Science for Communists?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Actually I think calling Marx a "critical realist" is not an unreasonable way to go.i don't think coining the term "idealism-materialism" is helpful for anyone, yet alone yourself.

But this is an opinion about the usage, not the substantive.I'm open to suggestions about how to help other comrades understand why Marx wasn't a 'materialist', if you now agree about that substantive issue.

DJP wrote:

Yes and No. Yes, Marx was not a "crude materialist" but he was still a materialist. But to say that one is a "materialism" does not mean that one is necessarily endorsing "crude materialism"

I think I've shown time and again why it does mean necessarily endorsing 'crude materialism'.'Physicalism', for example, is a new name for 'crude materialism'.I'm a Critical Realist, and I think Marx was too, and thus 'ideas' are as important as the 'material'.The 'material' does not take cognitive priority to the 'ideal', even if it clearly takes historical priority.The simple fact that the 'material' existed prior to consciousness has no implications for the cognitive process, other than to ensure that the material and ideal are a unity, expressed through 'theory and practice'.The material doesn't simply tell us 'what it is'. Pannekoek called the 'laws of physics' a human invention, didn't he? I've quoted that enough times, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

You mean you can't sense the religious fervour of the 'materialists' here, in their defence of their Faith?

I can sense some fervour in this discussion but I can't think know why but something about people in glass houses comes to mind.

Ahhh, but my fervour is Marxist, my faith is Communism, and my god is The Proletariat!

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'd've thought Communism would involve expanding the education of all humans, to allow all to participate in the running of their society, including the generation of its knowledge.

I'm sure scientific education and knowledge will be much more widespread in socialist/communist society than today under capitalism, but I can't see everyone needing to be well-informed enough to vote intelligently on every scientific issue. Personally, I'm prepared to let those interested in the subject decide on the classification of some new animal discovered in the jungles of Vietnam or under the Antarctic ice. Don't know about you. 

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Personally, I'm prepared to let those interested in the subject decide on …

Isn't that just democracy?No one tells you that 'you can't vote'. You decide. If you're interested, you'll do the work required, and have your say in a vote.If you're not interested, you find something better, and just as important to running our society, to take up your time.Society will provide the tools for any individual to participate, if they want. No elite to sneer that 'you're not qualified, sonny!' It's the task of those who develop insights to explain to their wider society, and those insights are then subject to a vote.If those with insight fail to explain, and the vote doesn't go their way, they've only got themselves to blame!Within Communism, 'science' will mean explanation. A 'science education' will involve developing the ability to explain clearly, to all and sundry.None of this 'boardful of equations' shit!I think I'll vote that all physics textbooks must eschew 'maths', and have to be written in rhyme! And be funny!After all, it'll be our world. Why shouldn't we all be interested, indulged and, most of all, involved?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Personally, I'm prepared to let those interested in the subject decide on …

Isn't that just democracy?No one tells you that 'you can't vote'. You decide. If you're interested, you'll do the work required, and have your say in a vote.If you're not interested, you find something better, and just as important to running our society, to take up your time.

That's a relief. You had me worried for a moment that I'd have to spent all my time in socialism voting on subjects I didn't know anything about ot wasn't interested in. It still worries me, though,  that someone who thinks they know something about something but doesn't can have a say in deciding something that might affect me.  I don't think I want the whole hospital staff voting on what treatment I should get …The serious point is that there is no need for democracy to extend to every decision in a socialist society. There are many decisions that can be left to the individual and some that can be left to those with the qualifications, training and experience.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

You had me worried for a moment that I'd have to spent all my time in socialism voting on subjects…

Well, yes. If we're going to run society, we'll be spending at least a lot (if not quite 'all') of our time reding about, discussing and voting on 'subjects'. That's the nature of running society.If most people are not going to be doing this, what will 'most' be doing, and who will the 'few' doing the doing? This sounds to me just like class society, divided into the 'mob', who will be eating and carousing ('bread and circuses'?), while the 'few' with the desire, ability and intellect to raise themselves above their stomachs and pleasure-seeking, will actually run society.Let's face it, if most people will still mainly concern themselves with getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers, and completely ignore politics, economics and the philosophy of science, we're never going to see Communism. We'll have to be doing all these activities, with equal relish!

