[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?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'd have thought trust was an essential prerequisite for socialism.

No, 'activity' is an essential prerequisite for socialism.As Marx argues, we must develop the 'active side' in ourselves. That is a social task.Not passive 'trust'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.

This, in reality, means:

Dr. Mengele wrote:

If someone really wants to pursue research to prove a racist theory, then they should be allowed to pursue it and publish their results, for example.

YMS is arguing for vivisection of pregnant women, or injecting petrol into the eyes of twins.Funnily enough, being a Communist and a democrat, I'm opposed to 'individuals' being able themselves to decide on what they 'research'.'Research' is a social activity, not an individual choice.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

… domination…

This ahistoric and asocial conception is not Communist, but Anarchist.Communism means the domination of individuals.Democracy is the means for ensuring that all individuals have a say in everything that affects them, including science.We should be open about Communism. It is not Individualism.We must have a society that produces individuals, unlike the one we have now, which produces fools who believe myths.Ask any worker who goes to work about 'freedom' and 'individuality' in the workplace. It's a myth.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The freedom to sod off and set up a new Rome is the central underpinning of freedom proper…

This is an individualist conception of 'freedom'.There is no 'new Rome'.'Rome' is our society, the one we have to deal with, the one that produces us.It's a bourgeois myth that society can be rejected, and sought anew.Communism is a collectivist ontology. We have what we inherit from capitalism, and we have to collectively deal with that.'From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs' is our slogan.Not 'Fuck you, I'm alright Jack, I'm off to build my new Rome!'All 'individuals' will support the weak. They won't have the choice to ignore poverty, ignorance or want.If bourgeois individuals don't want to work together with us to produce a better society, then let them support and fight for the capitalists, and the myth of 'individual freedom'.'Freedom' must exist for all humans, not a lucky few. But that task of producing 'freedom' is a social task. And it requires democracy.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

As I understand it LBird is searching for a way to allow a socialist society to control science. As science is another  activity based social resource, it isn't unreasonable for socialists to seek to gain some form of control.The other side of the debate, championed by YMS, sees democratic control as impractical. Trust seems to be the method implied.However trust is not enough in a socialist society, as without checks and balances a scientist could engage in research of a dubious nature, even in a socialist society.It then becomes a case of how do we figure out what checks and balances to use and who gets to decide them.My apologies to both sides if I've got things wrong, this is just my simplified take on things, so please correct me if I've cocked up anywhere.

No, I think you've summed it up quite well, SP!"Do we 'trust' elites?" is as good a way of putting it as any other.If we do, why not 'trust' them with 'production' in its entirety. Why let those mucky, uneducated, ignorant workers have a say?It's not much of a basis for Socialism/Communism, is it? – 'trust', I mean.Trust implies passivity; Communism implies activity.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

That's right, findings are produced by society, by an ongoing debate: there is no final finding, just a succession of opinions.

This is simply not true of human science.There has to be a 'final finding' (in fact, it is always a temporary 'final' finding, but that complication can await the need for agreement about democratic control), because it is this 'final finding' (your term) which is employed by society to change reality in our social practice.We can't argue that the fact that something is useful in our practice is the end of the matter, because we already know that what works according to science in one period, doesn't work in other periods. We understand our practice differently. The 'sun/earth' 'earth/sun' debate is relevant here.

YMS wrote:

There, so, I note Lbird's response to a direct question is a lot of questions. I believe I've answered the pertinent ones.

No, unless you say that "the social findings of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society", then we haven't come to an agreement about the power of the proletariat. We cannot have any elite above us, who pretend to have a neutral method for producing a 'truth' which is not available to the democratic proletariat.

YMS wrote:

So, I'll ask again. How does Lbird see the voting happening? Will everyone gather the data together? Will everyone analyse the data? Will everyone get a turn on the electron microscope?I'd counterpose genuine free association and democracy in action to Lbird's one sided closure of debate, which is simply undemocratic.

This is precisely the debate I've been trying to get to for twelve months! The question of 'HOW does society democratically control its science?'.But to get to that, we must clarify our terms (what does 'society democratically controlling its science' mean?). 'Findings' or not? Once we agree that there is no science outside of our science, they we can proceed (though I think a new thread would be better for this serious question).But once again, you're defining 'democracy' as 'free association'. This is a serious ideological and political problem.'Democracy' refers to society, not individuals.I've told you earlier, that 'free association' is the definition used by the Anarchists on LibCom, and that is not a Communist definition.Sovereignty lies in society, not each individual.That's why democracy is so important, to ensure the link between 'society', a structure, and its component 'individuals'. More Critical Realism, I'm afraid.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…without having a vote on the findings. Your turn.

You're a pseudo-democrat.You won't tell us the supposed neutral method which produces 'findings', which you insist are out of the democratic control of the proletariat.'Findings' are produced by society, and must be under the democratic control of the proletariat.Why not be honest, YMS, about your political ideology?The 'neutral method' is a bourgeois lie. Why do you persist in propagating a bourgeois lie?Is it a conscious attempt to undermine workers' confidence, or are you just ignorant about power?

[Author]

Posts