Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.
It depends on how you personally select and classify "the best minds on offer". Not that it matters in this discussion for its not about individualism or personality, but the selection and classification of terms and their meaning so that a theory of Science for Communists becomes the accepted democratic tool for the workers of today and the citizens of tomorrow.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:So, if the baker insists that "it's tasty bread, and good for you", that's it, is it?The eaters of the bread are not allowed a collective opinion about the baker's recommendations?It doesn't sound very democratic to me, YMS!Just time for a quick one. We're allowed an opinion, but since the labour of the baker is free, we can't force them to do any specific baking, nor can we vote for a recipe that simply won't work. "We demand bread without flour, yeast or water" (There you go, have some nice lard). I can discuss with the baker, or take up baking myself, but for the most part, I'm free to leave it to the baker. It's not rocket science.
An interesting one this, that belongs on the other thread about the limits of democracy, but as it was posted here…..There is a lot more fat and preservatives thrown into bread recipes to extend shelf life, than is needed to produce tasty bread. So things like sugar, salt and fat not to mention potentially carcinogenic preservatives, would need to be regulated by someone other than the baker. If health is not our concern then it would be bread as usual. If health is important then a collective decision would need to be made as to what recipes satisfies the need for sustenance, taste and health, based on best information from a variety of sources.
I should have made clear that my previous post was not a criticism. Merely an example of the hidden complexities that would need to be addressed within socialism.
What with 'workers control' in socialism and 'the best the SPGB have to offer' it's all very confusing, but nothing new there.Ignorance of socialism and a bit of elitism all mixed into one
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.It depends on how you personally select and classify "the best minds on offer". Not that it matters in this discussion for its not about individualism or personality, but the selection and classification of terms and their meaning so that a theory of Science for Communists becomes the accepted democratic tool for the workers of today and the citizens of tomorrow.
[my bold]I couldn't put it better myself, Brian.I might be missing something out, or I might be able to express myself better, and I'm sure what I'm saying is only food-for-thought to stimulate a debate between workers who say they aim to build for Communism, but at least I'm trying to contribute to what you've said, above. You'd think that more comrades would be at least intrigued by a suggestion for democracy in science, and that they'd think that there might be something to Marx's aim to 'unify science', that's worth discussing.As to 'the best minds on offer', I can only judge by those who post on this thread, and, quite frankly, DJP and ALB have been, at least recently, the only ones who are contributing, and even that has been mostly negative in tone. Some others have asked some relevent questions, but then not returned to the discussion when I've given answers.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:LBird wrote:What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.It depends on how you personally select and classify "the best minds on offer". Not that it matters in this discussion for its not about individualism or personality, but the selection and classification of terms and their meaning so that a theory of Science for Communists becomes the accepted democratic tool for the workers of today and the citizens of tomorrow.
[my bold]I couldn't put it better myself, Brian.I might be missing something out, or I might be able to express myself better, and I'm sure what I'm saying is only food-for-thought to stimulate a debate between workers who say they aim to build for Communism, but at least I'm trying to contribute to what you've said, above. You'd think that more comrades would be at least intrigued by a suggestion for democracy in science, and that they'd think that there might be something to Marx's aim to 'unify science', that's worth discussing.As to 'the best minds on offer', I can only judge by those who post on this thread, and, quite frankly, DJP and ALB have been, at least recently, the only ones who are contributing, and even that has been mostly negative in tone. Some others have asked some relevent questions, but then not returned to the discussion when I've given answers.
