Science for Communists?

[Young Master Smeet]

Here's what I don't get.  How is science being done by scientists different from baking being done by bakers?  Sure, we'll have democratic control over the whole system, but bakers will be free to bake as they see fit, in democratic workplaces.  No one will worry about a secret cabal of bakers (though they will have to be transparent about their methods, for our safety).  Collective action doesn't mean everyone doing everything together, in fact, it's quite the opposite, it's people acting separately to achieve results for the community. If I have to do all my own baking, and all my own science, that is the acme of indvidiualism.  I've outlined before how collectively members of the community ciould carry out science within a democratic framework.  I simply can't see any point in voting on their results.

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, and a quick Charlie quote.  AFK rest of today, so enjoy:

Charley wrote:

On the one hand, therefore, it is only when the objective world becomes everywhere for man in society the world of man’s essential powers – human reality, and for that reason the reality of his own essential powers – that all objects become for him the objectification of himself, become objects which confirm and realise his individuality, become his objects: that is, man himself becomes the object. The manner in which they become his depends on the nature of the objects and on the nature of the essential power corresponding to it; for it is precisely the determinate nature of this relationship which shapes the particular, real mode of affirmation. To the eye an object comes to be other than it is to the ear, and the object of the eye is another object than the object of the ear. The specific character of each essential power is precisely its specific essence, and therefore also the specific mode of its objectification, of its objectively actual, living being. Thus man is affirmed in the objective world not only in the act of thinking, ||VIII| but with all his senses.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I simply can't see any point in voting on their results.

So, if the baker insists that "it's tasty bread, and good for you", that's it, is it?The eaters of the bread are not allowed a collective opinion about the baker's recommendations?It doesn't sound very democratic to me, YMS!

YMS wrote:

No one will worry about a secret cabal of bakers (though they will have to be transparent about their methods, for our safety).

Here, of course, you're having it both ways.Either there are not democratic controls of any sort, or, there are democratic controls, based upon what we collectively decide are 'necessary controls'.That is, we decide what is necessary, not the baker.We might agree that the pies of S. Todd are especially tasty, and require no oversight whatsoever. We can still make mistakes.But to argue, as you do, that S.Todd must be allowed to dictate his ingredients to us, and his results are not a matter of collective concern, seems to me very elitist.Nice pies, though. Let individual taste, unencumbered by the collective opinions and oversight of ingredients, prevail![is this Communism or Cannibalism?]

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, and a quick Charlie quote.  AFK rest of today, so enjoy:

Charley wrote:

On the one hand, therefore, it is only when the objective world becomes everywhere for man in society the world of man’s essential powers – human reality, and for that reason the reality of his own essential powers – that all objects become for him the objectification of himself, become objects which confirm and realise his individuality, become his objects: that is, man himself becomes the object. The manner in which they become his depends on the nature of the objects and on the nature of the essential power corresponding to it; for it is precisely the determinate nature of this relationship which shapes the particular, real mode of affirmation. To the eye an object comes to be other than it is to the ear, and the object of the eye is another object than the object of the ear. The specific character of each essential power is precisely its specific essence, and therefore also the specific mode of its objectification, of its objectively actual, living being. Thus man is affirmed in the objective world not only in the act of thinking, ||VIII| but with all his senses.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Spot on!Let's see pgb get a quote which denies the social, and focuses upon the 'object' as 'object'.Humans are at the heart of the issue.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

So, if the baker insists that "it's tasty bread, and good for you", that's it, is it?The eaters of the bread are not allowed a collective opinion about the baker's recommendations?It doesn't sound very democratic to me, YMS!

Just time for a quick one.  We're allowed an opinion, but since the labour of the baker is free, we can't force them to do any specific baking, nor can we vote for a recipe that simply won't work.  "We demand bread without flour, yeast or water" (There you go, have some nice lard).  I can discuss with the baker, or take up baking myself, but for the most part, I'm free to leave it to the baker.  It's not rocket science.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Of course all knowledge, not just science but what we need to know for everyday living, involves selection (or, as you put it, there can be no "complete" appropriation of "reality"), but does selection have to involve mystification and distortion?.

[my bold]I'm glad that you've stated clearly, the text that I've bolded. This gives us some basis on which to proceed. But, be aware, I'll refer to that statement in the future!

My pleasure.

LBird wrote:

I completely agree with it, but I'm not sure the other posters will.

I'm sure they will. EH Carr's What is History? is recommended Socialist Party reading and members interested in the subject are encouraged to read Dietzgen and Pannekoek (as most of those taking part in this discussion will have done). I don't think there will be anyone, outside the party let alone inside it, who will think that Absolute Truth (as the complete appropriation without selection of all reality, as you've defined it) is possible. It's an absurd idea. Of course humans select, name and classify parts of reality to survive in it.

