Science for Communists?

[Lew]

OK, I'll give this one more try and attempt to answer the question which you avoided. To the question "Why should workers become socialist?" one possible answer is: Because the working class are exploited through the wages system. With consequences such as poverty amidst plenty, and so on. This is a claim which, we argue, is demonstrably true. It's true because it fits the facts and explains the world around us. It's true even if there is no workers' democracy. It's even true if there are no socialists or socialist party. And, of course, claims about "a fair days work for a fair days pay" are demonstrably false. That is the situation here and now.That is why talk of controlling "the production of truth" is meaningless.– Lew

[Anonymous]

At the present the majority of the proletariat composed of academic peoples, factories workers,service peoples,  and peasants which are scientists too in the work that they do, are just supporting capitalism, admiring their rulers, and supporting their explotiers.and electing them, and even killing others proletariats like them defending their own rulers and leadersThat is the real true and the reality of our world, the reality for a person living in a mansion is different for a person living on the streets. While we are here talking about science for communists seating on a rocking chair and in front a computer display, thousands of children are dying everyday in this goddamn society where there are enough resources to feed the whole planet, and there are thousands of peoples dying  of many diseases where there are sufficient medical advances in order to cure their suffering, and they  are building thousands of expensive homes who can provide shelters to millions of human beings that are sleeping in the streets, or under a bridge.What we need in our brain is a real  theory of liberation which will provoke us the true conception  to overthrow this system,and say: This is your capitalism,it is  not ours, and I am  not going to fight your stupid wars, I am not going to vote for your political parties, which are the parties of poverty, I am not going to hate my proletariat and class brothers, instead,  I am gong to stay home drinking beers, and enjoy my family and my friends with that knowledge in our brains capitalism would last less than a roach in chicken nest.The question is: Are you ready for the proletarian revolution when it comes ?  Are you ready to stand up from your rocking chairs ? I have been ready for several decades,  and we do not need  Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, or the London library  to do that, they did what they had to do, and we must do what we must do. The socialist party or the WSM  is an unique organization which has existed for almost one hundred years, and I have been part of this political organization for several years, and I proud of being a member of it, and I will be a member until I die because I have not found any better than this, ( that is my reality ) is one of the best school or university  of socialism,( better than Harvard, Yale or Oxford )  and we have laid down the real concept of socialism, instead of be bitching about who is totally wrong, and who is totally correct, we should continue doing what we have been doing for years: Spreading socialism, and letting others workers know that socialism is a possibility and it is the only alternative that we have in order to obtain the real and thru full liberation.I have seen several peoples in this topic named Science for communists, just raising critiques against the socialist party and Engels, and saying that we are wrong, and they are correct, or that we are materialist, and they are holding the bull by the horns,  but I have not  seen anybody having the courage of joining the socialist party and trying to correct inside whatever is wrong, the only thing that this philosophers are doing is just  contemplating the world, nothing else

[Anonymous]

The workers who make the revolution will ensure that the application and testing of science will be appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 And what anyone reading needs to know is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and robbo isn't.That means that I argue that only the proletariat can decide what is 'true' and what isn't.robbo seems to argue that only an elite can decide what is 'true' and what isn't. He's given some of the reasons why he thinks that this is so.

 I am a democratic communist too but I  simply do not believe in the crackpot idea that democracy in a communist society should extend to the determination of scientific "truth" by means of a vote  by 7 billion people .  This is both pointless and totally impracticable – how can you possibly organise tens of thousands of plebiscites on global basis every year.  As usual LBird doesn't explain Though I agree that it is very probable that for any given subject area in science only a minority is likely to be sufficiently competent to judge on the particular merits of a given theory, this is  not in any way a elitist view as I explained, It is purely a function of the social division of labour which L Bird completely ignores. Here is a question for LBird to answer – does he consider that everyone is capable of  becoming an expert in every field of scientific endeavour.  If his answer to that is yes then he clearly has no understanding of just how much time and effort and years of study are required to acquire a level of competence in even just one field of scientific endeavour,  If his answer is no then he has no understanding of just how devastating this admission would be for his theory about how democratic communism would function since how can you vote on something you know nothing about?.  Either way he hasn't got a leg to stand on. I reiterate my position is not at all an elitist one.  An elitist position is one that would seek to put barriers in the way of anyone who would want to acquire a better understanding of a particular subject area.  This is not my position at all, My position is that everyone should be completely free and indeed encouraged to advance their understanding.  I have also pointed out that given the social division of labour the notion of some kind of single social elite is untenable. The scientific expert in astrophysics will probably know next to nothing about say genetics or molecular biology.  In that sense there is likely to be not one elite  but multiple "elites"

