[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I am suggesting, and have been right through the thread, that 'the findings of scientific research' should have their 'truth' validated by a democratic process!The ball's in the court of those who disagree, to say how the human activity of science is to be controlled, and by whom.'Truth' is a social construct.

Looks as if we've been going round in circles and are back to square one, except perhaps that it is clear that the SPGB does not favour "elite control" of scientific policy and research in socialism/communism.In one of your posts you distinguished between the theory of science (what it is) and science policy. You seem to be confusing the two. Science is a branch of "knowledge" and, as you point out, humans are inevitably involved in this because it involves humans describing and classifying their experiences with a view to predicting them. So, there can be no "knowledge" without humans as knowledge is human knowledge. Yes, "truth is a social construct" in this sense, but this is pretty trite, a bit like the character of one of Moliere's plays who suddenly realises that he has been speaking prose all his life (as if he could have avoided this).In socialism, being a democratic society, "the human activity of science" will obviously be controlled democratically, but deciding whether or not the findings of this activity are acceptable (are "valid" or "true") is something different. Why should society have to decide whether a theory of how the lesser spotted butterfly got its spots is "true" or not?  Why should "society" have the power to reject a finding a majority didn't find acceptable ("politically correct"?)? Or to decide that "2 + 2 = 5"? In fact, why should it want to have this power?

[ALB]

Alf wrote:

that 'human nature' is a simple reflection of particular social relations.

Just to be clear. I never said that "human nature" was this. I was talking about human behaviour, which is culturally and social determined (a bit more complicated than a "simple reflection", though)."Human nature", if it is to mean anything, is the biologically-determined genotype of the animal species homo sapiens sapiens, i.e. upright stance, eyes capable of binocular three-dimensional colour vision, a vocal system capable of speech, hands capable of using and making tools, a prolonged period of growing up during which behaviour can be learned, etc. This hasn't changed since the species evolved some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. It's human behaviour that's changed, made possible by humans' biologically-inherited capacity to adapt to different social and physical environments.I'm not sure that speculations about "human nature" by philosophically-minded individuals in the 1840s are much help today.

[ALB]

Alf wrote:

But Marx in the same work, as well as in others written at the time, also talks about the self-alienation of man, and demonstrates how deep its roots lie. This problem is obviously connected to the level of the productive forces, but it cannot be reduced to this aspect. The process leading from capitalism to communism is above all else a grandiose attempt to go beyond alienation, and nothing would be gained in this struggle by underestimating how estranged we are from each other, and from our own inner potential.

Interesting but rather surprising argument — that humans have a basic psychological nature from which they have become alienated under capitalism and which socialism/communism will restore and allow to flourish.It would be nice if this was true as it would mean that we could turn the tables on the apologists for capitalism and say that it is capitalism that is "against human nature". Unfortunately, since the 1840s the findings of social anthropolgy have shown that it is "human nature" to be able to adapt their behaviour to the social environment in which they find themselves and that therefore it is just as "natural" for us to live under capitalism as it would be to live in socialism/communism.  Human behaviour is adaptive and flexible. There is no fixed human behaviour-pattern. The good news is that this means that socialism/communism is not incompatible with it.Maybe Marx, influenced by other German philosophers of the time who spoke of humans' "species being", did hold this view for a time (I'm not sure, though, that he "demonstrated" how "deep its roots lie"; rather he and the other German philosophers just asserted it without bringing forward any proof, as philosophers typically do). But later, for the workers' movement, "alienation" came to have a less philosophical, more practical meaning — the separation of the producers from both the means of production and from what they produced and which came to dominate them as an outside, "alien" force  in the form of capital.Ending "alienation" in this sense won't take long: it will end as soon as capitalist ownership of the means of production is replaced by their common ownership and democratic control by all the people. The producers will then collectively control production and will no longer be "alienated". This can be done very quickly once the working class decides to do it and wouldn't take one year let alone forty or even ten.

