[robbo203]

Out of curiosity I looked up LU's recently agreed 2015 Manifesto and straightaway was quite surprised to come across the following under the section entitled  "The Economy": "We need an economy run democratically, not controlled by the few in the interests of 1% of the population. This means the principle of common ownership of all natural resources and means of producing wealth, and an end to the dominance of private financial interests such as the City of London over the economy. We stand for ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"(http://leftunity.org/manifesto-2015-the-economy/ This in a Manifesto that blatantly calls for full employment, taking over the banks, taxing corporations and a whole host of other capitalism-tinkering reforms. I cannot believe that the authors of the Manifesto would be so unfamiliar with the argument  that the very concept of "common ownership" logically precludes economic exchange  (and hence any kind of  exchange-related phenomena such as wages, taxes or indeed banks) or that the expression "from each according to their ability  to each according to their need" specifically rules out wage labour  or even labour vouchers and refers instead to a system of voluntaristic labour and  free access to goods and services (Marx's higher phase of communism) Why is LU cleaving to – or hijacking – a form of wording that clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with what their Manifesto is actually proposing?  Whats going on here?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

and how will a minority get control of the state when there is a majority of class conscious workers with delegates in control ? This is the claptrap and confusion I am refering to. It has nothing to do with Leninism, it is an irrational fear of the state. The anarchist position is dangerous and we would do well to oppose it as we always have.

 I'm not advancing an anarchist position,  Vin.  Like I said, i have no problem with the democratic capture of state power but I see this democratic act as tantamount to signifying the complete disappearance of the state.  This is why a minority will not be able to re-capture the state from the socialist majority – there will be no state to recapture!  In the event of such a minority trying to forcibly reinstate capitalist ownership of the the means of production it wont be a "state" that  will forcibly rebuff such action. It will be a the citizens of a classless stateless communist society that will be doing that! Your mistake, Vin, is to equate the use of force (should be necessary) with the actions of a state. It is not.  There are stateless egalitarian societies where force is quite clearly in evidence such as the Nuer, the subject of  Evan Pritchard's ethnography  (http://classes.yale.edu/03-04/anth500b/projects/project_sites/00_Busbee/500b_evans-pritchard.html) I don't see why in principle a future socialist society might not be able to resort to force, if called upon to do so, without resorting to a state 

Vin wrote:

You should not be surprised by my confirmation of clause 6 of our principles Anarchists don't believe in using the state,  the World Socialist Movement believes the opposite. Our conference resolution proposing the immediate abolition of the state was anarchist nonsense. There will be a dictatorship of the working class, the dictatorship of the 99%.

But cant you see that this implies the continuation of the class relationships of capitalism if you advocate the dictatorship of the working class?  The existence of a working class implies the existence of a capitalist class and insofar as you allow the latter to continue to exist what actually has changed in substantive terms?  Nothing! The socialist revolution will STILL not yet have happened – by definition.  All that will have happened is that you are allowing capitalism to continue and therefore conspiring in the continuing exploitation of workers by the capitalists. THIS is why any talk of the DOTP is so dangerous from a revolutionary socialist point of view since it lends itself to a Leninist position where a minority come to claim to represent the majority  in the transitional period but in practice come to oppose the interests of the majority just as the Bolsheviks did. It is just not realistic to suppose that a militant socialist movement having become a majority and having captured state power by democratic means will allow capitalism and the state to continue one second longer.  On what grounds must workers wait and refrain from abolishing their exploited status for the duration? I cant think of a single plausible reason why they should.  Saying the capitalists (or rather ex capitalists) might use force against them is not a reason at all because such an attempt can clearly be opposed by the non statist use of force if necessary  

Vin wrote:

 This is our position:That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.It would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. The State will be an 'agent of emancipation' in direct opposition to the anarchist utopian position.

 The capitalist class may or may not voluntarily give its privileged position but it won't be a state that it will have to deal with but rather the militant organisation of a classless stateless communist society.  It is the latter that will resist any attempt to forcibly reintroduce capitalism. In one sense  this argument is a semantic one but it is important to be consistent here in your usage of terms.  A state is an instrument of class oppression in Marxian terms. Consequently the very existence of a state implies the existence of classes and therefore the absence of classless communism/socialism.  If there is no classless communism after the socialist majority has captured power then I put it to you that no socialist revolution has yet taken place and that whoever controls the state in these circumstances will end up being not that much different from, say, the early Labour government and we all know how that panned out in the end!  After all capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital and against the workers.  So who is going to take the blame for continuing to administer a system that operates against the interests of workers in the face of a majority of those workers  who want to end that system forthwith only to be told that they must wait a while longer? It makes no sense

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Taking control and using the state to establish socialism is after all just going to be a brief period at the beginning of the revolutionary process. Isn't that our message which we emphasise…and once that is accomplished the state is transformed in such a fashion that it can no longer be described a state.

