Science for Communists?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Simply put, 'socially subjective' means one's class position.

Go, figure?

More useless comment. No question, no explanation, no help.You're an obstacle to workers' advancement.

[DJP]

For the bourgeoisie (or the proletarians under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is impossible.For the proletariat (or the bourgeoisie under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.=Some bourgeoisie and some proletarians think that socialism is possibleand Some bourgeoisie and some proletarians think that socialism is impossibleSo… How can you work out what the "real" proletarian and the "real" borgeoisie ideas are? 

[LBird]

Hmmm… 'real', now, eh?Is there no end to your diversions?God forbid you'd answer the question about 'objective facts'. At least ALB is entering into the enquiring spirit of things.

[ALB]

Oh, that's clear enough but i thought that the distinction you were trying to draw was between "socially subjective" and "individually subjective".  I see, though, that you think it's a distinction between two "socially subjective" points of view which are equally "right".I'm not prepared to be so indulgent towards "the bourgeoise (or anyone under their influence" who claim that socialism is impossible. I can see where they are coming from but, as far as I'm concerned, they are just plain wrong. However you describe this, socialism is possible whether or not they agree or whether or not they like it. It is not just a matter of opinion or of class position. I don't know why you are reluctant to admit this and find a way of saying so not even one which avoids the word "objective"..

[DJP]

Equating "proletarian" with "socialist" seems a bit shaky to me. For one thing because it means attributing "false consciousness" to people.How can anyone really be in a position to attribute which consciousness is false and which is true? Who judges the consciousness of the consciousness jugder?In this case it does seem we do have Engels to blame…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Oh, that's clear enough but i thought that the distinction you were trying to draw was between "socially subjective" and "individually subjective". I see, though, that you think it's a distinction between two "socially subjective" points of view which are equally "right".

You've probably forgotten the substance of the discussion we had (last year?) with twc et al, about Schaff and object, subject and knowledge. During that, I defined the 'subject' as a 'social individual', which is I think in line with Marx's thinking on the issue. So, I never mean 'individual' when I say 'subject'. A 'subject' is, in effect, a 'society/social group' (including a 'class').And yes, since 'right' is socially defined, then two societies can have differing opinions on what is 'right' or 'wrong'. So, I do think that two 'socially subjective' points of view can be equally 'right'.

ALB wrote:

I'm not prepared to be so indulgent towards "the bourgeoise (or anyone under their influence" who claim that socialism is impossible. I can see where they are coming from but, as far as I'm concerned, they are just plain wrong.

Well, since 'right' and 'wrong' are socially-defined, they must be located within a social group's thinking. I agree with you, and think that they are 'plain wrong', but that's because of my 'ideological perspective', which I think i share with you, rather than any 'universal' or 'objective' notion of right/wrong.

ALB wrote:

However you describe this, socialism is possible whether or not they agree or whether or not they like it. It is not just a matter of opinion or of class position. I don't know why you are reluctant to admit this and find a way of saying so not even one which avoids the word "objective".

This, I'm afraid, is where I disagree with you. It is a 'matter of opinion'. The opinion of the class conscious proletariat. Once we talk of 'objective', we are compelled to claim that some group of humans have unmediated access to the Truth. This has been disproved for physics, never mind sociology!In history, whenever an elite group of humans have claimed to have an access to The Truth/objectivity, an access denied to the majority, they've used it to dominate the majority. 'Knowledge is Power', eh?For Communists, this is a vitally important position to take: we must insist that we don't have any special access to 'The Truth', and must argue that 'true' is socially-defined, and that, being democrats, we insist the 'truth' can only reside in the perspective of the class conscious proletariat (which, after a successful revolution, will be the majority of humanity).This is all a question of authority, legitimacy and power.'Objectivity' smells of 'elitism' throughout history.I hope that I've clarified my ideological position on 'objectivity', for you.Whether you agree, is another issue. Clearly, if you don't, I'll go on to ask you to outline your ideological belief about 'objectivity'.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

So, I never mean 'individual' when I say 'subject'. A 'subject' is, in effect, a 'society/social group' (including a 'class').

That just sounds one-sided and non-dialectical. Do you think medicine should be administered to social groups and not individuals?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I never mean 'individual' when I say 'subject'. A 'subject' is, in effect, a 'society/social group' (including a 'class').

That just sounds one-sided and non-dialectical. Do you think medicine should be administered to social groups and not individuals?

What has 'administering medicine' got to do with the production of scientific knowledge, and the epistemological relationship between object, subject and knowledge?As for dialectics, I see this as Engelsian quackery.You seem determined to focus on 'individuals', DJP. Is this a function of your liberal ideology? It's certainly nothing to do with class analysis or Communism.Your continued presence on this thread baffles me, DJP. You don't appear to want to learn, but just to mystify and complicate matters. I can only presume that it's an inherent part of your elitist scientific method, which wishes to hide knowledge from workers, and thus retain an authority over them.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

What has 'administering medicine' got to do with the production of scientific knowledge, and the epistemological relationship between object, subject and knowledge?