ALB wrote:

It still worries me, though, that someone who thinks they know something about something but doesn't can have a say in deciding something that might affect me.

So, who's to decide whether someone does or doesn't know 'something'? Why not go the whole Leninist hog, and let the Party decide on who gets to 'have a say'. Can't we trust those who have made a revolution to show some interest in their self-declared arenas of voting, and confidently expect that they'll make themselves aware to the necessary extent? Especially as our society will be set up to do just that, to allow all its members to develop themselves? And especially given that the SPGB argues for mass participation in the revolutionary process?

ALB wrote:

I don't think I want the whole hospital staff voting on what treatment I should get …

Surely both the hospital staff and the potential patient population will 'vote'?In fact, your own argument for 'experts' would exclude the 'unwashed' outside the hospital, and leave it in the hands of either the elite of the 'whole hospital staff' or the even narrower elite of the 'surgeons and administrators'. In fact, just like now, with the NHS.No, I expect much wider participation in decision-making within all aspects of medicine. Or are you like Vin, and will leave yourself in the hands of 'Dr.' Mengele? He was an 'expert', who fed his 'medical knowledge' back to his professor at his university, like the true academic he actually was.

ALB wrote:

The serious point is that there is no need for democracy to extend to every decision in a socialist society. There are many decisions that can be left to the individual and some that can be left to those with the qualifications, training and experience.

'Leaving decisions' to an elite? Doesn't sound very 'revolutionary' to me, ALB.Perhaps this is why the 'parliamentary road' is so attractive to SPGB members?I'd expect a Communist majority in parliament to legally dissolve that parliament, and hand over political control to the parallel proletarian organisations within Workers' Councils, which will have developed at the same time as the increasing vote for Communist MPs within parliament. I'm all for the SPGB strategy of education, propaganda, development of the mass of the working class – I've no time for Leninist parties, or 'revolution first by a party, then hand over to the class afterwards' methods of the ICC, for example.But that SPGB strategy does lead to workers' control doesn't it? And not just representatives' control?As usual, I see questions of 'science' and 'politics' as being intimately inter-linked.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Let's face it, if most people will still mainly concern themselves with getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers, and completely ignore politics, economics and the philosophy of science, we're never going to see Communism. We'll have to be doing all these activities, with equal relish!

This looks as if this could be a more interesting discussion if only because it's not going over the same old ground yet again. Of course socialism can never come if people are not going to concern themselves about politics and economics (not so sure about the need for them to immerse themselves in "the philosophy of science" as well) and both the socialist revolution and its outcome (socialism) will have to involve participatory democracy. As the saying goes, the emancipation of the working class has to be the work of the working class itself (not of any leaders, vanguard or elite).

LBird wrote:

So, who's to decide whether someone does or doesn't know 'something'? Why not go the whole Leninist hog, and let the Party decide on who gets to 'have a say'.

I can imagine voluntary societies which determine who can join them. There won't of course be any party in socialism.

LBird wrote:

Can't we trust those who have made a revolution to show some interest in their self-declared arenas of voting, and confidently expect that they'll make themselves aware to the necessary extent?

Yes, I would have thought so.

LBird wrote:

Especially as our society will be set up to do just that, to allow all its members to develop themselves? And especially given that the SPGB argues for mass participation in the revolutionary process?

Good point.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

The serious point is that there is no need for democracy to extend to every decision in a socialist society. There are many decisions that can be left to the individual and some that can be left to those with the qualifications, training and experience.

'Leaving decisions' to an elite? Doesn't sound very 'revolutionary' to me, ALB.

It's a question of where you draw the line. I still don't see why all decisions have to be made by a direct vote of everybody. The line will have to be (and no doubt will be) between the extreme positions of Zeitgeist (that non-experts can only make suggestions to the experts) and what appears to be yours (that no decisions should be made by them). And what about the voluntary societies formed by people interested in a particular subject, would these be an "elite" in your eyes?

LBird wrote:

Perhaps this is why the 'parliamentary road' is so attractive to SPGB members?

I wouldn't have thought so as even Workers Councils will be organised on the basis of elected delegates wouldn't they?

LBird wrote:

I'd expect a Communist majority in parliament to legally dissolve that parliament, and hand over political control to the parallel proletarian organisations within Workers' Councils, which will have developed at the same time as the increasing vote for Communist MPs within parliament.

