robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think it is possible to agree that women ought to have the right to abort but to acknowledge that abortion is far from being a desirable outcome compared with the alternative of practising effective contraception in the first place. For some women resorting to abortion can be particularly traumatic and if contraception can obviate the need for abortion so much the better.
The other question arising from the abortion issue is when to abort. I am not sufficiently familiar with embryology to make an informed judgement as to precisely when a fetus becomes a human being but at some point that is what happens. It is beyond that point that abortion becomes morally questionable.
I have no problem with supporting a woman’s up to that point in a woman’s pregnancy but would be increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of abortion beyond that point when we are no longer talking about just a fetus. Only under extraordinary circumstances would it be justified e.g. a threat to the woman’s life
The “Great Reset” – another buzzword that seems to be doing the rounds on the various forums I belong to – a post COVID “stakeholder capitalism”. As if…
Now is the time for a ‘great reset’ of capitalism | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
In principle I am not against the idea of being vaccinated but the current vaccines being hyped and pushed on the public dont fill me with a great deal of confidence. Amongst other things the fact that Big Pharma is exempted from liability is extremely worrying and gives the green light for overhasty and inadequately trialled vaccines – particularly given the competitive pressure on companies to win the race to produce a vaccine
I saw on France 24 TV channel that 60% of the French public say they will not submit to being vaccinated with concern over possible side effects being cited as a major reason. I wont be rushing to get vaccinated either but will stick with the normal preventive measures such as social distancing and mask wearing
This link raises some interesting issues surrounding the proposed vaccination programme
LBird
You say “The problem is, whose ‘physics’?”
Just to make myself clear I am fully supportive of the notion that everyone should be be able to access scientific knowledge and freely contribute to that body of knowledge should they so choose. In no sense am I suggesting some kind of proprietorial arrangement. Knowledge is social and to that extent I have agreed (from the very start of this debate actually) with your comment about the “social production of knowledge”.
Where you and I part company is over your inference that just because something is a social product that necessarily implies that the making of that “social product” requires “democratic control”. This does not follow. It is in fact based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of democratic decision-making.
I had an old Berlingo van a few years ago. Like a scientific theory, this too is or was (its probably been scrapped by now!) a “social product” . Its final assembly stage may have been in a factory somewhere in Spain (where I live) or France but the components parts might have been manufactured in multiple units spread out right across the globe. This is to say nothing of the primary resources like minerals or oil which would eventually be manufactured into the various metal or plastic pieces that comprised my old van.
It is literally impossible to exercise democratic control over this vast immensely complicated process from the extraction of the raw materials right through to the design and final assembly of the product in question. Sure , the workers in the all the many production units involved in this process can organise themselves democratically in their production units (and I would fully endorse that) but your whole basic line of argument to date has been that the whole of society should be involved in the democratic control of this process from start to finish. This follows according to you from the fact that what is produced is a social product. Therefore, according to you ,it has to be democratically controlled.
But as I’ve tried to explain to you many times that is not just logistically possible. 8 billion people on planet Earth cannot possibly be involved in the decision-making involved in producing a van from start to finish – let alone the millions of other social products produced today!
So just because something is a social product this does not mean it has to be democratically controlled. Its the same with scientific theories. Inescapably a deep understanding of say, Physics , is going to be limited to those who have spent a considerable amount of time studying this subject and who also have an interest in it. The vast majority of us are not particularly motivated to study Physics to this degree of intensity and even if we were we dont have the time or opportunity to do so. We have other pursuits that claim our time and intention.
This applies to trained physicists as well. They too dont have the time or opportunity to develop a deep understanding of neurology or structural engineering . They are just as much lay people as the rest of us with respect to these latter disciplines. Ironically you comment “The upshot of this, robbo, is that current ‘physicists’ don’t know their arses from their elbows when it comes to the politics of social production.” Exactly. So you are proving my point
What this means is that any real advances in the scientific discipline of Physics is perforce going to be restricted to the contributions of specialists in this field. There is no way you can get round this fact unpalatable though it may be to you. But that does not make physics any the less a social product. Physicists learn from each other and from physicists long gone and dead. Physics involved an accumulation of knowledge
However if the development of scientific theories cannot and indeed should not be subject to democratic control, the application of those ideas in practice – for instance in the development of technological innovations – is an entirely different matter. This is the province of “democratic control” – in the practical business of our daily lives and the decisions that shape our lives and not in the thought processes going on in the heads of scientific specialists themselves
Of course, if you were to argue that ‘most people are thick as pigshit, and can’t become informed‘, I’d disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of people can understand ‘physics’, for example, especially if its theories and concepts were not hidden from view by a refusal to actually explain them in a way that the majority can understand. It’s part of the role of workers to make themselves collectively able to take control of our social production
LBird
Of course, its a good thing that workers should be encouraged to learn more about physics and that no obstacle should be placed in the way of them becoming better informed. And of course we would agree with you that most people are NOT “thick as pigshit”, and can’t become better informed.
