[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Seen in that way, a science that corresponds with reality is possible, and a non-ideolofgical science is possible.

The religious fanatics will not give up, even though they cannot substantiate their claims, by telling us all their 'non-ideological' method, no matter how many times we ask them to reveal this.Workers should be wary of these elitists.The elitists do not have a 'non-ideological' method. All science is a product of human enquiry. It is not, as they allege, a method to produce a copy of reality.If pushed, these elitists will always deny the power of the proletariat to make its own decisions about the nature of both the social and physical worlds.The elitists are not democrats. They claim to have a method that workers cannot possibly understand, otherwise they would teach this method to workers, with every confidence in workers' ability to employ it.They fear workers.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

This is a long discussion that we had at the WSM forum about the concept of ideology. We have a socialist theory, but we do not have an ideology

If we define 'ideology' to be a 'theory' that 'distorts reality' (and I think you would agree that this is what 'ruling class' ideas do), and you claim that 'socialist theory' is not an 'ideology', then you must be claiming that 'socialist theory' does not distort, but gives a clear picture of reality.This, in effect, is Lenin's claim. It is also the claim made by the ruling class in the 19th century, and is still taught in schools and through the media to the unwary today. It is an anti-democratic claim, because if you have a 'theory' that doesn't distort, you can claim access to The Truth, in both physics and politics, and that 'Truth' then cannot, by its nature, be voted against. This theory legitimates minority control and elite power.To argue that 'my theory is non-ideological' is a religious claim.

SocialistPunk wrote:

There is also the disconcerting attitude that LBird points out, as it is a statement that claims absolute authority with no room for error. It reminds me of someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the world was created in 6 days because it says so in the bible."

Yes, this 'belief' in the 'objective power of one's theory' is a religious belief, and will have the same effects in our society as does religion. This religious belief is named 'materialism' (or its contemporary name, 'physicalism').Plus, we know from science that there is no 'neutral theory' in physics, never mind politics.To sum up, the claim to have a 'non-ideological theory' is a religious claim, and the basis of ruling class ideas, and it can't be the basis of a democratic and emancipatory Communism/Socialism for the proletariat.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi mcolome1When you say that, do you also include the ideology of socialism/communism?

I do not think that socialism/communism is an ideology, or an economical system. Ideology are the prevailing ideas of the ruling class. Are we going to have a ruling class under a sociaist/communist society ? 

If we define 'ideology' to be ruling class ideas, then you can't be argued with, mcolome1.But if we define 'ideology' to be human ideas which distort reality, and we know that any scientific method distorts reality (and it must, otherwise we must argue for a 'copy theory of knowledge' (that is, Lenin's view in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that knowledge is a reflection of reality, a mirror-image)), then we can see that any scientific method is also an 'ideology'.Science tells us that there is no perfect, objective vantage point in nature, so it seems best that we should learn from science, accept our partiality, and be open about our 'ideology' when studying either the natural or social worlds.This could provide a basis to develop Marx's hopes for a 'unified scientific method'. That is, all science, from physics to sociology, employing a similar method.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

… we know reality because it's before our eyes …

Bingo!Individual sense impressions.And not my ideology, social theories.Now, will you piss off and leave me alone?Moderator1 1st Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Hang on a sec. You're a communist? When did that happen? I'm shocked. Shocked and surprised. I never knew.

Back to taking the piss, and avoiding telling us how you know 'what reality is' and what ideology you employ to understand the world, both natural and social.That's us finished, YMS. More fool me for thinking you would engage in a discussion.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Science has to follow reality.

Back to post 1.What is 'reality', YMS?Do you have a 'neutral method' which tells us what 'reality' is?If so, why not tell us what that 'method' is?

YMS wrote:

That's how I'd read the section.

Your 'reading' of Marx's words is not a Communist one, which I'm openly using.What ideology are you using, YMS, to understand Marx's words?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And herewith Chucks section from his blast against proudhon:

Quote:

… But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat … From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement [and class struggle], has associated itself consciously with it [the class struggle], has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.

[my inserts]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htmIn some ways, quite relevent to this discussion. 

So, 'science' is a 'product' (not a 'reflection' of the 'physical').'Science' is a product of 'historical class struggle' (not a product of 'academics' or 'elite experts').The existing 'doctrinaire science' of the bourgeoisie has to associate itself with the 'revolutionary class of the proletariat' (and not the proletariat adopt existing science).Do you agree with this, YMS?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

So, I came to discuss, based on a bit of reading, and Lbird chose not to discuss.

I'm afraid you are going to have to discuss with people who share the politics of the sites that you've been reading, YMS, rather than with a proponent of Communist Democracy, who looks to Marx for inspiration, like me.I've no interest in doing the work required to help you explore your ideological interests.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Surely concerns over "power" are more an anarchist concept whereas Marxists are more concerned about "ownership".

I find this a very 'economistic' argument, ALB. Surely the events surrounding the Russian Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Union, and its political results, ended forever the 19th belief that once the problems of 'ownership' (ie. private property) were removed, that 'political freedom' would inevitably follow. I think that the Anarchists are correct to ask questions about 'power' in itself: not all power is rooted in 'ownership'.

