robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Money Free Party seems to be particlarly strong in New Zealand for some reason though it appears to operate in 16 countries altogether http://moneyfreeparty.org.nz/index.php/meet-the-people Has the WSPNZ been in touch with them. It is great to meet people on much the same wavelength
LBird wrote:'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.More red herrings from LBird, Nobody is is denying socialist prduction will involve democratic decision-making. In fact that is written into the very declaration of principles of the SPGB which talks of The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the debate is really about the scope of democratic decisionmaking but you have chosen to ignore this. You have made it quite plain that you reject the Marxist view of socialism as a society in which individuals freely take from the common store and freely freely contribute to the production of wealth on a voluntary basis. You want a society in which individuals will have no choice whatsoever about what they consume or what work they contribute. According to you there should be only one entity that will make the entire gamut of decisions in society – namely, global society society itself , meaning 7,4 billion of us collectively voting on billions of decisions. Understood literally, that is what you are arguing for. Its is obviously absurd and equally obviously, is a direct invation to a tiny elite to take over the apparatus of decsionmaking since that is the only "practical" you can administer a system of society wide planning when you prevent individuals or local communities making decsions as well. i.e. when you prevent a polycentric model of decisionmaking from coming into existenceSince individuals will not be able to exercise any kind of choice in your society, what this means is that you advocate a society in which what you as an individual can consume will be strictly rationed according to what the powers-that-be determine you should be entitled to, Work for you, Lbird, need to take the compulsory or forced labour form++ that is typical of all class societies, Like the good Leninist that you are , you subscribe to the precept that "he who does not work shall not eat". In your Leninist dystopia, individuals will have no say in the matter of work. They must conform to what society requires of them which in de facto terms means what your vanguard elite tells them to do. Frankly, you are as bad as Maggie Thatcher who famously contended that there is "no such thing as society only individuals" except for you there is no such things as individuals only society. Unlike you, however, Marxists have a quite different take on the relationship between the individual and society essentially seeing it as a two-way, not one-way,, relationship. Which is precisely why Marx insisted,as I pointed out earlier that in a socialist society the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all". What do you imagine he meant by that ? What do you think the "free development of each" actually entails eh? Really and truly you should be criticising Marx for being an "individualist" (a sociological term you still dont understand and which you repeatedly confuse wth the term" individuality") along with the rest of us on this forum – you being the only one who stands out like a sore thumb for the holding the bizarre ideas that you promote on this forum. Come to think of it, that is richly ironic for someone who is forever going on about the "democratic production of truth". If a vote was taken on this forum on the validity of your ideas I bet you wouldnt accept – not for one moment! -what the majority voted for – would you now, Lbird?
LBird wrote:Well, we differ about just what that famous statement of communism 'means', robbo.Anyway, I'm pretty clear about your personal views, but how far do they reflect the 'official' view of the SPGB?I'm always surprised that there is so much reticence for others to mention "workers' power", 'democratic production', 'social individuals', even Marx, when it comes to these discussions.Is your interpretation of 'socialism' widely held within the SPGB, even if it's not an officially declared position?I note LBird that you dont respond to the specific points I made and indeed the specific Marx quotes I provided, which demonstrate conclusively just how removed your outlook is from a Marxian one. Thats OK if you want to hold the views you do but dont pretend that your position is a Marxian one. It most certainly not. There is no question about what "from each according to ability to each according to need" means. It means individuals freely and voluntarily contribute their labour to the common good in ways that they see fit in the light of their own abilities and awareness of what they are capable of doing. It also means individuals freely and directly taking goods from the communist distribution centres according to their own self defined needs. I dont know how you interpret that statement – perhaps you can tell us – but that is how we Marxists have always interpreted it. You have made it clear that in your view the individual in your kind of society will not be able to make any kind of meaningful choices at all. It is a "society" alone that will make all production and consumption choices so that in effect you are advocating a system of rationing coupled with a system of forced or compulsory labour. That is, workers will be compelled to do certain types of jobs and for a certain number of specified hours per week. They will have no choice in the matter. If the central Plan is to be fulfilled and workers are to receive the particular ration of goods that have been allocated to them, they will each have to be compelled to work in this manner. Just as free access goes with volunteer labour so rationing goes with forced labour I explained to you earlier why your kind of society must inevitably lead to a top down authoritarian or vanguardist system of decision-making. This