LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo, it would be a better use of your time to read one of the books that I've recommended (Delanty, perhaps?) rather than keep indulging in lengthy diatribes.Unless you engage on a philosophical level, it's pointless trying to explain to you.
You're going to have to read the books, Vin.I can't do that for you.The answer is: 'Since Communist society will democratically control production, and 'truth' is produced by societies, then 'truth production' must be democratically controlled'.That is, 'Truth' will be elected, and perhaps later rejected, by society as a whole, not by 'elite experts'.And, talking of 'flying planes by democratic means', the recent tragedy in the Alps sheds a new light on 'control by a single expert, unassailable by the passengers or crew'.There's a metaphor there, about placing our collective hopes in experts who are beyond democratic controls, and where we'll end up.How many lessons does our society need, after Mengele, Shipman, and now Lubitz, and about the myth of 'neutral science'?Faith in ourselves, as collective humanity, is the answer, not faith in experts.You'd think that this would be 'bread and butter' for socialists.
Robbo and Vin continue to avoid what 'science' is telling us. "Surely, it can't mean that!"21st century science, of course – the preferred 'science' of the materialists is 19th century.The 'individualists' who have access to 'Material Truth' will not have democracy in science, and a vote by society on its truths.They keep telling us that the 'rocks' hold the truth, and that we can't be allowed to determine our truth about rocks.If humans determine 'truth', then for a Communist society, built upon democratic methods, 'truth' must be a social decision, not a decision by an elite.Back to your non-voting 'rocks', robbo. You're an individualist and an elitist, and you won't have others telling you what 'truth' is, because you claim to have an access all of your own to 'matter'.You've said all this before – you actually said that you won't have 10 comrades outvoting you on your 'own' knowledge. You really believe that you as an individual know better than a wider majority.Because you, like your 'elite experts' (physicists, mathematicians and academics), regard yourselves as 'special individuals', and you won't have the 'despised mass' telling you anything, will you? 'No democracy here!', they maintain.Only democracy in science is acceptable for socialists. That means all social production, including truth.BTW, Vin and robbo, try reading some of the books that I've recommended – you might get a surprise.
Another reading recommendation, comrades, about physics and its politics.
Ball, p.25 wrote:It became clear to [Max] Born that what he began to call a ‘quantum mechanics’ could not be constructed by minor amendment of classical, Newtonian mechanics. ‘One must probably introduce entirely new hypotheses’, [Werner] Heisenberg wrote… Born agreed, writing that summer [of 1923] that ‘not only new assumptions in the usual sense of physical hypotheses will be necessary, but the entire system of concepts of physics must be rebuilt from the ground up’. That was a call for revolution, and the ‘new concepts’ that emerged over the next four years amounted to nothing less.[my bold]Philip BallServing the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics Under Hitlerhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Serving-Reich-Struggle-Physics-Hitler/dp/1847922481The ‘rocks’ do not talk to us, comrades. Humans employ concepts to understand. Concept formation precedes observation. We try to find what we already think exists. We select.This is Marx’s ‘theory and practice’, his ‘idealism-materialism’.Whilst comrades continue to look to ‘materialism’ (or its modern equivalent, ‘physicalism’), they’ll remain confined in a 19th century straitjacket.Societies determine what they see, not the rocks. Humans are the active side, as Marx said in the Theses on Feuerbach, not ‘matter’.
The Japanese workers welcomed the 1945 US victory and regarded the US occupation as bringing ‘democracy’ to Japan, and thought it would aid the Japanese workers in their constant fight with the Japanese bosses. They were to be disappointed.
Paul Burkett, p. 29 wrote:In the years 1945-7, Japanese workers responded to a severe capital strike by taking direct control over important sectors of production and posing a new vision of worker-community based democracy against the authoritarian institutions of the Japanese state and the limited democratic reforms implemented by the US occupation. This was ‘a major challenge to capitalist rule’…, a struggle to create a new system based on humane and democratic-socialist principles, and it was repelled only by the combined efforts of the US occupation and the Japanese prewar ruling class. Only on the basis of its suppression were the Japanese government and big businesses able to gradually rebuild… the basic prewar structures of Japanese capitalism…Paul Burkett and Martin Hart-LandsbergProgressive capitalism, crisis, and class struggle: Lessons from Japan’s production control and democracy movements, 1945-47Capital and Class, Spring 2003 Issue 79, pages 25-54Also related to these issues, in the aftermath of this defeat of the class conscious workers in Japan, the US and their allies in the Japanese boss class introduced the ‘Quality’ system, led by one of its earliest proponents, Deming.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
Wikipedia wrote:Deming is best known for his work in Japan after WWII, particularly his work with the leaders of Japanese industry.We’re still reaping the fruits of the defeat of the workers of Japan and ‘Quality’.
For those comrades interested about reading further into the issues of science, Marx, and our social relationship with nature, here is another recommendation:Gerard DelantySocial Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realismhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Science-Constructivism-Concepts-Sciences/dp/0335198619Although I don't agree with everything he writes, his book is a cheap and informative introduction to some of the issues.
