The Thoughts of Chamsy

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

…rational thought, Enlightenment values and science…

It's possible to read this as meaning 'positivism', stuart.For me, the only way to realise the ideals of rationality, values and science is through democratic control of the means of production; and this clearly includes scientific knowledge and truth.Science is a social activity, an activity which has changed through history, and must be under the democratic control of society.Unless one identifies "rational thought, Enlightenment values and science" with academic experts and an elite, who are out of the control of workers.

[stuartw2112]

Actually, yes, I do believe that rational thought, Enlightenment values and science should be independent of political control – that it should be pursued by independent, critically aware, free individuals, who combine for the pursuit of common interests, and not be placed under the control of or be subservient to any collective ideology. That's Lysenkoism.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Actually, yes, I do believe that rational thought, Enlightenment values and science should be independent of political control – that it should be pursued by independent, critically aware, free individuals, who combine for the pursuit of common interests, and not be placed under the control of or be subservient to any collective ideology.

Thanks for your very clear statement here, stuart.You're arguing that science is non-political, should be controlled by an elite of special individuals, 'free' from society, who themselves define 'common interests', and that they shouldn't be under democratic control.This is the antithesis of any idea of socialism, which argues for political self-control by the whole of society of all of society's doings.I can only asume that your version of socialism would be similar to your view of science: control by an independent elite of experts, following an individualist ideology.

stuartw2112 wrote:

That's Lysenkoism.

I'm afraid that's the Soviet Union, stuart, and nothing to do with 'workers' democracy', but control by a party separate from workers' democratic control. In fact, a party 'independent of political control' by workers, a cadre of 'individuals' who were 'free' of workers' power, and not 'under the control of or subservient to a collective ideology', like democracy.Leninism and positivism are closely aligned.

[stuartw2112]

You say that I make a clear statement, then ignore it and put words in my mouth! So I'll ignore most of it. As for the Societ Union having nothing to do with "workers democracy", well, that's your ideology. I have other ideas. But according to your own oft-repeated ideology, there can be no point resolution to the debate by referring to the facts. So I guess that's our conversation over.

[LBird]

That's a shame, stuart.I thought for once I'd been able to have a reasoned discussion with one of the positivists, who argue that science is non-political, without any nastiness.I haven't 'put words in your mouth', simply teased out the implications of arguing for non-political science, presided over by an unelected elite, who produce 'knowledge' without democratic controls. And 'free individuals' is what most bourgeois ideologists keep stressing, not socialists who think workers can run both their own lives as individuals and their society as a collective. The former in fact depends upon the latter.Well, you haven't actually called me any nasty names, so I'll just bid you a reluctant farewell.

[stuartw2112]

 You've missed my point again, one I've made a few times now, but you haven't grasped it, perhaps because I've been making it in sentences dripping with sarcasm. So I'll try one more time, without the irony! You say here that you wish to discuss, among others things, whether and to what extent science is political. Rather than try to tell you my view, I ask what the point is. If, as you say, our respective ideologies are socially determined, and individuals can only see what they want to see, and "the facts" are no use to us because ideologically contested, what is the point? I ask you, in all seriousness, what the point is. Because, if we were going to discuss it seriously, genuinely, wouldn't we have to begin by assuming that one or both of us were wrong? Granted, it's rare for there to be any genuine meeting of minds, on Internet discussion forums least of all. But if we don't grant the possibility of deciding between rival ideas, as individuals, by referring to what we at least believe to be the facts, what is the point of the discussion? I predict that you won't answer this question but will merely reiterate your position. Either way, my question will be answered.  

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I predict that you won't answer this question but will merely reiterate your position. Either way, my question will be answered.

Got you, stuart. An answer which doesn't re-iterate, but leaves you unanswered.The third option, unforeseen by you.Bit like idealism-materialism, for the Engelsists.I'll leave you to your sarcasm and irony. Or mine.