Quite a lot I would have thought.

LBird wrote:

As for dialectics, I see this as Engelsian quackery.

Like it or not Marx used this concept, you're not Rosa Lichenstien are you?

LBird wrote:

You seem determined to focus on 'individuals', DJP. Is this a function of your liberal ideology? It's certainly nothing to do with class analysis or Communism.

Not at all, human individuals always exist as part of of a group. But on the other hand human groups are always composed of individuals, we are not ants.

LBird wrote:

Your continued presence on this thread baffles me, DJP. You don't appear to want to learn, but just to mystify and complicate matters. I can only presume that it's an inherent part of your elitist scientific method, which wishes to hide knowledge from workers, and thus retain an authority over them.

How on earth have I got authority over 'workers'? I'm just a lumpenproletariat auto-didact.

[alanjjohnstone]

In reply to my question , Lbird says, go find your audience, and shock horror gasp , DJP agreed…Mohammed go to the mountain via the YouTube route, he suggestedI think we are a bit too late … drowned out by all the noise and clutter of cyber-space. Successful penetration of social-media i think takes a lot more than posting on it. Paddy S on another forum in relation to our blogs has made me question its existence and purpose. Still have little to show for my own thoughts but he called such attempts at blogging as vanity projects and then strangely suggested we make them even more personal and individual in content. (i wonder if that is dialectical thinking !)I thought ALB provided an answer but i read him out of context when he said

Quote:

"Can we not say that we are right and they are wrong without being labelled (or labelling ourselves) as elitist?"

…those two last words revealed he was talking about something else but perhaps he was inadvertenly on to something.SB-something-or-other on another thread has been putting the Zeitgeist view that we should indeed drop our labels and simply present the evidence to persuade people. I don't want to go into their lack of politics and lack of political process for change…but stick with this for the time being – how to describe ourselves and our ideas. The debate on whether we are Marxist materialists, Engelian physicalists, or whatever, is not the name on the can, is it ?I have raised it a few times…tentatively and exploratively…i simply want to investigate alternatives and new possibilities, not make any decisions on the matter for the time being…it seems we will have plenty of opportunity while we wander the wilderness to contemplate meanings and consequences.We have not been afraid to use different terminology …google "free access" and socialism and i think most hits will be from ourselves. We have de facto dropped the label communist (i note only LBird describes himself as such)…When was the last time we applied it to ourselves? Yet we cling to the word socialism like a life-ring as if our political life did actually depend upon its use, and hesitate and procrastinate about details of what sort of world it meant to depict. Do we require all the baggage that we carry with us? Or can we travel towards our destination much quicker with a much lighter ideological load?Should we offer a more detailed road-map rather than a world atlas as a guide to what path to take?Should we describe just what awaits at the end of the journey in more detail so we all know want to get there as quickly and as directly as we can?Our party is branch based but just how active are branches in themselves without direction from the HO? One think i was very pleased about in the EU elections was that it re-animated branch activity – people acted locally. Is it time to return initiative and imagination to branch-level (and even individual isolated members) by simply the party being a resource centre to tap into and not the political campaign centre to follow.Questions on the nature and essence of our political ideological reality and specualtive suggestions for th future.We can all agree that the thread is a total irrelevance if it is not all about our class and our relationship to it which cannot be in the sphere of lofty exchanges in philosophy but about practical application of that philosophy …and the only way way disputing interpretations will be resolved is putting things to the actual test. Arrrggg…i'll be shot at dawn for being an empiricalist now…testing won't be neutral… but surely the results can be measured..membership…circulation…web-traffic…

[LBird]

