robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:I think the purpose of the "off-topic" rule is not to make the forum into an equivalent of the word association game "just a minute", but to enable a means of preventing individuals and groups from turning every post into one about their pet topic, gripe or obsession. It's one thing for conversation to naturally progress, it's another to continually force the same topic upon people.
Hmm I'm not sure how true this is DJP….. For starters, the off topic rule doesn't prevent the obsessional person from obsessing "on topic" or initiating theads about their "pet topic, gripe or obsession" Secondly to indulge your own obsession in "off topic" mode, you need some kind of linking argument that connects the original post with what what you eventually want to talk about or obsess over in order for you to come across as more persuasive. Otherwise people are just gonna ignore you. Now this is no bad thing as this stretches peoples imagination and forces them to think outside of their own little box And thirdly there is the point that people tend to vote with their feet. An obsessional poster who bangs on about the same old thing repeatedly will become boring and not elicit much in the way of response.. Others will just start new threads to get from a discussion that appears to be stuck in a rut. I think the approach that I am advocating – to drop the off-topic rule altogether – will actually encourage contributors to diversify and be creative if they want to capture the attention of others
I think the point is Mod1 we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what the purpose of a thread is or should be. .. I see the title of a thread as indicating only the starting point of a conversation that can lead to all sorts of unexpected twists and turnings and new terrains of thinking. To me, the concept of "derailing a thread" is meaningless – or should be – because it implies the direction of the debate should mechanically go along fixed tramlines regardless whereas, in real life, conversations don't develop like that. We are grasshoppers by nature! One thought can lead to another and then another until eventually we are talking about something that is wholly unrelated to the original thought. That is what I am saying the forum should be more like You however see the title of a thread more as a kind of straitjacket that serves to restrict the discussion in the thread along certain lines through the duration or the life of the thread – though admittedly you want to loosen this straitjacket a little. I don't think this is helpful to you guys as hardworking Mods or beneficial to the forum in general. I would seriously urge you to rethink your approach and think of the title of the thread as a merely a kind of opening gambit to star a conversation My guess is that a lot of conversations would continue to focus on the original focus of the opening post but not all thread would or should. There is certain logic in the way a thread progresses, moving away from the contents of the original post. Its not just random. And I think if you start imposing cut off points where posts come to be considered to be "off topic" you lose a lot of the richness of the argument that comes with just letting things flow naturally and take their course
LBird wrote:And still, not one member or sympathiser of the SPGB argues for workers' democracy in truth production.But WHY WHY WHY do you want such a thing as "workers democracy in TRUTH production".??? You never ever explain. Workers democracy in the production of goods and services I can perfectly understand and support – but TRUTH? To me the idea is bonkers. Plain bonkers. And the thing is you make no effort at all to explain the reasoning behind this I have never heard such nonsense and don't kid yourself that its got anything to do with Marx or Marxism. There is not a single source you can cite which would support this claim of yours. I think the only person I have ever come across to put forward this balmy idea that the general populace of a future socialist society should vote in the truth of scientific theories is your good self, This idea of yours is unIque to you and you alone. Prove me wrong if you can Anyway, what are you hoping to achieve by workers democratically voting on whether a particular scientific theory is true or not? Please explain. So they take a vote and by a narrow margin agree that some particular theory is true. OK so now what? What is supposed to happen? Are we not allowed to question this scientific theory anymore – or what? What was the purpose of taking the vote in the first place? You seem to have a kind of religious-dogmatic view of what science is about
LBird wrote:To elitists, democracy is always 'impracticable'.Attacking your idea has got nothing to to do with supporting elitism. It is not democracy that is impracticable but your particular take on what democracy entails. Of course it is impracticable to suppose that tens of thousands of scientific theories can be voted upon a global population of 7 billion people. Have you even the slightest inkling of the logistics of such an undertaking How can you seriously think that is "practicable!?
