[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course everything that happens is objective…

Hmmm… surely the 'objective' exists before the 'happening', and the 'subjective' causes the 'happening', thus creating a new 'objective'?In short, humans change reality. But an existing reality must exist first. That is, the material conditions of the economic and ideological (industry and consciousness) are objective, and then the subjective act of the proletariat changes the political structure.I think defining what we consider to be the 'objective' conditions is at the heart of the issue with Alf and the ICC. I think that this definition of what conditions exactly are 'objective' has political implications about the timing, nature, extent and purposes of the revolution.PS. I think I agree with the rest of the political points that you make.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

An ever present part of the SPGB case is the necessity of socialists for the establishment of socialism, so LBird i guess you are correct about consciouness being an objective requirement for ourselves.

[my italics and bold]Do I get a gold star?Well, it serves the didactic purpose of throwing the SPGB's and the ICC's positions into sharp relief.The perspective follows from that theoretical base.The ICC thinks that all the proletariat needs is a party, now, at present. Objectively, the class is ready. This gives a shorter perspective.The SPGB (and I) thinks that all the proletariat needs is consciousness, then, in the future. Objectively, the class is not ready. This gives a longer perspective.

[LBird]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

B.t.w. LBird, I agree with your point about class consciousness being an objective factor – ideas constituting a material reality, being a material factor in society.

Yeah, ideas are 'real'. Only the mechanical materialists, that Marx thought he'd gone beyond, see any mention of 'ideas' as constituting 'idealism'. I was accused of that for stressing Marx's 'active side' on the other thread.

pfbcarlisle wrote:

But as someone who has spent decades avoiding philosophy and science – and the science of philosophy, and the philosophy of science – I daren't say owt else about these matters

It's the job of communists who've studied these issues to explain them in clearer language than the academics, who make a career (and salaries) out of making it all seem too complicated for us thickoes to understand.Comrades asking questions, and demanding simpler explanations, are the key to the process – being forced to explain properly also teaches the 'teacher'. Learners teach 'teachers'. I learn everytime I try to explain.Pity I can't do it properly, yet.

[LBird]

Hello, again, Alf!

Alf wrote:

It seems to me that LBird and the SPGB do share a lot in their conception of how the majority become communist, even if the former sees this taking place through elections to the workers' councils and the latter primarily through elections to parliament.

Yeah, I'm still not too sure about the SPGB approach, perhaps its difference from mine is only one of emphasis.I'd expect the proletariat to begin to set up its own institutions (on a growing scale, educational circles, district co-ordinations, etc., preparing for, through experience, organisation and spirit, and leading to, workers' councils). But this could take place in conjunction with a parliamentary campaign, used as a 'thermometer' of class consciousness of the even wider proletariat. The taking of power in this scenario would be a conjunction of autonomous physical power of the councils combined with the ideological power of 'winning a democratic vote' in the eyes of those waverers still hamstrung by 'parliamentarism', including other classes like the petit-bourgeosie and state employees, like soldiers, police and civil servants.I'm not too clear on all this, and can only learn from a discussion, here.But don't forget, neither Lenin nor Luxembourg were successful revolutionaries, so while of course we should read their ideas, we are now a century later and have ourselves learned a thing or two since they lived, thought and fought.Not least, mass consciousness is a pre-requisite, otherwise the 'leaders' have to do the 'thinking' for a mass who don't fully understand what they are doing.The 'benighted' proletariat won't 'stumble into' communism, by the grace of 'revolutionaries'.This is why I'd argue that 'class consciousness' is an objective factor, which doesn't yet exist.

[LBird]

Socialist Standard, 1906, wrote:

Socialism is possible when the workers, organised in the Socialist Party, proceed to establish it.

[my bold]Sounds like the SPGB agree with me, that 'class consciousness' is an objective requirement for communism, and that this objective requirement does not yet exist (or didn't in 1906, and the SPGB still thinks that this is the case). This puts us at odds with Alf.

Alf wrote:

On the 'maturity' of conditions. We think that decadence implies that the 'objective' conditions for communism have existed for a long time – about 100 years.

