrote:

In the end of course, the exact form that democratic control will take will depend on preference of what people living in socialism want and decide. There is no reason why this should be the same everywhere.

Quite right! Those communities who 'want and decide' that Mengele should be allowed to practice on live humans, should be allowed to get on with it!Who are we to impose our collective humanity upon those who don't share it? [/sarcasm]No, I don't think so. I'd argue that some decisions are 'world decisions', for the democratic decision by humanity. After all, we're a 'community', too.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless.

Yes, it's been evident for a long time that that's your opinion of 'democracy'.I don't share that assumption, YMS.I'm a Communist, and want to see the democratic control of production, distribution and consumption.If you have a different conception of Communism, start another thread, and we can all discuss that.As far as this thread goes, we can't advance any further whilst you argue against democracy, because that is the key to all my arguments.If other comrades are not democrats, too, and the SPGB pronounces against democracy to settle this debate, I'll leave the site, knowning that I don't share this site's conception of Communism/Socialism.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Anyway, to selection. We inhabit a roughly similar planet to each other. Our brains are constructed in roughly the same way, and our sense organs operate in roughly the same fashion (there are degrees of variation but I think we can average them away). We inhabit a similar culture. So, it's far to say that our selections will be roughly similar, and we can average them away. Selections and biases can be accounted for (and minimised).So, if "The Truth" is unobtainable, then it doesn't matter. What mattersw is that we mutually inhabit a world where according to our best ability to sense and to reason we can say that certain claims about the world can be true to our observations.

Sounds like a perfect basis for a democratic theory of truth, YMS!

YMS wrote:

Members of our community, who are similar to us, can go forth and collect knowledge, that we will believe because we have confdence in their method.

Err.. surely 'members of our community' can be selected by us, and 'we will believe' their results 'because we have confidence in our method'? Which will be, of course, to vote on the results which they obtain and will have to explain properly to society.If 'experts' are to be simply 'believed' because of 'their method', why shouldn't this process work in politics and economics, too?What have you got against democratic controls, YMS?

YMS wrote:

Personally, I have no experience or proof that India exists, but I have no good reason to doubt the evidence therefore presented to me by otehr people. That's what it means to be a social being.

So, why shouldn't you have a vote, then, if you're convinced by other people? And the rest of us, too, have a vote?Or are you saying that as long as you're convinced, that's good enough for everybody else, in every situation?Sounds like the 'guru' method to me. You proclaim 'the truth', and we meekly accept the 'word' of both you and your 'experts'.No, YMS, I'm a Communist, and that means I argue for the democratic control of production, distribution and consumption.That, necessarily, includes 'science' as a productive force.

[LBird]

If you write:{quote=pgb]Hello![/quote}but replace the first and last curly brackets { } with square brackets [ ]it will give:

pgb wrote:

Hello!

Hope this helps

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

Insofar as Marx had any view at all about the nature of truth, I think he had a very common-sense view about it which was close to what philosophers call a correspondence theory of truth – a candidate for truth is true only if it corresponds to the facts or "states of affairs", which can be known through use of empirical evidence.

[my bold]This is the key part of your post, pgb.The 'correspondence theory' tries to match knowledge against reality. It is the normal scientific theory. However, as you say:

pgb wrote:

Empirical observation is of course theory laden – the standard point made against positivism – and of course there is therefore a process of selection to decide what should count as a fact, and the investigator's theoretical presuppositions, his ideas and values, his "ideology" as you call it will all be relevant.

Since we can't actually find a way of finding out what 'reality' is, it's pretty hard to match it against knowledge, to determine its truth.I think we Communists should look to consensus gentium.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_theory_of_truthThis translates as 'agreement of the people', and, as I'm sure you know, is the title of the revolutionary document put forward by the Levellers and Agitators during the English Revolution in 1647 during the Putney Debates, in opposition to Cromwell's elitist views.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_of_the_PeopleIf we have a democratic society, and production and science are part of that, I don't know how we can have any other 'theory of truth'.If we look to 'nature' to provide that 'truth', we already know we don't have a method to tell us what nature says. Humans are going to have to make the decision about what constitutes 'truth', and so I think a democratic method is required.PS. if you login and quote my post, it will show you how I've done the paragraphs.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Socialism means the free association of producers, that's its first premise.