However, what you still dont seem to grasp is that there is a limit to how much better informed ANYONE – even the most brilliant physicist in the history of the universe – can become better informed in general. He or she may know more about physics than anyone else on the planet but there are hundreds of other scientific disciplines around and his or her knowledge of any one of these will likely be no different from that of the average person in the street
No one can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. The opportunity cost of acquiring a deep understanding of Physics is to forsake the idea of acquiring a deep understanding of Neurology or Structural Engineering . It is for this reason that specialisation of knowledge is an absolutely inescapable fact of life under ANY social system with any kind of advanced or developed infrastructure. Meaning some form of social division of labour is inevitable even if work is done on an entirely voluntary basis as in socialism
What socialism will do is ensure that the specialists are subject to democratic control by the generalists – us , the general public. But that “democratic control” will NOT be over the development of ideas as such (namely, scientific theorising) – how can you possibly exercise “democratic control” over a theory if you dont know what the theory is about anyway and why would you want to do that anyway? – but rather, over the application of those ideas in practice in the form of innovations and so on which affect our interests and wellbeing.
There is simply no other way…
Giving knowledge of science to a vote, (and may the best remark trump) is harmful to the variation of postulations. Psychology and soc. sc. has many schools of thought and compliment often, and at times oppose.
Yes L B Neill,
The fact that knowledge is a social construction does NOT to mean it ought to be subject a democratic vote. An absurd idea anyway since it is totally impractical and more akin to a religious dogmatic approach to the “Truth”
In any event a 30 percent rate of failure to stop people developing the symptoms doesn’t seem that impressive, even though they are saying that the failure rate for the flu jab is higher at 40 to 50 percent.
Here in Andalucía it has just been announced that flu jabs for people over 65 will be made compulsory. Coincidentally a local nurse in a medical establishment about a mile from me died just the other day day following administration of a flu jab.
I am not an anti-vaxxer myself. On balance the benefits, I think, significantly outweigh the disadvantages but I am somewhat troubled by the civil liberties aspect of this whole COVID-19 thing.
In our rush to enthusiastically endorse medical science come what may it does strike me that there is a certain cognitive dissonance in socialists appearing to get in bed with an authoritarian capitalist state.
While measures such as social distancing, mask wearing and self isolation may in themselves be beneficial, it worries that endorsing such measures forcibly imposed by the state, can be construed as lending authority and legitimacy to the state itself unless it is qualified in some way with a sort of socialist health warning concerning the capitalist state
Unfortunately, (though I might be wrong, its just my impression) the Party doesn’t really seem to be doing this effectively or sufficiently and to the naïve observer it might very well appear that we support the capitalist state by going along with the measures it has forcibly imposed on us.
How do we get round this dilemma?
What extent should local democracy have over issues that have wider implications?
I’m referring to any veto that can be exercised by NIMBYism.
Alan
A good point – although NIMBYism can apply at different scales of organisation. It depends very much on the nature of the decision to be made.
The construction of a hydroelectric project, for example, could have regional implications and involve multiple communities. The siting of such a project would be constrained by geological and topographical considerations and in a sense the appropriate decision might already be “objectively” apparent. But then again the local community most directly affected might very well object on all sorts of grounds, What to do about that, given the nature of a socialist society itself?
I think this example neatly illustrates the point that there will likely be a much stronger tendency towards consensual democratic decision-making in socialism than is the case today. This might involve a certain amount of horse trading and bringing into play the concept of “compensation”. So the local community might need to be compensated in some way for the loss of amenities and the destruction of habitat. This may be a necessary step to take in order to bring this local community on board.
