Organisation of work and free access
- This topic has 182 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:I assume by "ideological" you simply mean "in the field of ideas". Yes, socialists are engaged in a battle of ideas, but I think we need to find another word than "ideological" to express this.
Well, 'the field of ideas' is rooted in philosophical assumptions, as I think our discussion with Sotionov has shown. We clearly have some philosophical assumptions that Sotionov, and many other Communists, don't share.And as these various 'assumptions' are unavoidable, I think that calling every particular framework of ideas, which is based upon its own philosophical assumptions, an ideology, is a good starting place. I don't regard 'ideological' as meaning 'false consciousness' (though I'm sure others do), but as an openly declared acceptance of the partiality of all points of view, including our own.I think Communism is an ideology. All humans have to choose which ideology they want to employ, to build their understand of the world around. I think we should be open about ours, the better to expose others. And if they don't consciously choose, then one is provided for them by the existing ruling class. Unconsciousness of one's ideology is not the same as not having one. We all do have one. The bourgeois education system is not least in the methods of installing ideology in humans.To return to the matter of this thread, I think an examination of the different philosphical assumptions between adherents of f.a.c. and those of Sotionov's position can only throw more light on the issue, and perhaps help to reconcile various Communists, or at least clarify our differences. We need to get on with each other, now and in the future.
But there are different kinds of assumptions. As I said in a previous post I think theory is a better way to describe an 'assumption'. You can have a theory based on the best evidence available, for instance the Higgs Boson particle which was predicted to exist before thay could actually find it because it was the most likely outcome based on the evidence they already had. On the other hand you can have an unfounded theory, for instance, God or human nature. These theories are unfounded and have no objective evidence backing them up, the scientific view in this instance is to discard them as they have no validity. For me ideology is to discard evidence in favour of an idea which best suits your needs, just like God. So yeah I think socialists should endeavour to discard all ideology and only base their theories on the scientific method.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I too have a few reservations with Ollman such as his apparent acceptance of socialism and communism being different stages but i think you are raising just a problem of terminology here."New human beings who know how to co-operate and want to do so will make socialism possible" .Obviously it is not the evolution of a new species he means but i took it to read people who have acquired class consciousness, which is a change in thought and ideas and outlook and something people will need for us to achieve socialism. The old case of of the class moving on from from a "class in itself" to "class for itself".Maybe that's all he meant, but it's misleading to talk of workers becoming "new human beings" when they become a "class for itself". Workers already know how to co-operate and do in fact cooperate. What's lacking at the moment is not the capacity to cooperate but the will to do so to get socialism..Or did you become a "new man" when you became a socialist.
Ed wrote:You can have a theory based on the best evidence available,…But 'theories' predate 'evidence', as you go on to show in the second half of your statement.
Ed wrote:… for instance the Higgs Boson particle which was predicted to exist before thay could actually find it because it was the most likely outcome based on the evidence they already had.[my bold]'Evidence' is garnered after a theory is formulated by humans. Unfortunately, as every theory already contains assumptions and axioms, many of which determine just what is acceptable as 'evidence' for the 'theory', we can't get out of this problem by a positivist, inductive method, which claims to start from the unvarnished 'data/evidence'.That is the 'scientific method'. Acceptance of biases in human scientists, and that 'scientists' belong to social classes and have ideological views.
Ed wrote:On the other hand you can have an unfounded theory, for instance, God or human nature. These theories are unfounded and have no objective evidence backing them up, the scientific view in this instance is to discard them as they have no validity.'Science' just doesn't work like this. We now know that a 'theory' can determine its 'evidence'. If the theory has a axiom of 'the existence of god', it's still a 'valid theory'. That's why we have so much trouble with 'scientists' who lecture us about 'human nature'. They don't share our ideological assumptions. They have bourgeois assumptions, we have proletarian assumtions. But they are still 'scientists'.
Ed wrote:For me ideology is to discard evidence in favour of an idea which best suits your needs, just like God. So yeah I think socialists should endeavour to discard all ideology and only base their theories on the scientific method.I'm afraid your notion of 'the scientific method', as a supposedly objective, non-ideological, unpartisan 'method', is the… [gulp] long discredited bourgeois one. Sorry to be the bearer of ill-tidings, comrade.'Science' itself is an ideological minefield.
