Science for Communists?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 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.

Why the lies and insults? Don't you have an argument of your own?

[LBird]

Is there anyone out there in the SPGB that does reasonable discussion?Vin, I'm afraid, is just 'ban-bait'.

[Anonymous]

You have alleged I am a 'Leninist', 'materialist', undemocratic and unreasonable.And all because I asked what ideology you were adopting. Which is a question you ask of everyone. I don't think you will get many takers. 

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

You have alleged I am a 'Leninist', 'materialist', undemocratic and unreasonable.

Yes, and you've proved those allegations, by your theory and practice.

Vin wrote:

And all because I asked what ideology you were adopting. Which is a question you ask of everyone.

The difference being, that I answer willingly about my Democratic Communism, whereas you avoid all mention of your 'Leninist, materialist, undemocratic, unreasoning'.

Vin wrote:

I don't think you will get many takers.

That says more about the SPGB's inability to discuss science and Communism, rather than my attempt to link proletarian democracy and scientific method. The SPGB seems only able to provide your witless irritations.Keep them up, Vin, and I'll accept defeat pretty soon, and I'll go for the terminal ban. It's the SPGB's loss, not mine.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

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.

If I might intervene in what, unfortunately, seems to have become a perpetually belligerent and pointless slanging match….Some of the points you make, LBird, strike me as being pretty sound and spot on; others I'm not too sure about.  It perhaps with regard to the latter that much of the confusion and subsequent backbiting has arisen.  So it would be mutually beneficial for all concerned if you could perhaps clarify your position with respect to the latter.You see,its like this.  I'm totally in agreement with you when you say science is a social activity.  We don't live in the 18th century era of amateur "gentleman scientists" (and even their activity was still "social" inasmuch as their discoveries were built on the discoveries of others). I also fully agree with you that in a communist society the barriers between the so called "scientific community" and the "general public" should be broken down as far as possible, Science should become a matter of concern and interest to everyone.Where I begin to depart from you is what I perceive to be – correct me if I am wrong – your apparent fetishisation of , or a totalising approach towards, the "democratic control of science" and scientific endeavour.  I really don't get the point of this but then again I might have misread what you are saying…Let me explain myself by way of an analogy.  I look at this matter from the perspective of someone who has engaged in numerous debates over the years with individuals of an anarcho-capitalist persuasion.  Almost all of them, I find, are wedded to the idea that a communist or socialist economy  would be a centrally planned economy – that is, one in which there would be one single society wide plan (or matrix) covering to the totality of inputs and outputs for the entire economy and specifying in advance the quantitative targets for each and  every single conceivable good that would be produced.  There are several different arguments our anarcho-capitalist friends make against this proposal, the most important of which is the informational complexity argument chiefly associated with FA Hayek.  Hayek's argument is that the dispersed nature of knowledge in society necessitates a self regulating market.  Trying to concentrate this vast amount of information within the rigid framework of a single giant plan is totally unrealistic.  Moreover, we are talking about millions upon millions of different kinds of goods – from 3 inch screws to stainless steel tumble dryers. Trying to reach a decision about how much each of these goods ought to be produced is daunting enough in itself; trying to reach that decision democratically would be infinitely more difficult.  How on earth is the global community going to decide on the global output target for, say, 3 inch screws? The whole idea is a preposterousSo Hayek and co are correct in that respect and they are also correct in deducing that if you are going to have centrally planned economy in this classic sense it almost lends itself to a form of governance that might be called a technocracy – rule by a tiny technocratic elite.  The logistics of decision making under this hypothetical arrangement virtually guarantees such a form of governance.My response to our anarcho capitalist friends is to say this is a complete straw argument. Communism will not and cannot be, a centrally planned economy but, on the contrary, will be a mainly decentralised economy  Indeed, most of the decisions that will be made in a communist system will not even need to be subjected to democratic control at all but will simply be part and parcel of an automatic self regulating system of stock control. Production unit X123 receives an order for 200 tins of baked beans from distribution centre Y445.  You don't need a democratic debate on whether to meet  that order; you just do it!  Because a communist society is about meeting needs, which needs are expressed as an order for 200 tins of baked beans in this case. This kind of response, of course, always floors our anarcho-aps since they imagine in their folly that they have cornered the market in the idea of a "self regulating system of production" .  The market is such a system but there is another much more effective version of that which dispenses with the market altogether: real communismSo what place has democracy in this mainly decentralised communist scheme of things?  The need for democracy arises where there is a potential conflict of interests and this has somehow to be resolved.  This can happen at different levels of spatial organisation – local regional and national.  It would not make much sense, for example, for the global community to debate on whether my local community should go ahead and construct a childrens nursery but it would make sense for the global community to talk about action to counter global warming for example. The level of decision making should be appropriate to the kind of decision that needs to be made and vice versa.So returning from this longwinded detour back to where we started off – what precisely is the point of the democratic control of scientific activity and how precisely would it be implemented?   Forgive me if I am grossly misinterpreting you but you seem to be almost suggesting that if there are several rival theories attempting to explain a particular phenomenon a vote needs to be taken to determine the truth of the matter. But why? This seems to me to be a very peculiar way of proceeding. You are not  going to dissuade a person from holding a particular theory just because he or she discovers s/he finds her/himself in a minority.  Nor should you even try to – at least not on those grounds!  Several centuries ago if the advocates of a heliocentric universe had had their theory tested against the rival theory of geocentric universe by democratic debate and voting rather than by authoritarian diktat on the part of the Church authorities would you have recommended that the former relinquish their silly idea about the earth revolving around the sun just because a majority believed to the contrary that it was the sun that revolved around the earth?  No of course you wouldn't.  A sample poll of scientists might conceivably  be useful for some purposes but I don't quite see where the need for democratic control of scientific knowledge as such comes into the picture.  A healthy science is a self-critical science – one which always opens itself up to rival theories as opposed to bludgeoning its practitioners  into conformity with the prevailing paradigm – duly interpreted as the democratic will of the majority.  There is also the also the question of whose democratic  will are we talking about.  To go back to my argument-cum-analogy  about central planning, you wouldn't expect the citizens of Shanghai to vote in a communist society on where the citizens of Seattle should site their brand new mainline railway station.  Unless maybe you had been to Seattle and knew its layout.  Similarly there is little point in democratically voting on certain rival  scientific theories unless you were familiar with the subject matter. Its a question of what is humanly and logistically possible.It is thus not really the scientific knowledge as such, I suggest, that should be the subject of democratic control but rather the application of that knowledge or even the process of making resources available for specific areas of scientific endeavour to generate more such knowledge.  These latter things I can sort of understand as being appropriate to democratic control but I would still like to hear from you how in practical terms you would want to have democratic control implemented in these cases. What would this democratic control actually look like?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

