Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No, my electrons, the ones I'm wasting dealing with you. Lets return, though, to your major premise. If an external reality exists then only a minority can determine what is true.This is demonstrably false: if you show ten people a circle and ask them what shape it is, all ten will say circle. The circle exists outside each of them, and each has access to the circle. The real risk, and difference is that where a minority can seize control of any instruments and resources (per my example above, only a minority had eyes) then they can dictate what is known about the world, the point is to open up access to those resources to common ownership, so that each may freely avail themselves of the evidence.
LBird wrote:Bingo! I knew that your poor grasp of Marx would fail you, Young Master Stalin!The 'materialists' always resort to abuse, because their ideology is an outdated 19th century one, which has nothing to say to 21st century workers, who wish to unite, just like Marx, our scientific method, so that physics and maths are just like history and sociology.'Materialism' is elitist, and denies, just as you have, democratic production and workers' power over their own products, including scientific knowledge and 'truth'.At the end of a long and detailed rebuttal (and one which didn't rest on Charlie). You've in fact resorted to ad hominem type, when driven off your central premise that that materialism is essentially elist. You can't hold your position: you're the one who wants to restrict science and reality to a majoritarian elite, whereas the truth is that everyone is involved in producing knowledge, even the minority, and even the wrong.You call me all the names under the sun, and when I refuse to rise to your bait, you walk off in a huff. You have no argument: yuo are an empty bucket, you bring nothing to the debate but the weakest and fablest arguments by assertion. You, sir, are a waste of electrons.
LBird wrote:Of course, minorities can disagree, and attempt to persuade the majority (just like the SPGB study guide suggests), but at any given point 'right' is the product of the majority. If the minority remain a minority, their views are 'untrue' and 'wrong', from the point of view of political power. No minority can claim to hold 'right' or 'truth', against the decision of the majority.But that minority have always been right, as the new majority say so, and the old majority were wrong.
LBird wrote:Yes, and you are wrong, because within Communism, only a majority have access to reality.In which case the minority have no opportunity to become amajority, and there is no mechanism for a majority to form itself, since until it has a majority is has no access to reality. What, though, is special about the majority? I'll one up you: only unanimity can create reality. Ha! Watch your mere majority squirm before the might of unanimity.
LBird wrote:There is no 'minority' who have this special access. 'Reality' is a social product, and only the majority can build it.Since reality is maleable, and has no properties of its own, must it be singular? Can we not gerrymander majorities to be local: in England the moon in Green, in Botswana, it's blue? Or does the greater population of England prevail (and then, are we talking majorities, or pluraliies, can't the biggest minority decide an issue?).
LBird wrote:You can't get away from the elitist premise of your 'materialism'.I can: watch me. Everyone can have access to reality, unlike the elitism of your case that denies minorities access.
LBird wrote:This ideology of science you espouse is one basis of Leninism, and has nothing to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production'.I have exposed my ideology, an an anarcho monarchist (with traces of having passed through Hebridean exophagism). This does have nothing to do with Marxism. Now, run along, and take your snarks with you.
But Lbird, that is your position, since by definition, in a democracy, a minority of one can be right, and can struggle to become the majority. But
Quote:This claim can only come from 'materialists', who claim that they alone have access to a 'reality' that the vast majority don't, because the 'materialists' have a 'special consciousness' which is not widely available. No socio-historical analysis of 'science' or social production, just belief in special individuals, an expert elite, who shall tell the workers what 'reality is'.This is false, since, as I said, the claim of materialists is that a majority could just as well have access to reality, I'm afraid your argument is flawed at the level of a major premise. The claim of a special consciousness is not essential to materialism.
LBird wrote:I'd argue that 'materialism' implies an elite, because 'materialists' deny that 'matter' can be voted upon (and so only 'materialists' can determine 'matter', and not the majority of workers).This doesn't follow. The minority is just as likely to be wrong as the majority, and there is no reason why the majority cannot decide something that is true. Yes, materialism does mean that one person can be right against millions (and the same is true in a democracy, since the minority can become the majority); but it also means the the majority can be right against the minority.As an anarcho monarchist, I believe that what is Real is Royal.
gnome wrote:the consequences of copyright infringement have been grossly exaggerated.No, the risk of getting caught is low, but the potential harm is high, especially if maliciously enforced: the remedy is simple, as there is plenty of public domain or creative commons material available: and being able to demonstrate a generally diligent response to issues of IP and copyright makes it easier to defend claims when we do slip up. It's not rocket science.