Young Master Smeet wrote:"widest dissemination of information",No subscription costs for learned journals, well stocked libraries with no membership costs, open access to datasets where practicable (subject to reasonable privacy of participanmts in experiments)"open debate"No pre-censorship, peer reviewed journals, free association and adequate resources made for groups to promulgate opinion."maximum number of people"the debate never ends.To this list, I'd add:'An education system from kindergarten to post-PhD research open to all, in any subject that they choose, at any point in their lives'.'An education system that teaches critical thinking about any 'truths', and thus stresses that choices have to be made about 'truths', and that the best 'chooser' is the widest possible number of people'.'The linking of any form of power, authority and legitimacy with political ideology, because all power, authority and legitimacy has a political basis and political implications for society. That would include all forms of 'science', because science is a social and historical activity by societies, not an activity by 'special individuals', and so anything produced by science is under democratic control'.'Any debates about the 'truthfulness' or otherwise of 'facts', produced by any science (from physics to sociology), must be resolved by a vote'.'Any truths that have been elected (because that is what democratic control implies), just like any elected policy, are always subject to criticism and debate by the whole of society. This implies that we will always search for 'candidate-truths' to help undermine those 'truths' that have been elected as our present 'Truth''.
Vin wrote:Democratic control of science and scientist ( Doctors, Brain Surgeons, researchers physicists etc )? Or democratic control of 'truth'. There is a massive difference.Yes, I know there is, Vin.That's why I keep answering 'both'. Science is a social activity and the production of truth is a social activity, and all social activity must be under the control of society, not an 'expert elite', who thus can retain power and authority over the rest of us.
Vin wrote:You have still not answered the basic question. Is it because you don't have an answer?I keep giving you an answer, Vin, but you don't like it. 'Truth' is a social product, with a history. It is not a 'reflection' of 'reality' or a 'copy' of 'nature'. 'Truth' changes with societies, over time. Bourgeois scientists claim to have a 'neutral method', to be used by a 'special elite', which gives them access to a 'Truth' that is not available to all of society, and so can't be 'voted' upon, by a necessarily ignorant majority.If you disagree, we can discuss it, on the 'Science for Communists?' thread, rather than here.Apologies to mod.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The list of current influential thinkers 7,8,9 and 10…no idea about them in the slightest so their influence certainly passed me by. Prospect readers’ top 10…7. Jurgen Habermas, German philosopher…Although I haven't read anything by Habermas yet, he's on my 'to-do' list, because he's one the the philosophers who've apparently talked about the necessity for a link between democracy and science, I think.Not your favourite discussion, I know!
YMS wrote:What that would seem to suggest is that the widest dissemination of information is necessary, along with open debate that includes the maximum number of people.This conclusion of yours, YMS, lends support for the Communist view that, since 'truth' is a social product, that the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge should be decided by society, using democratic means.Thus, there would then be no separation between 'science' and 'society', between 'elite-experts' and an 'ignorant mass', between 'educators' and 'educated', the division that Marx warned about.
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, III, wrote:The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmOnce this view of Marx's is accepted (and the sciences, including physics and maths, seems to have produced the support for it), it only remains for us to specify what we mean by your "widest dissemination of information", "open debate" and "maximum number of people".
Vin wrote:Robbo, this question was asked of LBird at the start of the thread by myself and others. His reply to you and Dave B is the only answer we are going to get.Vin, I've tried endlessly to discuss this philosophical issue with you and robbo.I've given quotes, and recommended books and articles, and provided links to PDFs.Neither of you will engage, but continue to ask questions of the type I referred earlier, ie. those questions that avoid the issues involved.I'm not interested in trying to answer your 'questions' any longer.If Dave B, or anyone else who is interested in the philosophical problems within science, and the need for democratic methods to produce knowledge, wants to discuss these issues, I'll return to discussion.Whilst you and robbo think that 'democratic control of an aeroplane' has anything whatsoever to do with the production of knowledge, you'll both continue to be in the dark about the problems within science since Einstein.If you want to discuss 'nature' and the differing views of it by Marx and bourgeois science, read the PDFs I recommended.
Dave B wrote:Against this is the non macroscopic idea of; would planes be flown by a democratic committee or decisions about how to put out a fire not be left to the expertise of the trained fire fighters etc?This sort of 'question' when trying to discuss the philosophical issue of the democratic production of knowledge, is similar to the 'question' of 'why are you Commies going to make us all wear the same blue boiler suits, and be forced to share our underpants?', when trying to discuss socialism.The problems are contained in the question, which is made by those who've already made their minds up about the issues at stake.Ah well, let's just leave it all to the 'elite experts'. Separate society into two.The fact that Marx, in the Theses on Feuerbach, disagreed with this, is neither here nor there, eh?And bollocks to philosophy, Marx's or anyone else's, and stick to 'facts' and the 'real world'. And those nice disinterested scientists and their neutral method.
I have come across two articles regarding Marx’s view of ‘nature’ (which differs from the bourgeois concept of ‘objective nature’, because Marx viewed ‘nature’ as a relationship between humans and external reality, a necessary and inescapable relationship between subject and object, consciousness and being).These articles are available in PDF, from the links below.‘The Concept of Nature in Geography and Marxism’ by Rod Burgesshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1978.tb00101.x/abstract ‘Geography, Marx and the Concept of Nature’ by Neil Smith and Phil O’Keefehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1980.tb00647.x/abstractI don't agree with them entirely, but they are closer to my thinking, than I am to the thinking of most 'materialist' posters, here.
moderator1 wrote:Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.Right.I'll leave the thread to the 'materialists' and their mystification of Marx's theoretical ideas, which apparently have failed to challenge nationalism.
