Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:52:54 +0000
Subject: Re: BHA: Democracy is capitalism


James

Said "democracy is capitalism" - this is nonsense. Even Alain Badiou 
does not make such a draconian statement - he puts forward the 
acceptable and arguable position the parlimentary politics as practised 
today merely functions to make things work better by "turning the 
spectacle of the economy into the object of apathetic, thought obviously 
unstable public consensus." Badious's position is intelligent and 
sensible and does not deny that 'democracy' has a  place, just radically 
critiques the way that the institutions function in our social systems. 
Whereas James denies that democracy has any place in a radical 
understanding of society. [How nice to be so avant-garde...]

Science should be more democratic and accountable - of course it isn't, 
perhaps that's why it consistently fails to live up to our 
expectations... (When I was a teenager I was told that human beings 
would have reached Mars by now - instead they produce better lipsticks 
and robot dogs for Sony...)

regards
steve

James Daly wrote:

>Hi Steve
>
>"a social-democrat like Popper could hardly be expected to agree with
>Marx and Hegel" -- in fact they were prepared to annihilate the planet
>to to defend capitalism and save the world from communism. Perhaps he
>should have called for social democrats "to adopt a version of the
>Hippocratic Oath to restrain their propensity for harm."
>
>One example of Popper's dishonest "scholarship" is his misquoting Marx
>on a crucial issue as saying he wished to discover the "laws of
>society", whereas Marx said "the laws of modern society", i.e.
>capitalism.
>
>One can be a Cold Warrior without being paid for it, but acquiring the
>status of a Cold War manual certainly helps a book's sales, as it did
>Isaiah Berlin's.
>
>" '... to make science game-like and democratic as possible...' ".
>Science is not game like or democratic: games theory is just bourgeois
>ideology; "democracy" is capitalism.
>
>"Popper's version of science is essentially dialectical...". Popper
>was always ferociously anti-dialectical, and his denial of being a
>positivist turned mainly on the philosophically minor grounds of being
>a falsificationist instead of a verificationist, though in addition he
>also implausibly said metaphysical statements could become testable
>hypotheses.
>
>"... pitting one hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed
>issue. This goes back to Athens, the model being Socrates model of
>questioning, constructed in the 18th/19th [this should presumably be
>12th/13th] centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
>disputation' ". This is a frequently repeated but unconvincing
>ontogenesis of dialectic, which I think began with Plato's Parmenidean
>and Heraclides inheritance, and his practice of hierarchical
>classification.
>
>All the best
>
>James
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:36 AM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: Primacy of practice, sophistry, and other
>fun stuff
>
>
>  
>
>>Mervyn
>>
>>Within the philosophy of science perhaps the biggest argument of the
>>century is between Kuhn notable 'The structure of`scientific
>>revolutions' and Popper -  like most  people on the left I also
>>    
>>
>assumed
>  
>
>>that the below rationale was broadly correct - Fuller has done a
>>remarkably good job of throwing this presumption into question.
>>
>>I am not concerned to defend Popper regarding the Open Society or
>>    
>>
>the
>  
>
>>Poverty of Historicism, after all a social-democrat like Popper
>>    
>>
>could
>  
>
>>hardly be expected to agree with Marx and Hegel,  rather the
>>    
>>
>interest I
>  
>
>>have is in Fuller's attempt to recover the philosophy of 'science'
>>    
>>
>and
>  
>
>>'knowledge' from the predominance of the relativist Kuhn's paradigm
>>shifts, 'where knowledge is adequate to its objects'. The argument
>>    
>>
>goes
>  
>
>>that Popper '...took seriously both that science aspires to
>>    
>>
>universal
>  
>
>>knowledge and that scientists - our representatives in this project
>>    
>>
>are
>  
>
>>inherently flawed and biased agents. The result was to make  science
>>game-like and democratic as possible...' But to clarify this
>>    
>>
>Popper's
>  
>
