[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, the central point is the absence of an armed and organised body of men in the form of a police or army to do any coercing, and the other point is the freedom of association implies freedom of dissacoiation:…

How do you know that there will be no 'armed and organised' force within socialism?Surely society will have a means of enforcing its democratic decisions? Otherwise, who stops, to give your example, 'racism'? Or FGM?Democratic Communists argue that the only 'social force' must be 'democratic social force' – they don't argue that 'social force' will not exist. Only those adhering to the myth of bourgeois individualism believe that 'social force' will cease to exist, and all 7 billion individuals will do as each wants to do, on their own individual say-so.As I've said before YMS, your political and ideological views are nothing to do with 'democratic socialism'. 

YMS wrote:

… the point is, though, that disputes should be resolved through dialogue, without resort to force.

I agree entirely.But if 'dialogue' doesn't work, then 'democratic social force' will resolve the dispute. To pretend otherwise, is to lie to workers asking about socialism, and how serious disputes would be resolved. If a minority can't be reasoned with peacefully, through dialogue, then the majority must impose its democratic views.

YMS wrote:

 The debate should never end, no vote is definitive.

Again, I agree – no vote is definitive within socialism. But the 'vote' to introduce socialism by the destruction of the exploiting class is definitive. The revolution has to be a democratic revolution.Once again, YMS, I think that our differences are political differences – I believe in 'social force' controlled by a democratic vote. You only recognise 'individual force' – the right of the individual, over 'society'.

[LBird]

Isn't it surprising that twc should be so hostile to the democratic control of production?Of course, twc holds to the elitist ideology that 'science' is not a class-based activity, and that the world we live in has not been built to the needs, interests and purposes of the bourgeoisie.Apparently, to twc, 'scientists' are above politics, and if we workers try to take political control of science production, then the modern 'Western' world will collapse.'Western', obviously, is just a bourgeois ideological term for 'Bourgeois', which hides the real class content of 'Western' civilisation.Anyway, here's what Rovelli actually has to say about twc's wonderful 'scientific knowledge':

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Scientist-Anaximander-Legacy/dp/1594161313Only the democratic social producers can determine what is 'best', that is, 'best-for-us'.twc, however, thinks that only he and his 'scientific' elite 'know what's best' for the rest of us. Beware, as Marx warned, in his Theses on Feuerbach, of those, like twc, who would separate society into two parts, the smaller superior to the larger.

[LBird]

What's the political difference, YMS, between your uses of 'set' and 'coerce'?What would it mean politically if 'society set a framework', but had no means of 'coercing' (I'd say 'enforcing') its democratically decided 'framework'?How can society 'forbid racism', but not be able to politically enforce its democratic forbidding?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

We've covered this before: learned societies would be free associations, organised democratically by their members, within a framework set by the whole of society (e.g. forbidding racism, unemocratic structures, sexual segragation, etc.) Recommendations could either stem from the sociees (plural) themselves, or from members of the wappentake who are already aware of a particular viewpoint and want it to be heard out.

[my bold]So, to be clear, society would democratically control its 'learned societies'?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

My two cents is the associated voluntary producers, composed of the generalists and the specialists are a logical part of the decision making process.  

[my bold]I take it that the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote' will apply?Or, do you have in mind a 'decision-making process' like that of '60s Unionist-dominated Northern Ireland, that had a 'Business Premises Qualification' that allowed each 'specialist' business-owner 6 votes, whilst only allowing 1 vote for a working class 'generalist' family of, perhaps 6 adults.

mod1 wrote:

The "political control" is embedded in the actual process where a systematic project management approach enables the panel to scrutinise, evaluate and assess the proposal in front of it. So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs.

[my bold]Is your 'systematic project management approach' similar to the current bourgeois business 'systematic project management approach', where the bosses have a say, but not the workers – or is your 'approach' a democratic one?Plus, in your 'approach', who determines 'human needs', and how do they do so, if not by democratic means?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, to answer your questions:1) The expert could be ignored, or action taken that does not accord with the expert's advice.2) Sacking experts is poor form, just because on balance a group of people disagrees with them, they go back to their life, and can come back and give evidence again on another occaision.  It would be for learned societies/free associations of peers to pass further comment on their all round competence.  After all, the parliament/committee/meeting/Wappentake, etc. would call it's witnesses based on ecommendations.3) Democracy means the right of minorities to try and become majorities.