[my bold]Is this the essential difference between 'Leninists' and 'Marxists'? Leninists think that the objective conditions already exist, and so their party can introduce communism by subjective action; ie. they are voluntarists?Whereas Marxists put the emphasis on the class having consciousness before communism, and so we, as a class, are clearly not yet ripe for communism, whatever actions a party takes to 'introduce' it?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i said when i began the thread , my purpose was to use a criticism of an ex-member of the ICC who share a certain amount of similarity to ourselves as an organisation and it was intended to be more an inward looking thread. … But discussion list threads take on a life of their own.

Well, to focus on your starting point…

alanjjohnstone wrote:

To start off a discussion, my first question is …Has the SPGB made any mistakes? If so , what were or are they?

What is the SPGB 'line' on 'class consciousness', related to this thread? Is it 'subjective' as Alf suggests, or 'objective', as I've suggested.Further, related to our discussions on the 'free access' thread, what is the SPGB position on the 'democratic control of science'?I would argue that if the SPGB's answers are, respectively, 'subjective' and 'elite specialist control', then I think that 'the SPGB has made mistakes'.I could be wrong, of course…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

This may be of interest http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/19/big-science-little-minds/ 'science fears that if it were more honest (and humble) about such matters it would lose its social authority. They don’t want that and the people who employ them, the government and corporations, do not want that…

No mention of 'democracy' in science within the article.Reiterates the problems with 'science' within capitalist society, but misses the opportunity to label it as 'bourgeois science' and make a plea for 'communist science' and the democratic control of human science by all humans.The danger with just lambasting 'science', without picking out what we consider the rational aspects of the method, is that it leaves open the road to romantics, post-modernism, relativism, individual opinion… witches, myths, ghosts…Our criticisms of 'science' must be constructive criticisms, not the destruction of 'science' in its entirety.We can afford to be 'more honest (and humble) about such matters' because our communist science would locate 'its social authority' in humanity, not specialists (or 'the people who employ them, the government and corporations').We need to build a case for 'science' that current scientists, disaffected by their experience of current 'science', can support.'Free access communism' would embrace the sort of blue-sky research that today's scientists can only dream about. Plus, scientific education available to all, freely available publications, etc., would show scientists that the only way of achieving their own dream of what science should be about would be by f.a.c.A questioning, critical humanity.

[LBird]

Alf wrote:

On the 'maturity' of conditions. We think that decadence implies that the 'objective' conditions for communism have existed for a long time – about 100 years. …The question of 'maturity' is mainly about the subjective conditions – so once again we are back to the question of class consciousness.

Hiya, Alf. I hope you don’t mind me participating in this debate, once again.The simplest way I can phrase my disagreement is to put it like this:I regard ‘class consciousness’ as an objective condition. The ‘objective’ conditions for communism do not yet exist, and never have yet, because the international proletariat has never come anywhere near the ‘majority class consciousness’ that is an objective condition for even any ‘initial stage’ of communism.It’s not lack of industry, or lack of proletariat, or lack of party: it’s simply the lack of a class conscious proletariat.In contrast, the subjective conditions are the political choices that the class conscious proletariat itself considers are available for the overthrowing of the bourgeoisie, whether slow or quick, peaceful, insurrectionary, parliamentary coup against the executive, full blown war or another method as yet undreamt (perhaps proletarian computer viruses to weaken the workings of capitalism?).In my opinion, anyone supporting a Bolshevik party which embodies a minority of ‘class conscious revolutionaries’ who will ‘educate’ the class and claims to provide leadership, and that workers will learn ‘on the hoof’ during ‘struggle’, is leading us towards a repetition of the twentieth century’s mistakes. The conscious proletariat will embody disagreements far too profound for any one political party to contain, because of any party’s central aim of unity. Dissent is educative for workers, not ‘following the knowing leader in struggle’.Class consciousness will encompass the creative tensions of disunity.I know that I’ve painted our disagreement in bright colours, ignoring shades, but that is to provide a vivid contrast of our opposed ideas, to hopefully illuminate this debate.I'm sticking my neck out on this one!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It's just that you keeping on bringing up your "Mengele Commission" jibe (at least twice now, the last in the post to which I was replying).