is precisely because you have eliminated the possibility of any choices being made except those made by society as a whole. Since it is totally impossible for society as a whole to make the millions upon millions of decisions that it will need to make to function at all, these decisions will perforce be made by a tiny elite in the name of society. There is no other option unless you allow individuals themselves to make decisions for themselves (which you have ruled out) so that you would have a feedback system in place rather than a top down command economy where decisions flow downwards in a one-way direction I will end with this observation. Marx as mentioned took the view that in a communist society, the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" In other words, the individual should be empowered to choose and this would benefit society as a whole Now you have counterposed this to what you call Marx’s ”social productionism” without any understanding of what that entails at all. Certainly, modern day production is indeed a highly socialised process which brings into sharp relief just how interdependent we all are upon each other. I would argue and I think this is the point that Marx himself was making, that we can only really fully appreciate this sense of interdependence when we ourselves are free human beings, free to choose what to consume and what labour to perform. A free access communist economy provides the optimum conditions under which we can realise our true social nature and shatpen this sense of mutual interdependence. There is no one else to turn to provide for our needs, or to blame – no governments, no bosses, no charities – only ourselves The kind of society you advocate for is not conducive to promoting a sense of interdependence and the kind of cooperative ethos that arises from that but, rather, what is called a “dependency culture”. This is because in your kind of society you are deprived of the ability to make any choices and, thus, to learn from the consequences of making those choices. You are reduced to status of being a cog in a vast impersonal machine. You are essentially dependent on the decisions others – the elite – make for you. You don’t feel any sense of responsibility towards your fellows because as an individual you are powerless. As you said yourself, the individual in your society will not be able to make any choices Far from encouraging a democratic outlook, what you are proposing will do the very opposite – on the one hand by concentrating power in the hands of a tiny elite of decision-makers and, on the other, by disempowering the great majority and fostering in them a sense of isolation and helplessness In the end, a society of free individuals is an absolute precondition for a properly functioning democracy. Here I am not referring to the fake freedom of bourgeois “individualism”, a term which really boils down to the freedom of one class to exploit another. Incidentally, “individuality” which is what I am really talking about does not mean the same thing as “individualism” at all but you seem to constantly confuse or conflate these different terms. I am referring to the real freedom that is entailed by a society of free access and volunteer labour. Far from detracting from democracy as you suggest, it ensures and strengthens it
LBird wrote:The saddest part of this, robbo, is that you're making quite clearly my (and Marx's) argument here, very well, but without realising it.You're contrasting your 'individualist consumptionism' with Marx's 'social productionism'.The former doesn't need 'democracy', whereas the latter does need 'democracy'.For the former, Engel's 'materialism' ('matter' being touched by 'passive biological individuals') is quite sufficient.But for the latter, some ideology of 'human creation' is required, where the 'subject' is a 'social' category, a subject that creatively produces its world.For the former, individuals contemplate their choices from the existing store; for the latter, society creates both its choices and its store.It seems to me to be quite clear from this statement of yours, LBird, that you reject the Marxian concept of communism or at any rate what is called the “higher phase of communism” as outlined by him in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. This concept is summed up by the expression “from each according to ability to each according to need”. What that means is that individuals freely take from the common store according to their self-defined needs and freely cooperate with their fellows in the production of wealth on a purely voluntary and unremunerated basis. These two things hang together, you cannot have one without the other What you advocate, instead, has got nothing to do with communism or Marx’s “social productionism”. What you advocate can best be described as a kind of idealised hypothetical totalitarian society in which it is not individuals who make choices with respect to what goods they consume or what labour they contribute but “society” (“ society creates both its choices and its store”). Individuals should not have a choice in these matters at all, according to you. In other words, you advocate a society in which wealth is essentially rationed and labour is fundamentally coerced in accordance with some predetermined social plan in order to ensure the realisation of this plan Since you cannot allow for any kind of feedback mechanism that seeks to accommodate and adjust to individual decisions and individual choices what this means, in effect, is that you advocate a society of society-wide central planning, You have now finally admitted what I suspected was the case all along. Though you have yet to acknowledge this, you have finally revealed to us the true nature of the ideology you subscribe to – namely, unreconstructed Leninism It was Lenin who declared “The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labor and pay” (State and Revolution). There is no other way in which such a society could