[robbo203]

The argument the writer seems to present is that there is a flaw in Marx s thinking.  Increasing automation and the replacement of living labour by dead labour, should have the effect of reducing the value content of commodities  – the amount of socially necessary labour time embodied in them,  This is because only living labour can create new values; machines only transfer the value already contained in them,  So as machines replace human labour, the effect should be a reduction in the value content of commodities,  That in turn should result in a lowering of prices since on average and over the long run commodity prices reflect their values,  That is not happening according to the writer .  Hence the flaw in Marx's theory:" In fact, increasingly post-industrial, post-modern bourgeois-state-capitalism is abandoning, with the advent of ever-increasing automation, the limited parameters manufactured by socially necessary labor-time in favor of the unlimited parameters manufactured by conceptual-commodity-value-management, namely, arbitrary, socially constructed value, price and wage-determinations. " The writer states that Marx acknowleged that some forms of valuation can take a money form without any labour content being involved e.g honour or prestige  but felt that this was the exception to the rule of commodity production.  According to Michel Luc Bellemare, however,  this kind of arbitrary valuation has now become the rule rather than the exception Moreover;"Notwithstanding, returning to our analysis of the falling rate of profit, whenever the profit rate falls, an arbitrary/artificial application of the price-form/money-form can be applied, in order to avert profit rate decline indefinitely. One such example, straight out of Marx, is his idea that in order to rectify and/or avert a fall in the rate of profit, capital resorts to devaluation in order to overcome the falling rate of profit. Devaluation is an arbitrary/artificial application of the price-form/money-form in an effort to re-evaluate/re-price constant-capital according to a subjective and/or arbitrary standard that has nothing to do with the real, actual value embodied in the elements of constant capital; i.e., building, machinery, raw materials etc" Ths sounds to me almost like a kind of left wing anarchist version of the subjective theory of value endorsed by mainstream economists, Its equivalent to the idea proposed by currency crank theorists that banks can create money out of thin air,  If that was the case no bank need ever go bankrupt.   The example of capital devaluation to counteract the falling rate of profit  is misconstrued/ misunderstood because it is not considerd within the dynamc context of changing market conditions i.e the capitalist trade cycle.  The capital may be devalued now at a time of economic recession but as market conditions pick up it will be revalued accordingly The counterargument I would put is that ultimately this "arbitrary price form" that  Michel Luc Bellemare refers to, which he caims is now dominant, has to be derivative from the normal commodity price form based on socially necesary labour time.  You cant just conjure a price out of thin air.  The price of the good you want to sell has to adjust to the market conditions and therefore the purchasing power of your customers which in  the case of workers is based on their wage income .i.e employment.  Market competition ensure this if nothing else. Also, the writer seems to overestimate the extent to which dead labour has replaced living labour i.e. technological unemployment – partly because he is overestimating the extent of the productivity gains by looking at only one small segment of the process of socialised production immediately affected by automation .  I  find this argument  about automation bringing about mass unemployment a little puzzling because we have had a  continuous process of new technologies being introduced yet employment levels have risen to record levels,  Moreover , in the USA there was a siginificant increase in the legnth of the working day  in recent decades (see for example  http://www.nytimes.com/books/business/9806schor-overworked.html) Something does not quite add up about this whole argument pesented by Michel Luc Bellemare  and I am not convinced

[robbo203]

 

LBird wrote:

 Yes! My typical working class experience, of being an uneducated adult, who received a late education, who then came across 'Marxists and Socialists', at college, who talked about workers, class consciousness, Marx, Engels and Lenin, democracy, etc., and who eventually joined a Trotskyist organisation, has had big effect on me. Like most (no, all) of the workers I knew who joined these organisations, I left when I realised that they were bullsitting us workers, about democracy and workers' power, and they really had an idea that they, and they alone, had the requisite 'consciousness' to effect their 'practice'. Of course,as Trotsky helpfully pointed out, 'they' moves from 'workers' to 'party' to 'party machine, to 'central committee'… It's nothing to do with Marx, workers' power, democracy, class consciousness (not 'party' consciousness), and the democratic control of social production in a socialist society.Of course, this political experience helped me to question what Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc., actually said, and actually meant. I long ago got to the realisation that many of the things that the Trots claim can be supported by reference to the genius unity of 'Marx-Engels'. I'm fucked as a class conscious worker, if I start from the god-like mythical unified being of 'Marx-Engels'. I will always lose an argument with the Trots.Imagine my surprise, when I found out that the SPGB embrace exactly the same ideology as Lenin. And for the same reasons, and with the same results. Engels' materialism is a bourgeois ideology, which is suited to 'elite consciousness' (especially the ultimate elite, of The Sovereign Individual, who has Biological Senses), and has the result, as Marx warned, of dividing society into two. You've guessed it, the SPGB talks about 'Specialists' and 'Generalists', and pooh-poohs democracy, where the Specialists do as they are told by the Generalists.So, Tim, I ask a genuine question – are you a 'very different organisation' to the SWP, Militant, etc.? On the surface, certainly, but…

