robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
I find your statements contradictory, robbo.
If ‘all knowledge is a social construct’, what is this ‘itself’ that is outside of ‘all knowledge’?
There is no contradiction at all LBird
The great majority of people , myself included, have made no contribution to the development of theoretical physics. However theoretical physicists did not derive their theories from a vacuum but from other theoretical physicists, some going back to the very distant past.
It is in this sense that theoretical physics is a “socially constructed body of knowledge” which is not the same as saying that the entirety of human society contributed to this body of knowledge. I haven’t, for example. Have you? If so what was your particular contribution?
I remember looking at a TV series “Connections” presented by James Burke . I think it is quit a good illustration of what is meant by “social” in the context of socially constructed knowledge
Connections (TV series) – Wikipedia
I dont think democracy has got anything to do with it. ”
I know, robbo.
That’s where you differ from Marx and me – we both think ‘democracy’ does have something to do with it.
No LBird
Nowhere did Marx ever suggest that scientific theories should be put to some sort of popular vote THAT is what I was referring to when I said “I dont think democracy has got anything to do with it.”
If you think Max did say something along those lines then can you provide some evidence please?
If will not suffice to argue that all knowledge is a social construct because I fully accept that this is the case. What I wanted to know from you is whether you believe this cognitive process itself is something that has to be subject to “democratic control”.
I think that idea is frankly daft and totally unworkable. As I keep on saying democracy is about practical matters that affect our interests and our wellbeing where joint or collective decision-making is required, Its got nothing to do with the development of scientific theories as such
If you applied your reasoning in your post to ‘education’, you’d end up defending the current bourgeois education system, with its lack of democracy, rule by ‘teachers’, an assumption of ‘mass ignorance and uninterest’ in most academic subjects, etc.
LBird
I dont think democracy has got anything to do with it. It just plain obvious that the vast majority of us are going to be less informed about (and doubtless less interested in) any particular scientific discipline than the scientists who have specialised in it. It does not matter what society we live in – capitalist or socialist – there are going to enormous differences in levels of understanding. Unless you want to get rid of specialisms, that is, which would be catastrophic for society and frankly unenforceable anyway .
Does it matter that there is bound to be these enormous differences in levels of understanding? I dont think so. For instance I dont know much about astrophysics and, to be honest, am not that interested in it. So if astrophysicist comes along with some grand theory about the origins of the universe I might just casually glance at the general summary of the theory providing it is written in suitable layperson’s language. But I’m not going to pursue the matter. There are other things I would far rather do.
But you keep on going about democracy but democracy in relation to what? You cannot surely be suggesting scientific theories – like a theory about the origin of the universe – being put to a vote. What on earth would be the point? And how would you organise such a vote? We have gone over this many times. It is utterly pointless trying to organise such a vote because scientists will still continue to disagree regardless (as they should) about how the universe began. And it is utterly impractical because the majority of the population – myself included – would not be sufficiently interested or informed – to make a “democratic decision” on this matter. A global plebiscite of 8 billion voters would probably register a return of 0.000087% of those registered to vote. If you’re lucky, that is!
HOWEVER…..
If our astrophysicist proposed that in order to demonstrate the validity or his/ her theory we need to build some super duper state-of-the-art observatory on a hill somewhere THEN we can, indeed, begin to talk about the need for democracy. This is because building such a structure has PRACTICAL implications that affect a large number of people. There are opportunity costs involved. For instance it might mean postponing some housing project in order to build this observatory. So the people need to have a say
Perhaps this is what you mean when you say
There is a need to ‘revolutionise’ our world, which will include (not the strawman, once again, of ‘no need for specialists’) the political control of all specialisms by generalists (to use previous SPGB terminology), which is democracy.
But this has always been the position of the SPGB anyway so I am really puzzled as to where precisely you think your disagreement with the SPGB lies….
The SPGB, being ‘materialist’, argues that an elite will change the world.
If ‘physics’ (for example) isn’t under the democratic control of your fellow-workers, whose control is it under?
So, once again, alan, who is to control ‘nature’ within your version of ‘democratic socialism’? It is democrats (the entirety of humanity by voting) or an elite? It’s a simple political question, alan, never yet answered by you or anyone else in the SPGB.
