Science for Communists?

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

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.

Hi LBirdWell I have read a fair bit of this lengthy thread, off and on, so I do kind of get the general drift of what you are saying.  But, with respect, I still don't get your point which I see you have  expressed in your response to YMS that "workers must democratically control the production of scientific knowledge".  What does this actually mean?If you said workers must "democratically control the means of  producing scientific knowledge'" that would make more sense.  But the production of scientific knowledge itself? At first blush that seems to be like suggesting  that  "the workers" will be voting on rival scientific theories in the various fields of scientific endeavour.  You can't surely be suggesting that, can you?  That would be daft because1) In order to vote on the matter you have to know what you are voting about.. An astrophysicist might be able to competently judge the merits of string theory but I freely admit I know virtually bugger all about it and am never likely to. That is not to make a case for a "them" and "us" set up – the elite versus the rest. That same astrophysicist may know virtually bugger all about things I know something about.  Point is that none of us can ever know enough about everything to be able to competently vote on everything which means that, perforce,  for any particular scientific controversy the voting is only ever likely to be done by a tiny minority2) What would be the point of voting anyway? If I were to be very literal minded about it, it sounds almost like what you are proposing is a form of thought control to steer scientific thinking in the direction that the workers had democratically decided upon in advance. Initiative, spontaneity , creative and lateral thinking would all seemingly go out the window because you can't produce new scientific knowledge off your own bat without this having been  democratically sanctioned in the first place.  On the other hand , if you could then where would your "democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge" be in that case. As I said, democracy is about practical choices. It is where there is a conflict of interests – where you want to do one thing and I want to do another and we have to decide which of these option to pick. This simply does not arise with the  "production of  scientific knowledge". There is conflict but the conflict lies in the rival theories or hypothesis; interests are not at stake.  Which theory should be prevail should be be a matter of which bests fits the facts (with all the caveats that go with that). A democratic vote in itselfs adds nothing to the merits of otherwise of the scientific arguments being used. Democratic decision making will of course be important to a communist society but is needs to be applied where it is needed and not where it is actually not needed. Its a matter of sheer logistics.  I still maintain that most aspects a of communist production system will not  require democratic decision making but will be a part of normal automatic response process at the heart of that system.  To suppose that every little decision that has to be made in a communist society has to be subject to democratic scrutiny and a vote is frankly ludicrous and logistircally impossible . It a raises the farcical spectre of a society in which there is endless talk and heated debate but nothing actually ever gets done. I'm not saying that this is what you are actually suggesting LBird but it could be interpreted in that way.   Which is why I suggest you need to clarify what you mean by "democratically controlling the production of scientific knowledge"

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I'm not saying that this is what you are actually suggesting LBird but it could be interpreted in that way.   Which is why I suggest you need to clarify what you mean by "democratically controlling the production of scientific knowledge".

Yes, I DO MEAN what you've suggested I might mean.I can't be any clearer.The production of 'scientific knowledge' (and 'truth'), whether by astrophysicists or ANY other form of 'scientist', involves social decisions, which are intertwined with politics and ethics.So, the determination of what is 'science', or 'scientific', or 'knowledge' or 'truth' (and any other term you might like to use about anything produced by humans) must be under human collective control, employing democratic methods.For those having difficulty with the term 'worker', in present capitalist society whilst we're attempting to build prefiguratively for socialism 'human collective control' means 'the working class'. When we've achieved communism, and there are no longer classes (bosses or workers, speaking strictly), 'human collective control' means 'all of society'.Personally, I'd just use the short form 'worker', but this seems to cause some trouble, especially for poor Vin.Perhaps 'producer democracy' is better?I don't know, but the question still stands, 'if the producers aren't to democratically control the production of scientific knowledge, who should, and how?'.Put simply, this is a question of 'power' and 'authority'.I'm not impressed with the responses of the SPGB (or lack thereof), so far.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I'm starting to think that this is a method being consciously used to avoid answering the question 'who controls production, if not a democratic vote?'.