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. 

My apologies but what I meant to say was, "how are we going to arrive at a decision 'in the here and now' on what will be the scientific method in a communist society."  And as your response states its not up to us to decide now but the future communist society.  So if we are unable to decide in the here and now what will be the scientific method in communist society and I'm absolutely certain that no poster or socialist would disagree with that, or that science and scientists will come under the democratic contol of the global communist society, how come you question our democratic credentials besides labeling us Leninists?Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Some of the points you make, LBird, strike me as being pretty sound and spot on; others I'm not too sure about.  It perhaps with regard to the latter that much of the confusion and subsequent backbiting has arisen.

Thanks for your considered questioning, robbo.I'm afraid I'm just going to have to settle for the result of you thinking that some of what I say as being 'pretty sound and spot on'. The rest, that you're not sure about (ie. the 'democracy' bit), I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave for you to investigate elsewhere, and with other contributors.I haven't got the heart any longer to carry on, having to argue the benefits of 'democracy' with comrades.My sincere apologies for not responding at greater length, robbo, but perhaps a re-read by you of the many threads and hundreds of posts that I've already made regarding these issues will, upon a second reading, make more sense. If not, it seems pointless me merely repeating myself to those who already have fears regarding 'democratic controls'.Neither property, money nor matter can be allowed to come under democratic control, it seems. A profound fear of democracy is rife in our society, not surprisingly, and it seems that that 'ruling class idea' affects even good comrades.If this fear affects even the SPGB, well known as the most truly democratic of the so-called 'workers' parties', then I'm beaten.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

Arguing now for democracy in the future, is hardly a 'blueprint'.I'd've thought that the notion that 'a Communist scientific method should be democratic' would've been the least controversial thing that I could argue, amongst comrades who're in a democratic party, but it seems to actually be the source of profound disagreement.Whilst 'no socialist agrees with that method of thinking', that is, 'democratic method', then I think we can start to grasp why 130 years after Marx's death, the socialist movement has such little purchase amongst workers.Property is safe from the grubby hands of the workers, whilst such anti-democratic sentiment is agreed amongst 'socialists' who have 'science' on their side.Well, Brian, you'll have to stick with science, as you know it. Good luck.

