Science for Communists?

[Anonymous]

I am gobsmacked.Just as a matter of interest, are you a member of the Socialist Party?  You may choose to answer – or not, of course.When I read your contributions, I am reminded of the novel 1984.  May I quote a couple of extracts:"Already we are breaking down the habits of thought that have survived from before the Revolution.  We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman.  No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer.  But in the future there will be no wives and no friends.  Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen.  The sex instinct will be eradicated….. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness."O'Brian is the Party's henchman, browbeating and torturing the rebel Winston into submission. Winston has just been informed that; "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.""As usual, the voice had battered Winston into helplessness.  Moreover he was in dread that if he persisted in his disagreement O'Brian would twist the dial again.  And yet he could not keep silent.  Feebly, without arguments, with nothing to support him except his inarticulate horror of what O'Brian had said, he returned to the attck.'I don't know – I don't care. Somehow you will fail.  Something will defeat you.  Life will defeat you.''We control life, Winston, at all its levels.  You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us.  But we create human nature.  Men are infinitely malleable.'"Meel

[LBird]

Meel wrote:

I am gobsmacked.

I know, because you're not a Democratic Communist, and you believe the bourgeois myth about 'non-ideological science'.Fair enough, if you want to believe in fairy stories, but perhaps you should read some of the texts that I've mentioned.And accusing Commies of '1984' is sooo old hat – I haven't heard that one in years!You'll be accusing me of being Pol Pot, next!

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I know, because you're not a Democratic Communist, 

Stop repeating the same old  crap. go and bore someone else.Read some real communist science – http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/Tell me what socialist literature you have read or go away

[Anonymous]

LBird, you are in the wrong place if you think we will accept the truth as 'democratically' decided by you and your 'democratic communists'. You can stick that ' truth' where the sun dont shine. I am a socialist and a member of the working class and I will decide what the truth is myself. You belong in some Stalinist group that decides the 'truth' and votes upon it amongst yourselves and impose it upon the rest of us.You are wasting your time here.Your 'truth' can fuck off and kiss my arse.   

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

You'll be accusing me of being Pol Pot, next!

 Lol  Karma

[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.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

… I will decide what the truth is myself.

Of course you will, Vin.All those infected by bourgeois ideology say this, because they really believe the bourgeois myth that 'We're all individuals!'.Those who identify as 'workers', on the contrary can see that they occupy a social position within a structure, and that that social structure they live in is an exploitative structure, divided by classes, and that each class produces ideologies in an attempt to explain their world.The bosses have found that obscuring the 'exploitative' nature of the present socio-economic production system is best done by avoiding all talk of 'structures', and by emphasising 'individuality'. Hence, the ruling class idea of 'We're all individuals!'.When it comes to 'truth', of course there are conflicting class ideologies about this, too. Workers recognise that humans produce their world, and that humans produce their ideas about that world, including what 'truth' is. Bosses want everybody to think that they all have their own, personal, individual 'truth', a truth which is not amenable to social control, or which has to be argued about, and voted on.So, when we put your declaration that "I will decide what the truth is myself" in the present socio-economic context, it is clear that you are espousing ruling class ideas about 'truth'.I find this kow-towing to ruling class ideas strange in a socialist, like you Vin. Perhaps you are simply not as class conscious as you think you are.

Vin wrote:

You belong in some Stalinist group that decides the 'truth' and votes upon it amongst yourselves and impose it upon the rest of us.

Isn't it odd, that I should be arguing for 'democratic truth production' (ie. 'imposed' by all of us, after a vote), whereas you are arguing for 'individual truth production' (ie. 'imposed' by you, without consultation with comrades), and because you don't like me pointing this out, you call me a Stalinist. I'm sure that you are aware that the capitalist propaganda machine used to equate socialism with Stalinism, so we can see, yet again, you employing ruling class ideas.

Vin wrote:

You are wasting your time here.

I certainly am with you, Vin. The ruling class can sleep soundly whilst you're conducting such a good defence of their ideas.

Vin wrote:

Your 'truth' can fuck off and kiss my arse.