  The extraordinary thing about this rambling piece of muddle-headed thinking.is that LBird STILL doesn’t seem to realise that he hasn’t abandoned his erstwhile Leninist view of the world at all. He merely wants to present this image of having moved beyond Leninism to embrace what he calls “democratic communism” by projecting the charge of Leninism onto the SPGB instead.  The SPGB, "embrace exactly the same ideology as Lenin", according to LBird.  That’s rubbish.  Only someone who knows precious little about either Lenin or the SPGB can make such a preposterous claim The laughable thing about all this is the SPGB are also accused of embracing “bourgeois individualism”.  That’s the last thing you would accuse Lenin of embracing as a fervant advocate of state capitalism – bourgeois collectivism!  Essentially LBird’s conception of communist society is not unlike that of an ant colony.  It thinks and acts as a single organism.  There is only one single body of decision-making in this society – the global population – and no other.  LBird enthusiastically endorses Lenin’s idea that the “whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory"  (State and Revolution)  but the necessary corollary of this idea is that such a society will be a deeply undemocratic one since there is no way the population in general will be able to participate in decision-making  if there is only one single body of decision-making in the world and if there are millions of decisions that need to be made in the world on a daily basis. Necessarily, those decisions will have to be made by a tiny elite supposedly “on behalf of” the general population – namely Lenin's – and LBird’s – vanguard elite I’ve put this argument repeatedly to LBird but typically he has ignored it imagining perhaps that it would somehow go away if he puts his head in the sand for long enough.  It wont. The other point I would like to make concerns LBird’s constant jibes about “bourgeois individualism”. The plain fact is LBird does not understand what he is talking about.  In truth, Marx would qualify as an extreme “bourgeois individualist” by his reckoning if he thought about it for one moment Now of course it goes without saying that individuals are social individuals.  Marx quite rightly made the point that "It is above all necessary to avoid postulating 'society' once more as an abstraction confronting the individual. The individual is a social being." But just because individuals are social beings does not mean that they cannot be free to express themselves or assert their own needs in a communist society. A society can no more exist without individuals than individuals can exist without society.  It’s always a two-way thing.  LBird commits the same mistake as Margaret Thatcher when she said there is no such thing as society, only individuals, whereas for LBird it’s the other way round.  “Individuals” don’t exist according to him even though he as a minority of one on this forum sticks out as a sore thumb for being what he claims to want to abolish From a Marxist point of view, communism is about the empowerment and self-actualisation of individuals in a social setting.  It is about the optimisation of human freedom NOT the obliteration of self-expression under some kind of totalitarian faceless tyranny euphemistically called “society” I don’t think L Bird has really got his ahead around what communism is about at all.  Hopefully one day if and when he becomes a communist he might see this.  You cannot even begin to understand what communism is about if you do not understand such a basic concept as “from each according to ability to each according to need”, means.  That implies a degree of individual choice, freedom and empowerment to an extent unimaginable under capitalism.  It implies we voluntarily contribute our labour according to our abilities and we freely take from the common so according to our self-determined needs.  We are not rationed by dictate from above with respect to what we may consume or coerced into doing something against our will.  We do it as individuals because we want to do it, because we recognise we depend on each other as social beings But then LBird will doubtless dismiss this Marxist conception of communism as just another example of “bourgeois individualism” which only goes to show how far removed he is himself from a communist way of looking at the matter.  He is no communist, democratic or otherwise

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The bottom line, robbo, is how one chooses to understand what Marx's whole body of work was about.For you, because you are an individualist, you argue that Marx was talking about 'individuals'.For me, because I'm a Democratic Communist interested in 'social production' and its history, I argue that Marx was talking about, not 'individuals', but 'social individuals', their socio-historic production, and their attempts to build for Democratic Communism.This is a choice for workers to make. They can either choose your political interpretation of Marx, or my political interpretation of Marx.You have an ideology; I have an ideology. Workers, now, have an ideology. It's up to them to decide which ideology is best suited to their needs, interests and purposes.One clear difference between us, though, that all workers should take note of: I'm open about my ideological beliefs, whereas you try to hide yours. If workers choose to 'remain non-ideological', then they'll probably stick with what they have now.

 I dont think you are open about you ideological beliefs at all.  Lets face it LBird you are fundamentally a Leninist at heart  – no surprise there since I understand you were once a member of the SWP and, boy, does it show!  Like a good Leninist you enthusiastically endorse the concept of democratic centralism in the belief that this somehow makes you a democratic communist.  It doesn't  In your frankly totalitarian view of "communism" , there  will only be one descisiomaking  body permitted  – ostensibly the whole of global society – and no other.  Since this is clearly preposterous as 7 billion people cannot possibly be  involved in the millions upon millions of decisions that need to be taken every day, what you are actually advocating, though you lack the honesty to admit it, is that these decisions should be made on their behalf by a tiny elite – your Leninist vanguard Whats worse still ,you will not permit any kind of countervailing power to exist that might temper the extreme concentration of power in the hands of your elite .  For instance, you will not permit  any form of local  democracy to exist since this conflicts with your fervant  belief in total centralised planning.  Local communities  will not be allowed to make decisions  that affect them.  All decisions  will have to be taken at the World Planning Centre and handed down to local communities for implementation.  Similarly, scientists and others will not be permitted to promote their ideas or theories that conflict with the offically designated Truth. Since hardly anyone is going to bother about voting on some arcane scientifc theory  (and there are tens of thousands of these)  in effect what you label the officially designated the Truth as  a determined by a vote will inevitably be merely be the opinion of an infinitesemally small  fraction of the population  What really would be the point of the exercise? This is not democracy, LBird,  This is Orwell's 1984 ,  What you are calling for in de facto terms – though you apparently lack the wit to see  this – is a totalitarian fascist state in its purest form

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

. It's my opinion that 'science' is one of the key arenas that workers have to seek to understand, along with individualism and markets. I see those three areas as the tripod of ideology that supports capitalism.

