[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I'd simply ask, YMS, why you and robbo keep using the loaded term 'individuals'.Why use an ideological term so closely connected to the bourgeoisie?Why draw parallels between 'individuals' who live in very different societies, which is also a method used as an ideological justification for 'what exists, now' by showing the alleged 'similarities' with 'what existed, then'?If neither you nor robbo share neither ideology nor method with the bourgeoisie (as you both say that you don't), why employ the ideology of 'individuals' and the comparative method of 'sameness'.Especially as the 'individuality' being expressed is one of 'biological traits' ('that we all share, after all, we're all humans, we individuals', implying bosses and workers, being 'human' should look to their similarities), rather than emphasise the contrast and vast differences between societies and their production methods.What's the fascination with 'individuals', for alleged socialists?

 Groan.  Isn't the term "bourgeoisie" itself closely connected to the "bourgeoisie"? Why do you keeping using this "loaded term" if this does not demonstrate your own bourgeoisie way of looking at the world? See – this is what your kind 2+2=5 logic comes to. You end up trying yourself in knots. Look, nobody is saying that the individual is not "socially constituted". I've said that several times to you but as usual you are just not listening.  You just bang on with your bee in your bonnet  like you've stumbled across  some revolutionary new sociological insight but the rest of us, philistines that we are, are unwilling to accept it , are too stuck in the mud and blinded by bourgeois ideology to embrace it. Its getting tedious, LBird. Very tedious The "bourgeois individual" is quite a different animal to the "feudal  individual" or again to the individual in a hunter gatherer society.  We know this but you are trying to tell us more – that only under the rule of the bourgeoisie  , under capitalism, does the "individual" qua individual come into being , that before that "individuals" simply didn't exist and after that individuals too will not exist.  But this is ahistoric nonsense. It rides roughshod over the sociological (and indeed Marxist) maxim that individuals are not only constituted by society but continuously constitute or reconstitute society..  You can't have society without individuals or individuals without society. They hang together. They are two sides of the same coin There is no sense of this dialectic or interaction between individuals and society at all in your philosophical musings which is why these come across as so sterile and barren.  For you individuals don't exist; only social categories exist – "I'm a worker not an individual" – despite the fact social categories too consist of individuals.  Your whole approach is simplistic and black-or-white. Can one not be a worker and an individual too?You askWhy draw parallels between 'individuals' who live in very different societies, which is also a method used as an ideological justification for 'what exists, now' by showing the alleged 'similarities' with 'what existed, then'? Actually, it shows quite the opposite!  What it demonstrates is that anatomically identical individuals with the same mental equipment  as us can live under a wide variety of social systems. That being so there can be nothing more subversive than such a  thought as far as the existing capitalist social order is concerned for it demonstrates very clearly that there is nothing in human nature that prevents us living in a different kind of society.  You call yourself a communist yet you would wish us  to spike this most subversive and revolutionary thought! In fact I would go further – if what you say held any water then the whole Marxian concept of alienation would make no sense at all.  The "individual" in your absolutist behaviourist schema would just be assimilated into some infinitely mouldable putty shaped by the forces of history over which we would have no control. The kind of logic that underlies your thinking is the same kind of logic that informs the racist  with his or her essentialist talk of "races". It stands in sharp contrast to the humanism and universalism that informs Marxism.  Yes we are workers under capitalism but we are also defiantly human beings and it is the fact that we are human beings, that we have certain needs,   that we chafe under the condition of being  exploited members of the working class and therefore seek to overthrow capitalism.  If that were not they case then from whence would arise the incentive to overthrow capitalism?  If we were totally mouldable, the product of  our social environment , if there was absolutely nothing about being a human being that transcended any and every kind of social system that human beings have ever lived under, then it totally conceivable that we could be indefinitely conditioned to accept capitalism as not only the best of all possible worlds but the only possible world. Your logic permits this. And so to answer your question  -what is the fascination with individuals for socialists? – it is because we are ourselves human individuals one and all.  Even you LBird. I  doubt very much that  you are some 3D hologram programmed by certain remote impersonal social forces to endlessly parrot the mantra that there are no such things as individuals – only "society.". The utter absurdity of your whole position is exposed by your glib dismissal of the fact that hunter gatherer possess a strong sense of individuality  and an interior subjective  life as "ahistoric waffle".  What you are saying in effect is that  hunter gatherers had no feelings, were incapable of feeling sorrow, anger, remorse, happiness, boredom  and the full gamut of emotions which some "superior" being (presumably yourself) is capable of feeling. No? Well then why  come out with this daft statement of yoursWhy draw parallels between 'individuals' who live in very different societies, which is also a method used as an ideological justification for 'what exists, now' by showing the alleged 'similarities' with 'what existed, then'?There is nothing "alleged" about the similarities I have referrred to above. They are actual similiarities It is precisely because hunter gatherers are capable of precisely the same emotions as ourselves i.e.. are similar to us – that they are of huge interest, more so because for over 95 % of our existence on this planet we human beings lived as hunter gatherers.  That may very well have important consequences for us today and for the struggle to achieve a communist world

