Science and Socialism

[Hyacinth]

Science and Socialism (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10594):

Science can no more to be dismissed as a lackey of capitalism than can gender equality simply because women’s entry into the capitalist workforce is completely congruent with and even helpful to capitalism. From the historical vantage point, from which we can survey the old agrarian empires of Rome, Islam, and China, capitalism is the revolutionary force in history. But it is not the end of the history. The technological consequences it makes possible and the changes in social relations that it engenders set the stage for the further evolution of society away from capitalism itself. In an era in which the capitalist mode of production is so overwhelmingly dominant this can be hard to imagine, but the liberation of the mass of humanity from dire poverty, from antiquated superstitions, from institutionalised inequality enables a higher social life and the mode of production, capitalism, which made all that possible will at some point be the same force that inhibits their full realisation. In pre-capitalist cultures, science is the domain of the dilettante and philosopher. The socialist aim is to build a higher civilisation which necessarily requires a more advanced mode of production and just as we aren’t looking to recreate a world of small peasants replete with patriarchal norms, we aren’t aiming to go backwards to non-scientific ways of understanding the world which would cripple its economic foundations and condemn us to not only an unhealthily large dose of ignorance but to the recreation of class society.

The article in whole is well wroth a read, and I'm sympathetic to the overall thrust. There has for too long been a divorce between science and socialism, especially among some segments of the academic left, a mistrust of, if not outright hostility to, science, often combined with an ignorance of science as well.

[Creative Destruction]

Thanks for the article, and I'll give it a thorough read when I have time. But, what part of the academic left has been divorced from science for a while? The best I can think of are the, frankly just liberal and not actual leftist, morons who claim that GMOs are inherently a bad thing and that putting fluoride in your water will give you cancer.

[Thirsty Crow]

Thanks for the article, and I'll give it a thorough read when I have time. But, what part of the academic left has been divorced from science for a while? The best I can think of are the, frankly just liberal and not actual leftist, morons who claim that GMOs are inherently a bad thing and that putting fluoride in your water will give you cancer.
The whole of post-structuralism infatuated academic left, most notably in cultural studies, sociology, and philosophy departments.

[Creative Destruction]

The whole of post-structuralism infatuated academic left, most notably in cultural studies, sociology, and philosophy departments.

Hm. I'm not familiar with post-structuralism, although post-modernism is usually a mindless waste of time. What do they say about science specifically, or are they silent on "science," and that's the reason they're "divorced" from it?

I'm aware of criticism of scientific circles, regarding how science can be used to oppress people (like regarding the "racial intelligence" debate within neuroscience) and that criticism is usually pretty solid.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hm. I'm not familiar with post-structuralism, although post-modernism is usually a mindless waste of time.It's the exact same thing.
I use the term since post-modernism is actually quite appropriate for some forms of prose narratives which have proliferated since the 40s. Apart from that, it is a kind of a vague concept, denoting all sorts of phenomena with little theoretical agreement on its scope of reference (for instance the Marxist literary critic Frederic Jameson argues that "postmodernism" refers to a whole cultural epoch, of the culture of late capitalism).

EDIT: to be clear, I think "post-modernism" is appropriate for literary narrative forms, as a term.

[argeiphontes]

Socialism doesn't require any advancement in science, it requires an advancement in the social relations of production. I don't think there is any such divorce between science and socialism. It's definitely present in utopian thinking, which this article hints at. But in general, socialism has fantasies of being scientific, i.e. "scientific socialism".

Any decrease in the stature of science parallels the trends in society at large. I recently read Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance for God's sake! ;) However, it is correct to link some of the skepticism to capitalism, but it's not only radicals that are affected, and not all of the skepticism is because of capitalism's use of science, some is religious or based on aspects of science itself.

Anyway, the article beats a dead horse.

[argeiphontes]

Post modernism is a mindless waste of time. I like Kellner's book about, and critique of, academic post-modernism, Postmodern Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Theory-Steven-Best-PhD/dp/0898624185/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381508041&sr=8-2&keywords=Kellner+postmodernism).

[Creative Destruction]

I think what Chomsky says about it is pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8

[Popular Front of Judea]

Socialism doesn't require any advancement in science, it requires an advancement in the social relations of production. I don't think there is any such divorce between science and socialism. It's definitely present in utopian thinking, which this article hints at. But in general, socialism has fantasies of being scientific, i.e. "scientific socialism".