 To be pedantic, Alan, I can't see how this can be case…  I think the confusion arises from how one defines the state itself which is something separate from the machinery of the state i.e the bureaucratic apparatus.  I can certainly foresee the latter continuing to exist and to be adapted after the capture of state power but not the state qua state.  To say the state continues to exist albeit for an allegedly "brief period" is tantamount to saying that class ownership of the means of production continues to exist when the whole point of taking over the state is to abolish class ownership!  In other words it is a symbolic act marking the switchover point to a classless (and therefore stateless) society Which is why logically speaking and in terms of Marxian discourse itself, taking over the state must mean exactly the same thing as the dissolution of the state

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

I cringe when I hear members say " We stand for  a stateless, moneyless, wageless ……."What about the first step before we can have such a society?   Taking control of the state and using its power democratically to dispossess the parasites and reorganise society. Its as if we are afraid to say it.

I'm surprised to hear you say that Vin.  I would have thought saying one stands for a stateless, moneyless, wageless society is precisely what distinguishes socialists from the reformists.Taking control of the state and using it against the capitalists begins to sound like that claptrap advanced by the Leninists of all hues – the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat",  an oxymoron if there ever was oneI've got nothing against the idea of taking control of the state but the very act of doing so entails ipso facto the complete dissolution of the state.  Anything short of this leads us into the quagmire of Leninist politics and inevitably the retention of capitalism in its statist form

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

Recently some poor guy in Telford succeeded in throwing himself to his death because of the encouraging shouts of "Jump", "Get on with it" and "How far can you bounce?" from a crowd of "Workers" below him. Some of these fuckin cretins were filming this horror on their smartphones then uploading it onto "social media" for a laugh. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Well the smartphone phenomenon is making our glorious "working class" anything but smart. Let's face it they were a shower of stupid bastards before all of this…now made even more stupid with the emergence of this technology. They are more addicted, more myopic, more desensitised and more detached as a consequence. This is what you are dealing with now. The masters are turning them all into DRONES! You only have to look at the kids. World Socialism? That'll be right…FORGET IT! 

Just as a matter of curiosity do you have a link to this incident at Telford?  I would love to run it past my local  FB group and see what sort of reaction it elicits

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/16/threat-of-prosecution-for-people-who-taunted-and-filmed-suicidal-manhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/telford-suicide-thousands-sign-petition-5347573

 That confirms my suspicion.  For every scumbag-cum-stupid bastard, there are many many more who are not.  There is hope for socialism yet. Ozy!

[robbo203]

Ozymandias wrote:

Recently some poor guy in Telford succeeded in throwing himself to his death because of the encouraging shouts of "Jump", "Get on with it" and "How far can you bounce?" from a crowd of "Workers" below him. Some of these fuckin cretins were filming this horror on their smartphones then uploading it onto "social media" for a laugh. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Well the smartphone phenomenon is making our glorious "working class" anything but smart. Let's face it they were a shower of stupid bastards before all of this…now made even more stupid with the emergence of this technology. They are more addicted, more myopic, more desensitised and more detached as a consequence. This is what you are dealing with now. The masters are turning them all into DRONES! You only have to look at the kids. World Socialism? That'll be right…FORGET IT! 

 Ozy, its an appalling incident , I agree but I seriously wonder how typical it is.  Here in Spain for example there have been cases of ordinary folk, harassed and driven to despair by the efforts of banks to repossess their flats,  plunging to their deaths on the street below.  Far from provoking the kind of reaction you describe at Telford. it has induced a sense of horror and widespread outrage. There have been two ore three case of this in my local city of Granada I remember when I worked as an admin penpusher for a view years back in the 1990s at a London university. college, there was an incident involving a student who jumped from the eleventh floor of Engineering Faculty block.  As I recall, what happened is that he  had just been diagnosed with an incurable cancer.  The shock  – even trauma – that this incident caused among my colleagues was pretty much palpable. I can assure you.  Most people I believe are fundamentally decent and caring when it comes down to it, and this shows particularly when disasters or catastrophes of some sort happen Of course there are always the exceptions that prove the rule but don't be so disheartened Ozy! There are a lot of good folk out there who don't buy into the dog eat dog worldview Just as a matter of curiosity do you have a link to this incident at Telford?  I would love to run it past my local  FB group and see what sort of reaction it elicits CheersR

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I know I'm wasting my time, and yours, Vin's, YMS's, and anybody else's who isn't interested the the philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge.

