[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Are you sure that "positivism" teaches that science can discover "Absolute Truth" or that this claim is the dominant one in contemporary theory of science?Ironically, it is Lenin's theory of "truth" (that knowledge is a mirror reflection of reality) that comes closer to this…

Yeah, positivism's view that scientific knowledge is 'True' is much the same, as far as I've been able to discover, as Lenin's 'knowledge as reflection' view.The 'scientific fact' (according to late 20th philosophers of science) is that 'absolute truth' of any part of reality can never be fully known. Humans actively create knowledge by their interaction with the external world.'Knowledge' of a cat is not a 'cat'. Knowledge reflects the questions we ask of reality, rather than reality itself.If anyone's interested in a more in-depth discussion of 'scientific method', I recently contributed to several threads on the ICC's site.One of them is:http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/fred/6429/beliefs-science-art-and-marxismThere are others, if anyone wants the links, I could provide them upon request.I hope that providing links to other groups is allowed on this site. If it's frowned upon, my apologies, I'll remove it if asked.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Or at least our view is "truer" (more accurate and so more practically useful) than theirs.

Yeah, I'd go along with that formulation of the problem.'Our view' (the proletarian, Communist perspective) is the better science, because we openly proclaim our 'observational position', rather than try to carry on with an outdated, scientifically disproven 'scientific method' of positivism or empiricism, which claims it can 'know' the external object (ie. reality) completely, absolutely, and thus produce 'The Truth'.Simply put, the reason that the bourgeoisie cling onto this 19th century view, and teach it in schools and through the media, is that this mythical 'scientific method' can serve as an unquestionable authority, much like the market claims that 'There is no alternative'.The 'Market' and 'Science': the twin bastions of bourgeois authority. We need to question the underpinnings of both. We will find humans involved. And where there are humans, there are currently classes.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I suppose it's a distinction between "absolute truth" (true by definition) and "relative truth" (true on the basis of being an evidence-based description that helps humans survive practically in nature and which can be refuted if some other description is put forward which can predict more accurately what will happen and so is more useful).

This is a better way of conceptualising ‘truth’. Although we all (as critical realists) accept that ‘reality’ exists, as an object outside of humans attempts to understand it, the access to that reality is a creative access by humans (as Marx points out in the Theses on Feuerbach). ‘Truth’ is a social creation by humans; that’s why ‘truth’ has a history. What’s ‘true’, according to science, changes over time due to newer human theories and experiment.But I still think that the example I gave, of 1+1=10, helps us to understand that this sum is a human creation, and contains assumptions. ‘10’ here, in base 2 of course, means ‘2’.If I ask what ‘14’ means, no-one can answer that without knowing which base is being assumed.If I’m using hexadecimal (base 16), ‘14’ means ‘20’ (in base 10).Einstein’s example about observation is relevant here. If I’m on a train tossing a ball up in the air, to me it simply goes up and down in a straight line.But for an observer on an embankment watching the train pass, the ball appears to be zig-zagging up and down on a slope, as the train passes. Which is the ‘truth’? The simple answer would be ‘the ball is really zig-zagging, and the person on the train is unawares’. But as Einstein says, the ‘truth’ is simply related to a frame of reference, so there are two ‘truths’ in play. This doesn’t mean the ball doesn’t exist, or that any description will do (post-modernist individual thought), but that the ‘truth’ is an inter-relationship between an object and the observer.This can be confirmed by countering the ‘simple truth’ above, by asking what motion the ball takes if viewed from  a spaceship, and the train is crossing the path of the motion of the earth at right angles. For this observer, the ball is moving with a ‘corkscrew’ motion. This ‘observer position’ can be repeatedly extended, whenever someone claims that their position is the ‘final’ one and produces the ‘Truth’.So, to discuss ‘truth’ in physics, we have to note both the object and the position of the active observer.I don’t think it takes much to transfer this notion of a ‘framework of observation’ to social science, and call it an ‘ideology’. Humans can’t escape ideology. And a further plus is that this singular method helps to provide a basis for Marx’s wish to unite the physical and the social into one human science.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

If you disagree that there is a distinction between the two could you please provide a mathematical sum which is biased by ideology. Doesn't have to be hard 1+1 will do. (please don't make it too hard) if you can make an argument that 1+1=2 is an ideologically biased calculation I shall concede the argument …

1+1=10.The bias is in the base, comrade.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

You can have a theory based on the best evidence available,…

But 'theories' predate 'evidence', as you go on to show in the second half of your statement.

Ed wrote:

… for instance the Higgs Boson particle which was predicted to exist before thay could actually find it because it was the most likely outcome based on the evidence they already had.