ALB wrote:

Only if you think that there is some propensity for humans to want to exercise some power of others, i.e, the human nature argument.It is the same in socialism. Why would those elected or delegated to positions in socialism abuse or want to abuse their positions?

There are plenty of reasons why some humans want to exercise power over others, besides the 'human nature argument'. For example, there are always some people who think that they 'know better' than the majority, and will attempt to get their 'own way' for 'the benefit of the majority' (as the elitists see it). We've seen strands of this sort of thinking on the 'Science for Communists?' thread, where there is a strong tendency by some to want to place 'power' into the hands of an unelected elite of academics, mathematicians and 'proper scientists'.

ALB wrote:

In fact, how could they? With everyone having free access to what they needed they wouldn't be able to allocate themselves any material privileges. And they wouldn't have any armed forces at their disposal to enforce their will.

Unless everything is 'free access' (and I think we all know that some things will be restricted, because of rarity, worth or danger for example, and allocated according to whatever parameters we decide) then this would provide a 'material basis' for influence and favours, at least. This doesn't necessarily require 'armed forces' (although surely there will be some coercive mechanisms, if we are to retain prisons/asylums/hospitals for some socially dangerous categories of people), but just the power of distribution and patronage. All societies, including pre-class societies, have had these issues to be dealt with ('Big Men' or 'Chiefdoms', at least).

ALB wrote:

Having said this, of course I'm all in favour of checks and balances on elected people or delegates, eg shorter terms, rotation, recall, regular reportback meetings, etc. That's part of what a genuine democracy is and socialism will be a participatory democracy. It's just that I think the danger of abuse of "power" may be exaggerated and that therefore we won't need to prioritise direct democracy as the ideal to be resorted to as much as possible.

I, of course, agree with most of what you say here, but I still think that you underestimate 'power' and its negative potential. I think that your stress on 'participatory democracy' is spot on. But then…

ALB wrote:

I don't want to wake up every morning in socialism and switch on my computer to be confronted with hundreds of decisions to vote on. I'm prepared to delegate all but the most important to elected councils and committees and get on living my life rather than voting all the time.

This seems to undermine the precisely 'participatory' nature of Communist democracy. It's a simple fact that this will require 'decisions and voting all the time'. I take your point about 'morning hundreds' and 'delegation', but I think that it's often very underestimated just how much time we'll have to spend on 'living our lives as voters'. That is the nature of 'participatory democracy'.On LibCom, there seemed to be a lot of posters who seemed to think that Communism will involve them doing exactly as they please, getting up whenever they liked, and never going to meetings or internet exchanges. Whenever I asked who is going to be doing the running of society, or how their duty to others (from each according to their abilities…) is to be organised, they seemed to be stumped by the question.To them, Communism was lying in bed all day, partying all night, never doing any unwelcome work in rota, and some seemed to think that they would do no work whatsoever. They certainly weren't going 'to attend boring meetings, man'.How this fits with the notion of 'participatory' was never explained to me. They really just wanted to see the myth of bourgeois individualism come to fruition for them.To me, the nature of 'getting on with living our lives' needs much further discussion. Unless we're going to just leave it to those nice people in parliament to organise production, distribution and consumption (and science) for us?I can't believe that the working class, once it's organised and educated itself and carried out a revolution, will become a disconnected crowd of '60s hippies and 'layabouts'.Production will eternally remain the natural basis of any society, and we have to deal with that, collectively and democratically.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Well, you kept askign for us to discuss CR, I went out and did more reading …

[my bold]Can't you tell the difference between 'discussion' and 'reading', YMS?One is social, interactive and critical, the other is individual, isolated and trusting – guess which one you chose, given your ideology?You have the chance to discuss with Communists, or passively accept what non-revolutionary academics tell you – guess which one you chose…

YMS wrote:

i suspect that unless all post to say "I agree wholeheartedly with LBird" you'll be disatisfied.

The words of someone both fearful of discussion and of being persuaded.Can't you stand up for your ideology, YMS? I can stand up for Communism.

YMS wrote:

I've discussed Science and Socialism, and heard nothing back. I discuss Critical Realism, and get nothingback.

You haven't discussed anything, YMS. You keep telling me what liberal and conservative academics say (and you uncritically accept their word), but not discussing what is your (or their) ideological position on science.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

This seems to accord with the previous quotation from the MIS paper. So I suspect that that source was accurate and reliable, and my opinion remains the same.

