[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Well,  the disappointment came a lot sooner that i wished. All the interesting articles were just introductions…had to pay for the "premium" articles…grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…. Reality in this world is that you rarely get anything for nothing

Well I've just ordered it, alan, and the 'bourgeois reality' is that it costs £5.54, inc. p&p.Of course, in 'socialist reality' we'd all have free access.Thanks for the tip about its publication!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I look forward for some leisurely few hours to read through the new edition of New Scientist on what is reality. I am sure there will be a few points relevant to the socialist understanding of the universe that others might wish to discuss. 

[my bold]Put simply, alan, according to Marx we create our own reality, by social theory and practice.Many physicists throughout the 20th century have also argued very similar views.It's only 'materialists' who cling to outdated 19th century notions of the 'discovery of objective reality outside of any conscious activity'.Marx called this conscious creative human activity 'social labour'.With this notion of 'social labour' which creates our reality, we can change our reality.If you're still hoping for someone to tell you 'what is reality', outside of human consciousness and creativity, so that you can  merely contemplate 'the real world', you're doomed to disappointment, alan.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Not to worry I'm sure LBird will reveal those bits which suit his narrative for democratic control of the means of production.

It's not my 'narrative', Brian, but a necessary 'narrative' for the class conscious proletariat, if they are to politically control production.And what remains unsaid, by you and the others who have difficulty with "democratic workers' power in science", is what 'narrative' youse are employing.No doubt, influenced by bourgeois ideology, you'll all argue that 'science' is an 'objective' method of 'discovery' of 'what exists' out there, rather than Marx's view that 'we create our object'.The mythical 'objective method' of producing 'True Knowledge' is a method only suitable to an elite (even youse argue that 'truth' produced by this 'method' cannot be voted upon), and any consideration of this 'method' leads one to see that it suits perfectly a ruling class elite, and denigrates the masses as incapable of forming views upon, and thus voting upon, whether 'knowledge' is 'true' or not. This 'special consciousness' that 'elite scientists' have, and which is not available to the majority, is also the 'scientific basis' of Leninism. I'm sure even youse can see the parallels between 'elite knowledge' and 'elite power' in both science and politics.As I always say, if youse disagree with the idea of the 'democratic control of the means of production', you have to reveal what your ideology of 'production control' is. And further, your notions are completely ahistorical and asocial, whereas those who look to Marx can situate your ideological scientific views in the ruling class ideas of the bourgeoisie, as they emerged c. 1660, with the coming to power of the bourgeoisie, and their determination to end any talk by the revolutionaries that the purpose of 'science' was to 'make a better world for all', and that 'better' could only be determined by the masses.The bourgeoisie wish to pretend, for their own interests, to have a 'politically-neutral method' of 'discovering' an existing 'objective truth' of a 'world out there', a world which allegedly they haven't produced, and which just 'is', and so can't be changed.Whilst workers, and even socialists like youse, look to bourgeois ruling class ideas, we will remain hamstrung in the political and ideological battle for the control of social production.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…my reluctance to engage in fruitless dialogue with you is clear…

One has to be a fruit-eater, Tim, to engage in dialogue.You're simply defining your terms to avoid discussing how a socialist society can and should democratically control the production of scientific knowledge.The odd thing is that you ignore Marx's view that the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class, and it's easy to show that the notion of 'undemocratic science' (that individual experts, geniuses, have an 'access' to 'reality' that the masses are denied) has a socio-historical origin (and that this is clearly also the basis of Leninism in politics).That is, your 'terms of reference' are not yours, but those of the socio-economic elite that dominate our society.One would think that this would be obvious to any socialist, that 'common sense' ideas about 'science' and the 'special consciousness' of geniuses, would have been socially produced, and produced for the purpose of making the very idea of 'democratic control of knowledge production' seem laughable.But… you and the SPGB generally seem to have been taken in, hook, line and sinker, by this ruling class ideology about 'science' and 'truth'.As you say, though, this is a 'fruitless' tree of knowledge, for those who already 'know' that democracy in knowledge is a dead end. After all, who'd let workers determine their cosmos?

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.

I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.

Questions about democratic science? I should engage seriously with the idea that we should campaign to have a vote of workers re whether zombies exist?The reason I don't engage you in argument, and I guess other forum users feel the same way, is that you do not appear to be able to engage in logical argument, you commit the following logical falacies, to name but a few, with rapidity:The Strawman FalacyThe False Cause FalacyThe Black or White Falacy (if you do not agree with L Bird that science should be democratically controlled you must be an autocratic elitist)Proof by Asserttion ( If L Bird says it often enough it must be the case)Afferming the Consequent (e.g. Lenin was a materialist, therefore if you are a Materialist you must be a Leninist)False DichotomyI would also add to that regular use of sophism.Your usual response to any poster who attempts to point this out to you is to question the educational status, intellectual ability and motives of your opponent. (as you have done here) I find it strange that a person who claims to be so vehemently anti-elitist, should so regularly resort to asserting their intellectual superiority.