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The hunter gatherer like the modern proletarian has what we call an interior subjective reality: self consciousness. Its something that acquire through a process of socialisation.

Yeah, after a busy day 'hunting and gathering' our wages in the factories and offices, we often stop off at 'The Watering Hole', where we quench our thirst alongside our socio-economic bretheren, the Kalahari Bushmen, where we all marvel at the identity of our 'self-consciousness'.Do us a favour robbo: recognise this ahistorical woffle about 'interior subjective reality' as the nonsense that it is.It's bourgeois ideology, and you're propagating 'ruling class ideas' about anthropology.

 Oh so, you have penetrated the mind of a hunter gather and concluded in your seemingly infinite wisdom that he or she has no sense of self awareness, has  no feelings of anger , rage , happiness , jealousy , sadness or love. These things are just…er…"bourgeois ideology" and "ruling class ideas".  Presumably when the hunter gatherer reports to the anthropologist or to another hunter gatherer that he or she dislike some member of the band we should altogether discount this.  According to you such a person is incapable of reflective conscious thought and presumably is to be regarded  a "mere machine" as Descartes said of animals.You remind me of  the case of Albert Magnus, the 13th century scholar, whose pupils included St Thomas Acquinas. Magnus argued  that while humans were indeed distinguishable from "the brutes", the latter could be divided into true animals and manlike creatures or "similitudines homines"  which included also, in his view,  pygmies.  Not even the obvious ability of pygmies to speak convinced Magnus that they warranted being categorised as "true humans" since their speech, he claimed,  was more akin to the mimicry of parrots: "Pygmies do not speak through reason but by the instinct of nature".  Except of  course in your case its a case of pygmies not having an "interior subjective life". The only thing that is "infinite" from where I am standing, LBird is not your wisdom but your colossal arrogance  compounded by the fact that you make absolutely no attempt whatsoever to justify your outrageous nonsensical claims about your fellow human beings

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

If I take this statement at face value, I'm left wondering why all your contributions, to every subject we've encountered, are about 'individuals', and none of them are about the 'society' within which those individuals find themselves.

 Another misrepresentation. I have constantly pointed out that its a two way thing, not a one way thing.  If you only see me talking about individuals that is because you have probably subconsciously blocked out the other side of the equation which I have also stressed – because it suits you to do so.  The point of my pointing out the importance of individuals was to counterbalance your nonsensical claims about individuals not existing etc etc. At no point did I ever suggest that individuals existed in some free floating atomistic sense free of any kind of social conditioning or context. I repeat my position is neither an individualistic one nor a  holistic one but an intermediate one. Kindly stop misrepresenting me!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Thanks for ignoring any discussion about the political ideologies of any of the authors mentioned.

Not true. I think it is has been quite clearly established that your political ideology is that of mystical holism. As such, I think you share a lot in common with much conservative sociological thought exemplified by the likes of Comte and Durkheim – not to mention the advocates of the totalitarian state to which individuals – oh dear! a swearword in your vocabulary ! – are expected to submit in complete obeisance and apologise for the fact of even existing.  I can't speak for anyone else  but my own ideology as I have several times pointed is one of libertarian communism in which individuals and society are seen as interdependent terms and meaningless without the other

LBird wrote:

Since none of you seem to like being critically questioned 

 Says the man who flatly refuses to answer critical questions asked of him

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've not read it through, but in the search for freely available texts:http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_125.pdf

Quote:

Hunter-gatherers are highly mobile, not just in the sense of whole bandsmoving from place to place but also in the sense of individuals and familiesmoving from band to band. Bands are not permanent structures with fixedmemberships. Everyone has friends and relatives in other bands who wouldwelcome them in. Because of this, and because they are not encumbered byproperty, individuals may move at a moment’s notice from one band to another.People move from band to band for marriage, but they also move to get awayfrom conflicts or simply because they are more attracted to the people or theprocedures that exist in another band. Disgruntled groups of people withinany band may also, at any time, leave the original band and start a new one.Thus, the decision to belong to any given band is always a person’s choice.The freedom of band members to leave sets the stage for the other playlike qualities of hunter-gatherer life.

