[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Ah well, robbo…It was going so well, but now it appears you were deceiving us about your 'democratic communism', and have reverted to bourgeois science, and the myth that 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production.

When did I ever say or suggest " 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production?  What I was trying to convey to you through my feeble attempt at satire is that there is nothing in string theory itself that warrants the suggestion that it is a "bourgeois"  concept, that somehow reflects the capitalist relations of production – even if the theory itself was developed under the socio-historical conditions of capitalism.  If you think otherwise then prove it.  Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalism.  You cant and you know itYou are confusing two quite different things but then you are pretty confused on a lot of things

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 It's funny, y'know, those infected with bourgeois ideology always pretend to be 'practical men', just interested in the 'practice' of any activity, and always keen to get down to 'the nitty gritty' of the subject, of what an isolated genius individual can do. But that is not our proletarian method, is it? We are keenly aware of the socio-historical nature of the production of any 'concept', including 'string theory'.

 OK, so ..er.. String Theory is a Petty Bourgeois deviation from Proletarian Truth and those who espouse it, come the glorious revolution, should be sent to the Gulags.  Just so I can get the case watertight in readiness for when we hold our revolutionary tribunals to indict those Running Dogs of Capitalism – the Scientists – can you just go over the argument again, Comrade.  Im still not quite sure how the class structure of capitalism influences ,or is reflected in, the theoretical contents of String theory.  You know how slippery these Bourgeois Snakes – the lawyers – can be.  They will be arguing on behalf of their clients at the trubunals that our arguments are crudely determinist, that not all values are class values, and that because String theory was developed within a socio-historical context does not necessarily mean that it takes on the colour and character of that context.We must be alert to these cunning arguments , Comrade, that will no doubt be raised by the Forces of Reaction and Counter Revolution.  You never know – next they will be arguing that if we are saying String Theory is a Petty Bourgeois deviation that reflects the character of capitalist society, then the same must apply to all science developed under capitalism and we would thus be logically bound to reject all science developed under capitalism.  That kinda worries me, ya know,Comrade.  How do you think we should respond to these Capitalist Lickspittle?  Help me out here…

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

There is an interesting critique of Picketty here which I have just come acrosshttp://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/piketty-s-three-big-mistakes-in-inequality-analysisRognlie seems to think the problem of increasingly inequality lies with landlordism.  Any comments?

 A discussion here on the above on Michael  Roberts blog…https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/piketty-update-graduate-takes-on-a-super-star-and-comes-up-with-a-comforting-conclusion/

[robbo203]

There is an interesting critique of Picketty here which I have just come acrosshttp://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/piketty-s-three-big-mistakes-in-inequality-analysisRognlie seems to think the problem of increasingly inequality lies with landlordism.  Any comments?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Once you tell me your ideology, robbo, we can proceed.We can then examine physics from class perspectives: my Marxist, proletarian, communist, democratic one, and your…?  

 My ideology? Im a democratic communist – which explains why I dont take too kindly to your viewsNow can we finally "examine physics from class perspectives" as you keep on promising to do but never do. So to kick off the conversation – can you please explain what is the connection between string theory and the class structure of capitalism,  Ive been dying to know what it is ever since you raised the tantalising prospect that such a connection exists…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.

So, none of these are political issues?To me, they all are.Which ideology separates out the 'political' from the 'personal'; the 'individual' from the 'social'?Why won't you tell us your ideology? Once we know that, we can then talk about our constrasting views of physics.But we can't have you pretending to everyone that your views are 'objective', untainted by your living in this society. You're hiding something, robbo, as do the academic physicists, which we'll find out, once you reveal your ideological viewpoint.

