Organisation of work and free access

[LBird]

[repost of post #65 of thread in link]http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/fred/6429/beliefs-science-art-and-marxismIf we accept as a starting point a tripartite schema of object, subject and knowledge, we can try to categorise the three contrasting views of science, reality and truth that I’ve argued we face a choice over, when identifying what ‘science’ is.By ‘object’, I mean a ‘reality’ that exists independently of our attempts to understand it; by ‘subject’, I mean a ‘humanity’ which tries to understand the independent reality; and by ‘knowledge’, I mean a ‘product’ created by the interaction of the subject and object.The first view of science is the outdated 19th Positivist notion that ‘science’ produces the ‘truth’. This is the view of science that is still held by most people, perhaps even most academics and scientists themselves, even though bourgeois thinkers have long since destroyed this ‘common sense’ approach. For this approach, the ‘object’ and ‘knowledge’ are identical. The subject passively observes the ‘object’, and ‘knowledge’ simply appears in the mind of the dispassionate, disinterested, non-ideological, scientist. In this case, ‘empirical reality’ and ‘human knowledge’ is the same thing. The simple ‘experience of reality’ is enough to ‘understand’ that reality. Popper (an active anti-Marxist) condemned this view as the ‘bucket theory of mind’; that objective reality simply pours itself into a waiting, inactive receptacle. This view does not accept our tripartite premise of separate ‘object, subject, knowledge’: it only recognises subject and object. ‘Knowledge’ is a mere copy of ‘object’.The second view of science is the Relativist notion that it all depends upon the active subject. This view accepts Popper’s criticism about ‘passive mind’, and places its emphasis on the ‘subject’ as actively producing ‘knowledge’. As the active, individual subject’s mind ‘creates’ knowledge, the need for an ‘object’ disappears entirely. It’s ‘all in the mind’ of the creative, artistic human. It’s the act of ‘observation’ that ‘creates’ the ‘object’: the ‘object’ has no independent reality. As Paul Feyerabend had it, in the title of his science book, ‘Anything goes!’. Any attempt to appeal to an independently existing measure of that ‘knowledge’ is seen as an outdated, Modernist, authoritarian act by someone attempting to impose their view of a ‘reality’ that can’t be known, by pretending to have a special (party/class/gender, etc.) insight, to which the individual is not privy. Marxism is seen as the main culprit, here. Relativism prevents oppression and domination, by arguing that any individual’s ‘truth’ is as good as anybody else’s ‘truth’. This view does not accept our tripartite premise of separate ‘object, subject, knowledge’: it only recognises subject and knowledge. ‘Object’ is a mere creation of ‘subject’.The third view of science is one I would call Critical Realism. This approach accepts an independently existing object, an active, inquisitive subject, and sees knowledge as a product of the interaction between subject and object. This differs from positivism in that ‘knowledge’ is not identical to ‘object’: ‘knowledge’ is also an independent variable, something actively created by humans by their interrogation of external reality. Thus, depending upon the questions posed by humans, ‘knowledge’ is based upon, but not the same as, the object. ‘Truth’ exists, but it must always be partial truth produced by humans attempting to understand reality. Realism differs from relativism in that the ‘object’ is not created by humans, ‘knowledge’ is based on (and can be compared with for confirmation) a questioning of an independent reality, and that the mind of the subject is not an individual mind, but the socially-created mind of a social individual. This view begins from our tripartite premise of separate ‘object, subject, knowledge’: it recognises object, subject and knowledge as three interacting variables.First view is broadly conservative, the second is broadly liberal, the third, I would argue, is broadly compatible with Marxism.I apologise to comrades for the length of this post, and it can certainly be improved, extended and criticised for shortcomings and mistakes, but I’ve attempted to explain a very difficult and complex cognitive issue so that anyone with a passing interest in all these issues about the nature of ‘science’ stands some chance of understanding and, hopefully, of engaging with them. It’s my opinion that we need a class that is well-educated in the debate about ‘science’. I only hope that I’ve helped, rather than hindered, this process.Last word to Charlie:

Marx wrote:

if appearance and reality coincided, there would be no need for science

[ALB]

