Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think democracy is applicable in terms of the allocation of resources to particular scientific research. That 'investment' in pure science should continue is essential. It's difficult to conceive of the scientific method itself changing as I've always thought of it as potentially subversive of bourgeois ideology when practiced correctly. The scientists themselves will be free of reactionary ideology which, presumably, causes confusion and frustration within our culture. The commercial pressure to manipulate experimental data results will also disappear.
Again LBird seems to flatly contradict the socialist organisation of labour which states: 'From each according to his talents, to each according to his needs'. This implies to me that science, together with all forms of social labour, will be practised by those who are talented in, and inspired by, the particular discipline. The resources allocated to such a 'division of labour' will be decided by the whole community – isn't this Marxist/Socialist democracy?
There were wars long before capitalism arrived. It is the case that contemporary wars are caused by capitalism (as the most recent incarnation of private property) but wars are not a bourgeois invention! It's the same with science, it predates capitalism and will continue to exist after it ends.
LBird seems to believe in a ' world already designed and constructed by the bourgeoisie'. This is not true because it is the working class who design and construct this world and in so doing they are witness to the contradiction of this reality of production with that of bourgeois ideology. The capitalist actually believes that it is money/capital that creates the world whereas the working class are well aware that it is their own toil that does so. It is this contradiction between the reality of capitalism and the illusion of its dominant ideology that can lead to class consciousness. Scientists, as members of the working class, are also aware of these glaring contradictions in terms of finance, deadlines, unintended consequences, manipulation of experimental data etc. etc. There's no such thing as bourgeois science because most, if not all, scientists are working class! LBird would seem to deny the dialectical position that socialism is born out of the womb of capitalism.
You might be interested in something I wrote on the occasion of the last Olympiad: http://wezselecta.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bread-and-circuses_1.html
Just making the point that Stalin, Trotsky and Hitchens have not made any significant contribution to political philosophy (as far as I'm aware). The 'rings' he ran around Trotsky were those of, as jondwhite points out, realpolitik which are merely bourgeois strategic power plays. For Hitchens to ascribe Stalin with an 'understanding' of politics implies that he also has such an understanding, for which I see no evidence; just another example of his usual arrogance.
Stalin 'understood' politics? I thought he was merely a gangster with about as much knowledge of politics as has Peter Hitchens.
I have a working knowledge of Photoshop and have windows 10 with an internet connection. I'm a qualified graphic designer so let me know if I can help.
I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Wez wrote:I doubt if the likes of Theodore Adorno, Herbert Marcuse or Erich Fromme would have anything other than contempt for the DSM. The medicalisation of the psychological conditions caused by life within capitalism is almost entirely driven by the profits of big pharma and so anathema to true research into why people behave as they do.Whilst I have no doubt that many"psychological Illnesses" have their roots in the hideous social relations that are thrust on us by capitalism, I think to catagorise all psychological problems as being caused by life under capitalism is naive and actually does the case for Socialism no great service. In a Socialist society trauma will continue, parents will continue to be bereaved as their children die earlier than expected due to illness, accident, etc. relationships will break down causing distress, families will be dysfunctional and loveless, and most crucially attachment difficulties will persist for various reasons.To quote the late great Wally Preston "make no bones about it" Psychological difficulties will continue to exist in a Socialist society. I also think that to say that the medicalisation of psychological conditions is entirely driven by big Pharma, does a disservice to those workers, who have devoted their lives to research into the physiological issues involved in some mental health conditions. I don't doubt for one moment that the profit motive has been behind the work undertaken, in the same way that the profit motive has been behind the development of the jet plane, the internet or malt whisky (which have all proved their social usefulness, especially the whisky) however the outcomes of the intense work carried out by wage slaves, for which they usually have received no credit or share of the profit, has been useful in the symptomatic relief of many sufferers of mental health difficulties. For instance the modern treatment of schizophrenia (crude though it is) is to my mind much preferable to incarceration in Bedlam or enduring the fear and paranoia of the untreated condition.
My objection is to the 'medicalisation' of psychological conditions. It's possible that the majority of these problems are best understood within a sociological/political context rather than a medical one. Various types of non conformity to capitalist cultural norms are considered as 'illnesses'. Without a level of political consciousness no amount of 'devotion and research' can achieve much.
I doubt if the likes of Theodore Adorno, Herbert Marcuse or Erich Fromme would have anything other than contempt for the DSM. The medicalisation of the psychological conditions caused by life within capitalism is almost entirely driven by the profits of big pharma and so anathema to true research into why people behave as they do.
mcolome1 wrote:In that case we should alo make a psychological imvestigation of Roosevelt and Churchill. Nazism is not Hitler, and Bolshevism is not Lenin, and without the Russian revolt Lenin would have mever became a popular figure. The popularity of Donald Trump is just a product of the discontent of some of the US workers, and he has used that discontent in order to promote his capitalist agenda, which is also the agenda of some sectors of the capitalist class of the US So do you believe that psychology has no place within a political analysis? I agree with your assesment of the Trump phenomena but I also see him in the broader context of the decadence of capitalist political culture. The reversion to 'scape goating' of elements within the US population is reminiscent of what happened in Europe after the economic crash in the 1930's. I believe there are irrational elements at play within racism and xenophobia that are accessible to psychological inquiry. Socialists are bemused by the workers' support for such demagogues and surely psychology can give us some insights into this (within a historical and political context).
It's possible that a psychological analysis of the millions who would vote for such a dysfunctional individual would be more productive than a psychiatric assesment of that individual. Such attempts were made by the Frankfurt school, among others, with varying levels of success. The need for and belief in authoritarian social structures together with the leaders that such an arrangement produces does indicate a level of political naivety that implies some kind of emotional infantile state. Nazism and Bolshevism cannot be explained away by a psychological investigation of Hitler and Lenin.
I'm always rather wary about using medical/psychological concepts to describe political ideologies in terms of the personalities of those who subscribe to them. It is possible to deconstruct any political perspectives in this way thus eliminating any reference to the history of political philosophy at all. I'm sure comrades have had their belief in socialism deconstructed in terms of their personalities only too often?