LBird
I thought we had agreed a long time ago that when it comes to scientific theories that there is obviously going to be specialists in the various scientific fields. It is absurd to imagine 8 billion people becoming trained physicists or virologists or molecular biologists or whatever and able to express an informed opinion on some obscure theory in their field.
Who would you prefer to perform an operation on your brain? A random person off the street or a trained neurosurgeon? Or are we all going to become trained neurosurgeons in socialism?
No doubt there will be a significantly greater involvement and interest in science by the lay public in science but there is inevitably going to be a gap in knowledge by comparison with the specialists in their field
Your position is essentially untenable. Unless you are arguing that there will be no need for specialists – meaning there will be no need for people to undertake 7 years of study to qualify as a doctor or neurosurgeon – the only other option available to you is to assert that we should all become specialists. Which is logistically impossible. Even a trained neurosurgeon counts as a layperson when it comes to some other scientific discipline which might equally take many years to get the hang off
Democracy is about practical decisions or policies that affect us all. This is what the SPGB means by “democratic control”. That requires that the means of production be brought under common ownership by everyone something that can be done if and when the great majority want it and organise to bring it about.
It is in this respect that the SPGB is opposed to elitism or vanguardism. But as far as democratic control of scientific theories is concerned there is simply no point in this nor is it remotely feasible. How are you going to organise a global plebiscite on the countless thousands of scientific theories that are churned out each year by scientists, What purpose would it serve anyway? There is always going to be dissenting views among scientists themselves
I genuinely dont understand why you persist with this futile and rather pointless line of argument, You are missing the whole point about what democratic decision-making is or should be about . It is about decisions that affect us in a practical sense not abstract scientific theories
I looked at the Wiki link. Yes it does look interesting!
Perhaps what’s at the heart of this thread is the belief that complex intellectual theories implicit in philosophy and psychology (and their dialectical synthesis) inhibits people from becoming socialists? I don’t believe this as I think it’s merely an excuse for anti-intellectual populism.
I dont think it is so much “anti-intellectualism” as a justifiable gut reaction against the over-jargonised and obscure writing which so many “left wing intellectuals” tend to specialise in. It is extremely off putting. It makes them seem like a bunch of poseurs. The whole point of writing is to communicate ideas and if you do it in a form that people cannot understand (unless they have undertaken several years study for a PhD in philosophy or whatever) you have to wonder what is the purpose of such writings
There is nothing wrong with developing or tackling complex theories per se. Its the manner in which one goes about doing it that is the problem. The basic concepts and terms need to be expressed in simply plain language
Given the States has passed 150K daily cases: which, given the lag between rising cases and deaths means a lot of deaths in about a months time. And the rate of infections is rising.
Just checked the worldometer site. There were 175,439 new cases in the US today (13th). Pretty alarming. By comparison China with between 3 and 4 times the population of the US had only 8 new cases though that could be a case of gross under-reporting. Still the difference is phenomenal
It would be interesting to hear how our neoliberal pro-capitalist Trotskyist here views Biden’s plans on strengthening and expanding NATO’s role in the world.
Presumably he sees this as another example of the vast benefits that will be showered upon the American working class by the election of Biden which socialists have overlooked by naively opposing the militaristic jingoism of both the Democrats and Republicans.
https://theconversation.com/russia-biden-brings-a-new-us-challenge-to-putins-backyard-149765
Poor little robbo doesn’t realize that by not voting he is helping the opposition, the greater evil. In the meantime, while you wait for the socialist candidate to appear on the ballet, he says “Let them eat cake!” “ACA is not perfect, so kill it!” “Social Security is not perfect, kill it!”. Champagne socialists, who enjoy all the fruits of a bourgeois life while denying others of them, are the worst kinds of fascists. In fact you’re worse, you would take their cake away from them and let them starve.
