Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Matthew, you seem to have a handle on things.
I presume, since you argue that ‘workers are scientists’, then you’d agree that ‘workers’ should determine ‘science’?”If you are going to ask me that question, you first have to define what you mean by science, as the notion that science is some part of human existance divorced from the rest of that existence is, at least for me, problematical.
When someone who has known us for over five years repeatedly accuses us of arguing that socialism will not have to be brought “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat”, there are only three possible explanations. They are either
(a) a troll
(b) a lying bastard
(c) a fruit cakeTake your pick.
Matthew, you seem to have a handle on things.
I presume, since you argue that ‘workers are scientists’, then you’d agree that ‘workers’ should determine ‘science’?Bijou Drains wrote: “If you are going to ask me that question, you first have to define what you mean by science, as the notion that science is some part of human existance divorced from the rest of that existence is, at least for me, problematical.”
Who argues “..the notion that science is some part of human existance divorced from the rest of that existence…“?
The ‘materialists’, that’s who, BD.
Otherwise they’d agree to democracy within science.
That’s Marx’s whole point, in his criticism of ‘materialism’.
He’s at it again. Suggesting that Marx was a critic of materialism despite being confronted with the evidence that he described himself as one. It looks as if things are pointing towards option (b).
ALB wrote: “When someone who has known us for over five years repeatedly accuses us of arguing that socialism will not have to be brought “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat”, there are only three possible explanations.”
There is apparently a fourth, ALB.
Whenever I ask ‘Who determines truth within socialism’, you don’t answer that it will be brought “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
You answer that truth will be determined by ‘Specialists’, an elite separate from “the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
The scientific method “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat” is democracy.
The fourth answer seems to be that you are unable to read, reason, and reply, when asked a political question.
ALB wrote: “Suggesting that Marx was a critic of materialism…”
This is well established, and has been for over a century. You’re clutching at straws (and strawmen), ALB.
‘Who determines truth within socialism’,
Why would “truth” need to be defined within Socialism, there would be situatons where knowing what the majority opinion is, would be important, but not “truth”
Whenever I ask ‘Who determines truth within socialism’, you don’t answer that it will be brought “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
You answer that truth will be determined by ‘Specialists’, an elite separate from “the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
The scientific method “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat” is democracy.LBird,
I thought you had agreed many moons ago that there would indeed be specialists in socialism along with generalists (More realistically I think we will all be part specialists/part generalists – its a matter of degree). That could hardly NOT be the case otherwise you would be saying that we could all be completely knowledgeable about branch of science whatsoever – and any theory arising within any such branch. Meaning we would all be fully able to “democratically” determine the truth of the theory being debated.
After all you cant say the theory is true or false if you are not even aware of the theory or are even motivated to find out what the theory is about. No individual , even the most gifted scientist, can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge.
Given this constraint could you please explain how the truth of any particular scientific theory is going to determined “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat” in socialism.
Also would you to explain why it is even necessary that the truth of a theory should be “democratically determined”. What is the purpose? I can understand and fully support democratic decision making in the case of some practical decision that will effect people in some practical way but why should the “truth” of scientific theories be “democratically decided”. Why can we not just agree to differ? You can never win over a minority by imposing a majority view on them and it seems pointless even trying
Bijou Drains, robbo203.
It’s a political and philosophical question.
If neither of you (nor the SPGB) will give an answer that corresponds to democratic norms, then it is politically valid to assume that you have in mind an elite which will decide.
Of course, in response to any argument that ‘no-one’ will determine, it’s politically valid to assume that you are not aware that someone will.
It’s a simple question ‘Where will power lie?’
You seem to believe that there will be no social power, no politics, within democratic socialism – that ‘individuals’ will determine whatever interests them as individuals, within their individual ‘practice’.
There is no social or historical context to your beliefs, no awareness of the dangers of ‘power’, and the necessity to ensure that humanity collectively must control any ‘power’.