 LBird, somebody once said something along the lines that philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways and that the point is to change it.  I don't have any great problem with your view on the "philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge". In fact, if you recall, months and months ago I expressed support for the position you were advancing which was a fundamental assault on the notion of objectivity in science – positivism – and the idea that science is somehow value free.  You may or may believe that you are unique in holding these views  on this  forum but you are not and there are others here apart from me who likewise hold them. Where you fall down badly, and with all due respect, is not the philosophical basis of your thinking but in your working out of the practical implications of what you are saying – like your ludicrous  idea of everyone voting on scientific theories. You never explained how or why.  Did you seriously think for one moment what all that would entail in practical terms? I don't think so and your reluctance to engage with the arguments at a practical level was all too telling.  It suggests you subconsciously knew you were on dodgy grounds I think you would be far better advised to shift your focus of attention away from abstract philosophy for a while to something a little  more practically oriented and down to earth,  to be brutally frank.  You've been reading too many philosophy books lately.  Time to take a break!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own.

You still won't tell us how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.You're positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass', and suggesting that the 'elite' have a 'method' which is a better way of determining the truth of a 'view', than is a democratic method.This is simply bourgeois ideology, not an incontrovertible truth.It is a product of 'materialism', and is suited to Leninist political organisation.Put simply, robbo, you have a fear of democracy, and a faith in scientists. It is not a revolutionary view.

 Come off your cloud, LBird.  For just once try engaging with the arguments that are presented than continuously  try to misrepresent them to save face. I have no fear of democracy at all.  I advocate it and I am a democrat.  But unlike you I recognise there are limits to democratic decision making and these are defined by where the whole purpose of democratic decision making is no longer served and where other considerations come into play.  Do you recognise such limits?  Or are you seriously suggesting that every single human act or thought must be subjected to democratic sanction ? That we must fall in line  with the perceived will or outlook of the (global) majority? Your actions and thoughts on this forum belie such a suggestion.  You persist in putting forward certain arguments which no one else here apparently supports.  I will defend your right to do so though I think the arguments themselves are absolutely ludicrous You say I "still" won't tell you "how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.". Unlike  you, I don't run away from a question when asked one – though  you haven't actually specifically put this question in the form that you have above so the the insertion of the word  "still" in the above is mischievous and misleading The answer to your question is straightforward:  the "view" that a scientist develops is something that is obtained after years and years of sustained study and research. I don't claim that the level of understanding that a scientist reaches in his or  her particular line of research – let us say astrophysics – is not something that cannot also be got  a majority but only if the majority also engages in years and years  of sustained study and research.  You cant expect it to magically appear overnight can you?  Or perhaps you do in your case. Simply reflecting on this shows just how stupid your whole argument is.  If a majority were to devote themselves to years and years of study and research in the field of astrophysics to equip themselves with a level of understanding equivalent to that of a qualified astrophysicists then what about the hundreds of other fields of scientific endeavour? What about, say, molecular biology.? Do you expect the majority to similarly devote years and years of study and research to molecular biology as well?  Has it not occurred to you  that doing one thing may prevent you from another, that to become specialised in one field has opportunity costs which prevent you from becoming an expert in another if only becuase we just dont have time enough to do both things?You have an almost childlike view of the way world ticks, LBird, which I find quite astonishing in someone who otherwise comes across as quite erudite.  You just don't things through, do you? Like your crackpot idea that 7 billion people must vote in multiple thousands of plebiscites every year to validate the "truth" of each new scientific theory as it comes on stream.  Quite apart from the total impracticality of such a suggestion , you totally neglect to explain why a vote is needed in the case of determining the truth of a scientific theory .You run away from this question every time it is put to you.  Thats because you don't understand what democracy is for as i said at the outset. Its about practical decisions that affect us, not abstract "truth" And so we come to your claim that I am  positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass' .  No I'm not at all. What I have been trying to tell you that the "elite" you read into my  proposition is a MIRAGE a complete figment of your imagination.  There is no elite.  All there is is a complex social division of labour. I've explained this all to you but you wont listen.  The trained astrophysicist certainly differs from the mass in the level of understanding he or she has as far as the field of astrophysics is concerned.  But as far as the field of molecular biology is concerned that trained astrophysicist is equally part of the mass.  In other  words, you could say that EVERYONE in society  is both part of an "elite" – with respect to their own area of expertise- and part of the mass with respect to other areas  of expertise.  In other words there is no sociologically identifiable trans-social  entity called an "elite" in my view of communism – nor for that matter,  a "mass".   It is simply a case of individuals necessarily  being different from each other It is precisely the "vulgar communism" of people like you that Marx attacked – the preposterous suggestion that people are all equal and identical in their abilities.  Thats is not the kind of equality we communists strive to achieve.  What we seek is social equality with respect to peoples' standing in relation to each other. There is no power that a trained astrophysicists could possibly wield over the "mass" in a communist society notwithstanding that he or she clearly differs from the mass in respect of the level of understanding attained in the subject of astrophysics.  The social basis of elite power in the proper sense disappears completely in a communist society where goods and services are freely accessible to the general public and where all labour is voluntarily performed. There is no leverage any one or any group can exercise over anyone else under these circumstances. You have claimed a high level of understanding by a few experts in a particular field of scientific endeavour somehow invests them with a power over society which is at odds with the democratic nature of communism.  Well go on prove it!. Show us how this "power" could materialise in a communist society