Where have I said that all theories claiming to be scientific are unbiased? I really don't know what to say to your definition of science. If you count a valid scientific theory as any theory ever, by anyone, not factoring in evidence of any kind, then by that measure the Pope would be one of the leading scientists on the planet! Marx had a good term for theories biased by ideology "vulgar", today we tend to call it pseudo-science. It all strikes me as a little bit 1984, The truth is whatever we tell you it is. If I tell you I'm holding up 3 fingers when I am actually holding up 4 I am scientifically correct because I say so? If you have two conflicting theories both claiming to have evidence there are only two options one is either incorrect or both are. When you examine the evidence of the two theories one is either discredited through that process or both are. The discredited theory then becomes unscientific.With the Higgs Boson particle it wasn't some guy working in Woolworths who woke up one day and said "you know what I've just had a brilliant idea. There is one master force instead of four seperate forces. I'm off to try to prove it"No.Instead they started with a question. Where did that question come from? From observing the evidence that they already had. The question was "why are there four forces and not one master force?". It was not a spontaneous idea, it was the next logical step based on what was already known to be proven fact. Unfortunately you bolded the wrong part of my statement as the important point was "because it was the most likely outcome based on the evidence they already had." Which is what I've just repeated here, please don't make me write it a third time.I think you misunderstood my post, perhaps because of an ideological bias? But to clarify I am saying there is science and there is psuedo-science masquerading as science. It is psuedo-science which is biased by ideology, factual science is objective, proven, fact. If you disagree that there is a distinction between the two could you please provide a mathematical sum which is biased by ideology. Doesn't have to be hard 1+1 will do. (please don't make it too hard) if you can make an argument that 1+1=2 is an ideologically biased calculation I shall concede the argument and then proceed to eat my own face.
Ed wrote:If you disagree that there is a distinction between the two could you please provide a mathematical sum which is biased by ideology. Doesn't have to be hard 1+1 will do. (please don't make it too hard) if you can make an argument that 1+1=2 is an ideologically biased calculation I shall concede the argument …1+1=10.The bias is in the base, comrade.
LBird wrote:I think Communism is an ideology. All humans have to choose which ideology they want to employ, to build their understand of the world around. I think we should be open about ours, the better to expose others. And if they don't consciously choose, then one is provided for them by the existing ruling class. Unconsciousness of one's ideology is not the same as not having one. We all do have one.I think you mean that communist theory, not communism, is an ideology since communism(or socialism, the same thing) is a system of society.Literally interpreted, your position here is more SPGB than the SPGB in that it gives the impression that you think establishing communism is just a question of who wins the battle of ideas (or, in your terms, the battle of ideologies). This is something we have been accused of but is a caricature of our position, This ignores of course that socialist theory is a product and reflection of the class struggle between the majority working class and the minority capitalist class that is built-in to capitalist society and which is going on all the time. It is not just the idea/ideology of a different society.Socialism is, as a matter of objective fact not mere opinion, the only framework within which the problems facing the working class in particular (and humanity in general) can be lastingly solved. Socialist theory is a recognition of this objective fact. The theory that capitalism is the only possible form of society at this stage in human history and that socialism is impossible is false. It is true that most workers now think this but this is a reflection of bourgeois ideology. It is a false consciousness (a false "understand of the world around").Terminology is not all that important as long as we understand what is being talked about. So it's not all that important that you want to express the distinction between what I'd prefer to call socialist (or communist) theory and ruling class ideology (as false consciousness) as being between communist ideology (true) and ruling class ideology (false). I trust of course that you are not some post-modernist who thinks that both (indeed, all) ideologies are equally valid, just a matter of choice. Or, as the wit said, that cannibalism is just a matter of taste.
LBird wrote:Ed wrote:If you disagree that there is a distinction between the two could you please provide a mathematical sum which is biased by ideology. Doesn't have to be hard 1+1 will do. (please don't make it too hard) if you can make an argument that 1+1=2 is an ideologically biased calculation I shall concede the argument …1+1=10.The bias is in the base, comrade.
How very O'Brien esque.
Isn't there a difference between something that is true by definition (e.g.that 1 + 1 = 2) and something that is "true" as a fact (e.g. that the Earth goes wrong the Sun), i.e the difference between something that is necessarily true and something that happens to be true?
Why is the statement "the earth goes around the sun" any less true by definition than 1+1=2?No I don't see a distinction between something happening to be true and something that is true.