 If you knew what 'communism' means then you would not need to ask the question. If you no longer believe there will be classes and elites in communism then  come on tell me your definition of 'communism'

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 Personally, I'd just use the short form 'worker', but this seems to cause some trouble, especially for poor Vin. 

You chop and change your argument to hide your ignorance. Come on tell me whaat capitalism is. Tell me what socialism is. Without the put downs . 

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

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'.

That is because you believe that there will be 'class conscious workers' in a classless communist society. No wonder your arguments are confusing. You have a completely different view of communism/socialism than I have. Your idea of communism/socialism is closer to the left wing.To answer your question : there will be no class control of science because there will be no classes.

 To be fair,  though, LBird may have been using the term "worker" in the sense of someone who works without this implying the existence of economic classes in the Marxian sense and the reference to "class conscious workers" may simply be a slip of  the tonque (or the pen). I'm sure he understands well enough that a communist society would be a classless society. I dont think oine should make a big thing about it, to be honest. Marx himself used the term "worker" in the above sense as well – for instance in his Critique of the Gotha Programme when he was talking about the lower phase of communismBut one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

To be fair,  though, LBird may have been using the term "worker" in the sense of someone who works without this implying the existence of economic classes in the Marxian sense and the reference to "class conscious workers" may simply be a slip of  the tonque (or the pen). I'm sure he understands well enough that a communist society would be a classless society. I dont think oine should make a big thing about it, to be honest. Marx himself used the term "worker" in the above sense as well – for instance in his Critique of the Gotha Programme

Don't be taken in by Vin's feigned confusion.It's a mixture of ignorance and a wish to avoid a difficult political question.Thanks, anyway, robbo.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Personally, I'd just use the short form 'worker', but this seems to cause some trouble, especially for poor Vin. 

You chop and change your argument to hide your ignorance. Come on tell me whaat capitalism is. Tell me what socialism is. Without the put downs . 

Can't the moderator have a quiet word with Vin, who's making no contribution to the discussion?Vin is 'ban-bait'.First warning:  14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[Anonymous]

Hi Robbo I respect your opinion,  but LBird claims to be more knowledgeable than the rest of us –  especially me for some reason –  so I do not accept that he accidently said "class conscious workers' in communism. Besides it explains all the nonsense he come out with against the SPGB.Lbird is a troll, ignorant of what socialism is. Mind you, I would love to be proved wrong.      

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 Can't the moderator have a quiet word with Vin, who's making no contribution to the discussion?Vin is 'ban-bait'.

At least I can define capitalism and communism. Can you say the same?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 Can't the moderator have a quiet word with Vin, who's making no contribution to the discussion?Vin is 'ban-bait'.

 

LBird wrote:

I see you've reverted to idiocy, Vin. No surprise there, I suppose.Any attempt to treat you with respect and engage in a sensible conversation is doomed to failure.I'm not sure what effect you're trying to produce regarding the ability of the SPGB to answer simple questions. I do think that you're a Leninist.A Leninist is someone who thinks workers shouldn't control their society, and that the power to do so should be in the hands of an elite. What's laughable, though, is that you don't even comprehend the seriousness of these discussions.

 

LBird wrote:

Can't you go back to your mud pies, and leave the philosophy to the grown-ups?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

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

 The petty childish attacks from Lbird started after I exposed his ignorance. Beware going against this troll. For some reason he has a free hand 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I'm not saying that this is what you are actually suggesting LBird but it could be interpreted in that way.   Which is why I suggest you need to clarify what you mean by "democratically controlling the production of scientific knowledge".

Yes, I DO MEAN what you've suggested I might mean.I can't be any clearer.The production of 'scientific knowledge' (and 'truth'), whether by astrophysicists or ANY other form of 'scientist', involves social decisions, which are intertwined with politics and ethics.

