Science for Communists?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

LBird,Given that Pannekoek was a professor, that means his opinions of professors was a bourgeois lie, and that professors are on our side, which means he's right, and they're on the side of the bouregsoisie, which means he's lying, and they're on our side, which means they're on their side…

Oh, how clever, YMS! Wordplay!

How about a reply. Do you know any non-bourgeois scientists? You keep mentioning Einstein but wasn't he a bourgeois scientist (by your definition that is)EDIT: By the way if you know your history socialism is only possible because of  bourgeois society and its science.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I can't wait for that moment when i'm present when all those involved in these several related threads meet up in the pub and have had a few pints to lubricate their throats and thoughts….It will be a dynamite experience, dwarving Marx v Bakunin, Lenin v Martov …I'm serious about the drama and the spectacle i expect to witness when such an encounter materialises 

 Only problem with that is that, unlike this forum,  LBird will have nowhere to run when the heat is on I am not a big aggressive bloke but I do have a minder in case of trouble. Nobody would dare annoy wor lass. lol  

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I can't wait for that moment when i'm present when all those involved in these several related threads meet up in the pub and have had a few pints to lubricate their throats and thoughts….It will be a dynamite experience, dwarving Marx v Bakunin, Lenin v Martov …I'm serious about the drama and the spectacle i expect to witness when such an encounter materialises 

Only problem with that is that, unlike this forum,  LBird will have nowhere to run when the heat is on

The real tragedy here, is not that any of us pretend to be seriously comparable to Marx, Bakunin, Lenin or Martov, but that they were engaged in fresh arguments, that at the time no-one really knew how their ideas would pan out.In contrast, we're having a debate that could have (and should have) been settled a couple of generations ago. As I've said before, since at least the 1920s, with Lukacs, Korsch and Pannekoek, and many since, the need to clarify 'what science is' has been apparent.Is 'science' a neutral method, which, because it is outside of social and historical influences, can be adopted by anyone (not just small elites, but even single individuals), and which produces 'Truths' which are not relative to the society which produces them, that 'science' produces timeless and contextless knowledge of the external world?Or is 'science' inescapably itself a social and historical product, which produces social and historical context-filled, relative, knowledge, which is always a product of a society (and if that society has a ruling elite, the product is full of elite values)?If the former, democracy is not required; if the latter, and the society is a democratic society (ie. not private productive property), then democracy is required.I've become aware, during my political activities over the years, that the Leninist/Trotskyist parties embrace the former, because they think an elite can 'lead' society. They regard themselves as 'the scientific elite' of the proletariat.I reject this, and reject 'objective science', because since Einstein it has become clear that it is unsustainable to argue that humans produce 'objective knowledge', and every single Leninist/Trotskyist party that I've come across or read about, has refused to allow workers to determine 'their' party's policies by democratic means.Probably the biggest laugh is that Marx's ideas fit with 'relativism', and he was a democrat who thought that workers could develop the capacity to control production, but all this anti-democratic science worship is carried out by so-called Communists, influenced by Engels, and they claim the mantle of Marx.Nearly a hundred years have gone to waste, and most workers still cling to a faith in 'science'. The anti-democratic, elitist, 'Truth'-producing sort, introduced by the bourgeoisie.Perhaps, in another hundred years…

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

We have three factors to consider:1. We're Communists, who insist that the means of production must be under democratic control;2. Science since Einstein has taught us that 'truth' is a social and historical construct, and not an eternal, universal 'Truth', as alleged by 19th century science;3. Marx argued, as did others influenced by German Idealism, that both external reality and human consciousness are required, and that it's consciousness that is the 'active side', not 'matter'.

 So you accept the words of these unelected elite experts? No democracy there then! Why not add Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin to your list of experts and write them on stones for us ordinary masses to read.

[Young Master Smeet]

Vin,thing is, with his most recent pronouncement

Quote:

Put simply, the producers elect 'experts', who explain to the electorate, and the electorate decide by a vote between explanations. Thus power lies with the producers, not 'experts'. If the expert can't explain in terms understandable by the producers, there is thus no 'explanation', and the expert won't be elected next time the producers wish to delegate research tasks.

