LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:Lewis Carol would be amused.
Actually, that's the first relevant thing you've mentioned.The Cheshire Cat and its smile, and 'physicalism'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,I dunno. You started asking me if I had heard of random people, so i thought I'd do the same.You're on a Communist site, refer to 'ends and means', and yet don't recognise the significance of 'Eduard Bernstein', to the discussion?Boy, this site just gets better and better…Please come back to the thread, alanjjohnstone or ALB. There has to be someone related to the SPGB that I can have a grown up conversation with.
LBird, post #1, wrote:I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.LBird, post #11, wrote:If someone wants, for example, to discuss the meaning of 'ideology', then let them start a thread about that issue.I'm determined to keep the focus on 'science', and the problems about its philosophy and method, already identified by bourgeois thinkers, and about which I think Marx has some answers, and that Engels is part of the problem (for Communists, at least).Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,not that I know of.So… your point, regarding Piketty's book, its allegation that capitalism has a destructive dynamic, and that this affects the whole notion of 'reform', especially regarding the "socialists" that ALB described, is… ?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,ever heard of James Duff Brown?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duff_BrownNo.Was he a Communist or a "Socialist" (of ALB's reformist variety)?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:Reformists can’t imagine everybody having the same say in the production, distribution and consumption of our wealth.This is just blithering nosense. Many "reformists" would say they agree with our ends, but disagree with the means, and believe that piecemeal change can work. Essentially, it is a project management question. They either suggest peice by peice implementation (or parrallel running, in some circumstances) but we suggest a hard change over.
[my bold]Ever heard of Eduard Bernstein, YMS?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_BernsteinYes, 'ends and means'.
ALB wrote:I still don't think it necessarily follows that, given a choice between socialism and an openly repressive capitalism, reformists in the narrower sense would necessarily choose repression rather than revolution. After all, many of themselves consider themselves to be "socialists" (including Piketty as a member of the French PS).You're probably right, ALB!"Socialists", under the bonnet, are all the same. They wouldn't 'choose' Regression, would they?That nice Mr. Wilson… he wouldn't 'regress' to breaking strikes, would he, now? Or, Mr. Kinnock, he wouldn't, if he had the chance…And even Herr Hitler has 'socialist' in the name of his party, so it's pretty unimaginable, that 'socialists' would Regress in the face of the capitalist systematic imperatives, that Piketty seems so afraid of.I suppose that the only way to sort out this 'opinion' of whether 'socialists' will flock to Regression or to Revolution, is to examine the 'facts' of history. 1919? 1926? 1936? 1968? The 1976 Labour Party conference, given the choice between the 'people' and the IMF?Hmmm.. I'm inclined to think, ALB, that 'choosing repression' is precisely what 'reformists' (even those trading under the banner of 'socialism') will do, if Piketty's suspected dynamic continues on its merry way.The obvious answer is to declare that 'Piketty is Wrong!' That is, that there is no compulsive systematic behaviour to capitalism, and it's just the interactions of individuals, who can choose to 'do the right thing'.Perhaps they'll just choose the bits of Piketty's book that suits their existing ideologies (goverment spending, higher taxes, etc.) and ignore the inconvenient bits ("Spectre over Europe"-type stuff). He is French, after all, and they're inclined to hysteria. Good old Anglo-Saxon restraint is what's needed. As long as the 'restraint' is applied to the 'beasts in the field', of course.'Austerity'? It's just another name for 'Socialism', I'm sure they'd argue.
ALB wrote:I don't think that there is much point in debating which way Piketty would jump confronted with a choice between Revolution or Regression, but it could be of interest to speculate which way reformists in general might.[my bold]Most reformists want to help other humans. I include Piketty in this ‘general’ group. But reformists are elitists: this must be so, otherwise they’d be in favour of the democratic control of the economy and the end of markets and money.Reformists can’t imagine everybody having the same say in the production, distribution and consumption of our wealth. For reformists, human nature gets in the way. Put simply, they believe that most people are not interested in politics, economics or culture, and are most happy when well-treated, well-fed, well-housed, well-rewarded, etc. As long as the reformists are the ones to determine ‘well’ in all these regards, the reformists have done their social duty, to help other humans live a good life. For reformists, where the Communists go wrong is to insist that ‘well’ should be determined by those who are the object of ‘well’; that is, that Communists insist that ‘well’ should be the product of democratic methods. For reformists, ‘well’ is necessarily (because of human nature) a product of elite considerations.To put this thinking simply, the reformists want to ensure that the ‘madhouse’, that is the natural human experience of most humans, is run on ‘humane’ lines. But, by nature, ‘humanity’ is restricted to a few; to allow the ‘inmates’ of the ‘madhouse’ (which is the natural, daily, experience of humans) to run the ‘madhouse’, as Communists propose, really is mad! The Communists propose letting the inmates take over the asylum.This basis to their thinking leads the reformists into a cul-de-sac, within our three choices of Reform, Regression and Revolution. They really want Reform, as Piketty clearly argues; Revolution is a non-starter, and not even a consideration.But, if, as Piketty also seems to imply, there is this internal compulsive dynamic to capitalism, it implies Reform will be taken off the agenda for reformists. As they’ve already discounted Revolution, there simply isn’t any rational choice, within capitalism, when its compulsive dynamic comes to fruition, other than Regression. For Piketty and the other reformists, since only capitalism is even imaginable as a free system for individuals, the best option is the ‘short, sharp, shock’ of Regression, to reset capitalism back into a workable state, so that Reform and ‘well-being’ for the masses can be reinstated.These politico-economic questions are predicated upon theories of ‘human nature’. Reformists might wish to treat people ‘well’, but those people really are, when all is said and done, just ‘beasts in the field’. Panem et circenses really is the best that these beasts can hope for, and the real issue for reformists is how to get the only system which can produce those ‘bread and circuses’ of ‘well-being’ back into a workable order. If solving that issue requires a touch of Regression, then that’s inescapable, a part of Piketty’s internal compulsive dynamic. Hayek, Friedman, and Pinochet are the logic of Reformism.Whilst workers display little or no class consciousness, then the ‘beasts in the field’ ideology will hold sway. Go to the pub, match, playground, bus, train, office, factory… would you let these people decide on your future? Or, god forbid, run ‘science’?We’re all Pikettians now!