 I presume that means LBird  would oppose Marx who would qualify as an " individualist" in his terms for writing things like this : “Communists do not preach morality at all…They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoist etc; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as self-sacrifice, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals.  Hence, the communists by no means want…to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", “self-sacrificing man”.  and this "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”  Not that I expect an answer from LBird.  He doesnt answer questions that refute his arguments

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

 

LBird wrote:

I'll try once more with you, robbo, but since I've said these things before, I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.

 Let’s go through these points one by one again, LBird, since all too predictably you have completely evaded them in the deluded belief that you have somehow answered them.   Point number ONE.  I asked you what was the point a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory.  “How is it going to make any difference if you support a theory and it gets voted down by a majority?  Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory?”  To which you answered as follows 

LBird wrote:

 Because we know from the actually history of science (not the myth of 'science' put about by bourgeois scientists, anti-democrats all) that science by its social theory and practice can produce ideas and policies which are dangerous to the majority. For example, eugenics. This was a socio-historical product of science, and had the status of a 'scientific fact', and produced 'official policies' which led to the sterilisation of those deemed by the elite to be 'inferior'. Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control. So, yes, those 'eugenicist' scientists in a society of that sort would be forced to abandon the theory. They would be prevented from advocating the sterilisation of humans.

 Firstly, do I really need to state the obvious – that you don’t force 'eugenicist' scientists to “abandon the theory” by preventing them from advocating the sterilisation of humans.  These are two quite different things. It was quite possible for them to continue believing in the theory even if they are prevented by your thought police from advocating it.  Unlike you, I am democrat.  I take the view that the most effective way to dispel and disarm a repugnant idea is not by driving it underground but by confronting it and defeating it through rational argument.  Repugnant ideas flourish because of the conditions that allow them to flourish, exist.  Unless you remove those conditions, those ideas will continue to flourish. Those conditions include the lack of opportunities to question received wisdom or the established Truth (which is precisely the kind of social fascism you are advocating). I note that you automatically assume workers will vote against eugenics theory but what happens if they don’t? What would you do then? You would be forced by the logic of your own argument to advocate or at any rate, condone, eugenics Secondly, you completely ignore my all -important point that democracy is about practical matters, it is not about the truth status of scientific ideas, meaning it is pointless voting about on whether such ideas are “true” or not.  If the proposal was made that human beings should be forcibly sterilised as a policy decision then, yes, of course this should be opposed by a democratic vote precisely because this is a practical matter.  I repeat democracy is about practical matters that have a practical effect on us Thirdly, though you give the example of eugenics theory to support your argument on the grounds that it could lead to socially undesirable consequences, there are hundreds of thousands of other scientific theories which according to you all without exception need to be voted upon by the entire world population but which theories have no discernible socially adverse consequences whichever way the vote went.  To give the example I used – what possible socially adverse consequences could arise from a vote on a new scientific theory on the asexual reproduction of tape worms which you expect the world population to participate in? Point number TWO.  You state this in opposition to my point that the science as a self-critical enterprise and that what you are advocating substitutes for science a kind of quasi-religious authority 

LBird wrote:

This is a repetition of the bourgeois myth about their 'science', that it is a 'self-critical enterprise'. It is often not 'self-critical' whatsoever, and almost everyday in the newspapers we can read accounts of 'scientists' ignoring evidence, manufacturing evidence, and suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'. And even where there is 'criticism', criticism is always from the perspective of a 'theory', and so their so-called 'criticism' never criticises their social power as 'scientists'. Bourgeois scientists never accept the need for democratic controls on their socio-political activities. All science involves power. . 

 It is remarkable LBird that you cannot see just how similar you are to the very “bourgeoisie” you criticise.  You witter on about the bourgeois myth about their 'science' being a 'self-critical enterprise' and how they go about “suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'”.   But what are you advocating? The truth is you are advocating the very same thing! You admit it yourself! You are saying that when a theory gets voted down by the people, proponents of the theory will not be allowed to continue advocating it or present evidence in support of it because it conflicts with the Truth as established by a democratic vote Point number THREE.   You completely misrepresent my view on the role of science and democracy when you argue, thus

LBird wrote:

 robbo gives his game away, here, because I always argue for democratic authory, and robbo, because he is an individualist and thinks 'elite scientists' should simply be trusted, wants any democratic political interference to be deemed 'quasi religious'. Of course, robbo is hiding the fact that there is a quasi religious authority in science today – the 'elite scientists' themselves. They are the modern priests, conducting a religious order, separated and hidden from most of us workers. 