Once again, YMS, your views expressed here are very similar to mine.Perhaps I'd prod you further on just who politically controls 'learned societies' and 'recommendations'.You seem, to me, to be not taking your views to their logical political/social conclusions.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not being self-depreciating out of modesty, Stuart.As you point out in your example of the debate the SPGB missed an opportunity and that is my problem. Too often i miss the real argument because i'm not an original thinker…(as i keep saying, a proficient copy and paste artist )- and end up concentrating on a secondary, side-issue.

For Marx, alan, the main issue was 'social production' (ie., humanity and its own creativity and creation), not the 'side-issue' of 'matter'.My simple advice is to focus on 'the real argument', because it doesn't require 'original' thought on your part, just your willingness to balance the arguments that you're hearing, in relation to any socialism that you'd wish to be a part of.

ajj wrote:

But i'd like you take up LBirds invite and set up a new thread on Marxism and Buddhism, and i'm sure DaveB can bring in early Christianity.

I'm all for it, alan, but I think that we'd fall at the first hurdle – a definition of 'Marxism'.I define 'Marxism' as 'Idealism-Materialism' (or, 'theory and practice'; or, 'social productionism'), which is in line with Marx's usage, but not with Engels' confused writings.Once that is accepted, then we'd explore Marx's views about the ideology that taught him the value of 'the active side'. That is, the value of (some of) 'Idealism', and so potentially, some of Buddhism.

ajj wrote:

I tried that book link. LBird…lost.

Yeah, it was meant more for those who do claim to have some active curiosity about epistemology, alan – I know that you've admitted in the past that you're bewildered by these issues.But… not so bewildered that you take Engels' claims for 'Materialism' without too much criticism!

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LBird: I probably broadly agree with you, at least on the limitations of "materialism" and on the similarites between Marxian/Hegelian thought and that that tends to get thought of as mystical, eg Buddhism.

Bloody hell! Agreement all round, today!And the sun is shining.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've been trying to tell you that for months.

But what happens when we don't agree with the experts?First of all, how would that 'disagreement' be politically expressed, if not by a vote?And if the expert was disagreed with, what happens next for the expert? Surely the expert is removed from any position of 'their expertise' (which the vote has shown to be nothing of the sort), and replaced by an expert who can explain their area of 'expertise'?These political issues about 'power' and 'expertise' are the ones that emerge from your post above.I've been trying to tell you that for years.Any 'expert' can only be an 'expert-for-us'; any 'expertise' can only be 'expertise-for-us'.There is no politically neutral 'expert/ise' who/which is above democratic control.It's an elite bourgeois ideology that claims that there is – a ruling class idea.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Part of the point of democracy is to force experts to explain their ideas to idots like me (hence why I opposed changes in the co-op to get rid of the lay board in favour of technical experts running the show).

[my bold]We're singing from the same hymn-sheet, YMS, if you really believe what you've written here.

[LBird]

The points being made on this thread about experts and democracy are precisely the points that I've made, about the power of 'science' and the need for a democratic epistemology.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Apologies. I thought message #7 was from Stuart.But as it was from you LBird, i was correct in message #8 that you would be better discussing the topic with Stuart

My posts were for any comrade who's interested in exploring the connections (and divergences) between Marx and Buddhism, whether economics or epistemology.As for stuartw2112, they share the same 'materialism' as the SPGB, so they won't be interested in any ideas that question that faith, just as you aren't, alan.It's ironic, as I've said before, that religious thinkers today are far ahead of the 19th century 'materialism' that the SPGB espouses, given the supposed dislike of religion by the SPGB.Anyway, if there's any taste for a discussion, we can start a new thread. I only mentioned it because of your exploration of Buddist economics, as there are wider links between Marx and Buddhism (as I've said, the latter is closer to the former than is 'Religious Materialism').

[LBird]

I found this link useful in stimulating my thought about comparing and contrasting Marx's and Buddhist epistemological approaches, "An Analysis of Madhyamaka Particle Physics":http://www.tibet.org/dan/madhyamika/index.html#ch

[LBird]

As an aside, alan, I think that it's worth having a look at Buddhist-inspired physics, too.In my opinion, this view of 'reality' is far closer to Marx's ideas about our creative production of our 'nature', than is the Engels-inspired 'Materialism' of 19th century bourgeois physics, which pretends to 'Know Reality In Itself', to the omission of human conscious 'theory and practice', which is socio-historical, and changes, as does its social product 'nature-for-us'.

[LBird]

Perhaps I'm being too generous towards you, Tim, and it's not forgetfulness or conscious political tactic, but that you simply don't understand discussions about epistemology, and are not capable of following a political argument.The surprising thing is that it appears to be widespread within the SPGB, if this site is anything to go by.It's a strange political party that can't discuss issues surrounding social power.

[Author]

Posts