[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I think that you severely underestimate the support for my criticism, alan, based on two factors:1. the continued statements of all the members/supporters of the SPGB who post here (including you, even though you still seem to be unaware of it, even given your openly stated lack of knowledge), and all those who read and fail to post against, that they will not have workers' democracy in the means of production; and

 Here we go again. More misinformation from LBird.  "Workers democracy in the means of production" is one thing; workers democratically voting to determine the "truth" of scientific theories is a totally different thing.No one on this forum that I am aware of has posted anything remotely suggesting that there will not be democratic control over the means of production in a socialist society.  What has been attacked is LBird's absolutely balmy idea about the global population voting on thousand upon thousands of scientific (and other ) theories.  There is absolutely no point in that and it is totally impractical anywaySo not only has our resident elitist snob, LBird, deigned not to answer our humdrum practical questions concerning the feasability of what he proposes –  he prefers not to dirty his hands with such lowly matters to and to keep to the rarifed air of philosophical abstractions –  but now he resorts to lying through his teeth to shore up what credibility  he has left which is rapidly draining away through through the many, and by now pretty much gaping,  holes in his argument.Its quite pathetic really…

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Robbo, you know full well that we shouldn't make words mean something that it doesn'tLeninism – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeninismI'm not googling all the definitions of what Leninism means but there are agreed features to it…and as i and LBIrd agress (and you too), Leninism has its birth in the 2nd International and Kautskyism. Taling one aspect of Leninism and making it an ism on it own to win a political argument doesn't strike me as quite accurateI'm sure there is a practical way for 7 billion to vote but just periodically…the Chinese and the Indian populations are both well over a billion each and they can organise it every few years…And Tim has referred to X-Factor but there could be a global mechanism to register views and opinions…We chose songs via Eurovision contest that i believe is now based upon viewers registering their choice, it could be adjusted and YMS has studied various methods of this….LBird has made it clear several times that he supports workers councils, that is usually a decentralised delegatory structure of manufacture, not a command economy

Sorry but I disagree with you Alan.  What LBird is proposing inexorably leads to an outcome that is clearly Leninist in character. It is presupposing, as the norm ,society-wide (meaning global) mechanisms of decision-making which by default if not by design – because if the sheer impracticality of what is being proposed – must inevitaby result in the concentration of power in the hands of a vanguard. (Recall Lenin's words about turning the world into "one big factory" and add to that Lenin's preferred mode of adminstering this factory in the form of one man management"). You see, in LBird's worldview its not just a question of establishing what is the Truth of a scientific theory. It is arming that truth with the moral authority of a supposedly democratic vote,  We are back to the days when questioning the ptolemaic orthodoxy of a geocentric universe could  get you burnt on the stake. After all what is the point of going through the whole charade of democratic vote on scientific Truth if not to enforce it?And I am not convinced by your suggestion that he supports workers councils which usually indicates a delegatry structure of manufacture. Workers councils or soviets can quite easily in principle fit in with the model of a command economy as components in a rigidly hierarchical structure of decision making – democratic centralism . Same differenceI think you are being too soft on LBird frankly and letting him off the hook.Its the kind of ideas that he is spouting that makes a laughing stock of socialism and encourages workers to dismss as some kind of utopian and totally impractical dream. I dont doubt that there can be a global mechanism for determing the global view on some matter of global significance. But the whole point is that such a vote would be an extreme rarity not a routine procedure a la LBird..  You mention China and India with populations of over a billion each. Even in these instances the organisational effort to undertake even a single vote or referendum is immense. Multiply that by several times and you get an idea of the costs involved in such a global vote – that is assuming it is a meaningful  vote and not just some pious resolution.The opportunity costs of our actions is not something we can just brush aside even in a socialist society

[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Robbo 203 wrote "That means quite literally 7 billion individuals voting upon thousands upon thousands of scientific theories to decide whether or not they are "true" ."You forgot to mention that Mathematics would also be involved in this process, so there would be thousands of Mathematical theorems to vote on as well. I'm not sure if it would only be the theories developed in the Capitalist era that would need to be democratically decided upon or whether the theories from Classical societies would be up for grabs as well?It also begs the question, at what stage of the development of theory is it put to the vote, as no theory is ever complete.I suppose we could organise a kind of TV show format around the vote. We could call it the X x Y = 1 Factor. I can't see it being huge Saturday night viewing though. No doubt there is some twat at Channel 5 reading this thinking, "oh now, that could work"

