robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
An article that shows the same kind of binary thinking it accuses the “Hard Left” of espousing
From Syria to Venezuela: Mystifying Left-Wing Support of Dictators.
You’re entitled, of course, to argue that ‘truth’ is something outside of social production, and that this ‘truth’ doesn’t have a history (which would imply that ‘truth’ changes), and that, outside of democratic control, there is an elite who can access this unchanging ‘truth’, because they have a method which is politically neutral.
LBird , though I oppose your idea that the truth has to be electable for the reasons given it does not follow that I conceive of truth as being outside of social production or that it is unchanging
Production today is more or less completely socialised process. The laptop that you are typing on is the direct or indirect product of the labour of millions upon millions of people around the world. So is virtually everything else. Does that mean the totality of production must be subject to democratic control by the entire global population i.e. society wide planning? Obviously not. Such an idea would be absurdly unworkable. In case you haven’t read the Socialist Standard lately, I’ve written two articles on Socialism and Planning in this month and last month’s issue which will help you to see where I coming from
So just as socialised production does not require society wide planning , so in the same sense the social construction of truth does not require truth to be electable
That is, it’s not a discussion about whether unqualified, untrained and uncaring people will be allowed to perform operations on anybody they like, whilst highly trained and qualified, dedicated surgeons will be treated with contempt and put in the stocks.
OK so I take it you do now accept the need for specialists in a socialist society in the sense of individuals who undertake intensive study to become competent practitioners of a particular profession. Good. This is a step forward. You are basically agreeing that there must be to an extent a social division of labour in a socialist society involving specialisation. That does not mean , as I said, that a specialist will only do work relating to what he or she has been trained for. A trained neurosurgeon could also, for example , take part in the vital work of hospital maintenance and general cleaning. And why not? But as I said we can’t all become neurosurgeons. only a tiny minority. This is not because most of us do not have the potential to become a neurosurgeon, rather it is because a socialist society cannot afford for most of us to become neurosurgeons For such a society to function effectively it is vital the vast majority of us do NOT become neurosurgeons and that we concentrate our time and effort in equipping ourselves with the skill sets involved in all those other numerous occupations that socialism would require to effectively function.
This can be summed up quite easily as the question ‘who controls science?’.
In the building for socialism, we’d need to discuss what ‘science’ actually is, what are its purposes, aims, assumptions (especially those currently hidden from us, and often unknown to the so-called ‘specialists’), concepts, theories, methods and practices. Again, to simplify, to give us some focus, for example, what is the purpose of ‘science’?I wouldn’t disagree with your point that the answer that “democratic socialists should be giving, is that the purpose of science is to build a better world“. This is indeed where the democratic control of science can be realised – in defining the agenda of the scientific endeavour, so to speak. I have never disputed this. I have also constantly made the point that the fact that you have small groups of specialists in a socialist society who have particular skills and knowledge that the general population do not possess in no way gives these groups elite power over the general population
This is because
- any one group of specialists would be technically part of the general population vis a vis any other. Molecular biologists would tend to know as little about Astrophysics as any random member of general population
- The core features that define socialism – free access to goods and services and volunteer labour completely dissolve the material conditions under which elite power could be exercised anyway. They remove any leverage one group could exercise over another. In this sense socialism is the only basis on which a truly free and democratic world can be constructed
There remains however your claim that ‘science’, just like all social production within socialism, must be under our democratic control. ‘Truth’ has to be electable
I will grant (as I have above) that the purpose of science has to be under democratic control but truth? No I cant see any rhyme or reason for that at all (unless you mean by this something quite different that has completely escaped me). I reject your view, as I understand it, for these reasons:
- To vote on the ” truth” of a scientific theory you have to know what it is about in the first place and be sufficiently interested to vote on the matter anyway. If you agree that the various branches or scientific knowledge are likely to be subject to a significant degree of specialisation then by default if not design the great majority of the population are just not going to be acquainted with the more esoteric theories pertaining to these various branches. Nor does it matter on jot that this would be the case. I am not that much interested in or knowledgeable about astrophysics, for example, and I have no motivation whatsoever to go out and read up on some theory in the field of astrophysics in order to knowledgeably vote on it. I have other priorities and interests which are much more pressing to me. I suspect 99.9 per cent of the population would think the same. This doesn’t make us thick or inferior. Nor does it give astrophysicists any power over us as I’ve explained