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Bollocks.LOL! And this is the philosophical-intellectual part of the SPGB!You can't argue with me, ALB, because I can produce the textual evidence for my arguments, and point to the political experience of all workers when confronted with 'materialist' parties, like the SPGB.It's the usual Leninist special pleading for cadre/specialist consciousness, which the class/generalists can't presume to vote against.It'd be more suitable if you tried to learn from educated workers, but 'materialists' resent the very suggestion, that the class 'knows better' than the Party.That's why only the class can determine their socio-historically produced truths, by democratic methods.
I think ALB is quite right. It is "bollocks" to say the SPGB and the SWP.are essentially the same and that they both "claim to have a special, elite access to 'Truth'." The latter nonsense stems from LBird's nonsensical, non-Marxist and totally idiosyncratic idea – I have never heard it being expressed by anyone else – that the truth of all scientific theories should be voted upon by the entire global population. Nowhere does such a silly impractical idea appear in any of Marx's writing and if LBird can show otherwise let him produce the evidence. Saying that there is bound to be a social division of labour and specialization does NOT translate into "elitism". LBird doesn't seem to understand what elitism means. But as far as the SPGB is concerned I have never once heard the suggestion being made that only a small section of the working class are capable of understanding socialism. On the contrary the opposite is true. It is constantly pointed out that any and every worker is fully capable of understanding socialism and indeed that the great majority need to if socialism is to be established So LBird is indeed talking bollocks, That apart , there are very substantial theoretical differences between the SWP and the SPGB on a whole host of things and if LBird knew much about either organisation, he wouldn't have come out with such a crass claim
Young Master Smeet wrote:If a conversation drifts that's one thing, but if someone starts totally off-topic posts, and essentially derail the discusion, that does get in the way of free debate, it's very easy for two people havng a ding-dong to kill a conversation. Rule 11 is the best rule there, and shouldn't need conflict, just an occasional nag from the mods.You can have a ding dong and kill a conversation while remaining completely on topic. If people are unhappy with the way the thread is going then its simple – you just start up a new thread. Rule 11 is unnecessary and piles more work on to the workload of our hard pressed Mods as well as needlessly bringing them into conflict with users
DJP wrote:FWIW see number 11 here:https://faq.worldsocialism.org/index.php?sid=4841&lang=en&action=artikel&cat=5&id=11&artlang=enThats interesting DJP. I think guideline No.11 needs to be scrapped for starters, thereby reducing the scope for conflict between Mods and users. It really doesn't matter if the discussion drifts off topic and I cant imagine why people make such a fuss about it. This is an unnecessary rule
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:We can see how Marx actually thought a party should be organised. He did seek to centralise to some extent, but it's clear that that was in part a process of democratising and mofving away from the conspiratorial version of the rules:[my bold]It's probably clearer to say that Marx thought the class should be organised in a democratic way.
YMS wrote:But, it's clear that the congress of the league that retained supreme authority.This is not 'clear' at all.Marx argued that the proletariat as a class was the 'supreme authority'.As is usual with materialists (like you), the emphasis is always upon 'party', and not 'class'. That's why you're following Lenin, and not Marx.
Marx did say apparently that ‘the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct political party’. (D. McLellan, The Thought of Karl Marx, London 1971, p. 177.)
moderator1 wrote:Hmm. Massive claim to make imo. "This will help to significantly reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent".Have you happened to come across some evidence to back up such a claim?Well yes I have been active in fora where the off topic rule is not enforced. The tendency is for members to stick to the topic themselves in most cases even if they sometimes wander off topic. My point is that it does not really matter if they wander off topic. People who feel disgruntled about it being off topic will often start up threads to steer the conversation in the direction they want, I think this is worth considering Mod1 for 2 reasons1) some of the most interesting and significant debates are those that tend to veer off topic. Sometimes debates should not be straitjacketed by some artificially imposed limits2) It significantly reduces the scope for tensions to arise between members and moderators over moderator decisions, and allows Mods to focus on the things that really matter such as trolling and flaming which spoil the atmosphere of the forum and generally reduces the workload of the mods themselves I thinks this suggeston is worth considering , guys, even if only for a while as an experiment to see what happens….