LOL Tim.  And why stop there. What about the Arts and the Humanities? Or even something as mundane as cultural expression. We could have a global vote on the aesthetics of everyday clothing for example. Perhaps we should all be decked out in our little Chairman Mao suits.  I mean we wouldnt want to be seen as different, would we? That 's "bourgeois individualism" and next LBird will be telling us that weve become "running dogs of capitalism" or some such

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Robbo, i think it isn't helpful to counter name-calling with name-calling.LBird isn't a Leninist and i don't think he is a centralisation control-freak either.

 I strongly disagree,  Alan.  I think he is exactly that.  The thing that absolutely settles the matter beyond  a shadow of doubt is this crackpot idea of his  about the democratic control by workers  by means of a vote over what constitutes "scientific truth" in what he calls a "democratic communist society".Quite apart from the utter pointlessness of the exercise in actually voting on the matter of what constitutes "scientific truth" which I have explained many times before,  I would simply draw your attention to  what is implied by this proposal.  LBird has made it abundantly clear that , as he sees it, it  is the totality of workers in a communist society – i.e. the global population – that would be involved in this voting procedure.  That means quite literally 7 billion individuals voting upon thousands upon thousands of scientific theories to decide whether or not they are "true" .Of course the idea is absolutely insane and my seven year old step neice would be able to point out to LBird how totally impractical and utterly dumb  his idea is. The amount of time and effort and resouces required to ascertain the considered opinion of the entire global population – 7 billion of us  – by means of a vote with respect to even  just one single scientific theory alone would be absolutely phenomenal and daunting.  Yet LBird would have us believe the entire gamut of scientific theories must be subjected to a "democratic vote" by the entire global population in a "democratic communist" society.I can't believe we have been actually engaging this guy in debate for months and months without this matter being resolved.  Instead most contributors have been focussing on the philophical aspects of the debate.  Thats their prerogative but personally I think its a case of much ado about nothing – terminology, in the main.  Really all that LBird is saying boils to the rather unremarkable  assertion that there is that no such thing as a value free science and, funnily enough. in this I agree with him and said so way back when  I think  LBird first joined this forum.  But he likes to drag out a longwinded academic argument so he can display his philosophical knowledge.I am more interested in the practical side of things , hence my attempts  call him out on this.  I find it infuriating that he has never once deigned to respond to my questions on the practicalities of  what he is proposing and it does rather make me  want to question his democratic credentials for that reason. It is arrogant and patronising in the extremeWhich brings me finally to the question of how to characterise LBird's perspective.  What is clear to me is that he certainly endorses the priinciple of society wide  decisonmaking not as just in a one off sense but in an iterative sense,  I fail to see how that cannot but mean a totally centralised model of social organisation to facilitate the implementation of these globally based decisions.  With LBird we get no sense whatsover of a disaggregated concept of democracy. There is nor the slightest hint for exampe of localised or even regional forms of democracy.  Rather what we are presented with is a totalistic notion of workers "democratic control of production" as being exercised by the world's workers as a whole and nothing else Since this is absolutely out of the question for logistical reasons,  LBirds "democratic communism" amounts to nothing more than a figleaf to hide the ruthless concentration of power in the hands of a technocratic elite, a vanguard,  that must inevitably result by default if not by design from any attempt to put his idea into practice . This is ironic given that he accuses those who see the necessity, even desirablity, of some degree of scientific specialisation  – how else can you become a competent biochemist except by devoting years of study to it ?- in a communist society of being "elitist" and "undemocratic"If you think this assessment of LBird's perspective is wrong , Alan,  then show me where I have erred

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

when I'm warning workers about the SPGB's secret intent to deny workers' democratic control of production.

I think this secret conspiracy of the SPGB to thwart workers' democratic control of production cannot be shown to exist from the historic record to its behaviour now. ..