function except on the basis of a completely top-down authoritarian command structure and I defy you to show otherwise. Logistically speaking, the sheer volume of decision-making needed to administer any kind of large scale society which you want to concentrate entirely within a single society side planning entity makes it absolutely impossible for even a significant number of individuals to participate in the planning process. Of necessity and by default, these decisions would have to be undertaken by a tiny vanguard elite yielding absolute power in the face of which the great majority, by your own admission, will not be able to exercise any kind of choices whatsoever and consequently will be powerless to reject these decisions handed down to them by the vanguard , dressed up as “choices” made by society in general. Marx's position is totally the opposite to the one you put forward, incidentally. Marx advocated a society of “freely associated” workers which only makes sense in the context of a society in which individuals are actually empowered to make choices. In your misleading use of the term, Marx would qualify as an "ultra-individualist". He maintained that in communism, the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" Note the words "condition for". What this signifies is that individual freedom is precondition for social freedom. In the German ideology, he famously spoke of communist society as one in which an individual might “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, do critical criticism in the evening, just as he has in mind”. “Just as he has in mind” means the individual has an absolute choice in the matter of what work he or she performs but, according to you, that individual should have no choice and should diligently carry out a work quota as determined by something called “society” (meaning your Leninist Vanguard). I'm sorry to say this LBird but you are no Marxist, you have little understanding of Marxist theory and you have no inkling of what is meant by Marx’s “social productionism” at all. It is not at all what you seem to have in mind
Tim Kilgallon wrote:So what's the alternative?We propose an alternative based on ownership of capital and market forces that currently exists in the UK, Europe and worldwide. This alternative is a society of common ownership that we call socialism.It is a good manifesto but there seems to be a mistake here…
Vin wrote:I genuinely would love to read LBird's replies to these questions. Does he understand this post? Sure a 'democratic communist' like LBird should have no problem dealing with these question. Thread-hop as much as you wish, they aren't going away, LbirdI doubt if he will Vin. You see, to talk about individuals being able to freely take from the distribution stores according to their self determined needs and to freely and voluntarily contribute to the production of wealth according their abilities is unspeakably INDIVIDUALIST, for heaven's sake. I mean, you can't really go about mouthing slogans like "from each according to ability to each according to need". Where will it all end? Next, people will be calling this Marx's "higher stage of communism"!No, people need to be democratically instructed by the ..er .."democratic global community" concerning what work we shall each contribute and what goods and services we shall each be allowed to consume. All 7 billion plus of us, Now thats "democratic communism", innit?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him.Rule 6 is quite sufficient and very clear for his branch to proceed to expel him, Robbo. We need not engage in any complicated debate or discussion about the nature of reformism or reforms.
Quote:6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.He stood on behalf of the Seaham Community Party, which is registered as a political party by the electoral commission.What is more that he felt the need to do so without resigning and underhandedly maintaining it a secret from the Party. I ask myself, would we have ever heard of his candidature if he had failed to be elected? In fact, would we have ever known if Vin did not have the decency to relay the information to us al?. But i do have to now ask Vin and Linda, directly, when were they aware of this development. The question is unavoidable, i'm afraid, considering their close family ties with ex-comrade Colborn. BTW, i do find it difficult not to say ex-comrade, as his actions count louder than any words he may have in mitigation.
OK I accept your reasoning here Alan. The rules are clear- that you cannot belong to another political party – and although I drew comparsions with Residents Associations being forced by legislation enacted in 2000 to become political parties in order to represent local interests locally, I think Adam's point about the Seaham Community Party contesting elections at county level clinches the argument. I am also sympathetic to Vin's point of view that one should not be overly harsh in judgng Steve Colborn. People dont necessarily cease to be socialists once they leave the Party. It would nice to hear him tell his side of the story though I doubt he would be inclined to do so on this forum
+
