Science for Communists?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lbird: back to topic. Let me ask this. In socialism, in your democratic model, we'll still need technical experts to oeprate delcate experimental equipment, to conduct experiements and survey correctly: we can't all do the experiements and collate the data. So what we'll be voting on would be the 'selected facts'. Since we're rational people, we'll come to the conclusion the 'selected facts' demand: so won't we still be enslaved to the "enlightened" scientists? After all, we all know how appointed staff can end up controlling their oversight committees. Won't the vote, which will make all of us complicit in their facts in actuality make it harder to oppose and dispute with the scientists?

YMS, you're making so many unexamined assumptions here (which I've tried many times to get you to examine), and I've learned that you aren't really reading anything I write, so I'm not going to say it all again. Perhaps other comrades will make the attempt, and perhaps you'll heed them, but I know you've already blocked out any contribution I make.As for 'back to topic': I want to discuss Critical Realism and its usefulness for workers in trying to understand their world, physical and social, and thus examine whether it is a way of producing a unified method that Marx thought possible.If you don't want to discuss this, which I regard as at the heart of the thread title 'Science for Communists?', then I think that you're avoiding this title, and that really you want to discuss 'Science for Scientists', which, as a Communist, I'm not interested in.So, unless you want to directly discuss CR, or indirectly approach it through a discussion about 'democracy within science', then we're wasting each other's time.

[Young Master Smeet]

Nicely avoided.  Lets examine the assumptions here. 1)That there are a very wide number of areas of enquiry which we will need, in a socialist society, to explore.2) Not everyone will want to be scientists, or to explore certain topics of interest.3) Some scientific equipment takes time and training to learn how to use (some, like the CERN Collider take years of planning to use).4) It takes considerable time to read through raw data, sort it and turn it into useful information.So, lets look at socialism.  Lets assume that we have reduced the working week to two days (a not wholely unrealistic assumption) and we have decided, collectively, that science work is not included in those two days (it can be people's hobby).  We collectively decide to make resources available, in terms of libraries, communication technology, conference facilities, competitions, laboratories with equipment (and we provide that in abundance, abundance in this sense being that supply meets demand).Some anally retentive types will spend time simply collecting data, assiduously drawing every leaf they can find, or looking at the crystaline structure of rocks, classifying beetles.Their science, being necessarilly social, will be communicated to otehrs, others who have not done the experiement, studied the beetle, smushed the rock, they will produce data from which otehrs will draw inferrences, or find refutations of their own hypotheses (or confirmations), which will also be communicated, people would then make up their own minds, possibly using critical realism, which posits a real world upon which our investigations works, and whilst acknowledging the historicity of knowledge attained also does allow us to draw value judgements between scientific investigations.  the real world will constrain the things we can say about it, no science can make the moon to be made of cheese (unless we decide to build and launch a cheese moon).That I what i think science for socialists looks like.

[LBird]

YMS, you really don't do comradely hints, do you?Anyone else want to discuss Critical Realism, Communism, Democracy and Marx's unified method?

[Young Master Smeet]

I think the below by Roger Penrose is interesting:

Penrose wrote:

The agreement between theory and experiment here has been extraordinary. Astronomers have, for example, been monitoring the orbits of one double neutron star system – known as PSR 1913+16 – for around 40 years. The emission of Einstein's predicted gravitational waves from this system has been confirmed through a very gradual shortening of the stars' orbital period, and there has been an agreement between the signals received from space and the overall predictions of Einstein's theory to an astonishing 14 decimal places. At the other end of the size scale, there are multitudes of very precise observations that give innumerable confirmations of the accuracy of quantum theory and also of its generalisation to the quantum theory of relativistic fields, which gives us quantum electrodynamics. The magnetic moment of an electron, for example, has been precisely measured to some 11 decimal places, and the observed figures are matched precisely by the theoretical predictions of quantum electrodynamics.[…]Take, for another example, that most universal of physical influences, gravitation. It operates across the greatest reaches of space, but as early as the 17th century Newton had discovered that it was subject to a beautifully simple mathematical description. This was later found to remain accurate to a degree that is tens of thousands of times greater than the observational precision available to Newton. In the 20th century, Einstein gave us general relativity, providing insights at a yet deeper level. This theory involved considerably more mathematical sophistication than Newton's: Newton had needed to introduce the procedures of calculus in order to formulate his gravitational theory, but Einstein added the sophistication of differential geometry – and increased the agreement between theory and observation by a factor of around 10 million. It should be made clear that, in each case, the increased accuracy was not the result of a new theory being introduced only to make sense of vast amounts of new data. The extra precision was seen only after each theory had been produced, revealing accord between physical behaviour at its deepest level and a beautiful, sophisticated mathematical scheme.