[ALB]

The same ambiguity as before seems to still exist.Nobody is arguing that in socialism only scientists should have a say in "decisions affecting science and technology". This isn't even the case today, where these are made by governments and corporations guided by profit and strategic/military considerations. By contrast, in socialism they will be subject of democratic discussion and decision-making.The ambiguity has arisen because the way you sometimes express your point of view seems to be suggesting that the findings of scientific research should be subject to validation as to whether or not they are to be regarded as "true" by some sort of democratic consultation. Which is a different proposition.

[ALB]

twc, I thought at first that Lbird was arguing for something like that, i.e. that some meeting of "proletarian communists" should decide the "truth" of "science",  the sort of thing that happened in Russia with the Lysenko affair. but I don't think he does. In any event, I think it's unfair to suggest that he is a "Leninist" as he's made it clear that he isn't.

[ALB]

Alf wrote:

In respone to ALB: in our view the wage form and the law of value should be attacked from the beginning of the revolution. But that's not the same as declaring it 'abolished' once and for all. Perhaps you are right and will it all be very straightforward because by the time the workers take power they will have thrown off the entire weight of thousands of years of class society. But what happens if the revolutionary process meets with obstacles and set backs and what Marx called 'the 'old shit' starts to reassert itself again?

You are implying here that a long transition period during which "the wage form and the law of value" will be gradually abolished is needed for the working class to throw off the "weight of thousands of years of class society".I don't see that and how the two are connected, except that both imply that the "objective" conditions for socialism/communism are not met, i.e. that the productive forces are not developed enough to provide plenty for everyone and that the working class is not fully competant to run a socialist/communist society.You bring in Marx, but we all know that quotes from Marx and Engels cannot settle any argument (except one about what they actually said). Anyway, Marx and Engels refer to the "old shit" (not always translated as this) in The German Ideology, extensive notes written in 1845. Here's the one I think you referred to:

Quote:

Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

Whether you agree with it or not (and we know a lot more about human behaviour today than in 1845), this is a claim that "all the muck of ages" will be got rid of in the course of a communist revolution as a precondition for founding a new, communist society, not after the revolution or in the course of creating the new society.Here's the other passage:

Quote:

This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced.

This is a claim that unless it is possible to abolish scarcity "the old filthy business" of the struggle for necessities (presumably taking the form of the struggle to obtain money, one way or the other, to buy necessities) would reassert itself. It is linked not the psychology of the workers and people in general but to the level of development of the productive forces.In other words, a claim that a precondition for socialism/communism is the development of the productive forces to a stage where plenty for all can be produced, i.e. where there will be no need to retain featuress of an earlier stage when this is not the case, features such as "the wage form and the law of value". It is these that are in fact part of the "old shit".But, then, these are just the opinions of two young Germans nearly 170 years ago, their contribution to this debate if you like, but no more authoritative than the contributions of the rest of us..

[ALB]

This is not my field of interest (but I know it's YMS's).  A holiday has provided me with a chance to read copies of the Skeptical Inquirer whichI i subscribe to. The November/December 2012 issue carried an article by Massimo Piglucci. a philosopher of science who writes a regular "Thinking About Science" column, entitled "Singularity As Pseudoscience". Naturally it caused a controversy. His basic argument seems to be that the theory of Singularity is based on the theory that the mind is like a computer, i.e that the human "intelligence" is "a function of speed of calculation and storage capacity":

Quote:

… the whole idea of being able to upload one's consciousness [to a computer] assumes a strong — and not at all validated — version of the computational theory of mind. But that theory is, ironically, a flagrant example of dualism, because it separates what Descartes would have called res extenta (mere matter) from the res cogitsnds (thinking stuff), the latter being defined entirely in terms of logical symbols. There is no reason to believe that that's the way consciousness arises, and there are good reasons to think that it is instead a biological process, tightly linked to other biological processes and substrates typical of the kind of animal we are.

and

Quote:

Moreover, if the Singulatarians were to actually get what they wished, they would likely find themselves in a self-made hell. Human psychology evolved alongside a body capables of sensations, emotions and so on — not just pure thought. An entirely formal symbolic consciousness (whatever that might mean) would be nothing like a human being and would experience the world much differently than we do.