I have long felt that this concept of “compensation” could play an important role in socialism – and in particular with respect to the rationing of those goods that might be scarce in relation to the demand for them. These goods would likely be located at the luxury end of the production spectrum since the tendency in socialism would surely be to allocate resources in a way that prioritises basic needs. So goods that satisfy basic needs will be made available on a free access basis while luxury goods would tend to be subject to rationing, The dividing line between what are rationed and non rationed (free access) goods will be dependent on many factors, social and technological
But how does one go about rationing? Here I think the concept of compensation can play a role with the quality of housing stock being the key variable
A socialist society will inherent huge disparities in the quality of housing stock which wont be swiftly overcome overnight. This could very well create social tensions and so a rationing system based on a rough grading of housing stock, by acknowledging these disparities , could help to diffuse such tensions with priority access being given to residents of poor quality housing. We already have such a grading system more or less in place in the UK inasmuch as houses fall under (6?) different bands for the purpose of local taxation .
But to go back to our hypothetical example of a hydroelectric scheme and the likely tendency in socialism towards consensual decision-making as opposed to the adversarial model of majorities overruling minorities to the chagrin of the latter – this will also probably influence the nature and direction of technological development itself in socialism, There has been a lot of debate about the pros and cons of mega projects like big dams with many critics arguing instead for a series of much smaller dams
The Three Gorges Dam Project in China is an example of such a mega project. Critics have pointed to the massive social an environmental costs it has entailed
I seriously doubt it would ever be possible to construct a project on this scale in a socialist society given its controversial nature. In capitalism it is money that speaks and those who are financially and politically empowered will get their way. In socialism, however it will only be flesh and blood human beings that will speak and collectively determine what happens.
This will inevitably require a much greater effort on the part of everyone to accommodate and overcome the divergent and even conflicting views within the population with significant implications for the nature of democracy, technology and economic development in a socialist society.
robbo, I’ve genuinely answered all the questions in your post, previously. You’re just ignoring what I say, so there doesn’t seem much point giving the same answers again.
No LBird there are loads of questions I asked which you haven’t answered at all
For example I asked you to give me a direct quote from Marx – since you are such a fan of him – to support your claim that he endorsed the idea of democratically controlling the process of scientific theorising. You declined to give an an answer
I asked you whether you endorsed the idea that local communities ought to be able to take decisions that affected them alone to the exclusion of other local communities since this directly calls into question your suggestion that the whole of society – meaning global society – should be involved in all decision making. Again you declined to give an answer
If you are able to provide a straight answer to even just these two questions (and there are more besides which you haven’t answered) we would be making progress
The difference between us seems to be a political one – I’m a democrat, who regards society as the active subject; you regard individuals as the active subject, and so you reject democratic controls.
That’s simply not true LBird and you know of it. I’ve made it clear many times that I fully support the idea of democratic controls being applied at different spatial levels of organisation in a socialist society – local , regional and global. And I fully support the democratic capture of political power by a socialist minded working class in order to get rid of capitalism and dismantle the state.
I just dont support the daft idea of applying democratic controls to the process of scientific theorising. Its pointless and totally impractical anyway
robbo203 wrote: “I, by contrast, am saying there is simply no need for democratic control to be exercised in this case. It serves no useful purpose”
LBird wrote: Yes, I know your political position. Marx’s political position is that ‘democratic social production’ does serve a useful purpose.
But “democratic social production” of WHAT, LBird??? This is the question you keep on evading. Where did Marx talk about the need for scientific theorising to be subject to democratic control? A reference would be handy. Not that it matters that much because if Marx did say that I would say he was talking rubbish
robbo203 wrote: “…it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”” [my bold]
L Bird wrote: But this ‘them’ is not ‘society’, robbo.
A further thought occurred to me LBird. If you are talking about society you presumably mean global society. Does this mean you rule out the possibility of local communities making democratic decisions that pertain only to them? By definition such local democratic control likewise precludes the rest of society (meaning global society) – in the same way that the cognitive process by which obscure scientific theory comes to be accepted is likely to involve only a minuscule number of individuals trained in the relevant scientific discipline we are referring to
How can I participate in the democratic decisions made by a local community on the other wide of the world when I know nothing about that community? In the same way how can I vote on some obscure scientific theory when I simply dont have the scientific knowledge or background anyway. You might want to argue that in principle uninformed laypeople like myself should be allowed to vote in principle anyway but then any decision I make would be pure guess work on my part.
So we are back to the original question – what is the point of democratically controlling or voting upon scientific theorising?