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Thanks for engaging in the thread in a productive way, SP!Implying that my contribution was unproductive. That's very uncomradely, comrade.
My apologies, Vin, that wasn't my intention.It's just that I thought I made it clear with my first post that I wanted a more productive discussion, with those more sympathetic to my questions about 'science'. I didn't want a mere rerun of so many other, largely unproductive threads, and, quite honestly, the posts from before SocialistPunk were asking the usual, in the usual way.If someone wants, for example, to discuss the meaning of 'ideology', then let them start a thread about that issue.I'm determined to keep the focus on 'science', and the problems about its philosophy and method, already identified by bourgeois thinkers, and about which I think Marx has some answers, and that Engels is part of the problem (for Communists, at least).I want to stretch and deepen my understanding of these issues, if possible. I think I need the input of comrades who can recognise the problems, and want to seek for solutions, if possible, or at least to clarify the issues for those who have an interest in science. I need criticism of 20th century bourgeois philosophers, not the reinforcement of mistaken 19th century ones, and the Communists who were taken in by positivism (Engels, Lenin, perhaps Dietzgen and Untermann).If comrades are not really interested, or think my task a fool's errand, then they don't have to participate. On the other hand, anyone who genuinely wants to explore these vital issues is welcome to ask critical questions about science and its problems. I'll try to answer them, if I can, or take the critical discussion forward, if I can't. I'd like my understanding to increase, too.
SocialistPunk wrote:A piece I found while digging about. I think it is of interest to this thread as it highlights issues within the scientific community that we as socialists would say are a result of the pressures and constraints of capitalism.Thanks for engaging in the thread in a productive way, SP!You're spot on with your extract. All these failings within (ever more market-driven) bourgeois science, should give room for Communists to engage with those scientists who want to 'do things the proper way', but can't, due to the market of competition, jobs, career advancement, and lack of recognition for the 'mundane, but vital' aspects of verification.But… even if all these problems were fixed, by the magic wand of a proletarian revolution, a fundamental problem would remain. The extract argues that:
Quote:Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true.But this is precisely the problem thrown up by Einstein's work, and has been at the centre of philosophical worries ever since.How do we determine 'what is false' from 'what is true'?This is not a problem caused by all the failings outlined in the extract (which humans could, in theory fix (especially for us, given Communism to rectify the market's destruction of 'proper scientific method') these failings of today's bourgeois science).This problem is a philosophical problem for humanity, because it involves human knowledge and our estimation of 'truth'.'Science' does not provide us with a method for determining truth from falsity. This is a bourgeois lie, which they cling to, ignoring their own philosophers, because 'authority' derives from this 'magic' ability, and the capitalist mass of workers are as in thrall to 'science' today, as were the feudal mass of peasants to the 'church'.We should, of course, aim to remedy all the 'market' problems outlined in the extract, and on that basis recruit scientists to our cause.But our central problem is far removed from the concerns of this extract, SP.Here is Rovelli's view, again, for those reading this thread anew:
Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)'Best' is not 'Truth'.
3 possibilities?ReformThe ruling class choose reform, to pacify ‘The Stupid/The Great Unwashed’ (Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ ?), by ‘bread and circuses’ (panem et circenses: modern trans.: ‘Big Macs and Big Brother’);The exploited class display their inability to rise to class consciousness, because of the ‘natural’ stupidity of their ‘sheep-like’ nature.RegressionThe ruling class choose forceful extraction: a new form of ‘slave society’ or ‘eternal war’, with necessarily lower living standards for workers;The exploited class: as aboveRevolutionThe ruling class are expropriated;The exploited class choose resistance to the sheep-pens of both ‘mindless, meaningless existence’ and of ‘Auschwitz and the Gulag’.I think both Pikettians and the market socialists would like to opt for ‘reform’, because they are, like Keynes, essentially elitists. None have any time for the notion of class struggle and consciousness leading to [insert one’s name for a non-market, democratic production, society], because ‘workers’ are not capable of developing as a ‘group’ (of course, the elitists don’t discount a minority of individuals from a ‘working’ background developing as ‘individuals’).The real conundrum is whether there is an internal dynamic to capitalism which compels a choice from between only Regression or Revolution.Piketty wants reform, but fears the ‘compulsive dynamic’ does exist. I think if he’s pushed in the direction he fears, he will choose regression.As the good sociopath that he is, of course![since DJP considers the use of this term ‘un-profound and un-nuanced’, but likes Python, I’ll rephrase it to ‘Piketty is a very naughty boy!’]