[robbo203]

james19 wrote:

Found this…… any system that is not based on individuals having the freedom to work for their own benefit or to pursue their own dreams is never going to work and will always end with mass poverty. just look at what is happening in venezuela at the minute.capitalism has given us so much and it still has lots to give. sometimes the government has to step in (mainly when it comes to environment) but in general capitalism has shown itself to be the best system to create wealth and to feed starving humans.http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

 Two things to say about that, James… Firstly it should be pointed out that these figures have been severely criticised as being highly misleading.  There are several reasons for saying this, some of which are mentioned in this articlehttp://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/16/should-we-celebrate-a-decline-in-global-poverty/ Secondly, even if it is true that, in absolute terms, progress has been made and I think it is indisputable that such progress has been made – particularly in places like China and India – you don't judge an economic system on that basis but rather on the extent to which it has been able to realise the technological-cum-productive potential that  society has created to meet human needs  On that basis I would contend that capitalism is not a progressive system at all but in fact is falling further and further behind in the realisation of  that potential  and that the biggest single factor for this is is the relative and absolute growth capitalism's structural waste – those economic activities that do nothing to enhance human welfare and wellbeing but merely exists to keep the system ticking over on its own terms

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.

 LOL 7 billion people voting several thousand times a year on the "truth" of scientific theories,  the vast majority of which, the vast majority of us (including the "scientific experts" as well), will most likely not have heard of or be familiar with – unless of course you believe in the notion that we can all attain a state of "scientific omniscience" through deep meditation and a diet of lentils "Easy peasy" indeed!It is pie-in-the-sky nonsense like this that actually makes  the case for communism look ludicrous and plain silly.  Saying that some people are more knowledgeable than others in some things  – inevitably – is not the same thing as taking up an elitist position since, though you may know more about  mechanics than I do, I may know more about chemistry than you.  LBird still cant see this point – he does not recognise that there is a social division of labour and that there are oppotunity costs involved in the acquisition of any kind of knowlege . So he rambles on irrelevantly counterposing elite science to democratic science.  The logic of his own argument is to say that we are all the same in our capabilities which is manifestly not true and by implying that it is, it is litle wonder that 99.99% of the population would scorn the case for communism if it was presented to them by the likes of LBirdAnd still we haven't been told why a vote is needed! Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own. If LBird's daft ideas ever had any purchase we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages believing that the sun revolved around the earth rather than the other way round with no way of requestioing and overthrowing this orthodoxy in a totalitarian  system in which people will be told what to think (post 1260) .  If, on the other hand,  you are able to question orthodoxy then what is the point of voting for it other than to validate it as orthodoxy.  And what exactly is the point of that? It seems quite pointless.  LBird quite simply does not understand what democracy is meant to be forThat latest offering from LBird is that  the idea of voting is to curb the power  of his "experts".  How so? You could just as easily argue by that token  that it will do the exact opposite – if the expert in question finds his or her views have attracted majority support. What is to stop them capitalising on that support in that case?The mere fact that only a relatively few people are likely to know what String Theory is about, does not  and indeed, cannot, somehow give them "power" over others in a communist society where the means of production are commonly owned and all labour is voluntary.  Power to do what exactly? LBird doesn't explain.  But then he is not into "explaining" or answering questions in good faith – which is why he ducks every question asked of him.  He is here merely to pontificate –  like some kind of leftist version of a monomaniacal Jehovah Witness neophyteWe have had months and months of the most stultifyingly boring  and idiotic drivel from LBird, endlessly regurgitated.  When is he going to take the hint and realise  that continuing to shove his tedious mantras down our throats just aint gonna cut it – any more than those JW leaflets continuously shoved through the letter box?        