[my bold]'Evidence' is garnered after a theory is formulated by humans. Unfortunately, as every theory already contains assumptions and axioms, many of which determine just what is acceptable as 'evidence' for the 'theory', we can't get out of this problem by a positivist, inductive method, which claims to start from the unvarnished 'data/evidence'.That is the 'scientific method'. Acceptance of biases in human scientists, and that 'scientists' belong to social classes and have ideological views.

Ed wrote:

On the other hand you can have an unfounded theory, for instance, God or human nature. These theories are unfounded and have no objective evidence backing them up, the scientific view in this instance is to discard them as they have no validity.

'Science' just doesn't work like this. We now know that a 'theory' can determine its 'evidence'. If the theory has a axiom of 'the existence of god', it's still a 'valid theory'. That's why we have so much trouble with 'scientists' who lecture us about 'human nature'. They don't share our ideological assumptions. They have bourgeois assumptions, we have proletarian assumtions. But they are still 'scientists'.

Ed wrote:

For me ideology is to discard evidence in favour of an idea which best suits your needs, just like God. So yeah I think socialists should endeavour to discard all ideology and only base their theories on the scientific method.

I'm afraid your notion of 'the scientific method', as a supposedly objective, non-ideological, unpartisan 'method', is the… [gulp] long discredited bourgeois one. Sorry to be the bearer of ill-tidings, comrade.'Science' itself is an ideological minefield.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I assume by "ideological" you simply mean "in the field of ideas". Yes, socialists are engaged in a battle of ideas, but I think we need to find another word than "ideological" to express this.

Well, 'the field of ideas' is rooted in philosophical assumptions, as I think our discussion with Sotionov has shown. We clearly have some philosophical assumptions that Sotionov, and many other Communists, don't share.And as these various 'assumptions' are unavoidable, I think that calling every particular framework of ideas, which is based upon its own philosophical assumptions, an ideology, is a good starting place. I don't regard 'ideological' as meaning 'false consciousness' (though I'm sure others do), but as an openly declared acceptance of the partiality of all points of view, including our own.I think Communism is an ideology. All humans have to choose which ideology they want to employ, to build their understand of the world around. I think we should be open about ours, the better to expose others. And if they don't consciously choose, then one is provided for them by the existing ruling class. Unconsciousness of one's ideology is not the same as not having one. We all do have one. The bourgeois education system is not least in the methods of installing ideology in humans.To return to the matter of this thread, I think an examination of the different philosphical assumptions between adherents of f.a.c. and those of Sotionov's position can only throw more light on the issue, and perhaps help to reconcile various Communists, or at least clarify our differences. We need to get on with each other, now and in the future.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

As promised, LBird, here's the "scientific findings of social anthropology" you were asking about, taken from our pamphlet Are We Prisoners of Our Genes?:

Thanks for that, ALB. The excerpt confirms what I already thought, but I’ll read the pamphlet later, anyway.But I think we might be having a bit of a misunderstanding. As you go on to say…

ALB wrote:

In short, the findings of social anthropology show there is nothing in the biological make-up of human beings that would prevent them living in a socialist society (what you call 'free access communism').

…science may confirm that ‘there is nothing in the biological make-up of human beings that would prevent them living [with]… 'free access communism'’, but that isn’t the same as science arguing that ‘humans are innately disposed to f.a.c.’, either.That was the point of my earlier post,

LBird wrote:

Yeah, ‘free access’ Communism can really only be even begun to be grasped from the ideological perspective of the Communist proletarian.

…that humans must want to choose to live in a society based on ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’. There is no ‘biological imperative’ for that type of social arrangement, either, just as there isn’t for Sotionov’s position.But your reply seemed to, at the least, soft-pedal on the need for the basics of f.a.c. to be argued for, as part of a Communist ideological framework.

ALB wrote:

I wouldn't go that far. It can be understood by anyone with an elementary knowledge of the scientific findings of social anthropology. It's not "ideological" in the strict sense of the term. It's a pretty simple concept really. You don't need to be a great intellectual or a grand theoretician to grasp it!

I think it is an ideological argument, which we must actively propagandise for. Further, given our present bourgeois brainwashing about ‘naturally lazy, greedy, individuals’, I don’t think it’s as ‘simple a concept to grasp’ as you appear to argue. In fact, it goes against everything we supposedly ‘know’ about humans, according to many so-called scientists. Perhaps Sotionov’s posts back up my position, and many other Communists express doubts about f.a.c., at least in the short term, post-revolution (ie. they see a need for a ‘transition period’).So, to be clear, I’m not arguing against the SPGB position, but, on the contrary, think that it needs to be argued for. I think our disagreement with Sotionov is an ideological disagreement, rather than one which will simply disappear with time. Whilst Sotionov holds to the philosophical basics that they do, they’ll disagree with f.a.c.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yeah, ‘free access’ Communism can really only be even begun to be grasped from the ideological perspective of the Communist proletarian.