I’ve decided to try to use an analogy, for Vin and any other comrades who are having difficulty with the ideas being discussed on this thread, about the nature of ‘science’.No doubt Vin hates any sort of talk about ‘Thatcherite economics’, and will contrast them unfavourably with ‘Marxist economics’. But the same sort of ideological prefix can be attached to science, too, as much as to economics.If we look at the views of those who oppose me, like DJP, it’s not too difficult to see in their arguments a focus on ‘individuals’ (at the expense of the ‘social’) and a high regard for elite, academic, specialist, ‘scientists’ (at the expense of ‘mass, democratic, participation’), and a respect for a ‘fixed Truth’ (at the expense of ‘critical, historical, social, changeable truth’).For the individualist, elitist, the lover of ‘objective Truth’, ‘there is no alternative’ to the knowledge that they produce. For the social, democratic, the critic of existing truth, there is always an alternative to the knowledge that they produce.So, Vin and the others, if you think of ‘science’ as being of two types: Thatcherite and Socialist, just like economics, which type would you look to for guidance?The Thatcherites infamously told us that ‘There Is No Alternative’ (TINA, as Thatcher was derided), and that is just what the ‘objectivists’ would have us believe about their ‘objective scientific method’ and its production of so-called ‘objective truth’. They say that ‘There is no alternative to what nature tells us’.But we Socialists disagree. ‘Nature’ never tells us anything. We know this from the results of science since Einstein. Nature is always interrogated by humans, and thus it only answers the questions that we pose. Our questions are always social and historical, and thus so are our answers. These answers, whilst ‘scientific’, are not ‘The Truth’. So, we argue that there is always an alternative to a ‘scientific’ answer, and that this recognition forms the basis of critical thought and method for humans.That’s it, in a nutshell, Vin.The choice is between Thatcherite economics and science, or Socialist economics and science.There is no ‘objective’ economics or science. Those who say that these human activities are ‘objective’, are hired prize fighters of the bourgeoisie, whether they are conscious of it, or not. And many aren’t, yet.But you can be, Vin. I hope this helps, comrade.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do we require all the baggage that we carry with us? Or can we travel towards our destination much quicker with a much lighter ideological load?

You're falling for the 'objectivist' myth, ajj.There is no such thing as 'a much lighter ideological load'. Science tells us that an 'ideological load' is inescapable for humans.If we pretend to ditch a 'load' that we are conscious of, we don't suddenly lighten our burden. We simply replace our 'load' with someone else's 'ideology', but now we are worse off for being unaware of it.Thus, you're, in effect, suggesting ditching Communist ideology, and loading up with bourgeois ideology.This is why our discussion on this thread, about scientific method and Communism, is so politically important.And you haven't responded to my earlier post, when I described how the notion of 'objectivity' is an elitist 'ideological load', and that it is a feature of Leninism.So, we've three choices:1. Be 'objective', and be a Leninist;2. Ditch conscious socialist ideology, and take on board, unconsciously, bourgeois ideology;3. Openly declare our ideological load, which is the scientific method appropriate for the class conscious proletariat.

ajj wrote:

We can all agree that the thread is a total irrelevance if it is not all about our class and our relationship to it which cannot be in the sphere of lofty exchanges in philosophy but about practical application of that philosophy …and the only way way disputing interpretations will be resolved is putting things to the actual test. Arrrggg…i'll be shot at dawn for being an empiricalist now…testing won't be neutral…

I think you can see that the thread is not a 'total irrelevance', except to those who wish to avoid talking about politics in science, and want to adopt either Leninist or bourgeois ideology.At least your final joke shows that you are aware of the difficulties!

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

But we Socialists disagree. ‘Nature’ never tells us anything. We know this from the results of science since Einstein. Nature is always interrogated by humans, and thus it only answers the questions that we pose. Our questions are always social and historical, and thus so are our answers. These answers, whilst ‘scientific’, are not ‘The Truth’. So, we argue that there is always an alternative to a ‘scientific’ answer, and that this recognition forms the basis of critical thought and method for humans.

Yes I agree, we do not have access to the unmediated, absolute "Truth". All informed people would agree with this, even your arch nemesis Engels (See the chapter on "Eternal Truths" in Anti-Duhring)But I don't think you have to be a socialist to think any of that, or if you don't agree you're not a socialist.I still don't know why you keep saying "since Einstein" either, the general theory of relativity is not a theory of cognitive relativism, and all this predates Einstein by a long shot..Yes there are always alternative answers, but that does not mean we have to say that it was true that the sun went round the earth, or that homeopothy is an effective treatment for cancer.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Ditch conscious socialist ideology, and take on board, unconsciously, bourgeois ideology

Just a thought…can we adopt a pre-bourgeois ideology then?…the Peasants Revolt..Thomas Muntzer… they represented rebellious ideologies, didn't they?What about ditching socialist terminology, replacing the language of revolution and all the loaded biased words and phrases…Why be slaves to a lexicon that i think we can all accept has been corrupted so that meanings of the same words are different for different people?Doesn't the scientific method invent a new vocabulary? Didn't Marx give new meanings to established words? Hasn't many activists done that too…changed the standard interpretation of a word (and even of actions) ?I'm no expert on philosophy but isn't their a whole school of it devoted to language and the expression of ideas.To paraphrase "There is no ‘objective’  language " Shouldn't we go beyond words and connect with emotions by creating political "images" of our position where people relate without requirement of adopting the language of an ideology.  

[alanjjohnstone]

An additional thought…surrealism…situationism…dadaism

[Author]

Posts