- There is the question of the mechanics of voting anyway. Its unrealistic to canvass the entire population on the truth value of literally thousands of new theories churned out every year
- There is no point in voting on the truth value of a theory anyway. Why do you say “Truth’ has to be electable“? What is the point of the exercise? If you want to take a straw poll amongst those interested in a particular theory out of curiosity then fine but you are not going to stop a minority from continuing to press their own rival theory against the orthodox theory accepted by the majority. Nor indeed should you. This would be wholly against the spirit of scientific endeavour as fundamentally self-critical – at least in theory. Ironically it is bourgeois science that tends to suppress minority alternative viewpoints via such well known mechanisms as withdrawing funding. Socialist science, I suggest, will be all the more stronger and vital by permitting the free exchange of ideas – not clamping down on discussion and dissent through the imposition of orthodoxy and “elected truth”
Some of the other posters who participated in these political discussions were ALB, robbo203, Brian, DJP, Young Master Smeet, twc, alanjjohnstone, and others – if you contact them, perhaps they can give you the information about who came up with the elite political concepts of ‘Specialists’ and ‘Generalists’. I’m not sure if these terms are widespread or official within the SPGB (perhaps not), but they were used to combat my political arguments that ‘science’, just like all social production within socialism, must be under our democratic control. ‘Truth’ has to be electable
I am quite happy to stand by the claim that there will be both specialists and generalists in socialism. We can’t all become qualified molecular biologists in socialism because that takes many years of dedicated study. The opportunity costs of everyone striving to become a qualified molecular biologist, is that there will no structural engineers , agronomists, astrophysicists or dieticians in society which also require years of dedicated study. The consequences of that will be devastating for obvious reasons
Thus , a social division of labour is, to that extent, unavoidable in any advanced system of production. That does not mean that molecular biologists in socialism will not try their hand at various others kinds of job. Nor does it mean they will have any power over non molecular biologists. Free access to goods and series coupled with the institution of voluntary labour, dissolves the very basis of elite power and removes any possible leverage any one individual or group could possibly exercise over another.
Unfortunately L Bird has never understood or even addressed this point and continues not to do so
Going back to the original topic, judging by the activity on here and the interesting debates about a range of topics, clearly not. I think the forum is beginning to get back to being a bit more like it was before it was hacked. It’s certainly more active and more interesting than many of the forums of the “left”
Absolutely and as I write I note that there have 1397 visits to this site in the last 24 hours. That’s not bad. We just need to more forcefully promote the SPGB website and forum on other sites like FB sites. A little bit of effort can yield a surprising big return (if you will excuse the capitalist metaphor)
Sorry, I should have said “I cannot quite see how you can propose to both mend capitalism and end capitalism”.
I AM for reforms and palliative measures until we can replace capitalism and public banking is a good one. Yes, they all hit the limits of operating in a (militant) capitalist system as ALB wrote.
Hi Admice
If you go back in history to the late 19th/early 20th century there was a controversy raging at this time within the German SDP over reform and revolution with the revisionists led by Bernstein arguing that revolution was in effect no longer necessary since capitalism was in the process of transforming itself. Rosa Luxemburg and others opposed this position
Criticising, Bernstein’s fellow revisionist, Konrad Schmidt, for his suggestion that the appetite for reform “grows with the eating,” and will ultimately end up in the socialist transformation of society as a consequence of an” apparently mechanical movement”, Luxemburg sought instead to emphasise the importance of the subjective factor in this socialist transformation. It was not true, she contended, that “socialism will arise automatically from the daily struggle of the working class”. Rather, it was the growing awareness of the “very insufficiency of capitalist reforms” that would help produce this outcome
I am not to clear where you would position yourself in this debate but speaking for myself, I cannot quite see how you can propose to both mend capitalism and capitalism. The one thing surely has to be at the expense of the other. If the reforms you have in mind run up against the limits of capitalism how does this transmute into the desire to overthrow capitalism. If anything I would have thought it just leads to a feeling of disillusionment and helplessness
Hi Admice
Perhaps the idea of installing a chat facility on this site could be considered? Matt, how feasible is this?