And nothing to do with the thread title 'Science for Communists?'.That's what I want to discuss, not your mistaken opinions about some mistaken academics' opinions about an incorrect variety of Critical Realism.When will critical discussion start on this thread?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I thought I'd look up the position of the old Socialist Labor Party of America (now more or less defunct) on this issue. Here is what they said in Socialist Industrial Unionism: The Workers' Power by Eric Hass, first issued in 1940 (but this is from the 1977 edition):

Quote:

…finally3.  It is to complete its mission the moment its candidates are elected, by adjourning the political State sine die and by itself disbanding…. Instead of taking office to govern, the candidates of the political party of labor will take office only to abolish political office. It captures to destroy, in the same sense that a conquering army captures, only to destroy, the fortifications of the vanquished foe, though blood and treasures were poured out to secure possession of these fortifications. The political State is the robber citadel of capitalism, and can serve capitalist purposes only. The political State is a weapon of suppression and oppression — a weapon designed to enable the skinners to keep in subjection the class that is being skinned. The true Industrial Union is a tool designed to direct the processes of production for socially useful purposes. Hence the victorious workers will turn the reins of government over to the administrative councils of the Socialist Industrial Union!

In other words, quite similar to LBird's scenario except that power is to be handed to the "Socialist Industrial Unions" rather than to "Workers' Councils" and they don't mention the armed forces.It is obvious that the SLP and us came from the same stable and outsiders might not notice the subtle differences in our position (but both them and us did at the time!), I still think they are wrong, if only because they are advocating a species of syndicalism.

[my bolds]I agree with you that they are syndicalists, ALB, and that I disagree with them.To me, they confuse 'political office' with 'political state'. Politics is universal, and so there will always be 'political office', but not 'political state'. The difference is 'class' and 'exploitation'. Politics within a 'state' is 'class-based'; politics within Workers' Councils is not, it is democratic. They don't see 'power' being 'handed' over, but destroyed entirely. I think you are mistaken to characterise their position as otherwise.But power will always exist, which is why we have to be so aware of its holders. Even short mandates to delegates must be tightly observed and controlled.To summarise, they talk of 'administrative councils'.That is a mistake. Councils will always have power (not least because administration itself is a form of power) and to pretend that they won't is to fool both ourselves and the proletariat.This question of 'power' (eternal quality of human society or temporary class product?) is what I think separates Communists from Anarchists. Whilst on LibCom, I tried to get a discussion going on this issue, but just received the usual abuse by 'individualists' who won't discuss 'sovereignty' and was called a 'Leninist', etc.'Power' and its problems won't go away with Communism, comrades. That's why we have to be concerned to construct democratic relations, and always have a 'Plan B', etc.Factions 'R' Us.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, a clear example of bad science would be throwing mice off a tower and reading their entrails to predict the weather (myomancy).  I think we can both agree that that is bad science now (although, I'd happily accept that taking a handful of mushrooms, staring at a river and deciding that river spirits moved it was once good science).  Then our capabilities changed, and previous accounts became unsupportable.  Since there is a real world out there that filters out inaccurate statements, what we have left is degrees of wrongness.  The latest "truth" is the best we can do (and we can make a value judgement between the quality of efforts to understand the world, according to CR).

This is just contradictory drivel, and undermines most of the arguments you've been making about 'good science'.Who is 'we'?Who determines 'best'?Who determines 'value'?Who determines 'quality'?Either 'elite scientists' or 'humans'. Either by minority or by democracy.Which one best suits Communism?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'm not sure what to get, other than that four or five paragraphs in a journal article seemed to explain CR more clearly than you have over a couple of months.

But it hasn't!The CR explanation you've found is bollocks! It doesn't agree with Marx, for example, and doesn't provide a basis for Communists to take science forward. That text is just good, old-fashioned, induction. It only 'seems to explain' because it fits with your own ideology of science (which you won't declare, so either you don't know you have one, or you're a bluffer).You really do believe anything academics write, don't you, YMS?What part of 'the world turned upside down' don't you understand about revolution?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The sun didn't go round the Earth, it was just good science to say it did. This was wrong, and has been disproved [presumably, by more ‘good science’], and no good science can make it right again.

[my bold and insert]Can’t you see the philosophical problems with this, YMS?Your ‘good science’ seems to say ‘yes, black’ then say ‘no, white’. Other examples could be found to display your ‘good science’ saying ‘yes, black’, ‘no,white’, ‘oh err… grey’, ‘oops, it’s brown’, ‘hang on a mo… this time it’s definitely blue’, ‘ahhh, it had us fooled a bit, then, it’s red! Deffo!’, ‘damn and blast , it was black all the time…’, ‘Fuckin’ hell, now that bastard Einstein says it’s a spectrum of colours!’.The fact that you use the term ‘good science’ suggests that you can identify ‘bad science’, too. But who are these scientists employing ‘bad science’? Or are scientists only ‘good’ when they use your particular version of ‘good’?Unless we accept the actual results of science, that tell us that ‘truth’ has a history, so that we can determine when something became ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘grey’, etc., and when it ceased being so, and realise that we can’t keep pretending that the results ‘now’ are the ‘really deffo, ‘truth’, no probs!’, then we’ll continue with this elitist charade that ‘scientists produce The Truth’, and will remain beholden to their authority.All you’re saying, YMS, is that the latest ‘truth’ is ‘Really True!’.It isn’t, ‘truth’ is socially produced, and while we’re not in control of everything produced by humans, we won’t have a Communist society.Perhaps, instead of putting ‘QED’ after scientific results, you’d prefer them to put ‘Honest, Guv!’. And you’d believe them…

[Author]

Posts