 You do talk a load of tripe ,LBird. Why dont you bother to actually read what people are saying instead of putting words in their mouths?  Since when have i been "pretending to everyone that (my) views are 'objective', untainted by (my) living in this society"? I went out out of my way to criticise the fact-value distinction and positivism in general.  I explicitly stated that I did not believe science is value free.  So where on earth did you get the idea that you think I consider my views to be "objective" and untainted by my living in society?My point was quite a different one and I note that yet again you have suceeded in evading it – that there are other values then just class values.  I gave you a few examples of this (see above).Some of these are "indeed poilitical issues" or have political ramifications;some are not (unless your attachment to your friends, partner and familty is undertaken for political reasons) but even those that are "political issues"  dont necessarily boil down to a question of class. Class is important but it is not the only variable in townWhat I was attacking was your crude reductionism which would have us believe that the theoretical content of the hard sciences like physics , biochemistry , geology and so on are somehow a reflection of class values. I asked you to explain how – how for instance is string theory influenced by, or "reflects",  the class structure of capitalism? – but you declined to do so. So it is not me who is hiding something but you and your silence on this matter speaks volumes…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

My particular gripe with your position is that you seem to think all values boil down to class values.

So, where do these 'values' come from, robbo, if not classes?

 Im astonished you even ask this question and it rather points to your simplistic, one dimensional and crudely reductionist cum mechanistic view of the world which has more in common with Leninism than Marxism, frankly. Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.And yes class identification is a source of value too.  But I have still to hear from you whether string theory in theoretical physics is a proletarian or bourgeois theory.  And why.Why do you not answer this question  LBird?  I want to be guided by your superior vanguardist knowlege – you did say you would "continue to help (me) with further answers" – as to whether or not  I should dismiss string theory as a petty bourgeois deviation from the Proletarian Truth.  Help me out here, man….Im in a state of turmoil over this vexed question

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.You now appear to be arguing (and I can be corrected, because only you can answer this, as I said before) that there is 'theoretical content' (why not just say 'ideas'?) in 'theories' (of the 'scientific' type) which are 'value-less' (not that they aren't 'valuable', but that they are 'outside of consideration of social values' – I had to clear up that usage of 'value-less', because some clown will be claiming next that 'LBird says science is of no use whatsoever').So, if you already believe that 'theory in physics is valueless', then you already know that 'there is no class basis to string theory'.

I did not say or suggest that.  On the contrary, I specifically said that science is NOT value free. In other words, I am taking a stand against the postivistic fact-value distinction.My particular gripe with your position is that you seem to think all values boil down to class values.  I consider this to be crudely reductionist and narrow.. The onus is on you, not me, to demonstrate otherwise.  So I repeat again my question which you evaded – is string theory  bourgeois or proletarian?   Please try to answer this question

LBird wrote:

Since I'm a Marxist, I look for the class basis of social activities, and since I regard physics as a social activity, I look for the class basis of physics, just as I would look for the class basis of economics, or history, sociology, philosophy, etc.The root of the issue is your  'position of observation', to put it in Einsteinian terms.If you don't believe that you have a 'position of observation', but that you are a 'neutral observer' of 'out there', of 'the external world', of the world of 'matter', then my request is meaningless.

No I dont believe I am a "neutral obsever".  How could you possibly say that when I have just told you that I dont think science is value-free .  My whole point is to question the statement whether it is class values that inform the theoretical content of science – or other values.  You argument seems to boil down to the claim that all values boil down to class values which I reject. How will scientific theories differ in a future classless socialist society by comparison with today? Could there be a socialist version of string theory? It is up to you exlain this, not me.And it is no good you citing examples like that  of Lee Smolin writing a book titled 'The Trouble with Physics', to show us that 'values' are at the heart of their social activities becuase I am not dsputing that they are.  I have always held this position as you know. I am specifically questioning the assertion that class forms the basis of the values that steers the development of ideas in science.  I am not convinced at all that is does. Sure it influences the background in which science functions – for example in the pattern of funding for scientific research – but that is quite a different matter to saying that scientific ideas in themselves somehow "reflect" a class perspectiveAlso, this is not to deny at  it all that scientists have a class perspective.  That is to say they have views about the nature of  the society in which we live.  It is the disciplines that you mention – such as sociology, economics history – that afford an opening for the expression of this class perspective in often subte and indirect ways.  But biochemistry? Mechanical engineering?  Astrophysics? Nope I cant see that at all.  I do believe that there is a qualitiative distinction to be drawn in that respect between the hard sciences and the other subjects but I repeat again this does NOT mean the hard sciences are value free in that abstract sense. If you think otherwise then demonstrate to me how there can be a socialist version of string theoiry,  Show me the the linkages that connect string theory to one's class position in capitalist society.  This is the challenge I throw down to you.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Whilst I agree  that science is not value free, it is conceivable – is it not? – that the values in question might not have much, if anything, to do with  classes at all.

