Science for Communists?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

So, I came to discuss, based on a bit of reading, and Lbird chose not to discuss.

I'm afraid you are going to have to discuss with people who share the politics of the sites that you've been reading, YMS, rather than with a proponent of Communist Democracy, who looks to Marx for inspiration, like me.I've no interest in doing the work required to help you explore your ideological interests.

[Young Master Smeet]

Charlie's argument with Bakunin is one of my favourite docs.  here it is again:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

Quote:

Bakunin wrote:

'scientific socialism'…

Charlie wrote:

…was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself; see my text against Proudhon.

Bakunin wrote:

…which is unceasingly found in the works and speeches of the Lasalleans and Marxists, itself indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation! The Marxists sense this (!) contradiction and, knowing that the government of the educated (quelle reverie) will be the most oppressive, most detestable, most despised in the world, a real dictatorship despite all democratic forms, console themselves with the thought that this dictatorship will only be transitional and short.

Charlie wrote:

Non, mon cher! — That the class rule of the workers over the strata of the old world whom they have been fighting can only exist as long as the economic basis of class existence is not destroyed.

And herewith Chucks section from his blast against proudhon:

Quote:

Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class. So long as the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class, and consequently so long as the struggle itself of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character, and the productive forces are not yet sufficiently developed in the bosom of the bourgeoisie itself to enable us to catch a glimpse of the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat and for the formation of a new society, these theoreticians are merely utopians who, to meet the wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of a regenerating science. But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece. So long as they look for science and merely make systems, so long as they are at the beginning of the struggle, they see in poverty nothing but poverty, without seeing in it the revolutionary, subversive side, which will overthrow the old society. From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htmIn some ways, quite relevent to this discussion. 

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And herewith Chucks section from his blast against proudhon:

Quote:

… But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat … From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement [and class struggle], has associated itself consciously with it [the class struggle], has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.

[my inserts]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htmIn some ways, quite relevent to this discussion. 

So, 'science' is a 'product' (not a 'reflection' of the 'physical').'Science' is a product of 'historical class struggle' (not a product of 'academics' or 'elite experts').The existing 'doctrinaire science' of the bourgeoisie has to associate itself with the 'revolutionary class of the proletariat' (and not the proletariat adopt existing science).Do you agree with this, YMS?

[Young Master Smeet]

I suspect your interpollations are slightly redundant, "historical movement" can be understood to include "class struggle", I'd have thought.  It seems to me to be a call for the Socialists, "the theoreticians of the proletarian class" to align itself with the realiy of the class struggle, instead of aligning with abstract utopian models of how a society could work, and instead seek to understand "they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece."  The "Doctrinaire science" Marx is addressing is the utopian science of the working class, not the bourgeoisie.  Teh reality of class struggle imposes itself above and beyond theory.That's how I'd read the section.  Science has to follow reality.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Science has to follow reality.

Back to post 1.What is 'reality', YMS?Do you have a 'neutral method' which tells us what 'reality' is?If so, why not tell us what that 'method' is?

YMS wrote:

That's how I'd read the section.

Your 'reading' of Marx's words is not a Communist one, which I'm openly using.What ideology are you using, YMS, to understand Marx's words?

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece.

that's pretty unequivocal, wouldn't you say?Hang on a sec.  You're a communist?  When did that happen?  I'm shocked.  Shocked and surprised.  I never knew.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Hang on a sec. You're a communist? When did that happen? I'm shocked. Shocked and surprised. I never knew.

Back to taking the piss, and avoiding telling us how you know 'what reality is' and what ideology you employ to understand the world, both natural and social.That's us finished, YMS. More fool me for thinking you would engage in a discussion.

[Young Master Smeet]

I thought we were discussing what Marx said: we know reality because it's before our eyes and we act upon/within it and change it (and in so doing are changed ourselves).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

… we know reality because it's before our eyes …

Bingo!Individual sense impressions.And not my ideology, social theories.Now, will you piss off and leave me alone?Moderator1 1st Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Now, will you piss off and leave me alone?

Another friend and advocate won over to your 'science for communists'  Well done! How many is that now?  Oh yes, one. As a 'communist' you only want people on 'your' thread who agrees with you. Or they can piss off!Your science for communists sound like it always has to me – a load of bollocks "Bollocks" /ˈbɒləks/ is a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, meaning "testicles". The word is often used figuratively in British English and Hiberno-English as a noun to mean "nonsense",  Wiki

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, it seems to be Marx' theory

Quote:

they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece.

So Lbird doesn't agree with Marx, neither.  I also have to wonder when "our" became a singular pronoun.In any event, the above extracts tell us a couple of interesting things.  that Marx' socialism was not some sort of scientism (of which he has been sometimes accused) nor technocratic, but that "scientific" was merely a designator to oppose Utopian socialists, and also that Marx did not consider that any sort of superior elite would run society on everyone's behalf.  Also, this relates to how democratic Marx' vision of revolution was, again, he puts the class, active for itself at the centre stage.That is the "social movement made by the people itself;" which does indeed include scientific workers of all stripes.  The call is to be conscious of both what this movement does, and what it can achieve.  But, note, Marx' call to "limit" that consciousness to that active role.

[DJP]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Your science for communists sound like it always has to me – a load of bollocks

I believe an equivelent but more technical term may be "bullshitting"

Quote:

"Bullshit" does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. It may also merely be "filler" or nonsense that, by virtue of its style or wording, gives the impression that it actually means something.In his essay on the subject, William G. Perry called bull[shit] "relevancies, however relevant, without data" and gave a definition of the verb "to bull[shit]" as follows:To discourse upon the contexts, frames of reference and points of observation which would determine the origin, nature, and meaning of data if one had any. To present evidence of an understanding of form in the hope that the reader may be deceived into supposing a familiarity with content.[7]The bullshitter generally either knows the statements are likely false, exaggerated, and in other ways misleading or has no interest in their factual accuracy one way or the other. "Talking bullshit" is thus a lesser form of lying, and is likely to elicit a correspondingly weaker emotional response: whereas an obvious liar may be greeted with derision, outrage, or anger, an exponent of bullshit tends to be dismissed with an indifferent sneer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Distinguished_from_lying

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

I believe an equivelent but more technical term may be "bullshitting"

 I have to admit that your  'bullshitting' is more accurate than my 'bollocks' 

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.Please note, I'm tempted to issue a 1st Warning to all those posters who've responded to #729. 

[steve colborn]

Let's all take a step back. A partipant on a Party forum is putting forward "his" ideas! Do we react aggressively? Do we agree to disagree? Or do we "engage"?If we were in a physical meeting, how would we proceed? Any of the above? All of them? None of them?I think we need to reappraise our actions on the internet. We are "distanced" from the recipients of our posts and responses. What are we trying to accomplish? Not agreement at any cost, certainly! But we are trying to build a "movement". A movement for what? A movement for cooperation, for cooperation for a "new society". Can we achieve this by being aggressively confrontational? I think not.I am not arguing that we should sell "our principals" for the gaining of a few members. What I "am" saying, is that we should be more comradely and facilitating of discussion and questions and yes, ideas of others that get up members noses. Dont aggressively dispute. Have a discussion as if you and the person you were discussing with, were face to face.Hi Vin, DJP, L.Bird Steve Colborn, Gnome, Socialist Punk ETC ETC. Hi Comrades! Welcome to the forum for the downfall of Capitalism and fuck the Ego's "site". Now we can get somewhere, hopefully.

[Author]

Posts