He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.  In fact, what he is suggesting is not that the vote acts as verification, but as validation, which is somethign a vote *can* do.  So, we're all agreed that the community at large have to have democratic control of allocating resources to science and research, and that the outcome must be communicated in he way a well educated community (with leisure time enough to follow such things, if they want) can understand.  There's no need to say "Professor Blogs is right" merely "Professor Blogs has demonstrated sound methodology, and research that is likely to produce a usable result (even if it is a negative)".

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.

So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.None of that 19th century bourgeois science nonsense about 'neutral, non-political physics' and 'scientists' producing 'Truth' which is a copy of the 'Real World' and is true forever.Well?I'm waiting, YMS.

[LBird]

Ball, Serving the Reich pp. 251-2, wrote:

Science historian Joseph Haberer concluded in 1969 that ‘an idealization of science as a superior form of activity remains deeply entrenched in the contemporary scientific consciousness’. One can safely make the same statement today.            The dangerous complacency of this assumption is laid bare by the history of German science under National Socialism. It should be obvious from even a cursory consideration of the matter that the rational and impersonal viewpoint required in science here conferred absolutely no advantage in matters of morality….as Haberer has said,'The real issue is how it was possible for men trained in the sciences, like Lenard and Stark, to become fanatical National Socialists. If Nobel laureates can be so infected, what protection does scientific training and practice provide against the excesses of irrational personal, economic, social or political conduct? Most scientists have tended to assume that they (more than any other professional type) follow the paths of rational, disinterested, and even humane conduct. The evidence increasingly demonstrates that scientists as a whole are no more immune to the ailments of political man than other men'.

This is why our proletarian science must be democratic. We must place more faith in ourselves, than in any elite.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 This is why our proletarian science must be democratic. We must place more faith in ourselves, than in any elite.

 so why do you propose voting on their knowledge?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote..

A vote on competing expert elites? So you now admit that there will be experts in their field? Come on LBird just say it: 'There will be experts in socialism'Not so Easy-peasy for you

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote..

A vote on competing expert elites? So you now admit that there will be experts in their field? Come on LBird just say it: 'There will be experts in socialism'Not so Easy-peasy for you

What's the matter with you, Vin? Can't you read what I wrote on the other thread, and YMS quoted on this?It's the power that experts have, that we have to control. If you think that I think that there will be no experts in socialism, why would I carry out 18 months of posting to try to argue that we should democratically control the power of experts in socialism, and, indeed, before, if possible?Up until now, I've just assumed that you just don't like me, and that you're conducting a personal vendetta, which is fair enough, as I've been pretty frank about what I think about your intellectual abilities……but this is becoming rather concerning. I'm starting to feel that there is some other problem going on.Could someone PM me, if there's something I should know?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.

 LOL 7 billion people voting several thousand times a year on the "truth" of scientific theories,  the vast majority of which, the vast majority of us (including the "scientific experts" as well), will most likely not have heard of or be familiar with – unless of course you believe in the notion that we can all attain a state of "scientific omniscience" through deep meditation and a diet of lentils "Easy peasy" indeed!It is pie-in-the-sky nonsense like this that actually makes  the case for communism look ludicrous and plain silly.  Saying that some people are more knowledgeable than others in some things  – inevitably – is not the same thing as taking up an elitist position since, though you may know more about  mechanics than I do, I may know more about chemistry than you.  LBird still cant see this point – he does not recognise that there is a social division of labour and that there are oppotunity costs involved in the acquisition of any kind of knowlege . So he rambles on irrelevantly counterposing elite science to democratic science.  The logic of his own argument is to say that we are all the same in our capabilities which is manifestly not true and by implying that it is, it is litle wonder that 99.99% of the population would scorn the case for communism if it was presented to them by the likes of LBirdAnd still we haven't been told why a vote is needed! Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own. If LBird's daft ideas ever had any purchase we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages believing that the sun revolved around the earth rather than the other way round with no way of requestioing and overthrowing this orthodoxy in a totalitarian  system in which people will be told what to think (post 1260) .  If, on the other hand,  you are able to question orthodoxy then what is the point of voting for it other than to validate it as orthodoxy.  And what exactly is the point of that? It seems quite pointless.  LBird quite simply does not understand what democracy is meant to be forThat latest offering from LBird is that  the idea of voting is to curb the power  of his "experts".  How so? You could just as easily argue by that token  that it will do the exact opposite – if the expert in question finds his or her views have attracted majority support. What is to stop them capitalising on that support in that case?The mere fact that only a relatively few people are likely to know what String Theory is about, does not  and indeed, cannot, somehow give them "power" over others in a communist society where the means of production are commonly owned and all labour is voluntary.  Power to do what exactly? LBird doesn't explain.  But then he is not into "explaining" or answering questions in good faith – which is why he ducks every question asked of him.  He is here merely to pontificate –  like some kind of leftist version of a monomaniacal Jehovah Witness neophyteWe have had months and months of the most stultifyingly boring  and idiotic drivel from LBird, endlessly regurgitated.  When is he going to take the hint and realise  that continuing to shove his tedious mantras down our throats just aint gonna cut it – any more than those JW leaflets continuously shoved through the letter box?        