Any decrease in the stature of science parallels the trends in society at large. I recently read Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance for God's sake! ;) However, it is correct to link some of the skepticism to capitalism, but it's not only radicals that are affected, and not all of the skepticism is because of capitalism's use of science, some is religious or based on aspects of science itself.

Anyway, the article beats a dead horse.

I wouldn't say it's a dead horse. Where are the socialist scientists and especially where are the socialist engineers? No wonder socialist theory these days appears to be so abstract, so divorced from reality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Socialist solutions rendered in an engineering framework are often dismissed by other leftists as "utopian", I've noticed. This is despite the fact that most workers either don't give a shit about "utopianism", or are just as likely to consider all forms of radical leftism to be "utopian" in the sense that the word is colloquially meant, rather than the way it is used by leftist cliques, as a way of dismissing something without actually addressing it.

Also, I find it funny that leftists whose vision of society has never come to pass have the stones to deride others as "utopian". Talk about throwing stones while living in glass houses...

[argeiphontes]

@Popular Front of Judea:

That's a valid point, but I wouldn't say that it's because of socialism being antiscientific. Scientists and engineers get preferential treatment by their membership in the 'coordinator class' so are likely to side with capitalism. Scientists and engineers would be good allies, and some notable people have been scientists, but you're right, it's mostly in the past. But that's partly the result of the triumph of capitalism and the creation of the ole one-dimensional society with its limitation of the acceptable political spectrum.

Socialist theory appears abstract and divorced from reality because it is ;) But theory is always removed from reality. What's needed is an orientation toward practice that allows theoretical diversity, to lift the left out of the "schizoid decompensation" I've accused it of being stuck in.

At least that's my working model, I could be wrong.

edit: Hmm so actually I would like socialist praxis to be more science-like.

[argeiphontes]

Also, I find it funny that leftists whose vision of society has never come to pass have the stones to deride others as "utopian". Talk about throwing stones while living in glass houses...

I didn't mean to deride anyone for being utopian. Utopianism has its place, I suppose. Let's substitute "scientific positivism" for where I wrote utopian.

[Loony Le Fist]

The article in whole is well wroth a read, and I'm sympathetic to the overall thrust. There has for too long been a divorce between science and socialism, especially among some segments of the academic left, a mistrust of, if not outright hostility to, science, often combined with an ignorance of science as well.

This is ironic and a shame. Science puts existing capitalism's structural flaws on display, despite there also being solid moral grounds for rejecting it. If there is one reason for a socialist to embrace science, it's this one.

A scientific and empirical analysis of existing capitalist systems would lead one to concluding that socialism is superior. Orthodox neoliberal economics (which existing capitalist systems are based on) seems more prescriptive than descriptive. It rely's on assumptions about human behavior that are not borne out by the evidence. It centers around market fanaticism, and is riddled with unsupported assertions reminiscent of cultist beliefs. If dare question it's believers, you are rarely countered with logical argument. The response is often vituperative and defensive. It's very similar to the response you get when you contradict someone's religious beliefs. Science isn't about dogma, it is about observation.

This is not to put down all of economics. Behavioral finance is one example of an empirical science of how real economics works. It can be confirmed through it's application in simulated trading markets how cycles of bubbles and crashes arise naturally in free-market systems. This demonstrates how these problems are systemic and structural. They can't be fixed by merely reforming capitalism.

Science and socialism are friends, not enemies. :thumbup:

[CECE]

@Popular Front of Judea:

That's a valid point, but I wouldn't say that it's because of socialism being antiscientific. Scientists and engineers get preferential treatment by their membership in the 'coordinator class' so are likely to side with capitalism. Scientists and engineers would be good allies, and some notable people have been scientists, but you're right, it's mostly in the past. But that's partly the result of the triumph of capitalism and the creation of the ole one-dimensional society with its limitation of the acceptable political spectrum.

I think you're absolutely right. I also think it's absolutely correct to say with knowledge comes power. A greater number of scientists and engineers (and the like) who are involved and support the left would be invaluable, at least in my opinion. I mean is there a situation in which one might say such an education would be harmful, if not, useless? I can't think of one...

