[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

  So, if a democratic vote is not 'binding' (in some sense), what's the point of it? 

LBird wants the global population of a future communist society to hold tens of thousands of plebiscites on the truth value of each and every new scientific theory that comes on stream.  As if this was not Monty Pythonesque enough, he now wants the democratic global vote on each new theory to be "binding" on the population as a whole What on earth is he warbling on about, I wonder.  Assuming that more than 0.0001 % of the 7 billion people comprising the current global population could even  be bothered to turn out to vote on whether String Theory in Astrophysics was true,  assuming that 51% of this tiny fraction of the global population voted to accept String theory as the incarnation of Proletarian Truth,  does this mean that the rest of the populace must now toe the line, must expunge from their heads any rival theory to String Theory. I fondly imagined that the whole point about science is that it is meant to be self critical and open to rival interpretations and not peddle in absolute truths.  It may not quite live up to this ideal in capitalism but is LBird now telling us that a communist society should follow a capitalist society in that regard? I still have no idea whatsoever why LBird thinks a democratic vote on a scientific theory is even necessary –  democracy is about practical decision making not abstract theories –  and I am even more puzzled now as to why he thinks this vote should be" binding".  Perhaps he could be so good as to explain his reasoning

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 I suspect that you're echoing robbo's concerns with 'individuals', rather than Marx's concern (and mine) with 'social production' by classes..

Marx, unlike LBird, was also concerned with " individuals"  To take one or two random  quotes"the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."  Communist Manifesto"the development of the rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption" Grundrisse Concern with individuals and concern with social production by  classes are not mutually exclusive concerns, you know. It takes a rather dogmatic mind that can only see the the world in terms of black-or-white not to grasp this point. LBird's crass argument about individuals is the mirror reflection of Mrs Thatcher crass  argument about society.  Mrs Thatcher declared that there is no such thing as society , "only individuals and their families". LBird declares there is no such thing as individuals only society. Both of those points of view are equally inept, not to say sociologically illiterate. There is no such thing as society without individuals anymore than there can be individuals without society.  Its a two- way connection.between them.  Each reciprocally influences the other. Ironically LBird professes to be what he calls an "idealist materialist".  Funnily enough I don't have, and never have had,  any quarrel with his criticisms of a positivistic cum objectivist view of science and its pretensions to be value free.  Theory, the ideas we hold in our head always condition that factswe apprehend about material reality.  Hence idealism-materialism. LBird can see this but when it comes to the question of the individual and society he goes completely off the rails. It has to be one thing of the other but but he cdeclines gto apply this same logic when it comes to the question of idealism and materialism. Then you can have idealism- materialism.but in the case of the former, the individual has to be competently erased from the picture. ldeaving on "society". It makes no sense but then lot of what LBird says makes no sense…

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

mcolome,you are perfectly right and i hold out the same invitation to contribute to the SOYMB blog to Robbo.

 Alan, Thanks for the invite. I'm  writing some stuff at the moment that maybe  could  be adapted for the purpose you have in mind.  I'll get back to you on this. cheers

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.As for "robbo's dig at the impracticalities of your claim for theory and practice", it's robbo who has no understanding of the consequences of his 'dig'. He's 'digging' at Marx, and democratic socialism. Since I know that robbo is an individualist at heart, I can live with his political opinion, but I'm surprised, given your earlier posts, that you can't see that the problem lies with robbo, not with Marx's theory of social production.Hmmm… back to the drawing board, eh?

 Gawd, not this again. ..I refrained from commenting on LBird's latest rendition of the same old tune that he is forever and oh-so- monotonously coming out with on this forum until this! Does LBird have the slightest inkling of what are the "impracticalities of his claim for theory and practice" that robbo was getting at?  Apparently not.  LBird airily dismisses all  such talk and point blank refuses to answer any questions as to how he is going to put his ivory tower notions into practice.  How, for example, are tens of thousands of new scientific theories each year going to be subjected to a democratic by a global population exceeding 7 billion.  Why is it even necessary? LBird never explainsI get bored with having to repeat the same questions only to be ignored yet gain by LBird.  If folks here want the lowdown on why I think LBird position on this matter is complete baloney I refer them this earlier post (1423 ) here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/science-communists?page=142 And once more for the benefit of LBird , no,  I have no problem at all with the idea of democratic socialism. I don't know how many times I've repeated the point that for me socialism does indeed mean the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing wealth and I fully endorse that.  How is that taking a dig at "democratic socialism"?Nor am I an "individualist at heart" Does LBird even know what is meant by an individualist or individualism? I doubt it.  I suspect he is conflating the term with "individuality" which denotes something quite different. Marx, since LBird is so fond of citing Marx, also subscribed to the idea that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"? Sorry to disappoint you LBird but the problem does not lie with me but with you and with your stubborn refusal to answer the kind of practical questions that are levelled at you.  You are your own worst enemy but more than that as I said in the above post you make a laughing stock of communism by presenting an image of it that is frankly ridiculously impractical