 Firstly, I feel I need to repeat once again the point that the role of democracy has to do with the practical affairs of society not with with the Truth status of scientific theories.  My point is that there is simply no point in voting on the truth of such theories.  To do so is indeed a quasi religious attitude to science Secondly, not once did I ever suggest that scientists “should simply be trusted”.  Of course, it is desirable for there to be a two channel of communication between scientists and laypersons. I am opposed to an elitist views of science that treats scientists as if they were some kind of anointed priesthood.  However, let’s be clear about this.  No one person including even the most gifted scientist on the planet can ever know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge.  My view of science in socialist society is that individuals should be completely free to pursue whatever line of scientific enquiry that might interest them.  There should be no barriers placed in the way of this happening which is why I opposed to an elitist model of science which serves precisely to enforced such barriers.  At the same time I recognise that there will be such a thing as a social division of labour in socialism.  Some people will inevitably be more accomplished in some things than others in such a society and it is stupid to deny this.  In your fantasy world, there will be no such differences.  Everyone will be exactly the same in ability and aptitude and we will all know evertthing there is to know about everything so as to vote comfortably on the thousands of new scientific theories that come into circulation each and every day.  In your fantasy world, we will spending all our time voting on each and every one of these new theories although sadly even we will not have time enough to vote on even a tiny fraction of them Point number FOUR.  You bring up the thorny question of “materialism”

LBird wrote:

 I've  always argued that Marx was correct on this point. We should 'doubt everything' including supposed 'objective science'. robbo pretends to agree with Marx, but when robbo is asked should the nature of the sun be put to a vote, he denies this power to the majority, and insists that an elite of 'materialists', which includes robbo, already know what the sun is, and that the majority can't know this, because otherwise robbo would have no problem with a vote.Marx claims that we create our object. I agree with Marx, but the materialists, like robbo, don't. The materialists claim that we don't create matter, whereas Marxists claim that 'matter' has a history, and we can study when it originated, and why, and how it has changed, by looking at the various modes of production within which the social product of 'matter' has been socially produced. 

  Firstly, what is this “power” that LBird refers that is being mysteriously denied to the majority by them not being able to vote on the question of what is the nature of the sun?  LBird doesn’t say.  He doesn’t say because he can’t say,  because quite simply he seems to be completely clueless about what he is talking about.   Words just gush out of him mindlessly in some unstoppable stream of gibberish.  “Power” refers to ability of someone to impose their wishes on someone else against their will.  But how is not feeling it necessary to vote on the nature of the sun an exercise in “power”.  This is just so daft.  What I am saying is that if you want to believe the sun is one thing and I think it is something else then go ahead and be my guest.  I am not trying to impose my interpretation on you.  I can’t anyway and that surely is the point.  Power has to do with practical matters, not the truth of a scientific theory Secondly, Marx did not say “we create our object” e.g. the sun.  Once again this is a really stupid argument LBird is presenting because he is trying to put it in a form that appears literal while pretending to mean something else  The sun is billions of years old and homo sapiens is only – what one hundred thousand years old or so – so we cannot have literally created the sun. Now LBird knows very well that this is the case but likes to play word games.  If he had said “we create the IDEA or interpretation of the object” I would have little or no difficulty in agreeing with him – and he is lying through his teeth if he thinks I believe our interpretation of the world around is not socially produced – but it seems he is once again just intent on drawing out this whole sterile argument about materialism for the sake of it Point number FIVE.  LBird contends

LBird wrote:

 robbo is an anti-democrat, and an individualist, so robbo can see no good reason for democracy in science. robbo trusts an elite, especially the ultimate elite for individualists, their biological senses. robbo doesn't agree that our knowledge of everything, including the sun, is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it. Marxists argue that those changes must be controlled by society, by democratic methods. robbo wishes to determine what the sun is, by looking at it, by feeling heat upon the skin. This is the bourgeois method, of individual biological sensation. It is not a suitable method for democratic socialism, and its aim to democratically control all social production.

 Firstly if I am an individualist ( I still don’t think LBird knows what this means and is confusing “individualism” with “individuality”) then so is Marx and both of us are vehemently opposed to LBird’s totalitarian view of society which stems from his core Leninist ideology and his endorsement of society wide central planning.  Actually if anything Marx was even more of individualist than I am  in LBird’s sense of the word .  For example in the German Ideology we find him saying: “Communists do not preach morality at all…They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoist etc; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as self-sacrifice, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals.  Hence, the communists by no means want…to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", “self-sacrificing man”.  I would never go that far since I believe the case for socialism is both a  moral one and one based on self interests”.  I would however endorse Marx when he say “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” But LBird would oppose Marx on this because he would consider this statement of Marx’s to be an expression of “individualism” Secondly, LBird declares that I am an “antidemocratic”.  This demonstrates that LBird is willing to stoop to outright dishonesty to score a cheap point.  I have made it perfectly clear that I fully support the concept of democratic decision making in socialism but where it is needed – in the practical affairs of society – and not here it is not needed such as in the determination of the truth of scientific theories.  Democracy therefore has clearly defined limits and I advocate democracy up those limits. LBird does not.  Local forms of democracy will be banned or prohibited in LBird’s totalitarian society which recognises only one single decision-making body – namely the entire global population deciding in concert.   Since this is a totally impossible then, in de facto terms. what this means is LBird is calling for is a form of extreme fascism in which all power perforce will be concentrated in the hands of a tiny few and against which no countervailing powers must ever be allowed to emerge

