robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I can’t retract the truth, robbo.
In return, I wouldn’t call you ‘dishonest’, just apparently incapable of reading what you yourself write. You have a ‘belief’ that ‘democratic decision making’ shouldn’t ‘be extended’ to a list of powerful things that you have chosen.Perhaps it is you, LBird, who is apparently incapable of reading what you yourself write
You earlier wrote “If everyone is so opposed to democracy, and this seems to be the official stance of the SPGB, why not just say so?” Yet here you have just said that I and others in the SPGB have a belief that ‘democratic decision making’ shouldn’t ‘be extended’ to such things as voting on scientific theories since this is pointless and impractical exercise
But for democracy to be considered not “extendible” to such things very clearly implies that one sees democracy as being applicable to certain other things. Yet you are here making this disgracefully dishonest claim that we reject democracy altogether when all we are saying is that its application would of necessity be limited to certain kinds of decisions and not others
Talk about being confused!
You’re going to have to explain yourselves eventually, or the party will collapse. Why is the SPGB opposed to democracy?
Don’t talk such utter rubbish, LBird.
It has been explained to you COUNTLESS TIMES, that the SPGB fully endorses the idea of democratic control and common ownership of the means of wealth production. We just don’t believe that the principle of democratic decision making should be extended to such things as validating scientific theories by mean of a vote by the global population – a ridiculously impractical and pointless idea which you seem to hold.
If the SPGB is opposed to democracy, as you claim, you would not have been afforded the privilege of debating your ideas on this forum when you have been booted out of many other forums as I understand it
Stop being so downright dishonest, LBird. That is an appalling comment you made. You should it retract it immediately
BD, I know that you’re trying to give me genuine advice, but you’re still not arguing with what I’m saying, but with the straw man built by ALB, robbo, twc, etc. For example, to equate Marx’s ‘democracy’ with ‘plebiscites’ is a straw man that no-one (certainly not me) is arguing in favour of.
So are you now saying scientific theories will NOT be subject to a democratic vote by the population in socialist society???
Please clarify
The idea, put forward by some here, that ‘democracy’ has ‘limits’, when discussing social production, is clearly mistaken, because only democratically organised humans can determine their own ‘limits’. Once again, those proposing ‘limits’ outside of democratic creation of limits (a manifestation of the bourgeois ruling class idea of ‘fear of the mob’) are really talking about themselves as individuals, rather than their future society’s social production.
LOL LBird you are tying yourself up in knots even more and making yourself look silly in the process.
How is the idea that democracy has limits is “clearly mistaken” because “only democratically organised humans can determine their own ‘limits'”??? In order to test this proposition you have to assume that 8 billion people are capable of organising tens of thousands – nay, millions – of global plebiscites every year on all sorts of things (from the validity of some scientific theory to what is they consider to be a socially acceptable as a form of musical expression), but choose instead to whittle down democratic decision-making to but a few aspects of life.
That assumption is clearly ridiculous. It is clearly OBJECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE on logistical grounds alone for such a scenario as the above ever to happen. Organising multiple referenda on such a scale would absorb all of the available resources and human labour available to a socialist society, several times over. We would all die of hunger before we ever got round to deciding how we are going to “democratically” organise agriculture
If people chose to democratically limit the scope of democratic decision-making it is because they are sensible enough to see that it makes no sense at all trying, for example, to hold a democratic global vote on whether some obscure scientific is valid or not. It is not worth the effort in terms of the utilisation of human resources, quite apart from being totally pointless.
Using up all, or a even great deal, of your human resources to organise multiple global plebiscites clearly constitutes an objective limit to such an activity which human beings would recognise and to which they would sensibly respond by limiting the extent of such activity.
Denying this is akin to saying we can democratically decide to defy the law of gravity but prefer to submit to the gravitational pull of the earth as a matter of democratic choice! That’s why we fall down when we trip over stone. Cos society has deemed this should be the way of things
I don’t suppose that you’ll tell what these limits are, and who determines these limits, and how they do so.