[robbo203]

Subhaditya wrote:

 Mass media could have helped but its controlled by the capitalist class who seem to prefer promoting monogamy and hatred of promiscuous females, come to think of it religion also seems to promote the same thing.Its the same way it will come about as communal control of resource generation… when most people start wanting it.We must encourage this… discouraging this will be same as discouraging socialism.I dont think socialism can succeed as long as men continue to fight with each other over women.

 Maurice Briton's 1975 pamphlet "The Irrational in Politics" sort of touches on this theme in relation to Wilhelm Reichhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/irrational-politics.htm#h8 Wasnt there an SPGB member based in Denmark who specialised in Reichian psychoanalysis. I vaguely recall he wrote an article on the subject in the now sadly defunct  World Socialist  journal

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

It comes back to a theoretical definition or premise. You cannot start with a definitive statement then change it later. The reductive, minimalist or abstract ‘mathematical’ definition is. Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). What it produces is a surplus product. And its value is the amount of labour time required for it and that is surplus value.  It applies irrespective of commodity production, exchange value, capitalism, labour vouchers or free access moneyless socialism. 

 I don't agree Dave.  I think the concept of surplus labour or surplus product is completely meaningless outside the context of a class based or exploitative society. The surplus  product is what the dominant class appropriates at the expense of the subordinate class(es) To consider your definition: Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). Relating this to free access moneyless socialism – what might be necessary for the direct producers to reproduce their labour time.  To reproduce their labour time through the consumption of consumer goods it is necessary also to make use of intermediate or producer goods.  You cant produce the things you consume by hand so clearly producer goods are not "beyond" what is necessary for the direct producers to reproduce their labour time. Marx's mistake in suggesting an economic surplus or surplus product would continue to exist in socialism comes from unwittingly  transposing the argument about surplus value in relation to capitalism.  In capitalism, producer goods are financed out of surplus value as capital.  So there  develops a habit of thinking about producer goods like machinery as having to do with surplus labour or a surplus product.  Producer goods are produced over and above what we consume so we consider the labour required to produce them as   "surplus labour". But I put it to you that producer goods are not surplus in that sense at all in a free access socialist system.  They are as necessary to the reproduction of labour time as consumer goods  themselves – that is to say, you cannot produce consumer goods without producer  goods If there is such a thing as a surplus product in socialism what exactly is it meant to be "surplus" to?  No, the whole idea of a surplus product or surplus labour can only be relevant in the context of a class based society where one class is systematically compelled to produce more than what it itself consumer and for the benefit of another class

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

If people think I am taking an outrageous interpretation of surplus value, surplus product and surplus value in socialism; I would like to refer them to the following passage. Where Karl after rambling on about the insurance industry in capitalism makes a rare and extremely interesting detour into communism. Examining which theoretical or analytical aspects of capitalism will inevitably carry over into communism.  The less interesting bit starts of with the kind of idea of some surplus product/labour/value in capitalism going towards a disaster fund, or whatever. Or stuff that “is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation”. He goes onto to say that this would continue; …even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production….  Along with; ….that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction……  And; ….surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease.

