LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
I'm too much of a shithouse to attend, alan…. I'd get lynched!By an overwhelming, nay unanimous, democratic decision, of course!Hoists and petards spring to mind…
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!
robbo, the core issue is one of 'power'.Read what Pannekoek thought of 'professors'.Your view that an elite knows better than society is a bourgeois ideology.We socialists have to start from the premise that 'we' know better than 'professors'.The organisation of that premise into political terms is a task for the revolutionary proletariat to take forward.If one starts from the premise that an elite knows better than the majority, then the organisation of our science will be on that basis. In fact, it will then simply mirror the bourgeois organisation of science, and retain power in the hands of a minority.This is the philosophical basis of Leninism, that a minority have a 'special consciousness' not available to 'the masses', and thus the organisational structures are formed upon that assumption.Unless we start from 'democracy' and 'mass consciousness', then I think that Leninist conceptions will triumph.I thought, when I first came to this site, that the SPGB shared my ideological premises, concerning democracy and mass consciousness, but I think that, in fact, no-one here seems to. I certainly get no visible support – whether there is a still silent strand who sympathise, I don't know. On the surface, other posters seem hostile to 'democratic science' and the democratic production of truth.All your arguments seem to be premised on elitism and the inabilities of the majority. I don't see that as leading to any form of 'socialism' that I'd recognise.But then, I'm an anti-elitist and a democrat. I think that the best judge of 'truth' is a majority employing democracy, not a minority pretending to have a method we can't understand.
Anton Pannekoek wrote:A ruling class cannot voluntarily give up its own predominance; for this predominance appears to it the sole foundation of the world order. It must defend this predominance; and this it can do only so long as it has hope and self-confidence. But actual conditions cannot give self-confidence to the capitalist class; therefore it creates for itself a hope that has no support in reality. If this class were ever to see clearly the principles of social science, it would lose all faith in its own possibilities; it would see itself as an aging despot with millions of persecuted victims marching in upon him from all directions and shouting his crimes into his ears. Fearfully he shuts himself in, closes his eyes to the reality and orders his hirelings to invent fables to dispel the awful truth. And this is exactly the way of the bourgeoisie. In order not to see the truth, it has appointed professors to soothe its troubled spirit with fables. Pretty fables they are, which glorify its overlordship, which dazzle its eyes with visions of an eternal life and scatter its doubts and dreams as so many nightmares.[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1909/new-middle-class.htmYeah, 'professors' who produce 'fables' as bourgeois 'truth', to 'glorify its overlordship'.This applies to physics as much as sociology, comrades.We have to democratise all science.[edit – a bit more from Tony]
Anton Pannekoek wrote:The fact that science is merely the servant of capitalism could not be more clearly expressed than in such statements…. Not the discovery of truth, but the reassurance of an increasingly superfluous class of parasites is the object of this science. No wonder that it comes into conflict with the truth.[my bold][more]
AT wrote:They have great notions of their own education and refinement, feel themselves elevated far above “the masses”; it naturally never occurs to them that the ideals of these masses may be scientifically correct and that the “science” of their professors may be false.[my bold]
Vin wrote:… I will decide what the truth is myself.Of course you will, Vin.All those infected by bourgeois ideology say this, because they really believe the bourgeois myth that 'We're all individuals!'.Those who identify as 'workers', on the contrary can see that they occupy a social position within a structure, and that that social structure they live in is an exploitative structure, divided by classes, and that each class produces ideologies in an attempt to explain their world.The bosses have found that obscuring the 'exploitative' nature of the present socio-economic production system is best done by avoiding all talk of 'structures', and by emphasising 'individuality'. Hence, the ruling class idea of 'We're all individuals!'.When it comes to 'truth', of course there are conflicting class ideologies about this, too. Workers recognise that humans produce their world, and that humans produce their ideas about that world, including what 'truth' is. Bosses want everybody to think that they all have their own, personal, individual 'truth', a truth which is not amenable to social control, or which has to be argued about, and voted on.So, when we put your declaration that "I will decide what the truth is myself" in the present socio-economic context, it is clear that you are espousing ruling class ideas about 'truth'.I find this kow-towing to ruling class ideas strange in a socialist, like you Vin. Perhaps you are simply not as class conscious as you think you are.