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You still dont get it do you, LBird?Philosophically, I dont have a problem with what you are saying…

No, your 'problem' with 'what I'm saying' is merely a 'political' one.You won't have democratic science. You argue for elite science.The final arbiter of 'truth' must be society: if necessary, all 7 billion must vote.Socialism must start from the premise that 'scientific explanation' is understandable by all.Science must be open to all, as the producer of concepts, as a social activity to test those concepts, as the arbiter of the truth of the results of those activities.

 You wont answer those questions I asked you, will you? You continue to stubbornly evade them  by throwing up a smokescreen of strawman arguments Once again nobody is disputing that science must be "open to all" or that science is a social activity. Stop trying to put fake arguments in the mouths of your critics LBird.  You assert "The final arbiter of 'truth' must be society: if necessary, all 7 billion must vote. Socialism must start from the premise that 'scientific explanation' is understandable by all" But we are not talking  vaguely of "scientific explanation" are we? We are talking quite specifically of scientific theories. Thousands upon thousands of them. In every conceivable branch of science. You are saying that all 7 billion of us must vote on them.  I have no idea how many scientific theories come into circulation every year but let us say 10,000.  So you are proposing to organise 10,000 annual plebiscites globally on the validity of each of these scientific theories.  This is quite apart from the literally billions of decisions affecting the global production system  as a whole which, according to you, also have to be made by the global population of 7 billion in your centrally planned hyper-Leninist economy since you seem to have ruled out any kind of local decision making (it would be "elitist", according to you, for the local population to claim to know what is best for their locality. they must fall in line with what the global population decides for them) So just on the question of determining the "truth" of scientific theory that means the annual figure for ballot papers sent out (or their electronic equivalent) comes to …wait for it70,000,000,000,000.Of course all these votes have to be counted, addresses have to be checked in case of fraud and so on. So we are talking about many millions of hours of social labour being diverted away from producing food, building houses or sweeping streets… But thats only scratching the surface isn't it?   In order to vote on a particular scientific theory you need to know what the scientific theory is about. You cant just vote on something if you haven't got a clue what the issue is, can you?  So that means billions of pages of research papers, articles, books  and what not have to be made available to each of your 7 billion inhabitants .  They will be expected to digest the contents of all this material to arrive at an informed decision according to you.  'Cos there is no point in voting for something if you don't know whether to vote one way or another. I think even you, by now , can see that this whole idea of yours is well, to put it mildly ….a little silly.  There is no way on earth that it is going to be implemented.  It is logistically impossible. Even for the whole population to fully grasp  the ramifications of a single scientific theory arising in a single branch of science would require a mammoth effort.  It takes years of study to acquire the background knowledge of, say, neuroscience in order to competently  determine the validity of some scientific theory arising in the domain of neuroscience. Is this an elitist view of science? Not at all.  You constantly misunderstand this point.  Elitism implies a socially imposed barrier put in the way of individuals to advance their understanding of  and contribute to, a given discipline. I've said quite clearly that I totally opposed to any such barriers being imposed. The fact that inevitably and inescapably only a few individuals are going to end up as competent neuroscientists is purely a function of the social division of labour  and of the opportunity costs of the decisions you take. If you decide to become a competent neurosurgeon that means you are going to have to devote years of study to becoming that , time that you will not be able to devote to becoming a competent structural engineer for example.  You hate having to face up to this simple fact because it totally demolishes your entire ridiculous flimsy argument. Thats why you run away from the probing questions asked of you.  You don't want to have to face up to the absurd implications of your own arguments Instead you disssemble and deceive.  You claim that this means I am advocating a society in which there is a tiny elite of scientists on the one hand and the rest of us on the other.  You conveniently forget that the competent structural engineer is part of the "rest of us" as far the  community of competent neuroscientists is concerned while the competent neuroscientist is also part of the rest of us as far as the community of structural engineers is concernedAlso, ironically, the only one who is taking an elitist view of science is you  because you look down your nose on those of the "rest of us" as being non scientific in what we do  which is why you want us to all to swot up and study every minute of the day to become like a  "proper scientist".  But I insist that what I do as a gardener and ground maintenance worker involves "science" even if you with your elitist view of science cannot see this.  We are all scientific in that sense. Its just that we are also all different – necessarily   

LBird wrote:

And 'special individuals', like you, who will not have their comrades 'telling them what to think!'. Who needs the aid of their comrades to think, when they have access to a disinterested, neutral method, beloved of all 'special individuals', who hanker for 'free association', rather than 'workers' power'.Individualists always reject democracy, because democracy implies power outside of the individual.