 To me Marx's comments make no sense   at all. As I see it the very idea of an "economic surplus" will have no traction in a socialist society and is only really meaningful in the context of a class based society.I  am not just talking about  "surplus value" which  is really just the monetised form of the surplus product as it appears in capitalism.  I'm talking about ALL forms of the economic surplus.  They all denote some or other form of class exploitation whether it takes the form of straightforward unpaid surplus labour  (slave labour) or the direct appropriation of goods as use values  (Feudalism) Now the objection might well be raised that no society could function, let alone prosper, without an "economic surplus" of some kind, without setting aside some of its resources to meet its future needs. A socialist society would also need to do this.  Surely, goes the argument, it’s really a question of who gets to appropriate this surplus – society as a whole or a small class within it? I think this way of looking at this question is wrong headed, frankly. Actually, the concept itself suggests, if anything, what I would call a kind of “social fund” model of wealth. There are clear hints of this in Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875, Ch1) where he talks of the various “deductions” to be made from the “total social product” before it can be distributed for consumption purposes:  “First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc”.  Bearing in mind that we talking here of Marx’s first phase of communist society, based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production in which a system of labour vouchers regulates consumption, I find all this highly misleading.  It implies a certain homogenised view of wealth whereby everything is rendered commensurable and, behind that, some universal unit of accounting which we call money. How else would you make arithmetical “reductions” from the “total social product” if this did not imply commensurability – money? True, Marx was at pains to point out that his system of labour vouchers was not money since, unlike money, these vouchers did not circulate. He reasoned that the need for this stemmed from the fact that: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. (ibid) Ironically, there is a sense in which Marx’s own thinking on this matter likewise bears here the stamp of the “old society”.  Of course, in capitalism, capital accumulation – the development of the means of production – is funded out of the extraction of surplus value (the capitalist form of the economic surplus) but we cannot simply transpose this basic model of wealth creation to a future non-market socialist or communist society.  The operational dynamics of such a society, I suggest, will be radically different. In such a society, production needs (which include replacing existing means of production as well as expanding those means where necessary to accommodate future changes in demand), cannot meaningfully be construed as being “surplus” to existing consumption needs, or vice versa, which is precisely what the arithmetical concept of “deduction” encourages us to think.  Rather, they are simply two different sets of functional requirements both essential to the maintenance of society which ideally speaking, align with, or mutually adjust to, each other and primarily through a self regulating mechanism of stock control.. The idea of an economic surplus arising in socialism seems to suggest that any kind of society with even the most rudimentary social division of labour must produce a "surplus" of some kind. If I focus on fishing as an occupation and my neighbour grows wheat then my consumption of bread is dependent on my neighbour producing more wheat than she can consume.  That is to say she produces wheat surplus to her requirements.  That is true enough but is this really what is meant by an economic surplus.If it were then it would effectively lumping together exploitative societies with non exploitative societies or blurring the distinction between them.  One reason  why the concept of an economic surplus has to entail more than just this.       it is a SOCIAL concept not one pertaining to individuals as in my neighbour producing more wheat than she needs  The problem also  arises, I think, because we tend to look at this concept of an economic surplus in terms of “opportunity costs”. So the opportunity costs of devoting all our resources to meeting our current needs, for instance, is that we will have left none over to meet our future needs.  Hence, purportedly, the need for an “economic surplus” – to meet the latter needs. However, this does not really capture, in my view, what is truly meant by an economic surplus. There are, of course, opportunity costs, to be taken into account in any kind of society. For example, there are opportunity costs involved in directing labour and resources between different lines of production.  More tonnes of steel or hours of labour going into the construction of ships means less of these things for, say, tractor production. In this instance, certainly, an arithmetical procedure is implicated involving the subtraction or addition of the units in question.  This is what is meant  by “calculation in kind” and it t is indispensable to the operation of any kind of large scale society including –or perhaps one should say, especially – a hypothetical future socialist society. Nevertheless, what lies behind Marx’s reference to, for example, the need for certain reserve or insurance funds” in the case of accidents, dislocations or natural calamities etc., seems to entail more than just the notion of opportunity costs.  The setting aside of these funds out of some notional surplus seems to imply some universal unit of accounting.   Now for an exchange economy, this form of accounting makes perfect sense– to facilitate the exchange of commodities by rendering these commodities commensurable – but, for a socialist or communist society, it is deeply problematic.  That is why I would reject the claim that this concept of an “economic surplus” would or could have any traction in a socialist society  

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203, post #1399, wrote:

Though I agree that it is very probable that for any given subject area in science only a minority is likely to be sufficiently competent to judge on the particular merits of a given theory, this is  not in any way a elitist view as I explained, It is purely a function of the social division of labour which L Bird completely ignores.