New Scientist [0262-4079] Weinberg Year: 2006 Volume: 192 Issue: 2578 Page: 32 -38Although you can see the Theorists Union in action there, after all, the feat of being able to measure to 14 decimal places is also astounding.  Here, though, we have the distortion inherent in the system.  They haven't confirmed Einstein to 15 decimal places (and that could mean millions of miles, in real terms).

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP, at the risk of verging off topic: no I don't consider socialism to be an ideology.  I consider it to be the reutation of ideology.  One of the problems with the concept of ideology, is that if it is eternal, and everyone is wrapped up in it, then how can some people claim to see out of it?  It seems a ready made gift for Leninist vanguards (and, indeed, did become an issue when the vanguards seized power, and found themselves fighting the workers, the vanguard were free of ideology, and needed to rule against and over the workers blinded by it).  The point of socialism is to free us from the distortions of power (and the need to maintain power) and instead live our lives in conscious accord with our own experience.

Don'y worry too much about off topic in discussing ideology, as you seemed unconcerned with being off topic when wishing to discuss the word earlier in the thread.I've asked a few times now why socialism is not an ideology and from mcolome1, I get shown to the WSM thread that taught me nothing other than there is messy disagreement among socialists on this subject. Then I'm told I "have to go through the pain and the suffering in order to obtain the knowledge" along with socialism is a theory (that in itself could mean a few things) that it isn't a doctrine. All that washed down with the best line yet, " One of the best thing about the SP is that, we have explained complicated terms into simple definition and explanations." Really!?I'm sorry YMS but your post in answer to my question, quoted above, travels along the same lines as mcolome1, it tells me you think socialism is a refutation of ideology and not an ideology itself, but says very little in simple terms as to why you consider it so. You mention vanguards and tell me the purpose of socialism, as if I was unaware as to why socialism is so important.Your answer, if indeed it is supposed to be such, adds more layers of complexity to something that should be easily explainable for someone who holds the view. In my experience whenever someone is unable to explain something in their own words, in a clear and precise way, it usually means they don't understand it themselves.I laid out my stall in a clear and precise way in post #770. So am I, or perhaps I should say we (the workers), going to get an explanation as to why socialism is not an ideology? Is there anyone in the WSM who can actually explain clearly why socialism is not an ideology?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

In my experience whenever someone is unable to explain something in their own words, in a clear and precise way, it usually means they don't understand it themselves.

Yeah, and those arguing, like YMS, that neither science nor socialism are ideological, have to compete with my simple explanation, too.Put simply, we need 'ideas' to understand the world, physical and social, but human ideas always distort that world. Thus, both science and socialism, being human 'theory and practice', necessarily distort the very thing they hope to understand. They are inescapably 'ideological'. 'Ideology' is a distorting lens, and it is ever-present for humans.This is true for science due to the necessity of 'selection' from an entire universe of potential 'data'. If a society focuses upon one thing it loses focus (or misses entirely) another. I've shown this with my discussion about Critical Realism.

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,Ideology, to my mind, is the process of using ideas in order to establish minority rule by a class, so by definition, socialism, in which there is no ruling class, there is no ideology.  Also, implicit in the above definition of ideology, is that it exists to obfuscate or distort the lived experience of the subordinate class, which means ideology is contrasted directly with truth.