These have been mentioned often enough on this thread, LBird. You should really be more attentive
There are logistical limits to democracy for example. Recall the UK referendum on staying or leaving the UK. About 35 million voted if I am not mistaken It was massive undertaking in itself. Yet you are proposing that not just one referendum should be held but tens of thousands of referenda every year right across the world involving a global population of nearly 8 billion. If you can’t see the absurdity of that then there is little hope for you LBird
Another limitation is knowledge. You have agreed that there will be specialists in a socialist society. Well, specialists by definition have specialist knowledge in the particular field in which they specialise which lay people lack. Yet you expect lay people – which includes those specialists in other scientific disciplines – to vote on some obscure scientific theory about which they may very have little or no understanding or interest. Again, completely absurd.
Unlike a local community voting to determine where it wants to build a new hospital , there is no point whatsoever in voting for some scientific theory. What purpose does it serve? To date you have never explained. And if you have never explained what happens if hypothetically a global referendum on, say, whether anti matter exists was held and only 0.000057% of the global population bothered to vote. Would the outcome of the referendum be a democratic expression of the “will of the people” to which we must now all conform? Why?
I don’t believe it is up to anyone to determine where the “limits to democracy” lie. These limits will emerge organically. If some people feel something is a worth holding a vote on then let them make a case for this through the various local , regional and global decision-making bodies that will operate in a socialist society
Christ, robbo, I’ve answered this time and time again – change the record, mate
Can you cite the particular post(s) where you claim to have answered the question of whether or not Marx was an individualist for saying “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”?”. I don’t recall you ever addressing this question
Right, robbo! Who determines ‘free’ and how do they determine ‘free’?
What constitutes freedom is a social product but, once again, something that is a social product does not have to automatically be determined or defined by a democratic vote or plebiscite of the global population, does it? It can emerge organically out of the interactions of multiple players and this is true of most “social products”
I am waiting expectantly for the day when you finally concede democracy has its limits and cannot possibly be extended to every decision human beings make without – paradoxically enough – undermining the very democratic aspect of communism itself and transforming it into a form of insidious totalitarianism
I think that it’s very interesting how this thread has developed, since BD’s humorous crack about the Beatles (and as it happens, his list of favourite artists reads exactly like one of mine!).
Yes, and just because music is a social product does not automatically mean it has to be subjected to a democratic vote. Democracy is only (rightly) applicable to certain kinds of decisions and not others. Or do you think musicians should not be allowed to play music other than that officially approved by the global population in a mega plebiscite?
I am still waiting to here your view on Marx, LBird. Do you think he was a bourgeois individualist for saying “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”?
BTW LBird you still did not address my point. Do you think Marx was being an “individualist” for coming out with statements such as “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”
I think that a distinction can be made between “individualism” and “individuality” and that what Marx – and I are talking relates to the later not the former. That book written by Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill and Bryan S. Turner entitled “Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism” (1986), presents a very strong case for making such a distinction
It’s an individualist ideology that pretends to workers that ‘no-one’ has ‘power’, and so hides from them just who does have power. And ‘someone’ always does.
Groan. More misrepresentation from LBird!
I didn’t say “no one has power” per se. I addressing your very specific question in relation to BD’s point : “So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.”
To which you responded:
“If these social products were not subject to democracy, BD, who do you have in mind that would have power over them?
No one will exercise power over these social products in socialist society. People will be free to express themselves in music , art and literature as they chose.
To reiterate what I said:
This is NOT to negate the need for democratic control, only to limit the extent of its expression to where it is actually needed – in situations where there is an actual or potential clash of interests for example. My liking one brand of music is not going to prevent you from liking another. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
I really wish you would read more carefully what others write before offering completely inapt, not to say, inept criticism of what they write. This is not the first time you have done this either…
Bijou Drains wrote: “So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.”
If these social products were not subject to democracy, BD, who do you have in mind that would have power over them?
The answer, LBird, is NO-ONE!
You seem obsessed with the need to control everything and to exert “power” over everything. This is control freakery gone haywire!
What about freedom of expression ? Marx argued that “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” Next, I suppose you will be calling Marx a bourgeois individualist!
