Science for Communists?

[LBird]

Ortlieb wrote:

All measuring is a reciprocal relation, measured by the mathematical-scientific method, between the inquiring subject and the nature that is the object of his inquiry; thus, one can never refer to “nature in itself” but only to this specific form of interaction.30 The subject-object relation produced by the experiment and expressed in the form of a law cannot be simply reduced to one of its two poles: not even that of the subject, as a strict culturalism might seem to suggest. The laws of nature are neither the products of a discourse that can be fabricated at will, disregarding the objective side, nor are they mere properties of nature that have nothing to do with the subjective bearers of knowledge.

[my bold]This is all, to me, totally consistent with Marx's 'idealism-materialism', and nothing to do with 'materialism', which by its very name disregards 'one of the two poles', of human ideas and external reality.'Theory and practice' is as much 'ideal' as it is 'material', which Marx makes clear in his Theses on Feuerbach, and elsewhere.And this fits with Pannekoek's view that the laws of nature are knowledge produced by humans, not 'discoveries' of 'objective nature'.

[ALB]

So that's what you've been trying to say all along !Alfred Sohn-Rethel, (ex-CP) who he mentions, seems interesting and to be saying something similar (though abstract thought will have evolved long before Acient Greece). See:http://danieltutt.com/2012/11/15/sohn-rethels-necessary-false-consciousness-and-marxist-epistemology/http://www.internationalmarxisthumanist.org/articles/contra-sohnrethel-philosophical-roots-anticapitalismby-david-blackThis description of his view from the first above:

Quote:

Like Marx, he claims that all cognitive concepts are derivatives from the material being from which they arise, and because cognitive concepts are derived from this being, and not the being of external nature and the material world, it is the social being of the historical epochs in which these concepts arise and play their part that matter most in terms of analysis

and this from the second:

Quote:

Sohn-Rethel seems to think that he can avoid this dilemma through recourse to “materialism.” This is not to say that Sohn-Rethel subscribes to a vulgar dialectical materialist orthodoxy. He asserts that the reality Marx opposes to forms of consciousness is not “matter” but social existence; in order to derive consciousness historically from social being, we must presuppose “a process of abstraction which is part of this being.”

His Intellectual and Manual Labor: A Critique of Epistemology looks like another book to add to your reading list.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

So that's what you've been trying to say all along !

No, I have been saying all along. It's the 'materialists' who have a problem accepting that both the ideal and material have equal weight in epistemology. For some reason, they keep stressing 'materialism', a 'materialism' that tries to ignore 'idealism' as an evil competitor, which silly idea they got from Engels, who didn't seem to realise that both object and subject are required for an interaction to take place.Because of this ignorance of Marx's 'idealism-materialism', when the 'materialists' are asked which ideology they use to undertake this interaction between them (as a social subject) and the real world (an external object), they pretend that they haven't got an ideology, because they think they have a non-interactive, contemplative relationship to the the real world, and so that they know 'The Truth'. I know it's hard to believe, but if you ask the 'materialists' what ideology they employ to understand a rock, they revert to claiming to use individual biological sensations, and that they passively listen to the 'active' rock, which tells them that it 'really is' hard! Crazy, isn't it?

ALBs quote wrote:

Sohn-Rethel seems to think that he can avoid this dilemma through recourse to “materialism.” This is not to say that Sohn-Rethel subscribes to a vulgar dialectical materialist orthodoxy. He asserts that the reality Marx opposes to forms of consciousness is not “matter” but social existence…

Yeah, there's that damned word 'materialism', yet again!Seems he, too, felt he had to use a term that Marx should have made clearer: that is, by 'material', Marx meant 'social production', as I keep reiterating. Which, it seems, Sohn-Rethel was aware of (his use of 'social existence', not 'matter'), but didn't have the insight to make clear to workers, as we are doing here, that Marx was not a bloody 'materialist', in the sense of 'material'.

ALB wrote:

His Intellectual and Manual Labor: A Critique of Epistemology looks like another book to add to your reading list

Yeah, I've already ordered it, earlier today. None of the other German works, quoted in the LibCom article, seem to be available in English.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The problem originated with Engels, and was carried forward by the Second International, and Lenin.

 L Bird,How would this quote support your thesis?  Correct me if Im wrong  but Engel's repudiation of a contrast between mind and matter sounds a bit like your idealism-materialism, no?Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly….  In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will humanity not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, humanity and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity (Frederick Engels 1876  The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man) 

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

L Bird,How would this quote support your thesis? Correct me if Im wrong but Engel's repudiation of a contrast between mind and matter sounds a bit like your idealism-materialism, no?

