 |
|
Socialist Standard
August 2005
Page 4  |
 |
|
|
U
P
I
N
S
M
O
K
E?
|
|
Is
Socialist
Theory
Scientific? |
"Nobody has yet proven that this experiment was safe," says Marina
Bay's lawyer Alexander Molokhov, in the first day's Moscow hearing of
the amateur astrologist's £170m lawsuit against Nasa, launched
hours after the successful collision of the probe Deep Impact into the
comet Tempel 1. Bay's claim that such cosmological 'vandalism' has
altered the world's horoscope towards possible disaster can also not be
proved false, and such lack of proof is clearly enough in the
eyes of some lawyers to start proceedings these days, notwithstanding
Nasa mission engineer Shadan Ardalan's curt dismissal: "The analogy is
a mosquito hitting the front of an airliner in flight. The effect is
negligible." (BBC News Online, 4 July).
The Moscow court is unlikely to be bamboozled by such chancers,
but the attack on science is common enough: don’t do it unless you can
prove it is safe.The problem is that science, with the usual exception
of mathematics, can never actually prove anything, an apparent loophole
exploited by everyone from 9/11 conspiracy theorists to neo-creationist
Intelligent Design advocates. Now the law is being asked to test the
assertion that astronomers can't prove while astrologers don't have to.
Socialists have every sympathy with scientists who
find themselves under attack from unscientific prejudice and blatant
opportunism, since this is not very dissimilar from our own experience.
For a theory to be valid it should accord well with the facts, and
offer one a way to disprove it. Thus religion and creationism are not
valid scientific theories, whereas evolution and gravity are.
Socialist
theory fits the first criterion, but what about the second? Is it
possible to disprove it? Perhaps. If capitalism fed, clothed and looked
after its people in peace and without coercion, socialism would not be
disproved but it would be unnecessary. If genetic research uncovers an
irreducible aggression or profit-seeking gene, socialism could be said
to have been disproved. But nobody has yet found this gene, or shown
any other evidence that would make socialism unviable.
Meanwhile, like
Marina Bay and her enterprising lawyer, our opponents expect us to
prove everything we say while they are not obliged to provide any
evidence in support of their argument, and indeed airily dismiss the
very large volume of evidence against themselves.
The
End of
Mass Production? |
A big question for socialist theorists is the matter of parts
and
supplies. While much of food production is likely to be localised, some
highly specialised parts and accessories are not going to be generally
available in the region. Global transportation would be a last and
expensive resort, but what if many specialist machine components could
simply be
… emailed?
A new generation of 3D printers is making it possible to
recreate
perfect three dimensional objects from a software template which can be
posted through an ordinary email server. At present the 'ink' is
confined to wax and plaster powder so the finished models have limited
durability, but work is already proceeding with fine grain steel using
micro-heat welding instead of glue to hold the finished article
together, and laser and water-jet cutters using emailed plans can work
on heavy durable materials to make components as good as traditionally
machined parts.In fact, with the rise of fabrication laboratories, or
'fab labs', individuals can have their own designs and specifications
custommade on the spot (Scientific American, June 2005).
Once the labs have shrunk from roomsize to suitcases, we may be
looking
at the democratization - for a price - of the production process, or in
fact, the reclaiming - within limits -of the means of production. The
idea that mass production may be on its way out is not new:
"Mass production, the defining characteristic of the Second Wave
economy, becomes increasingly obsolete, as firms install information
intensive,often robotised manufacturing systems capable of endless,
cheap variation, even customisation. The revolutionary result is, in
effect, the de-massification of mass production."
War and Anti-War -
Alvin & Heidi Toffler (1993,Little, Brown and Co).
Being toffs who hang around with generals, politicians,
think-tank
drivers and other assorted toffs, the Tofflers are never overly
concerned with how their capitalist utopia will impact on the lower
orders, so they describe in perfect equanimity a Third Wave capitalism
which even by today’s standards would be a catastrophe for workers,
with widespread 'oceans of poverty' around 'hitech archipelagos'
such as California, Hong Kong or the Rhineland.
Capitalism’s development of customised
production could hardly be expected to benefit the toiling masses for
whom mass-production is both a treadmill and a treat factory. They
would never be able to afford the luxury of individual consumer
targetting. Nonetheless, the ability to micro-produce with minimal
waste and distribution costs remains one of the most exciting
innovations socialist society could possibly inherit, and one which it
could put to very good use.
|
To contents  To next
page
To
Socialist
Party
|
|