[pgb]

Vin Maratty said: The conclusion arrived at by several writers from textual analysis in simple terms is that Marx used "ideology" in a neutral way.

---

 I'd really like to know who these "several writers" are Vin because from my reading Marx never used "ideology" in a neutral way ( I take it you mean non-evaluative, value-free). In The German Ideology virtually every reference by Marx and Engels to ideology and ideologists is pejorative. No doubt it would be possible to employ Marx's concept of ideology in a neutral way, but when Marx refers to ideas as "ideology" he's not making a value-neutral statement, he is saying that these ideas are false or illusory even though the purveyors of those ideas – ideologues like philosophers, theologians, professors etc – are unaware of it. In GI he calls certain philosophers and historians "ideologists" because of their philosophical idealism which of course, as a materialist, Marx forcefully repudiates. Eg: "…as in general with ideologists..they inevitably put the thing upside down and regard their ideology both as the creative force and as the aim of all social relations, whereas it is only an expression and symptom of these relations". And: "The whole of historical development consists, according to the ideologist, in those theoretical abstractions which originate in the heads of all the philosophers and theologians of the age." Marx makes a clear distinction between history as ideology and "real" history – history written from a materialist standpoint.  In GI, "ideology" is also given a somewhat different but related meaning, as a sociological concept rather than a philosophical one. This is the major meaning given in the 20th C Marxist tradition which denotes ideology as any set of ideas or beliefs which function to maintain a particular social order or economic system, typically by representing the social order as "natural" and "immutable". In a class society ideology works by persuading the subordinate class to accept it's social position as "natural" and "immutable", along with "natural" and "immutable" features of so-called "human nature", so winning support for class rule. It's an important argument, because it's through ideology, not economic power or physical force alone, that modern capitalist systems maintain the hold of the capitalist class over the working class. Hence the importance, as Gramsci first proclaimed, of socialists challenging bourgeois hegemony in education, media, etc where the dominant ideology rules. I don't think this means that socialist ideas must also be seen as an ideology. Marx believed that his analysis and understanding of capitalist society gave workers a true picture of their real situation; ideology gives a false picture – hence Engels' reference to "false consciousness". (BTW I don't share the view posted here by LBird and mcolome1 that Engels seriously misconceived Marx's view of ideology. It's a weak argument that relies for its support on the fact that Engels alone referred to "false consciousness" some ten years after Marx died. But the term "false consciousness" is broadly consistent with what Marx said about ideology and ideologues in GI – a work co-authored anyway by Engels). Marx was a founder, maybe the founder, of the sociology of ideas, so its not surprising that orthodox (bourgeois?) sociologists today use the concept in studying ideas as expressions of the social, eg. looking at "occupational ideologies" as ideas and beliefs that maintain group cohesion and social position (a functionalist argument). Orthodox sociology also often refers to belief systems as "ideological" where they are action oriented, eg. in pursuit of a political goal, the way that Leninism could be regarded as an ideology. It would be consistent with this view of ideology to regard the SPGB's Declaration of Principles as an "ideological statement", particularly re Clause 6. But this would entail distinguishing between (i) socialism as a body of theory; (ii) socialism as a political movement; and (iii) socialism as a fully established social system. Regarding the latter, there can be little doubt that Marx and Engels believed that there would be no ideology in a socialist society, since to them, ideology arises only in class divided societies, so where class rule ceases to be the form in which society is organised then ideology ceases also. For orthodox sociologists there could still be ideologies in socialism, but not expressions of class interest or position but of social groups such as occupational groups like, say, scientists considered as a professional group (which has nothing to do with the question of scientific practice itself which Marx and Engels consistently saw as anti-ideology, indeed the opposite of ideology).

[LBird]

Here's the quote where Marx calls 'materialism' an 'idealism', which is in line with his view in the Theses on Feuerbach that his views were a 'third way', encompassing both 'idealism' and 'materialism' in a method of 'theory and practice', and his hopes for a unified 'human science'.