Alan I dont know why you continue to humour the guy.Its clear as daylight that the only one here who harbours a secret intent to deny "democratic workers control of production" is LBird himself and his contempt for democractic debate  shows in his point blank refusal to answer any of the practical questions that disturb his dogmatic worldview as well as his patronising attritude to all who criticise himLBird's conception of a future society which he laughably calls "democratic communism"  is a totally centralised one which can only result in one outcome – the ruthless concentration of all power in the hands of a technocratic elite, a vanguard.Behind the democratic facade, LBird is a Leninist through and through in his mode of thinking.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Don't you think YMS, robbo, twc, etc., etc., are 'aspiring to a future' physics that workers don't control? How you keep missing this baffles me, because they keep saying that they 'aspire' to a democracy-free production of knowledge..What part of "Workers will not control physics and maths" do you see as 'democratic' or non-elitist?

 Once again LBird how in practical terms will workers – all 7 billiion of us – democratically "control physics and maths" How? How? How?Why dont you answer the question repeatedly  put to you?Why dont you behave like a democrat instead of pretending to be one?Why are you so scared of even attempting an answer?Could it be that you realise by now you have no answer and that this reduces everything you say to just so much windy vacuous nonsense?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 No reasoned argument makes a dent in LBird's own  belief in the equivalent of the tooth fairy.  This is crystal clear  from his studious evasion of any questions relating to the practicalities of voting on "Scientific Truth" in his Leninist utopia – a totalitarian centralised society.

I too would like him to answer this question.But then there are a few questions he avoids answering.

 Indeed Vin and its damned annoying too.  It is totally against the democratic ethos he claims to espouse.  When he is not sneering at or patronising members of this forum he snubs them whenever they ask questions that unsettle his dogmatic worldview,  dismissing them as anti democrats.   .  Which is ironic becuase if anyone is the embodiment of the elitist vanguardist here it is LBird. At bottom he is a Leninist  pretending to be a democrat

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

…no reasoned argument makes a dent in the Materialist Faith.You stick to 'matter', I'll stick to workers' democracy, in questions of production, including knowledge.

 LOL No reasoned argument makes a dent in LBird's own  belief in the equivalent of the tooth fairy.  This is crystal clear  from his studious evasion of any questions relating to the practicalities of voting on "Scientific Truth" in his Leninist utopia – a totalitarian centralised society.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

[If so, why do you deny that only a vote can tell us what a rock 'is'?The 'truth' of what a rock 'is' can only be decided by us, the 'active', and not by an elite of physicists, who use hieroglyphics to bamboozle us, and pretend only they 'know'.

 Once again LBird how are you going to organise this vote among 7 billion "proletariams"Why are you running away from this question?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Physics, being a social activity driven by social theory and social practice, is amenable to our proletarian democratic control.

How?Explain.Dont dodge the question.How are 7 billion "proletarians" going to democratically vote on String Theory, for example?And thousands upon thousands of other scientific theories…..

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

[On this very thread, individual members have advocated that elite scientists (mathematicians and physicists, especially, but also the other so-called 'hard' sciences) substitute themselves for the proletariat. These members say that 'democracy won't work' in the production of the very ideas that we need to construct our world. So, the 'theory' will be provided by an elite, to a mere workforce who simply 'practice'.

 Groan. The same old tedious nonsense from LBird who point blank refuses to explain how his own idealist pie-in-the-sky proposal of organising the "democratic  production" of scientific ideas could ever work or why it is even necessary. How are 7 billion people going to familiarize themselves with the concrete details of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories in order to be able vote on them when not even the cleverest scientist alive would be familiar with more than a small fraction of this gigantic body of theory?  What of the logistics of organising a vote right across the  the world, not just once but thousands upon thousands of times, a monumentally enormous effort that would probably exceed by several times the total amount of effort needed by the human population to keep alive? And why does he imagine that any more than the tiniest fraction of the population would be even bothered at all in participating in this pointless exercise, thereby calling into question its "democratic" authenticity?  LBird explains nothing .  He runs away from from every probing question that is put to him.  He is not an "idealist-materialist."  He is an idealist , full stop.  He believes in the equivalent of  the tooth fairy and harangues those don't share his nonsensically impractical view of the world as "Leninists" or "Engelists" In reality , he is the only Leninist here because, in de facto terms, his concept of "democracy " as a completely centralised society will place all power in the hands of a technocratic elite by default if not by design, using LBird's notion of "democracy" as figleaf to legitimise their class dictatorship

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Hmmm…. between Dave's 'technocracy' and robbo's abhorrence for the 'fetish of democracy', there's not much room left for workers' control of all production, the democratic control of the means of production.