 Will I get a response from LBird to these detailed criticisms  of his ideas which I took the time and trouble to write up?  Nope, it seems not.  It seems there is indeed a predictable pattern – as Tim pointed out –  to LBirds involvement in this forum which demonstrates his contempt for democratic debate.  As soon as the heat in the kichen gets too much he escapes, leaving a trail of unaswered questions in his wake, only to intrude on some other hapless thread a few days later,  repeating the same old mantras as before and when challenged once again, repeating the same old lame  excuse as before  that "you will have to read what I wrote elsewhere".  In  this way he immunises himself against all criticism – by  a calculated tactic of evasion and deceit Tim was quite right to point all this out and it really begs the question as to whether there is any point in engaging with this individual at all

[robbo203]

 

LBird wrote:

I'll try once more with you, robbo, but since I've said these things before, I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.

 Let’s go through these points one by one again, LBird, since all too predictably you have completely evaded them in the deluded belief that you have somehow answered them.   Point number ONE.  I asked you what was the point a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory.  “How is it going to make any difference if you support a theory and it gets voted down by a majority?  Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory?”  To which you answered as follows 

LBird wrote:

 Because we know from the actually history of science (not the myth of 'science' put about by bourgeois scientists, anti-democrats all) that science by its social theory and practice can produce ideas and policies which are dangerous to the majority. For example, eugenics. This was a socio-historical product of science, and had the status of a 'scientific fact', and produced 'official policies' which led to the sterilisation of those deemed by the elite to be 'inferior'. Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control. So, yes, those 'eugenicist' scientists in a society of that sort would be forced to abandon the theory. They would be prevented from advocating the sterilisation of humans.

 Firstly, do I really need to state the obvious – that you don’t force 'eugenicist' scientists to “abandon the theory” by preventing them from advocating the sterilisation of humans.  These are two quite different things. It was quite possible for them to continue believing in the theory even if they are prevented by your thought police from advocating it.  Unlike you, I am democrat.  I take the view that the most effective way to dispel and disarm a repugnant idea is not by driving it underground but by confronting it and defeating it through rational argument.  Repugnant ideas flourish because of the conditions that allow them to flourish, exist.  Unless you remove those conditions, those ideas will continue to flourish. Those conditions include the lack of opportunities to question received wisdom or the established Truth (which is precisely the kind of social fascism you are advocating). I note that you automatically assume workers will vote against eugenics theory but what happens if they don’t? What would you do then? You would be forced by the logic of your own argument to advocate or at any rate, condone, eugenics Secondly, you completely ignore my all -important point that democracy is about practical matters, it is not about the truth status of scientific ideas, meaning it is pointless voting about on whether such ideas are “true” or not.  If the proposal was made that human beings should be forcibly sterilised as a policy decision then, yes, of course this should be opposed by a democratic vote precisely because this is a practical matter.  I repeat democracy is about practical matters that have a practical effect on us Thirdly, though you give the example of eugenics theory to support your argument on the grounds that it could lead to socially undesirable consequences, there are hundreds of thousands of other scientific theories which according to you all without exception need to be voted upon by the entire world population but which theories have no discernible socially adverse consequences whichever way the vote went.  To give the example I used – what possible socially adverse consequences could arise from a vote on a new scientific theory on the asexual reproduction of tape worms which you expect the world population to participate in? Point number TWO.  You state this in opposition to my point that the science as a self-critical enterprise and that what you are advocating substitutes for science a kind of quasi-religious authority 

LBird wrote:

This is a repetition of the bourgeois myth about their 'science', that it is a 'self-critical enterprise'. It is often not 'self-critical' whatsoever, and almost everyday in the newspapers we can read accounts of 'scientists' ignoring evidence, manufacturing evidence, and suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'. And even where there is 'criticism', criticism is always from the perspective of a 'theory', and so their so-called 'criticism' never criticises their social power as 'scientists'. Bourgeois scientists never accept the need for democratic controls on their socio-political activities. All science involves power. . 

 It is remarkable LBird that you cannot see just how similar you are to the very “bourgeoisie” you criticise.  You witter on about the bourgeois myth about their 'science' being a 'self-critical enterprise' and how they go about “suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'”.   But what are you advocating? The truth is you are advocating the very same thing! You admit it yourself! You are saying that when a theory gets voted down by the people, proponents of the theory will not be allowed to continue advocating it or present evidence in support of it because it conflicts with the Truth as established by a democratic vote Point number THREE.   You completely misrepresent my view on the role of science and democracy when you argue, thus

LBird wrote:

 robbo gives his game away, here, because I always argue for democratic authory, and robbo, because he is an individualist and thinks 'elite scientists' should simply be trusted, wants any democratic political interference to be deemed 'quasi religious'. Of course, robbo is hiding the fact that there is a quasi religious authority in science today – the 'elite scientists' themselves. They are the modern priests, conducting a religious order, separated and hidden from most of us workers. 