That clears up that then. You are not a "Relativist", or idealist. I like your description of "Critical Realism", especially where you make it clear that the "subjective" element is "that the mind of the subject is not an individual mind, but the socially-created mind of a social individual", which wasn't entirely clear until now.As to "common sense", I wasn't defending it for everything, simply for "everyday living", e.g. eating, driving, repairing things, etc.  Given that we've already agreed that socialism/communism can only be established by a majority that wants and understands it, we should not place the bar too high in the degree of philosophical sophistication required by that majority.OK, today, when we're engaged in a battle of ideas with capitalist ideology, the minority of socialists/communists that we are do need a higher level of understanding, but I don't think that the majority that will establish socialism will have to be conscious "Critical Realists" or experts in Marxian Economics or the Materialist Conception of History or in fact even to have read a word of Marx.It will be enough that they understand that capitalism cannot be reformed to work in their interest and that the way-out is to make the means of production the common heritage of all under democratic control so that production can be carried on to directly satisfy human needs and (to return to Sotionov's question) that the aim will be to reach full free access to goods and services as soon as possible. And of course they'll need to be democratically self-organised.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

And of course they'll need to be democratically self-organised.

As too will 'science'.When I argued this to the ICC, it seemed to go down like a lead balloon!In effect, I am arguing that 'scientific truth' must be a democratic decision, rather than the preserve of 'scientists', conceived as a separate social grouping from the proletariat. Marx warns about this, too, in his Theses."No omniscient 'Central Committes' in either politics or science", is my starting point. Democracy in science, as in the economy.

ALB wrote:

OK, today, when we're engaged in a battle of ideas with capitalist ideology, the minority of socialists/communists that we are do need a higher level of understanding, but I don't think that the majority that will establish socialism will have to be conscious "Critical Realists" or experts in Marxian Economics or the Materialist Conception of History or in fact even to have read a word of Marx.

You can probably guess that I'd disagree with what you've said, here!A conscious proletariat is going to have to be 'conscious' about lots of things, or we'll continue to have 'minorities' in charge. I'm not convinced that a 'three way' approach is much more difficult (than the seemingly easily understood 'two way') to understand, once explained and discussed.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

And of course they'll need to be democratically self-organised.

As too will 'science'.When I argued this to the ICC, it seemed to go down like a lead balloon!

Was that because they don't like the word "democracy" at all and never use it in a positive sense?

LBird wrote:

In effect, I am arguing that 'scientific truth' must be a democratic decision, rather than the preserve of 'scientists', conceived as a separate social grouping from the proletariat. Marx warns about this, too, in his Theses."No omniscient 'Central Committes' in either politics or science", is my starting point. Democracy in science, as in the economy.

But of course there will no longer be a proletariat in socialism/communism only free and equal members of a classless community. Nor will any group — neither elected delegates nor scientists — be in any privileged position since everybody (to return to the original theme of this thread) will have free access on the same basis to what it has been decided should be produced.I don't understand what you are getting at. Obviously scientific and research establishment will be organised and run, like any other workplace, on a democratic basis, but you seem to be saying more: that the findings of such establishments should be subject to a democratic vote as to whether they are valid or not.Is that another lead balloon I can see about to crash to the ground?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Was that because they [the ICC] don't like the word "democracy" at all and never use it in a positive sense?

To be fair, the suggestion seemed to cause some confusion, and some posters appeared thoughtful about the implications, but for others, the very idea of humans controlling their science seemed to be a completely mad idea!Communism? What next? Free access to our wives, daughters and science?! Good Lord!Bourgeois sensibilities were outraged!Which brings me reluctantly to… [ahem]…

ALB wrote:

I don't understand what you are getting at. Obviously scientific and research establishment will be organised and run, like any other workplace, on a democratic basis, but you seem to be saying more: that the findings of such establishments should be subject to a democratic vote as to whether they are valid or not.

[my bold]Surely 'validity' is a human construct?Or are we going to have a 'Validity Central Committee', to keep those democracy-worshipping masses from poking their ignorant noses into matters that don't concern them?

ALB wrote:

Is that another lead balloon I can see crashing to the ground?

The ICC/SPGB Joint Scientific Authority airship? I hope so!I'll be helping to staff the proletarian 'human science' ack-ack defences: I hope you'll join me, comrade!

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The ICC/SPGB Joint Scientific Authority…

Perhaps a snappier title would be 'The Mengele Commission', in honour of that other scientist who abhorred democratic interference in his 'scientific' endeavours.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Perhaps a snappier title would be 'The Mengele Commission', in honour of that other scientist who abhorred democratic interference in his 'scientific' endeavours.