[my bold]The problem is, robbo, who or what actively determines 'the social division of labour'?You talk of this category as if it were something outside of our own production, something outside of our political control, something that is active, in the face of which we are passive.Any workers' organisation built upon your principles will tell workers that they are not the 'active, conscious, subject', but that the 'social division of labour' is, and that they must obey the 'social division of labour'.Anyone with any political nous whatsoever, can see that humans determine their 'social division of labour', and that if this political truth is hidden, that a 'special minority' will be the ones who 'determine', whilst they hide this truth from the masses, who will believe that this actually socio-historically-produced 'division' just 'is', timeless, ahistorical, and outside of human interference, and they have to 'obey it'.It seems bloody obvious to me that any Leninist would tell the passive workers that the power structures which allowed Stalin to control production was "purely a function of the social division of labour", and that those workers should avoid the troublemaker LBird, who is 'ignoring' a reality, which is 'out there', and not socially-produced.I don't agree with you, robbo, because I'm a Marxist, and I argue for the democratic control of all human production, including everything from widgets to scientific knowledge. That is, 'socialism/communism'.You're not a Marxist, nor a Communist, nor a democrat, but you are an elitist. Although, I'll grant that you seem to be unaware of this.

 Groan. Once again its back to the drawing board to explain to LBird in terms that he can hopefully understand just how ridiculous is his whole argument..  But first of all let’s cut out all this crap about me not being a Marxist or a communist or a democrat.  I fully support and actively advocate the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.  That makes me all the things LBird claims I am not.   I just dont support his crackpot idea that the truth of scientific theories – tens of thousands of them – should be voted upon by the entire global population. Not once has LBird ever explained what would be the point of these multiple and indeed endless referenda on scientific theories.  What difference is it going to make if a particular scientific theory is rubber stamped as The Truth by virtue of this being decided upon by a democratic vote? Lbird never explains.  All we get from him on this subject is a resounding silence. It makes me wonder how serious LBird is about a genuine exchange of ideas. How you determine the truth of a theory in a communist will makes absolutely no difference that I can detect at all. In fact this kind of fetishistic obsession LBird seems to have with formally rubber stamping a scientific theory as The Truth seems to me to be the very opposite of the kind of view expressed by Marx that we should “doubt everything”.  LBird’s proclivity towards absolutism and formalism is redolent of the Leninist concept of the “Party Line” Democracy is about power.  The fact that I know nothing about String theory in a communist society does not vest the astrophysicists in a communist society who knows about these arcane matters with some kind of power over me.  This is where LBird goes completely off the rails.  He does not understand what democracy is about or indeed how a communist society would function – its basic dynamics, if I could put it like. His attitude towards democracy is almost childlike in its naiveté.  I’m surprised he hasn’t yet come up with the suggestion that the total global population in a communist society should decide by means of a democratic what I should wear, what music I should listen, who I should associate with and what kind of restaurants I should patronise. Clearly anyone with a modicum of common sense will understand that when we talk about democracy there are limits to how far we can or should take this concept.  What LBird is suggesting goes way beyond any kind of sensible notion of what those limits are.  I mean really – how on earth  does LBird propose to organise a global vote on even a handful of scientific theories let alone tens of thousands every year. Has he even once thought about the logistics or organising such a vote never mind the purpose its isupposed to serve. The truly hilarious aspect of mind-numbingly dumb idea is the plain fact that for each of these tens of thousands of referenda carried out year only a tiny tiny proportion of the populace is ever going to even bother to vote.  So we are going to end up in any case to what amount to, in LBird’s terms an “elitist” outcome.  If you don’t know about String theory why would you be even interested in voting for it?  I wouldn’t. What’s the point? This brings me to the point that LBird makes as follows in response to my point about the inevitability of the social division of labour:“The problem is, robbo, who or whatactively determines 'the social division of labour'?You talk of this category as if it were something outside of our own production, something outside of our political control, something that is active, in the face of which we are passive.” No L Bird the problem is NOT who or what actively determines the social division of labour.  The problem, for your argument, is that there is a social division of labour to begin with!  The implications of the fact that there is such a thing as a social division of labour utterly destroys your whole argument and reduces it to rubble. It really does not matter how the social division of labour was determined though, if you want my opinion on the matter, I would say it is an emergent phenomenon which no one individual or group actively brought about.  But let us indulge you and run with your argument for a moment.  Suppose your concept of “democratic communism” was implemented. Would the workers retain the social division of labour or scrap it?  If the former, you would still have a minority of specialists in various fields of scientific endeavour.  We cannot all expect to be neurosurgeons, for example, which takes years and years of practice and intensive study.  Neurosurgeons know things about the workings of the brain which most of us, myself included, do not.  And because they have this specialist knowledge that means they know things which we don’t.  Which means when it comes to voting on such things we are not in much of a position to vote even if we wanted to which is unlikely. Still, as I say this is no problem as far as I concerned as along as neurosurgeons are unable to convert their specialist knowledge into a source of economic and political power over me.  My contention is that there is no lever that they could possibly pull in a communist society that would afford them such power.  You seem to think otherwise and my challenge to you is to explain how so. How in a society of free access to goods and services where labour is performed on an entirely voluntary basis can any individual or group exercise power of others? You don’t seem to recognise this but the whole logic of your argument is deeply anti-communist in its implications. Then there is the option of scrapping the social division of labour altogether which the workers could do under your concept of democratic communism.  So let’s say they scrap the social division of labour. What would that mean? It would mean either that there would be no neurosurgeons or else everyone will be compelled to become a neurosurgeon.  Since to become a neurosurgeon requires years of study and practice what this in turn means is that we can’t also become a competent mechanical engineer or geophysicist which also takes years to accomplish.  Either way we are looking at a society without specialists of any kind. Is this what you want LBird?  More to the point do you seriously believe this is remotely sustainable? In my opinion even to advocate it as a communist is to make a laughing stock of communism which is partly why I am so staunchly opposed to your whole line of thought. You make communism look ridiculous and impracticable 