 Firstly, I feel I need to repeat once again the point that the role of democracy has to do with the practical affairs of society not with with the Truth status of scientific theories.  My point is that there is simply no point in voting on the truth of such theories.  To do so is indeed a quasi religious attitude to science Secondly, not once did I ever suggest that scientists “should simply be trusted”.  Of course, it is desirable for there to be a two channel of communication between scientists and laypersons. I am opposed to an elitist views of science that treats scientists as if they were some kind of anointed priesthood.  However, let’s be clear about this.  No one person including even the most gifted scientist on the planet can ever know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge.  My view of science in socialist society is that individuals should be completely free to pursue whatever line of scientific enquiry that might interest them.  There should be no barriers placed in the way of this happening which is why I opposed to an elitist model of science which serves precisely to enforced such barriers.  At the same time I recognise that there will be such a thing as a social division of labour in socialism.  Some people will inevitably be more accomplished in some things than others in such a society and it is stupid to deny this.  In your fantasy world, there will be no such differences.  Everyone will be exactly the same in ability and aptitude and we will all know evertthing there is to know about everything so as to vote comfortably on the thousands of new scientific theories that come into circulation each and every day.  In your fantasy world, we will spending all our time voting on each and every one of these new theories although sadly even we will not have time enough to vote on even a tiny fraction of them Point number FOUR.  You bring up the thorny question of “materialism”

LBird wrote:

 I've  always argued that Marx was correct on this point. We should 'doubt everything' including supposed 'objective science'. robbo pretends to agree with Marx, but when robbo is asked should the nature of the sun be put to a vote, he denies this power to the majority, and insists that an elite of 'materialists', which includes robbo, already know what the sun is, and that the majority can't know this, because otherwise robbo would have no problem with a vote.Marx claims that we create our object. I agree with Marx, but the materialists, like robbo, don't. The materialists claim that we don't create matter, whereas Marxists claim that 'matter' has a history, and we can study when it originated, and why, and how it has changed, by looking at the various modes of production within which the social product of 'matter' has been socially produced. 

  Firstly, what is this “power” that LBird refers that is being mysteriously denied to the majority by them not being able to vote on the question of what is the nature of the sun?  LBird doesn’t say.  He doesn’t say because he can’t say,  because quite simply he seems to be completely clueless about what he is talking about.   Words just gush out of him mindlessly in some unstoppable stream of gibberish.  “Power” refers to ability of someone to impose their wishes on someone else against their will.  But how is not feeling it necessary to vote on the nature of the sun an exercise in “power”.  This is just so daft.  What I am saying is that if you want to believe the sun is one thing and I think it is something else then go ahead and be my guest.  I am not trying to impose my interpretation on you.  I can’t anyway and that surely is the point.  Power has to do with practical matters, not the truth of a scientific theory Secondly, Marx did not say “we create our object” e.g. the sun.  Once again this is a really stupid argument LBird is presenting because he is trying to put it in a form that appears literal while pretending to mean something else  The sun is billions of years old and homo sapiens is only – what one hundred thousand years old or so – so we cannot have literally created the sun. Now LBird knows very well that this is the case but likes to play word games.  If he had said “we create the IDEA or interpretation of the object” I would have little or no difficulty in agreeing with him – and he is lying through his teeth if he thinks I believe our interpretation of the world around is not socially produced – but it seems he is once again just intent on drawing out this whole sterile argument about materialism for the sake of it Point number FIVE.  LBird contends

LBird wrote:

 robbo is an anti-democrat, and an individualist, so robbo can see no good reason for democracy in science. robbo trusts an elite, especially the ultimate elite for individualists, their biological senses. robbo doesn't agree that our knowledge of everything, including the sun, is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it. Marxists argue that those changes must be controlled by society, by democratic methods. robbo wishes to determine what the sun is, by looking at it, by feeling heat upon the skin. This is the bourgeois method, of individual biological sensation. It is not a suitable method for democratic socialism, and its aim to democratically control all social production.

 Firstly if I am an individualist ( I still don’t think LBird knows what this means and is confusing “individualism” with “individuality”) then so is Marx and both of us are vehemently opposed to LBird’s totalitarian view of society which stems from his core Leninist ideology and his endorsement of society wide central planning.  Actually if anything Marx was even more of individualist than I am  in LBird’s sense of the word .  For example in the German Ideology we find him saying: “Communists do not preach morality at all…They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoist etc; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as self-sacrifice, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals.  Hence, the communists by no means want…to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", “self-sacrificing man”.  I would never go that far since I believe the case for socialism is both a  moral one and one based on self interests”.  I would however endorse Marx when he say “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” But LBird would oppose Marx on this because he would consider this statement of Marx’s to be an expression of “individualism” Secondly, LBird declares that I am an “antidemocratic”.  This demonstrates that LBird is willing to stoop to outright dishonesty to score a cheap point.  I have made it perfectly clear that I fully support the concept of democratic decision making in socialism but where it is needed – in the practical affairs of society – and not here it is not needed such as in the determination of the truth of scientific theories.  Democracy therefore has clearly defined limits and I advocate democracy up those limits. LBird does not.  Local forms of democracy will be banned or prohibited in LBird’s totalitarian society which recognises only one single decision-making body – namely the entire global population deciding in concert.   Since this is a totally impossible then, in de facto terms. what this means is LBird is calling for is a form of extreme fascism in which all power perforce will be concentrated in the hands of a tiny few and against which no countervailing powers must ever be allowed to emerge

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 Now, the masterstroke…  To overcome the elitism he believes is inherent in materialism, LBird needs a universal thought police.  It becomes everyone’s duty under “democratic communism” to enforce the Truth of every social idea that determines social production (= social materializations).All science, all art, all social intercourse (bedroom not exempted ) will be voted on for its social Truth, indexed against subversion, and socially enforced by everyone. 