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.

So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.None of that 19th century bourgeois science nonsense about 'neutral, non-political physics' and 'scientists' producing 'Truth' which is a copy of the 'Real World' and is true forever.Well?I'm waiting, YMS.

Because that's not true, nor necessary.  Voting can only reveal the desire of the voter, that's the only truth it reveals.  So it can reveal what lines of research society wants to pursue, it can pronounce research ethical or unethical, it can pronounce it valid or invalid, but it cannot make black white or day night.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.

So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.None of that 19th century bourgeois science nonsense about 'neutral, non-political physics' and 'scientists' producing 'Truth' which is a copy of the 'Real World' and is true forever.Well?I'm waiting, YMS.

Because that's not true, nor necessary.  Voting can only reveal the desire of the voter, that's the only truth it reveals.  So it can reveal what lines of research society wants to pursue, it can pronounce research ethical or unethical, it can pronounce it valid or invalid, but it cannot make black white or day night.

So, why claim that we're not 'saying, in practice, anything much different'?You either still don't understand what I'm saying, or are falsely presenting to others that there is nothing really radical about what I'm saying.I'm inclined to think the former is correct.You won't enter a philosophical discussion about the relationship between subject, object and knowledge, and think this issue is merely one of 'practice'.This focus on 'practice', and the avoidance of 'theory', is essentially a conservative method of approaching any issue.It's like trying to get people to read Marx's Capital, as a prelude to a discussion about exploitative social relationships, and being met with 'practical' questions, like 'But, but… under socialism, will I still be able to buy beer and fags?'.In fact, this issue, about the social production of scientific knowledge, and my views about it, are not just radical, but unavoidably revolutionary.The bourgeois-inspired view that 'scientists' just do 'science', and it is essentially a non-political activity, best left to 'experts', is one that is dying hard in our society.It is, in fact, a ruling class idea.And, on the contrary, the notion of the democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge (ie. that 'truth' will be elected by humanity) is a revolutionary idea, and one suited to a class conscious proletariat attempting to build its confidence in the face of our bourgeois brainwashing.I know that you don't share these beliefs or aims, YMS, but why you just won't say that you're neither a revolutionary nor a democrat, baffles me.You think that 'science' is best left to 'an elite', who employ a 'scientific method' that is non-political, and that 'scientific knowledge' is a reflection of 'reality' (rather than a human construction, influenced by social and historical factors, and so changeable).You don't really think that 'workers' can take power of their production, and you don't believe that that production includes 'ideas'. At best, you'd allow workers to have a 'factory works' council', to advise those in charge on the best way to produce 'widgets'. You don't aim for 'workers' control', as I do, and you certainly won't have workers determining what 'scientific truth' is.In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own.

You still won't tell us how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.You're positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass', and suggesting that the 'elite' have a 'method' which is a better way of determining the truth of a 'view', than is a democratic method.This is simply bourgeois ideology, not an incontrovertible truth.It is a product of 'materialism', and is suited to Leninist political organisation.Put simply, robbo, you have a fear of democracy, and a faith in scientists. It is not a revolutionary view.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

 

[Author]

Posts