LBird wrote:.Unless you agree, with what I'm starting to suspect is widespread within the SPGB, that only 'an elite of the educated and informed' will make decisions for the dumb majority.It seems that my understanding of the revolutionary process to human emancipation is very different from the SPGB's – not least, over this issue of 'democracy'. If you've got a mental picture of the 'ignorant and uninformed' having to be 'excluded', christ knows what robbo's visions of the "hell of workers' democracy" look like.More drivel from LBird, He just dosesnt get it does he? After endless efforts to try to explain what the real issue is here, he comes out again with the same old boring evasion. No LBird it is not a case of "an elite of the educated and informed' making decisions for the dumb majority" that we communists are arguing for.. This is an utterly, sociologically inept, conclusion on your part for two main reasons 1) Because the "decisions" you are referring to are more than just practical decisions about things like the allocation of resources or where a local sweage plant should be sited. There is no disagreement that these sort of things should be subject to democratic decision making despite your deceitful insinuation that I think otherwise. However, you are extending the range of decisions, and hence the scope of democratic decisionmaking, much much further than is warranted to include also things as the "truth value" of scientific theories or the artistic merit of works of art. That is what we object to. Its an utterly stupid idea , Its totally impractical and, more to the point, its totally unnecessary, If a majority of people vote to say a particular theory is correct what is meant to happen following that vote? You never explaim, Are the minority then supposed to abandon their oppostion to this theory becuase the majority,support it? But thats just dumb. If scientific progress was governend by LBirds model we would still be thinking that th sun revolved around the earth and that the eath was not sphere, but flat. Because that is what the majority thought at the time and there would be no mechanism by which this point of view could be altered if minority opinions were banished. In fact if minority opinions were to be banished we would never arrive at communism – and should never according to LBird – since the overwhelming majority of workers today support capitalism and this view should prevail 2). Becuase you dont understand what is meant by an "elite", You lack any real understanding of what communism is about and how it precludes the very possibility of such an elite ever arising. Universal free access to goods and services and the voluntartisic nature of labour itself dissolves completely the very basis of political power in communism. No one would be in a position of being able to exercise any kind of leverage over others. Moreover, you fail to ses that by an" elite" is meant a systematically unified internally coherent body or section of the population sharing a common interest. How could this possibly arise in a communist society with a complex social division of labour? An expert neurologist will be a complete layperson as far astrophysics is concerned while an astrophysicist will be a complete layperson as far as the neourological sciences is concerned, What is the common basis on which these two very different experts can unite as a collective elite to conspire against the interests of the general public in the way you suggest? You dont explain.+ Your whole line of argument is incredibly weak , incoherent and confused. You dont accept that in a communist like any other form of technologically advanced society there must be a complex division of labour, We cannot all become competent neurologists so it is INEVITABLE there is going to be an uneven distribution of social knowledge. If you disagree with that then how do you propose to overcome this unevenness – that we all become accomplished in every conceivable field of scientific enquiry so that we can all grasp the minutiae of every scientific theory going and be able to competently vote on them? But this is impossible LBird as you must surely realise . Even becoming accomplished in just one single field of sceintifc endeavour is an uphill strugge for any one person, involving years of dedicated study and practice. Yet you are proposing that we shall equip ourselves with a godlike omiscience of being able to grasp the sum total of human knowledge! This is a childiish idea. Frankly LBird you are dreamer with your head in clouds more concerned with the sound of pretty words than what they actually signify in real terms
Yes Alan I agree with what you say. I did not know of his new Party's support for the British Legion and presumably also the distribution of red poppies – that obnoxious hypocritical annnual event that the jingoists like to engage in, promoting patriotic values on the pretext of remembering the war dead. Even so, though completely objectionable from a socialist standpoint, this does not really constitute "reformism". My only observation concerning this sad and sorry state of affairs is that, if you are going to initiate expulsion proceedings against Steve Colbourn, you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him. I am not entirely convinced that the charge of reformism will withstand scrutiny for the reasons outlined in my previous post On a more personal note, does anyone know what prompted Steve to take this course of action? Why did he not simply resign from the Party in the first place? I got the impression that he was a pretty active member of the NE branch so why this sidden change of heart? It would be interesting to hear his side of the story if he is willing to give it
Yes Alan I agree with what you say. I did not know of his new Party/s support for the British Legion and presumably also the distribution of red poppies – that obnoxious hypocritical annnual event that the jingoists like to engage in, promoting patriaotic values on the pretext of remembering the war dead. Even so, though completely objectionable from a socialist standpoint, this does not really constitute "reformism". My only observation concerning this sad and sorry state of affairs is that, if you are going to initiate expulsion proceedings against Steve Colbourn, you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him. I am not entirely convinced that the charge of reformism will withstand scrutiny for the reasons outlined in my previous post On a more personal note, does anyone know what prompted Steve to take this course of action? Why did he not simply resign from the Party in the first place? I got the impression that he was a pretty active member of the NE branch so why this sidden change of heart? It would be interesting to hear his side of the story if he is willing to give it
