Communist science now
- This topic has 17 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-cloud
Quote:The term cloud is understood by the High level Expert Group (HLEG) as a metaphor to help convey both seamlessness and the idea of a commons based on scientific data.and
Quote:Imagine a federated, globally accessible environment where researchers, innovators, companies and citizens can publish, find and re-use each other's data and tools for research, innovation and educational purposes. Imagine that this all operates under well-defined and trusted conditions, supported by a sustainable and just value for money model. This is the environment that must be fostered in Europe and beyond to ensure that European research and innovation contributes in full to knowledge creation, meet global challenges and fuel economic prosperity in Europe. This we believe encapsulates the concept of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), and indeed such a federated European endeavour might be expressed as the European contribution to an Internet of FAIR Data and services. The European Open Science Cloud is a supporting environment for Open Science and not an 'open Cloud' for science.They seem to be arguing for a DARPA style funding model:
http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/public/prizes
Which is more like a bounty than a funding stream.
YMS wrote:Communist science nowShould be "Communist science now?"And the answer is 'No'.The answer to the question is rooted in one's ideology of what constitutes 'Communist' and 'science'.If one roots 'science' in an ahistorical, asocial, practice, which is concerned with 'discovering' a 'reality-out-there', and that the practitioners of this 'asocial, ahistorical practice of science' are a politically-neutral, special elite, with a special method, which allows the experts alone to 'know' this 'reality-out-there', then one can accept a market-driven, individualist, elitist, non-democratic, unpolitical practice, to be 'Communist science'.For those who live in our socio-natural world, who recognise that 'science' is power, and that ideologically this 'science' emerged with the triumphant bourgeois, and is thus inherently anti-democratic and thus anti-Communist, it is a laughable notion that the bourgeoisie can socially-produce a 'Communist science'.For those 'individualists', who laud 'expert elites', and who think that 'Eternal Truth' is the product of 'science' (and clearly are Leninists in their politics and science), then this is 'Communist science'.I'll leave other comrades to situate YMS's "non-political" enthusiasm in this historical, political, socially-productive Marxist approach to 'Democratic Communism' and its 'science'.
The point is they are working towards a scientific commons, one regulated and sustained communally, in which we will all share the benefit. This is an interesting event, as much klike our communist roads, this is actually existing communism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The point is they are working towards a scientific commons, one regulated and sustained communally, in which we will all share the benefit. This is an interesting event, as much klike our communist roads, this is actually existing communism.[my bold]But your ideological interpretation of 'a scientific commons' is of an 'expert elite', who cannot be politically controlled by the majority – otherwise, you'd allow a vote upon 'Truth'.Thus your 'regulation' will be by an elite expert 'regulator', and your 'benefit' will be determined by this regulator, too.You only mention 'communally', 'we', 'share' and 'our' as a sop to the majority of workers. If you meant any of these terms in a political sense, you'd use the term 'democracy'. But you won't, because your ideology of science will not have democracy, because your ideology of science says that 'matter' determines, and not humans engaged in socio-historic production, of their socio-natural world. You won't have workers' democracy.As for 'this is actually existing communism', you should ask your mentors in Eastern Europe between 1945-90 what happened to their 'actually existing communism'. It's a laughable statement to make.Your approach to science is Leninist, through and through, YMS. You hide this from workers, and perhaps from yourself, too.The fruits of 19th century 'materialism' in action.
LBird,do you accept that roads are communist? There is no commodity relationship to roads, we all access them freely (exclude toll roads and congestion charge areas, for now). In a democratic polity we would collectively decide what roads to build, but we wouldn't set about saying what the quicket routes between several stops would be, people would travel down the roads freely.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,do you accept that roads are communist? There is no commodity relationship to roads, we all access them freely (exclude toll roads and congestion charge areas, for now). In a democratic polity we would collectively decide what roads to build, but we wouldn't set about saying what the quicket routes between several stops would be, people would travel down the roads freely.'Roads are communist'?What are you smoking, YMS?Neither I nor anyone else I know has ever voted on the construction of any path, never mind a motorway!As per, for your ideology, 'material' things, produced by any social group whatsoever, detemines 'political' content.Furthermore, you might not have noticed, but we don't live in a 'democratic polity'.That would be communism, for Marxists."Let them travel roads!", says our contemporary Marie Antionette, YMS.
It is possible to have communism/socialism without democracy: but not, I'd suggest, sustainably nor even desireably. Modern communism needs democracy.
