Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think I've previously mentioned Condorcet's Jury Theorem, and also raised the fact that if presented with honest evidence of technical experts a democratic body would agree with the proposition put before them. I've also suggested that the shortening of the working week would provide us with more time to study science and thinking. All I've objected to, as such is the voting part, which seems redundant. My objection, is that it's time wasting and unnecessary.
YMS wrote:…the fact that if presented with honest evidence of technical experts a democratic body would agree with the proposition put before them.[my bold]This sounds like the Leninist Method of Science to me, YMS.The passivity of having something 'presented' to (or 'put before') one, the lack of questioning of who determines 'honest', the simple acceptance of 'evidence' rather than critical examination of sources and their selection, the reduction of the creation of human knowledge to a 'technical' issue, and an elite of 'experts' who are the 'active side'…Any Cadre Party's Central Committee would say it simply presents honest evidence from their political experts for the 'rubber stamping' by the "People's Assembly" about 'truth' in both science and politics.'They' know best.No, YMS, this isn't my vision of a creative, active, well-educated, confident, critical proletariat coming to consciousness of its own abilities and powers, and building towards the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and the institution of democracy within the means of production, including the social production of scientific knowledge of nature and society, employing a unified democratic method.Once again, YMS, I'm forced to conclude that issues of 'power' don't figure highly on your agenda, which I find strange for someone posting on a Communist/Socialist site.It's as if you think politics is something done in a parliament, by a few, rather than a way of life for active humanity, in its entirety.A society does 'theory and practice', not an elite.
Well, it all follows from the basic premise that we can't all do the experiements/teorising/reading, etc., so the rest of us are going to have to rely on testimony and evidence. And the evidence that will convince one person is the evidence that will convince a million.TBH, I am more concerned with interest than power, not being an anarchist and all.
YMS wrote:TBH, I am more concerned with interest than power, not being an anarchist and all.I think you would be more accurate to say 'not being a democratic Communist and all'.You 'rely', we'll 'participate'.Nothing you say, YMS, strikes me as the least bit revolutionary, or even critical of what exists, now.
And no answer to my basic point, we ca't all perform experiments/research, and so will have to sit in judgement of the work of others…
Young Master Smeet wrote:And no answer to my basic point, we ca't all perform experiments/research, and so will have to sit in judgement of the work of others…And no answer to the epistemological question at the heart of this thread:Who produces scientific knowledge, a society or an elite?Once that is answered, the discussion about how our society will organise its democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge can begin.I don't think that you're either a Communist/Socialist or a democrat, YMS.From what I can tell, you're an individualist and an elitist. All your thinking, assumptions, questions and answers start from those premises: society is a collection of individuals, and most of those individuals can't be expected to educate themselves.In fact, YMS, I'd say that you merely repeat ruling class ideas, which I find surprising on a Communist site, as I've already said.
I think we're both asking the same question here. Who produces the scientific knowledge (science = reliable organised knowledge)? We can't all do the same experiment, can we?Anyway, my answer is society. Your turn.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think we're both asking the same question here. Who produces the scientific knowledge (science = reliable organised knowledge)? We can't all do the same experiment, can we?Anyway, my answer is society. Your turn.[my bold]No, you haven't quite got the hang of this 'politics' and 'power' thing, yet, have you?I'm asking if your answer is 'democracy'.The answer 'society' would be acceptable to elitists, like Leninists.I'm asking what is your political view of the social production of knowledge by a Communist society (and, in the work up to that, by a class conscious proletariat).
In a communist society, knowledge will be produced by members of that society, and there will be equal access to the resources of society to produce that knowledge, and people will contribute according to their abilities. Since those resources will be commonly owned, the only way they can be administered is democratically.Your turn. We can't all do the same experiment, can we?
YMS wrote:In a communist society, knowledge will be produced by members of that society, and there will be equal access to the resources of society to produce that knowledge, and people will contribute according to their abilities. Since those resources will be commonly owned, the only way they can be administered is democratically.You should go into bourgeois politics, YMS, because your evasiveness in answering a direct question is quite fitted to parliament.So, you say 'knowledge will be produced by members of that society'.Note, not 'all members', and no mention of 'democratic production'.So this can be read as 'some expert members doing the producing'.And again, 'and there will be equal access to the resources of society to produce that knowledge, and people will contribute according to their abilities. Since those resources will be commonly owned, the only way they can be administered is democratically', where you neatly move from 'production' to 'administration'.The only acceptable formulation for a Communist/Socialist who starts from the political axiom of "democratic control of the means of production by the proletariat" is that all aspects of the production of scientific knowledge will be by democratic means.So, no 'elites' or 'experts' producing, who then put their results in front of 'non-experts' or a 'non-elite', but the active participation by the proletariat (and post-rev., society) in the democratic production of scientific knowledge.You won't agree to this, because it will undermine your touching faith in 'experts', and your determination to prevent democratic controls on your individual activity.You're an individualist and an elitist, YMS, as shown by numerous posts on this thread, and by your formulation of questions, and your profferred answers.Your emphasis on 'free association' (a phrase latched onto by individualists and Anarchists who are not Communists, but dislike how bourgeois society works for them), rather than 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs' (which means that 'abilities' and 'needs' are democratically defined, not by isolated individuals for themselves) is illustrative of the problem.Science has to be under the control of society, not 'scientists'. This is a political and epistemological issue.
Certainly not all members. Some members will be unable, as you indicate, to take part. Some will be babies, some will be senile or have some other mental illness or disability. So that's "all" knocked into a cocked hat.From each according to their abilities (and who knows better than myself what I can and cannot do?) to each according to their needs (and again, who knows better?) in a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.Your turn. We can't all do the same experiment, can we?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Certainly not all members. Some members will be unable, as you indicate, to take part. Some will be babies, some will be senile or have some other mental illness or disability. So that's "all" knocked into a cocked hat.From each according to their abilities (and who knows better than myself what I can and cannot do?) to each according to their needs (and again, who knows better?) in a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.So, you're not a democratic Communist, then?I particularly like the twist about babies and the senile not being able to participate, and that undoubted fact being used to undermine arguments for democratic controls. You should be in the Tory party. They use that type of political argument.And you've clearly said that you alone, and not you and your comrades in a collective, democratic decision, will decide on your abilities and needs.Why not just say that you're not a democratic Communist, YMS?And we can move on.
The only way for me to be free is through democracy, and so I remain committed to democracy. However, per the 6th Form saw, if I was democratically voted to death, I would decline, gracefully.Anyway, we've established that we can't all be involved in science, and that people have different abilities in science. So, lets go for it: we can't all do the same experiement, can we? Your turn.
YMS wrote:The only way for me to be free…[my bold]Wrong ideology for this site, YMS.The correct formulation is "The only way for us to be free… "'Freedom' is a social state, not an individual state.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.