LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There is a good article in The Guardian today which refers to some of the problems covered by PJS in the SS article.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/15/schools-children-education-exams-maths-rankings-obsessionThis is an educational example of the bourgeoisie's attempt to 'digitise' or 'mathematise' our world. This is also reflected within bourgeois physics, which creates a world, not only not of our making, but creates a world politically opposed to our own making and control, and ideologically claims that this 'world-for-the-bourgeoisie' is the only world possible, because it is 'the objective world', 'nature-in-itself', which their scientists are 'merely discovering'.Whilst we place our trust in their educationalists, physicists, chemists,etc., we cannot change our world, but must simply obey them and their 'objects', their 'digits'.This is a political battle, about who has the power to create our world.
Report it to the moderators? You're having a laugh!Well, that's any informed discussion of the best article published in the Socialist Standard now curtailed.And you wonder why the SPGB is slowly dying?
How are we to discuss the article, if I quote from it, ask for responses, and have the usual suspects refusing to discuss the article but asking me for clarification about Marx and democratic socialism, and I receive a warning?Why doesn't the moderator even make any attempt to appear even-handed?Why aren't the usual suspects warned for not discussing the SPGB article?
Wez wrote:I realize that this is a waste of time (and off subject) but this 'might' be of interest to L Bird as it tells the story of the divergence between science and the bourgeoisie. More often than not these days science confronts bourgeois ideology rather than supports it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/Wez, there are many, many philosophers and physicists who have criticised 'science'. The problem for 'materialists', is that these criticisms are aimed squarely at this bourgeois materialism. That is, the form of 'science' that these criticisms embody is derided as 'idealism' by the materialists.We never get to discussing these conflicting ideologies of 'science', simply because 'materialists' claim not to have an 'ideology', but that they are simply reflecting 'Reality', a reflection that does not require pre-existing ideas.This 'materialism' is opposed to Marx, who quite clearly argued for the method of 'theory and practice'. Thus, discussions about 'theory' and its implementation within 'practice' are central to any 'science' which is useful to the whole of humanity.The 'materialists' oppose Marx, by arguing for the bourgeois conservative method of 'practice and theory', within which 'blindly doing stuff' supposedly produces 'ideas'.If you want to discuss 'science', Wez, all well and good. But tell me your ideology of science, if it's not Marx's 'theory and practice', and a 'democratic socialist' method.As I've said, if you're a 'materialist', you're espousing an ideology that pre-dates Marx, and which Marx replaced with 'theory and practice'.'Science' is a socio-historical human activity, which changes over time and with mode of production. It's not a 'universal, asocial, ahistorical method'. And it embodies 'power' relationships. Unless we democratically control our 'science', it will be controlled by an elite.If you're happy with elite control of 'science', how do you reconcile this with democratic socialism? 'Materialism' cannot reconcile its 'elite science' done by 'Specialists', with the necessity within democratic socialism for the 'Generalists' to be in political control.
Bijou Drains wrote:LBird wrote:patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:I've never argued for 'a workers world state' –Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.
I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).
patreilly wrote:Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites' or even workers disagree and decide their own 'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.Welcome back my feathered friendIf Truth has to be decided democratically then who decides which truths have to be decided?It follows therefore that if it is necessary to decide democratically what is the truth, it is necessary to decide democratically what is in doubt. So do we therefore have to vote on what in doubt before we can vote on what is the truth?
Yes.I won't say anymore, because I can tell that the mod and the usual suspects don't like me discussing politics here.I've given a quote from the SS article, and tried to discuss that, but no-one in the SPGB seems to want to discuss their own article.It's a strange political party that doesn't want to discuss its politics.It's a shame that the author (Paddy Shannon?) doesn't post here. Perhaps only then would a discussion about the social production of 'digital' be possible.Until then, we'll just have to accept the bourgeois version of 'digital' – it's 'out there', simply waiting for passive humans to accept it. End of debate, 'Truth' determines itself.
patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:I've never argued for 'a workers world state' –Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.
I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).
patreilly wrote:Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites' or even workers disagree and decide their own truth?'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.
patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:History teaches us that 'ongoing debates among scientists' are never conducted in our interests, or for our purposes. And 'truth' is always a socio-historical product, that changes. We, as democratic socialists, must argue that 'truth' comes under our political control. Otherwise, the production of 'truth', and its changes, will be under some other elite's political control.Who are "we as democratic socialists" How many people agree with you "that truth should be democratically decided"?