Unless we clearly root our politics in ‘democratic social production’, we’re going to come unstuck. This isn’t just a pointless ‘theoretical’ debate. It concerns the whole of humanity.
Sure, the democratic control of the production of wealth locally regionally and globally but NOT the democratic control of scientific theorising about the nature of the universe or the sexual reproduction of ants!
That’s pointless and totally impractical
robbo203 wrote: “…it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”” [my bold]
But this ‘them’ is not ‘society’, robbo.
You are missing the point LB . It is not the product of an “isolated, biological, individual” as you falsely claimed I suggested THEREFORE it has to be a social product. You dont have to have the whole of society involved in producing something for it to be a social product. For instance we talk about commodities being “socially produced” today as an expression of the integrated globalised nature of production under capitalism. But vast swathes of the human population are not involved directly or indirectly in the production of these commodities . For example children or elderly. Are they not part of society then?
We get to choose: theories, methods, philosophies, practices, universities, curricula, funds, actions, matters, allocation of resources, ideas, applications, developments, technologies… these are not in the hands of an elite.That’s democratic socialism, robbo. The democratic control of all social production.
See, what you are doing here is mixing up a whole bunch of things some of which quite rightly should be subject to democratic control whereas others should not – and cannot -be
How for example are you going to democratically control “theories” for example?
Take string theory in theoretical physics
So take someone like me who knows precious little about these sort of things. How am I going to exercise my “democratic control” over this theory when I know virtually sod all about . What does it even mean to say I should exercise democratic control over this theory. To do what exactly? To affirm that it is a sound theory or unsound theory (when I know nothing about it)? And why? Or is it to forbid the scientist from developing the theory further . Or what?
You see , this is what I dont understand. You dont explain what is the purpose of “democratic control” with respect to something like a scientific theory. What is it is supposed to achieve? And since the vast majority of us – nearly 8 billion – know little or nothing about string theory (or are even bothered about it frankly) what you are advocating will turn out in practice to be an elitist version of control. Because in the end only an absolutely minuscule minority will actually even bother to vote in this case or know what they are voting about .
I, by contrast, am saying there is simply no need for democratic control to be exercised in this case. It serves no useful purpose
‘The cognitive process itself‘ is a social product, not the product of an isolated, biological, individual.
LBird
I never said this – by which I mean the development of a particular scientific theory – was the product of an “isolated biological individual”. As I clearly explained scientific theories tend to be developed almost exclusively by scientists or specialists in their field and it is this interaction between them that makes this cognitive process a “social product”. The rest of us, myself included, dont contribute anything to the development of these particular scientific theories. I know for a fact I have contributed absolutely nothing to the development of string theory in theoretical physics and am never likely to. I’m OK with that . It doesn’t bother me at all. Each to their own, I say.
Social production must be subject to democratic control. If not, who is to control, and how, ‘the cognitive process itself’
But WHY does the social production of scientific theories by scientists interreacting with each other need to be “democratically controlled”. I dont see the point. Actually, even if it was possible to implement this it would almost certainly result in the destruction of the entire scientific enterprise. Scientists should be left free to formulate and express their theories and not intimidated by the threat of being sanctioned by their colleagues or, as in capitalism, having their funding withdrawn. Of course , other scientists should be equally free to criticise and debate these theories. But this is not really what I would call “democratic control” . Democratic control is about arriving at some kind of collective decision at the end of the day. It is what I call action oriented and concerns practical matters – like the allocation of resources for example It is not really about the development of ideas or theories as such but rather their application in practice – for instance in the development of new technologies
Instructing a scientist to discontinue pursuing a particular line of scientific enquiry because a majority of her colleagues had “democratically decided” it was not worth pursing seems bonkers to me. And against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry
Also LBird I still want to know from you is whether you believe the cognitive process itself of contributing to scientific theory is something that ought to be subject to “democratic control”.
I agree that the cognitive process of contributing to a scientific theory is a form of social activity but clearly it is not one in which the vast majority of people participate as I have explained. It tends to be restricted to the specialists in the field who have had the requisite kind of training to engage in this particular form of social activity.
I’m perfectly OK with that. Providing us generalists are able to exercise democratic control over the specialists when it comes to putting their theories into practice what’s the problem? There is no leverage anyone can exercise over anyone else – even the most gifted of scientists – in a socialist world where goods and services are distributed on the basis of free access and labour is performed voluntarily
That is the material basis for the complete dissolution of political power as such