[robbo203]

I am still patiently waiting to hear  from LBird why he considers it necessary that the tens of thousands of scientific theories churned out each year should be subjected to a democratic vote – each and every one of them –  by the entire global population to deteremine whether they are "true". Could he explain what exactly is gonna be acheved by doing this?  What is the point of the exercise?  Why is it necessary assuming it was even practicable? And what happens if only 6, 450,000 votes worldwide were cast in favour of, say, String Theory as against only 5, 360,000 rejecting it, out of a total global population of 7,000,000,000?  Would L Bird consider this a sufficiently strong mandate for endorsing String theory as an expression of Proletarian Truth.  If not , what would be?  51% of the global vote or 3.5 billion+ votes in favour?  Also, what happens if those 5, 360,000 who voted against String Theory continue to disbelieve in it? Would this be permissablle under LBrd's version of democratic communism? Could LBird please enlighten us on this points? He claims to answer questions that are put to him.  Could he kindly answer these?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion

So, I argue for democratic control, and robbo argues that this is 'intellectual totalitarianism'.This is standard cold war scare tactics, that any sniff of democracy in any area where an elite currently has all the power, is tantamount to 'dictatorship'.I have a higher opinion about the intellectual abilities of workers, and their collective decision making about scientific research and the interests and purposes that it serves.robbo seems to regard workers as unwanted and dangerous fools, who, if let loose with 'physics', would return to witchcraft.It's elitism dressed up as concern for 'standards'.

 What rubbish!Of course any worker given the time and  opportunity to study phsycis could become competent in the field of physics amd able to judge the the merits  of a particular theory in physics.  But this argument is NOT about intellectual ability.  It is about opportunity costs and the social division of labour which Lbird seems to know nothing about.  It is impossible for anyone to become an expert in everything – no matter what the intellectual ability of that individual may be.  Of necessity that means some people are bound to know more about some things than others Does L Bird seriously think everyone can become an expert in everything? Whats your answer LBird?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 And what anyone reading needs to know is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and robbo isn't.That means that I argue that only the proletariat can decide what is 'true' and what isn't.robbo seems to argue that only an elite can decide what is 'true' and what isn't. He's given some of the reasons why he thinks that this is so.

