robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Whilst I agree with what ALB and the SPGB say here, I’m never quite sure why they don’t apply the same political analysis to ‘science’, but instead, in effect, in relation to the political power of ‘science’, adopt Lenin’s method.This political method assumes, of course, that an elite minority of specialists have an ability, prior to the proletariat, to know something that the proletariat can know only after a political revolution, then being taught by the ‘revolutionary elite’.That is, ‘science’ is not a socio-political activity that the proletariat must school itself to be able to take power over, but is an activity that must be left to specialists. This is clearly an anti-democratic political method. Why can’t the SPGB answer this political criticism of their ‘science ideology’ (even if it’s not yet an openly declared party ‘science policy’)?”
To become a competent molecular biologist takes years of study. Of necessity that involves specialisation. Is LBird seriously suggesting here we should all become trained molecular biologists before we can have socialism? And what of those who are trained in molecular biology? How many of them are, say, competent mechanical engineers as well? Though they may be specialists in their own field, in relation to mechanical engineering their position as no different from that of any other worker – they are non specialists. How does their specialist knowledge of molecular biology give them any more power over their fellow workers than a mechanical engineer skilled in that branch of science but lacking in knowledge of molecular biology?
LBird’s position is completely indefensible. Either he is saying that all workers should become competent scientist in every conceivable branch of science, which is obviously absurd, or he is saying no one should become specialists in anything which equally absurd. The development of science requires specialisation in the sense of some people having to spend years of the lives devoted to mastering a particular branch of science.
You can call those who have undergone the necessary training in this particular branch of science a technical “elite” if you so wish. But you cannot transpose this understanding of the term “elite” to the idea of a political elite or vanguard to which the SPGB is opposed. These two things signify quite different things. The latter implies an asymmetrical power relationship; the former does not
I see L Bird has (predictably) still not bothered to provide an explanation as to why he thinks, scientific theories – tens of thousands of them – should all be subject to a democratic vote by the global population in his view. Never mind how he thinks such multiple referenda are going to be practically organised amongst a population of 7 billion plus – what is the point of the exercise? Assuming even a tiny fraction of the population would be interested in the validity of a particular theory does a vote mean that the minority, holding a particular opinion in opposition to the majority who voted, will no longer be permitted to expound their view? If not, why a vote in the first place? Why can’t people just agree to disagree?
Of course a socialist society will entail democratic decisions being made but there are limits to how far you can, or need to, adopt democratic decision-making as a procedure. L Bird seems unable or unwilling to recognise this point. He seems to think that because something is socially produced it must therefore be subject to democratic decision-making. But that doesn’t follow at all. Democracy should be about practical matters that concern our practical interests, not abstract theories.
After all, if we follow L Bird’s logic why stop at scientific theories? Why not philosophy or cultural expressions which are also socially produced. Will minority cultures be banned in L Bird’s Brave New World. If this forum voted to reject L Bird’s absurd ideas will he graciously accept the majority verdict and desist from expounding them?
Over to you L Bird!
Can’t see the point in 7 billion people voting to decide whether or not String Theory is correct. Completely different matter if you want to make a practical decision about whether to allocate resources to a road bypass or to build a local hospital instead but if one were to generously allow that 100, 000 people out of 7 billion voted on whether or not String Theory was correct and of these 51K voted that it was correct, what exactly is supposed to happen with the other 49K? Will they be compelled to relinquish their heretical views? If not why bother with a vote?
“For a few hundred quid we could acquire one of those outdoor projectors that display images on buildings. Hi-tech fly-posting in other words.”
Good idea, Alan. The need for more novel ways of propagandising the case for socialism is pressing. I also think it would be very useful to engage with people like Extinction Rebellion who are likely to be quite receptive to what we have to say. At the end of the day trying to get governments to change their behaviour is not going to work but that does not invalidate the need to work for a fundamental paradigm shift in people’s thinking. Hopefully people will see the connection between this and what we socialists are saying
Not really a socialist perspective on the matter but I found this (on Facebook) quite amusing:
Lord Nardglach
16 October at 10:10 ·LEAVER: I want an omelette.
REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.
LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]
REMAINER: They’re in the cake.
LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.
REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.
LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.
REMAINER: Icing is good.
LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.
DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.
DAVID CAMERON: OK.
DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.
LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?
REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.
LEAVER: Well, get them out.
EU: It’s our cake.
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.
REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?
LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.
REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?
LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.
THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.
REMAINER: How?
THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.
REMAINER: Yeah, but…
LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.
EU: It’s our cake.
REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.
LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.
REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.
LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.
REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?
LEAVER: You lost, get over it.
THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.
REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?
THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.
REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.
EU: It’s our cake.
LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.
REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.
LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.
REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.
LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.Bijou I dont the Party’s case is relevant either way in this instance and shouldn’t be invoked for that reason, Its more a question of the Party’s culture than the Party’s case
I’m not a vegetarian myself although I have some sympathy for vegetarianism and the thinking behind it. A lot of people I know who are vegetarian are motivated by learning of the barbaric practices of factory farming. I understand their feelings and it does trouble me. I’m trying to reduce my meat intake as a consequence. Its difficult – a bit like trying to smoke one less cigarette a day. The health aspect is also an issue and it is a while since I’ve had red meat
But yes you are right. Vegetarianism shouldn’t be effectively imposed on people but by the same token the Party should ensure that a vegetarian option is always be available at Party functions. There really is no need for the meat eating and vegetarian factions of the Party applying the hostility clause to each other!
Ellen Meiksins Wood’s book on the agrarian origins of capitalism in the English countryside would be of relevance to people attending this event
Have recently been watching the rather good TV series Babylon Berlin. Its a few years after the time period under discussion at this meeting but if is quite atmospheric and gives you a feel of what Berlin must have ben like at the time. It is set against a background of political intrigue in the late 20s, a suspected shipment of gold bound for the Soviet Union and, of course, the beginnings of the Nazi’s rise to power. Worth looking at
Also = a quick thought occurred to me . How about a short brief FAQ at the top for the Forum with links on how to register, how to edit posts, how to quote from previous posts etc etc . Is this do-able?
Hi Matt
You are making good progress and Im sure will get in there in the end. I think it is useful to have this kind of two way interaction/ I’m not tech savvy at all so I need to know something of the kind of constraints you operate with and conversely it is useful for you to know how us techno simpletons view things. We tend to like things nice and simple and straightforward! I guess in time additional features will be built into the website (and most particularly the forum which I regard as being absolutely central to the site) which will make everyone happy. I hear what you say about it not being possible to do it all at once with only yourself and Rob working on it
Just one thing regarding the pamphlet section which is now much improved and in date order – it is not immediately obvious that there are several pages listing pamphlets . Is there a way of highlighting this more clearly – even just stating “more pamphlets” or “older pamphlets” in bold or something and making the dividing line between pamphlets and the current SS at the bottom of the page much thicker to differentiate it from the list of pamphlets. Ditto the Blog details
Great stuff. Matt. A big improvement. Things are looking up and I’m sure in the end this is going to be a fantastic website and a real asset to the movement. The biggest challenge, I think, is to improve the forum and then to entice more and more workers into participating in it. We should aim to make it THE premier socialist discussion anywhere. Have all previous users been notified and what plans are afoot to publicise this facility as widely as possible? Also, would it not be a good idea to coopt comrades who have been critical of the present format and are tech savvy – like Darren for example – to informally advise on additional useful features this forum could strive to incorporate? What do you think? More hands and heads make lighter work etc
Great Idea Alan and Heather Ball’s anthology should definitely be listed as a publication on this website. Why isn’t it?
Yes I would echo Bijou’s sentiment. Yes there are masses of room for improvement for the site in general and this forum in particular which is unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons. But its very early days yet. We need to be patient and keep on compiling a list of suggested improvements . Admin has said this is a “work in progress”. Lets treat it as such and not be too judgemental. The end result I am sure is going be one with which everyone will be more than happy – one of the best political websites around and a vigorous and expanding forum drawing in more and more workers
That’s good to hear, Dave. I’m sure we will get there in the end. Having a really first class website and very user-friendly forum will encourage more and more people to join in the discussion. We should aim to make this the Number One socialist forum anywhere. So its important to get it right and to bear in mind that a lot of us, myself included, are not very computer-literate. The computer geeks need to make things really easy for us techno-simpletons….
One other thing – how does one go about quoting sections of text from a previous text? This facility no longer seems to exist. Ditto putting text in bold and italics etc etc or editing one’s own posts (important to me given my atrocious spelling)
I have mixed views on this matter. Some aspects of the new website are good, some bad.
Since it is still a work in progress can I suggest people start compiling a list of practical suggestions to help improve the site rather than (just) make generalised statements. We need to help and encourage the people putting in all the hard graft to make this site better.
Ill start the ball rolling with some suggestions myself
– Make the log-in and registration procedure much more user friendly and obvious for us technophobes
– the text on this page under ‘upcoming events’ and the ‘latest from socialism or your money back blog’ is so faint it is barely legible. Could it not be put in bold or enlarged?
– wasn’t there talk earlier of introducing a like/dislike button for comments on the forum?
– I prefer the old way of presenting the SS in the format of separate articles. This allows you to post links on Facebook etc which refer exclusively to the article in question
Any other suggestions?