 LBird . It was not really "democratic control of the means of production" that was the issue but your absurd proposition concerning the "democratic determination" of Scientific Truth.  However , even with regard to "democratic control of the means of production" I don't think you have much of a clue of the practicalities of this.  You present us with a pure abstraction without bothering to put flesh on the bones.  You seem to have no awareness at all that there must necessarily be a spatial hierarchy of decision-making – global regional and local – with the great bulk of decision making being made at the local level in a communist society. This is exactly what I mean by a practical constraint on the expression of "democratic control"; it defines more precisely what is meant by democratic control.  By definition, if the great bulk of decisions are being made at the local level, this precludes the participation of those who are not local in this local decision making process.Your undifferentiated and utterly vague concept "workers' control of all production" affords us absolutely no idea how this "control" is actually going to be exercised in practical terms. We are led to believe that the totality of production decisions will be made by the totality of the working population in the guise of a completely centralised economy that is somehow subject to "democratic society wide control".I invite you to step back and seriously consider what it is you seem to be proposing.  There is not the slightest chance of this ever getting off the ground, It is totally – and I mean totally – impracticable from beginning to end.  In fact, it will necessitate the very thing you claim to oppose – the dictatorship of a technocratic elite to impose their decisions on the rest of us.That is why the ideas you are flirting with, whether you realise this or not, are fundamentally Leninist in character, not Marxist.

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

Well as L Bird is making a complete dogs bollocks of his argument I have decided out of pity to give him a helping hand. We actually discussed this issue in depth not all that long ago re the Zietgiest people. Although there is a qualitative difference between the democratic control of scientists and the democratic control of science. I think the science thing can be left on its own as scientists like nothing better than making a name for themselves trashing other peoples science. In fact that is what most of it is.

 DaveLBird has been arguing for the "democratic control of science" in this instance.  Its absolutely bonkers in my view and for the reasons I outlined earlier.  He doesnt really understand what democracy is for. Its about practical stuff that actually affects us . Like –  Where should we build that new doctors' surgery or hospital? What sort of activities should the youth centre provide? Should we switch from this line of production to that?  And so on and so forth.Its not about deciding whether String Theory is right or wrong, for Pete's sake.  What the point? Suppose it is decided that String Theory is just a load of crap.  Then what? What are we supposed to do with this information? Since the theory is presumably applicable everywhere that means the whole human race  is presumably expected to vote on it.  The mind boogles even thinking of the logistical costs involved and for no good reason at all that I can think of.  And thats just one theory; there are plenty moreI know its all absurd, almost to the point of being surreal, but there is a more serious side to all of this which I have been trying to nudge this debate towards and to concentrate minds upon  That is this  – what are the limits of democracy in a socialist society?  Where would we draw the line?  Heretical though the thought may be there is, in my view, such a thing as too much democacy just as there is such a thing as too little democracy.It concerns me when people start to make a fetish of democracy and it conjures up an image of  socialism as an endless round of committee meetings where people are to busy talking and arguing  to get anything done.  I for one would hope that a socialist society would enable much more in the way of free associatioin, spontaneity and initiative in the matter of scientific discovery as in other matters…

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

The key thing is, this view, that 'physics and maths' (along with the rest of the means of production) can come under our democratic control, is the perfect philosophical complement to the SPGB's politics, of arguing that socialism can only come about when a majority vote and act for it, and that the role of the party is to develop class consciousness amongst other workers.

Once again, can you explain how this "democratic control" over physics and maths will be organised in a communist society of 7 billion people?  What form will it take? Will 7 billion people be voting on thousands of new theories and why will this be necessary?