moderator1 wrote:The mods make no secret that any suggestions on a more flexible approach to moderation are always welcome.Thats good to hear. Personally I think the off-topic rule should be scrapped and debates should be allowed to develop organically, Individuals are always at liberty to start new threads if they want to steer the conversation closer to what interests them, This will help to significantly reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent
Once again – why don't all sides in this debate CALM DOWN, take in a deep breath and patiently let the procedure for Vin to be reinstated kick in without all this totally unnecessary turmoil? Linda you really really do not help matters by making those provocative and unfair comments you have made. You should chill out. So should you, Matt, It ain't gonna help saying the things you say…. I know this will probably sound presumptuous coming from a non-member – and if so I apologise to any members if they are offended – but why doesn't EVERYONE involved in this endless squabbling take a break from it. Lets take some of the heat out of the situation which causes people to say things they later regret. The Mods have a hard and thankless and vital job to do but I do believe they need to sit down and look at the rules of this forum again. I believe these need to be somewhat modified and made more flexible in a way that will prevent a recurrence of this sort of event. As they stand the rules tend to increase the likelihood of a run-in with the Mods . Its no reflection on the Mods themselves who are diligently applying the rules. The problem lies with the rules which need to be looked at again. We need to adapt the rules to the people not the people to the rules And we can all help as participants on this forum by offering suggestions as to how this can be done.But we can also all help by taking to heart the lessons to be learnt from this whole sorry saga and by all being, myself included as I am far from blameless, more disciplined and circumspect about how we interact with each other. Robust and even heated debate is fine – after all its makes for a stimulating forum – but sometimes there is a line which is better not crossed
LBird wrote:robbo, the simple answer to your predicament is to realise that we don't share the same political ideology.I'm a Democratic Communist, influenced by Marx's ideas about 'social production', and the democratic control of that production.You believe something else.I can't explain my views from your perspective, only from my own.If you don't accept my Marxist viewpoint, that's fine by me. If you don't think all social production should be democratically controlled, that's fine by me.I'm more interested in discussing these democratic ideas about social production with socialists who are influenced by Marx.Quite frankly, your ideological focus on 'Opportunity Costs', 'specialists' and 'individuals' is irrelevant to me, and my views about social revolution, workers' democracy and socialism. My views, similarly, will be irrelevant to you.Why not take up your discussion with someone who shares your ideology?So, once again, yet another famous LBird cop-out… You know, the idea that you can just dismiss the question of opportunity costs as ideological and something to be ignored is really quite silly. Opportunity costs are unavoidable in life and in any conceivable kind of society. I agree there is an ideological aspect to them inasmuch as they involve choices but that is a different matter. The point is that you cannot avoid having to make such choices however ideological these choices are. There is nothing "Marxist" in dismissing the concept of opportunity costs. In fact if Marx were a member of this forum I could well imagine him now in front of his laptop furiously firing off a post in that characterisically brusque manner of his, branding LBird as an idealist nincompoop who has no grasp of basic economics Opportunity costs are everywhere. If you LBird decide to respond to this post, the opportunity cost of you doing so is to forego that game of snooker you promised you would play with your mates down at the pub. If a socialist society decided to build a bridge out of 20k tonnes of some metal alloy then the opportunity costs of that is to do without all those tractors you could have manufactured out of all this metal alloy. If Jill decide to take a 5 year degree course to become a competent neurosurgeon then the opportunity cost of that is to abandon the idea of becoming a competent and trained up geophysicist able to decide whether some obscure theory in geophysics is true or not And finally – on what grounds do you imagine I do not support the idea that "production should be democratically controlled"??? I do and I have said so. Howeever that idea is TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY different to the idea we are talking about here which is the idea of "democratically determining whether scientific theories are true". I feel I need to capitalise these words and repeat them to bring this to your attention. Why is it that whenever we have this discussion you always scurry back to the comfrot zone of appealing to the idea that production should be democratically controlled when this is NOT – repeat NOT – what I am calling into question?? You are trying to couple this idea with your own idiosyncratic idea which is nowhere to be found in Marx that scientific theories should be democratically voted upon, Ive seen through your tactic LBird and it wont wash….
