Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The material circumstances include the development of socialist consciousness amongst workers, as for the precie circumstances, all we can say is that the class struggle will make the necessity of revolution pretty much inveitable, but that necessity has not yet arisen, there has always been another way out.
The socialist method isn't why we must bell the cat, but how and why it will happen due to material circumstances.The why is that we will have democratic control of society, the power of the "purse" and communication between equals who will have no interest other than striving for the best knowledge available at stake. We remove the distortions of government military funding, coporate research, etc. and open the debate with journals and media not competing to provide readers to sell to advertisers (the true consumers of news media). All the organisations involved in this process will be run democratically, because that will be the only way they can be run among freely associating human beings.And that is why science will be democratic.
Science is carride out by proleterians at the minute. The bourgeoisie exercise the power of the purse, and that is the power that will fall to the socialist community: the decision over resourcing lines of research, and general scientific equipment. It will be a democratic decision whether to build a successor to CERN or ITER, and the results would be freely available for all to form an opinion upon.In socialism, books will be freely available, as will time for education and study. Communication will be open, and libraries will be open to all (and properly resourced to that end). People will have their say by reading, studying and thinking, as they do now, but it will be easier for them to do so. And it would be a life-long process. The conversation will spread throughout the world (especially if technology improves translation devices).
Quote:I've argued constantly that science should be subject to our control, in every aspect, including the validation of its 'findings' and the permitting of 'avenues of research'.I'm at a loss to udnerstand how remotely this could be controlled. Unless you strictly regulate what people are reading, you cannot control avenues of research, since a simple literature review consititutes avenues of research. The whole of society cannot possibly plan what goes on in each lab, or will we be voting to the last mole of copper sulphate (or is it sulfate these days?).Would we be voting on articles like this?:https://what-if.xkcd.com/
Society protecting itself and its memebrs from harm is very different from compulsory work. The point is to align individual consciousness with social needs, so that we want to co-operate and no longer experience society as an alien power. It is the fullest realisation of individuality possible.Back to sceince, the poor of the world may noit have a vote, but they do have a say. If they're say is limited it is because they haven't the time to study and the education. Those are both more impotrant than a nose count.
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:I'd have thought trust was an essential prerequisite for socialism.No, 'activity' is an essential prerequisite for socialism.As Marx argues, we must develop the 'active side' in ourselves. That is a social task.Not passive 'trust'.
If something is 'an essential prequisite' that does not preclude other prequisites. It is possible to be active and trusting. Socialism is about creating a framework in which we share a common interest and thus act together without coercion, suspiscion, domination, etc. not just because we want to, but because we cannot help but benefit our fellows.
If peopel want to have a say, they can. if they want to have an opinion they can (and the opposite too, if they don't, they needn't). Exactly what happens now.
Socialism most certainly does not mean the domination of individuals, it is the precise opposite, it is the fullest extenion of freedom, since we can only be as free as we help each other to be (The freedom to be left alone is only the lowest level of such). It is a society in which the free development of each is the condition for he free development of all. The mechanism by which this will be enforced is not labour at gun point, but that when people act (together) the outcome will inevitably be socialised through the lack of enforceable mechanisms for individual appropriation. The actors can move around the stage as they please, the scenary will remain the same.Your comment about Mengele is ridiculous, there is a difference between the topics of science and the methods.Democracy is the means for ensuring that all individuals can have a say in everything that affects them, including science.
I'd have thought trust was an essential prerequisite for socialism. As long as the material interests of commonownership are in place, we don't need to keep watching each other, there is no mechanism/basis for domination. Or would we all tremble in awe of Steve Jones' comprehenive knowledge of snails?
I don't even think it's trust: people should be allowed to explore whatever ideas they want, that's freedom. The democratic control comes from deciding to make resources available for science. If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.We're both arguing that science should be practiced by the community, in collaboration and within a democratic framework. I'm only arguing that full democracy is more than voting, which is a small part of democracy – perhaps the least important part.
We only ever have acurrent finding, and we have to act upon that curent finding, but we have to be aware that we could be wrong (but zugzwang is a compelling reason to use findings, however contingent).I think your misunderstanding of democracy is the barrier here. Democracy mean rule by the people, not voting (in itself), so if we have a free people, going about their business together, and organising themselves and their own activity, that is democracy. Free association is essential to that, people have to be able to form organisations to promote (or oppose) views and seek to change the mind of the majority (and to go about their activities). Note, the point is the association, people coming together, it is a collective right.The freedom to sod off and set up a new Rome is the central underpinning of freedom proper and democratic control of the means of production.Society democratically controls science by enabling its members to practice science, and developing their intellectual and practical capabilities.
That's right, findings are produced by society, by an ongoing debate: there is no final finding, just a succession of opinions.There, so, I note Lbird's response to a direct question is a lot of questions. I believe I've answered the pertinent ones.So, I'll ask again. How does Lbird see the voting happening? Will everyone gather the data together? Will everyone analyse the data? Will everyone get a turn on the electron microscope?I'd counterpose genuine free association and democracy in action to Lbird's one sided closure of debate, which is simply undemocratic.
I have repeatedly laid out how I would expect democratic science in socialism to work: open access to information and libraries and scholarly communications, datasets shared as widely as possible, free association in learning societies, democratic allocation of resources to funding and democratic votes based on the information provided by scientific research. I'd throw in, importantly, a general (rule of thumb) reduction in the working week to about two days out of seven, which will free up more time for study and discussion. So science would become an ongoing debate for all members of the community who wish to join in, and freedom to pursue topics and research lines would be protected if not encouraged. Freed from position and possession, vested interests (liek professorial salaries would be ended, so the only object of science would be to be right.I'd imagine that juries may well sit in and discuss and come up with findings on particualr research areas, and peer review would also be employed to ensure rigour.There, that is science by the whole community, a genuine democracy of science, without having a vote on the findings. Your turn.
LBird wrote:It's simply because you think that physicists have a neutral method which gives them a truth not available to the common mass.This is something that no-one ont his thread has said, and I'm sure no one believes. The method of science is open to everyone, and can be made accessible to everyone. The technical language of science, and the detail of practice is no more than the technical notation used by musicians will the audience vote on the music?).You brush off any attempt to ask what about sorting and analysing large blocs of data, doing the routine work of science, operating the technical machinery, conducting the experiments. If we all have to do it, there'll be a hell of a lot of repetition.How do you see this voting happening? Or are you no better than the underpant gnomes:Stage 1: Vote on science.Stage 3: Communism!
Why would he weap? What a transformation: the block, the chisel, the muscles, the brain all turned into a statue.There's a fabulous line in Herzog's film about Antarctica: the universe sees itself through our eyes. We are part of the unfurling of the universe, and the only bit that sees and creates its potential (through our labour).