And that's why it surprises me as to the amount of... 'anti-education' (for lack of a better term) talk that I've seen browsing through the forums. I understand this comes from the fact that the educational system in many places has been laced with capitalistic ideas and so forth but to disregard education altogether seems like self-harm. I don't think capitalistic ideology can weasel its way too much into a degree in biochemistry. Plus, if you're aware of it then it probably wont hurt you... :P

I'm not a reactionary, I swear, haha. I just think a scientific education is very important and to see, what seems like, many of the left denounce such an education is... frightening maybe? haha... Anyway, my two sense.

[argeiphontes]

No, no one should deride such an education. Left praxis could learn a little from science, as I hinted at above. For example, science has a much healthier relationship with its history, theories, and notable figures than the left does ;)

edit: Though of course there are sectarian battles in science as well.

[Mather]

Socialist solutions rendered in an engineering framework are often dismissed by other leftists as "utopian", I've noticed.

What solutions specifically?


This is despite the fact that most workers either don't give a shit about "utopianism", or are just as likely to consider all forms of radical leftism to be "utopian" in the sense that the word is colloquially meant, rather than the way it is used by leftist cliques, as a way of dismissing something without actually addressing it.

Also, I find it funny that leftists whose vision of society has never come to pass have the stones to deride others as "utopian". Talk about throwing stones while living in glass houses...

So what.

Are you saying that just because some people use the term in a lazy manner, that all accusations of utopianism are without merit? To use past discussions on Revleft as an example, the accusation of utopianism was spot on when dealing with such featherbrain nonsense as the Venus Project. Ditto to those threads we sometimes have were some Maoist gets all excited at the idea of waging a protracted peoples war in the heart of Europe of the USA.

[Red Commissar]

tl;dr warning

Is it fair to say that socialism is hostile to science? I think in both respects we're painting too broad a brush on these fields. Beyond some who are too deep into tinfoil conspiracies and new age stuff (and this is speaking broadly to "left" politics) I don't think many socialists are anti-science in the same sense a religious conservative might be.

The problem here isn't completely one-sided. Sciences departments across the world usually avoid political entanglements when they can and usually avoid making commentary unless it's something they get drawn into like the evolution "controversy". This is largely because they don't want to endanger their position and attract unnecessary attention. They are usually tied up in their own drama within their field and possibly their own department in the university. Kind of a academic bubble of their own in this respect.

Typically when you see major political issues come up campuses (either something internationally or maybe affecting the university specifically) you'll have a good number people from social sciences, policy sciences, and liberal arts sign on. Not so many from the sciences departments. I have a BS in Biology and am currently trying to get an MS in a microbiology focus (no guarantees if I succeed lol) and I can say that usually I don't get good discussion over political things from my peers- I can only say that they are, for the most part, either progressive or somewhat liberal (in the American sense). You don't get many conservatives in the sciences like you would in a business or economics field- those that we did get were typically also in the pre-medical program- but they aren't unheard of. I'd say that with campuses becoming less political among the professors (compared to the past at least) things are becoming more varied across all departments.

The problem with socialism in the sciences is the same in any other field. We simply aren't seen as relevant any more as it may've been in the previous century. That's why I've been speaking more broadly here by including others typically seen as left-wing. There are also scientists who, either now or in the past, were drawn to socialism more because of its materialist viewpoint or atheism, not so much about the class struggle, and unfortunately marxism does not have a monopoly over atheism or materialism, though for a time it was the only real vocal proponent of it with power (by way of the Soviet Union, for better or worse, who with the exception of the lysenkoism episode was conductive towards science). As such the commitment of many scientists was not as strong- and this wasn't unique to the sciences either but you can find this in any field, especially when you find those who ended up getting burned out of politics because of disillusionment with the ideology.

Looking at it, you have examples of progressives in the sciences. Off the top my head you had in Biology figures like CH Waddington, JBS Haldane, JD Bernal, Linus Pauling (despite his quack at the end), Marie Curie (and her daughter!), and figures like Gould and Lewontin later on, though they weren't Marxists. You can find plenty of examples in other science fields too (like Einstein but the point stands that in the end they were not overly engaged with politics. The only one who can hold that distinction are those who were active in the peace movement like Pauling, or those like Pannekoek who were politically important in their own right while happening to also be engaged in science (astronomy in his case).