 I am a democratic communist too but I  simply do not believe in the crackpot idea that democracy in a communist society should extend to the determination of scientific "truth" by means of a vote  by 7 billion people .  This is both pointless and totally impracticable – how can you possibly organise tens of thousands of plebiscites on global basis every year.  As usual LBird doesn't explain Though I agree that it is very probable that for any given subject area in science only a minority is likely to be sufficiently competent to judge on the particular merits of a given theory, this is  not in any way a elitist view as I explained, It is purely a function of the social division of labour which L Bird completely ignores. Here is a question for LBird to answer – does he consider that everyone is capable of  becoming an expert in every field of scientific endeavour.  If his answer to that is yes then he clearly has no understanding of just how much time and effort and years of study are required to acquire a level of competence in even just one field of scientific endeavour,  If his answer is no then he has no understanding of just how devastating this admission would be for his theory about how democratic communism would function since how can you vote on something you know nothing about?.  Either way he hasn't got a leg to stand on. I reiterate my position is not at all an elitist one.  An elitist position is one that would seek to put barriers in the way of anyone who would want to acquire a better understanding of a particular subject area.  This is not my position at all, My position is that everyone should be completely free and indeed encouraged to advance their understanding.  I have also pointed out that given the social division of labour the notion of some kind of single social elite is untenable. The scientific expert in astrophysics will probably know next to nothing about say genetics or molecular biology.  In that sense there is likely to be not one elite  but multiple "elites"

LBird wrote:

.It would be easier for all if robbo would be open about what he thinks 'socialism' is.I define it as 'the democratic control of production' – robbo seems to see it as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'individual freedom' 

 This is dishonest. I have explicitly indicated that I support democratic control of production, What I don't support is the  pointless and impractical idea of democratically determining the truth of s scienttic theories by means of a vote.LBird should know the difference between these two things by now.  It has been explained to him often enough

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If one is arguing for the democratic control of production, ie., socialism/communism, then this practice must be predicated on a theory, which determines the practice. Marx's 'social theory and practice'. I always ask, if not the theory of 'democratic control of production', what other theory can underlie your understanding of socialism? It's open to you to disagree with 'democratic control  I've always argued that the class conscious revolutionary proletariat can only decide what 'truth' is by a democratic vote. That can not only take place prior to a revolution, but must be a building block of class organisation.Otherwise, the decision of what is 'true' will be in the hands of an elite. That, in my book, is the political method of Leninism, that an elite cadre with a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the wider class, is to decide what is 'true or false'. 

 "Democratic control of production" and "deciding what is the truth by a democratic vote" are two totally different things and LBird has yet to grasp this simple point Democratic control of production is, of course, what socialist democracy is all about.  It is both eminently practicable and desirable. The  determination of what is the truth, on the other hand  (and LBird has previously talked about this in relation to the truth of scientific theory)  by means of a democratic vote carried out by  a" class conscious revolutionary proletariat" , is complete nonsense on stilts. Firstly its completely pointless, not to say absurdly ritualistic/festishistic.  Why go through the enormous expense of organising a democratic vote on the merits of , say, String Theory just to demonstrate its "truth"?  To what end?  What difference is it supposed to make? I can perfectly understand how a decision in respect of how to allocate a particular resource could make a difference but how is this true of a scientific theory?  If you were an opponent of String theory you would be pretty miserable excuse of an opponent if you were to be cowed into abandoning your rival theory merely because a majority favoured String Theory.   This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion Secondly, it is completely unpracticaable. There are literally tens of thousands of scientific theories being churned out every year.   How is the truth of each of these to be determined by a democratic vote of a global population of 7 billion people under socialism?.  There is also something called a social division of labour which L Bird seems completely oblivious to.  Most of us will know nothing of, and have little interest in, String theory though each of us might have some passionate interest in some other area of human knowledge.  By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of  interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this. This has got nothing to do with "elitism". The small minority interested in String Theory is not going to be the same small minority interested in some arcane theory in molecular biology or plate tectonics.  Moreover elitism implies the imposition of barriers that would prevent an individual joining the ranks of the few who have a special interest in some particular field. No one here is advocating the imposition of such barriers that I am aware. One should be completely free to pursue whatever interest(s) one has in  a socialist society as far as I am concerned What I am saying is that the fact that there may well be only a few with a special interest in some particular subject and knowledgeable enough to vote upon some abstruse theory pertaining to that subject is NOT a product of elitism but rather it is a function of the social division of labour which exists in society and, indeed, is getting more complex and elaborate with every passing year. LBird needs to learn the difference between these two things

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

mullrae wrote:

The only thing I could find was this but how Marx was supposed to have falsified anything is beyond me https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/blue-book-speech.htm any views gratefully accepted regards ian.