 Firstly, you are assuming what you need to prove.  Democracy does indeed imply power outside of the individual but I ask you again – what is the point of voting on a scientific theory? You have never ever explained this.  Your inane response is scientific knowledge is a "social product"  which is quite true in a trite sense but I have pointed out to you that because something is a social product does not ipso facto mean it must be subjected to democratic control. My toothbrush is a social product.  Is the global population of  7 billion going to vote to decide whether I should be allowed to have a toothbrush or when I might use it Secondly regarding your jibe that 'special individuals', like me, will not have their comrades 'telling them what to think! – yes indeed!  I don't want to be "told what to think".  I'm not an 'effin sheep.  Your whole argument ironically reeks of elitism.  Note that what I am saying doesn't mean that I am not open to persuasion by others.  But if I am going to persuaded to change my mind and fall in line with what they think, I want to be persuaded on the merits of the arguments they present  not on the mere fact that they disagree with me  and are more numerous than me.  If you had your way LBird we would still be stuck in the middle ages when when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth .  There could be no structural possibility of ever changing this position because according to you the dissident minority who believed otherwise would have to stifle their thoughts and fall in line with the "majority".  That is because they would have to be told what to think. necessarily what you are advocating perpetuates the status quo by defintion In de facto terms what you are advocating is the most reactionary, anti-scientific anti-critical and  anti-communist crap ever to grace this forum. In real terms you are calling for a totally static society from which all criticism has been expunged by the alleged dictatorship of the majority which in practise because of the sheer impossibility of what you advocate will turn out to be tiny technocartic minority who will impose their will on the majority while pretending to represent that majority. And the biggest irony of all is that you are more stubbornly "individualist " on your terms than anyone else on this forum!  You will simply not have people telling you what to think but will drone on and on and one with the same old tedious mantra. Quite clearly you regard yourself as a " very special individual" who cannot possibly be wrong  even though just about everyone else regards (some of) your  views as verging on the insane So why is that the rest  of have to be told what to think by their comrades , L Bird , but not you, eh? I would really be interested to know but my guess is that once again you going to duck the question

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, it would be a better use of your time to read one of the books that I've recommended (Delanty, perhaps?) rather than keep indulging in lengthy diatribes.Unless you engage on a philosophical level, it's pointless trying to explain to you.

 You still dont get it do you, LBird? Philosophically, I dont have a problem with what you are saying about "idealism-materialism".  That has never been the issue at least as far as I am concerned – as well you know – and doubtless others here as well.  The problem is your preposterous suggestion that  scientific theories should be subjected to a democratic vote by the global population.  You simply refuse to explain HOW or WHY, despite every request to do so. In your recent response to Vin, you say: 'Since Communist society will democratically control production, and 'truth' is produced by societies, then 'truth production' must be democratically controlled'. That is, 'Truth' will be elected, and perhaps later rejected, by society as a whole, not by 'elite experts'. Are you saying  that in a communist society as a whole – global society – will democratically control the totality of production and there will be no regional or local decisionmaking?  YES OR NO Are you saying that in a communist society everyone in society must acquire the level of expertise exhibited by experts today  not just in one branch of science but in every branch (something which no expert let alone lay person alive today can remotely claim to have acquired)  YES OR NO If the above is not what you what you are saying do you think it is possible to meaningfully vote on something if you dont have any inkling of what the vote is about?   YES OR NO Please answer these questions with an honest straightforwar answer, LBird.  Stop trying to constantly  divert attention away from these questions to irritation of just about everyone here, and try for once to once, to engage with what this debate is really about.  Stop trying to deflect blame on others when you have only yourself to blame for the complete  incredulity which your  posts give rise to

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Back to your non-voting 'rocks', robbo. You're an individualist and an elitist, and you won't have others telling you what 'truth' is, because you claim to have an access all of your own to 'matter'.You've said all this before – you actually said that you won't have 10 comrades outvoting you on your 'own' knowledge. You really believe that you as an individual know better than a wider majority.