Well, since 'my truth' is a democratically-decided 'truth', I think your contempt for your fellow workers' ability to discuss and decide for themselves, what constitutes 'truth' in this society, is plain for all to see.In fact, you're lining up with robbo, another individualist who won't have democracy in science, and prefers to trust the 'elite-experts', just like you, Vin.What's even more laughable about 'your' views, is that you've never actually read or discussed anything about the philosophy of science. This is clear, because otherwise you'd be aware of the difficulties associated with understanding what 'truth' is, especially since Einstein.Get off your knees, Vin. We have a world to win.'We', notice, not 'I'.

[LBird]

Anton Pannekoek wrote:

A ruling class cannot voluntarily give up its own predominance; for this predominance appears to it the sole foundation of the world order. It must defend this predominance; and this it can do only so long as it has hope and self-confidence. But actual conditions cannot give self-confidence to the capitalist class; therefore it creates for itself a hope that has no support in reality. If this class were ever to see clearly the principles of social science, it would lose all faith in its own possibilities; it would see itself as an aging despot with millions of persecuted victims marching in upon him from all directions and shouting his crimes into his ears. Fearfully he shuts himself in, closes his eyes to the reality and orders his hirelings to invent fables to dispel the awful truth. And this is exactly the way of the bourgeoisie. In order not to see the truth, it has appointed professors to soothe its troubled spirit with fables. Pretty fables they are, which glorify its overlordship, which dazzle its eyes with visions of an eternal life and scatter its doubts and dreams as so many nightmares.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1909/new-middle-class.htmYeah, 'professors' who produce 'fables' as bourgeois 'truth', to 'glorify its overlordship'.This applies to physics as much as sociology, comrades.We have to democratise all science.[edit – a bit more from Tony]

Anton Pannekoek wrote:

The fact that science is merely the servant of capitalism could not be more clearly expressed than in such statements…. Not the discovery of truth, but the reassurance of an increasingly superfluous class of parasites is the object of this science. No wonder that it comes into conflict with the truth.

[my bold][more]

AT wrote:

They have great notions of their own education and refinement, feel themselves elevated far above “the masses”; it naturally never occurs to them that the ideals of these masses may be scientifically correct and that the “science” of their professors may be false.

[my bold]

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You still dont get it do you, LBird?Philosophically, I dont have a problem with what you are saying…

No, your 'problem' with 'what I'm saying' is merely a 'political' one.You won't have democratic science. You argue for elite science.The final arbiter of 'truth' must be society: if necessary, all 7 billion must vote.Socialism must start from the premise that 'scientific explanation' is understandable by all.Science must be open to all, as the producer of concepts, as a social activity to test those concepts, as the arbiter of the truth of the results of those activities.