This is NOT to negate the need for democratic control, only to limit the extent of its expression to where it is actually needed – in situations where there is an actual or potential clash of interests for example. My liking one brand of music is not going to prevent you from liking another. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Diversity is the spice of life. It is capitalism that is intent upon undermining diversity and replace it with the cultural monotony of bourgeois commercialism. You mirror the selfsame logic of capitalist thinking on this subject with your obsession with the need for totalitarian uniformity and social approval. Only you wish to replace the market with the vote as the mechanism for absolute social control and the means by which a flourishing human society can be transformed into something more akin to a beehive for bees
LBird
It seems that no matter how hard I try to make you understand what I am saying you don’t seem to be interested in actually engaging with my arguments or those of others here on this forum You blithely ignore what they say and address only a completely spurious made-up version of what you like to think they are saying
And you never answer a point blank question directly when it is put to you – like “will scientific theories be voted upon in socialist society?” Your entire argument points to the fact that this is indeed what you think will be the case but you don’t want to explicitly say this because you know deep down this is a particularly silly idea and you don’t want to appear foolish . So you skirt around the question and witter on vaguely about the “ideological assumptions” underlying the question
ALB is right. You are all over the place politically and philosophically. You are completely muddled and confused on a lot things
A quick example
In post 215197 you say of me:
“You (apparently) don’t want democratic communism, which is fine by me, but means you don’t share my ideology”
Yet in post 215212 you say:
I’m not ‘misrepresenting’ you, robbo.
I argue: “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”“.
You argue “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised””So you acknowledge that I support the notion that communism should be democratically organised but you don’t think that I want democratic communism, huh? Hmmm. You need to make up your mind on what you think your opponent is saying before criticising it.
This whole debate is NOT about whether or not there will be democratic organisation in communism – I have said all along that there will be far more democratic decision making in communism than is the case today and that I am fully for that. Rather the arguments is about the LIMITS of democratic decision making – how far you can sensibly take it
You say:
“I argue ‘scientific theories’ are socially produced.
You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents). If something is ‘socially produced’, since ‘I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”’, I argue that social production would be democratically organised.”I spent probably the best part of half an hour explaining to you earlier that just because production is social does not mean the total pattern or the entire structure of production can be democratically organised. I gave you the example of my laptop. Directly or indirectly millions upon millions of workers right across the world have made possible the manufacture of this laptop.
Does that mean that all these millions and millions of workers should be able to democratically control every aspect of, and every stage in, the process of manufacturing my lap top??? Of course not. That would be absolutely absurd and impossible
What is possible, on the other hand, is that they democratically control their own workplaces, for instance. I have no problem with this but (allegedly) democratic society-wide central planning, which is what you seem to want, is totally out of the question. Its just not possible
You then go on to say
I argue ‘scientific theories’ are socially produced.
You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents).If something is ‘socially produced’, since ‘I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”’, I argue that social production would be democratically organised.
You seem to argue for, on the one hand, ‘democratically organised’ communism, but on the other, regard ‘scientific theories’ as not part of ‘communism’.I don’t know how you imagine that I regard scientific theories as “not part of communism” and, contrary to what you claim, I explicitly said “scientific theories are socially produced” . So what was the point of your comment that “You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents).” I’ve said how they are produced.
However to reiterate – just because something is socially produced does NOT automatically mean it ought to be democratically organised
Some aspects of the production of goods and services in a socialist society can and ought to be democratically organised such as the set up within individual production units. Some aspects of the praxis of science can also be democratically organised and I gave you a specific example
But the origination and validation of Scientific theories as such ? Nope That’s neither possible nor desirable. Even if the scientific theories are socially produced this is no grounds whatsoever for suggesting that this particular aspect of science should be democratically organised
As you know very well there are 2 reasons why I hold this view
1) There is absolutely no point in wanting to subject scientific theories to a vote. What purpose does this serve? You have never explained. One can understand the purpose of holding a democratic vote to decide on where to construct a new school in one’s town because if option C is voted for this precludes options A and B. But this argument simply does not apply in the case of a scientific theory since knowledge has the characteristic of being non-excludible and non-rivalrous unlike tangible goods – to use the jargon (google the terms if you are unsure as to their meaning). The origination and validation of scientific ideas should be completely free of any form of control – whether by a so called elite or society as a whole
2) It is totally impractical to subject scientific theories to a vote by everyone. To be be democratic such a vote would indeed have to involve everyone in society – about 8 billion people – since you such theories are socially prpduced. There are tens of thousands of scientific theories , past and present , each of which according to you, will needed to be voted upon.
