Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Does that mean everyone will need to have full knowledge of string theory, relativity, Brain Surgery, Blood science in fact full knowledge of all science in order to take democratic process in the scientific method?I ask because it would not be informed democracy, most would be voting on subjects they know little about.
robbo, I wish to acknowledge your post above, but I think that I've covered the points you seem to be trying to make in my reply to Brian.The key point you seem to be asking about is 'practical application'. As I've said before, the issue of 'practice' is an ideological and philosophical issue.Unless you engage with the discussion, at least at first, on that theoretical level, you will not understand the problems with both yours and Brian's stance, from which you ask your questions.If effect, for the purposes of this discussion, it could be considered that there are two frameworks in play.The first starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS NOT necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is not necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.The second starts from the political/ideological/philosophical/scientific assumption that 'Democracy IS necessary'. It then goes on to point out why democracy is necessary, giving evidence and practical examples.The framework one chooses to start from is not an objective choice, but is a socially-determined one.As a Communist, I choose to use the second framework, which I consider appropriate for workers' democracy.The first framework is entirely compatible with bourgeois science and politics, so I warn comrades to be wary of choosing that framework. It is also the framework entirely appropriate for Leninism.The arguments put forward by you and Brian would sound just the same coming from a supporter of capitalism. They, too, start from an assumption that 'democracy is not necessary', and then go on to prove this by reference to 'current practice'. Markets do not require democracy. Money is like Matter, and humans should keep their ideological beliefs in democracy out of the areas which don't concern them. That is the social basis of this ideology: bourgeois society, and its 'ruling class ideas'.
LBird,FWIW many moons ago I did describe how I suspected scientific production would be organised in Socialism. The community own the means of production, democratically. Affinity groups (or learned societies, universities, science clubs) would have free access to the means of science, test tubes, microscopes, bottles of copepr sulphate, etc. for larger scale experiements, like a Large Hadron Colider, they will need to have a democratic allocation of resources, as well as find neighbours willing to work on it (I assume the scientific affinity groups normally are willing to work on their own projects). Such affinity groups would be expected to be internally democratically organised, but would be freely associating and have fredom of thought and expression. Democratically run publishers and libraries will disseminate the output of their research, and different levels of peer review will be used depending on the intended audience. Libraries would stock materials suitable to the needs of their user community and their stated collection development policies and a worldwide collaboration in universal bibliography.Most people will recognise rational authority, and will listen to such groups of experts when they are invovled in ademocratic question (and of course, there would be no conflict of interest, since any benefit that acrues from sicence will be a communal benefit). Since there are no wages nor salaries, science is just as much their hobby as car making is a car makers hobby, as everyone's work is their hobby in socialism. No one will be compelled to work.Put another way, only one person can drive a taxi at a time, and the taxi driver is expected to select the best route. We can vote on what sort of car the taxi driver has, and conditions of how many can ride in the taxi, but ultimately, the taxi driver, as a free human being, should be able to get on and do their job.I compare this model with your anti-democratic demand to shut down debate, and which must inevitably make it moe difficult for minorities to become majorities (since the majority 'true' theory much demand the reserach time against the minority, in a winnder takes all game).
YMS, why not just give your 'affinity groups' the more resonant political name of 'cadre'?You don't believe that the proletariat should control the means of production by democratic means.You say so now, and you have said so earlier, many times.It's up to other comrades to determine which of us is 'anti-democratic'.
Hmm, well, going by the wikipedia entry on cadre:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadre_%28military%29
Quote:The cadre (UK /ˈkɑːdər/ or US /ˈkædreɪ/) is the complement of commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers of a military unit responsible for training the rest of the unit.is not far off, I suppose, although the militaristic overtones would be misplaced within a society without armies. I deliberately chose affinity group because that would cover things like the Harmsworth Astronomy Club, to the World Geological Society, or the University of Oxford.Taking the OED definition:
Quote:In Communist countries, a group of workers, etc., acting to promote the interests of the Communist Party; also, a member of such a groupSicne there would be no socialist party in socialism, I don't see why such a definition would be relevent (and, as I noted, the affinity groups would be freely associating, subject only to the general principles of the whole community. So, for instance, I would envisage some mad buggers founding the Society for Racial Science, and being allowed resources to pursue their mad science, unpleasant though that sounds).
YMS, I simply don't agree with you on political grounds. I don't recognise your notion of 'socialism' as anything like my view, of the democratic control of production.That's a definition. That's my starting point. The DEMOCRATIC CONTROL of PRODUCTION.Not 'control of production by affinity groups'.We have a philosophical disagreement, and thus you won't agree with my views regarding science and the social production of knowledge.
Vin wrote:Does that mean everyone will need to have full knowledge of string theory, relativity, Brain Surgery, Blood science in fact full knowledge of all science in order to take democratic process in the scientific method?I ask because it would not be informed democracy, most would be voting on subjects they know little about.I'll take your question at face value, Vin.Your underlying philosophical assumption is that 'most would be voting on subjects they know little about'.Would this be true, in a Communist society? It would certainly be true now, but isn't that a function of our elitist educational system, rather than a 'universal truth' about 'everyone'?Couldn't we set up democratically-controlled social structures to educate, inform, give experience of philosophy and science, and to determine what truth, knowledge, and science actually are?Unless we argue for this approach now, whilst we're attempting to build prefigurative democratic structures for the proletariat, in all areas of society – political, ideological, philosophical, scientific, economic, social, educational, etc., etc. – then we won't find these necessary democratic structures and ways of thinking emerge with 'socialism'.In fact, in my opinion, if we don't produce these necessaries, then 'socialism' will look very like bourgeois society. The experts and elites will determine our world, rather than the organised, class conscious proletariat being the creator of a new world, which will be revolutionised in every way, not simply economically, by the destruction of the market, but by the extension of conscious human activity to all areas of society, including physics.