Tim Kilgallon wrote:From the Seaham Community Party Facebook site: "We want local people from all backgrounds and age groups to join us to change Seaham for the better. Seaham Community Party are really proud of our town and we would like to continue this regeneration seen at the sea front in to other areas. We will protect Seaham' heritage, Tommy, George Emily Lifeboat and The British Legion. We will reduce Seaham Town Councillors from 21 to 11, therefore saving costs to invest in our town. We will not put the council tax up by 3% like the current party. We strongly support all our local health and well being/fitness. We will save and improve Seahams' Leisure Centre and Youth Centre. We will run activities and support local families and also organise a childrens' summer holiday programme, including trips, events and sports/clubs. We will clean up our streets and parks to make them free from litter and dog mess. A zero tolerance on dog fouling. We will strive to invest and protect our allotments and open green spaces for future generations. We will continue to sup port and improve all of Seahams outdoor events such as the carnival, armed forces day and the fireworks display. We will work hard to enhance Seaham as a tourist destination by doing all that we can to further Seahams reputation as a holiday destination. COME AND JOIN US! Seaham Community Party are honest, approachable, trustworthy and reliable. Vote for us and together we will improve Seaham!"Clearly a set of reformist demands, not exactly a Revolutionary Socailist Party. Incidentally they call us impossiblists for proposing the creation of a society based on common ownership and the abolition of the wages system, the idea of making Seaham into a holiday destination is much more far fetched!!If it is the Steve Colborn of NE Branch who has been elected on this platform, he should hang his head in shame.Not sure if the above would actually qualify as a "set of reformist demands" though, Tim. Reformism, to me, essentially only applies at the level of state power (and above) and has to do with the attempt to ameliorate the consequences of capitalism through centralised legislative and political enactments. In other words, it is capitalism you are trying to reform, not the shoddy state of Seahams' Leisure centre which may need a lick of paint or whatever. Contesting local elections strikes me as being much closer to voting for representaives in your local Residential Association. This Wikipedia link on Residents Associations is particuarly interesting and pertinent – in particular this:"While generally eschewing national party politics, since the reform of UK electoral law in 2000 several British residents' associations have been obliged to register as locality-based political parties to enable them to participate in local elections for borough and county councils." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residents%27_association) The Party has no objections to members joining Residents Associations. Providing these essentially locally based poliical parties, like the "Seaham Community Party", are not linked to national parties based on an unequivocally reformist platform, I wonder if there really is much harm in what Steve Colbourn is doing from a socialist standpoint. You might want to argue that it is all a bit pointless – though that is a moot point – but that does not necessarily make it reformist as such. There are lots of things that the Party opposes which are not in themselves reformist. Racism for example is not in itself reformist though it can certainly be associated with a reformist programme that for example privileges one particular so called racial group
LBird wrote:I'm a Democratic Communist, whose ideology defines 'socialism' as 'democratic socialism'.Another red herring. Of course socialism involves democracy . No one is disputing that. The argument is solely about the limits of democratic decisionmaking even in a socialist society. Do you deny that such limits will exist even in socialism, LBird? Do you agree that there would be a vast range of decisions that would necessarily fall outside the practice of democratic decisionmaking. For example – albeit to take a rather extreme example – whilst you rail against what you ignorantly call the "individualists" on this forum, would you be comfortable with the fact that the democratic community (which in your eyes boils down to the entire global population) should determine how you shoud lead you life, thus: – what work you should do and for how many hours per day- where you may live – what you may study- where you may travel to- your consumption and lifestye choices- your view on what constututes scientific truth- your view on what constitutes artistic beauty And so on and so forth. Also and I have asked this of you before LBird but would local communities exist in your version of democratic communism that would be able to take democratic decision on their own (thus limiting democracy to locals in this case). Can you please answer this question LBird
LBird wrote:The key political issue here is the question of 'independent'.'Independent of individuals' does not mean 'independent of society'.So, we're faced with arguing either that nothing is independent of society (and so this can be voted upon) or that something is independent of society (and so can't be voted upon).The problem is, as Marx says, nothing is independent of society, and so those who argue that something is independent have to then surreptitiously put their own elite in control of this something (which isn't really independent of society as a whole).This is precisely what Vin, robbo, and the rest of the Religious Materialists do. They claim to be dealing with something independent of society ('nature', 'matter', 'Truth', 'externality', 'reality', etc. etc.), which can't be voted upon, but then claim that they themselves, as an elite, outside of the democratic control of the social producers, can determine this 'something'.You are