Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
By coincidence, between bouts of wasting my time with this site, I’ve been reading up on the relationship between the Tudors and the developing bourgeoisie, and happened upon this little historical and social indicator.
A L Morton, A Peoples History of England, p. 181, wrote:One innovation did have an immense though delayed effect. This was the publication of an English version of the Bible. Once the Bible was common property and not a book in an unknown tongue available only to the priests, the key to the mysteries lay in the hands of any man who could read… it was a veritable revolutionists’ handbook, making the priestly monopoly of grace forever untenable.If we supporters of workers’ democratic control of the means of production (OK, just me) replace ‘Bible’ with ‘research papers’, ‘Latin’ (the ‘unknown tongue’, for those ‘individualists’ here who have no knowledge of history) with ‘maths’, and ‘priests’ with ‘scientists’, and ‘grace’ with ‘physics’, this might give us Communists some indictors of ‘how’ the claims of ‘string theory’ might be available to most workers, for their consideration and determination.But then, this is to stray into the realms of ‘how’, when most here won’t even countenance the ‘who’ not being the priestly Latin-reading elite.So, we’d have:
LBird, A Beastly History of Physics, p. 666, wrote:One innovation did have an immense though delayed effect. This was the publication of an English version of the research papers. Once the research papers were common property and not a book in an unknown tongue [ie. mathematics] available only to the elite scientists, the key to the mysteries lay in the hands of any [hu]man who could read… it was a veritable revolutionists’ handbook, making the scientific monopoly of physics forever untenable.‘Revolutionists’, eh? Whatever happened to that way of thinking?
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…a version of "communism" that made it "mandatory" for workers to vote…Where did you get this gem from? It isn't anything that I've written, so you must be arguing with your own demons.
Open your eyes and read what you yourself wrote, LBirdHere is what I said:What if 6.999 billion people decide not to cast their vote on the merits of String Theory? Are you going to make voting mandatory? I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nailHere is how you respondedI wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?The direct inference to be drawn from that is that you consider my objection to forcing people to have a say in the production of ideas amounts to me wanting to prevent them from having a say. This is a dishonest inference on your partAnother example – here is what I say
robbo203 wrote:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate.To which you respondBut you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?So what barrier is that which you say I want to place on workers determining the truth of string theory, eh, LBird? Come on. Spit it out. Enlighten me. Show me where i want to prevent workers determining the truth of String theory? What I actually said was:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debateWhat part of this sentence do you not understand?You are a complete fantasist, L Bird, and seemingly, you lack the wit to even see that you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole of your own making with this pathetic wriggling and eel like evasivenessI wont bother gracing your idiotic Mengele jibe with a response; it doesn't deserve one
'Inference', eh? As I said, robbo, yours, not mine.As for the 'Mengele jibe' (actually a philosophical explanation), it explains why the notion of 'anyone anywhere, without controls' argument is, well, to use your terminology, 'idiotic'.You made the argument, not me. Idiot, QED.
Quote:If we supporters of workers’ democratic control of the means of production (OK, just me) replace ‘Bible’ with ‘research papers’, ‘Latin’ (the ‘unknown tongue’, for those ‘individualists’ here who have no knowledge of history) with ‘maths’, and ‘priests’ with ‘scientists’, and ‘grace’ with ‘physics’, this might give us Communists some indictors of ‘how’ the claims of ‘string theory’ might be available to most workers, for their consideration and determination.The research papers are available to everyone already: you can go and get them from your local public library. As I believe I've mentioned before, in socialism such papers would be freely available (indeed, we could even extend access where at present commercial demands of publishers make access limited — it's not the scientists that are the problem, but capitalist markets. I doubt we could do without the mathematics, though. Some science popularisers have made a good crack, but after a certain point it is necessary. After all, Einstein could only make his discoveries after Riemann's mathematics made them possible…I believe your Mengele example, aside from being ad absurdam is a category error. He is not an example of scientific thinking (or scientific thought) but a question of research ethics (and power). In a society without an armed central power, his sort become an imjpossibility, and any science that exists will be on the same vo,untary free associating basis that all social activity is undertaken with.
I believe this is relevent to the debate:http://existentialcomics.com/comic/66
LBird wrote:'Inference', eh? As I said, robbo, yours, not mine.As for the 'Mengele jibe' (actually a philosophical explanation), it explains why the notion of 'anyone anywhere, without controls' argument is, well, to use your terminology, 'idiotic'.You made the argument, not me. Idiot, QED.Er, why would you volunteer a comment like thisI wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?in the context of your response to me if you did not think that was the position I held i.e. that I was against the idea of "workers determining the production of ideas". Of course it is what you are infering – what else could it be, eh? Duh!And Im still waiting to hear from you what are those "barriers" I want to place on said workers as per your comment:But you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?Given that what I actually said was:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debateHowever, knowing you, I will be waiting till the cows come home. And to think I was once sympathetic to you on this forum. Well, you've sure shown yourself to me in your true colours, haven't you sunshine?