Vin wrote:You belong in some Stalinist group that decides the 'truth' and votes upon it amongst yourselves and impose it upon the rest of us.Isn't it odd, that I should be arguing for 'democratic truth production' (ie. 'imposed' by all of us, after a vote), whereas you are arguing for 'individual truth production' (ie. 'imposed' by you, without consultation with comrades), and because you don't like me pointing this out, you call me a Stalinist. I'm sure that you are aware that the capitalist propaganda machine used to equate socialism with Stalinism, so we can see, yet again, you employing ruling class ideas.
Vin wrote:You are wasting your time here.I certainly am with you, Vin. The ruling class can sleep soundly whilst you're conducting such a good defence of their ideas.
Vin wrote:Your 'truth' can fuck off and kiss my arse.Well, since 'my truth' is a democratically-decided 'truth', I think your contempt for your fellow workers' ability to discuss and decide for themselves, what constitutes 'truth' in this society, is plain for all to see.In fact, you're lining up with robbo, another individualist who won't have democracy in science, and prefers to trust the 'elite-experts', just like you, Vin.What's even more laughable about 'your' views, is that you've never actually read or discussed anything about the philosophy of science. This is clear, because otherwise you'd be aware of the difficulties associated with understanding what 'truth' is, especially since Einstein.Get off your knees, Vin. We have a world to win.'We', notice, not 'I'.
Meel wrote:I am gobsmacked.I know, because you're not a Democratic Communist, and you believe the bourgeois myth about 'non-ideological science'.Fair enough, if you want to believe in fairy stories, but perhaps you should read some of the texts that I've mentioned.And accusing Commies of '1984' is sooo old hat – I haven't heard that one in years!You'll be accusing me of being Pol Pot, next!
robbo203 wrote:You still dont get it do you, LBird?Philosophically, I dont have a problem with what you are saying…No, your 'problem' with 'what I'm saying' is merely a 'political' one.You won't have democratic science. You argue for elite science.The final arbiter of 'truth' must be society: if necessary, all 7 billion must vote.Socialism must start from the premise that 'scientific explanation' is understandable by all.Science must be open to all, as the producer of concepts, as a social activity to test those concepts, as the arbiter of the truth of the results of those activities.There will be no 'Latin-speaking priests', who are seen as the source of 'The Truth' about a 'reality' that remains unfathomable to 'the uneducated, uncaring, illiterate, masses'.If any scientist claims to 'know' something, they will have created this 'knowledge' by social means, in a historical context, 'matter' will not have 'spoken to them', and they will be compelled to explain this socially-created 'knowledge' to us all.With the revolution, will come a Reformation in bourgeois science. The Bible will be open to all.You hate this sort of talk, robbo, because it smacks, to you, of 'bringing politics into science'.I've got news for you, mate: science is, and always has been, a political activity. Only purveyors of bourgeois ideology argue otherwise, because they need to preserve the power, authority and legitimacy of an 'elite science' to bolster their own undemocratic power.And 'special individuals', like you, who will not have their comrades 'telling them what to think!'. Who needs the aid of their comrades to think, when they have access to a disinterested, neutral method, beloved of all 'special individuals', who hanker for 'free association', rather than 'workers' power'.Individualists always reject democracy, because democracy implies power outside of the individual."From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" is not an individualist slogan, but a collective one.Society determines 'abilities and needs', not an individual their own. In that sense, 'association' is not 'free'. 'Freedom' is a democratic act, the right to participate, not to secede. We are all inescapably social beings, with all the rights and responsibilities that that brings.
Meel wrote:If in the days when most people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, a vote of the population had been taken to confirm this, would the result have been "the truth"?Yes, it was.But irrelevant to our concerns, now.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, if one is not a Communist, doesn't know anything about modern physics (especially Einstein's views) and disagrees with Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, then one can continue to hold the ideological belief, propagated by the bourgeoisie, that when science tells us something, like 'the earth orbits the sun', that it can be taken as an eternal, universal Truth.It's then a short step to having faith in a 'neutral method' (ie., non-political method), employed by 'disinterested' physicists, who thus retain power, authority and legitimacy when faced with workers' demands for the 'democratic control of production'. The bourgeoisie continue to pretend they have such disinterested, neutral academics, because they use the fake 'legitimacy' conferred by 'science' to argue that 'democracy' is impossible when faced with 'elite-expert' opinion.I'm a Democratic Communist, Meel, so I would argue these opinions. All science is political. And science must be under our democratic control.If you're not a Communist and a Democrat, then you can ignore my opinions. You won't share my ideology of science.
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''.