More than likely for any particular theory the vast majority of us will know little or nothing about the theory or indeed have any interest in the theory. You will be lucky indeed to get 0.001 percent of the population to vote any theory at all. How democratic is that? By the time they get round to voting on scientific theory Number 12 – with 120,000 more theories still to vote on – they will have given up on this particularly pointless and timewasting procedure. I know I wouldn’t bother and I am sure this is case with everyone else on this forum probably even you. I haven’t even touched on the mammoth logistics such vote would entail (and we are talking about multiple global plebiscites corresponding to multiple theories)
Sorry LBird, but to say you are plugging a lost cause would be a gross understatement
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are NOT voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live.
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually, that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Sigh. Once again LBird – of course I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”. I just don’t believe democracy can and should be extended to the origination and validation of scientific theories. Please stop mispresenting me!!!
I think you have a very muddled approach to the whole question of “social production”. The laptop on which I am writing this response is “socially produced”. The components of which it is made each entail complex production chains going back to the extraction of the raw materials from Mother Nature. Each of these production chains involve multiple stages in the process eventuating in the production of those components in question which are then assembled into the laptop I am currently using.
Now all of these production chains or sequences of stages in the manufacture of a laptop, involve directly or indirectly, millions upon millions of workers distributed right across the globe. This is what makes this laptop a product of “social(ised) production”
So then what are to make of your comment:
On my part, as I’ve said, time and time again, ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. It’s called ‘democratic socialism’, robbo.
Do we take it then that all those millions and millions of workers directly or indirectly involved in the social production of this laptop must , according to you, should exercise democratic control over the entire process – every aspect of it – of producing a laptop from start to finish? That is completely bonkers, LBird, and even you must surely see this. It is totally totally impractical!
So just because something is “socially produced” does NOT automatically require that the process of producing it should be “democratically control”. There are limits – both practical and theoretical – to democracy which you don’t seem to grasp at all
That does NOT mean communism/socialism will not be substantially MORE democratic than is the case today under capitalism. You seem have this very simplistic black-or-white of the world inasmuch as you seem to think that if someone questions the need for democratic decision-making in certain aspects of life this means they repudiate democratic decision-making in toto. That doesn’t follow at all!
At any rate, once again you have wriggled out of directly answering my question of whether you think “scientific theories should all be put to a vote” by asserting:
It depend whether one believes that there is any source of ‘scientific theories’ outside of a humanity which socially produces its theories, robbo.
Since scientific theories are socially produced, and I agree that they are, in that they are product of collaborative effort over time, I take it then that you DO actually literally believe scientific theories – tens of thousands of them every year – should actually be put to a vote. Since humanity as a whole is involved in the production of this knowledge, according to you, one presumes you are saying it is humanity as a whole that should be enabled to vote on these theories
Could you please now directly answer these specific questions so we know more clearly what is going on in your mind:
1) Are you definitively saying that the 8 billion people that comprise humanity should be able to vote on whether, say, the concept of “anti-matter” in astrophysics is scientifically valid?
2) How do propose to organise this global plebiscite on whether the concept of anti matter is scientific valid? What sort of resources will be required to make this happen?
3) What happens if only 0.001 percent of the global electorate bother to cast a vote? Will the vote be declared null and void?
4) What do you propose to do about all the other already established scientific theories – hundreds of thousands of them? Will they also be subjected to a global plebiscite?
5) If more people vote in favour of a particular scientific theory than against it, will the opponents of the theory be required to drop their opposition to the theory and fall in line with the majority opinion? If not what exactly is the purpose of the vote in that case? What in your words, do you hope to accomplish by holding a vote?
I would appreciate a response from you to each of these specific questions
