[LBird]

A further point of information for those concerned with the difference between 'what Engels said Marx said', and 'what Marx actually said'.I'll never again use the term 'the materialist conception of history' to characterise Marx's views, because I've just found out that the phrase is from Engels, not Marx.Marx merely referred to 'our conception', in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htmIt was in Engels' review of this work that the phrase first appeared:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx2.htmAnother nail in the coffin of those who argue for 'materialism', as opposed to Marx's far more subtle views, expressed in the Theses on Feuerbach and the German Ideology, which I characterise polemically as 'idealism-materialism', and which I think form the basis of Critical Realism.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Shirley, in democracy a minority can produce the truth: since democracy means the right of minorities to strive to become majorities, a minority position will become a majority position eventually? And all propositions emanate from a minority, since democracy means anyone can propose a motion?

I've always argued this. You'll find my references to Plan A (the successful majority position), Plan B, Plan C, etc. (the minority positions which must be retained as back up alternatives, if Plan A is revealed to be wrong/weak/tastes change/etc.) But this is part of the discussion about 'how', rather than 'why'.

YMS wrote:

And lets not forget, that critical realism, as a realism still posits an external world which constrains, at the miniumum truth claims and commits us to some element of correpondence theory after all, any truth claim that doesn't correspond (to even a minimal extent) with external reality cannot be legitimate.

No, a correspondence theory of truth can't stand, because what is to be matched? If we know reality doesn't reveal itself to us, how can we correspond our 'knowledge' to 'reality'? We only have our theory, practice and the knowledge produced.Although I'm open to suggestions, I think that only a consensus gentium theory of truth (the 'agreement of the people', which I've mentioned before, which term I like because of its resonance to the political manifesto put forward by the Levellers and Army Agitators during the Putney Debates of 1647 with Cromwell, during the English Revolution) makes sense with a democratic method of science, that we seem to be tentatively agreed upon, at this point.This would require a vote on the 'correspondence' of our theory (hypothesis) upon which our practice is based and which practice produces resulting knowledge.That is, if society agrees that the social knowledge (that emerges as a result of our social practice) matches our social theory, then the 'knowledge' is 'true'.This would still allow us to have a social and historical account of 'truth', and would allow us to date the start and end point of a scientific 'truth', and to alter the 'truth' when new theories and their practice emerge from creative humans.I'm sure that it can be seen that this method would be suitable for any science discipline, from physics to sociology, and so would be suitable for a unified scientific method.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

What is it going to be?

Whatever you want.I'm interested in why democracy is unavoidable in science, if:a) we're Communists (not individualists); andb) knowledge is socially produced (not a reflection of material/physical/matter).If one is either a non-Communist or believes in 'matter' as the origin of 'truth', then one can be a non-democrat in science, because either an expert elite or 'reality' can determine 'truth'.My purpose on this thread is to insist that all aspects of science must be under our democratic control.This is a political aim, because otherwise a minority can claim to have the power to produce 'truth', with all the authority and legitimacy that would give to the minority.If you've come to the position that all aspects of science must be under our democratic control, I'm happy with that outcome.Which, of course, means the rejection of Engels' positivistic science, dialectical materialism, matter, the ideal supervening upon the physical, the return to pre-Theses 'materialism', inductive 'practice and theory', biological senses, and the acceptance of Marx's 'idealism-materialism' and the method of 'theory and practice'.Is everyone happy with Critical Realism as the best basis to take these positions forward?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

The general agreement on the question of democracy controlling science for communists in a socialist society has always been a 'Yes' on this thread.

You must be reading a different thread to me, Brian.I  think that most here still think that they, as an individual, should be the one to decide 'what's in front of their own faces', like a rock, by kicking it.How many will say:'I can't know what that is in front of my face without consulting my comrades'or'My commune (of which I'm a voting member) will tell me what's in front of my face'.This is the philosophical outcome of the rejection of bourgeois individualism and the method of 'biological sensation' and 'empiricism'. We'll know that we must recognise our social theory before we do our social practice. We'll know that the 'individuals' in different societies interpret rocks differently. This scientific method will, of course, be taught from school, and so all members of our society we laugh at the pretensions of the 'individualists' of the bourgeois period of human history. We will be profoundly aware of society and history, how humans understand their world (physical and social) and how that understanding changes. 