I wouldn't go that far. It can be understood by anyone with an elementary knowledge of the scientifc findings of social anthropology. It's not  "ideological" in the strict sense of the term. It's a pretty simple concept really. You don't need to be a great intellectual or a grand theoretician to grasp it !

Could you briefly outline the 'scientific findings of social anthropology', which demonstrate the (presumable) 'naturalness' of 'free access Communism', ALB? A few bullet points will do.I'm inclined to view the concept as an ideological concept, rather than a 'scientific' one.PS. We can leave the discussion about 'what is science?' well alone, please!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have always had a partiality to democracy by lottery as a means of administration and decision making.

Isn't sortition a dastardly plot by any ruling class to prevent the exploited class from choosing its 'best' candidates for the job? A negation of democracy?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Much more worrying, though, about [Sotionov’s] proposition is the thinking behind it, identified by LBird as a reflection of the bourgeois ideology as to what "human nature" is. It's that that's really unacceptable.

[edited quote]Yeah, ‘free access’ Communism can really only be even begun to be grasped from the ideological perspective of the Communist proletarian.Whilst any comrades try to retain elements of bourgeois thinking in their understanding [Workers? Loads of them are bone idle bastards, it’s human nature! And they’re too thick to be able to comprehend ‘free access’! Anyway, who’d freely share with the lazy? I wouldn’t: if I do ‘my bit’, so should others], the arguments for free access will seem ‘utopian’.That said, I think further discussion on ‘safety net’ social mechanisms, asked for by Sotionov, is worth doing, if only to illustrate their probable superfluousness. I should say that I think these ‘mechanisms’, in any case, would be ideological rather than compulsory. There are examples to be drawn from pre-capitalist societies that show how recalcitrant members were ‘persuaded’ to adhere to norms. These may satisfy Sotionov’s curiosity. Then again, perhaps they’ll strengthen some readers’ objections to the very notion of ‘feeding freeloaders’!

[LBird]

Sotionov wrote:

To dream about an emergence of a race of 'new man' who will go against this biological imperative only propelled by his own will-power, without any external motivation (even if he does or doesn't- he's not denied access to anything)- is to delude oneself and be utopian.

Sotionov, I’m sympathetic to your wish to hear of some social ‘safety mechanisms’ (or safety nets under a walking rope, as you put it), but I think you seriously underestimate the ability of humans to change their ‘natures’ under different social circumstances.To talk of a ‘biological imperative’ within humans (an ‘imperative’ which can’t be altered by society), or to use the term ‘utopian’ to describe any social arrangements which are different to those of today, is essentially to be employing a conservative ideological framework. I’m not calling you a conservative, but I am pointing out the philosophical roots of one of your ideological building blocks. What’s more, it isn’t a building block shared by most Communists, who tend to be more historical in their outlook, and stress ‘change and society’ over ‘fixity and biology’.As I’ve said, I think that your wish to discuss future ‘social mechanisms’ is worth pursuing, but for me the basis would be the difficulties of a transition from a bourgeois ideologically-based society to a new Communist-inspired one. That is, I see it as a malleable social issue, not a fixed biological one. And further, I think I could be persuaded otherwise about the need for ‘safety mechanisms’ by the other posters. Certainly, ‘numbers’ would be a big factor, here. A few incorrigible lead-swingers would be pitied rather than condemned.Within history, we have many examples of humans proving the incorrectness of the theory of the ‘biological imperative’: one only has to look at wars like the First World War, where (at least for the first half) millions of men willingly climbed out of trenches, laden like donkeys with masses of equipment, and slowly walked towards impenetrable banks of barbed wire, whilst being mown down by intense machine gun fire. Why? Because of the social power of ideas, like Nationalism and Comradeship. Their individual wish to defend their own country, combined with their wish not to be thought a coward by their comrades, meant that any ‘biological imperative’ to live, was overcome.It’s not utopian to learn from history. If even death can be embraced willingly, due to the power of a particular consciousness, surely cleaning toilets, etc., will present less of a challenge for humanity?

[LBird]

Sotionov wrote:

I will repeat my position which was not concretely answered, and I will rephrase it a little.Today we have two facts of life:1. In order to provide for people's needs, people need to work.2. People don't like to do (hard, dirty and dangerous) work, and will avoid it if they can.Now, I see three positions you could take in relation these facts.- If you don't think that these two facts will be overcame with the abolition of capitalism, then we are going to need mechanisms to ensure that if someone consumes, he should also contribute accoding to his abilities….