That's always the definition offered on LibCom, YMS.As I've said, it's an anarchistic definition, premised upon 'individual sovereignty', and not democracy.But let's not derail this thread any further. Start a new one, if you want to pursue the meaning of 'Communism'. I'll participate, of course.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

This is arrant nonsense. I'm a plumber…

Thanks for your kneejerk, ignorant interjection into a subject that you are apparently not following the twists and turns of, gnome.

gnome wrote:

I'm more than happy to leave those things to people who do.

Right, your choice. Leave this thread to us, then. Bye-bye.

gnome wrote:

Effective democratic participation requires and presupposes knowledge of a given subject and/or informed opinion.

Yes, that's precisely what we're arguing for, gnome. Widespread, popular, mass engagement in the running of a new society. This will require complete openness of the education system for everyone, from kindergarten to post-PhD research, from cradle to grave.You might have heard of this 'new society': it will be 'Communism'?No? Fair enough, back to your pipes, spanners and flux, then.You should try reading about 'Communism'; you might be surprised at what even a plumber can achieve, once they start to participate.Plumbers might even take an interest in science, and wish to have their democratic opinions heard.Still 'arrant nonsense'? Pity, we need you.

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Please forgive me everyone. I don't mean to offend. I'm angry and mega frustrated.

No need for forgiveness, Oz. I'm sure we all, in our frustration, resort to slagging off our class, from time to time.You're just brave enough to vent your frustration, here, unlike the rest of us cowards!But, once the emotion has passed, and you resume your rational thinking about 'why' most workers often seem 'beyond the pale', then it can only give hope that things might change. Not 'will' or 'must', but 'might'. It's a job for both us and them. We can't bring socialism alone.Right! Resume your ranting against 'the scum', Oz!But… identify 'the scum' correctly…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, have they?

What else is 'physicalism', other than a claim outside of human control? The 'physical' determines, not humans.

ALB wrote:

The objections raised here to your method (but not to Marx's) have been to certain of the conclusions you've drawn from it, in particular:that it was valid at one time to say that the Sun went round the Earth.that the validity of scientific theories should be decided by a democratic vote of everyone.that it is not possible to have any class-free knowledge today in class-divided society.on the meaning and use of the term "ideology".

And I stand by them.'Validity' is a human decision.Thus 'validity' should be under our democratic control.'Class society' means 'class knowledge'. It's only when we get rid of class society when our democratic method can claim to be the human method. I think that 'proletarian science' will lay the basis for 'human science'.If 'ideology' means 'distorted knowledge' (as opposed to The Truth), then ideology is inescapable. This knowledge would form the basis of our science, in which criticism of existing 'ideological knowledge' is its basis, rather than respect for existing 'true knowledge'.There is no objective viewpoint in either physics or sociology. Humans have to choose which imperfect 'truth' to work with, for the time being.Once again, if you find 'ideology' a term too pejorative, choose another.I prefer plain speaking to workers.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I can discuss with the baker, or take up baking myself, but for the most part, I'm free to leave it to the baker. It's not rocket science.

It's not Communism, either.If by that we mean 'democratic production', rather than 'individual ownership'.I've long suspected that you have an ideological objection to 'democracy', YMS, and now it seems clear that you not only object to democratic methods in science, but to democratic methods in production, too.Your view of 'Communism' seems, to me, to be closer to that I heard frequently expressed on LibCom, by anarchists.They always talk in terms 'free' (always referring to 'individuals'), rather than 'democracy' (which implies the 'freedom of society' to decide).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, and a quick Charlie quote.  AFK rest of today, so enjoy:

Charley wrote:

On the one hand, therefore, it is only when the objective world becomes everywhere for man in society the world of man’s essential powers – human reality, and for that reason the reality of his own essential powers – that all objects become for him the objectification of himself, become objects which confirm and realise his individuality, become his objects: that is, man himself becomes the object. The manner in which they become his depends on the nature of the objects and on the nature of the essential power corresponding to it; for it is precisely the determinate nature of this relationship which shapes the particular, real mode of affirmation. To the eye an object comes to be other than it is to the ear, and the object of the eye is another object than the object of the ear. The specific character of each essential power is precisely its specific essence, and therefore also the specific mode of its objectification, of its objectively actual, living being. Thus man is affirmed in the objective world not only in the act of thinking, ||VIII| but with all his senses.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Spot on!Let's see pgb get a quote which denies the social, and focuses upon the 'object' as 'object'.Humans are at the heart of the issue.

[Author]

Posts