[ALB]

Chamsy Ojelli knew the New Zealand party and entered into correspondence with us. He visited us when he was over here in the 1990s (I think). So he knows us fairly well.  We asked for a review copy of his 2003 book  From Left Communism to Postmodernism but the publishers never sent us one. Although sympathetic to postmodernism (as reflected in his views on science) he is another example of how we have more influence than we sometimes realise..

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Although sympathetic to postmodernism (as reflected in his views on science) he is another example of how we have more influence than we sometimes realise..

I'm not so sure about this, ALB.His views, as expressed in the selections I quoted, are far closer to mine (with the emphasis on ideology in theory and science) than that of those opposed to my views on this site (your 'we').I'm not sure about po-mo, either. One of the key tenets of that is individualism, whereas I think he was arguing for democracy. No po-mo that I've heard of has argued for 'truth being decided by a vote', they all seem to think it's all to do with individual minds and experience.Perhaps your characterisation of 'po-mo' is more to do with your views about science, rather than his?After all, Marx was a relativist, as was Einstein, but neither would be characterised as 'po-mo', if they were alive today.I think po-mo has more to do with the belief by academics that workers can't take democratic control of the means of production, and thus can't take control of science. And since everybody knows that science doesn't produce 'The Truth' (including many physicists), it thus seems a small step to locate 'truth' in individual minds (especially in the minds of 'academics', like the po-mo crowd).

[ALB]

I see the cap fitted

[ALB]

This has prompted me to dig out some articles he sent me in 2003. Besides the one Alan mentions, there another on "Post-modernism, the Return to Ethics, and the Crisis of Socialist Values" which has since been published on the internet here:http://www.democracynature.org/vol8/ojeili_ethics.htmIt's heavy going but you can see where he's coming from (and going to).                                                                                                                                                                                                       

[alanjjohnstone]

A couple of hours ago, I took the liberty of contacting Chamsy by e-mail and informing him of this thread and inviting him to contribute. This is his surprisingly swift reply

Quote:

Really nice to get your message. I have super-fond memories of the spgb and the companion party here. I met a bunch of the wonderful spgb folk around the time of the gulf war of 1991, and always loved the paper.I would like to contribute – and have probably altered my positions on a bunch of things in the intervening period. I might need a few weeks, though, as I’ve been suffering some pretty heavy duty grief over events in my life over the past few weeks. I’m hoping things are settling, and once I’ve caught up with the pile of neglected work in front of me, I’d be honoured to offer some thoughts (though knowing the high calibre of the spgb people I’m not sure I’ll have anything terribly interesting or surprising to say).Yours for socialismChamsy

 So it is a matter of watching this space and perhaps having your questions and observations ready for his responses. 

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

This has prompted me to dig out some articles he sent me in 2003. Besides the one Alan mentions, there another on "Post-modernism, the Return to Ethics, and the Crisis of Socialist Values" which has since been published on the internet here:http://www.democracynature.org/vol8/ojeili_ethics.htm                                                                                                                                                                                                       It's heavy going but you can see where he's coming from (and going to).

Thanks for the link, ALB.I've quickly read (rather than studied) the article, and I can't see too much to disagree with. He doesn't specifically discuss 'science and democracy' (unless I've missed it and you can point me to it), but I think that that's where he's pointing towards (as you say, 'going to').I especially think that robbo and YMS would benefit from the passages about Castoriadis and his criticisms of individualism and the need for democracy. I hope that they take this recommendation in the comradely spirit that is intended.Finally, I should say that, if I had read the article even as recently as 18 months ago, I don't think I would have really understood it. I think that that gain in my ability to understand has been achieved due to my battles here, where I have been compelled, by the disagreements of comrades, to delve ever deeper into the philosophical issues surrounding science and democracy.So, my thanks are due to you, ALB, and my other opponents.The downside, though, is that I think I've failed to help in the development of other comrades in their thinking about these issues. It pains me to say it, but I think most here still think in exactly the same way as the day that I first started to ask for critical discussion about Schaff and the relationship between subject, object and knowledge.Crucially, my personal advancement in understanding is simply not enough, either for me or my class.

[Author]

Posts