Marx, EPM, CW3, p. 303, wrote:

In consequence, natural science will lose its abstractly material – or rather, its idealistic – tendency, and will become the basis of human science, as it has already become – albeit in an estranged form – the basis of actual human life, and to assume one basis for life and a different basis for science is as a matter of course a lie.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htmCritical Realism, which I've outlined, can provide a 'basis' for both 'natural' and 'social' science: that is, a 'basis of human science', as Marx called it.Unless someone can provide a method, as I already have, which can be applied to both 'rocks' and 'value', then I suggest furthering the discussion on the basis of CR.

[Young Master Smeet]

Those of us who dabble in English will note that Charlie does not call materialism idealism.  The Subject of the sentence is 'natural science' and the use of 'rather' suggests 'idealistic' is an alternative.  We can see this by inserting 'that is to say' in the place of 'rather'.  'That is to say' would suggest an equation and refinement between the two words, but the use of 'rather' suggests a difference and alternative status, a correction.  We can also note that he does not use the word 'materialism' but the noun phrase 'abstractly material', and 'abstractly' belongs in the cognitive field of ideas already.  Also note the use of the word 'tendency', that is to say, the states he describes are not always the case, but some times natural science veers off into idealism.The wider paragraph is, of course, referring to the estrangement of philosophy from natural science (which has had such a profound practical success in transforming life).I'd suggest the import of the passage is that the arrival of unalienated labour, under conscious human control, then the mental appreciation (or, rather, philosophy) of humans will catch up with and join their practical achievements. 

[LBird]

We’re clearly seeing the separation here on this thread into the two opposed ideological strands, represented by Engels and Marx.On the one hand, we have the positivist and empirical belief in the ‘material’ (or 'physical'), a science which is ‘neutral’ and produces ‘Truth’ and which is non-ideological. ‘Ideas’ are separate from ‘matter’, and any claim to their essential unity is pronounced to be ‘Idealism’. Thus, if ‘socialism’ is ‘scientific’ in this form, it is claimed to be non-ideological. This is the tradition that follows Engels.On the other hand, we have the attempt to unify the ‘material and ideal’ in a philosophy of praxis, in which human theory and the external world are brought together in social practice. As this practice is both ‘ideal and human’, it must be ideological. The various names given to this, prior to ‘Critical Realism’, also attempt to capture this unity of ‘ideal and material’: ‘historical materialism’ or ‘the materialist conception of history’. This view sees ‘materialism’ as a form of ‘idealism’, because it ignores human creative ideas. Thus, ‘socialism’, being based upon human theory and practice, must (just like ‘science’) be ideological. This is the tradition that follows Marx.20th century philosophy of science trails after Marx in these debates. Engels has been discredited, as has 19th century 'materialism' and 'ideology-free' science.

[Anonymous]

What about a third: Ideology as false consciousness and ideology as corresponding to 'reality' 

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

This view sees ‘materialism’ as a form of ‘idealism’, because it ignores human creative ideas. 

All this only has traction in your mind because you are stuck in a dualistic way of thinking.Materialism does not ignore "human creative ideas" but just places them within nature / the universe not above / below or outside of it. Marx clearly stated that he was a materialist and opposed this to idealism

Marx (1868) wrote:

[…] He knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

‘Ideas’ are separate from ‘matter’, and any claim to their essential unity is pronounced to be ‘Idealism’.

Actually the opposite is true. Materialism is a claim of the essential unity of 'ideas' and 'matter'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

‘Ideas’ are separate from ‘matter’, and any claim to their essential unity is pronounced to be ‘Idealism’.

Actually the opposite is true. Materialism is a claim of the essential unity of 'ideas' and matter.

We've been through this dozens of times, DJP.Why call something just 'materialism', if it's both 'ideas' and 'matter'?If it involves 'history', it is human. And Marx unified idealism and materialism into 'theory and practice'.As I've said before, as long as everyone reading this thread realises that there are two opposed ideologies at play here, then they will be able to situate themselves in the debate.Marx or Engels? That's the choice to be made.HINT: Engels' ideas are totally discredited.

[Author]

Posts