Thanks for that.  But until we have a direct link to the Quora post where the original accusations were made and be in a position to rebut them effectively this extract from the Marxists Archive is not that helpful.

 Here is the link to the thread in Quora where the accusation is made concerning Marx and the Blue Books.  Scroll down to the contribution by Lynx Keplerhttps://www.quora.com/Did-capitalism-in-the-West-change-to-contain-the-spread-of-communismI invited Mr Kepler to this forum to defend his claim. However, having somewhat pompously dismissed the contributors on this forum as a bunch of …er…"crybabies", he seemed strangely reluctant to take up the challenge, LOL Incidentally I see the peice about Marx's alleged falsification of the evidence in the site Alan linked to –  http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/marxs-dishonesty-in-his-quotation-of.html – was written up by someone with the initials "LK".  Same person, I wonder?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Like Dave B, i don't know why people are getting het up in this discussion. I don't think there is such a chasm between us and LBirdScience is determined by politics, by democracy and by beliefs.  

 Its one thing to say science is determined "by politics, by democracy and by beliefs" (although I would suggest this is a two way process); it is quite another thing to say that in a democratic society that is socialism/communism the specificities of science – that is to say , the "truth" value of particular  scientific theories, if I might put it like that, will be determined by a popular vote.  To me this latter proposition is so manifestly  ludicrous and unworkable that I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can put forward such a proposition. LBird has clearly not thought through what he is saying. I don't have much quarrel with LBirds assault on what he calls "materialism".  This is the old fashioned positivistic view of science as something that is value-free and totally objective.  Scientists are as much subject to irrationalism as the rest of us – read Kuhn on the process of paradigm switches – while developments within such fields as physics have radically subverted the influence of this positivism.  The "observer effect" is but one example of this. However I am much more interested in the practical application of this complex relationship between science and democratic culture, This has been largely neglected in this discussion and studiously evaded by LBird himself whenever questions have been put to him on the matter. This he refused to say whether there will be any kind of social division of labour in a communist society meaning a tendency for people to specialise in certain occupations (we can't all be neurosurgeons which requires years of training and no one in their right mind would allow some untrained person off the street to operate to remove a tumour in their brain).  Needless to say, the inevitability of a social division of labour has massive implications for the way in which scientific knowledge and understanding is developed.  Its not a question of clinging to a view of science as "elitist", this is a complete red herring.  Specialisation will inexorably in the end result in a de facto situation in which only a small number of individuals will concern themselves with concrete specificities of particular scientific theories even if they are broadly constrained by the democratic culture of the wider society itself ( which I thoroughly approve of)LBird has dismissed such talk of practicality as some kind of "bourgeois" or "individualistic" obsession.  Thats bunkum. On the contrary,  it is precisely the avoidance of such  serious practical issues that brings socialism or communism into disrepute.  It turns us into the laughing stock of cynics who can then dismiss us as "dreamers".

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

  A scientific theory or plausible logical explanation is just that; ie not the truth. But if it works then use it. We don’t give a shit if the theory is true really. 

 Yes indeed.  Which makes the whole idea of voting on a scientific theory particularly pointless. I am still at a complete loss to know what LBird's justification  is for such a vote. If I believe the sun revolves around the earth I am not going to be persuaded to change my mind just because a majority think otherwise. A majority think capitalism is OK. Does that mean we should give up trying to promote socialism?If it is not to persuade people to change their mind about a scientific theory on the grounds that a majority support or oppose it (which incidentally  is a recipe for bad science and for converting science into a stagnant dogma) then what is the point of such a vote. I can certainly understand the point of a vote when it comes to deciding on some  practical course of action, But this is not about that at all.Voting on a scientific theory strikes me as stupendously pointless, not to say time consuming and massively wasteful of human resources.

[Author]

Posts