[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

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!

 I'm intrigued LBird.  How is this "democratic control "of physics going to be exercised? Could you give us some indication of the practical procedures that need to be put in place to affect this "democratic control" in a global population of 7 billion  people?  Will there be a global vote on String theory for example and could you explain what the purpose of that vote will be?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.blah blah blah  …

LBird cut the crap and answer directly the challenge I posed:Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalismYou are beginning to sound like a capitalist politician being interviewed on telly in your capacity to evade straightforward  questions

Throwing childish tantrums, because you neither understand Marx, nor want your beloved bourgeois ideology exposing, is no answer to ignorance, robbo.

 LOL LBird. Its hardly throwing a "childish tantrum" to ask you stick to the point and directly answer the question asked of you instead of evading it as you always do in the end.  But OK its pretty clear that you cant and dont want to answer the question and that for all the emotively charged flak you throw up , the only one who is hiding anything is your good self – namely your own inability to address that question. Its ironic, though, that you call yourself an  "idealist/materialist". Your crude reductionism is more reminiscent of the mechanical materialism of the Leninists

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.blah blah blah  …

LBird cut the crap and answer directly the challenge I posed:Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalismYou are beginning to sound like a capitalist politician being interviewed on telly in your capacity to evade straightforward  questions

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Ah well, robbo…It was going so well, but now it appears you were deceiving us about your 'democratic communism', and have reverted to bourgeois science, and the myth that 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production.

When did I ever say or suggest " 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production?  What I was trying to convey to you through my feeble attempt at satire is that there is nothing in string theory itself that warrants the suggestion that it is a "bourgeois"  concept, that somehow reflects the capitalist relations of production – even if the theory itself was developed under the socio-historical conditions of capitalism.  If you think otherwise then prove it.  Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalism.  You cant and you know itYou are confusing two quite different things but then you are pretty confused on a lot of things

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 It's funny, y'know, those infected with bourgeois ideology always pretend to be 'practical men', just interested in the 'practice' of any activity, and always keen to get down to 'the nitty gritty' of the subject, of what an isolated genius individual can do. But that is not our proletarian method, is it? We are keenly aware of the socio-historical nature of the production of any 'concept', including 'string theory'.

 OK, so ..er.. String Theory is a Petty Bourgeois deviation from Proletarian Truth and those who espouse it, come the glorious revolution, should be sent to the Gulags.  Just so I can get the case watertight in readiness for when we hold our revolutionary tribunals to indict those Running Dogs of Capitalism – the Scientists – can you just go over the argument again, Comrade.  Im still not quite sure how the class structure of capitalism influences ,or is reflected in, the theoretical contents of String theory.  You know how slippery these Bourgeois Snakes – the lawyers – can be.  They will be arguing on behalf of their clients at the trubunals that our arguments are crudely determinist, that not all values are class values, and that because String theory was developed within a socio-historical context does not necessarily mean that it takes on the colour and character of that context.We must be alert to these cunning arguments , Comrade, that will no doubt be raised by the Forces of Reaction and Counter Revolution.  You never know – next they will be arguing that if we are saying String Theory is a Petty Bourgeois deviation that reflects the character of capitalist society, then the same must apply to all science developed under capitalism and we would thus be logically bound to reject all science developed under capitalism.  That kinda worries me, ya know,Comrade.  How do you think we should respond to these Capitalist Lickspittle?  Help me out here…

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

There is an interesting critique of Picketty here which I have just come acrosshttp://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/piketty-s-three-big-mistakes-in-inequality-analysisRognlie seems to think the problem of increasingly inequality lies with landlordism.  Any comments?

 A discussion here on the above on Michael  Roberts blog…https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/piketty-update-graduate-takes-on-a-super-star-and-comes-up-with-a-comforting-conclusion/

[robbo203]

There is an interesting critique of Picketty here which I have just come acrosshttp://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/piketty-s-three-big-mistakes-in-inequality-analysisRognlie seems to think the problem of increasingly inequality lies with landlordism.  Any comments?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Once you tell me your ideology, robbo, we can proceed.We can then examine physics from class perspectives: my Marxist, proletarian, communist, democratic one, and your…?  

 My ideology? Im a democratic communist – which explains why I dont take too kindly to your viewsNow can we finally "examine physics from class perspectives" as you keep on promising to do but never do. So to kick off the conversation – can you please explain what is the connection between string theory and the class structure of capitalism,  Ive been dying to know what it is ever since you raised the tantalising prospect that such a connection exists…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.

So, none of these are political issues?To me, they all are.Which ideology separates out the 'political' from the 'personal'; the 'individual' from the 'social'?Why won't you tell us your ideology? Once we know that, we can then talk about our constrasting views of physics.But we can't have you pretending to everyone that your views are 'objective', untainted by your living in this society. You're hiding something, robbo, as do the academic physicists, which we'll find out, once you reveal your ideological viewpoint.

 You do talk a load of tripe ,LBird. Why dont you bother to actually read what people are saying instead of putting words in their mouths?  Since when have i been "pretending to everyone that (my) views are 'objective', untainted by (my) living in this society"? I went out out of my way to criticise the fact-value distinction and positivism in general.  I explicitly stated that I did not believe science is value free.  So where on earth did you get the idea that you think I consider my views to be "objective" and untainted by my living in society?My point was quite a different one and I note that yet again you have suceeded in evading it – that there are other values then just class values.  I gave you a few examples of this (see above).Some of these are "indeed poilitical issues" or have political ramifications;some are not (unless your attachment to your friends, partner and familty is undertaken for political reasons) but even those that are "political issues"  dont necessarily boil down to a question of class. Class is important but it is not the only variable in townWhat I was attacking was your crude reductionism which would have us believe that the theoretical content of the hard sciences like physics , biochemistry , geology and so on are somehow a reflection of class values. I asked you to explain how – how for instance is string theory influenced by, or "reflects",  the class structure of capitalism? – but you declined to do so. So it is not me who is hiding something but you and your silence on this matter speaks volumes…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

My particular gripe with your position is that you seem to think all values boil down to class values.

So, where do these 'values' come from, robbo, if not classes?

 Im astonished you even ask this question and it rather points to your simplistic, one dimensional and crudely reductionist cum mechanistic view of the world which has more in common with Leninism than Marxism, frankly. Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.And yes class identification is a source of value too.  But I have still to hear from you whether string theory in theoretical physics is a proletarian or bourgeois theory.  And why.Why do you not answer this question  LBird?  I want to be guided by your superior vanguardist knowlege – you did say you would "continue to help (me) with further answers" – as to whether or not  I should dismiss string theory as a petty bourgeois deviation from the Proletarian Truth.  Help me out here, man….Im in a state of turmoil over this vexed question

[Author]

Posts