Science for Communists?

[lindanesocialist]

LBird wrote:

 and you'll be consigned to the lowest level of hell, here with me. 

vin said: excuse me but you are not at the lowest level. I am.  Looking forward to chatting when you reach the bottom but looks like you will be in hell with an evil materialist. 

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

LBird wrote:

 and you'll be consigned to the lowest level of hell, here with me. 

vin said: excuse me but you are not at the lowest level. I am.  Looking forward to chatting when you reach the bottom but looks like you will be in hell with an evil materialist. 

I couldn't be with a more suitable comrade, Vin!Or, ……should that be "I couldn't be with a more suitable comrade, ripe for conversion to democratic production of 'truth', Vin!

[LBird]

Lew wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, "the above statement is true".'Truth' is socially-produced, and the statement that I (and I think alan) make is a socially-produced one, with a political underpinning, that allows us to change 'truth', because it is humans that produce 'truth'.

How, why and where did the above statement (concerning Marx's notion of truth) become socially-produced as true?– Lew

How? By the future democratic decision of the class conscious, revolutionary proletariat.Why? Because without 'democratic control of truth production', the CCRP would not have power over production.Where? In the future Workers' Councils.Of course, 'Marx's notion of truth' is not yet 'true', because there is at present another class in control of the 'notion of truth', but we have to argue, as socialists, for this revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth', so we can, err…, change our world, rather than just contemplate the 'Truth' that the bourgeoisie have built.They have a political interest in this debate – it's not just some arcane philosophical wrangle, but a key issue for the proletariat.

[Lew]

LBird wrote:

Of course, 'Marx's notion of truth' is not yet 'true', because there is at present another class in control of the 'notion of truth', but we have to argue, as socialists, for this revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth', so we can, err…, change our world, rather than just contemplate the 'Truth' that the bourgeoisie have built. 

So, by "true" you mean "not yet true". Or until the victorious proletariat decide otherwise, possibly true. Or possibly false. Or possibly meaningless. Who knows? It's anybody's guess. Actually, your own actions betray this essentially postmodernist approach. As a socialist there are things you believe about capitalism, about socialism which, to some extent at least, are true (and, conversely, things which are false). Rational political discourse depends on it. This includes your "revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth'" which, to make sense, you must believe is true and not merely "not yet true".After all, what is the point of getting engaged in the struggle to change our world now if we can't decide what is true or false until after the revoltion.– Lew

[alanjjohnstone]

Apologies for perhaps not quite comprehending the meaning of this exchange between you and LBird, Lew.I just want to have it made clear that when we advocate socialism, we are not seeking to establish a static society. Economically, yes a steady-state production/consumption system but not culturally. Social relations within socialism will still evolve.How so I cannot say…it is something that the material conditions of living in socialism will determine and I can hardly be expected to predict what sort of consequences they will have, can I?Except, that is, for reaching general conclusions only in regard to the differences it will mean from living in capitalism. Which is sufficient for us to make our case for a better system of society. Perhaps today I have been reading too much Dietzgen but this struck me as an interesting statement.

Quote:

“With the final triumph of social-democracy, human culture will start on its road of conscious and endless progress. Until now mankind advanced in a more or less unconscious manner. It is only we social-democrats who deliberately put the principle of progress to the front. Until now all progressive parties had defined limits which, when once reached, checked their movement and turned action into reaction.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/works/1870s/ethics.htm

[LBird]

Lew wrote:

So, by "true" you mean "not yet true". Or until the victorious proletariat decide otherwise, possibly true. Or possibly false. Or possibly meaningless. Who knows? It's anybody's guess.

No, by 'true', I mean 'created by the proletariat'. As Marx says, we create our object. So, it's not 'possibly' true or false, or 'meaningless' or 'anybody's guess'. It's a political, philosophical and epistemological belief, which one can either subscribe to, or subscribe to another.If one is arguing for the democratic control of production, ie., socialism/communism, then this practice must be predicated on a theory, which determines the practice. Marx's 'social theory and practice'. I always ask, if not the theory of 'democratic control of production', what other theory can underlie your understanding of socialism? It's open to you to disagree with 'democratic control of truth', but you should say what your alternative is, so that other comrades can compare the theories. 

Lew wrote:

Actually, your own actions betray this essentially postmodernist approach.