LBird wrote:

.It would be easier for all if robbo would be open about what he thinks 'socialism' is.I define it as 'the democratic control of production' – robbo seems to see it as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'individual freedom' 

 This is dishonest. I have explicitly indicated that I support democratic control of production, What I don't support is the  pointless and impractical idea of democratically determining the truth of s scienttic theories by means of a vote.LBird should know the difference between these two things by now.  It has been explained to him often enough

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion

So, I argue for democratic control, and robbo argues that this is 'intellectual totalitarianism'.This is standard cold war scare tactics, that any sniff of democracy in any area where an elite currently has all the power, is tantamount to 'dictatorship'.I have a higher opinion about the intellectual abilities of workers, and their collective decision making about scientific research and the interests and purposes that it serves.robbo seems to regard workers as unwanted and dangerous fools, who, if let loose with 'physics', would return to witchcraft.It's elitism dressed up as concern for 'standards'.

 What rubbish!Of course any worker given the time and  opportunity to study phsycis could become competent in the field of physics amd able to judge the the merits  of a particular theory in physics.  But this argument is NOT about intellectual ability.  It is about opportunity costs and the social division of labour which Lbird seems to know nothing about.  It is impossible for anyone to become an expert in everything – no matter what the intellectual ability of that individual may be.  Of necessity that means some people are bound to know more about some things than others Does L Bird seriously think everyone can become an expert in everything? Whats your answer LBird?

[alanjjohnstone]

Can't we all agree that the way workers will vote will be with their feet on "scientific truth"If they wish to express their view on the validity of the Law Of Gravity, they can, if they wish, follow the example of the Natural Law Party and try to defy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyXAB5L3EIQor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgkhAysnRNYBut without the safety net 

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

The workers who make the revolution will ensure that the application and testing of science will be appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.

Yes, Matt, a 'science' appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.And "appropriate", "commensurate" and "needs" can only be determined by "the immense majority" of "workers who make the revolution".This requires a democratic epistemology, a proletarian science.'Objective science' and 'disinterested scientists' are bourgeois myths, ideologically intended to keep "the immense majority" docile and trusting in their supposed 'betters'.'Objective Knowledge' is 'appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the' 'Free Market' and an elite of 'Individuals'.

[robbo203]

I am still patiently waiting to hear  from LBird why he considers it necessary that the tens of thousands of scientific theories churned out each year should be subjected to a democratic vote – each and every one of them –  by the entire global population to deteremine whether they are "true". Could he explain what exactly is gonna be acheved by doing this?  What is the point of the exercise?  Why is it necessary assuming it was even practicable? And what happens if only 6, 450,000 votes worldwide were cast in favour of, say, String Theory as against only 5, 360,000 rejecting it, out of a total global population of 7,000,000,000?  Would L Bird consider this a sufficiently strong mandate for endorsing String theory as an expression of Proletarian Truth.  If not , what would be?  51% of the global vote or 3.5 billion+ votes in favour?  Also, what happens if those 5, 360,000 who voted against String Theory continue to disbelieve in it? Would this be permissablle under LBrd's version of democratic communism? Could LBird please enlighten us on this points? He claims to answer questions that are put to him.  Could he kindly answer these?

[LBird]