Here’s some backing for my opinion that Piketty (perhaps ‘subconsciously’, as my sop to his fanclub – “Gosh! He’s a professor!”) is advocating ‘War Socialism’; and, to satisfy the Engelsian Gradgrinds [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradgrind ] amongst us, here are some ‘Pikettian facts’:
Piketty, p. 237, wrote:…the two world wars, and the public policies that followed from them, played a central role in reducing inequalities in the twentieth century. There was nothing natural or spontaneous about this process…[my bold]
Piketty, pp. 498-9, wrote:…it is important to realize that progressive taxation was as much a product of two world wars as it was of democracy….tax rates, even on the most astronomical incomes, remained extremely low prior to World War I. This was true everywhere, without exception. The magnitude of the political shock due to the war is quite clear….The top rate stagnated at insignificant levels until 1914 and then skyrocketed after the war…[my bold]I’d suggest that the only thing that compels the ruling class to divest itself of its wealth is ‘FEAR’. Both fear of other ruling classes (actual war) and fear of its own exploited classes (potential revolutions produced post-war by war).It’s not democracy, decency or enlightened self-preservation that drives the ruling class, but fear.And… just in case any comrades think that Piketty actually believes in his own ‘peaceful’ solutions of ‘world reformism’:
Piketty, p. 27, wrote:It is possible to imagine public institutions and policies that would counter the effects of this implacable logic: for instance, a progressive global tax on capital…It is unfortunately likely that actual responses to the problem…will in practice be far more modest and less effective.[my bold]So, ‘imagination’ and ‘fortune’ don’t favour us, boys and girls!It’s ‘War!’The Pikettian 'immodest and effective' solution, as proved by the ‘facts’ of history (as related by Piketty) and the ‘facts’ of Pikettian logic (as related by me).Gradgrind would be proud of me!And no ‘ideology’ in sight!Most important of all, neither Piketty nor I have exposed our own ‘ideologies’; we don’t employ one, and have just reported the ‘facts’.If you believe that last one, of either me or Piketty, you’re all dafter than I thought!
alanjjohnstone wrote:This, to me, seems the most relevant of the reviews from ajj’s link:
Steve Randy Waldmann wrote:“The story I was told in my impressionable youth was this: Karl Marx had been a sharp analyst, but he was a terrible futurist….Marx thought that capitalists were trapped in an unstable dynamic of capital accumulation from which they benefited, on the one hand, but which led inevitably to collapse and from which they could not, as a class, escape…. Marx had underestimated the ingenuity and flexibility of capitalist societies, and particularly of the United States during the New Deal. Government intervened to solve Marx’s collective action problem, enabling capitalists secure their enlightened self-interest by keeping a distribution of prosperity sufficiently broad that the predicted collapse could be avoided…. To my father, American capitalism’s adaptability and ingenuity had proved Marx definitively wrong, in the best possible way….I really did giggle when I realized that an argument I thought of as conventional wisdom about how America proved Marx wrong sounded, perhaps because my audience was of a different generation, vaguely Marxist.I’m not taking issue at all with the substance of Yglesias’ post, which I think is smart and quite right. Health care costs are millions of people’s livelihood, and inefficient health care costs are a big part of that. Much of how modern economies survive is by protecting information problems and barriers to competition that sustain overpayments. This broadens the wealth distribution while permitting recipients the fiction that flows of purchasing power involve no transfers (“welfare”), only proud, self-reliant income….It is not those who advocate, but those who prevent, stabilizing transfers of purchasing power, who are the true Marxists. These self-styled capitalists do not espouse Marx’s theories, but they do something much worse: They perform them. They behave in precisely the way that Marx expected capitalists to behave. They cripple the American system’s greatest strength — its ingenuity, flexibility, adaptability. They prevent the sort of collective action through which earlier generations proved that capitalism could made be consonant with decent, stable, and broadly prosperous societies. In doing so, they risk proving Marx right.[my bold]Leaving aside the nonsense about ‘American strengths’, it shows that even supporters of capitalism are, in effect, saying ‘Marx was right’.The real issue, then, for both them and us, is whether political action (ie. either peaceful reforms or destructive wars, separately or together) can overcome the tendencies of the system to do what it says on the tin: markets transfer wealth to the rich.Piketty is arguing ‘yes’. A judicious mixture of war and reform worked last time, and his book displays the ‘facts’ to support his argument. How will the 'market reformists' within the socialist movement react to this prescription for 'war socialism'?Do you look good in khaki, ajj?
