[LBird]

The bottom line is that 'genes' are a political issue.Even if Dawkins really didn't realise it at the time, clearly he realised it later.I suspect that the SPGB realised it at the time, and published reviews critical of The Selfish Gene.Why this is problematic now, I don't know.Put simply, 'science is political'.

[LBird]

For my ideology, robbo, 'democracy' is an inherent part of 'socialism'.For your ideology, 'democracy' is not an inherent part of 'socialism'.Thus, based upon your basic absence of 'democracy', you need a political justification as to 'why' have democracy.The 'how' is merely a detail which follows from our opposed ideologies.My political justification is that 'socialism is necessarily democratic'. So, I don't agree with those who argue that 'socialism isn't necessarily democratic'.These are political beliefs which I hold.You don't hold my political beliefs, because your version of 'socialism' is 'individualistic', rather than 'democratic'.Since I hold that 'socialism is democratic', I also hold that all social production within a socialist society must be democratic.Since you hold that 'socialism is individualistic', you hold that some or all social production can be individualistic.Finally, I've said all this before, but you can't accept it, because then your individualism will be undermined. You must have a recourse to an 'individual reality', a 'biological necessity', a 'real world' outside of 'social production', which comes down to your ideology of 'materialism'.You can touch 'matter', and you won't have 'matter' voted out of 'existence', which it could be if we lived in a democratic socialist society, where 'matter' could be changed to something more suitable for our interests and purposes.Just like 'genes' could be.I argue that only society can decide these issues, whereas you, like all materialists, argue that 'individuals' decide their 'personal reality'.

[LBird]

So, you don't agree on the democratic production of 'genes' then, robbo. Fair enough.Who, in your version of 'socialism', will produce 'genes'?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…Dawkins admits that his definition is not, or no longer, the definition of "gene" used by genetists…

The political question is 'who gets to define?'.Why was Dawkins' personal 'definition' accepted as 'science', then?Why is the genetists' elite 'definition' accepted as 'science', now?Why do these 'definitions' change, if they are based upon 'matter' which is 'out there'?Clearly, 'genes' are a social product, and in a democratic society, any 'definitions' would have to be decided collectively by all, for the purposes of all, in the interests of all.Science can't be left to an elite, who will produce 'definitions' which reflect their own elite interests and purposes. The bourgeois scientists are lying when they claim to be 'disinterested' (or 'dispurposeless').The purpose of 'matter' is to bolster 'property'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us …

A good definition of socialism, robbo.'Each and every one of us will specialise in something that particularly interests us' – that 'something' being, of course, democratic social production.Of course, my ideological assumptions are democratic and communist, so I assume 'each and every one of us' is a collective, which aims to revolutionise social production, so that all of the collective benefit equitably, and 'equitable' is democratically decided.For you, though, being an individualist, 'each and every one of us' is assumed to mean as individuals.That's why you won't have the democratic control of social production, because you're really interested in your own individual production, and your own personal benefits, rather than what you are going to have to do to produce for others.That's the crunch in this issue – does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'democratic' (and so 'individuals' can be voted into doing something that they wouldn't if left to their own personal choice), or does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'bourgeois individual democracy' (which looks to 'individual sovereignty' in political decisions).That's what's at root in the debates about 'materialism' – individualists are elitists, and so must have something that is beyond democratic accountability, and for that they argue for 'matter'. They want something that they can 'touch', as an individual, and any argument that undermines their individual sovereignty over 'reality' is a political danger to them.So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls.That is, we can decide whether 'genes' are produced by us, or whether we wish to have a different scientific explanation for our social activities, beyond the 'biological' and 'individual'.That is, we can change 'genes', rather than contemplate them. 'Genes' are a social product, produced by a specific society, at a specific time, for specific interests and purposes. 'Genes' are not simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested scientists', and once 'discovered', are 'True' forever, as 'Facts' we must simply accept.End of a rather different political story, robbo…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

Yes, I know your 'position', robbo, and my 'obsseesion' is to find out why you, like all materialists, refuse to say who would produce these 'scientific values' which you already agree are within 'science'.In a democratic society, like socialism, surely all 'values' are 'social values', and thus should be amenable to democratic production?Or, if, like all materialists, you disagree with the democratic production of 'values', why not state openly which elite will produce these 'scientific values'?Not a 'derail' – in fact, in the context of Dawkins uncomfortable wriggling (over time, and about politics) about 'genes', surely a key question?Are 'scientific values' socio-political products, or are they 'material', simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'?And if they are 'material', why can't everybody know them? Why is 'matter' restricted to a 'knowing elite'?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism

Why should he have to do that, though, robbo?Surely 'his science' speaks for itself?If 'Scientific Truth' vindicates Thatcherism, who are we, mere workers, to argue with 'What Science Says'?Surely Dawkins should have simply insisted that 'The Evidence Speaks For Itself'?Why did Dawkins allow political considerations into his beautiful science?Or, were they always there from the start? If so, why would he hide it? Who would benefit from ordinary workers finding out that 'science is ideological'?

[LBird]

Is a 'gene' a piece of 'matter', or a social product, that we can change?What can we assume from your post, ALB?You seem to assume that a 'gene' is a socio-historical product, that changes over time, and is rooted in a social context.What does 'gene' have to do with 'matter'?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".

Shock!!!A bourgeois academic, who employs the 'politically-neutral scientific method', and claims to be a scientist who produces 'Objective Truth', and has elite access to 'The Real World'…… actually is full of ideology.Must come as a big surprise to the Religious Materialists here, eh, ALB?Or are they all 'unwittingly perhaps' still listening to 'matter'?

[LBird]

[LBird]

robbo, you're moving outside the bounds of rational debate, and entering the territory of meaningless denunciation.It's impossible, by any rational political measures, to argue that a 'democrat' is a 'Stalinist'.But it's not impossible to argue that a 'materialist' is a 'Leninist'.I think that you're assuming that because I do the latter (argue that 'materialism' is politically synonymous with 'Leninism'), and you regard this as mere name-calling, that you can then justifiably call me names.Perhaps the only way out of this debate, is for you to refer to some thinkers who'd agree with you, and we can all read them, and then judge the validity of your claim that 'democracy equates to Stalinism'.Of course, for my part, I can provide many thinkers who argue that 'materialism equates to Leninism'.

[LBird]

Well, robbo, if your considered reply to my argument for 'democratic control' is that I really mean 'central control', that just shows that you're determined to replace my answer with one that you want to read.The only way to equate the two, is to assume that any 'control' that is not 'individual control' is by definition 'central control'.I suspect that it's your ideology that allows you to do this – that is, the equating of 'democratic' and 'central' is a political and ideological position, that you have adopted.All I can say again, to any workers who are asking about my political arguments, is that they're based upon a political and ideological assumption of 'democratic control'. As were Marx's.

[LBird]

Do yourself a favour, Tim, and stop embarrassing yourself – read the posts on the thread.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them),

 So answer the question: If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.  Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

I just have, you cloth-eared fool.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

No, I don't agree.You're equating 'central' (and you mean 'Stalinist', elite, undemocratic, etc.) with 'democratic'. This is a political move on your part, not mere 'misunderstanding'.This then allows you to contrast 'central' (ie. 'democratic') with 'individualist'.As I've said before, your real concern is 'individuals', and not 'social production'.My key political concern is 'democratic social production'.

[Author]

Posts