Science for Communists?

[DJP]

Seems to me, as far as this topic goes, when we got there the cupboard was bare.

[Young Master Smeet]

I think this topic is slightly too important to let go, and get distracted with personalities.Marx' dialogue with Bakunin is highly relevent to thius topic.  Indeed, Bakunin takes a science skeptic view:https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm

Bakunin wrote:

We must respect the scientists for their merits and achievements, but in order to prevent them from corrupting their own high moral and intellectual standards, they should be granted no special privileges and no rights other than those possessed by everyone – for example, the liberty to express their convictions, thought, and knowledge. Neither they nor any other special group should be given power over others. He who is given power will inevitably become an oppressor and exploiter of society.But we are told: “Science will not always he the patrimony of a few. There will come a time when it will be accessible to all.” Such a time is still far away and there will be many social upheavals before this dream will come true, and even then, who would want to put his fate in the hands of the priests of science?It seems to us that anyone who thinks that after a social revolution everybody will be equally educated is very much mistaken. Science, then as now, will remain one of the many specialized fields, though it will cease to be accessible only to a very few of the privileged class. With the elimination of class distinctions, education will be within the reach of all those who will have the ability and the desire to pursue it, but not to the detriment of manual labor, which will be compulsory for all.

Indeed, Bakunin was right that scientists should not be given special privileges, however, his rejection of the democratic method, which Marx also opposed, is his weak point (along with a his kind of romantic anti-science that rejects sociology on principle).Obviously, if we are to run society on rational lines, we need the best6 evidence we can get, and we would need a free and independent field of enquiry, else we'd be like foolish bosses who surround themselves with yesfolks.

[Anonymous]

I think Socialists-Communists are against all type of ideologies

[SocialistPunk]

Hi mcolome1When you say that, do you also include the ideology of socialism/communism?

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi mcolome1When you say that, do you also include the ideology of socialism/communism?

 I do not think that socialism/communism is an ideology, or an economical system. Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class. Are we going to have a ruling class under a sociaist/communist society ? 

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi mcolome1When you say that, do you also include the ideology of socialism/communism?

I do not think that socialism/communism is an ideology, or an economical system. Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class. Are we going to have a ruling class under a sociaist/communist society ? 

If we define 'ideology' to be ruling class ideas, then you can't be argued with, mcolome1.But if we define 'ideology' to be human ideas which distort reality, and we know that any scientific method distorts reality (and it must, otherwise we must argue for a 'copy theory of knowledge' (that is, Lenin's view in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that knowledge is a reflection of reality, a mirror-image)), then we can see that any scientific method is also an 'ideology'.Science tells us that there is no perfect, objective vantage point in nature, so it seems best that we should learn from science, accept our partiality, and be open about our 'ideology' when studying either the natural or social worlds.This could provide a basis to develop Marx's hopes for a 'unified scientific method'. That is, all science, from physics to sociology, employing a similar method.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

But if we define 'ideology' to be human ideas which distort reality, and we know that any scientific method distorts reality (and it must, otherwise we must argue for a 'copy theory of knowledge' (that is, Lenin's view in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that knowledge is a reflection of reality, a mirror-image)), then we can see that any scientific method is also an 'ideology'.

But we don't define ideology as that, yet at the same time we know that there cannot be such a thing as perfect human knowledge..

[Anonymous]

I did not write anything about distortion of reality. I do not even agree with Engels definition of ideology as false consciousness. The question would be : Is socialism going to be an economical system ?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

If we define 'ideology' to be ruling class ideas, then you can't be argued with, mcolome1.But if we define 'ideology' to be human ideas which distort reality, and we know that any scientific method distorts reality (and it must, otherwise we must argue for a 'copy theory of knowledge' (that is, Lenin's view in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that knowledge is a reflection of reality, a mirror-image)), then we can see that any scientific method is also an 'ideology'.Science tells us that there is no perfect, objective vantage point in nature, so it seems best that we should learn from science, accept our partiality, and be open about our 'ideology' when studying either the natural or social worlds.This could provide a basis to develop Marx's hopes for a 'unified scientific method'. That is, all science, from physics to sociology, employing a similar method.

You are referring to Lenin's bourgeois materialist conception

[SocialistPunk]

mcolome1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi mcolome1When you say that, do you also include the ideology of socialism/communism?

 I do not think that socialism/communism is an ideology, or an economical system. Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class. Are we going to have a ruling class under a sociaist/communist society ? 