Brian wrote:

For its socialist principles which will govern – in the last anaysis – the scientific method and the decision making process for scientists to follow in a socialist society.

[my bold]This is an incorrect formulation.It should read "For it's socialist principles which will govern – in the last anaysis – the scientific method and the decision making process for workers to follow in a socialist society. "You have to get away from this notion of 'scientists' doing science, who, in your formulation, will be the ones to interpret these 'principles'.The principle is workers' democracy.We will build a society in which science is open to all, and all who choose to participate in science, will determine science and its principles.There won't be a set of 'principles' which another section of society then have the power to interpret. This is to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to the other, which Marx warns us against.And your use of the term 'in the last analysis' is redolent of Engels at his worst.If there is a 'last analysis', it's workers' democracy. Not 'principles' which stand outside of democratic control, and are thus available for a minority to interpret.We live in a society now, Brian, which constantly tells us we live in a democracy and have the final say, but we all know in our day-to-day life that there is always a minority outside of our control, whether bosses, teachers, police, politicians…Socialism/Communism will be a society in which we do control everything – there will be no 'minority' throwing our principles back in our faces. If we don't like it, we change the principle – we don't allow a minority to dictate to us. If the minority don't like the way the principle is interpreted for them (ie. for any worker/scientist), then they can attempt to get the principle changed democratically.Any disputes are referred to a democratic body, not a 'set of principles'.FWIW, I still think that your separating of 'workers' from 'scientists' is the root of your problem. During the revolutionary process, most scientists (who are already workers) will have become, like most other workers, Communists.Thus, they will naturally put 'politics' ahead of 'physics' in their considerations, and the problem of a group of 'elite physicists' who don't hold with Communist politics, trying to struggle with 'principles' of which they don't agree with, won't be a problem.Science will be democraticised, unified, and thus humanised.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?

That depends on whether or not you are referring to my post #897?  I think you will find that most posters here are in broad agreement with that for it describes the outline and not the nuances.And as we are finding out its the nuances as described by yourself which is causing the fallout.

It's a simple question.I've argued constantly that science should be subject to our control, in every aspect, including the validation of its 'findings' and the permitting of 'avenues of research'. 

If its a simple question why do you constantly refuse to provide a simple answer?  If you had taken the trouble to digest what I had written in #897 the principles themselves would cover "should be subject to our control, in every aspect, including the validation of its 'findings' and the permitting of 'avenues of research'."

Simple answer, again.Democracy.Your digression into 'principles' and 'nuances' is you introducing complexity.Just give a 'yes' or 'no', answer, forget 'principles' and 'nuances', and simply agree that, since knowledge is a social product, its production  will be under democratic control.Once you answer, 'Yes', you can move onto 'how'. Simple, eh?Democracy, yes or no?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…how and why it will happen due to material circumstances.

[my bold]Who detetermines what the 'material circumstances' are?Do the 'material circumstances' tell us (through our biological senses, during atheoretical practice, and by passive observation) what they 'are'?Or do 'material circumstances' have to be understood so they can be changed, by humans employing social theories which inform both their social practice and observations, and using their socially-created senses, so that 'material circumstances' are not 'obvious', but an understanding of them has to be built first, by education and propaganda amongst all workers?The Engelsian-informed Leninists argue the former: that the 'material circumstances' are obvious to any worker using their eyes.This is untrue, otherwise the revolution would have happened long ago.In fact, following Marx, we realise that we need theory to understand our practice. If this wasn't necessary, then, as Charlie said, 'all science would be superfluous'.We have to build for Socialism/Communism: it will not dawn through mere, common-sense 'practice', the 'theory' behind which will remain hidden to most, and will be supplied by the Leninists, who will pretend to workers that 'your senses and practice will suffice'.They are lying. They say 'Do now!'; we say 'Think first!'.