This problem is, robbo, that Engels, because he was confused, can be quoted to both support and deny my 'thesis'. So, the issue can't be resolved by appeal to the authority of Engels.What's worse, although to a lesser extent, Marx's use of the term 'material' was also ill-advised, and at times he also uses words like 'reflection', which go hand-in-hand with the positivist view of the world and knowledge. So, I think, on balance, Marx can be used to support my thesis, but there is clearly passages of his that appear to support the 'materialists'. Thus, Marx's authority, too, is not completely conclusive.It's my opinion that only when workers come to understand the differences between 'idealism', 'materialism' and 'idealism-materialism' can they themselves provide the authority of their own thinking. It seems clear to me that once workers wrestle with epistemology, they will only have the choice of the latter, because that's the only 'thesis' that fits with Marx's works, and his beliefs about workers' self-emancipation.This is not a religion that quotes texts that cannot be questioned.It's about the self-development of the proletariat. We must be the final authority for any debate, not an elite, not scientists, not a central committee, not priests, not texts, not 'the material', but humans, consciously thinking about issues that affect us, and then voting upon them.FWIW, your quote from Engels, mentioning "its laws", progress, advances, etc. can be taken both ways, unfortunately. I recommend getting to understand the issues for yourself, rather than relying upon Engels.I think my analogy of "a clean sheet of paper upon which anything can be drawn" (idealism), "a page of numbered dot-to-dots which merely remain to be simply joined" (materialism), and "a page of un-numbered dots, which provide some guidance but must be actively numbered to build a meaningful picture (idealism-materialism, or theory and practice), is one way of trying to get to grips with the issues of the relationship between subject and object, the interaction between which produces knowledge.

[Anonymous]

 Reading Russell Brand's book  he argues strongly that truth is ideological and that 'science' is more like religion. We have to construct our own alternative 'truth'. I think LBird may well have a friend in Russell Brand.  

[DJP]

Seems like the US senate has taken LBirds advice on board:http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/229381-mcconnell-to-allow-climate-change-amendment-on-keystone-bill

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

Seems like the US senate has taken LBirds advice on board:http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/229381-mcconnell-to-allow-climate-change-amendment-on-keystone-bill

Not quite.  LBird could well argue that by definition the result of the vote – not the question – is a reflection of capitalist ideology.  In short they might well agree that climate change is man-made but they have no intention of doing anything positive about it because profits comes first.From the tone of your post you seem to be missing LBird?

[Brian]

Just come across this article which at first glance seems to be relevant to this thread;  http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gap-between-public-and-scientific-opinion/

[LBird]

Brians link wrote:

If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that the public is wrong…

This is not a universal statement (or a 'truth'), but a statement about the poor educational standards within capitalist society, that we all suffer from, not least because of time constraints. The 'public' is not given the same access to science as are the elite selected as 'scientists'.This would not be true within a Communist society, where science would be a matter of general interest, just like any other productive activity, and all 'opinions on scientific questions' would be democratically-decided 'opinions'.Within Communism, the 'public' can't be 'wrong'. Minority opinions would be subject to 'critical social theory and practice', and then voted upon. Thus, a dissenting 'opinion' would become the 'true public opinion'.Thus, within Communism,

Quote:

If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that Mengele is wrong…

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brians link wrote:

If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that the public is wrong…

This is not a universal statement (or a 'truth'), but a statement about the poor educational standards within capitalist society, that we all suffer from, not least because of time constraints. The 'public' is not given the same access to science as are the elite selected as 'scientists'.

Quote:

If this is the case how are we going to arrive at a decision on what will be the "scientific method " in a communist society?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

If this is the case how are we going to arrive at a decision on what will be the "scientific method " in a communist society?

[my bold]By voting.All decisions affecting society, within a Communist society, must be decisions which are taken democratically.If any comrades disagree with 'democratic methods', it's incumbent upon them to say what 'method' they think should be used by society.It seems to me that there are two choices open to them:a) deny democracy entirely; orb) deny that 'science' is a social activity, and so deny that 'democracy applies in this case'.In my experience, the bourgeois thinkers maintain the latter (often by the separation of physical science from social science, into 'the arts and the sciences'; Marx warns against this, and argues for a unity of scientific method, which is why he can claim Capital as a scientific treatise).Funnily enough, so do those 'socialists' who wish to prevent workers from controlling production themselves: these are the 'Leninists'. For them, their party has access to a 'scientific method' which is outside the understanding of the workers, and so workers can't be allowed to vote on something which is only within the purview of the party.These latter 'Leninists' also go under the name of 'Materialists'. This 'material' can't be allowed to be subject to a vote by workers; the party must tell workers what their 'material conditions' consist of. The workers cannot be allowed to vote on their own understanding of their 'material conditions', because they might disagree with the party, which argues that it has a 'neutral scientific method' ('materialism') which gives the party access to a knowledge that is outside of democratic controls.I've said all this before, though, Brian, and those who disagree with workers' control of scientific knowledge (ie. the 'materialists') will never tell us what their method is.In my opinion, the 'materialists' are still living in the ideological world of the 19th century. They pretend, of course, to be 'non-ideological', as do all conservatives.'Pull the other one', I say.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

If any comrades post, and don't appear to share my 'ideology', the first thing that I'll do is to ask them what ideology they are employing.

 What ideology are you employing?  

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

If any comrades post, and don't appear to share my 'ideology', the first thing that I'll do is to ask them what ideology they are employing.

 What ideology are you employing?  

You've asked this before, Vin, and I've always replied, so why you're pretending that you don't know is a reason that other comrades must ascertain for themselves.My ideology is 'Democratic Communism', which applies to all human social productive activities, including 'science'.Thus, all scientific knowledge or 'truth' must be subject to society's vote. The only form of society that can implement this democratic control is a Communist society.You appear to be baffled by the very notion of 'democratic control', Vin. Is this bafflement the source of your repeated question?Or are you a 'materialist', and have an access to 'matter' that the rest of us workers don't share? Otherwise, why would you oppose 'democratic production of scientific knowledge'?You keep saying that you're not a Leninist, and yet you deny democracy to workers in their production of scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Why do you refer to 'democratic communism' Do have an idea of what undemocratic communism will look like?

[Author]

Posts