Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don't even think it's trust: people should be allowed to explore whatever ideas they want, that's freedom. The democratic control comes from deciding to make resources available for science. If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.We're both arguing that science should be practiced by the community, in collaboration and within a democratic framework. I'm only arguing that full democracy is more than voting, which is a small part of democracy – perhaps the least important part.
SocialistPunk wrote:As I understand it LBird is searching for a way to allow a socialist society to control science. As science is another activity based social resource, it isn't unreasonable for socialists to seek to gain some form of control.The other side of the debate, championed by YMS, sees democratic control as impractical. Trust seems to be the method implied.However trust is not enough in a socialist society, as without checks and balances a scientist could engage in research of a dubious nature, even in a socialist society.It then becomes a case of how do we figure out what checks and balances to use and who gets to decide them.My apologies to both sides if I've got things wrong, this is just my simplified take on things, so please correct me if I've cocked up anywhere.No, I think you've summed it up quite well, SP!"Do we 'trust' elites?" is as good a way of putting it as any other.If we do, why not 'trust' them with 'production' in its entirety. Why let those mucky, uneducated, ignorant workers have a say?It's not much of a basis for Socialism/Communism, is it? – 'trust', I mean.Trust implies passivity; Communism implies activity.
I'd have thought trust was an essential prerequisite for socialism. As long as the material interests of commonownership are in place, we don't need to keep watching each other, there is no mechanism/basis for domination. Or would we all tremble in awe of Steve Jones' comprehenive knowledge of snails?
YMS wrote:The freedom to sod off and set up a new Rome is the central underpinning of freedom proper…This is an individualist conception of 'freedom'.There is no 'new Rome'.'Rome' is our society, the one we have to deal with, the one that produces us.It's a bourgeois myth that society can be rejected, and sought anew.Communism is a collectivist ontology. We have what we inherit from capitalism, and we have to collectively deal with that.'From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs' is our slogan.Not 'Fuck you, I'm alright Jack, I'm off to build my new Rome!'All 'individuals' will support the weak. They won't have the choice to ignore poverty, ignorance or want.If bourgeois individuals don't want to work together with us to produce a better society, then let them support and fight for the capitalists, and the myth of 'individual freedom'.'Freedom' must exist for all humans, not a lucky few. But that task of producing 'freedom' is a social task. And it requires democracy.
YMS wrote:… domination…This ahistoric and asocial conception is not Communist, but Anarchist.Communism means the domination of individuals.Democracy is the means for ensuring that all individuals have a say in everything that affects them, including science.We should be open about Communism. It is not Individualism.We must have a society that produces individuals, unlike the one we have now, which produces fools who believe myths.Ask any worker who goes to work about 'freedom' and 'individuality' in the workplace. It's a myth.
YMS wrote:If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.This, in reality, means:
Dr. Mengele wrote:If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.YMS is arguing for vivisection of pregnant women, or injecting petrol into the eyes of twins.Funnily enough, being a Communist and a democrat, I'm opposed to 'individuals' being able themselves to decide on what they 'research'.'Research' is a social activity, not an individual choice.
YMS wrote:I'd have thought trust was an essential prerequisite for socialism.No, 'activity' is an essential prerequisite for socialism.As Marx argues, we must develop the 'active side' in ourselves. That is a social task.Not passive 'trust'.
LBird wrote:YMS is arguing for vivisection of pregnant women, or injecting petrol into the eyes of twins.LBird wrote:But to get to that, we must clarify our terms (what does 'society democratically controlling its science' mean?).LolDefine 'elite', 'ideology', 'specialist', 'communist'. 'democratic control of science'……..You refuse to define your terms and the reason is obvious. You talk nonsense.
LBird wrote:No, 'activity' is an essential prerequisite for socialism.Never?
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:I'd have thought trust was an essential prerequisite for socialism.No, 'activity' is an essential prerequisite for socialism.As Marx argues, we must develop the 'active side' in ourselves. That is a social task.Not passive 'trust'.
Like Maoists said: Let's get the theory in route. The leftists are pure practicists
I have always been under the impression that democracy really begins once the ballot has been counted. Which in my opinion means the vote itself is only the touchstone for democracy in principle and in practice. Thus the vote on "science and communists" would be about the set of principles the majority have decided to follow regarding the decision making process on what actually constitutes the scientific method and how it works in practice. Much like the DofP set out by the WSM/SPGB.What follows next is determined by those set of principles, but in practice they are open to debate as and when circumstances change in the light of new evidence which reveal that in practice the principles either needs a bit of polishing or are abandoned all together. Which in the case of the latter effectively means the principles have to be rewritten to reflect the new knowledge, understanding and observations revealed by the old set of principles.Nevertheless, democracy can only work when the technical decisions made on a day to day basis only come under scrutiny when they are in breach of these principles. In most cases the technical decisions will follow the principles in order to produce a given result, and conversely produce the wrong result when the principles are not followed. Which in effect means that there is no need for society in general to dot every i or to cross every t in respect of the technical decisions being made but just ensure the principles are being followed.On the other hand, when it comes to determining social policy e.g. how many mountains shall we destroy in order to produce x amount of houses, ships, tools, food, etc. Such decisions would obviously resort to the ballot box for they are policies which are determining the future human needs and not the present human needs.
So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?
LBird wrote:So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?That depends on whether or not you are referring to my post #897? I think you will find that most posters here are in broad agreement with that for it describes the outline and not the nuances.And as we are finding out its the nuances as described by yourself which is causing the fallout.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?That depends on whether or not you are referring to my post #897? I think you will find that most posters here are in broad agreement with that for it describes the outline and not the nuances.And as we are finding out its the nuances as described by yourself which is causing the fallout.
It's a simple question.Is human knowledge produced by us (and this social production thus should be under our control) or is it produced by reality?The 'materialists/physicalists/objectivists' argue that reality produces knowledge, and that they have a scientific method which allow them to tune into reality. That is, 'science' is outside of politics.This is at heart a question about 'power'.Is there an elite which has a power denied to the proletariat to 'discover' knowledge?I've argued constantly that science should be subject to our control, in every aspect, including the validation of its 'findings' and the permitting of 'avenues of research'.The onus is on those who disagree about 'democracy in science' to point out how they know what 'reality' says. They must have this 'elite and neutral' method, if they refuse democratic control and yet believe in the 'objective truth' of their findings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.