LBird wrote:I'm only going to answer you once more, robbo, because I've answered this continuously for years now, and you keep asking the same question, having ignored my answers.Well, no, actually you haven't answered this "continuously for years now". This is the very first time you've made a (slight) attempt to put flesh on the bare bones of your argument. As such, it represents a tiny chink of light in the dogmatic wall of vague waffle you have normally thrown up every time you have been pressed on this matter….
LBird wrote:Marx argues that there must be a 'unified' society, which democratically controls its production – this is 'communism' (or, 'socialism').From the replies of SPGB members, there seems to be an untheorised attachment in the party to a 'specialist/generalist' dichotomy in society, which will carry on in communism.This concept ("specialist/generalist" separation) is opposed to Marx's concept of 'unified society'. The 'specialist' will determine the 'specialist' production.Lets try and deconstruct what you are saying here because you don't seem very clear at all. Are you saying there will not be, on the one hand, people who specialise in certain kinds of work in socialism – e.g.. neurosurgeons and, on the other, "generalists" or jack- -of-all-trades? Well , now I agree that literally speaking there cannot be jack-of-all-trades in the sense of being specialists or competent in everything. This is the very point I have been making against you! You cannot literally become a competent nuclear physicist and at the same time become a competent molecular biologiist. Its virtually impossible given the years and years of study and practice to become accomplished in either field, You have to chose one or the other. But then you go on to suggest something quite daft – that a specialist will not determine the specialist production of ideas in the field in which he or she specialises. This you seem to suggest will be determined by everyone. Here is where your arguments comes across as quite ludicrous and in fact not a little insane. How can I determine the specialist production of knowledge concerning nuclear physics if I know nothing about nuclear physics? Explain. To gain a detailed understanding of nuclear physics I have to devote years and years of my life to studying the subject. The opportunity costs of doing that is that I cannot then also become a specialist in molecular biology. Its one or the other. And if I cannot become a specialist in the field i dont wish to focus on how on earth can I contribute to the specialist production of theories in that field? Your argument makes no sense at all
LBird wrote:For those opposed to Marx and democratic production, like you robbo (who argues for 'individualism'), this is not a problem. Your political concerns are to defend 'specialists' from any democratic controls on their 'individual' theory and practice. This is not my concern, because I agree with Marx, and wish to see democratic control of production.No. This is where you go totally astray because you don't understand the argument being put to you. I am not saying that the specialists will not be subject to "democratic control". Of course they will as will everybody else in society to a degree. The real question is – in what respect will this democratic control be exercised. Over the theoretical context of some abstruse theory which 99% of the populace have never heard of and show little interest in? Of course not. It is plain silly to argue that we – all 7 billion of us on planet Earth – should be allowed to determine whether this theory is true or not. To determine whether it is true or not we have to know about the subject and even you can surely accept that it is logistically impossible for ALL of us to gain sufficient knowledge in EVERY single field of science to be able to comment competently on the truth value of particular scientific theories. That apart, what would even be the point of "democratically determining" whether a scientific theory is true or not? So lets us say that global society at enormous cost to itself has organised a global vote on a particular theory concerning ecological interactions between rhizomous plant species and ant colonies. 60% of the electorate vote in support of the theory. OK – now what? What is supposed to happen as a result of this vote> You never explain. If you cant explain then what you are arguing is utterly pointless and a complete waste of society's resources. Your problem LBird is that you don't understand what democracy is for though you claim to be a "democratic communist". I also agree with democratic control of production but this is NOT what you are talking about in this case. You are talking about democratic control over the truth value of scientific theories. That is something TOTALLY different