 OK then if that really is what you mean could you then address the two points in my earlier postFirstly, how is possible for everyone to make an informed decision as to "truth" of a scientific theory when most of us are never likely to possess the necessary information to make such a decision? And we are not just talking about one scientific theory but thousands upon thousands of scientific theories.  If  you don't know what  you are voting about then what is the point of voting? True,  there would be no barrier in communism to you equipping yourself with the necessary knowledge to vote on some of the scientific controversies raging but there is a limit – if only a time limit  – to how much knowledge you as mere mortal can humanly accumulate  that would allow you to meaningfully participate in every scientific controversy going.  Ergo, if scientific debates are to boil down to a democratic vote then of necessity only a tiny minority  are ever likely to be involved in casting such a vote.  What then becomes of your "workers democratic control of the production of scientifc knowlege"? I might as well just thrown in a further, related, questions at this juncture  which is what precisely are the mechanics of  this democratic control  going to be in practical term? What are the practical means by which a global population of 7 billion people are going to meaningfully participate in and cast their votes on the scientific veracity , or otherwise, of String Theory for example? Secondly, and perhaps more to the point – even if you could somehow managed to collate global opinion on the veracity of String Theory -what then? What exactly was the purpose of that whole (very costly) exercise.  Was it just for the benefit of the main protagonists of the theory  so they could bask in the glow of public approval?  Is no one henceforth allowed to question what they say because it has been duly stamped  with the seal of approval of the a democratic vote.  You see this is what I don't really understand about your argument at all.  On the face of it  what you are seemingly promoting  – though I dont want to put words in your mouth – is not a self critical experimental and open ended  (and open minded) model of scientific endeavour  but a rigidly controlled, centrally planned,  model of the same.  A kind of Lysenkoist version of science With respect  I think your problem is that you don't really understand what democracy is about and what it is actually needed for .  Of course the production of scientific knowledge is a social activity but it does not therefore follow that  it must be under democratic control – at least not in  the sense you seem to mean (I agree that when it comes to providing the MEANS by which scientific knowlege is produced then a democratic input is needed but that is different to what you are proposing) .  You are trying to stretch the term "democracy" to cover virtually everything that is entailed by the term "social" which is absurd.  Democratic praxis is part of what is meant by the term "social" –  it is not and cannot be everything  "social" I repeat – the need for  democratic decision making arises in the specific context of social activity where there are conflicts of interests – not conflicts of theory – that needed to be resolved.  Trying to extend democratic decision into areas where it is simply not needed and would be actually quite pointless  is playing into the hands of those who wish to caricature communism as an endless round of public meetings  and heated debates where nothing  ever actually gets done and the drains continue to remain stubbornly blocked.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

 However, the disagreement is over the decision making process itself with you strongly resisting any suggestion that by default this method will need to be adapatable and flexible to the conditions, the circumstances and to the tools at hand in order for it to be effective.

Brian, if a worker asked the question of the SPGB 'Will workers democratically control factories after the socialist revolution?', would you give the above answer?Because to me, any party that suggested that democracy wasn't necessarily the correct political method, and that workers would 'need to be adaptable and flexible to the conditions, etc.', would be a party that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the workers, and would go on to suggest 'party control', or the 'need for experts to make decisions', or a 'professional cadre' or a 'central committee'.Can you see my problem? 