[my bold]I agree. These 'mechanisms' will involve rethinking and reordering social structures and ideologies, which is why I've mentioned 'social authority', the concept of the 'social individual', the social determination of 'free access', and most importantly of all, democratic control, involving mandated, revokable delegates. Communist mechanisms, in fact.

[LBird]

Sotionov, post #8, wrote:

It is my opinion that a view calling for free access rests preciselly on utopianism, one kind of which I mentioned- the utopian notion of the new man… Both are assumptions, wishful thinking, and even if there are arguments in favor of such assumptions, it is irresponsible and counter-productive to base our aspirations and struggle solely on assumptions.

Well, not so much 'the new man', the 'the new human', I think we'd argue! Women and men will both be involved.But I think you're right to highlight this, as I think Communists do have an assumption, that the process of humans coming to realise that capitalism doesn't work for most humans and that a better way of structuring our socio-economic arrangements can be achieved by humans with Communism. This is an assumption, but I wouldn't call it 'utopian' or 'wishful thinking'. I fact, in contrast, I'd call it 'irresponsible and counter-productive' not to share this assumption. The alternative is to believe that human actions that we all see in this society are 'natural' and can't be changed. Again, I, like most Communists, don't share that static view of 'human nature'.

Sotionov, post #8, wrote:

What i[f] the abolition of capitalism doesn't usher an era where people will as a rule have a new human nature that would make the system impossible to fail…

But 'abolition' is only one half of the equation: there has to be a 'creative' aspect to the 'systemic' changes you are discussing. Whether that creative process constitutes 'a new human nature', or just a 'coming to consciousness' by most humans of the essential inhumanity of capitalism, is perhaps a matter of emphasis. But clearly, the use of the term 'human nature' is usually employed by conservative thinkers, who are keen to stress, for obvious reasons, the 'fixedness' of human behaviour. On the whole, Communists do not share this notion of a 'fixed human nature'.

Sotionov, post #11, wrote:

Because there are forces that make us experience consequences for not doing them. If i don't clean my house, it's going to turn into a hazardous and inhabitable pile of waste, and I'd have to move out and live on the street or rent a place or buy a new one. The only difference would be that in a socialist society forces that motivate people to do the unpleasant work would be removed, and people would have all the incentive to stop doing it. Let someone else do it, I have free access to everything. If my place turns into a waste pit, what do I care, I'll just go into another place, it's free.

I think that it's more correct to say that the nature of these social forces will change, rather than that they will be entirely removed. But that opinion is linked to my earlier post about 'social authority' and the social determination of 'free access'.Again, those who stress the 'individual' nature of the concept of 'free access' (your 'waste pit' analogy) tend to have a more anarchistic view of the term.Perhaps we can discuss those differing 'social forces', which have always existed in all human societies, and always will. And I think this is linked to the notion of a 'social individual', as opposed to the bourgeois myth of the 'free individual' (the serial 'waste pit' creator, who just doesn't care about their relations, friends and comrades).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…as long as it is understood that it can only be free access to what society has decided should be produced…

[my bold]This seems to be saying much the same as I've said, ALB.'Free access' is a socially-determined term, not an individually-determined one.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In present society there are numerous organisations that determine ability… a means where ability is determined by an accepted, neutral arbitrator, not the individual. I do not see them disappearing when socialism is established. Nor do i view them as authoritarian.

Yes, I agree, with the caveat the 'arbitrator' is subject to democratic controls, ie. elected, mandated, revokable, etc. 'Authority' in itself is not necessarily 'authoritarian'.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think when it comes to production issues then it can only be social.

Yeah, same comment as previous.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It is the summation of individual decisions about consumption…

This point, though, I think requires further elaboration. I would regard 'consumption decisions', too, to be as social as 'ability' and 'production', rather than, as you've put it, 'individual decisions'.That is, some products would be socially determined to be classed as 'come and take, at individual whim', but other products would require the sanction of the community within which the 'individual' is an active member.That is, 'free-access' is determined at the social level: the commune determines both the 'on whim' and the 'on consultation with comrades' levels of 'access'. 'Free', here, is a social freedom, not a 'freedom' subject to individuals' tantrums, of 'I want! I want! I want!'.To me, this is why it's called 'Communism', and not 'Individualism'.We are 'social individual', not 'free individuals' (sic), as bourgeois ideology teaches us. Indeed, brainwashes us.

[Author]

Posts