 Yes for me this represents the very epitome of LBird's daft way of looking at the world. Not once has he ever explained the need for a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory.  How is it going to make any differnce if you support a theory and it gets voted down  by a majority?  Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory? But thats dumb,  It undermines the very basis of science as a self critical enterprise and substitutes for science some kind of quasi religious authority.  Marx argued that we should "doubt everything", LBird, by complete contrast, would have us "accept everything" providing it is formally sanctioned by the proletarian majority.  Majorities can never be wrong, you see; neccesaarily they speak the Truth.  Since the great majority currently vote for capitalism, according to LBird's reasoning they must be right and we should accept this and embrace capitalism as the Truth,  Why then is LBird hypocritically professing to be a "democratic comunist".  Shouldnt he be affirming the need for capitalism since the proletariat has  pronounced on the matter and declared in favour of capitalism? After all,the proletariat can never be wrong according to LBird The truth is LBird  has no understanding  about what democracy is for, whatsoever..  He just does not have a clue. Democracy is about practical matters such as the allocation of resources to different ends which has practical consequences for the people involved,  Its not about the truth of a scientifc theory,  Thats not democracy, thats just an opinion poll.  LBird wants us to have millions upon millions of opinion polls in a socialist society for some unspecified reason known only to himself And finally of course we come to the pacticality of his harebraned scheme.  LBird sneers at the word "practical", suggesting it reeks of bourgeois ideology,  Be that as it may he still has to explain how his ideas can be put into practice otherwise there would simply be no point, woud there?   How are tens of thousands of decisions – a gross underestimate if anything –  to be voted on every day by billions of people right across the globe as LBird suggests?  The idea is just so childish I can only assume LBird has not even begun to think about the implications of what he is suggesting.  And here's the killer,  Snce its is highly improbable that even one of these multiple decisions will attract the votes of anything more than infintesimally small fraction of the global population – quite seriously, how many people in the world are going to vote on the merits of some startlling new theory concerning the asexual reproduction of tapeworms?  – what does mean for LBird's bizarre notion of Scientific Truth as something that has to be rubber stamped  by the votes of a proletarian majoroty? In de facto terms LBird is necesarily and inescapably an advocate of an elitist form of science Until LBird answers these questions forthrightly and honestly he will continue  to be rightly regarded and dismissed as a crank, Im afraid.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'. They claim that this is an 'objective fact'. They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it. They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors..

 More stupidities from LBird.  I find it difficult to resist the conclusion that he is deliberately lying through his teeth simply  to score cheap points Once again LBird and please pay attention .   No one is saying that " Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'"  "Pluto" by which you mean "the idea of Pluto" ,we all agree, is a social construction or an interpretation conditioned by social factors.  All this is perfectly well understood But what you need to understand is that in  order to have an idea about Pluto there has to be a physical object revolving around the sun to which we have assigned the label "Pluto" in the first place.  Its as simple as that.  True, we cannot  apprehend this thing-in-itself  (in its noumenal sense) outside of our theory or interpretation of what "Pluto" means to us.  We can only apprehend "Pluto" on the basis of a set of preconceptions which preconceptions are socially conditioned,  But even so, Pluto has an objective existence.  Its existence can be independently verified by multiple observers viewing it through a  telescope. That being so I regret to have to inform that contrary to your delusional belief that we created this physical object in outer space called Pluto, we did nothing of the sort.  What we created was the ideas that this object evokes in us.  The fact that you put the expression  'the planet Pluto' in inverted commas shows that you understand this distinction but prefer to play silly word games and waste peoples' time, including your own, in the process

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Pluto failed to meet the third criterion.  I don't have any particular opinion about that so I won't be casting my vote should the question arise and neither, I suspect, will 99.99% of Earth's population.

 Ah but you really must cast  your vote on this pressing matter, Dave!  Otherwise, how would LBird be able to proclaim that the socially-constructed, proletarian-sanctioned version of the Truth  had been realised if 99.99% of the population took your desultory and indifferent attitude to this question?  I mean – damn it! – if only 0.01% of the populace voted to to affirm that Pluto was a planet that would surely make it an elitist bourgeois decision – would it not? – and we couldnt have that in a democratc communist society, could we?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.'Matter' is a socio-historical product, robbo. Why won't you discuss the social history of the production of 'matter'?