Yes, robbo, it is entirely conceivable that 'values' in society have little to do with classes.The ideology that holds that conception, though, is not Marxism.I freely admit my ideological presuppositions, robbo, but you appear to believe that 'scientific values' are little to do with the society that produces them.I can only say that you yourself have to answer that question. If you think 'values' are outside of the society in which they appear, then you name the ideology that claims this.I think 'values', whether scientific or otherwise, are produced by societies, and different societies produce different values.But then, I'm a historian, so I would say that. And I think that Marx's notion of 'modes of production' are central to understanding the social production of 'values', and their socio-historical specificity.I don't know how to give you a clearer answer about my own biases, and only you can reveal yours.I'm a Democratic Communist. Simple.

 So explain to me what is class basis or string theory in theoretical physics. Is it bourgeois or proletarian and how so?  Please answer this question LBird (Oh, and incidentally I didnt say 'values' in society have little to do with classes..  I was talking specifically about the theoretical content of scientific theories.  Please dont twist my words)

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It is one thing to argue that science is not value free and I agree that it is not; it is another thing to argue that science is "class based".

So, whose 'values' are involved in science, in a class-based society, if not those of classes?If you can see the applicability of the argument that 'science is not value free', robbo, you must have some idea whose 'values' are involved, and their social basis.

 Whilst I agree  that science is not value free, it is conceivable – is it not? – that the values in question might not have much, if anything, to do with  classes at all.   What are the class values that inform string theory in theoretical physics for example.? More to the point how do they inform them?  Show me how in this specific example. Is string theory bourgeois or proletarian? What ya reckon LBird?I think your approach is crudely reductionist and you are grasping at straws to be brutally honest

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The materialists argue that 'science' is not class-based, but a politically-neutral elite activity which is there to benefit humanity. 

It is one thing to argue that science is not value free and I agree that it is not; it is another thing to argue that science is "class based". It seems a bit far fetched to say , for example , that  theoretical physics has a class basis.  How would theoretical physics be different in a classless society? Would String theory be dismissed as an expression of counter revolutionary bourgeois sentiment?  We should be wary of such crude reductionism.Of course, theoretical physics is not developed within a vacuum,  It is influenced by society and the mores of society which spring from the class basis of society. But saying this is not the same as saying that science itself is class based

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A related article and a timely one from Vermont anarchists.  Or are they more Murray Bookchinists?http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/01/neither-washington-nor-stowe/

 This bit in the article is quite significant:  The bottom line is that we, as the majority, are standing at a crossroads at which we can choose the path of capitalist homogenization, or, rather, lead the way back towards direct democracy, local control, and the social advancement of the common good I think the link between direct democracy and local community needs to be affirmed and emphasised.  The higher the scale of social organisation, the less democratic is it likely to be.  Small is not only more beautiful but more democratic – all things being equal.Of course some things cannot be left to the local community  but these things by their very nature, are far and few between and consequently the need to resort to expensive methods of resolving these matters democratically – for example by means of a global plebiscite which is a massive undertaking  in itself – will be very rare indeed and only confined to matters of the utmost (global) significance.  99.9% of all issues to be resolved democratically  in a socialist society, I suggest, will crop up overwhelmingly  at the local level and then secondarily at the regional levelIts the Leninists  with their fetishisation  of large scale massified forms of production and social organisation that think otherwise and it  is no coincidence that the Leninists are known more for their vanguardism  than their democratic sensibilities

[robbo203]