Are you quite well LBird and not currently partaking of some illegal substance perchance? I've "actually said" that? When? Give me the details. Thread and post number please. (Oh and I guess Saint LBird is totally different.  After all, he – god forbid! – doesnt pretend to "know better" than a "wider majority" even though the wider majority on this forum completely opposes the nonsense he spouts – even if that doesnt seem to stop him continuing to spout such nonsense! His actions speak louder than, and contradict, his words )I've said nothing of the sort and you damn well know it, LBird.  What I actually said is that I couldn't really see the point of voting for a scientific theory because, if you believe it to be correct and the majority think otherwise, then the  mere fact that majority think otherwise is not going to dissuade you and indeed ought not dissuade you from holding that theory.  If most people believed that the sun revolved around the earth  rather than the earth around would you abandon the idea of a heliocentric universe and meekly fall in line?  Yes or No LBird? Oh I forgot – you are not into answering straight questions with straight answers. Silly me

LBird wrote:

Because you, like your 'elite experts' (physicists, mathematicians and academics), regard yourselves as 'special individuals', and you won't have the 'despised mass' telling you anything, will you? 'No democracy here!', they maintain. 

 You are so full of crap, it is difficult to know where to even begin deconstructing this idiocyFor a start, I am by my own admission one of the despised mass you rant on about it.  I recognise fully my own limitations.  I could not, for example, begin to debate with a trained astrophysicist on the merits of, say , String theory  (to use my previous example) because I know next to nothing about it.  However, that trained astrophysicists may well know next to nothing about things that I know .  We are ALL special individuals LBird in that we are all different – a thought which you just cant seem to wrap your head around Secondly, nobody is saying one should not tell somebody who happens to be knowledgeable about  a particular subject a thing or two about the subject. Im all for that.   In fact I have said quite categorically that I absolutely oppose any restriction on anyone whatsoever making a contribution to scientific theory,  Restricting people in that way would indeed be "elitist" and I am opposed  root and branch to such elitism. However you cant expect people to make a contribution to some branch of scientific knowledge if they don't have some grounding in it in the first place.  Is that an unreasonable proposition to make? Of course not,  How the hell can you say something about some obscure theory in say molecular biology if you don't know what it is about in the first place, eh?.  To know what it is about you have study it, read up about it , and experiment.  All of which takes time and resources.  The difference between "elitism" and this is that this is a kind of unavoidable self imposed restriction.  It stems from the opportunity costs of decision makingwhich you dont seem to understand at all.  If you want to become a trained astrophysist then the the opportunity cost of that may be forfeiting the opportunity to become a trained molecular biologist a result We  don't all have the time to become a trained astrophysicist and we certainly don't have the time to be become BOTH a trained astrophysicist AND a trained molecular biologist.  Yet you expect all of us to be competent enough in EVERY single field of scientific endeavour in order to be able to "democratically vote" on the totality of scientific theories.  This is beyond insane

LBird wrote:

Only democracy in science is acceptable for socialists. That means all social production, including truth.

Like I said, you don't under stand either the scientific process or the democratic process.  You don't understand their purpose of function As for social production I have asked you this before but as usual you have completely ignored my question:  would there be localised decision making  in your fantasy world? Would there be say  a town or village where it is essentially only the people who live there who happen to intimately know the town or village they reside in where they want to site, say, a new medical centre.  If so how is this different from a dispersed scientific community of astrophysicists who happen to know about String  Theory unlike the rest  of us .  Most of us like me I guess couldn't  really be arsed to know om great detail. There are other things about the world that I find a lot  more interesting frankly. See, to be consistent LBIrd you would have to rule out any idea of local decision making in your fantasy world because to have local decision making by your warped logic is the equivalent of allowing experts to decide the merits id some scientific theory,   So that means in your fantasy world every decision relating to social production would be taken by all 7 billion inhabitants of planet Earth and there could be no such thing as sub-global planning – yes? That makes  you an advocate of society wide central planning .  There will be only one single mind that will address the totality of social [production and it will be global in scope. Though you don't seem to realise it your position is actually a Leninist one and while you declare yourself in favour of democracy in practise what you advocate will turn out to be the most viciously anti democratic dispensation imaginable.  The sheer futility of what you advocate will be the pretext on which a tiny elite will assuredly grasp the reins of social power and impose their decisions on the majority by diktat while pretending to embody the democratic will of that self same majority

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Another reading recommendation, comrades, about physics and its politics.