LT
You are getting more ridiculous by the minute. (And by the way aren’t you being a bit a presumptuous implying I am a champagne socialist. Would that I could afford a bottle of champers right now but I’ve got the rent to pay)
Since you evidently know nothing about socialism or how socialists think, let me try to explain a thing or two to you. Completely contrary to what you think, we have got nothing against workers getting what they can out of the system that screws them over. The idiotic words you put in our mouths – like “Make the working class hurt, so we can prove our point of being “principled” – is actually laughably wide of the mark. If that were the case how would it square with our views on trade unionism for instance. We fully support the principle of militant trade union action on sound lines to get better pay and working conditions and, indeed, many socialists in this movement are themselves active trade unionists
As for reforms, I repeat again – socialists recognise that some reforms can be of benefit to workers. We dont oppose reforms – where did you get this stupid idea from? What we oppose is the strategy of reformism, of advocating reforms. If you go down that road you might as well relinquish any claim to being a socialist or pursuing socialism . Inevitably socialism will be side-lined and postponed indefinitely in the struggle to reform capitalism
You cant try to simultaneously end capitalism and mend capitalism. It has unfortunately to be one other the other. Actually, if anyone is enabling the working class to hurt it is you my little reformist friend. You fully support the perpetuation of a system that cannot but hurt the working class. Indeed you openly admit to supporting a neoliberal capitalist party like the Democrats. There is only one way in which capitalism can be administered and that is against the interest of workers and in the interests of capital.
One final point. Your tiresomely repetitive jibes at anyone who disagrees with you as a “fascist” makes you sound like a fourteen year old, going on 11. who has just encountered a whole new world of political ideas. Isn’t it about time you grew up and matured politically? According to your way of thinking even somebody who voted for the Green party would be a fascist cos they didn’t vote for your favourite Neoliberal
Pathetic really. About time you learnt something about what fascism is (and is not) instead of droning on endlessly about it like some politically precocious and edgy schoolkid
More downright dishonesty from Leon Trotsky
A fascist is defined by his or her actions. Denying reality is part of the life of a fascist. The arguments here have become an echo chamber of utter stupidity: “Progress is made by not voting” and that given a choice “the greater evil is better than the lesser evil”.
- NOBODY here is suggesting “progress is made by not voting “- at least, no one in the WSM. The WSM advocates the use of the vote to achieve socialism and indeed has been criticised by some on the Left, including trots, precisely for advocating what they call the “parliamentary road to socialism”. How ironic! So the truth is the direct opposite of what LT claims. It just that socialists do not believe progress can be achieved by voting for capitalist politicians who advocate the retention of capitalism which is, in case LT is not aware, the system we live under. If you are advocating more of the same how is this “progress”?
- NOBODY here is suggesting that given a choice “the greater evil is better than the lesser evil”. This is a particularly disingenuous claim. How on earth LT imagines anyone here has suggested that voting for Trump is better than voting for Biden, god only knows. LT must be living in his own little echo chamber. Socialists can acknowledge that things might be marginally better for workers under Biden than Trump just as we can and do acknowledge that some reforms can benefit workers. Its just that we dont advocate reformism as such just as we dont advocate voting for any capitalist politician, be they the lesser evil or the greater evil. To do so would be to trap yourself on the perpetual merry-go-round of capitalist politics since the logic of such thinking necessary means the indefinite postponement of socialism as an objective
It would be refreshing if LT – just for once – actually addressed the question of what socialists DO stand for instead of, time and time again, dishonestly imputing to us certain views that we very clearly do NOT stand for
Reality check. If everyone did what the pseudo socialists wanted voters to do in the Nov. 3 election – don’t vote – Trump, the greater evil, would have won.
I think you are slightly confused LT
The pseudo socialists, as represented here by your good self, actually wanted people to vote – but for pro capitalist Biden rather than the pro-capitalist Trump
The real socialists, of course, did not want people to vote for either of these capitalist candidates. However, had we been in position to be able to convince people not to vote for Biden or Trump then it follows we would also be in a position strong enough to put up candidates ourselves, And obviously we would then be urging workers to vote for these candidates even if you, as a non socialist, would doubtless continue wanting to vote for someone like Biden
So once again LT your argument falls flat on its face, I’m afraid
I see from Wikipedia he is related to Helen Suzman, the prominent opponent of Apartheid in South Africa when apartheid was still going. ( I vaguely recall her when I was a teenager living in South Africa)
James’ book <i>Affluence Without Abundance: The Disappearing World of the Bushmen</i>. sounds very interesting – shades of Marshall Sahlin’s seminal “Stone Age Economics: The Original Affluent Society”
Do you have any links to useful articles he might have written, Thomas? What he seems to be saying would indeed seem to be quite relevant to what we are saying and for that reason, I agree it would be worth contacting him