And yet you don't engage.Empty vessels, Tim…

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.

I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?

How else would 'facts' be established?I know that you won't answer this epistemological question, because that is at the heart of our disagreements. I'm a Democratic Communist who seeks to give a democratic political, philosophical and scientific basis to the social production of knowledge by class conscious workers. And you don't.

TK wrote:

As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

Yeah, it's always the 'method' of the 'elite' who can't account to workers why workers can't politically control their production: to question the 'psychology' of dissidents who question the so-called 'scientific' basis of 'elite knowledge production' and 'expert control'.I'll leave you to your all too 'few thoughts'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie.

No, it's 'undead', so it's neither, that's the bloody point. Neither true nor false. Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Or psychology, of the non-cod variety.

TK wrote:

(p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

p.s. You definitely need to brush up on your insults, Vin Maratty, you ain't.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Well you have been fairly treated, Lbird. so you think Vin's long term permanent ban is justified?

I don't want to see Vin banned.Personally, I just want Vin to discuss some issues from the point of view of informed debate, rather than him calling me names, and then me responding in the same childish manner.But, from the point of view of the mods, Vin's a party member, and I presume they expect more of him, than they do of me. They must think any ban is justified.It's your party, not mine. I think that the SPGB has got far larger problems than this issue.

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.

I would quite happily defend the moderators' decisions, for the most part.If anything, I think that the moderators are too lax in allowing personal abuse, which then has to be tackled by those who are the target of it.If I have any complaint, it's that the SPGB doesn't seem to have anyone capable of engaging in a philosophical and political debate, without resorting to personal abuse. But this isn't a problem with the moderators alone, but with most (all?) of those who participate in subjects about which they apparently know nothing, and aren't prepared to read up on and learn about.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I knew you would be interested in the article on NLR and Engels!

Well, I'm open-minded enough to keep following up any links, books, pamphlets, articles, etc., that are provided by comrades like you, in an attempt to either find the key to destroy what I'm arguing, or to strengthen what I've come to understand by Marx's ideas.Of course, it's open to anyone to accuse me of being biased to 'my' views, but I know myself well enough to know that I'll happily reject my previously-held beliefs if I can justify that action, having done so a number of times in my life.All I can say is that I'm yet to come across any arguments that undermine my view of what Marx was arguing – that workers create their own world, and that this creation must be democratically organised – so I continue to search, and thus strengthen my initally tentative ideas, which I've developed tremendously since I first posted here.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

On NLRhttps://louisproyect.org/2016/08/15/who-is-gareth-stedman-jones-and-why-is-he-saying-such-stupid-things-about-marx/

Thanks for that link, jdw.Neither Gareth Stedman Jones nor Louis Proyect seem to understand Marx.GSJ can go ignored, because I don't think anyone here will be giving him any space whatsoever. LP at comment 2 gives a link to a Weekly Worker article on "Humans, nature and dialectics", which is the usual Leninist guff.http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1057/humans-nature-and-dialectics/These people never mention proletarians creating their world, which is the central argument by Marx.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I was brought up a catholic, felt the guilt and confessed and felt pure. I rejected such nonsense at 14 year old.

I was brought up a catholic, too, Vin. And an Engelsist.But I have since rejected all those who insist that the 'creator' is not humanity.Whereas you, unfortunately, cling to 'Materialism', and its god 'Matter', which no worker shall challenge.

Vin wrote:

List of sins since my last confession1.       I have gone off topic more times than most but not all, see for example LBird (Venial Sin)

I think you severely underestimate the category of my 'sin', Vin.Denying the power, authority and finality of 'Matter' infuriates the 'Materialists', who can see this denial is a denial of their 'special consciousness' which workers cannot have, and so it undermines them in the eyes of democratic workers.As such, I'm committing Mortal Sin, according to the Religious Materialists who wish to adore and contemplate 'matter'.Watch me do it again, completely without contrition:'Only the democratic producers can determine by democratic means whether 'matter' exists for them'. Workers can vote 'matter' out of existence. 'Matter' is not a universal category, but a socio-historically produced category. And as such, we can change it.There we go!Destination 'Hell'!Hope to see you there, Vin, comrade.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

With the only one that you do not disagree is with yourself. Your arguments do sound iike a Marxist-Humanist

That's an unnecessary tone, mcolome1.I've treated you like a adult, and responded to your posts with reasoned arguments, and I expect you to do the same, and keep a comradely tone.Now, I've said that I'm not an adherent of Dunayevskaya, and I've said that I'm not a Leninist Materialist.You haven't. You've actually said that you are a 'materialist'.It's up to you to argue coherently why you are a 'materialist', when this is the basis of Leninism, but yet you reject Lenin.If you are unable to argue a point, then the blame lies with you, not with my arguing for Marx and workers' democracy, which you apparently dislike.

[Author]

Posts