 You wont answer those questions I asked you, will you? You continue to stubbornly evade them  by throwing up a smokescreen of strawman arguments Once again nobody is disputing that science must be "open to all" or that science is a social activity. Stop trying to put fake arguments in the mouths of your critics LBird.  You assert "The final arbiter of 'truth' must be society: if necessary, all 7 billion must vote. Socialism must start from the premise that 'scientific explanation' is understandable by all" But we are not talking  vaguely of "scientific explanation" are we? We are talking quite specifically of scientific theories. Thousands upon thousands of them. In every conceivable branch of science. You are saying that all 7 billion of us must vote on them.  I have no idea how many scientific theories come into circulation every year but let us say 10,000.  So you are proposing to organise 10,000 annual plebiscites globally on the validity of each of these scientific theories.  This is quite apart from the literally billions of decisions affecting the global production system  as a whole which, according to you, also have to be made by the global population of 7 billion in your centrally planned hyper-Leninist economy since you seem to have ruled out any kind of local decision making (it would be "elitist", according to you, for the local population to claim to know what is best for their locality. they must fall in line with what the global population decides for them) So just on the question of determining the "truth" of scientific theory that means the annual figure for ballot papers sent out (or their electronic equivalent) comes to …wait for it70,000,000,000,000.Of course all these votes have to be counted, addresses have to be checked in case of fraud and so on. So we are talking about many millions of hours of social labour being diverted away from producing food, building houses or sweeping streets… But thats only scratching the surface isn't it?   In order to vote on a particular scientific theory you need to know what the scientific theory is about. You cant just vote on something if you haven't got a clue what the issue is, can you?  So that means billions of pages of research papers, articles, books  and what not have to be made available to each of your 7 billion inhabitants .  They will be expected to digest the contents of all this material to arrive at an informed decision according to you.  'Cos there is no point in voting for something if you don't know whether to vote one way or another. I think even you, by now , can see that this whole idea of yours is well, to put it mildly ….a little silly.  There is no way on earth that it is going to be implemented.  It is logistically impossible. Even for the whole population to fully grasp  the ramifications of a single scientific theory arising in a single branch of science would require a mammoth effort.  It takes years of study to acquire the background knowledge of, say, neuroscience in order to competently  determine the validity of some scientific theory arising in the domain of neuroscience. Is this an elitist view of science? Not at all.  You constantly misunderstand this point.  Elitism implies a socially imposed barrier put in the way of individuals to advance their understanding of  and contribute to, a given discipline. I've said quite clearly that I totally opposed to any such barriers being imposed. The fact that inevitably and inescapably only a few individuals are going to end up as competent neuroscientists is purely a function of the social division of labour  and of the opportunity costs of the decisions you take. If you decide to become a competent neurosurgeon that means you are going to have to devote years of study to becoming that , time that you will not be able to devote to becoming a competent structural engineer for example.  You hate having to face up to this simple fact because it totally demolishes your entire ridiculous flimsy argument. Thats why you run away from the probing questions asked of you.  You don't want to have to face up to the absurd implications of your own arguments Instead you disssemble and deceive.  You claim that this means I am advocating a society in which there is a tiny elite of scientists on the one hand and the rest of us on the other.  You conveniently forget that the competent structural engineer is part of the "rest of us" as far the  community of competent neuroscientists is concerned while the competent neuroscientist is also part of the rest of us as far as the community of structural engineers is concernedAlso, ironically, the only one who is taking an elitist view of science is you  because you look down your nose on those of the "rest of us" as being non scientific in what we do  which is why you want us to all to swot up and study every minute of the day to become like a  "proper scientist".  But I insist that what I do as a gardener and ground maintenance worker involves "science" even if you with your elitist view of science cannot see this.  We are all scientific in that sense. Its just that we are also all different – necessarily   

LBird wrote:

And 'special individuals', like you, who will not have their comrades 'telling them what to think!'. Who needs the aid of their comrades to think, when they have access to a disinterested, neutral method, beloved of all 'special individuals', who hanker for 'free association', rather than 'workers' power'.Individualists always reject democracy, because democracy implies power outside of the individual.

 Firstly, you are assuming what you need to prove.  Democracy does indeed imply power outside of the individual but I ask you again – what is the point of voting on a scientific theory? You have never ever explained this.  Your inane response is scientific knowledge is a "social product"  which is quite true in a trite sense but I have pointed out to you that because something is a social product does not ipso facto mean it must be subjected to democratic control. My toothbrush is a social product.  Is the global population of  7 billion going to vote to decide whether I should be allowed to have a toothbrush or when I might use it Secondly regarding your jibe that 'special individuals', like me, will not have their comrades 'telling them what to think! – yes indeed!  I don't want to be "told what to think".  I'm not an 'effin sheep.  Your whole argument ironically reeks of elitism.  Note that what I am saying doesn't mean that I am not open to persuasion by others.  But if I am going to persuaded to change my mind and fall in line with what they think, I want to be persuaded on the merits of the arguments they present  not on the mere fact that they disagree with me  and are more numerous than me.  If you had your way LBird we would still be stuck in the middle ages when when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth .  There could be no structural possibility of ever changing this position because according to you the dissident minority who believed otherwise would have to stifle their thoughts and fall in line with the "majority".  That is because they would have to be told what to think. necessarily what you are advocating perpetuates the status quo by defintion In de facto terms what you are advocating is the most reactionary, anti-scientific anti-critical and  anti-communist crap ever to grace this forum. In real terms you are calling for a totally static society from which all criticism has been expunged by the alleged dictatorship of the majority which in practise because of the sheer impossibility of what you advocate will turn out to be tiny technocartic minority who will impose their will on the majority while pretending to represent that majority. And the biggest irony of all is that you are more stubbornly "individualist " on your terms than anyone else on this forum!  You will simply not have people telling you what to think but will drone on and on and one with the same old tedious mantra. Quite clearly you regard yourself as a " very special individual" who cannot possibly be wrong  even though just about everyone else regards (some of) your  views as verging on the insane So why is that the rest  of have to be told what to think by their comrades , L Bird , but not you, eh? I would really be interested to know but my guess is that once again you going to duck the question