Glad you put the key part in bold but unsure you understand its implications and consequences in respect of projecting terms like "workers control" to describe the decision making process of direct participatory democracy in the future. Quite frankly they don't mix and only cause confusion when this discussion in particular is demanding by default that the selection and classification of the terms used and their meaning are precise and concise so any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be responded to in a language the majority of us can understand in relation to socialism.And so far this is rarely occurring! By the majority I am of course referring to those like myself who are following this discussion not just because we are "intrigued" but also interested how we can ensure that socialism safeguards against a technocracy or the re-appearance of a class society by democratic methods. That aside and to stay on thread: the reason imo why this thread is only attracting relatively few posters is not because its a very difficult subject matter to get to grips with – we are used to that and we'll get there – but when we apply critical thinking and requests for explanations to your posts your frustration seems to get the better of you and your style of response is off putting and conflict ridden.As socialists we seek cooperation and not conflict with all like minded workers in discussing any subject relevant to the class struggle and socialism. Nevertheless, our participation in such discussions is dependant on the use of non-violent communication, no name calling and that our critiques of some of the terms used and their meanings are seen and understood as the responses we have come to expect from our opponents. In this battle for ideas its essential we tackle this particular issue of selection, classification, terms and meanings by seemingly posing the negative when in actual fact we are reaching out in a comradely fashion for a positive response and further clarification so that any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be explained and put in a language which the majority of us can understand.The truth of the matter is if you are unable to convince socialists you are unlikely to convince other members of the working class that your theory merits consideration for the present and the future.
Brian wrote:…when we apply critical thinking and requests for explanations to your posts your frustration seems to get the better of you and your style of response is off putting and conflict ridden.Naturally, I see this differently!For example, I made a relatively long post about some outlines of Critical Realism. I thought that this would generate some 'critical thinking and requests for explanations' about what I had written, because there is a long way to go with that explanation.But no, DJP posted a link to Bhaskar (someone who's recently turned to mysticism) whose video much of it I don't understand! Plus, Bhaskar's books make Marx look like 'Janet and John'. DJP did this because he dosn't want to discuss, but to sneer, at the 'long-haired hippy' who is the 'real brains behind LBird's thinking'.This happens constantly: DJP wants to understand Critical Realism through the lens of Physicalism, rather than in its own terms; (just as YMS wants to understand 'proletarian democracy' through the lens of 'individualism'). If DJP wants to do this, that's fine, but then we must divert away for the moment from CR and its explanations, to a discussion of the relevent ideologies behind CR and Physicalism, to help comrades understand the deeper political issues. DJP, of course, won't do this, because he thinks science (or his version of it, physicalism) is not ideological. So, we hit an impasse. CR can't be understood through the lens of Physicalism. Just like Capital can't be understood through the lens of Liberalism.So, when I ask DJP to tell me his 'science' ideology, or YMS his 'democracy' ideology, they both refuse, because they don't think that their views are ideological. On the contrary, I constantly detail my ideology, and gives quotes from the ideologists that have influenced me, in both science and politics: Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Schaff, Einstein, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bhaskar, Archer, etc. That doesn't mean I agree with everything all of these said (indeed, they often conflict with each other on some issues), but that I wish to expose my sources. DJP, YMS and others, like ALB, won't tell me who the ideologists are who they are influenced by. DJP seems to think posting links to heavily ideological sites without critical comment is acceptable. As if he's 'giving the Truth', rather than engaging in politics (which is what science is).
Brian wrote:In this battle for ideas its essential we tackle this particular issue of selection, classification, terms and meanings by seemingly posing the negative when in actual fact we are reaching out in a comradely fashion for a positive response and further clarification so that any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be explained and put in a language which the majority of us can understand.[my bold]This is completely untrue. I've had almost nothing but sneering and ignorance, and a complete refusal to engage in discussion. I suspect there are posters here who haven't read even one book by all of those writers I've listed above, and yet think that they have a more profound understanding than me about these issues. In fact, one of the reasons I've posted here is to learn, because I'm aware of how little I know, and I have read many of those authors' books from end to end!
Brian wrote:The truth of the matter is if you are unable to convince socialists you are unlikely to convince other members of the working class that your theory merits consideration for the present and the future.And if other 'socialists' are unable to think critically about unusual ideas, new to them, they can't expect to be regarded as having anything to say to other members of the working class.And it's not 'my' theory. It's the theories of Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Schafff…I'm not afraid to declare my ideological influences.I regard that as part of the 'scientific method'. Clearly, most here don't, and wish to continue with bourgeois science's elitism and mystification by mathematics.Unless science is under our democratic control, and that means that its products are understandable to the majority, then we will remain under the power of an unelected elite.Of course, if one regards science as non-ideological, then I'm talking bollocks, should be ignored, and something so powerful should be left to our betters.