talking absolute rubbish here Nobody is saying 'Independent of individuals' means 'independent of society'. You have totally musunderstood not only Marx but your critics on this forum Independent is an allusion to the will of particular individuals. Society is indeed a socio-historical construction but as a socio historical construction the individual has to adapt it , to fit in with it , to live with it. It is in this sense that the relations of the production are "independent" of the individual – in the sense of exerting an external constraining influence on this particular individual. What you have done is to confuse particular empirical individals with individuals in general who collectively make up society. There is no such thing as a society without individuals and conversely there is no such thing as individuals without society. We are social animals, No one is saying anything different on this forum. But you have completely misunderstood the signicance of what has been said and then drawing a completely invalid inference based on this elementary blunder So its back to the drawing board for LBird! You could do with re-reading Marx through the eyes of Emergence Theory
LBird wrote:Again, what this all boils down to is whether 'democracy' is a core value, or just something employed when it's 'practical'.But, who (or what) determines the 'practical'?Democratic Communists would argue that only the producers can determine whether a political situation is to be based upon 'democratic' values, or upon the 'practice' of an elite.Religious Materialists argue that special elites (in their political/ideological terminology, 'locals') can operate outside of the democratic controls of society. They do this by arguing that 'knowledge' is 'local' to an 'elite' – that is, 'knowledge' is not a social product by society, but a product by a 'knowing elite'.The obvious 'local' elite in political history is the Party, then its cadre, then its central committee, then its leader.You can't get a more 'practical' and 'local' power than 'Uncle Joe'.robbo203 wrote:Democracy for me is about practical decisions not abstract theories…[my bold]What about 'democracy for us', robbo?How do you know what is 'practical', in the absence of 'abstract theories'?Whatever happened to Marx's 'abstract theories' about 'social theory and practice' and 'democratic production'?It's simply an excuse to try to realise the bourgeois myth of 'Individual Freedom' – you're an ideological individualist, robbo.By 'local' you really mean 'yourself'.
More incoherent drivel.I am not a community, I am just an individual and a community involves several individuals, by definition, And democratic decisionmaking, also by definition, is something applies to communities only. I dont democraticaly debate with myself to make a decision, do I? By local I mean the local community, however defined. I cannot say in advance precisely what the spatial extent of a given local community might be, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume otherwise but what I can assert fairly confidently that there will be local communties, however defined And you completely twist and distrot what I say about abstract theories , Certainly I agree that the question of what is practical involves a theory but this is not what I was alluding to and you know that full well, LBird. All thinking involves "theory" in this general sense but I am talking specifically about theories in the specialised sense as organised bodiies of knowledge such as scientific theories which I explicitly referred to So to give an example of what I mean – String Theory in physics. Will this be voted upon in a socialist society to determine whether it is "true". Obviously, no. Why? Because 1) There is absolutely no point in the exercise. What are you hoping to achieve by the exercise? If a minority vote to say the theory is wrong and a majoriy vote to say it is right, how are you going to stop the minority continuing to think it is wrong? Should you even try if you believe in democracy. So what have achieved with the democratic vote? 2) Since the electorate in this instance is essentially boundless – meaning global – you have to organise a global vote. This assumes that most people have even heard of String Theory or are bothered to vote on it, Its also assume a worldwide mechnism for the organisation of such vote and the diversion of considerable manpower and other reseoruces to effect such a vote. If you got more than .001 percent of the population voting you would be lucky. So what is practical worth of the exercise String Theoiry is just one theory; there are hundreds of thousands of other theories in ever conceviable banch of humam knowledge. Are you going to organise a global vote on all of these too? What about art? Are you going to organise a global vote on different t forms of artistic expression to determine their artistic merit. Art too is a social construction so, according to you, must therefore be subject to a democratic vote Frankly you have tied yourslef up in knots with this ridiculous argument of yours about democratic decisionamking. Democracy is about practical decisionmaking , about the allocation of resroceus to desired ends – bot scitific truth or artistic merit. We may not precisely know where the dividing lines is between practical decisions and abstract theories but by inference we can be certain that such a distinction can be be made – just as we can be certain that in capitalism there is a capitalist exploting class and an exploited working class even if the dividing line between them is blurred
LBird wrote:Thanks for your very clear political reply, robbo.All democratic socialists should take note of it.Indeed. And if you claim to be a democratic socialist do you also take note of it? Do you concur with the statement I made or not. Yes or no. And if "no", in what way do you specifically disagree with it, Spit it out LBIrd. Lets hear you concrete objections to what was said in post 10 if you have any….