[LBird]

Since your post concerns me the most, Brian, I’ve decided to give a further response, after more consideration. You said:

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.

My assumptions are that, as socialists, we all already agree that socialism involves four things:Workers;Class consciousness;Democracy;Production.That is, socialism would involve an already developed proletarian movement, that was self-conscious of itself as a class, and was employing democratic methods of decision-making within all areas of the production of goods/services/power/authority/legitimacy/knowledge.As a corollary, there would be no elite/bosses/experts other than as class-conscious workers, there would be no consciousness outside of workers control (religion, god, for eg.), there would be no decision-making by elites/bosses/experts other than as class conscious workers, and the production of anything social (including knowledge, truth) would be by class conscious workers. Finally, all these production decisions would be democratic.To me, that would be Communism (or socialism, as the SPGB has it).Hence, for me, any discussions about the ‘future’, regarding anything whatsoever about any prospective Communism/Socialism, would inherently involve class conscious workers employing democratic methods of production.If you really believe that…

Brian wrote:

No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

…then I don’t think that we’re talking about the same meaning of ‘socialist’, Brian. If the other comrades here fundamentally reject my positions outlined above, regarding socialism, no wonder we’re having so much trouble about ‘Science for Communists?’.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

You see,its like this.  I'm totally in agreement with you when you say science is a social activity. 

 This is an strawman, Robbo. No A level Sociology student is going to disagree with this statement. He takes you around in circles. He accuses the SPGB of holding  ludercrous positions then attacks the strawmen. When you disagree with him he accuses you of being a stalinist, lenninist ad nauseam. I am surprised other members haven't 'clocked' him yet. Take his advice and have a look at his past posts, you will see what I mean. 

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Take his advice and have a look at his past posts, you will see what I mean.

For once, I can concur with every word of a statement of Vin's.

[Young Master Smeet]

https://theconversation.com/quantum-computer-makes-finding-new-physics-more-difficult-36869So, quantum computers have been used to demonstrate Lorenz covarience, the idea that the laws of the universe are symmetrical and are the same everywhere.  The interesting thing is this seems to be an unintended, or unanticipated, outcome of the development of technology, i.e. of quantum computers themselves:

Quote:

 Häffner’s day job is quantum computing. Using electrons associated with single atoms (ions) of calcium, suspended in an electric trap at extremely low temperatures, Häffner and his team can create qubits.Qubits are the quantum-mechanical analogue of classical bits – the 0s and 1s that run our classical computers. But they are unlike classical bits and more like Schrodinger’s cat, because they can be “dead” and “alive” at the same time, which is to say they can be in two different states at once.[…]Häffner realised that this new fancy hardware could be used for experiments unrelated to quantum computing. It occurred to him that two entangled qubits could serve as sensitive detectors of slight disturbances in space.

Now, the knowledge gained has not opverturned any paradigms, indeed, it has merely strengthened the existing one (and closed down another avenue of disproof).  The significance for socialists is two fold: first, it is an example of knowledge coming through changing and advancing technologies and the ways in which we intereact with the world; but also from scientific freedom to experiement and utilise the technology before them.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…but also from scientific freedom to experiement and utilise the technology before them.

I know from our ongoing discussions, YMS, that you're not a democrat regarding these issues, but, given what I've asked earlier of Brian, about my assumptions that the basis of socialism is class conscious workers making production decisions by democratic methods, my question still stands.Who (or what) determines the extents of 'scientific freedom' and the proper 'utilisation of technology'?Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers (and these methods must be argued for by the workers movement within this society, as we go forward, because the methods argued for now will prefigure those of a future socialist society).If you disagree, it is in your court to tell us who determines these issues, and by what methods.Neither you nor anyone else who disagrees with my view, that 'workers must democratically control the production of scientific knowledge', ever answers that political question.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers 

 This is absolute nonsense. 

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers 

 This is absolute nonsense. 

That's an arguable point of view, Vin.But then, if one argues that it is nonsense that class conscious workers should control the production of scientific knowledge, that leaves the problem of just who should have this power.Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.

[Author]

Posts