His source for this is Hunters and Gatherers, Volume 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change, ed. Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn (1988) Happy, erm, hunting.

 An interesting quote, YMS, and it points to the existence of a likely conflict avoidance mechanism  in the shape of the ability of individuals or groups to simply relocate.  The implication is that widepread resource scarcity such as happened among the Maoris of New Zealand after they effectively  overhunted large fauna to the point of extinction in some cases may be an important condition for the rise of violent inter-group encounters within hunter-gatherer societies

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Happy, erm, hunting.

And a happy, erm, avoiding difficult ideological questioning, to you, too, YMS!

A little hypocritical given that you have left at least two threads on this subject with questions  that remain unanswered 

 Yes absolutely!  Like LBird's flat refusal to explain precisely how  "the workers" – all 7 billion of us! -are ever going to be in a position to determine the "truth" of thousands upon  thousands of scientific theories by means of  a "democratic vote" or even to explain why this is necessary!!!  The idea is insane  but lets not derail this thread which is really about violence in a hunter gatherer society!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…I recognise that this is also a question of power …

As usual for 'individualists', because you've done some reading, you genuflect to the question of 'power', and note it.But… for you, it plays no part in explaining power relationships within societies in particular historical contexts.You simply revert to asocial and ahistoric 'individuals', who suffer universal 'slights' and make universal 'responses'.You believe that you are an individual, and your activities and beliefs are entirely 'free', and that society should be composed of these 'free individuals'.This is bourgeois thinking, robbo.Unless you situate your 'individuals' in their society (ie. stop talking about 'individuals'), then you won't understand either hunter-gatherer society or our own.I'm a 'worker', by the way, not an 'individual', and power relationships are a part and parcel of my social existence, just as they are yours, and were for 'hunter-gatherers'.And as they are for anthropologists, and all scientists…

Oh dear –  I have visions of yet another long tiresome thread unfolding in which our resident  mystic holist, LBird, continues to utterly misrepresent those who think differently from him with his drearily predictable refrain that they  exhibit nothing but "bourgeois thinking". He, it seems, is the only here entitled to call himself a "democratic communist". LOL. No,. LBird I do not  believe I am an individual whose "activities and beliefs are entirely 'free', and that society should be composed of these 'free individuals'" Thats is not what I have ever said or implied.  At least be honest if you want to engage in a serious debate; I'm  frankly bored with having to constantly demolish you repetitive and ludicrous strawman arguments.   What I actually said was "Of course individuals are embedded, and act, within a social context – no one is disputing that" . How then can you possibly maintain that  I am promoting an ..er.."asocial and ahistoric (view of) individuals"? Your problem frankly is that you have this utterly  naive sociological perspective which is in fact the mirror image of Margaret Thatcher's . Whereas for her, there is no such thing as "society", for you there is no such things as "individuals" and therefore we should "stop talking about individuals".  What you and Thatcher completely overlook is that the one thing without the other is completely senseless.  You both have a totally black-or-white view in which there exists either only concrete individuals (Thatcher) or only some mysteriously reified entity called "society"  (You),Nether of you grasp the reciprocal and interactive nature of this relationship whereby  individuals constitute society and are constituted by society – continuously. And you don't understand what is individualism is. So you come out with nonsensical remarks  like this I think that your ideological individualism compels you to regard any 'social' limits upon 'individual free will' as 'holist'. I don't subscribe to  something called "ideological individualism"  – I doubt if you even  know what that means! – and the mere application of social limits  on individual free will does not equate with holism . Holism signifies the whole determining the parts whereas with individualism  (or atomism), the parts  determine the whole. I don't accept either of these positions but take an intermediate one "Individualism", for your information, is a politico-economic stance which is oriented towards the exterior world – to do with one's relations with other individuals – and is motivated by what one perceives to be in one's self interest. "Individuality" means something quite different and refers to the interior subjective world or the individual himself or herself.  The hunter gatherer like the modern proletarian has what we call an interior subjective reality: self consciousness. Its something that acquire through a process of socialisation. By becoming conscious of the existence of others we become conscious of ourselves Please stop confusing these two terms!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Comrades will note robbo's ideological stress upon 'individuals' being 'slighted or wronged' and responding 'accordingly'.I think this requires an examination of what counts as 'slights and wrongs', and why, and who determines, and what counts as 'accordingly', and why, and who detemines.For example, what evidence of a 'slight' exists in the 'material record'? Or is robbo making assumptions about 'individuals' in our society, and assuming that 'individuals' in other societies recognise and react to 'slights' in a similar way (based upon, say, 'human nature'?).If 'slighting and reactions' are ahistoric, why didn't slaves respond to slights from their masters, but overwhelmingly just accepted them? As too for unresponsive serfs and their lords?Can a 'hunter-gatherer' be slighted, as an individual? If they can, must they respond accordingly?