Sometimes you get the impression that the disengagement from politics is out of fear that it'll bias them against or for results, or criticize political-minded people as dogmatic. I mentioned Lewontin before, who gets criticized in the field because he is accused of trying to frame his results or criticize others through his political views and as such seen as compromising his own credibility (which Ernst Mayr criticized him about). This fear is drummed into the field and I think as a result most scientists are usually very careful to avoid communicating their views too visibly or expose their experiment to criticism from another angle. Within the field you get "media scientist" which has a pejorative meaning of those who try to cross their findings with activism, this has been applied to everyone from sociobiology figures to Dawkins to Gould and Lewontin.

Honestly the majority of problems socialism might have is coming from a specific subset of genetics to explain things like behavior and intelligence (which opens the door to racial interpretations and writing off the masses of workers as not victims of the capitalist system), along with sociobiology, that I feel is causing a rift. The stuff over GMOs, nuclear power, what ever kind of ties into an older issue over green/environmental politics. The Soviet Union and other older self-declared socialist nations weren't exactly the most "green" in their policies. I don't think it's fair to say those who might have a qualm with GMOs are instantly disdainful towards all science- it's way too big for this.

What bothers me as much honestly is not only those who get worked up by some discovery in the field they disagree with, but those who seem to accord a "be all end all" status to the science field as a whole. Sometimes the borderline fetish some observers have of science, more so those who try to act like they are an authority when explaining a scientific concept, annoys me just as much as someone complaining about evolution or what ever who have no real background in it. Putting scientists on a pedestal might seem more reasonable than doing the same to a businessman, but this seems to assume that scientists are some how intrinsically superior by virtue of their field from others. By the same standard we should avoid getting into a mentality that we as socialists have exclusive rights to science for some reason.

As an aside with genetic determinism, I suppose something that was unfortunate is that the early proponents of this- including CH Waddington and JBS Haldane who were pretty explicit about their Marxism- were coming from the position that they wanted to explain natural phenomenon from a materialist viewpoint, to reduce the stochastic (random) parts of evolution. Advances in genetics can indeed make evolution more ordered and understandable when trying to see why certain traits were chosen if not affected by selection. It is unfortunate then that something started off with this intent has been used to try and hand wave racism and class, made worse by some of those holding this position pretty loudly claiming that this isn't a problem. The back and forth here over evolution being more guided by deterministic principles (selecting on genes) or stochastic ones (like drift) is still a major contention among evolutionary biologists, along with the level at which selection occurs.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Science isn't a thing, at least it's not just one thing under class society, it's contradictory.

Science in the abstract is objective and lives outside of class rule, but in practice, the life-blood of science in a practice sense is the capitalist system... It's institutions, assumptions, and goals. So there are conflicts and contradictions. The more a scientific field is needed by capitalism, the more "neutral" and unideologically tinted it will be. Engineering isn't really an ideological battleground in of itself; the battleground might be what's engineered for whom. But science that has more direct social ramifications can be as obscured and ideologically entangled as history-telling. Economics would be the best example.

So I don't think it's possible to embrace science or reject it because we'd need to embrace science as an abstract ideal, but criticize much of it's focus and application in class society.

[Revoltorb]

Where are the socialist scientists and especially where are the socialist engineers?

Structural engineer doing research into energy efficient structural systems, reporting in. I can also confirm what Red Commissar was saying about the political leanings of people in my field as well. Sometimes you'll get an American libertarian but for the most part they're American liberal, especially the ones doing research.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What solutions specifically?

Since you mentioned it first, let's use the Venus Project as an example. The problem with the Venus Project is not that it is "utopian", but that it A) lacks a class analysis, B) doesn't address alienation, and C) doesn't seem to mention much about how its aims will actually be achieved.


So what.

Are you saying that just because some people use the term in a lazy manner, that all accusations of utopianism are without merit?

That would depend on what is meant by "utopianism".


To use past discussions on Revleft as an example, the accusation of utopianism was spot on when dealing with such featherbrain nonsense as the Venus Project. Ditto to those threads we sometimes have were some Maoist gets all excited at the idea of waging a protracted peoples war in the heart of Europe of the USA.

I think those Maoists are wrong for different reasons as well. Protracted peoples' war won't happen in the US because conditions don't allow for it, not because of "utopianism".