YMS wrote:I doubt we could do without the mathematics, though.Yeah, makes you wonder why I suggested getting rid of mathematics.Bit like Morton, when he recommended getting rid of Latin and all human culture, eh?Communists, eh? They plan to destroy all learning, don'cha know?
YMS wrote:I believe your Mengele example, aside from being ad absurdam is a category error. He is not an example of scientific thinking (or scientific thought) but a question of research ethics (and power).That's just plain bollocks, YMS. Mengele was a well-educated scientist, who retained his links to the research department of his university, and supplied results to his mentor, a respected professor whose name you can look up.
YMS wrote:In a society without an armed central power, his sort become an imjpossibility, and any science that exists will be on the same vo,untary free associating basis that all social activity is undertaken with.So, no democratic control by workers, then? Just an 'voluntary, free' individualist paradise (tm. Bourgeois Productions, 1600-1900).Why don't you just plainly say that the means of production will not be under democratic control, in your version of 'socialism', YMS?You're confusing other comrades who have enough difficulty with this subject, already.
robbo203 wrote:However, knowing you, I will be waiting till the cows come home. And to think I was once sympathetic to you on this forum. Well, you've sure shown yourself to me in your true colours, haven't you sunshine?Mooo….
Quote:That's just plain bollocks, YMS. Mengele was a well-educated scientist, who retained his links to the research department of his university, and supplied results to his mentor, a respected professor whose name you can look up.Hardly a refutation of my point that scientific freedom is different from research ethics, and in fact it tends to substantiate my point that it was Nazi state + death camps and the authoritarian regime that made Mengele possible, not science.
Quote:So, no democratic control by workers, then? Just an 'voluntary, free' individualist paradise (tm. Bourgeois Productions, 1600-1900).Free association = democracy, no free association, no democracy.
LBird should withdraw his accusations against the Socialist Party or prove them.His accusations are that The Socialist Party is undemocratic, elitist, Leninist and Stalinist’ These accusations are clearly based on ignorance of The Socialist Party case as this statement makes clear.
LBird wrote:Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workersHe has said elsewhere that there will be ‘workers’ and other groups with sectional interests in socialism. He believes the class struggle will continue into socialism. He masks his ignorance with childish tantrums and sarcasm as his last post clearly shows and we all recognise now that this is a cover up for his inability to answer a straight forward question.His accusations can easily be substantiate or denied by him answering some simple questions he is avoiding one of which is :If socialism/communism as defined by the Socialist Party were to be established, in what way would an elite gain an advantage and what would that advantage be? How would an 'elite' gain anything.
YMS wrote:Free association = democracy, no free association, no democracy.I've done my best many times to point out to you, YMS, that the defining of the term 'democracy' is an ideological act.We define 'democracy' differently, because we hold to different ideological beliefs.If you want to define 'democracy' as 'free association', fine, but then openly say what ideology holds that to be the definition of 'democracy'. It's a liberal/libertarian/individualist definition of 'democracy'. It focusses on 'freedom' and 'individuals'.I define 'democracy' as 'the power of the political community'. This is the Greek meaning of the term 'democracy': 'demos' is a self-defined political community (thus, in Classical Athens, the 'political community' defined itself as 'free Athenian men'; this 'democracy' did not include slaves, women or aliens (metics)); 'kratos' means 'power'.Communists define the 'political community' to be, neither 'individuals' (an ahistoric and asocial category) nor 'free' citizens, but 'the direct producers within a capitalist society: ie. 'workers'. So, no 'bosses' ('individuals' or not) or the 'free' (as Marx says, we're not 'free' from nature), but WORKERS.So, 'democracy', for a Communist, is 'workers deciding, as a collective'.In contrast, for a libertarian, 'democracy' is 'free association'.Are you catching on, yet? Political ideology is inescapable within 'democracy' and 'science'.Why are you avoiding declaring your political ideology?I clearly state that I want to see workers' democratic control of the means of production, Communism.You don't. But you're hiding it, from us, and perhaps yourself.
This thread has become littered with personal off topic attacks
Yes, and where you seem to ascribe power to a one sided abstract 'community' distinct from its members, I see democracy as being the concrete individuals coming together to perform definite concrete activity, the alignment of subjective consciousness and being and the realisation of the self through the other. An 'individual' is merely the indivisible part of a whole.
Vin wrote:This thread has become littered with personal off topic attacksIt's certainly littered with a party that seems to know nothing about politics whatsoever.Even basic ideology.No wonder no-one will answer the simple question 'what political ideology do you use to understand 'science'?'And this on a thread titled 'Science for Communists?'.
robbo203 wrote:You are a complete fantasist, L Bird, and seemingly, you lack the wit to even see that you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole of your own making with this pathetic wriggling and eel like evasivenessI wont bother gracing your idiotic Mengele jibe with a response; it doesn't deserve oneLolThanks, Robbo. I have been saying this for months but failed to put it so eloquent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.