Yes now I can see what your problem is.  You have gone and mixed up the democratic method with the decision making process.  Like Robbo has tried to explain the democratic method comes into force when there's a conflict of interest, particulary over social policy, within the community.  Whereas the decision making process comes into play with the production of human need and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.For an instance where the democratic method may be used let's suppose there is a mountain full of rare minerals which the scientific community are adamant they require to continue research on whatever.  However, that mountain is also a nature reserve full of endangered species.  The immediate community say no way are you going set up any type of extraction of these rare minerals.  Go away and find a suitable alternative!  That basically is the democratic method.On the other hand the decision making process is about deciding the most efficient way of producing and distibuting human needs through inputs and outputs – in kind.  For which its unnecessary to have a democratic vote and by default this also means the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.  There will be conflicting opinions and theories on which is the most efficient way of production and distribution but only practice will be the deciding factor on that score.Nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.  In fact quite the reverse for by putting this discussion into its social context we can basically figure out what will and not work in practice.  So yes there is a need for the demcratic method to be utilised in some instances, but not in all because the decision making process will suffice for everday production and distribution.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Yes now I can see what your problem is.  You have gone and mixed up the democratic method with the decision making process.  Like Robbo has tried to explain the democratic method comes into force when there's a conflict of interest, particulary over social policy, within the community.  Whereas the decision making process comes into play with the production of human need and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Here, once again, as I point out time after time, is the classic bourgeois ideology of the separation of the 'social' from the 'natural'.In fact, one  could interchange the use of 'democratic' with 'social', and 'decision-making' with 'natural', in the explanation above.According to Marx, this cannot be done. It results in a separation of a group from society, a group which is above society. The Theses on Feuerbach refers.Marx argued for a unified method in science, and, as I never tire of saying, I agree with Marx about this.

Brian wrote:

On the other hand the decision making process is about deciding the most efficient way of producing and distibuting human needs through inputs and outputs – in kind.  For which its unnecessary to have a democratic vote…

[my bold]Here we have the parallel with 'money', as a decider about 'most efficient way' to make decisions, outside of human, social (therefore, democratic) opinions. This is the bourgeois belief that 'efficiency' is not a matter of human judgement, but merely a technical exercise, which is best made by someone/something other than society as a whole (the latter which would imply democratic methods).

Brian wrote:

There will be conflicting opinions and theories on which is the most efficient way of production and distribution but only practice will be the deciding factor on that score.

Once again, we have the ideological belief that 'practice' determines the 'truth', rather than social theory and practice, as Marx argued for.This is nothing other than induction, 'practice and theory',  which has been entirely discounted as a scientific method for approaching 100 years. Humans know that 'knowledge' is a social product, produced by 'theory and practice'. Because we know that different theories applied to the same object (by 'practice') can produce different knowledge, we know that 'practice' cannot be the arbiter of decision-making because one society's practice (on the same nature) produces an notion of 'efficient' that is different to another society's. I've given Einstein's opinion on this issue, referring to physics and its equations.The belief in 'practice' is most closely identified with  American 'Pragmatism', which is an ideology most suited to the history of the development of US society (biological individuals in practice produce the truth, as opposed to Marx's social theory and practice).

Brian wrote:

Nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.  In fact quite the reverse for by putting this discussion into its social context we can basically figure out what will and not work in practice.

'Working in practice' is not sufficient – the geocentric theory of the solar system 'worked in practice' for one society. But we employ a different theory, the heliocentric theory, and so our practice is different. 'Practice' is a social activity, not an objective method for determining 'truth/efficent/objective', etc.In fact, the bourgeois 'wool' has been well-and truly 'pulled over your eyes', Brian.Unless we discuss science and the social production of knowlegde, and be open from the start that this is an ideological subject, in which we should be open about our own ideological perspective from the beginning.I've been trying to do this now, for 18 months. From your post, Brian, it appears that you've either not read or not understood  anything that I've said.Your views in that post are entirely ideological, not simply either 'your opinion' or 'an objective scientific opinion' which you merely reflect.

Brian wrote:

So yes there is a need for the demcratic method to be utilised in some instances, but not in all because the decision making process will suffice for everday production and distribution.

[my bold]This is dangerous talk, in a political sense.Workers should fear any party which implies that someone other than the democratically-organised proletariat will 'decide'. It's the philosophical roots of Leninism.Workers will be left to decide the 'everyday' (ie. unimportant), whilst the real issues of power in society will be in the hands of a smaller elite, expert, group ('scientists', 'cadre', 'priests', 'central committee', Uncle Joe…).

[Author]

Posts