Interesting article from Nicky Snell, Matt (what became of her BTW Is she still a member?) This bit I find a bit iffy, though
I became disenchanted with the feminism which holds patriarchy to be the world’s primary problem, because I did not like the logical conclusion to which this kind of thinking would lead. If men are simply women’s worst enemies, what should we women do? Shoot men down in the street? Or simply withdraw’?
Is she saying feminism logically leads to misandry? If so, I think most feminists would disagree strongly and would themselves oppose misandry. Depicting feminists as a misandrists is a complete caricature which in a sense assists those who stand to gain from a state of affairs in which women are discriminated against. See for example this article https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/
At its 2019 Annual Conference the Party membership voted by a large majority in favour of the resolution that “This Conference is of the view that a person can be a socialist as well as a feminist.” With that in mind I do rather question the view that being a feminist necessarily means holding patriarchy to be the “world’s primary problem”. I think all socialists would agree that that problem is capitalism
Here’s a piece on another Democratic candidate, Andrew Yang, who wants a “human-centred” capitalism LOL
Alan Its became a habit to talk of the declining fortunes of the Party (Ive done it myself) but are we so certain this is the case. I might be wrong but at least in terms of membership I have the impression that the Party is very slowly growing in size over the last one or two years = almost all of course via the internet
Can someone confirm that this is the case or not?
As a result of publicising the forum, largely on Facebook, six new members (users) have joined in the past 24 hours with 20 users and 891 guests visiting over the same period.
Just goes to show what can be done with a little bit of effort. Good work Dave. Perhaps your advert should be repeated once a month and in all the WSM FB sites
To return to an earlier point – Matt, would it be possible to send a single one-off syndicated email to all users listed on this forum? I understand the “RedMarx option” is not available for the technical reasons you cite but is there another way of doing this?
Re my earlier suggestion I quite like this one . Accommodates up to 18 people from around 3000 quid for 2 weeks. Very nice location also
https://www.groupaccommodation.com/properties/casa-la-negra-periana-malaga-andalucia-spain#location
Some excellent ideas BD! I like also the idea of organising more social events like the recent event organised by Lancaster Branch which I understand was highly successful.
As an organisation the SPGB seems to be predominately internet-based these days (almost all new members come via the internet for example) and there is relatively little in the way of face-to-face interactions. As a consequence one can develop a quite misleading impression of the person with whom one is engaging indirectly via the internet which I suspect is the source of many of the conflicts that occasionally flare up between members.
So there s a strong argument for encouraging more face to face interactions. I have been thinking recently of something, prompted by Lancaster’s example, but on a more ambitious scale – a Socialist Summer Holiday Scheme. Perhaps a week or two abroad in a nice location. Living in Andalucía in Southern Spain I can think of plenty of fantastic locations around here which would be suitable. Group bookings can substantially reduce the average price of accommodation
To take a random example – although this one is slightly pricey – for 2 weeks you could hire this entire 1o bedroom villa accommodating 20 people for 13.7k euros which work at about 600 pounds person for 2 weeks
https://www.holidaylettings.co.uk/rentals/granada/77630
Or if you want something much cheaper there is this one near Cordoba which comes to about 260 pounds per person for 2 weeks
https://www.holidaylettings.co.uk/rentals/hornachuelos/6866581
Or how about this one closer to the Med which accommodates 22 people
https://www.holidaylettings.co.uk/rentals/malaga/9286686
There are plenty of other options . If you arranged it early enough you could get bargain basement prices for air flights or hire a large minibus and drive down. Of course there are other costs like food (though you have to eat anyway even if you didn’t go on holiday) but there again there are savings to be had in bulk buying particularly when it comes to the vino!