Young Master Smeet wrote:It is possible to have communism/socialism without democracy…This is an ideological statement that I don't agree with, YMS.But the fact that you do make it, throws some light on your chosen thread title, and why you can imagine a 'Communist Science' that is undemocratic.
YMS wrote:…but not, I'd suggest, sustainably nor even desireably. Modern communism needs democracy.Once you get the idea that this also refers to 'modern science', you'll be closer to me and Marx.But… if you stick with Engels' 19th century 'materialism'… or MA's 18th century 'communist cakes'…
Young Master Smeet wrote:There wasn't much voting in primitive communism.That's why it's called primitive communism, YMS.At least it's not your version of 'The British Road to Communism'.Or should that be 'The Communist Road to Britain'?You'll have the Maoists calling you a 'Communist Roadster' – approvingly, of course. No sign of democracy for them, either.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:There wasn't much voting in primitive communism.That's why it's called primitive communism, YMS.
But it's still communism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-cloudQuote:The term cloud is understood by the High level Expert Group (HLEG) as a metaphor to help convey both seamlessness and the idea of a commons based on scientific data.and
Quote:Imagine a federated, globally accessible environment where researchers, innovators, companies and citizens can publish, find and re-use each other's data and tools for research, innovation and educational purposes. Imagine that this all operates under well-defined and trusted conditions, supported by a sustainable and just value for money model. .Take money out of equation and the reference to "companies" and this does indeed seem to be a fairly plausible description of how science might be conducted under socialism/communism. It will be a state of affairs in which individuals will be enabled to pursue and develop and their own particular interests, relying on the mutual support of others, without barriers being placed in their way as is the case today under the dictatorship of money which blocks opportunities and secrets away scientific knowledge behind paywalls and patents, . The only limitation will be that of the human mind itself to assimilate knowledge about the world around us. Since none of us can grasp more than a tiny sliver of the total stock of human knowledge and since this knowledge by definition extends to everything that human society as a whole knows about the world around us, this necessarily presupposes a marked social division of labour which severely limits the ability of individuals, no matter how scientifically gifted, to contribute to and competently comment on the development of scientific theories other than those he or she has had the time and training to become familiar with. In one sense this is an "elite" view of science – in the sense that only a few in society can ever expect to become a fully qualified molecular biologist. A large scale technologically advanced society in which everyone because a qualified molecular biologist would not be able to survive for long because it requires individuals to become trained in numerous other occupations besides molecular biology which would be precluded by the time and effort spent in becoming s trained molecular biologist. So there would be multiple elites in this sense of a complex social division of labour in a socialist.communist society. However, it wont be an elitist construction of science in the special sense in which it is today under capitalism and the rule of money. Moreover, the scientific specialists in a socialist/communist society will have absolutely no power or leverage whatsoever to compel anyone or any group to do anything against their will or in opposition to their own perceived interest. Free access to goods and services coupled with the voluntaristic nature of work itself, completely dissolves the very basis of political power itself
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,do you accept that roads are communist? There is no commodity relationship to roads, we all access them freely (exclude toll roads and congestion charge areas, for now).You obviously don't have a motor vehicle. Try accessing your "communist roads" in one without the requisite road tax and insurance and see what happens.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:The point is they are working towards a scientific commons, one regulated and sustained communally, in which we will all share the benefit. This is an interesting event, as much klike our communist roads, this is actually existing communism.[my bold]But your ideological interpretation of 'a scientific commons' is of an 'expert elite', who cannot be politically controlled by the majority – otherwise, you'd allow a vote upon 'Truth'.Thus your 'regulation' will be by an elite expert 'regulator', and your 'benefit' will be determined by this regulator, too.. . .
Not sure that makes sense. the crowdsourcing of innovation does allow for anyone to vote upon the truth. It's not a requirement, but it's one implementation. thus there is no need for an elite expert regulator, because everyone who uses the information is a regulator for themselves and only for themselves.
gnome wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,do you accept that roads are communist? There is no commodity relationship to roads, we all access them freely (exclude toll roads and congestion charge areas, for now).You obviously don't have a motor vehicle. Try accessing your "communist roads" in one without the requisite road tax and insurance and see what happens.
So can you give us an example in real life of something large scale and of value that is communist by your understanding? Just so we know what the requirements are and have somethign to shoot for? Or are you arguing that communism is only viable for small communities that produce nothing very valuable? p.s. How about wikipedia? is that communist? There's no Expert regulators, only contributions from anyone and content specialist and people who have proven their contributions to wikipedia do get special priveledges, but that's not based on money or anthing similar it's based solely on the content of their contribution.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.