There's nothing 'postmodernist' about the 'democratic control of production'. I suspect that you're an Engelsian Materialist, to whom any attack on 'materialism' is a blend of 'idealism' and 'postmodernism'.

Lew wrote:

As a socialist there are things you believe about capitalism, about socialism which, to some extent at least, are true (and, conversely, things which are false). Rational political discourse depends on it. This includes your "revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth'" which, to make sense, you must believe is true and not merely "not yet true".

Yes, but I'm a socialist, and so my beliefs must include the belief that 'truth' is a social product, and that the proletariat can control the production of truth – otherwise, what's the point of claiming to be a socialist, if one thinks that 'truth production' can be left to an 'elite'? It's not my idea of 'democratic control of production'.

Lew wrote:

After all, what is the point of getting engaged in the struggle to change our world now if we can't decide what is true or false until after the revoltion.

Who's arguing that we can't decide what is true of false until after the revolution? I've never said that.I've always argued that the class conscious revolutionary proletariat can only decide what 'truth' is by a democratic vote. That can not only take place prior to a revolution, but must be a building block of class organisation.Otherwise, the decision of what is 'true' will be in the hands of an elite. That, in my book, is the political method of Leninism, that an elite cadre with a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the wider class, is to decide what is 'true or false'.This is all part of building up a confident, conscious class movement.Of course, like the SPGB (apparently), you could argue that workers cannot democratically decide the 'truth' or 'falsity' of any social truth, but if you do, I can't see how you will be able to attract communist workers to your party. You're more likely to attract either elitists, who wish to be the ones making the decisions for the proletariat, or unconfident, non-class-conscious workers, who wish to be told by an elite what the 'truth' is. To me, neither are a sound basis for a revolutionary party of workers.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Apologies for perhaps not quite comprehending the meaning of this exchange between you and LBird, Lew.

The 'meaning of this exchange', alan, is 'who is to control production – an elite or the proletariat?'.I'm arguing, like Marx, for 'the proletariat'. It's not quite clear to me yet just who Lew is proposing should control the production of 'truth'. Perhaps Lew will clarify just who is their 'active agent of truth production'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If one is arguing for the democratic control of production, ie., socialism/communism, then this practice must be predicated on a theory, which determines the practice. Marx's 'social theory and practice'. I always ask, if not the theory of 'democratic control of production', what other theory can underlie your understanding of socialism? It's open to you to disagree with 'democratic control  I've always argued that the class conscious revolutionary proletariat can only decide what 'truth' is by a democratic vote. That can not only take place prior to a revolution, but must be a building block of class organisation.Otherwise, the decision of what is 'true' will be in the hands of an elite. That, in my book, is the political method of Leninism, that an elite cadre with a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the wider class, is to decide what is 'true or false'. 

 "Democratic control of production" and "deciding what is the truth by a democratic vote" are two totally different things and LBird has yet to grasp this simple point Democratic control of production is, of course, what socialist democracy is all about.  It is both eminently practicable and desirable. The  determination of what is the truth, on the other hand  (and LBird has previously talked about this in relation to the truth of scientific theory)  by means of a democratic vote carried out by  a" class conscious revolutionary proletariat" , is complete nonsense on stilts. Firstly its completely pointless, not to say absurdly ritualistic/festishistic.  Why go through the enormous expense of organising a democratic vote on the merits of , say, String Theory just to demonstrate its "truth"?  To what end?  What difference is it supposed to make? I can perfectly understand how a decision in respect of how to allocate a particular resource could make a difference but how is this true of a scientific theory?  If you were an opponent of String theory you would be pretty miserable excuse of an opponent if you were to be cowed into abandoning your rival theory merely because a majority favoured String Theory.   This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion Secondly, it is completely unpracticaable. There are literally tens of thousands of scientific theories being churned out every year.   How is the truth of each of these to be determined by a democratic vote of a global population of 7 billion people under socialism?.  There is also something called a social division of labour which L Bird seems completely oblivious to.  Most of us will know nothing of, and have little interest in, String theory though each of us might have some passionate interest in some other area of human knowledge.  By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of  interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this. This has got nothing to do with "elitism". The small minority interested in String Theory is not going to be the same small minority interested in some arcane theory in molecular biology or plate tectonics.  Moreover elitism implies the imposition of barriers that would prevent an individual joining the ranks of the few who have a special interest in some particular field. No one here is advocating the imposition of such barriers that I am aware. One should be completely free to pursue whatever interest(s) one has in  a socialist society as far as I am concerned What I am saying is that the fact that there may well be only a few with a special interest in some particular subject and knowledgeable enough to vote upon some abstruse theory pertaining to that subject is NOT a product of elitism but rather it is a function of the social division of labour which exists in society and, indeed, is getting more complex and elaborate with every passing year. LBird needs to learn the difference between these two things

