Science for Communists?

[Young Master Smeet]

OK, so lets reformulate:Socialism is a system of society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.Is that better?Anyway, to selection.  We inhabit a roughly similar planet to each other.  Our brains are constructed in roughly the same way, and our sense organs operate in roughly the same fashion (there are degrees of variation but I think we can average them away).  We inhabit a similar culture.  So, it's far to say that our selections will be roughly similar, and we can average them away.  Selections and biases can be accounted for (and minimised).So, if "The Truth" is unobtainable, then it doesn't matter.  What mattersw is that we mutually inhabit a world where according to our best ability to sense and to reason we can say that certain claims about the world can be true to our observations.Members of our community, who are similar to us, can go forth and collect knowledge, that we will believe because we have confdence in their method.  Personally, I have no experience or proof that India exists, but I have no good reason to doubt the evidence therefore presented to me by otehr people.  That's what it means to be a social being.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Anyway, to selection. We inhabit a roughly similar planet to each other. Our brains are constructed in roughly the same way, and our sense organs operate in roughly the same fashion (there are degrees of variation but I think we can average them away). We inhabit a similar culture. So, it's far to say that our selections will be roughly similar, and we can average them away. Selections and biases can be accounted for (and minimised).So, if "The Truth" is unobtainable, then it doesn't matter. What mattersw is that we mutually inhabit a world where according to our best ability to sense and to reason we can say that certain claims about the world can be true to our observations.

Sounds like a perfect basis for a democratic theory of truth, YMS!

YMS wrote:

Members of our community, who are similar to us, can go forth and collect knowledge, that we will believe because we have confdence in their method.

Err.. surely 'members of our community' can be selected by us, and 'we will believe' their results 'because we have confidence in our method'? Which will be, of course, to vote on the results which they obtain and will have to explain properly to society.If 'experts' are to be simply 'believed' because of 'their method', why shouldn't this process work in politics and economics, too?What have you got against democratic controls, YMS?

YMS wrote:

Personally, I have no experience or proof that India exists, but I have no good reason to doubt the evidence therefore presented to me by otehr people. That's what it means to be a social being.

So, why shouldn't you have a vote, then, if you're convinced by other people? And the rest of us, too, have a vote?Or are you saying that as long as you're convinced, that's good enough for everybody else, in every situation?Sounds like the 'guru' method to me. You proclaim 'the truth', and we meekly accept the 'word' of both you and your 'experts'.No, YMS, I'm a Communist, and that means I argue for the democratic control of production, distribution and consumption.That, necessarily, includes 'science' as a productive force.

[Young Master Smeet]

I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless. The winners will win, the losers won't change their mind. We can't "forbid" research into the losing proposition, because majorities have the right to try and become majorities, that includes collecting sufficient evidence.  What I prefer is the democratic method of everyone making up their own mind.  People can choose to rely on the rational authority of experts, or they can challenge it as thy please/  What is important is that information and education are widely available, and there are multiple fora for debate and discussion.Democratically we can set research priorities, allocate resources to research and support the administration of research.  We can set up expectations of the democratic organisation of learned societies.  As I've already set out.  I just don't need to see why we need to vote on the results.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless.

Yes, it's been evident for a long time that that's your opinion of 'democracy'.I don't share that assumption, YMS.I'm a Communist, and want to see the democratic control of production, distribution and consumption.If you have a different conception of Communism, start another thread, and we can all discuss that.As far as this thread goes, we can't advance any further whilst you argue against democracy, because that is the key to all my arguments.If other comrades are not democrats, too, and the SPGB pronounces against democracy to settle this debate, I'll leave the site, knowning that I don't share this site's conception of Communism/Socialism.

[Young Master Smeet]

As I've also indicated, democracy is more than voting.  It is an ongoping debate regarding self organisation, nose counting is just one means to that end.  So here I'm actually arguing against you, in favour of democracy.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

here I'm actually arguing against you, in favour of democracy.

Of course you are. The fact that you've constantly stressed your opposition to 'democratic methods' throughout this thread must be a figment of my imagination.For example:

YMS wrote:

I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless.