I don't know if there is anything in this criticism? Anyway, it seems a long way off.

[ALB]

Thanks, but to tell the truth his criticism of the Black Bloc and defence of non-violent tactics in the interview was one of things I liked. Obviously we don't denounce them to the police, but that doesn't alter the fact that their tactics are idiotic. But, as you say, we've already had this debate.

[ALB]

Nice to see that not everybody likes so-called "consensus decision-making":

Quote:

I can’t say I enjoyed the meetings much though. Consensus decision making makes me want to vomit at the best of times, so I was more than unimpressed when I heard that’s how the occupation did their meetings. I understand it as a way to stretch decisions out painfully and bicker about details until everyone agrees with a proposal, or at least until all dissenters have given up and left the room. To be fair, it really depends on the group of people involved and how it’s executed, so seeing as most of the people there were really politically on point, it wasn’t quite as awful as it could have been, and we did actually manage to reach some decisions.

[ALB]

I'm replying here to this from another thread (the one on the ICC) so as not derail that one:

LBird wrote:

Further, related to our discussions on the 'free access' thread, what is the SPGB position on the 'democratic control of science'?I would argue that if the SPGB's answers are, respectively, 'subjective' and 'elite specialist control', then I think that 'the SPGB has made mistakes'.I could be wrong, of course…

I thought we'd cleared up that the SPGB does not advocate "elite specialist control" of science in a socialist society.

[ALB]

Alf wrote:

The question of 'maturity' is mainly about the subjective conditions – so once again we are back to the question of class consciousness. The period of transition is necessary above all because getting rid of the ideological muck of ages will demand a huge struggle. The attachment to the old world will certainly be strong among those other non-exploiting classes who have survived into the period of capitalism's decline, but it will also have a powerful weight on the working class itself. As Marx said: only in a revolution can the proletariat rid itself of this muck.

I think Pfbcarlisle is right to have drawn particular attention to this passage, which has all sorts of implications.First, that the working class that carries out the revolution won't be fully class consciousness, but will still be carrying "the ideological muck of ages".Second, there's a bit of a contradiction between saying "this muck" will be got rid of during the revolution and then saying a longish transition period is needed after the revolution in which this "powerful weight on the working class" is to be removed.Third, I suspect the ICC shares Sotionov (of the other thread)'s scepticism about workers in the early days of socialism/communism agreeing to work hard enough if they can have free access to what they need and that therefore this is something they have to learn (be taught?) during a transition period in which "the law of value" (production for the market, working for wages, etc) will continue before socialism/communism and the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" can be implemented.. It's the Creating the New Man syndrome again.I agree with Pfbcarlisle too that the "transition period" during which "this muck", this "attachment to the old world", is got rid of is taking place now and will have to be completed, amongst most workers, before the revolution can take place.PS I think we may ourselves have sometimes used the same argument about "objective" and "subjective" conditions as Alf. Of course everything that happens is objective, including thoughts and even hallucinations, so in this sense so is class socialist consciousness.

[ALB]

It's just that you keeping on bringing up your "Mengele Commission" jibe (at least twice now, the last in the post to which I was replying). As an article in this month's Socialist Standard points out:

Quote:

Someone has said that there is a certain inevitability of the mention of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis terminating many emotionally charged political debates.

And Mengele is worse than Hitler, not that this debate is that emotionally charged or at least needs to be.As we all here agree that in socialism/communism science and science policy should be subject to democratic social control of some kind, there's not  all that much more to discuss except to sign the Protocols of Agreement !.