A simple answer to your point LBird
I believe there will specialists in socialism – for instance not everyone, or even most people, would be an astrophysicist in socialism – and I had thought you had already agreed that this would be the case. However, the knowledge that a astrophysicist possesses in his/her field of specialisation will give that person no social power whatsoever over the general public unfamiliar with astrophysical theories in a socialist society. So, very largely, the merits of any particular astrophysical theory will, in practice, tend to be debated by only by those with the necessary knowledge to engage in such a debate.
I don’t see any problem with this at all. Nor does this prevent any layperson or novice/amateur astrophysicist joining in the debate if they so wish. Of course astrophysicists will themselves be laypersons like the general public when it comes to some other specialised branch of science (such as, say, molecular biology or neurology) so the notion of a “scientific elite” is questionable for this reason too.
You then go on to make an unwarranted inference. You say “You seem to believe that there will be no social power, no politics, within democratic socialism“. Well, there wont be politics in the sense that this is bound up with the existence of a state (which wont exist in socialism) but power? That’s a different matter. It is not my view that there wont be “social power” in a socialist society
As I recall having pointed out to you in the past – there will be plenty of democratic decision-making in socialism but it will be focused on practical decisions that impact on the interests of individuals and communities.
THIS is where social power will be wielded – not in obscure (for most people) scientific debates about whether string theory is true or not. Whether it is true or not has no practical impact on the lives of individuals and communities and so there will be no need for scientific theories to be subject to democratic decision-making anyway – even assuming any purpose was served in making scientific theory subject to such decision-making in the first place. As I said, far better to just let the scientists agree to disagree
“Whenever I ask ‘Who determines truth within socialism’, you don’t answer that it will be brought “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.”
That’s because we recognise there is no such thing as the truth, all truth is subjective.
robbo203 wrote: “It is not my view that there wont be “social power” in a socialist society”
So, once again, who (ie. what active social subject) will control that ‘social power’?
You seem to agree with me that if it involves social power, it should be under democratic control.
As far as I can tell, the political and philosophical difference between us seems to be how we define ‘science’ and its power.
For me, if ‘science’ is a ‘social power’, it must be under our democratic control.
You seem to see ‘science’ as a ‘practice’ which is ‘obscure’ and ‘has no practical impact’ on society.
Any knowledge of the history and social importance of ‘science’ makes me wonder how you can assume those three beliefs: ‘practice’ (no, it’s a ‘theory and practice’), ‘obscure’ (no, this is a conscious product of bourgeois science, to hide it from the majority), and ‘no practical impact’ (no, the impact on society of science is enormously important).
I think you are massively underestimating (an understatement!) the social importance of science in any social production, and especially within democratic socialism.
I would regard Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’ as a fundamental part of democratic socialism, the theory and practice of which would be taught through a democratic education system, to enable all to understand and participate in this ‘science’.
Socialism/communism, it means the same in the classical Marxian, pre-Leninist sense, will be an advanced, post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in administration over resources and not a government over people.
It will be a market -free, money -free, production for use (not for sale), free access (not rationed access) commonly owned,(not private, corporate or state-owned) revolutionary permanent break with the present capitalist one.
It has never existed anywhere.
It is not a ‘reformist’ nor a ‘statist’ version of capitalism that retains wage slavery in any form.
It will be the mature, politically conscious task of the immense majority to make it happen and not the minority vanguardist led actions of pseudo-revolutionaries.
“The organising tenet will be from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
Only a commonly owned production for use society of true social equals to the means of production and distribution can ever do this.
If there are wages and salaries, it is not socialism/communism.
State ownership is not socialism/communism.
Social programs are not socialism/communism.
Socialism/communism means democracy at all levels of society, including the workplace.
Socialism/communism means a wageless, moneyless society.
Socialism/communism means voluntary labour.
Socialism/communism means free access to the goods produced by society.______________________________________________________
” The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty-bourgeois.”
(1879 Marx and Engels )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.