Well, it was supposed to be a joke.If you haven't taken it as so, I can only apologise profusely. I'm sorry, comrade.By way of explanation, I was trying to throw into sharp relief the fact that, if one agrees with 'social control of science' (as we both do), but doesn't agree with that 'control' being democratic, the implication is an undemocratic control by 'experts', like 'scientists'. And as Mengele was a 'scientist' (as were his university professors, for whom he did the research on genetics (twins, vivisection of pregnant mothers, etc.)), then it seems, to me, applicable to name this 'undemocratic control commission' after a Nazi scientist.This makes clear my opinion of the dangers of looking to 'scientists' to police 'science'.Once again, I'm sorry that the 'jibe' fell flat: it wasn't aimed at you personally, but a political position, that of a non-democratic authority for a 'value-free' (sic) science, an 'authority of scientists'.Science, like production, must be a mass activity. No separation of the economy or science from the whole of humanity.'Science', like private productive property, will cease to be in its current form.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't know where this idea of an "authority" to control science comes from. It's a figment of your imagination. In fact the nearest person to propose something of this sort has been yourself with your suggestion that it should be overseen by "class-conscious proletarian Communists".

[my bold]So, only I think 'science' is social and thus must, by that nature, be under social control?

ALB, same post, wrote:

All we can do is say that science policy and scientific research will, like everything else, be subject to overall democratic control. We can also assume that research establishments will, like all other workplaces, be run on a democratic basis with an elected works council.

[my bold]Perhaps you have a short memory, ALB. Plus, the tone of your post ('it's a figment of your imagination') is less than comradely.If a 'council' isn't an 'authority', and your 'we' means 'me', then perhaps you're correct that this is all my 'imagination'. Let's hope the other posters can democratically decide between our accounts, eh?

ALB wrote:

That's how 'science' works. Much as happens today.

But that is not 'how science works' – that's what this whole discussion has been about. The bourgeois myth of 'the workings of science'. The myth that, if left to themselves, 'scientists' will just do 'science'.I'm not sure why your attitude to these issues (and me?) has changed – I thought that yesterday we'd all come to some comradely agreement about 'science', especially given the 1975 post by Adam Buick. That's long before I attempted to understand these vital issues for Communists.Can we leave personal considerations out of the discussion, and merely debate the issue of 'the social control of science'? Please, comrade.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But if 'democratic control' means that all people potentially have a say in the decision making process then there is no conflict. Anyone who had the desire and capacity to fill a particular role would be able to undertake the relevant training required to be able to do it…..So in a society of common ownership those who have an interest and ability for scientific work would be able to freely develop and apply there skills and expertise.

I can go along with this, DJP. It equates to 'democratic control of science', to all intents and purposes.I think what you've said about 'specialists', like pilots, is a red herring, which was addressed earlier in the thread with respect to 'an authority' (ALB or alanjjohnstone?).

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Though to avoid the confusion between 'truth' and 'The Truth', perhaps it would be clearer and better to talk of sceintific 'hypotheses' instead of scientific 'truths'?

No, 'scientific hypotheses' are theories which determine what is acceptable as evidence.'Scientific truths' are partial answers based upon the selected evidence.The reason to distinguish between 'truth' and 'The Truth' is to demarcate 'science' (as we've defined it on this thread, following Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek and Buick) from 'bourgeois ideology masquerading as science'.I'd treat any scientist's words as comparable to a police officer giving evidence in court about a strike. It might be considered truthful by the striking workers (some coppers do tell the 'truth', a 'truth' which matches our perspective of events), but our experience means that we know that the police perspective is a bit, err, 'skewed', from our perspective.I regard any comrades who agree with 'the scientific method produces the unvarnished truth' as a bit like saying 'a copper wouldn't lie in court, would they?'. Call me cynical…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I am sure that all ALBuick meant by "revision" was something we've all already agreed on: that no scientific finding is final and absolute, but only tentative and partial in that, in the light of further evidence, research and theorising, it is liable to be changed ("revised") or even completely abandoned.