Now you're just being silly.Of course scientific research will be subject to overall democratic control in a socialist society. I can see the priorities for research and the resources allocated for it being the subject of a democratic social decision. Also decisions such as whether or not to allow vivisection, etc. But I thought you were advocating more than this: that there should be a democratic vote on whether or not to accept the findings of scientific research. Of course there'd have to be a democratic decision to act on them if required, but I still don't understand what exactly it is you are proposing.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Now you're just being silly.

Humour, eh? Doesn't always translate well on the internet. My apologies.

ALB wrote:

…that there should be a democratic vote on whether or not to accept the findings of scientific research. Of course there'd have to be a democratic decision to act on them if required…

Aren't these the same things, in effect?You're saying that the research findings of 'science' (defined as a theoretical/practical human activity) would require 'a democratic decision to act on them'.What is the other sort of 'science' that is going to be 'outside of democratic control'?

ALB wrote:

…but I still don't understand what exactly it is you are proposing.

The same as you? What is the difference between 'accepting' and 'acting on'?Is 'accepting' outside of our controls, but 'acting on' isn't?Who then 'accepts'? Is 'acceptance' a passive non-active mode that Marx warns against? A divisions of society into two parts, the small group of theoretical scientists who define 'acceptable' research results, and a larger group of workers who only get to employ previously sifted research results, in their 'acting on' phase? Isn't this a form of elitism?'Science', in all its manifestations, must be under our human control. Including 'acceptance of research findings'.

[LBird]

SPGB Object wrote:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

FWIW, I had assumed that 'means and instruments' would obviously include 'science'.The SPGB's emphasis on democracy and 'no leaders' is, to me, one of its most attractive elements.Perhaps someone other than ALB, who's done a sterling job so far in debating with me, could clarify any 'party line' that exists regarding the 'control of science' in a Communist world. If there isn't one yet, fair enough, we can continue to discuss the issue.

[LBird]

One thing that I have found is:

SPGB Editorial wrote:

But what is the scientific method? It is a method of understanding the world based on first observing and recording experience…

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1295-july-2012/editorial-rational-politicsThis is untrue.The first step in the scientific method is to theorise. This theory then determines the selection parameters which are employed when we begin to 'observe and record'.The world cannot be passively 'observed'. Humans actively direct themselves to particular 'objects' based on their existing theoretical presuppositions.

[Young Master Smeet]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-live Can't deep link, but the section "Technology in Capitalism and Socialism" may be what you're looking for.

Quote:

Another difficulty is that modern science and technology have developed with capitalism. This makes it seem at times that there are good scientific and technical reasons for the complexity of life and work in the modern capitalist state. Capitalist propaganda takes advantage of this and often tries to turn the frustration and anger that workers feel on to scientific and technical workers, as though they were the ones who decided to make the obscene weapons of modern war, thalidomide, battery farms or polluted rivers. Of course, it is capitalist business and the capitalist state that decide what workers shall produce or what experiments and research they will fund.

  etc.

[LBird]

Unfortunately, the link you've given is returning a 'Page not found', YMS.Thanks for the attempt to help me, though.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Unfortunately, the link you've given is returning a 'Page not found', YMS.Thanks for the attempt to help me, though.

 Try this link: the section "Technology in Capitalism and Socialism" is about halfway down the pagehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-live 

[LBird]

Thanks for the link, pfbcarlisle

SPGB pamphlet wrote:

5 How To Achieve Socialism – No MinoritiesSocialism can only be established when a great majority of workers understand and want it. It would be absurd for a minority of conscious socialists today to try to take over power and impose the new system on an unwilling majority. Such a strategy would certainly fail …It would not be possible to run a society in which everybody contributed co- operatively according their abilities and took freely according to their needs unless the great majority of people understood the arrangement and wanted it. It would not be possible to establish and maintain a society based upon conscious democratic control unless the great majority were prepared to exert that democratic control. If the population did not want to participate in social [and scientific] decision-making and were prepared to leave it to a particular minority, that minority would be forced to become the exclusive decision makers themselves and would eventually become a new ruling class. But in the final analysis, the very fact that a minority wanted it would show that they did not understand the full implications of socialism themselves, and so were not really socialists

[my bold and insertion]Yes, and all of these points also apply to the human activity of 'science'.No minorities, entirely democratic control. To be scientific is to be communist.

[alanjjohnstone]

Not pretending that the analysis is as insightful as your own on these exchanges but Socialism Or Your Money Back blog has just published a few slightly related posts from various sources on the topic of science, giving perhaps nuts and bolts practical examples of run-away science when there is no democracy or full social control. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/

[Author]

Posts