Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Socialism most certainly does not mean the domination of individuals, it is the precise opposite, it is the fullest extenion of freedom, since we can only be as free as we help each other to be (The freedom to be left alone is only the lowest level of such). It is a society in which the free development of each is the condition for he free development of all. The mechanism by which this will be enforced is not labour at gun point, but that when people act (together) the outcome will inevitably be socialised through the lack of enforceable mechanisms for individual appropriation. The actors can move around the stage as they please, the scenary will remain the same.Your comment about Mengele is ridiculous, there is a difference between the topics of science and the methods.Democracy is the means for ensuring that all individuals can have a say in everything that affects them, including science.
YMS wrote:Democracy is the means for ensuring that all individuals can have a say in everything that affects them, including science.So, you agree that every individual on this planet should have a say about the findings of nuclear physicists?If so, we're in complete agreement, at last!No elite group of nuclear physicists pretending that they have a 'neutral' scientific method, and that that method allows them to tell us what the findings mean.No, we vote on the 'findings', as you say, because the findings of science affect us all.
If peopel want to have a say, they can. if they want to have an opinion they can (and the opposite too, if they don't, they needn't). Exactly what happens now.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If peopel want to have a say, they can. if they want to have an opinion they can (and the opposite too, if they don't, they needn't). Exactly what happens now.[my bold]This is simply untrue.This does not happen now.The poor of the world do not have a vote regarding the findings of nuclear physicists.I really don't know how you can make the statement above.
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'.
If something is 'an essential prequisite' that does not preclude other prequisites. It is possible to be active and trusting. Socialism is about creating a framework in which we share a common interest and thus act together without coercion, suspiscion, domination, etc. not just because we want to, but because we cannot help but benefit our fellows.
YMS wrote:Socialism is about creating a framework in which we share a common interest and thus act together without coercion, suspiscion, domination, etc. not just because we want to, but because we cannot help but benefit our fellows.This is an ahistoric, asocial account. A '60s hippy could have written it.Socialism is about destroying the power of the ruling class, and building a society in which all power is subject to the democratic proletariat (which, after the revolution, means humanity).Why do you never mention social power, YMS, and always go on about 'individual domination'?Of course there will be 'coercion' – all societies throughout history have employed some form of coercion on their members. There will be coercion of any individuals who transgress our social rules. We might argue that these transgressors will be a very small minority, and that they will be treated humanely, but nevertheless we will impose our rules upon transgressors.Communism is not the realisation of the myth of 'bourgeois individualism', the 'freedom to do as you like', but the democratic control of that society by all its members.Communism is not the abolition of society. That is a myth, YMS.We're talking politics. And politics are social, not individual.
Society protecting itself and its memebrs from harm is very different from compulsory work. The point is to align individual consciousness with social needs, so that we want to co-operate and no longer experience society as an alien power. It is the fullest realisation of individuality possible.Back to sceince, the poor of the world may noit have a vote, but they do have a say. If they're say is limited it is because they haven't the time to study and the education. Those are both more impotrant than a nose count.
YMS wrote:Back to sceince, the poor of the world may noit have a vote, but they do have a say. If they're say is limited it is because they haven't the time to study and the education. Those are both more impotrant than a nose count.D'y'know, YMS, I often get the feeling that I'm communicating with someone who doesn't actually live in the same world as me.So, the 'say of the poor', which is based upon ignorance, is more important than a 'nose count' of class conscious, well educated, workers?Are you really a 'caring conservative', some sort of Heathite or Macmillanist, from the '50s or '60s?You seem to have a 'paternalist' tone to your posts.By the way, who does the 'aligning'?
Quote: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'.I'm at a loss to udnerstand how remotely this could be controlled. Unless you strictly regulate what people are reading, you cannot control avenues of research, since a simple literature review consititutes avenues of research. The whole of society cannot possibly plan what goes on in each lab, or will we be voting to the last mole of copper sulphate (or is it sulfate these days?).Would we be voting on articles like this?:https://what-if.xkcd.com/
YMS wrote:I'm at a loss to udnerstand how remotely this could be controlled.It'll continue to be controlled as it is now.We workers don't have control of science. An elite does.You do live in a dream world, don't you, YMS?It's strange that you should be posting on a politics website, as 'power' doesn't seem to interest you at all.And so, by default, for you power will remain exactly where it is now.But you will remain unaware of this. Strange.
Science is carride out by proleterians at the minute. The bourgeoisie exercise the power of the purse, and that is the power that will fall to the socialist community: the decision over resourcing lines of research, and general scientific equipment. It will be a democratic decision whether to build a successor to CERN or ITER, and the results would be freely available for all to form an opinion upon.In socialism, books will be freely available, as will time for education and study. Communication will be open, and libraries will be open to all (and properly resourced to that end). People will have their say by reading, studying and thinking, as they do now, but it will be easier for them to do so. And it would be a life-long process. The conversation will spread throughout the world (especially if technology improves translation devices).
YMS, I think that you're getting dragged away from the main point of this thread, and into 'details of democratic control': that is, the 'how', rather than the 'why'.The 'why' is because all scientific knowledge is socially produced, and is not produced by a special, secret, neutral method by 'scientists'.This is really an epistemological question, about 'where knowledge comes from'.Once we are clear that there is no 'neutral scientific method', which the bourgeoisie claim to have, to help maintain their power (there's that word again!), then the 'why' we need democratic control is no longer in doubt.It then becomes simply (!) a discussion between class conscious workers as to 'how' we will build into our political structures the demand for the democratic control of science in the future, based upon our political arrangements, in the meantime.We won't have any time for claims of 'elite experts' within the Communist movement. We'll demand the democratic control of all the means of production, including science.And when anyone asks us 'why?', we can answer that we have no choice, according to the results of all the sciences, including physics.Humans are at the core of the production of knowledge, not the physical/material/objective rocks.
The socialist method isn't why we must bell the cat, but how and why it will happen due to material circumstances.The why is that we will have democratic control of society, the power of the "purse" and communication between equals who will have no interest other than striving for the best knowledge available at stake. We remove the distortions of government military funding, coporate research, etc. and open the debate with journals and media not competing to provide readers to sell to advertisers (the true consumers of news media). All the organisations involved in this process will be run democratically, because that will be the only way they can be run among freely associating human beings.And that is why science will be democratic.
YMS wrote:…how and why it will happen due to material circumstances.[my bold]Who detetermines what the 'material circumstances' are?Do the 'material circumstances' tell us (through our biological senses, during atheoretical practice, and by passive observation) what they 'are'?Or do 'material circumstances' have to be understood so they can be changed, by humans employing social theories which inform both their social practice and observations, and using their socially-created senses, so that 'material circumstances' are not 'obvious', but an understanding of them has to be built first, by education and propaganda amongst all workers?The Engelsian-informed Leninists argue the former: that the 'material circumstances' are obvious to any worker using their eyes.This is untrue, otherwise the revolution would have happened long ago.In fact, following Marx, we realise that we need theory to understand our practice. If this wasn't necessary, then, as Charlie said, 'all science would be superfluous'.We have to build for Socialism/Communism: it will not dawn through mere, common-sense 'practice', the 'theory' behind which will remain hidden to most, and will be supplied by the Leninists, who will pretend to workers that 'your senses and practice will suffice'.They are lying. They say 'Do now!'; we say 'Think first!'.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.