LBird wrote:

The 'materialists', however, oppose democracy and want elite control of physics. This is, of course, what the Leninists also argue, but it is the perfect philosophy for them, because that is their politics, and their physics reflects their politics.Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.

Once again can you explain how and in what sense an "elite will control physics"? Since in communism everyone will be free to pursue whatever line of interest that they want, what barriers do you envisage being placed on those who have an interest in Physics in developing that interest?  Also, do you think physicists belong to the  same "elite" of those who are knowledgeable in, say, biochemistry i.e. who know a lot about biochemistry becuase they are interested in it and have studied it?  Do you not consider that instead of there being one fictional social elite in the form of "the scientists" there will be multiple functional elites in the sense that there will be a social division of labour and that it is pretty difficult for an accomplished physicist to also become an accomplished biochemist, for example. Finally the Communist Manifesto talked of communists being in the "vanguard" of the workers movement.  Do you think Marx was an "elitist" for saying this? Was he not just expressing the view that communists could be differentiated from other workers by the fact that they held communist ideas?By the same token, do you not think specialists in physics or biochemistry in a communist society could be distinguished friom non specialists on the grounds that they have a greater understanding of their respective subjects.  Since it is impossible for any one individual to understand in depth everything, we are all bound without exception to be ignorant in most things and therefore defer to those who knows these things better than us Or perhas you consider that in communism there will be no specialisation and that each and every one of us is capable of becoming omniscent and that we can do away with the social division of labour completely. Obviously we would need to be omniscient if we are to democratically vote on the whole gamut of scientific theories otherwise how would we know what we are voting about.  If you dont  know what, say, String theory is about how can you determine whether it is "true"or notI would be interested in your views on these various matters LBird , if you have any that is

It appears LBird hasnt got any views on these at all so we can safely dismiss his whole argument as pie in the sky twaddle

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The key thing is, this view, that 'physics and maths' (along with the rest of the means of production) can come under our democratic control, is the perfect philosophical complement to the SPGB's politics, of arguing that socialism can only come about when a majority vote and act for it, and that the role of the party is to develop class consciousness amongst other workers.

Once again, can you explain how this "democratic control" over physics and maths will be organised in a communist society of 7 billion people?  What form will it take? Will 7 billion people be voting on thousands of new theories and why will this be necessary?

LBird wrote:

The 'materialists', however, oppose democracy and want elite control of physics. This is, of course, what the Leninists also argue, but it is the perfect philosophy for them, because that is their politics, and their physics reflects their politics.Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.

Once again can you explain how and in what sense an "elite will control physics"? Since in communism everyone will be free to pursue whatever line of interest that they want, what barriers do you envisage being placed on those who have an interest in Physics in developing that interest?  Also, do you think physicists belong to the  same "elite" of those who are knowledgeable in, say, biochemistry i.e. who know a lot about biochemistry becuase they are interested in it and have studied it?  Do you not consider that instead of there being one fictional social elite in the form of "the scientists" there will be multiple functional elites in the sense that there will be a social division of labour and that it is pretty difficult for an accomplished physicist to also become an accomplished biochemist, for example. Finally the Communist Manifesto talked of communists being in the "vanguard" of the workers movement.  Do you think Marx was an "elitist" for saying this? Was he not just expressing the view that communists could be differentiated from other workers by the fact that they held communist ideas?By the same token, do you not think specialists in physics or biochemistry in a communist society could be distinguished friom non specialists on the grounds that they have a greater understanding of their respective subjects.  Since it is impossible for any one individual to understand in depth everything, we are all bound without exception to be ignorant in most things and therefore defer to those who knows these things better than us Or perhas you consider that in communism there will be no specialisation and that each and every one of us is capable of becoming omniscent and that we can do away with the social division of labour completely. Obviously we would need to be omniscient if we are to democratically vote on the whole gamut of scientific theories otherwise how would we know what we are voting about.  If you dont  know what, say, String theory is about how can you determine whether it is "true"or notI would be interested in your views on these various matters LBird , if you have any that is

[Author]

Posts