[ALB]

I think you're right. The question of "only one state" is important. Our assumption (think Arab Spring, think fall of state capitalist regimes in East Europe) is that the world socialist revolution once it starts will be more or less simultaneous in the most industrially developed parts of the world (which already today exist on every continent), where there will be the most numerous and best organised workers movement. This is the basis for our assumption that working class use of the state need only last a few years if that, i.e. that there might be a gap of a few years between the first state being taken over and the last.The ICC civil war scenario is based on what happened in Russia 1917-1921 (though I think thety've evolved beyond the romantic idea of cavalry battles between Red and White horse-riders). A more modern version would be like what happened in ex-Yugoslavia and what is happening in Syria at the moment: battles for control of territory. I suggest this is completely unrealistic because it assumes that the capitalist class will be able to muster sufficient support to make a fight of it. It is all very well saying that in the past no ruling class has ever surrendered power peacefully (not entirely true, incidentally) but where would they recruit their fighters and why would anybody want to fight for them? If they tried it would be a walkover for the socialist workers' side.Can you imagine an ex-Yugoslavia and a Syria on a world scale?  Another 'Arab Spring' or something like that (rather than formal electoral victories in all the world's states) perhaps, but civil wars all over the world in every country that could go on for 40 years or even a decade (what would be left at the end?), no. We easily win the less unrealistic stakes..

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Well, this denial of a 'revision board' lends itself to the latter answer of 'democratic control'. But I think clarification of your position is better, rather than me just making a possibly mistaken assumption. Could you spell out your position, if you have come to a final conclusion? If you haven't, we can continue to thrash it out.

I don't know where this idea of an "authority" to control science comes from. It's a figment of your imagination. In fact the nearest person to propose something of this sort has been yourself with your suggestion that it should be overseen by "class-conscious proletarian Communists".In any event, there is no point in drawing up a blueprint now (a "policy" I think you called it in one of your posts) as it's up to those in future socialist society to decide the details. All we can do is say that science policy and scientific research will, like everything else, be subject to overall democratic control. We can also assume that research establishments will, like all other workplaces, be run on a democratic basis with an elected works council.Personally I would think that, once the priorities have been decided and the resources allocated, those doing the research can be left to get on with it. I don't see why their findings should have to go to any "board" or "authority", but simply published, not just in specialist scientific journals but in popular science magazines (which, with a better informed "public", could well have a wider circulation than today) so everybody interested can see what's going on and discuss them.I don't suppose there will be immediate agreement on one group of scientists' findings any more than there is today and so it can be assumed that other groups will test the findings to see if they come up with the same result or not. Maybe they'll find something else, which will lead to the original findings being modified. That's how 'science' works. Much as happens today (dare I say it), except within the framework of democratic control rather than dictated by profit.

[ALB]

Found it ! It's from their 1981 pamphlet Period of Transition from Capitalism to Communism still published on their website here:

Quote:

The situation in a communist society is completely different. Communism retains no economic or social remnants of old society. While such remnants still exist one cannot speak of communist society: what place could there be in such a society for small producers or slave relations, for example? This is what makes the period of transition between capitalism and communism so long. Just as the Hebrew people had to wait forty years in the desert in order to free themselves from the mentality forged by slavery, so humanity will need several generations to free itself from the vestiges of the old world.

Also from the same pamphlet:

Quote:

The period of transition is not a distinct mode of production, but a link between two modes of production–the old and the new. It is the period during which the germs of the new mode of production slowly develop to the detriment of the old, until they supplant the old mode of production and constitute a new, dominant mode of production.Between two stable societies (and this will be true for the period between capitalism and communism as it has been in the past), the period of transition is an absolute necessity. This is due to the fact that the sapping of the basis of the existence of the old society does not automatically imply the maturation and ripening of the conditions of the new. In other words, the decline of the old society does not automatically mean the maturation of the new, but is only the condition for it to take place.

It seems, then, that all three of us are wrong about why they think it will take "forty years" to effect the transition from capitalism to communism. In fact it's worse than we thought: the claim is that conditions won't be ripe for the establishment of socialism/communism when the proletariat wins power.

[Author]

Posts