Yes, if my earlier summary of this issue is accepted…

LBird wrote:

There seem to be two conceptually separate, but practically related, issues being discussed.First, does science produce ‘The Truth’ by a neutral method (and so can be done by an individual or a small group of experts), or does it produce socially-related and thus biased ‘Truths’ (and as an activity done by a society is controlled by that society)?Secondly, if it is the latter (controlled social truths), then what is the nature of that control: democratic or elite expert?

…we all seemed to have come to an agreement that 'socially-related truths' controlled by society is answer to the first part. If anyone still does not understand (or indeed disagrees with this), they should ask for further explanation/discussion now.But the second part is still outstanding, I think.Should science (in all its manifestations and phases) under Communism be under the control of 'special experts' (ie. 'scientists') or democratic control?

ALB wrote:

That it meant that any scientific finding should have to go before some "revision board" is a mistaken reading of the passage.

Well, this denial of a 'revision board' lends itself to the latter answer of 'democratic control'. But I think clarification of your position is better, rather than me just making a possibly mistaken assumption. Could you spell out your position, if you have come to a final conclusion? If you haven't, we can continue to thrash it out.

ALB wrote:

I think you are becoming a bit hypersensitive

To the setting up of the 'Mengele Commission'? Yeah, I am a bit!

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

…that is what I was saying earlier, or trying to, natural phenomena = evidence.

No. 'Natural phenomena = crime scene'.'Evidence' is a selection from the 'crime scene' of things judged relevant by humans.Crime scene = object;Forensic scientist = subject.Evidence = knowledge;More (and differing) 'evidence' can be generated later by the defence's appointed forensic scientist.'Forensic science' can produce two 'evidential truths', which must be decided on by a 'jury'.The 'jury' must be under our democratic control.Hope this helps, Ed.

[LBird]

From ALB’s link to ‘Joseph Dietzgen’ blog article:

Adam Buick wrote:

But, says Dietzgen, we ought to know that stopping the stream of phenomena and classifying it into separate, fixed objects is only a mental operation, however vital to the survival of the human species….To state that things are mental constructs can give rise to the misunderstanding that you are saying that they are only mental constructs and that you are therefore an idealist who sees the external world as the creation of the mind.

[my bold]Yes, I’ve already been accused of that on this thread!Scientific knowledge is produced by humans and has the status of a ‘truth’. This ‘truth’ is not the same thing as the independently-existing object, of which some ‘knowledge’ has been actively constructed by humans. Thus, humans being fallible, a ‘truth’ (scientific knowledge) might be actually untrue. This can be revealed by other humans interrogating the same independently-existing object and actively constructing another ‘truth’ which is then judged by humans to be a more accurate (but still not final or complete) ‘truth’. Thus, ‘truth’ has a history. It is not ‘The Truth’.Since society creates ‘truths’, they are social truths. It is only a short step to realise that, in a class-divided society, ‘truth’ will have a class component, sometimes great, sometimes small. And judgements between ‘truths’ are social judgements. There is no universal ‘truth’ which a supposedly ‘value-free’ method can produce. Humans are not ‘value-free’.

Adam Buick wrote:

A further aspect of Dietzgen’s [philosophy]… is that knowledge can never be absolute or complete, all knowledge is relative; our classification or description of the world must always be regarded as a tentative approximation liable to revision in the light of further experience.

[my bold]Who is this ‘Adam Buick’, ALB? Did he ever write about the ‘revisers’? Are they an elite, not subject to society’s control, perhaps called ‘scientists’? Or is ‘revision’, like ‘knowledge’, a creative act by society? Is society ‘naturally’ divided into the educators and the educated? ‘Revisers’ and non-revisers? Scientists and non-scientists? Is Sotionov’s position on ‘free access communism’ finally validated? Communist society will be divided between caring workers and naturally lazy freeloaders, and thus 'free access' is impossible?We’ll need these ‘specialist revisers’ if people insist they can’t understand a ‘complex’ tripartite separation of object, subject and knowledge, and prefer a ‘simple’ bipartite model, with its comforting ‘objective truth’, based upon the outdated materialism that Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek all rejected.I think Communists must reject ‘bourgeois science’, and in opposition begin the process now of defining a ‘proletarian science’, to lay the basis of the coming ‘humanity’s science’ within the Communist mode of production.

[Author]

Posts