Look at the evidence I have already provided in the form of John Horton's article on Fry and Soderberg's research. In particular note : Most of the killings stemmed from what Fry and Soderberg categorize as “miscellaneous personal disputes,” involving jealousy, theft, insults and so on Why didn't slaves respond to the slights of their masters?  Because, taking precisely the historic approach which you refer to, I recognise that this is also a question of power – unless of course you want to take up the position that slaves did not feel slighted in which case, be my guest. The inability of slaves to do anything about their maltreatment and the likely consequences of trying to do something about it probably acted as a deterrent and would explain why slaves for the most part didn't do much "responding" to the slights of their masters.  Hunter gatherers, on the other hand, had the freedom to roam where they wished and to break away from the group whenever they wished.  They lived in egalitarian societies  in which no individual could  expect to slight another and get away with it.  So to answer your question –  of course, they could be slighted and by all account the slighting of one individuals by another seems to have been an a significant factor in what violence there was in that form of society if the anthropological evidence is to be believed.  Or does your mystic holism rule this out as being at all  possible?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

For example, whether one's definition of 'individual' is biological (and so transcends history and society, and thus one can discuss 'individuals' and their own actions without reference to the place of that 'individual'), or whether one's definition of 'individual' is ideological (and so is embedded in history and society, and thus one can't discuss 'individuals' and their actions without reference to their time).I'll be explicit: my definition of 'individual' is ideological (I'm a Democratic Communist), so I will regard any talk by authors or posters about 'individuals' as contaminated by bourgeois ideology. I would only refer to 'social-individuals', and situation any action by a hunter-gatherer in a political context.

 Of course individuals are embedded, and act, within a social context – no one is disputing that  – but it is nonsense to assert that merely  to talk about "individuals" as "being contaminated by bourgeois ideology".  You can't talk about society without acknowledging also the existence of individuals who compromise it – just as you can't talk about individuals without acknowledging the existence of the social  context  in which they are embedded.  Your "social-individuals" obscures the necessary reciprocal relationship that goes on here and amounts to a form of mystic holism from which effectively the very idea of "individuals" is expunged Contrary to the ideas of holists like Durkheim with his talk of "mechanical solidarity" and undifferentiated "group think",  traditional societies such as hunter gatherers were characterised by a high degree of individuality  (which is not the same as "individualism") leading to individuals breaking away from the group to set up another group as a form of conflict avoidance – the fissioning process endemic to HG groups.  In other words, they saw themselves as individuals who could be slighted and wronged and so able to respond accordingly – just as much as they saw themselves also as part of a group.  Thats is precisely why conflict within a HG societies tended to be radically decentralised and this in turn may be part of the reason why war as a systemic expression of group based conflict did not seem to have been evident in such societies – at least in the paleolithic era

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've lost the reference, a book recently came across my desk looking at early warfare.  The conclusion (all I had time to look at) was that if you defien war as "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" (I think that was teh formula) then war has always been with us, including among hunter gatherers, however, if you don't take on that definition, and become stricter in your definition of war, then it hasn't been.