Well, I'm assuming that 'we' includes me, you, and the other posters who are members/sympathisers of the SPGB.If you (or the others) are not 'democratic socialists', why not just say so?Or if you define 'democratic socialism' to not include 'democratic production of ideas', why not just say so?As you say, if no-one at all agrees with me, why don't they spell out their political alternative to 'democratic truth production'?So, the ball's in your court, pat.
patreilly wrote:And haven't you repeated this 'theory' ad nauseam and on almost every thread on the forum and received numerous replies, particularily from Robbo debunking your theory which was revealed as undemocratic, and centralist . "A Truth that is imposed on all communities around the world by a workers world state? Correct me if that is incorrect?But all these 'replies' rely upon a different ideology to 'democratic socialism', so they can't 'debunk' this theory.Simply calling 'democratic truth production' 'undemocratic and centralist' is merely playing with words and avoiding the political issues and questions raised by the debate.It seems that you're adopting the same method as the other 'materialists': damning your political opponents by lies.I've never argued for 'a workers world state' – you've just made that up, to avoid answering the political question of "who (or what) determines 'truth' ?".And who or what are 'all' these 'communities' that would not be controlled by the 'democratic socialists', who would be the overwhelming majority during a political revolution to create 'democratic socialism'?So, your ideology is incorrect, and I've politically corrected you, pat.If you disagree with 'democratic socialism', who do you think will create our truth? It's a political question, about the power to determine, and all 'materialists' without fail always ignore this political question.I'm extremely confident that you won't make my last statement untrue, pat.Simply because 'materialists' can't refute this political statement without undermining their own belief in 'objective matter' (which is their 'god', and in which they have undying faith). When confronted with the choice between 'the democratic, revolutionary, class conscious proletariat' and 'matter', they always choose 'matter'. It's the 18th century way!
SS article by PJS, wrote:Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, there is an ongoing debate among scientists about whether reality is truly digital or analogue.These 'scientists' would need to first explain what their 'reality' is, and what 'it' being 'truly' anything means.If their 'reality' is a 'reality-in-itelf' (that is, a 'reality' outside of (or pre-dating) humanity's activity), then they'd have to explain to us how they themselves can 'actively access' this 'reality', and thus tell us 'passives' whether it is 'truly digital or analogue'.We socialists must take the stance that this 'ongoing debate' is a political debate, and that as such this debate must involve all humanity, and not just an elite of 'scientists'.History teaches us that 'ongoing debates among scientists' are never conducted in our interests, or for our purposes. And 'truth' is always a socio-historical product, that changes. We, as democratic socialists, must argue that 'truth' comes under our political control. Otherwise, the production of 'truth', and its changes, will be under some other elite's political control.
Wez wrote:I believe the very first writing (discovered in Mesopotamia) was a form of accounting (digitally) and this predates the arrival of the bourgeoisie by some millenia.Class society predates the bourgeoisie, Wez.So, as you say, 'digital' is a social product, but the interests and purposes of 'digital' are socio-historical, and thus we can change them. 'Digits' don't pre-exist our creation of them. There are no 'digits' simply sitting 'out there', passively awaiting our 'discovery' of 'digits-in-themselves'.
Wez wrote:Marx often uses the dialectical process of quantity transforming into a quality – such as when money becomes capital. Is this an example of the digital being converted into the analogue?No, Wez, this is an example of 'Engelsism'.'Dialectics' is Marx's notion of human creation, a 'dialogue' between our activity and resistance to that activity.We 'quantify', and we 'qualify'. We are the 'active side'.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:Humans are analogue.'Digital' is a social product of the bourgeoisie. It follows from their attempt to 'mathematise nature'. This reduces our product 'organic nature' to a 'countable' world of discrete individual bits, an ideology which reflects the 'individualist' world of the bourgeoisie.PS. A very interesting article, the best that I've read in the Socialist Standard.I beg to differ. 'Digital' is an economic product of capitalism. The bourgeoisie produce nothing other than fulfilling the role of being the personification of capital.
You would 'differ', Brian, because you're a 'materialist', and don't agree with Marx's ideology of 'social production', within which humanity is the 'active side'.For your ideology, humans are the passive side, who merely 'personify' external influences, and 'fulfil roles' not of their own creation.Thus, as Marx warned, you are forced to divide society into two parts – one of 'Specialists', who do provide the 'active side', and one of 'Generalists', who you tell that they must remain a 'passive' mob, and so are not allowed to democratically participate in humanity's creation of its world. 'Materialism' is a product of class society, and you're on the side of the exploiters – though, of course, you're not conscious of that political fact, although it's obvious to any democratic revolutionary.