[LBird]

robbo, the core issue is one of 'power'.Read what Pannekoek thought of 'professors'.Your view that an elite knows better than society is a bourgeois ideology.We socialists have to start from the premise that 'we' know better than 'professors'.The organisation of that premise into political terms is a task for the revolutionary proletariat to take forward.If one starts from the premise that an elite knows better than the majority, then the organisation of our science will be on that basis. In fact, it will then simply mirror the bourgeois organisation of science, and retain power in the hands of a minority.This is the philosophical basis of Leninism, that a minority have a 'special consciousness' not available to 'the masses', and thus the organisational structures are formed upon that assumption.Unless we start from 'democracy' and 'mass consciousness', then I think that Leninist conceptions will triumph.I thought, when I first came to this site, that the SPGB shared my ideological premises, concerning democracy and mass consciousness, but I think that, in fact, no-one here seems to. I certainly get no visible support – whether there is a still silent strand who sympathise, I don't know. On the surface, other posters seem hostile to 'democratic science' and the democratic production of truth.All your arguments seem to be premised on elitism and the inabilities of the majority. I don't see that as leading to any form of 'socialism' that I'd recognise.But then, I'm an anti-elitist and a democrat. I think that the best judge of 'truth' is a majority employing democracy, not a minority pretending to have a method we can't understand.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Get off your knees, Vin. We have a world to win.'We', notice, not 'I'.

I am off my knees and supporting the SPGB at this election trying to convince workers one by one to organise for revolution . Notice how it is up to the individual workers to decide the truth of the situation. What are you doing about it? You are trolling a website of workers trying to organise for socialism with your confused silly little arguments and straw men.A revolution requires individuals to become class conscious before we can all become class conscious. Society is the sum total of human relationships. 'truth' is a social product. This is O level sociology stuff. Move on. Stop setting them up to knock them  down.  

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,Given that Pannekoek was a professor, that means his opinions of professors was a bourgeois lie, and that professors are on our side, which means he's right, and they're on the side of the bouregsoisie, which means he's lying, and they're on our side, which means they're on their side…Of course, his own history of Astronomy does make fascinating reading for the actual relationship between science and society…

[alanjjohnstone]

I can't wait for that moment when i'm present when all those involved in these several related threads meet up in the pub and have had a few pints to lubricate their throats and thoughts….It will be a dynamite experience, dwarving Marx v Bakunin, Lenin v Martov …I'm serious about the drama and the spectacle i expect to witness when such an encounter materialises 

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

LBird,Given that Pannekoek was a professor, that means his opinions of professors was a bourgeois lie, and that professors are on our side, which means he's right, and they're on the side of the bouregsoisie, which means he's lying, and they're on our side, which means they're on their side…

Oh, how clever, YMS! Wordplay!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I can't wait for that moment when i'm present when all those involved in these several related threads meet up in the pub and have had a few pints to lubricate their throats and thoughts….It will be a dynamite experience, dwarving Marx v Bakunin, Lenin v Martov …I'm serious about the drama and the spectacle i expect to witness when such an encounter materialises 

I'm too much of a shithouse to attend, alan…. I'd get lynched!By an overwhelming, nay unanimous, democratic decision, of course!Hoists and petards spring to mind…

[Author]

Posts