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird needs to learn the difference between these two things

And what anyone reading needs to know is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and robbo isn't.That means that I argue that only the proletariat can decide what is 'true' and what isn't.robbo seems to argue that only an elite can decide what is 'true' and what isn't. He's given some of the reasons why he thinks that this is so.I follow Marx in arguing that social theory and practice creates our object.robbo doesn't follow Marx on this.It would be easier for all if robbo would be open about what he thinks 'socialism' is.I define it as 'the democratic control of production' – robbo seems to see it as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'individual freedom'.We'd all get a lot further if posters would tell us all their particular ideology of science, and where it comes from.I always point out the socio-historic nature of the bourgeois belief in 'elite science', but it seems that other posters don't want to reveal the source of their ideas.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion

So, I argue for democratic control, and robbo argues that this is 'intellectual totalitarianism'.This is standard cold war scare tactics, that any sniff of democracy in any area where an elite currently has all the power, is tantamount to 'dictatorship'.I have a higher opinion about the intellectual abilities of workers, and their collective decision making about scientific research and the interests and purposes that it serves.robbo seems to regard workers as unwanted and dangerous fools, who, if let loose with 'physics', would return to witchcraft.It's elitism dressed up as concern for 'standards'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Most of us will know nothing of, and have little interest in…

It's nice to see that robbo has a very low opinion of what class conscious workers who've carried out a revolution will care about.I don't know why robbo just doesn't sneer, and say that "most workers will be busy eating free burgers and getting pissed and high, to do any 'complex' or 'educated' activities".To me, socialism will mean that most of us will know far more than we do now, and be far better educated, and be far more interested in everything to do with being human, including scientific research.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of  interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this.

Honest and frank?You might as well say to any workers just starting to take an interest in socialism, science, and its possibilities, 'Fuck off, thickoes, and leave it all to your betters!'That would be 'honest and frank' about robbo's political views.

[Lew]

LBird wrote:

It's not quite clear to me yet just who Lew is proposing should control the production of 'truth'. Perhaps Lew will clarify just who is their 'active agent of truth production'.

This is, I think, meaningless. But let's try another tack. How would you answer the question: Why should workers become socialist?– Lew

[LBird]

Lew wrote:

LBird wrote:

It's not quite clear to me yet just who Lew is proposing should control the production of 'truth'. Perhaps Lew will clarify just who is their 'active agent of truth production'.

This is, I think, meaningless.

That's what non-democrats always say when asked, 'if not democracy, what method?'To elitists, talk of democracy is always 'meaningless'.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of  interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this.

Honest and frank?You might as well say to any workers just starting to take an interest in socialism, science, and its possibilities, 'Fuck off, thickoes, and leave it all to your betters!'That would be 'honest and frank' about robbo's political views.

Off you go again using sophisms and fallacy to back up your argument. Robbo clearly isn't saying that any worker taking an interest in Socialism, science and it's possibilities might as well be told to fuck off. What he iaying is that it is likely that many areas of science are likely to be of little interest to many people. A classic example of your use of the straw man fallacy. You have asked on a previous thread why I don't engage with you seriously, here lies your answer, your repeated use of fallacious logic, time and time again.Incidentally as part of a degree I was taking I was required to undertake a study of holly leaf miners. they are the larvae of Agromyzidae flies and feed exclusively on holly leaves. there are various theories about their life cycle, and I must say after several months of studying these larvae, I couldn't give a flying fuck about them, the flies they become and any theory as to their existance. In a socialist society I can't imagine a situation where I could give a toss about them either, I'm fairly sure that many millions, if not billions have a similar view of the holly leaf miner. I fear many abstentions in your science referenda.

[Author]

Posts