LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: “He or she may know more about physics than anyone else on the planet…”
robbo, I’ve tried to pick a small part of your post, in the interests of a focussed discussion, and ‘bite-sized’ posts.
The problem is, whose ‘physics’?
For example, many Catholic theologians ‘knew more’ about ‘god’ ‘than anyone else on the planet’.
But this ‘god’ wasn’t politically, socially, or ideologically relevant to the revolutionaries of the bourgeoisie. So they ditched these ‘experts’.
You’re assuming that, for example, Hawking or Einstein, ‘knows more’ than me and you about what sort of ‘nature’ we wish to produce.
Now, if you wish to continue with this belief, and are prepared to argue it as we build for democratic socialism, fair enough. If you can take society with you, your belief will become the ‘truth’ of that society.
However, I don’t share that belief (I’ve read enough about Einstein, for example, to recognise his mistakes, as have many of his contemporaries and later physicists), and, being a democratic communist, I’m committed to arguing for democratic control of all social production (including physics) within democratic socialism.
The upshot of this, robbo, is that current ‘physicists’ don’t know their arses from their elbows when it comes to the politics of social production.
I’d argue for a ‘physics’ relevant to our democratic revolution.
L.B. Neill wrote “I…“.
I’m a democratic communist, so I always refer to ‘we’.
Anything you’ll have access to as an individual, we’ll have access to as a collective; and vice versa.
This includes: rights, responsibilities, training, ethics, practices, support, reviews, safety, health, guidelines. If I’ve missed any of your concerns, just add them to this list.
We’ll be deciding our future list by democratic methods.
Unless one believes that ‘democracy’ will necessarily involve ‘unjust individual restrictions’, which is a fear continually expressed by the bourgeoisie, then ‘democratic socialism’ is our collective answer to our political problems.
I don’t share that ideological belief, because I’m a democratic communist, and influenced by Marx’s social productionism.
YMS wrote: “LBird, So, if “we the collective producers”, ask some scientists to go off and develop multiple, conflicting theories (given ethics guidelines, a “budget”, service level agreements, standards, etc.), all is well and good with you, and there’s no need to vote on the truth?”
If ‘we ask‘, YMS, how will we know that ‘we’ve received‘, without a vote?
If we’re collective producers, we produce a collective truth.
YMS wrote: “And we’ll have resources so people can use “private time” to pursue their own researches, and try to get their ideas published?”
‘We’ll‘ have whatever we want – it will be up to us.
That’s the whole point of ‘democratic socialism’, YMS.
L.B. Neill wrote: “LBird, I see democracy in science as making its study accessible to all who wish to do it, not sure it be based on uninformed opinion…”
I’ve never argued that ‘democratic science’ should ‘be based on uniformed opinion’, L.B.
Part of the problem is that you’re reading what ‘materialists’ say LBird says, rather than asking me, what I say.
From Lenin onwards, ‘materialists’ have had as a central part of their political method, the confusing of their opponents’ arguments, to make the arguments seem absurd, assisted by personal attacks on their opponents’ motives, characters, intelligence, etc.
I think it impossible to build democratic socialism upon uninformed opinion, because part of the revolutionary process will involve the masses becoming informed.
Of course, if you were to argue that ‘most people are thick as pigshit, and can’t become informed‘, I’d disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of people can understand ‘physics’, for example, especially if its theories and concepts were not hidden from view by a refusal to actually explain them in a way that the majority can understand. It’s part of the role of workers to make themselves collectively able to take control of our social production. We can find ways to explain to each other. The elite have a vested interest in keeping ‘knowledge’ hidden their own hands. I’m sure your own reading about ‘scientists’ (given some of the thinkers that you’ve mentioned) has already made you aware about this social problem of ‘experts’ keeping the rest of us ‘uninformed’.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “He has been told this innumerable times. That socialism will be an <b>advanced , democratic, post-capitalist</b> society, run by <b>us all</b>, locally, regionally, globally…”
And I’ve agreed with ‘this’ innumerable times, Matthew.
‘All’.
Not ‘some’.
YMS wrote: “I don’t see how you can agree with me, I was saying we’d give…”
Yes, I agree with you, YMS.
“We‘d give…”
‘We’, to any democratic socialist, is ‘us’. ‘Us’ meaning the social producers.
Unless… by ‘we’ you really mean ‘them’. ‘Them’ meaning an elite separate from the social producers.
So, as long as you mean ‘humanity’, we agree, YMS.
YMS wrote: “That is, we’d mandate a diversity of views…“.
I entirely agree with you, YMS, as I said earlier.