The faux pas you made in discussing science in a socialist/communist society with YMS was mportant and maybe revealing because it raised the question of the possibility of a class=free (if not selection-free) science. Obviously in a classless society there cannot be any "proletarian" or "bourgeois" science, only human (or, if you like, "democratic") science.So do you accept that, at least in classless socialist/communist society, science can be class-free?
I think the onus is on Lbird to ellucidate on what happens after the vote.Lets take an absurd example. Suppose the Bedford level experiments were apparently refuted (link), and socialist society voted that the world is flat. What next? Would all textbooks have to state the world is flat? Teachers? Professors? Would Air traffic controllers have to produce flat earth flight plans? What about geologists and researchers: would they get resources for experiments that looked at the round earth theory (or presupposed it)? Would we all be expected to make public professions of adherance to the result of the vote? Would a Round Earth Society get premises and resources to disseminate their views, even a journal? Would libraries stop stocking Round earth Books in Geology and move it to the 100 section?What would be the conditions that call for a revote?I've put forward a relatively detailed model of how I think science in a genuinely collectivist and democratic society of common ownership would work, which AFAICS Lbird hasn't engaged with. A vote is a device that brings debate to a resolution, this sems to me antithetical to the notion of science as an open ended debate, and it is this that Lbird needs to refute.
ALB wrote:The faux pas you made in discussing science in a socialist/communist society with YMS was mportant and maybe revealing because it raised the question of the possibility of a class=free (if not selection-free) science. Obviously in a classless society there cannot be any "proletarian" or "bourgeois" science, only human (or, if you like, "democratic") science.So do you accept that, at least in classless socialist/communist society, science can be class-free?How many times can you ask the same question, ALB, be given an answer, ignore it, and ask the same questions again?For example (and there are others):
LBird, post #372, wrote:ALB wrote:It is not as if you completely rule out a "class-free" physics, etc since you take the view that this will be the case in socialism/communism.But I do rule out 'ideology-free' physics, as I keep saying, because, according to bourgeois science, it's part of the human condition. All societies employ ideas to understand the world. Science employs ideas to understand the world. Humans employ ideas to understand the world. THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY-FREE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
So, I "completely rule out a 'class-free' physics", because, as I've said before on this very thread, if there are no classes there can't be any 'class physics'.But humanity can't get away from 'ideology'. All human knowledge is distorted. To seek is to hide.And comrades wonder why I get fed up.
Why, then, accuse YMS of being a bourgeois individualist, etc for saying the same as you?I'm surprised you didn't see this coming
LBird wrote:But humanity can't get away from 'ideology'. All human knowledge is distorted. To seek is to hide.Another change in the meaning of 'ideology'?
To be fair, since his definition and use of the word "ideology" differs so much from that of Marx and the Marxist tradition, LBird has given us permission to use another term to express his idea. I opt for "selective" and "selection". In which case what he is saying on this point that all science (all knowledge of anything, in fact) is necessarily "selected". So a non-selective science is not possible. But whoever said it was? I don't like the word "distorted" either as it gives the impression of something bad rather than natural and normal.
SocialistPunk wrote:I'm curious, is socialism an ideology or not?It depends on your definition of 'ideology'. Marx uses it in more than one way. Not just Ideology as 'false consciousness' but also ideology as a set of ideas, political etc. So there could be a socialist ideology. I agree with LBird on that. I have exchanged a bourgeois ideology for a socialist one.A socialist movement with a socialist ideology will revolutionise the mode of production and give rise to a socialist superstructure and ideology.An ideology is only false consciousness if it is held by meembers of the subject class. The capitalist class is conscious of its dominant position and holds a bourgeios ideology. edit: the economic base of society – how we humans relate to one another in the production of wealth – gives rise to an ideological superstructure. Capitalist production gives rise to ideas that justifies its continued existence. The capitalist ideology is not false nor distorted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.