The philosophical problem we face is the mediation between subject and object.Idealist philosophers like Cieszkowski, prior to Marx, had identified the link: 'activity'.Marx agreed with this link between subject and object being 'activity', but his term for this was 'social labour'.Marx argued that the 'subject' was 'humanity' (rather than 'god' as for the idealists), but agreed that, as for the idealists, the subject actively created its own object. The idealists argued that the divine created its world; Marx argued that humanity created their world.Marx regarded the 'subject' as a socio-historical category, and argued that the proletariat and bourgeoisie were different 'subjects', with different needs, purposes and interests. So, their 'activity' or 'social labour' would be different, and thus produce different 'objects'.This political and philosophical argument forms the basis of a Marxist approach to 'science'.'Science' is a social activity, an act by 'social labour', which creates, through its social theory and practice, its 'objective truth'.To be 'objective' is to be 'socially objective' – the link between subject and object must always be maintained, and we must always show who, and for what reasons, any 'object' is created.Clearly, the bourgeoisie have tried to hide this link: from the beginning of their creation of their science, they have pretended that they have a method that is not subjective, that there is no link between a creative subject and its object, and that the 'object' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery', by a passive enquirer, who has no subjective link to the 'object'.These political (class power, socio-historic subjects) and philosophical (creation of knowledge, and ability to change 'truth') considerations will form the basis of any discussion by Marxists, Communists and workers, about the nature of our 'science'.Without this discussion, the proletariat will remain in thrall to bourgeois science, the supposed 'disinterested' subject which simply 'discovers' a world which it hasn't built.Since, as Marx argued, our world is built by humans, the world to be passively discovered is a world already designed and constructed by the bourgeoisie, for their own purposes and interests, and it is a world alien to ours.The acceptance of bourgeois science, and its methods, is the acceptance of our exploitation, of our domination as a class.The bourgeoisie, of course, deny this argument as 'ideology', and as destructive of 'objective science'. 'True Science' must remain within the power of a 'scientific elite', and any attempt to take political control of this 'social labour' is 'totalitarian'. They must retain control of all 'social labour'.The class conscious proletariat, to carry out a successful social revolution, must dispute this ruling class ideology, and democratically build their own world anew.

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

The workers who make the revolution will ensure that the application and testing of science will be appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.

LBird wrote:

Yes, Matt, a 'science' appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.And "appropriate", "commensurate" and "needs" can only be determined by "the immense majority" of "workers who make the revolution".

Who will most probably do as they do now, allow specialism to advise and pursue scientific endeavours in cutting edge developments .

Quote:

This requires a democratic epistemology, a proletarian science.

There won't be a proletariat any more and scientific workers will reflect this.

Quote:

'Objective science' and 'disinterested scientists' are bourgeois myths,

Not so, totally, as scientists presently attempt to break constraints upon their resarch and developments, hitting against brick wall of funding and dominant economic class interests seeking to stream their endeavoours into the maintainence of profit and war like, ,as well as being used  ideological reinforcememnt, overstated in my view, as  even presently, intellectually honest scienctific pursuits  themselvesf bristles at such control.

Quote:

ideologically intended to keep "the immense majority" docile and trusting in their supposed 'betters'.'Objective Knowledge' is 'appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the' 'Free Market' and an elite of 'Individuals'.

That is as much a capitalist , climate change denier's argument as anything else. The revolution will free those of a scientific inclination into at last fullfilliing thteir socially responsible inclinations and ambitions, to serve humanity, which is even in capitalism still a motivational factor in entering the scientific community in the first instance.

[Young Master Smeet]

Nasty Old Engels wrote:

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

There won't be a proletariat

This touches on what i asked earlier…will socialism be a static society? If ideas and material conditions do arise to create ideology what can we expect to replace the proletarian one when the proletariat is no more. hmmmmmmm…?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

There won't be a proletariat

This touches on what i asked earlier…will socialism be a static society? If ideas and material conditions do arise to create ideology what can we expect to replace the proletarian one when the proletariat is no more. hmmmmmmm…?

The 'proletariat' is a special category of 'producer': a 'producer' that is 'exploited'.Of course, socialist society will see the end of the 'proletariat', but not of the 'producer'.The 'producer' is the 'social subject', that creates its own 'object'.Social 'theory and practice' (your 'ideas and material') will create new 'ideologies' to suit our own purposes and interests, and if we decide to actively change our own purposes and interests, then those 'ideologies' will change, too.

[Wez]

LBird seems to believe in a ' world already designed and constructed by the bourgeoisie'. This is not true because it is the working class who design and construct this world and in so doing they are witness to the contradiction of this reality of production with that of bourgeois ideology. The capitalist actually believes that it is money/capital that creates the world whereas the working class are well aware that it is their own toil that does so. It is this contradiction between the reality of capitalism and the illusion of its dominant ideology that can lead to class consciousness. Scientists, as members of the working class, are also aware of these glaring contradictions in terms of finance, deadlines, unintended consequences, manipulation of experimental data etc. etc. There's no such thing as bourgeois science because most, if not all, scientists are working class!  LBird would seem to deny the dialectical position that socialism is born out of the womb of capitalism.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

There's no such thing as bourgeois science because most, if not all, scientists are working class!

ahhh , no there is no such thing as capitalist war because those who fight and die are working class

[Author]

Posts