LBird wrote:

For me, I'd rather call 'a spade a spade', and openly proclaim to all workers that my method (and Marx's) DOES NOT LEAD TO THE TRUTH.

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, have they?The objections raised here to your method (but not to Marx's) have been to certain of the conclusions you've drawn from it, in particular:that it was valid at one time to say that the Sun went round the Earth.that the validity of scientific theories should be decided by a democratic vote of everyone.that it is not possible to have any class-free knowledge today in class-divided society.on the meaning and use of the term "ideology".

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I can discuss with the baker, or take up baking myself, but for the most part, I'm free to leave it to the baker. It's not rocket science.

It's not Communism, either.If by that we mean 'democratic production', rather than 'individual ownership'.I've long suspected that you have an ideological objection to 'democracy', YMS, and now it seems clear that you not only object to democratic methods in science, but to democratic methods in production, too.Your view of 'Communism' seems, to me, to be closer to that I heard frequently expressed on LibCom, by anarchists.They always talk in terms 'free' (always referring to 'individuals'), rather than 'democracy' (which implies the 'freedom of society' to decide).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, have they?

What else is 'physicalism', other than a claim outside of human control? The 'physical' determines, not humans.

ALB wrote:

The objections raised here to your method (but not to Marx's) have been to certain of the conclusions you've drawn from it, in particular:that it was valid at one time to say that the Sun went round the Earth.that the validity of scientific theories should be decided by a democratic vote of everyone.that it is not possible to have any class-free knowledge today in class-divided society.on the meaning and use of the term "ideology".

And I stand by them.'Validity' is a human decision.Thus 'validity' should be under our democratic control.'Class society' means 'class knowledge'. It's only when we get rid of class society when our democratic method can claim to be the human method. I think that 'proletarian science' will lay the basis for 'human science'.If 'ideology' means 'distorted knowledge' (as opposed to The Truth), then ideology is inescapable. This knowledge would form the basis of our science, in which criticism of existing 'ideological knowledge' is its basis, rather than respect for existing 'true knowledge'.There is no objective viewpoint in either physics or sociology. Humans have to choose which imperfect 'truth' to work with, for the time being.Once again, if you find 'ideology' a term too pejorative, choose another.I prefer plain speaking to workers.

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird,democracy isn't nose counting, it is an ongoing debate without force whereby the minority have the right and opportunity to try and become the majority.  Are you really going to use force to make scientists abide by the vote?  What will that entail?  A public statment?  Making them work on projects they think of as seriously floored: bread without flour or water?   Willt he minority be able to go on with their research to try and become a majority?  If so, again, what is the point of the vote.  It won't change anyone's minds, and it can't direct our research efforts.Socialism means the free association of producers, that's its first premise. 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

I can discuss with the baker, or take up baking myself, but for the most part, I'm free to leave it to the baker. It's not rocket science.

It's not Communism, either.If by that we mean 'democratic production', rather than 'individual ownership'.I've long suspected that you have an ideological objection to 'democracy', YMS, and now it seems clear that you not only object to democratic methods in science, but to democratic methods in production, too.Your view of 'Communism' seems, to me, to be closer to that I heard frequently expressed on LibCom, by anarchists.They always talk in terms 'free' (always referring to 'individuals'), rather than 'democracy' (which implies the 'freedom of society' to decide).

This is arrant nonsense.  I'm a plumber but the majority of people know little or nothing about plumbing or want to for that matter.  Those that I work for are quite content to receive my advice and to leave the work to me because I have the experience and the knowledge and they don't.  I know nothing about flying a Boeing 777 or performing a coronary balloon angioplasty.  I'm more than happy to leave those things to people who do.  Effective democratic participation requires and presupposes knowledge of a given subject and/or informed opinion.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

This is arrant nonsense. I'm a plumber…

Thanks for your kneejerk, ignorant interjection into a subject that you are apparently not following the twists and turns of, gnome.

gnome wrote:

I'm more than happy to leave those things to people who do.

Right, your choice. Leave this thread to us, then. Bye-bye.

gnome wrote:

Effective democratic participation requires and presupposes knowledge of a given subject and/or informed opinion.

Yes, that's precisely what we're arguing for, gnome. Widespread, popular, mass engagement in the running of a new society. This will require complete openness of the education system for everyone, from kindergarten to post-PhD research, from cradle to grave.You might have heard of this 'new society': it will be 'Communism'?No? Fair enough, back to your pipes, spanners and flux, then.You should try reading about 'Communism'; you might be surprised at what even a plumber can achieve, once they start to participate.Plumbers might even take an interest in science, and wish to have their democratic opinions heard.Still 'arrant nonsense'? Pity, we need you.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Socialism means the free association of producers, that's its first premise.