YMSDid the book provide any evidence that there was "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" in the Paleolithic era and what was this evidence? The anthropologist , R. Brian Ferguson, considered to be the foremost expert on the early history of war, has pointed out:  "Many hominid remains once thought to establish the most ancient evidence of homicide or cannibalism were actually gnawed by predators or just suffered postmortem breakage" (R. Brian Ferguson , Jul/Aug 2003, "The Birth of War" , Natural History  , Vol. 112, Issue 6).  Ferguson himself has conducted an extensive global survey of archaeological records and has found no substantive  evidence of systematic violence in  prehistoric human societies. Its worth reading the link I supplied above in which Ferguson effectively demolishes Pinkers argument. Around  the time of the neolithic revolution you might possibly begin to see signs of systematic organised violence but this would have been chiefly among tribally based agriculturalist societies where territorial defence becomes an issue unlike with nomadic HGs.  If there was any evidence of HG violence around this time it would probably be the result of their interactions with these tribal agriculturalists.Even Keeley whose 1996 War before Civilisation which Pinker relied heavily upon admitted that HGs were significantly more peaceful than agriculturalists

[robbo203]

One other point – and this ties in with the claim that has been implied, if not openly expressed, on this forum, that there are no such things as individuals, only society  (which is as equally untenable as Margaret Thatcher's notorious claim that there is "no such thing as society only individuals and their families")  – the pattern of violence, such as it occurs in hunter gatherer societies, seems to be very much individually based. Group violence is rare and the argument that organised warfare is a comparatively recent phenomenon going back no more than 10,000 years ago is, I think, a very persuasive one Very interesting in this regard is this article by John Horgan http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ .  Note in particular this:Of the 21 societies examined by Fry and Soderberg, three had no observed killings of any kind, and 10 had no killings carried out by more than one perpetrator. In only six societies did ethnographers record killings that involved two or more perpetrators and two or more victims. However, a single society, the Tiwi of Australia, accounted for almost all of these group killings.Some other points of interest: 96 percent of the killers were male. No surprise there. But some readers may be surprised that only two out of 148 killings stemmed from a fight over “resources,” such as a hunting ground, water hole or fruit tree. Nine episodes of lethal aggression involved husbands killing wives; three involved “execution” of an individual in a group by other members of the group; seven involved execution of “outsiders,” such as colonizers or missionaries.Most of the killings stemmed from what Fry and Soderberg categorize as “miscellaneous personal disputes,” involving jealousy, theft, insults and so on. The most common specific cause of deadly violence—involving either single or multiple perpetrators–was revenge for a previous attack.This confirms the view that conflict was radically decentralised  in hunter gatherer societies and  tended to involve only those immediately affected.   It also overthrows the traditional view of hunter gatherers as lacking in individuality and being completely  subject to group think (note that "individuality" is not the same thing as "individualism", though – a mistake that is often made). In  fact, the radical decentralisation of  conflict may be one of the reasons why there was no warfare in traditional paleolithic hunter gather societies – conflict was simply not allowed to escalate or widen. That apart , the grounds for group conflict  (and the above data bears this out),  such as the struggle  over resources would simply not have arisen to any extent because of the ability of hunter gather bands to simply  move on whenever food resources declined within a given locality.  It is when nomadism is checked, as with the imposition of national boundaries or the confinement of HG groups within designated "reserves",  that the possibility of conflict arises. Which is why contemporary HG groups may well register higher levels of violence than was traditionally the case This is an important subject to discuss because it ties in with arguments about human nature – and by extension about the possibility of a stateless communist future society.  Pinker et al are arguing that the Hobbesian state was the decisive factor in the alleged mitigation of violence under a statist form of society. Insofar as the state is the instrument par excellance for the social regulation of class society,   what is really being debated here  is whether we need a class based society at all

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I'm not going to reply to your last post, because I don't think that you're reading what I write, about the problematic context of these issues.I'm going to say something that I regret, and I don't want to be banned again (how ironic would that be, given the context of this thread), so you're going to have to address your questions to other posters, or just deem me to be a fool and not worth engaging with.

 I understand very well the "problematic context  of these issues" you speak of and I am not disputing that the production of scientific knowledge is a "social "process which is the basic point you are making.  What I wanted to know from you is your answer to the practical questions I raised.  Don't just patronsingly  brush these aside  with the suggestion that because you imagine that I haven't read what you have written that this entitles you to say that you are not going to reply to my last post. But, of course, at the end of the day you can't get blood out of a stone. I can't force you to answer those questions I raised. But don't be surprised, then,  if some of us draw the conclusion that you are little more than an internet  troll with no serious intention of engaging in genuine discussion

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I've answered your questions time and time again, and not just yours, but others too, but none of you will engage in a discussion, and simply appear outraged that someone should argue that workers as a collective might know better than scientists as a collective.