LBird,but you would agree that the workplaces will be democratic? And that, like the taxi driver, they will be self regulating and democratic among themselves, on a day to day basis. Since no-one is being compelled to work (You don't believe in forced labour, do you? You do seek the emancipation of labour, don't you?) all work is by fre association, and that is democracy. Democracy is so much more than nose counting. Any democratic plan would be the expression of free association of producers.
LBird I genuinly think you don't understand communism. Science will not be controlled by a class conscious working class. You are having difficulty recognising the transient nature of class and class control. How can there be elites in communism. They can only exist in your distorted vision of communism.I take it that you believe that one day the majority of people will have a deep understanding of physics, string theory, black holes, relativity. Everyone willl be capable of carrying out heart and brain surgery and indeed carry out the research required to do it. They will need a comprehensive knowledge of medicine. Not only will we all need to be doctors but we will need to have practice at nursing, psychology. Every one will have to have the knowledge to research ALL these subjects AND have the practical experience. Do you really believe that?
YMS,I've pointed out before that your political views seem to me to be very similar to those of many of the anarchists on LibCom.That is, the stress is upon individuals, 'free' association and lack of 'compulsion'. AND, the identification of 'democracy' with 'individual freedom'.These are concerns that clearly we are all concerned about, but there are other concerns, which I think Communists place prior to 'individual freedoms' from 'authority'Marx makes it clear that nature imposes the need on humans to produce. This is an unfreedom, a compulsion that does not orginate in society, but in nature.I'm much more likely to stress the slogan "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", and to stress that 'abilities' and 'needs' are socially determined, not 'individual choices' or 'individual rights'.We don't live in a world of 'individuals' (as the bourgeoisie alleged), but in a natural world in which social humans have to organise the necessary production and consumption which nature imposes upon us.I think that democracy, not individual chioce, is the best way to organise social production.Thus, at some points, some individuals will experience unfreedom and compulsion (birth and death?), whatever society we have, even if we could achieve a 'proper' 'free market', that did work for all as individuals.In essence, democracy means social freedom. I want as much personal freedom for you as I have, because that is the best option for us all. But we live in nature and society, and we need to discuss and manage the issues of unfreedom and compulsion.I don't regard Communism as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'free individuals', but as a society that democratically organises all forms of production.At bottom, I see you as a 'Libertarian Communist', as opposed to myself as a 'Democratic Communist'.To me, these philosophical differences express themselves in our debates about science.
Vin wrote:LBird I genuinly think you don't understand communism. Science will not be controlled by a class conscious working class. You are having difficulty recognising the transient nature of class and class control. How can there be elites in communism. They can only exist in your distorted vision of communism.I take it that you believe that one day the majority of people will have a deep understanding of physics, string theory, black holes, relativity. Everyone willl be capable of carrying out heart and brain surgery and indeed carry out the research required to do it. They will need a comprehensive knowledge of medicine. Not only will we all need to be doctors but we will need to have practice at nursing, psychology. Every one will have to have the knowledge to research ALL these subjects AND have the practical experience. Do you really believe that?You are misunderstanding me, Vin.I don't know how to discuss these issues more clearly.If you think that I'm saying that every individual will need to do heart surgery, you misunderstand me.These are philosophical issues, and must be addressed at that level.Perhaps if I ask a question, in your terms, that we could be asked by a pro-capitalist:'Do you Communists think that you can all become bank managers, and have perfect access to market knowledge? Why wouldn't you leave decisons about money to financial experts?'I suspect that this won't help, but I'm having a sinking feeling that you'll never grasp what I'm saying, and whilst that might be my fault, not yours, it makes me both sad and start to think democratic socialism is impossible.Perhaps you, YMS and Brian are correct, and it's all best left to the experts.
As the Standard said in June 1908Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism. And were the workers to understand rightly their position and their policy, the political freedom they now possess would enable them to achieve their emancipation irrespective of sex. It is, moreover, not a sex war that exists in Society but a class war, but the Suffragettes endeavour to blur this class issue by screeching qualifications.
LBird,I'd agree entirely with socialism being about from each… to each…., etc. but the inward neccessity of volition, of the realisation of free human beings means an identification with our determinations is necessary, society cannot appear as an alien object but as an expresion of the subject.
LBird wrote:You are misunderstanding me, Vin.I don't know how to discuss these issues more clearly.If you think that I'm saying that every individual will need to do heart surgery, you misunderstand me.Well, explain it better. How can I vote on issues related to research into the brain and brain surgury unless I know the full information? Do you suggest an uniformed vote? Try to imagine! How will I and others participate?
Vin wrote:Try to imagine! How will I and others participate?I thought I had 'tried to imagine', in my post #1131.Perhaps a bit less 'imagination', eh, Vin, and a bit more 'dealing with the real world'?If you don't have any imagination of how socialism will differ from capitalism (in a much wider sense that just 'economics'), then I'm not sure that I can provide it for you.I'm not sure the slogan "Leave it to the experts! Leave heart surgery to the heart surgeons, leave twin experiments to Dr. Mengele!" will have much purchase upon workers who've learn to ask questions of the so-called 'experts', but perhaps I'm wrong.Ah well, time for my old mum's appointment with the good doctor… Dr. Shipman. You should see his qualifications! Kosher as they come.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.