That's always the definition offered on LibCom, YMS.As I've said, it's an anarchistic definition, premised upon 'individual sovereignty', and not democracy.But let's not derail this thread any further. Start a new one, if you want to pursue the meaning of 'Communism'. I'll participate, of course.

[pgb]

LBird says:pgb/ wrote:Marx could never have used the term “scientific ideology” orthe “ideology of science” since *he saw science as an activity or socialpractice free of mystification and distortion*.I'd like to see your evidence for this assertion, pgb, since it goesagainst everything I've read by Marx on the issueThere are many places where Marx talks about "science" which unambiguously treats science as a practice which reveals the "real" nature of things – as distinct from mere "appearance". The distinction between appearance and reality is crucial IMO to understanding Marx's epistemology and therefore his understanding of science. Consider the way he treats "vulgar economy", which he saw as "superficial" because it "holds fast to appearance, and takes it for the ultimate". "Why then," he asks, "have any science at all?" (Letter to Kugelmann, 11/7/1868). Elsewhere (Capital, III) he says "Scientific truth (sic) is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience which catches only the delusive appearance of things". By revealing the internal relationships, the "inner physiology", upon which appearances depend, science "demystifies" reality. There would be no science if appearance and reality coincided, which means that in a socialist society (no commodity production nor autonomous market forces) there would be no science of political economy since there would be nothing to demystify. I agree with ALB that a “science free of mystification and distortion” doesn’t mean that Marx argued for “knowledge as Eternal Truth”. The very idea of “Eternal Truth” would have been seen by Marx as vapid and ideological – exemplifying the worst of vulgar political economy which saw the bourgeois world as eternal (ahistorical) and natural. Insofar as Marx had any view at all about the nature of truth, I think he had a very common-sense view about it which was close to what philosophers call a correspondence theory of truth – a candidate for truth is true only if it corresponds to the facts or "states of affairs", which can be known through use of empirical evidence. Empirical observation is of course theory laden – the standard point made against positivism – and of course there is therefore a process of selection to decide what should count as a fact, and the investigator's theoretical presuppositions, his ideas and values, his "ideology" as you call it will all be relevant. I can't see how this must necessarily lead to "mystification", "distortion" or "bias". If as you say, all humans are "ideological", I take it that no-one can ever be neutral regarding their views on things (I am thinking here primarily of socioeconomic phenomena rather than what you call "rocks") and therefore they can never be objective. Hence no such thing as objective scientific knowledge. I beg to disagree. Marx was certainly not neutral in his views about capitalism, but I believe he was objective in his analysis of it. In using the word "objective" here I am conveying the idea that scientific theories and propositions are distinct from private beliefs or collective beliefs such that their truth or falsity is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about the matter. Eg. Marx's claim that in conditions of capitalist competition there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall is an objective claim. It is not necessarily a truth claim. Scientific theories etc, can be true or they can be false. Marx certainly believed that scientific objectivity was possible and that scientific research would offset or expunge the distortions, mystifications and biases associated with ideology and class position. The objectivity of his own analysis derived from the rigour of his reasoning and the extensive empirical evidence he collected to support his account………………………………………………….PS: Can someone tell me how to indent quotes and place them on the grey background that everyone here uses. Thanks.

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

Insofar as Marx had any view at all about the nature of truth, I think he had a very common-sense view about it which was close to what philosophers call a correspondence theory of truth – a candidate for truth is true only if it corresponds to the facts or "states of affairs", which can be known through use of empirical evidence.

[my bold]This is the key part of your post, pgb.The 'correspondence theory' tries to match knowledge against reality. It is the normal scientific theory. However, as you say:

pgb wrote:

Empirical observation is of course theory laden – the standard point made against positivism – and of course there is therefore a process of selection to decide what should count as a fact, and the investigator's theoretical presuppositions, his ideas and values, his "ideology" as you call it will all be relevant.

Since we can't actually find a way of finding out what 'reality' is, it's pretty hard to match it against knowledge, to determine its truth.I think we Communists should look to consensus gentium.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_theory_of_truthThis translates as 'agreement of the people', and, as I'm sure you know, is the title of the revolutionary document put forward by the Levellers and Agitators during the English Revolution in 1647 during the Putney Debates, in opposition to Cromwell's elitist views.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_of_the_PeopleIf we have a democratic society, and production and science are part of that, I don't know how we can have any other 'theory of truth'.If we look to 'nature' to provide that 'truth', we already know we don't have a method to tell us what nature says. Humans are going to have to make the decision about what constitutes 'truth', and so I think a democratic method is required.PS. if you login and quote my post, it will show you how I've done the paragraphs.

[LBird]

If you write:{quote=pgb]Hello![/quote}but replace the first and last curly brackets { } with square brackets [ ]it will give:

pgb wrote:

Hello!

Hope this helps

[Author]

Posts