The difference is that they are "true" in two difference senses of the word. "1 + 1 = 2" is true by definition (because that's how we define "2"). It is not based on any evidence and can't be refuted by any evidence. That "the Earth goes round the Sun" doesn't have to be the case. It is not true by definition. That the Sun goes round the Earth is conceivable. In fact for centuries the accepted description of the movement of the planets was based on this theory and was even able to predict their movement more or less accurately. Since, in the end, this kind of truth is a description that enables humans to better survive in nature by being able to predict what will happen, this theory was temporarily even "true" in this sense. Later, a better description was made, based on the Earth moving round the Sun, and this became the new "truth" as it fitted in better with what was observed and allowed what would happen to be more accurately predicted.I suppose it's a distinction between "absolute truth" (true by definition) and "relative truth" (true on the basis of being an evidence-based description that helps humans survive practically in nature and which can be refuted if some other description is put forward which can predict more accurately what will happen and so is more useful).
ALB wrote:I suppose it's a distinction between "absolute truth" (true by definition) and "relative truth" (true on the basis of being an evidence-based description that helps humans survive practically in nature and which can be refuted if some other description is put forward which can predict more accurately what will happen and so is more useful).This is a better way of conceptualising ‘truth’. Although we all (as critical realists) accept that ‘reality’ exists, as an object outside of humans attempts to understand it, the access to that reality is a creative access by humans (as Marx points out in the Theses on Feuerbach). ‘Truth’ is a social creation by humans; that’s why ‘truth’ has a history. What’s ‘true’, according to science, changes over time due to newer human theories and experiment.But I still think that the example I gave, of 1+1=10, helps us to understand that this sum is a human creation, and contains assumptions. ‘10’ here, in base 2 of course, means ‘2’.If I ask what ‘14’ means, no-one can answer that without knowing which base is being assumed.If I’m using hexadecimal (base 16), ‘14’ means ‘20’ (in base 10).Einstein’s example about observation is relevant here. If I’m on a train tossing a ball up in the air, to me it simply goes up and down in a straight line.But for an observer on an embankment watching the train pass, the ball appears to be zig-zagging up and down on a slope, as the train passes. Which is the ‘truth’? The simple answer would be ‘the ball is really zig-zagging, and the person on the train is unawares’. But as Einstein says, the ‘truth’ is simply related to a frame of reference, so there are two ‘truths’ in play. This doesn’t mean the ball doesn’t exist, or that any description will do (post-modernist individual thought), but that the ‘truth’ is an inter-relationship between an object and the observer.This can be confirmed by countering the ‘simple truth’ above, by asking what motion the ball takes if viewed from a spaceship, and the train is crossing the path of the motion of the earth at right angles. For this observer, the ball is moving with a ‘corkscrew’ motion. This ‘observer position’ can be repeatedly extended, whenever someone claims that their position is the ‘final’ one and produces the ‘Truth’.So, to discuss ‘truth’ in physics, we have to note both the object and the position of the active observer.I don’t think it takes much to transfer this notion of a ‘framework of observation’ to social science, and call it an ‘ideology’. Humans can’t escape ideology. And a further plus is that this singular method helps to provide a basis for Marx’s wish to unite the physical and the social into one human science.
Don't disagree with that (except the maths is a bit beyond me). It's the word "ideology" with reference to socialist/communist theory that I've doubts about using. Our view is "science", the ruling class view is "ideology" ! Or at least our view is "truer" (more accurate and so more practically useful) than theirs.
ALB wrote:Or at least our view is "truer" (more accurate and so more practically useful) than theirs.Yeah, I'd go along with that formulation of the problem.'Our view' (the proletarian, Communist perspective) is the better science, because we openly proclaim our 'observational position', rather than try to carry on with an outdated, scientifically disproven 'scientific method' of positivism or empiricism, which claims it can 'know' the external object (ie. reality) completely, absolutely, and thus produce 'The Truth'.Simply put, the reason that the bourgeoisie cling onto this 19th century view, and teach it in schools and through the media, is that this mythical 'scientific method' can serve as an unquestionable authority, much like the market claims that 'There is no alternative'.The 'Market' and 'Science': the twin bastions of bourgeois authority. We need to question the underpinnings of both. We will find humans involved. And where there are humans, there are currently classes.
LBird wrote:outdated, scientifically disproven 'scientific method' of positivism or empiricism, which claims it can 'know' the external object (ie. reality) completely, absolutely, and thus produce 'The Truth'.Are you sure that "positivism" teaches that science can discover "Absolute Truth" or that this claim is the dominant one in contemporary theory of science?Ironically, it is Lenin's theory of "truth" (that knowledge is a mirror reflection of reality) that comes closer to this and was why Anton Pannekoek saw it as confirmation that the Bolsheviks' role in Russia was introducing capitalism not socialism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.