That's a possibility that would need to be debated and decided at the time. Not sure that that would be the chosen option, though. Another would be to integrate the workers organisations that would have evolved outside parliament into the democratic administrative structure of socialist society along with parliament (as a central body elected by all the people) and today's local councils.

LBird wrote:

I'm all for the SPGB strategy of education, propaganda, development of the mass of the working class – I've no time for Leninist parties, or 'revolution first by a party, then hand over to the class afterwards' methods of the ICC, for example.

That's good.

LBird wrote:

But that SPGB strategy does lead to workers' control doesn't it? And not just representatives' control?

Well, it leads to democratic control and a genuine participatory democracy but not necessarily to direct democracy for all decisions. Elected delegates, answerable to those who elected them, will also have a place, I daresay the major place. You're not opposed to all elected councils, committees and positions, are you?

[moderator1]

Reminder:  1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[steve colborn]

Why is it, when anyone ever states things like;"Let's face it, if most people will still mainly concern themselves with getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers, and completely ignore politics, economics and the philosophy of science,"They are invariably talking about others, not themselves?" 

[DJP]

steve colborn wrote:

Why is it, when anyone ever states things like;"Let's face it, if most people will still mainly concern themselves with getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers, and completely ignore politics, economics and the philosophy of science,"They are invariably talking about others, not themselves?" 

Or unless you're some kind of puritan why would you think the two sets are mutually exclusive. Some of my best times have definitely been some kind of combination of all of them 

[Anonymous]

It is arrogant snobbery, Steve, getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers are activities many members of the working class are denied. In fact it is also insensitive. After all how many members of the working class can't afford alcohol and burgers?

[Young Master Smeet]

So, the human mind can make prime numbers non-infinite?  Interesting.  See, I introduced maths because the standard of proof in maths is very high, and when mathematicians say something is true, it is.  So, Lbird chooses not to answer a straight question, such as are the number of primes infinite, because that opens up a field in which things are either true of not (there were several other options than bluster available, but bluster was chosen).  Also, I note Lbird's comment early about Marx, Einstein Rovelli, etc. that clarified something that has been mniggling for a long time, because for such an anti-elitist, Lbird often puts forward what amounts to argument by authority, and very rarely puts forward propositions themself.Lets try this.  If we held a vote on this board, and declared Lbird's positions to be wrong, what would be their response?  Would they acfcept the democratic verdict of their peers, or would they stick to their guns, as an obstinate minority.  I think we all know the answer: the the question becomes, why swhould anyone in socialism behave any differently?

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

Some of my best times have definitely been some kind of combination of all of them 

 I think that goes for most of us 

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course socialism can never come if people are not going to concern themselves about politics and economics (not so sure about the need for them to immerse themselves in "the philosophy of science" as well) and both the socialist revolution and its outcome (socialism) will have to involve participatory democracy. As the saying goes, the emancipation of the working class has to be the work of the working class itself (not of any leaders, vanguard or elite).

[my bold]To me, ALB, the bolded part of your post is at odds with the rest of the post.The philosophy of science will be an integral part of politics, economics, socialist revolution, socialism and participatory democracy.If it isn't, it will remain in the hands of 'leaders, vanguard or an elite'. It will remain an authority above the proletariat, and its meaning will be 'helpfully' translated by an elite body. I think we all know where that will lead…The task of class conscious workers is to find a way of explaining the 'philosophy of science', so that as many comrades as possble can form an opinion and take part in the relevant debates.

ALB wrote:

And what about the voluntary societies formed by people interested in a particular subject, would these be an "elite" in your eyes?

Would these 'voluntary societies' have any form of power? If so, they must be under democratic control. If you're talking about 'knitting circles', an elite 'bobble-hat production society', probably not! After all, we're taking about politics and science, here, aren't we?I won't answer the rest of your post, because it seems to have been flagged by the moderator, as requiring as separate thread.

[rodshaw]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lets try this.  If we held a vote on this board, and declared Lbird's positions to be wrong, what would be their response?  Would they acfcept the democratic verdict of their peers, or would they stick to their guns, as an obstinate minority.  I think we all know the answer: the the question becomes, why swhould anyone in socialism behave any differently?

Would any of us be qualified to vote?

[Author]

Posts