[LBird]

YMS, I think that you're getting dragged away from the main point of this thread, and into 'details of democratic control': that is, the 'how', rather than the 'why'.The 'why' is because all scientific knowledge is socially produced, and is not produced by a special, secret, neutral method by 'scientists'.This is really an epistemological question, about 'where knowledge comes from'.Once we are clear that there is no 'neutral scientific method', which the bourgeoisie claim to have, to help maintain their power (there's that word again!), then the 'why' we need democratic control is no longer in doubt.It then becomes simply (!) a discussion between class conscious workers as to 'how' we will build into our political structures the demand for the democratic control of science in the future, based upon our political arrangements, in the meantime.We won't have any time for claims of 'elite experts' within the Communist movement. We'll demand the democratic control of all the means of production, including science.And when anyone asks us 'why?', we can answer that we have no choice, according to the results of all the sciences, including physics.Humans are at the core of the production of knowledge, not the physical/material/objective rocks.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'm at a loss to udnerstand how remotely this could be controlled.

It'll continue to be controlled as it is now.We workers don't have control of science. An elite does.You do live in a dream world, don't you, YMS?It's strange that you should be posting on a politics website, as 'power' doesn't seem to interest you at all.And so, by default, for you power will remain exactly where it is now.But you will remain unaware of this. Strange.

[LBird]

Harold Macmillan, 1936, wrote:

Toryism has always been a form of paternal socialism.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Back to sceince, the poor of the world may noit have a vote, but they do have a say. If they're say is limited it is because they haven't the time to study and the education. Those are both more impotrant than a nose count.

D'y'know, YMS, I often get the feeling that I'm communicating with someone who doesn't actually live in the same world as me.So, the 'say of the poor', which is based upon ignorance, is more important than a 'nose count' of class conscious, well educated, workers?Are you really a 'caring conservative', some sort of Heathite or Macmillanist, from the '50s or '60s?You seem to have a 'paternalist' tone to your posts.By the way, who does the 'aligning'?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Socialism is about creating a framework in which we share a common interest and thus act together without coercion, suspiscion, domination, etc. not just because we want to, but because we cannot help but benefit our fellows.

This is an ahistoric, asocial account. A '60s hippy could have written it.Socialism is about destroying the power of the ruling class, and building a society in which all power is subject to the democratic proletariat (which, after the revolution, means humanity).Why do you never mention social power, YMS, and always go on about 'individual domination'?Of course there will be 'coercion' – all societies throughout history have employed some form of coercion on their members. There will be coercion of any individuals who transgress our social rules. We might argue that these transgressors will be a very small minority, and that they will be treated humanely, but nevertheless we will impose our rules upon transgressors.Communism is not the realisation of the myth  of 'bourgeois individualism', the 'freedom to do as you like', but the democratic control of that society by all its members.Communism is not the abolition of society. That is a myth, YMS.We're talking politics. And politics are social, not individual.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

If peopel want to have a say, they can.  if they want to have an opinion they can (and the opposite too, if they don't, they needn't).  Exactly what happens now.

[my bold]This is simply untrue.This does not happen now.The poor of the world do not have a vote regarding the findings of nuclear physicists.I really don't know how you can make the statement above.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Democracy is the means for ensuring that all individuals can have a say in everything that affects them, including science.

So, you agree that every individual on this planet should have a say about the findings of nuclear physicists?If so, we're in complete agreement, at last!No elite group of nuclear physicists pretending that they have a 'neutral' scientific method, and that that method allows them to tell us what the findings mean.No, we vote on the 'findings', as you say, because the findings of science affect us all.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?

That depends on whether or not you are referring to my post #897?  I think you will find that most posters here are in broad agreement with that for it describes the outline and not the nuances.And as we are finding out its the nuances as described by yourself which is causing the fallout.

It's a simple question.Is human knowledge produced by us (and this social production thus should be under our control) or is it produced by reality?The 'materialists/physicalists/objectivists' argue that reality produces knowledge, and that they have a scientific method which allow them to tune into reality. That is, 'science' is outside of politics.This is at heart a question about 'power'.Is there an elite which has a power denied to the proletariat to 'discover' knowledge?I've argued constantly that science should be subject to our control, in every aspect, including the validation of its 'findings' and the permitting of 'avenues of research'.The onus is on those who disagree about 'democracy in science' to point out how they know what 'reality' says. They must have this 'elite and neutral' method, if they refuse democratic control and yet believe in the 'objective truth' of their findings.

[LBird]

So, have we finally come to a point where we all agree that, since science is a social activity in all its aspects, that all aspects of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society?

[Author]

Posts