"Does complexity rule out meaningful democracy?When socialists speak of democracy we mean something very different from the concept the mainstream media provides. Instead of giving you permission to vote for some toff or careerist to serve and define your political interests (improbably) for five years we insist that any meaning democracy must entail the involvement of the community at every level in political/economic decision making" The concept of the "Community" is a bit like a Russian Matryoshka doll.  There are communities within communities. Hundreds of thousands of them at every level.  The lower the level, the more communities there are.  Will the global community be involved in decisions taken at the level of  the village? Obviously not.  The most appropriate community for that is the village community.  Meaning everyone else outside of that community will perforce tend to be excludedTo arrive at a more realistic or practical model of socialist democratic practice, then, we need to unpack or disaggregate this whole concept of "community".  There is no one single "community" in the abstract Most of the objections are ideological and do not deserve any serious consideration but there is one that has to be discussed: Does our technological culture depend almost entirely on the expertise of a minority of specialists whose knowledge cannot be easily understood by the ‘layman’ and is therefore inaccessible to democratic debate and decision? Are these ‘technocrats’ the only ones with the talent and ability to make decisions concerning, for instance, scientific research and technological application?…The decision of the allocation of resources within socialism would have three stages: Dissemination of information, debate and vote. This last sentence is an important qualification.  It further refines our notion of democratic practice in a socialist society.  Democratic decision making relates to the allocation of resources which affect us all.  Its not really about science or the development of scientific knowledge.  Actually that is a silly idea to suggest that scientific theories should be subject to a democratic because: 1) What would be the point?  If theory A is preferred by democratic vote over theory B to account for some phenomenon should we henceforth abandon any attempt to develop a rival to A on grounds that to do so would be undemocratic?.  Most  people thought the sun revolved around the earth a few hundred years ago.  We would still be thinking this if the development of scientific understanding had to conform to a democratic vote 2) It would be impractical   There are literally thousands of scientific theories coming on stream every year.  How would  you organise a global vote by 7 billion of us on each of these thousands of theories?  Also, to vote on something you have to know what it is you are voting on.  No one, not even the most brilliant and talented scientist alive can know anything more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge,  Therefore, almost by definition any vote on any scientific theory, even assuming individuals would be  sufficiently motivated to vote would by default be the vote of a tiny minority who have acquired the knowledge to know what they are voting aboutThe social division of labour gives rise to specialists and experts , almost inevitably.  This is not to advance any kind of elitist view of science as a whole  – that is , in some supra disciplinary sense.  The expert in biochemistry is not an expert in geotectonics or mechanical engineering,  She is only an expert in her own chosen field. To gain competence in her field requires devoting years of study to it and hands on experience but if we all attempted to become competent biochemists none of us would have the time to become competent mechanical engineers or geologists or whatever.  Society would suffer as result. We have to allow for this in socialism and enable individuals to specialise and not just become a jack of all trade in socialism.  This has implications for the conduct of science itself.  For the development and refinement of any particular scientific theory it means most of us of necessity are not going to be able to have much of a say in the outcome.  Of course we can always chose to have a say in the development of this theory. That means equipping ourselves with the means to understand what it involves and socialism will presumably not put any barriers in the way of individuals acquiring such expertise.  But that also means we will most likely not be able to develop an expertise in some other branch of science.That stems from the simple fact that there is an opportunity cost for every decision we takeHowever, all this doesn't matter from the standpoint of socialist democracy, What matters is the application of this scientific knowledge and its implications for the allocation  of resources that affect us all – like the article says. That is where democratic decision really comes into play not in the development of scientific understanding as such,This too is a constraint on the practice of socialist democracy along with the notion of what constitutes the "community"

[robbo203]

 Just came across this which puts a different slant on the matter http://says.com/my/news/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-mark-zuckerberg-donating-99-of-his-fortune-to-charity

[robbo203]

rodshaw wrote:

Yes, but shouldn't the absolute income value be related to prices? 32k dollars is a lot more for someone in a 3rd world country. Or is this figure somehow smoothed – an average, net disposable income figure? Obviously it makes no sense from a capitalist/worker point of view.

 I think it must be a global average.  The link I posted goes on to say this:Of course, Americans live in the United States, contending with U.S. prices. Who constitutes the one percent if you just look at the U.S.? Not surprisingly, it takes a massively higher income to crack the top percentile of wage earners: You’d have to make $434,682 in adjusted gross income to make the cut, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.And to rank amongst the highest one percent of Americans by wealth? That requires net assets of more than $7 million, based on the latest Federal Reserve figures.This  is why I think we need to be careful about using the Occupy movement term the "the top 1 percent" in a way that suggests this refers to the capitalists.  As Alan suggested, it can play into the hands of people like Fox News who use  it to argue that most Americans are in the top 1% and are  therefore capitalists .  Which is of course nonsense

[Author]

Posts