Ball, p.25 wrote:

It became clear to [Max] Born that what he began to call a ‘quantum mechanics’ could not be constructed by minor amendment of classical, Newtonian mechanics. ‘One must probably introduce entirely new hypotheses’, [Werner] Heisenberg wrote… Born agreed, writing that summer [of 1923] that ‘not only new assumptions in the usual sense of physical hypotheses will be necessary, but the entire system of concepts of physics must be rebuilt from the ground up’.            That was a call for revolution, and the ‘new concepts’ that emerged over the next four years amounted to nothing less.

[my bold]Philip BallServing the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics Under Hitlerhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Serving-Reich-Struggle-Physics-Hitler/dp/1847922481

 Doubt if Ball is saying what you seem to imply he is saying – at least in the context of this discussion.  He is talking about a revolutionary change in the conceptual basis of Physics; he is not talking about all 7 bllion of us- the global population – becoming knowledgeable and trained Physicists and "democratically" voting from the ground up to replace one set of concepts with another – your crackpot idea.  Some of us have got other things to do than devote years of our lives becoming acquainted with the intricacies of theoretical Physics, ya' know…

LBird wrote:

The ‘rocks’ do not talk to us, comrades. Humans employ concepts to understand. Concept formation precedes observation. We try to find what we already think exists. We select.This is Marx’s ‘theory and practice’, his ‘idealism-materialism’.Whilst comrades continue to look to ‘materialism’ (or its modern equivalent, ‘physicalism’), they’ll remain confined in a 19th century straitjacket.Societies determine what they see, not the rocks. Humans are the active side, as Marx said in the Theses on Feuerbach, not ‘matter’.

 Yes, and who exactly is it here that is supposed to be disagreeing with the above sentiments?  Your irritatingly repetitive "rocks dont talk" mantra is a boring banality.  Dont you think it is time you changed the record and moved on, eh?

[robbo203]

Richard wrote:

Regressive political parties and movements have embraced social media and the Internet and I think that progressive movements like ours should do the same. Technology probably will have long term effects on human behaviour but the technology is here to stay. I think this is something that requires a lot more study but in the meantime we should use Twitter, Facebook and text messaging to get the socialist message out there, especially to a new generation like the pre-teens in the Science Direct study you mentioned. Those pre-teens are bombarded with capitalist propaganda extolling the consumer lifestyle. By the time they're twenty, those pre-teens will be good little consumers , office workers and temp workers. Capitalists know how to get their message out, do socialists?

 This is so true, Richard.  The best book I've come across on the influence of consumerism on kids is Juliet Schor's "Born to Buy".  Here is a summary of it (http://www.thesimpledollar.com/review-born-to-buy/).  I would recommend it to others here. It is an impressively researched work which throws considerable light on the array of forces we revolutionary socialists are up against It may well be too early as you and Meel suggest , to draw any firm conclusions on the impact of communications technology on human behaviour and ideology in general. However, tentatively, what we can say on the basis of the evidence that is already in is that such technology is a double edged sword. For sure,  technology itself is not something neutral that stands apart from society and develops under its own momentum: technology is shaped by society and by the values that pervade society.  It is some time since I last read  Andre Gorz's book  "Farewell to the Working Class" but Gorz's thesis was that the the way in which technology has developed under capitalism with its increasingly complex division of labour was such that the "nature, modalities and objectives of work are  to a large extent determined by necessities over which individuals or groups have relatively little control" (p.9) .  We confront , in other words, a form of alienation that is inherent not only in the capitalist relations of production but  "in the socialisation of the process of production itself: in the workings of a complex, machine like society"(p.9).   This led him to conclude that the productive forces have been rendered incapable of being accommodated to a "socialist rationality"  (p.15) and that this impossibility has been "deliberately created in order to guarantee capitalist domination" (p.31).  It was only outside the sphere of formal paid heteronomous work, and in the sphere of autonomous activity (think here of the role of computers, for example and the "gift economy" that is the internet),  argued Gorz, that we can hope to find emancipation; paid work is here to stay because the nature of technology is such that it requires the compulsion of a wages system in order to ensure that such work gets done. I disagree strongly with Gorz who I think adopts a rather mechanistic reductionist approach to the whole subject but he does have a valid point when he says the development of technology is not something that is value free but is shaped by the imperatives of capital itself. 

[Author]

Posts