‘We’ being ‘democratic humanity’, of course, not an elite.
L.B. Neill wrote: “I think what you’re finding is we do support the democraticisation of Maths, Physics, etc.”
Yes, I really am beginning to think that there’s been a sea-change in political thinking on the part of some posters here.
It remains to be seen, however, just how widespread this conversion is. I’ll be very happy if the SPGB put out an ‘official’ statement about this. After due democratic consideration, of course!
alanjjohnstone wrote: “What extent should local democracy have over issues that have wider implications?”
That’s the key political point, alan.
There has to be a higher political authority than the ‘local’, to determine ‘extent’.
Within democratic socialism, I would call this higher political authority ‘democratic humanity’. It would be the highest court of humanity.
Any other ‘final court’, or ‘ultimate authority’, whether individual, elite or divine, would not be ‘democratic’.
MS wrote: “I do not think that he said what you are saying. The SPGB/WSM has always supported the democratic possession of the means of production by the vast majority of the working class, if that is not a democracy, what can we call it?”
But I entirely agree with this political statement, MS.
But, given the arguments made here by the SPGB members and supporters, why don’t they class ‘physics’, for example (we could also ask about ‘maths’ or ‘chemistry’) as a part of ‘the means of production’?
It seems, as I’ve said before, that the SPGB thinks ‘democratic socialism’ will be the democratic producers (your ‘working class’) controlling ‘widget production in factories’, but not ‘ideas production in universities’.
Thus, the SPGB separates what Marx unites – ‘theory and practice’, ‘thinking and doing’. ‘Social production’ requires ideas and actions, it is conscious activity.
So, MS, I can support your politics, but the SPGB can’t.
Lew, are you seriously suggesting that ‘democracy’ wasn’t at the heart of Marx’s political position?
Surely, every single thing Marx wrote, was underpinned by his democratic politics?
If you think that this view that ‘Marx is fundamentally democratic‘ is untrue, I think that the onus is on you to disprove it.
Perhaps we are now getting to the SPGB’s heart of darkness.
MS wrote: “Socialism/Communism will eliminate the concept of nations and borders, but it will not eliminate the cultural and local practice of some peoples around the world, and they would be able to do their own communal decisions”
You’ve expressed a very clear political position, MS.
My political question is ‘who determines what is a valid (in the eyes of humanity) ‘cultural and local practice’, within your ‘Socialism/Communism’?
Unless there is democratic control by humanity, then what would your society do with ‘locals’ who insist, for example, in cutting the clitorises off little girls? That is a dramatic example, but sums up the problem. It could be ‘locals’ who kill gays, ‘locals’ who are an elite and who want to maintain capitalist relations by force over their communities, etc.
Your political position, which is to leave power within ‘localities’ to the exclusion of the democratically-expressed wishes of humanity within socialism, would prevent us intervening in ‘practices’ which we democratically declare to be abhorrent.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Humanity regularly votes BD’s views out of kilter since he is a member of an organisation that places its position to the vote. And that position is frequently rejected.”
The same happens to me and you, too, alan. And always will. Democracy involves majorities and minorities.
If you want to move the discussion onto ‘how will socialism organise its democratic production?’, that’s fine by me. It’s both an interesting and needed discussion, IMO.
But first, we have to agree that your notion of ‘democratic socialism’ is the same as my (and I claim, Marx’s) notion of ‘democratic socialism’.
I think ‘democratic socialism’ means all social production will be democratic. To me, the clue is in the name.
If you disagree, then fine, let’s discuss that issue first.
My first question is ‘who will be in control of this (portion?) of social production that is not under democratic control? And why term it ‘democratic socialism’ if all or parts of it are not democratic?
robbo, I’ve genuinely answered all the questions in your post, previously. You’re just ignoring what I say, so there doesn’t seem much point giving the same answers again.
The difference between us seems to be a political one – I’m a democrat, who regards society as the active subject; you regard individuals as the active subject, and so you reject democratic controls.
Bijou Drains wrote: “If, in a socialist society, a vote was held re Marx’s view of the social production of theories (which by definition must be a socially produced theory) was held and the vote rejected Marx’s theories, would you subsequently also reject those theories also, knowing that not to do so would be anti democratic and anti socialist?”
When the time comes to reject Marx views (as it will come, as history shows, because humanity constantly changes its views), then I (if still alive, it might take generations of social development to occur) will adopt the newly democratically-produced scientific views of humanity.
I can ask you the same question – what would you do, BD, if humanity democratically pointed out that your views were out of kilter with the rest of humanity?