LBird wrote:So, according to Marx, within communism the 'educators' would be the 'generalists' (ie. the masses), who would 'educate' any 'specialists' that the masses wish to produce. Clearly, the masses would determine why, how, for what interests and purposes, any 'specialised' production was produced. 'Specialists' will do as they are told, by 'generalists' (to use the terminology current within the SPGB), because that is the democratic method. There are no 'specialists' who have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the 'generalists' (the masses).The ideas/theories/philosophies/ideologies/methods/etc. employed by the selected 'specialists' will be openly explained, in plain language, to the democratic selectors, so that the 'generalist/masses' can determine whether the social production that their 'specialists' propose to produce is in the interests and for the purposes of the whole of society..Again we see here this total confusion and utter theoretical mess that lies at the base of your argument. First you say the generalists would educate the specialists as to what the masses "wish to produce" thus flatly contradicting your earlier claim that there will be no specialist /generalist dichotomy. Secondly you don't seem to understand that telling the specialists what the masses wish to produce is TOTALLY DIFFERENT thing to telling them that their specialized theories are right or wrong. To be able to do so you have to understand the theory itself – to become in effect a specialist yourself. This is simply not logistically possible for everyone for every field of scientific endeavour
LBird wrote:This clearly means all members of society will have the same possibilities in education open to them, and they will control the education process itself, by democratic means. A socialist seduction will require that all those educated can explain clearly to everyone else what they propose to produce. There will be no 'priests' employing 'Latin' to 'read their own hidden bible', who then pretend to 'translate' their own elite understanding of their bible into words the illiterate peasants can comprehend.Priests/Latin/Bible = Physicists/Maths/Reality (or any other 'specialism/language/object')As Marx argued, we create our own reality, by democratic theory and practice, and only we can create a socio-natural world that is built to our purposes and in our interests. Any social theory is capable of being explained to the social producers.Of course any social or scientific theory is "capable" of being explained to the producers. I have never doubted that for one moment. Any of us can become competent nuclear physicists if we put our mind to it . But you totally miss the point don't you? For this specialist to explain the theory is a function of time. You have to build up a background understanding in the field in which the thoery is rooted in order to competently assess the merits of the theory in question. In some cases this might take years and years of study. We do not have have the TIME to do that and become competent in every other scientific theory in circulation. Every single one of us – even the most brilliant scientist alive – is extremely limited in the amount of information he or she can assimilate .The stock of scientific knowledge is far greater that any of us can possibly comprehend or familiarise ourselves with, To become particularly competent in one field we are of necessity forced to remain relatively incompetent or ignorant in others fields This is what you don't seem to understand LBird and this is why your idea is doomed to utter irrelevance. You haven't really got to grips with the argument at all because you don't have an inkling of the notion of OPPORTUNITY COSTS which, if you applied it to your own argument , you would soon see makes a complete nonsense of everything you are saying
LBird wrote:If one follows Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (see the Theses on Feuerbach, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, and Capital), one will support the class-based science of the proletariat – a science based upon 'social production' by all humans who employ a democratic method, which insists upon the democratic creation of our nature. Loosely known as 'theory and practice' – the democratic producers expose their 'theory', and the masses are aware of their theory and discuss it, and know that their social theory and practice produces their world. The masses are conscious, and they democratically determine their own production.So there is no social division of labour in socialism, no specialization in socialism. Is that what you are saying LBird?. That everyone can – and indeed must – become an accomplished nuclear physicist and a molecular biologist in order to contribute democratically to the production of scientific knowledge in these fields. I would love to hear your answer to this question if you have one!
The discussion on the other thread on the suspension of L and V Maratty has been locked for some reason but I felt I needed to say something about it on this thread because it is connected I think this whole saga is so sad and so unnecessary, Tempers are flaring on all sides and, Linda, I think your post no 48 on the other thread was bang out of order and some of the comments you made were, frankly, quite absurd, even if I can understand the frustration behind it. I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated. Though I am not a party member can I suggest that all sides in this dispute take a deep breath and start again to reach a cordial agreement on the way forward. And Alan should you be reading this I would urge you to return to the forum, Your ever interesting posts would be sorely missed if you did notC'mon comrades. Kiss and make up. This is just ridiculous falling out like this
alanjjohnstone wrote:Did i ever mention that i have to return to the UK to work and acquire additional Nat. Ins. stamps because the Tories changed the qualifying years for full pension rights? So capitalism has got one extra member of the workforce in due course.Thats interesting. Can you elaborate on this Alan?