Here's the TUC resolution:
Quote:10 The impact of automation on employment Congress notes the growing impact of automation and robotics in many workplaces. Research suggests that as many as 10 million UK jobs could be lost over the next 10 to 20 years as a consequence of technological change in the workplace. In many industries, such developments present profound implications for not only employment, but also the quality of work, training, and safety. In shipping, for example, trials of crewless technology on board a ferry are due to start next year and Rolls-Royce is predicting that autonomous merchant ships will be in service by the end of this decade. Congress therefore calls for the TUC to:i develop a proactive strategy for dealing with the challenges presented by workplace automation and to develop resources to assist member unions in responding to employers who use technology in a socially damaging wayii conduct research on the issues and to produce policy programmes to demonstrate how technology could be used to improve the nature of work and to harness the technological opportunities and make them work for, rather than against, workers’ best interests, and to ensure that the UK workforce is given the training and support to make transitions to new and better jobs and that the productivity gained by growing automation is shared by all.https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Congress_2016_Final_Agenda_Digital.pdf
https://www.nautilusint.org/en/what-we-say/nautilus-news/ai-andy-aids-nautilus-tuc-motion-on-automation/Seriously being looked at by unions now, Maritime union discussing robot ships.
Quote:Automation has halved average crew numbers onboard merchant ships over the past 30 years, he pointed out, and companies are claiming autonomous vessels could be deployed within a decade.This isn't theory.
I think the only other response is an EC minute referring to them as the Ashbourne Courtesans, and the fall out so that that shouldn't happen again: oh, and a resolution somewhere that members of the Socialist Studies are welcome to apply for membership of the party, but they can't re-enter as a bloc. This is around 2001.
Sympo wrote:No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?Also, perhaps its useful to consider what exploitation means: it means to use someone, as a means, not as an end in themselves. unproductive workers are compelled into labour by the threat of poverty, they might not add value to the product, but they remain essential to the realisation of profit.
Sympo wrote:No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?Let's take two workers.Worker one works in a restaurant, cooking meals. Worker one is a chef.Worker two carries the meals to the tables, and is a waiter..Worker one makes meals, makes objects with value, and adds value, her average necessary social labour time that goes into the making of meals. Worker one is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing her ability to work. That value will be less than the value added by worker one to the food.Worker two, does not add value: but without worker two, the restaurateur cannot get any payment unless the food reaches the tables. Worker two is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing his ability to work. That value will be less than the surplus value added by worker one, and effectively comes out of that total value.Worker two, to the capitalist, is unproductive, and is a dead loss, but the capitalist needs him in order to realise the value added by worker one.In both cases the workers are receiving the full and correct value of their ability to work (labour power), and are competing in the same jobs market. The value is added by the whole process, and overall the retaurant owner is concerned with the profitability of all her staff.Worker three is anaccountant, again, she adds no value, but again, the reaturateur does not know how much money she is making if no-one keeps her books for her.Workers two and three are not exploiting worker one.
DJP wrote:Unproductive labour includes the self-employed, managers, accountants, sales assistants and the service sector in general. The wages that workers receive in these sectors does not represent newly created value but is drawn from the productive part of the economy.To make things a little more complicated: a nurse or doctor in the NHS is unproductive, but if they were doing exactly the same work at a private hospital, they would be productive.
Gnome,many years ago, we had a nasty run-in with a photo agency, with regards to the use of this photo on some posters that someone was flyposting (side issue):http://images.delcampe.com/img_large/auction/000/294/130/765_001.jpgMercifully they accepted my promise to destroy all remaining copies of the poster.There is a financial risk to the party regarding its publications, unless due dilligence is taken. One thing to look for is how much money we would deprive the copyright holder of by our use (in the case of the photo above, Magnum licenses the image for national advertising campaigns, and has a fee accordingly). The safest bet, to avoid thinking to hard about copyright, is to ensure that any works used are clearly licensed, and to just anything with "cc by-nc" clearance.https://creativecommons.org/One thing we need to be aware of its that as a Party we are more likely to receive malicious enforcement from pro-capitalist entities that would take delight in giving us a kicking.