 This getting so tedious.  The very fact that you put matter in inverted commas signifies very clearly you are talking about our social interpretation or construction of matter.  Now I have already stated that we cannot apprehend matter without some idea or theory of matter – I agree with Popper in this respect that theory precedes facts – and that this idea is socially constructed.  But I have also stated that in order to have an idea or interpetation of matter, nature or whatever   such a thing must exist in a physical sense in the first place, must precde out interpretation of it .   You can't have a socially constructed theory of the "sun" with some physical object called the sun existing in the first place to have an interpretation about.  Or do you believe that you can, LBird?  Im beginning to understand Vin's frustration over your pig-headed opaqueness

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You're going to have to read Marx, robbo.I've provided the quotes, time and time again, and I'm not doing your work for you, any longer. Go and pick up a book.

 I have read Marx and nowhere does he say what you are suggesting.  You have misundertood Marx and youve misundersood what I have been  saying as well. If you think otherwise then prove it,  Where, for example, did Marx say 'Nature is nothing for us'  Cite your source

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.Simple Marxism, twc. 'Nature', as we know it, is currently a class construct. 'Nature', as we don't know it, is, as Marx said, 'nothing for us'.

 Evidence?  Where did  Marx say such a thing? I suspect most of the time you are just inventing things about what Marx said  in order to bolster your belief that you are some sort of Marxist (as opposed to the Leninist we all know you to be),  At any rate if such quote exists it could not mean what you want it to mean.   In order to interpret nature and I agree our view of nature is inescapably a matter of interptation,  there must be something there to interpret in the first place.  Is that not the case or would you beg to differ?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Human beings obviously did not create the sun, it is the idea of the sun that is socially created or culturallly conditioned.  …For clarification, I suggest in future the word interpret be used instead of create … 

You'll have to tell us how you know the sun, robbo, outside of our social 'idea of the sun that is socially created'.

As usual you display your dazzling ability to completely ignore what other people have said.  Here for the record is what I saidOur interpetation of the material world is indeed a social product but not literally the material world itself even if we can never apprehend this world except through our particular  interpretation of it. Do you understand what I meant by that and how it answers your question or do I need to explain it to you?

LBird wrote:

Marx uses the word 'create', because we 'create' any 'sun' that we 'know'. So, to switch to 'interpret' is a political and ideological step away from Marx.You clearly think that your knowledge of the 'sun' is not socially created, but your individual knowledge from your biological senses. You should be open to us and yourself, that your method is a non-social method, and also a non-historical method, because you claim to know the 'sun' as it 'is', outside of our historical creation of 'our-sun'.

 Once again you totally misrepresent what  I said.  I did  not say our" knowledge of the 'sun' is not socially created" I said that that thing that we interpet as being the "sun" – a physical object –  was NOT created by us and could not have been created for us.  As far as we know its been around for billions of years while homo sapiens as a species has only been around for 100,000 years Stop playing with words LBird.  You know exactly what I am saying.  You know also that the sun as a physical object was not created by us unless that is you have completely lost your marbles.  Nowhere did Marx say we create inorganic matter in this physical sense, That would be too daft for words.   What he said was we transform matter through labour into the products of our labour.  That is something quite diferent to what you are trying to imply

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Your full of contradictions, LBird. The Sun has not changed only our interpretation of it . Admit it – your goose is cooked

 Indeed,  This whole tedious discussion could have been avoided had LBird chosen his words more carefully.  To say that the material world is socially created is potentially misleading if understood literally.  Human beings obviously did not create the sun, it is the idea of the sun that is socially created or culturallly conditioned.  But LBird's elliptical and dogmatic way of expressing himself does not allow for this fine distinction to be made and hence we have to put up with his totally unwarranted and endless jibes about "rocks speaking" to "Engelsian materialists " For clarification, I suggest in future the word interpret be used instead of create in conjunction with the expression "material world".  Our interpetation of the material world is indeed a social product but not literally the material world itself even if we can never apprehend this world except through our particular  interpretation of it.  If you dont make this distinction then you are indeed vulnerable to the accusation of idealism – the notion that human beings literally created the sun in this instance presumably becuase they thought it would great idea to brighten up their world 

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

We find it easy to explain how and why unemployment, poverty, crime and war are all inevitable consequences of the capitalist mode of production, yet we are reluctant to explain how and why socialism is also the inevitable consequence of the same. mmm I wonder why?I'm in the 'inevitable' camp. I  chose to join the coming revolution but it was a Hobson's Choice. That damn materialismUp the Revolution!  

 I dont think it follows that because poverty, unemployment, crime etc is inevitable  under capitalism that socialism is inevitable  for the same reason.  These are two quite different  things you are trying to account for.    The Great Depression in the 1930s generated poverty and unemployment on a mass scale but no discernable movement towards socialism.  On the contrary, in Germany, for instance it gave rise to the Nazi regime. To say  socialism is inevitable is to make a teleological statement as I mentioned earlier (post 20) – namely that history is moving towards a pre-ordained goal.  Marx I think by and large rejected teleological explanations despite making statements that have a teleological ring to them.  I have yet to come across a convincing reason why socialism is inevitable. I am fully with you, Vin, in declaring "Up the Revolution!"  But that is not a teleological statement but rather a statement of revolutionary intent.  Revolution is something we socialists choose to work towards….

[Author]

Posts