Hi mcolome1I should hope not, it's one of the things that inspired me the most about socialism when I was a young punk.Would you be able to put some more flesh on the bones of why socialism/communism is not an ideology? Just saying, "Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class." to me sounds a little like saying ideology is the prevailing ideology of the ruling class. It simply confirms that human ideas play a central role in the definition of ideology.There is also the disconcerting attitude that LBird points out, as it is a statement that claims absolute authority with no room for error. It reminds me of someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the world was created in 6 days because it says so in the bible."

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi mcolome1I should hope not, it's one of the things that inspired me the most about socialism when I was a young punk.Would you be able to put some more flesh on the bones of why socialism/communism is not an ideology? Just saying, "Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class." to me sounds a little like saying ideology is the prevailing ideology of the ruling class. It simply confirms that human ideas play a central role in the definition of ideology.There is also the disconcerting attitude that LBird points out, as it is a statement that claims absolute authority with no room for error. It reminds me of someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the world was created in 6 days because it says so in the bible."   http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.politics.socialism.wsm.general/15643

 This is a long discussion that we had at the WSM forum about the concept of ideology. We have a socialist theory, but we do not have an ideologyThe book " The Alternative to capitalism" will give you a clear and ample description of why socialism is not going to be an economical system ( It can be confused with Peter Hudis book named: Alternatives to capitalism ) https://libcom.org/library/alternative-capitalism

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

This is a long discussion that we had at the WSM forum about the concept of ideology. We have a socialist theory, but we do not have an ideology

If we define 'ideology' to be a 'theory' that 'distorts reality' (and I think you would agree that this is what 'ruling class' ideas do), and you claim that 'socialist theory' is not an 'ideology', then you must be claiming that 'socialist theory' does not distort, but gives a clear picture of reality.This, in effect, is Lenin's claim. It is also the claim made by the ruling class in the 19th century, and is still taught in schools and through the media to the unwary today. It is an anti-democratic claim, because if you have a 'theory' that doesn't distort, you can claim access to The Truth, in both physics and politics, and that 'Truth' then cannot, by its nature, be voted against. This theory legitimates minority control and elite power.To argue that 'my theory is non-ideological' is a religious claim.

SocialistPunk wrote:

There is also the disconcerting attitude that LBird points out, as it is a statement that claims absolute authority with no room for error. It reminds me of someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the world was created in 6 days because it says so in the bible."

Yes, this 'belief' in the 'objective power of one's theory' is a religious belief, and will have the same effects in our society as does religion. This religious belief is named 'materialism' (or its contemporary name, 'physicalism').Plus, we know from science that there is no 'neutral theory' in physics, never mind politics.To sum up, the claim to have a 'non-ideological theory' is a religious claim, and the basis of ruling class ideas, and it can't be the basis of a democratic and emancipatory Communism/Socialism for the proletariat.

[Young Master Smeet]

In some of the debates around ideology, a lot of time is spent on the phrase 'social being determines social consciousness' if 'determines' is taken as meaning causes, we have a problem, since that would suggest that social being will always produce consciousness and there is no way out of the consciousness of the reproduction of everyday life.  One move is to say 'determines' means sets limits, as in determining a boundary.  In this way social beiong just sets limits (which can be tested) and ideas can change and varyy with greater ease.It becomes valuable, therefore, to also say that reality edtermines science, i.e. that reality sets limits on the truth claims that can be made about it.  We cannot claim that the Moon is made of Cadbury's Whispers.  No amount of distortion can change that.  Seen in that way, a science that corresponds with reality is possible, and a non-ideolofgical science is possible.  This non-ideological science may well be historical, since the truth claims it makes are determined by its social being, but in the sense of limits, not causes.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Seen in that way, a science that corresponds with reality is possible, and a non-ideolofgical science is possible.

The religious fanatics will not give up, even though they cannot substantiate their claims, by telling us all their 'non-ideological' method, no matter how many times we ask them to reveal this.Workers should be wary of these elitists.The elitists do not have a 'non-ideological' method. All science is a product of human enquiry. It is not, as they allege, a method to produce a copy of reality.If pushed, these elitists will always deny the power of the proletariat to make its own decisions about the nature of both the social and physical worlds.The elitists are not democrats. They claim to have a method that workers cannot possibly understand, otherwise they would teach this method to workers, with every confidence in workers' ability to employ it.They fear workers.

[Young Master Smeet]

I mentioned the non-ideological methiod, the first premise being that reality itself sets limits on truth claims, not that truth claims copy or spring from reality.  To take the old prblem of minds.  If I see green, how do I know that you aren't seeing the colour I call red? Answer, it doesn't matter, so long as the same shade/wavelength is consistently called the same thing by both of us.

[Author]

Posts