 You are deluding yourself.  You haven't even begun to answer the questions posed.  How specifically are the workers expected to gain a working acquaintance with thousands upon the thousands of scientific theories in order to determine the "truth" of each of them by means  of a democratic vote when not even the most brilliant and accomplished scientist today would be familiar with more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge?  Whats more.  you have flatly refused to explain the logistics behind this mind boggling proposal of yours.   Specifically, how are 7 billion people on our planet going to vote , not just on one or two, but the thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that are churned out each and every year? What are the mechanics of such a voting procedure? And if , as seems likely. no more than a tiny minority are likely to "vote" on any one theory anyway arent you going to end up with the  same "elitist" outcome that you accuse your critics of proposing? Don't run away from these probing questions as you usually do, LBird.  Answer them with a straight answer or risk being exposed as a disingenuous fraud.  

LBird wrote:

Once more, from a physicist: If workers are not the ones to vote on these issues, who are?Who determines 'best'?Read the bloody quote, slowly and properly, and give us all an answer to Rovelli's conundrum. The physicists don't know. Matter doesn't tell them. So, who should determine the 'best' for science? And stop pestering me with inane rants.

 Thats rich coming from you!  You are a past master in "inane rants".  In fact the Rovelli  quote which you evidently cling to in a desperate bid to sound remotely plausible,  does not even address my point at all which you too have, once again, deftly sidestepped.  That point is – why VOTE on  a scientific theory at all? What  is the point of it ? What are you trying to prove by voting on it?  That  the scientific theory in question is  "true"?  So what? Does that mean we must abandon criticising it? Isn't science supposed to be constantly self critical? And if a minority continue to think the theory is flawed you are not going to persuade them that they are wrong by just pointing out to them that they are in a minority, are you now? Your problem is you don't what democracy is about or what it is for.  Democracy is about practical issues that affect our lives . It is not about the merits of some or other scientific theory.  Of course the production of scientific knowledge is "social" in the broad sociological sense of the word and I for one would certainly be opposed to any restriction whatsoever on anyone contributing to the stock of scientific knowledge  and participating tin scientific debates of the day to whatever extent they can. However,  I am also saying that IN PRACTICE  no one – not you, not me , not even the most brilliant scientific mind in the universe  – can grasp more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of scientific knowledge.  You just airily brush this aside as if this it  is of no account, as if there is no such thing as scientific specialism,  as if the years and years of study and research that any scientist puts in to become competent in his or her field, counts for nothing , and that anyone whatsoever can just assimilate all this knowledge in just a trifle and vote on the matter knowing what its all about.Sorry L Bird but what you are saying is bonkers.  You are turning the the very concept of democracy into a laughing stock by misrepresenting what its supposed to be about.  And you have absolutely no clue about the practicalities of what it is you are proposing  but hide behind pious platitudes  – "I'm a democratic communist" – in order to avoid having to provide real answers to the real questions being asked of you

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

Answer the questions in post 105, LBird, or stand accused of being a peddlar in delusions yourself

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, in a socialist society, 'just democratic control of society' would be "workers' power".I keep asking those who disagree with me to tell me who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power.They seem to argue for either 'individuals' (allegedly 'free'; often from robbo203) or an 'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet).I disagree, and argue that socialism equates to "workers' democracy", and that the 'means of production' clearly includes 'science' and the production of knowledge/truth, and that the means of production will be under the control of workers' democracy.

 Here we go again.How  can the workers as a whole democratically "control the production of scientific knowledge". You never ever answer this question. Why is that LBird?To vote on a scientific theory, assuming for the sake of argument there was any point in doing this, you have to know something about the theory – yes? But not even the most brilliant scientist today is acquainted with more than a small fraction of the sum total of scientific theories in circulation today  And yet you expect a global population of 7 billion individuals to vote on, not just one, but the totality of scientific theories in circulation – thousands upon thousands of them.  Thats bonkers!That apart , you have never explained even once why the workers need to vote on these scientific theories .  If you can't answer the above question, can you at least answer this one – why do you think workers need to democratically determine whether a scientific theory is true or not.  I just dont get it. What difference will it make if they don't bother to vote? I can perfectly understand the need for workers democratically vote  when it comes to something like, say,  the allocation of resources among rival projects but the "truth" of a scientific theory? Are you serious?What is the point of voting for such a thing? Please explain

[Author]

Posts