Humans are analogue.'Digital' is a social product of the bourgeoisie. It follows from their attempt to 'mathematise nature'. This reduces our product 'organic nature' to a 'countable' world of discrete individual bits, an ideology which reflects the 'individualist' world of the bourgeoisie.'Value' is a case in point. The bourgeoisie want 'value' to be 'countable' for individuals, so they can individually determine the 'value' of a commodity. 'Value' for them is 'digital', and 'in' the commodity.For Marx, 'value' was analogue, and is 'in' the social production process. That's why an individual can't determine what the 'value' of a commodity is. The 'market' is a bluff.Bourgeois physics is another example of the 'digitising' of our world. Unfortunately, the 18th century 'materialists' who follow Engels, also do this, and pretend that a special group of elite academics have a 'special consciousness' that workers don't have, which allows these 'Specialists' to 'count the really-existing digits'. Whilst 'digits' are believed to 'exist', we can't vote on them.'Digits' do not 'exist' until we create them – they are 'digits-for-us', and we can change them.Any 'unified theory' within physics will involve humanity – the very place which 'materialists' insist must be ignored, because 'nature' supposedly exists in-itself, outside of our social production of 'it'.PS. A very interesting article, the best that I've read in the Socialist Standard.
alanjjohnstone wrote:On re-reading my last post, it may seem that i envisage a socialism that is merely capitalism – but only better.In a sense that is correct. Capitalism has already organised production socially – but it is not socially owned or controlled, remaining in the hands of a few individuals and acting in their interests of them and not society's.But surely by 'socially' we mean 'democratically', alan?So, Capitalism hasn't 'organised production socially' – but for a social elite.Your view here, that 'socialism' is 'merely a better capitalism', is fundamentally wrong, not 'correct' in any sense.Though… I suppose if one thinks that an elite will be in control of academic production, then it's a small step to think the same of all 'social' production.If 'academic production' remains 'not socially owned or controlled, remaining in the hands of a few individuals', why shouldn't it, too, be 'acting in their interests of them and not society's'?Since your views of science are non-democratic, it brings into focus what you might actually mean by 'scientific socialism'.'A science that is merely bourgeois science – but only better'?
alanjjohnstone wrote:It will be society as a whole which will define what needs are that are to have free access, not the individual. What is consumed will be socially decided in what and how much and even where production of various things will take place.We are of course not talking about a central command economy imposing limitations but social democracy being applied to allocation of necessities.[my bold]I couldn't agree more with you, alan.But I think many posters here wouldn't agree with you, if pressed.There is a political conflict between 'each individual deciding their own personal needs and abilities', and 'society democratically deciding its members' social needs and abilities'.I interpret the famous statement of communism to mean the latter. Production means democracy.
Mike Foster wrote:I don't think we can say that motivation would come just from wanting to help out the community, as motivation is always more personal (selfish?) than that.A more awkward argument against our view is the one that goes "why should someone bother training to be a brain surgeon when this wouldn't give them access to anything more than someone who does a few hours in an office?". Can our reply here be anything different to saying that being a brain surgeon is its own reward? Isn't this a bit glib?The usual socialist response to that question of 'why' is 'social estimation'.That is, the 'reward' is 'higher standing' amongst one's peers.This 'reward' can be 'physical', in the form of medals, but most often would be 'ideal', in the form of titles, honours, etc.All societies seem to have these forms of rewards, it's just that within class societies these rewards are tied to non-democratic forms, like property, money, palaces, etc.Within socialism, if one's social group elects one to a position of higher social standing, so that one is seen as 'the best' at some social activity (where 'best' is socially-defined, not having to mean 'winner' or 'most efficient'), then this would satisfy most humans, them being social animals. Even currently, for example, the army uses these forms, like membership of 'elite' regiments (guards, paras, marines, etc.) and awards for valour (VC, DSO, MC, etc.), which give much-sought 'standing' within their social organisation. Members will 'work hard' for these forms of 'social estimation', and even die for them.Being 'lazy' means social death. That's why workers used the method of 'sending scabs to Coventry', to socially isolate those who damage the social interests of the group.The only problem at the moment is that most workers are not taken in by bosses' 'rewards' to them, which usually mean a meaniningless title ('brush manager' for a road sweeper) as an excuse for low pay, but as there is a growth in revolutionary class consciousness, then I think there will be a similar development within social production.Not to develop and use one's abilities, to contribute to our society, will be seen as 'odd'. No-one likes to be pointed at in the street, as being 'odd'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…without active…Marx's criticism of 'materialism', YMS.The central question then (for what he called 'new materialism') became "Who or what is 'the active side'?".The 'materialists' insisted it was 'matter' (without any consciousness, as 'physicality').The 'idealists' insisted it was 'god' (without 'matter', as 'immateriality').Marx, having unified 'idealism' and 'materialism' into 'social production', insisted it was 'human production' (requiring both an active consciousness and its product, 'social objects').We are the 'active side'.