Right, I'll leave you to your own definition of democracy, YMS, and await any other posters' comments about 'science' and its method.If you want to discuss the meaning of 'democracy' further, YMS, please do so on the new thread started for that purpose.

[Young Master Smeet]

I think  need to reclarify a point: voting on scientific questions is pointless, not voting in general. I fear I have been quoted out of context.  I continue to counterpose my democratic methods to your nose counting.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I continue to counterpose my democratic methods to your nose counting.

So, 'workers' who think that they should have a say in the conduct of science in their society are 'noses' now.Interesting.And your 'democratic' methods – did you learn them in 'Democratic Kampuchea'?

[Young Master Smeet]

No, I'm saying the only person whose opinion counts is me! me, you hear! The fools, I'll show them all!!!!!!!That, or, as I've repeatedly said, that information needs to be openly available, learned societies/organisations need to be democratically organised internally and within the framework of a democratic society.  Access to knowledge and information resources needs to be free, and people need the time and education to access and process them adquately, and thereafter form their own conclusions, and any member of society needs to have the opportunity to practice science and pursue their research interests, within available resources and the democraticaly decided priorities of the community.Peopl should have the opportunity to contribute to the discussions and ebates around scientific questions.  We should have a much fuller and rounder knowledge fo the state of the debate than how many bums were on the seats.So, I am totally opposed to democracy in all its forms.

[LBird]

I think you should be open with us, YMS.Who will 'control' science, in your opinion?Since it must be logically a minority (otherwise, you would be happy with democratic controls), who are this 'minority' who will insist to workers that those workers will have no collective say in a fundamentally important aspect of society's production processes.Does your fear of workers extent to other areas of production?If the universities are under our democratic controls, surely the universities will teach democratic methods within all disciplines, and your minority will be compelled to adopt these university-sanctioned approaches.Or are you opposed to our democratic control of the education system, too?Are the universities also to be left in the hands of an 'academic elite'?Just what parts of society will be under the control of the Communist majority?None, perhaps?You don't trust 'workers', do you, Young Master Smeet?

[Young Master Smeet]

Science will be controlled by everyone, in as much as science if a free and open debate that people can choose to join or to leave.  We will listen to authorities in so much as it is rational to do so.  We can ignore them if we feel their wrong.  People would associate freely, if they don't want to abide by the rules of a given association, they'll be free to go practice elsewhere.  I can't predict (and wouldn't want to) how every association would work, but in general that's how it would go.  As I suggested before, we would seek, as a community to allow the flat Earth society to have resources to research and propagate its views.  The right of a minority to try and become a majority demands that.

[LBird]

So that's a 'No', then, to "workers' control"?You mention 'everyone', 'people', 'authorities', 'association', and 'community', but no mention of 'workers'.What sort of 'Communism' do you stand for, YMS?It doesn't seem to have much to do with Marx, production, class, exploitation, democracy, history or, indeed, workers.Just some vague mutterings about 'free' and 'rational', 'not abiding by rules' and 'the right of a minority'.Sounds like some sort of liberalism to me, YMS. Ahistorical, asocial, individualism.Oh yes, and an as yet only implied and unspoken fear of 'the masses'.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

So that's a 'No', then, to "workers' control"?What sort of 'Communism' do you stand for, YMS?

No there wont be workers control in communism because there will be no workers."Workers control" is not a description of communismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1965/no-725-january-1965/workers-control

[ALB]

You beat me to it, DJP.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

No there wont be workers control in communism because there will be no workers."Workers control" is not a description of communism.

Oh no, not that old chestnut! Time and time again.The children come out to play, at every opportunity.If I happen to mention 'humanity', the kids shout "You're ignoring 'classes', LBird! Call yourself a Communist?!".If I happen to mention 'workers', the kids howl "You're perpetuating 'classes', LBird! Call yourself a Communist?!".I'm surprised you're still playing this old game, ALB, I thought you more advanced in your criticisms than DJP, but I've been sadly proved wrong.Why can't you two make some valuable addition to the discussion?This is getting tiring.What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.

[Author]

Posts