>>version of science is essentially dialectical pitting one
>>hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed issue. This goes
>>    
>>
>back
>  
>
>>to Athens, the model being Socrates model of questioning,
>>    
>>
>constructed in
>  
>
>>the 18th/19th centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
>>disputation', from this derives the German dialectical tradition and
>>    
>>
>of
>  
>
>>course Hegel and Marx.  An example of this dispute in a non-science
>>    
>>
>area
>  
>
>>is the Popper/Adorno dispute over positivism which when looked at
>>    
>>
>shows
>  
>
>>perhaps rather typically that they are remarkably similar... both
>>anti-positivists, both dialectical thinkers, one a marxist the other
>>    
>>
>a
>  
>
>>social-democratic liberal.
>>
>>A single issue it seems to me throws the outright rejection into
>>question:  "At the height of the Vietnam War, Karl Popper called for
>>scientists to adopt a version of the Hippocratic Oath to restrain
>>    
>>
>their
>  
>
>>propensity for harm."
>>
>>regards
>>sdv
>>
>>Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I don't know about Kuhn, but anybody of intellectual integrity with
>>>      
>>>
>a
>  
>
>>>reasonable familiarity with Hegel and Marx who reads The Open
>>>      
>>>
>Society
>  
>
>>>and its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism could scarcely doubt
>>>      
>>>
>that
>  
>
>>>Popper was a cold war warrior. He is not only sly, he is dishonest,
>>>deliberately suppressing key words and omitting context in quotes
>>>      
>>>
>to
>  
>
>>>suit his cold warrior distortions and travesties. His
>>>      
>>>
>characteristic
>  
>
>>>method is to set up a scarecrow and demolish it as if it were the
>>>      
>>>
>real
>  
>
>>>thing. To spring to his defence on this issue in the current
>>>      
>>>
>context can
>  
>
>>>only mean to defend the totalitarian commercialism (Collier) that
>>>      
>>>
>Popper
>  
>
>>>himself promoted and which is now being imposed on the world by all
>>>force necessary. (The very skies over London have been emptied for
>>>      
>>>
>the
>  
>
>>>god of totalitarian commercialism to arrive as I type this...)
>>>
>>>Mervyn
>>>
>>>steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk writes
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>The fifties cold warrior labelling of Popper has been challenged
>>>>        
>>>>
>in very
>  
>
>>>>interesting ways by Steve Fuller just recently in his book Kuhn vs
>>>>        
>>>>
>Popper.
>  
>
>>>>As Fuller points out it is Kuhn who is in the pay of the coldwar
>>>>        
>>>>
>warriors...
>  
>
>>>>(this is not to disagree or comment on the thrust of the below -
>>>>        
>>>>
>merely to
>  
>
>>>>spring to the defence of popper...)
>>>>
>>>>regards
>>>>sdv
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Carroll
>>>>>
>>>>>Your punchline was strong -- that the purpose of reading Plato's
>>>>>Republic was to understand The Enemy.  But, only one? Why is his
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>name
>  
>
>>>>>on Lenin's tomb?  Your approach calls to mind the Fifties cold
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>warrior
>  
>
>>>>>Sir Karl Popper's *Open Society and Its Enemies*, after which
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>George
>  
>
>>>>>Soros named his foundation. Slyly, Sir Karl manages to suggest
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>that
>  
>
>>>>>Plato's target is workers who must be kept in their place,
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>whereas his
>  
>
>>>>>real target (see the Gorgias) is the unscrupulous Nietzschean
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>rich who
>  
>
>>>>>want to exploit and rule.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is nearly always forgotten that the society of Plato's first
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>choice
>  
>
>>>>>is a communist one, and that the rest of the argument is about a
>>>>>second-best society. And even the second-best society is not a
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>class
>  
>
>>>>>society in Marx's sense, in that the philosopher rulers do not
>>>>>appropriate the surplus, but live a frugal life.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suppose the jury is out on whether Plato meant by "gennaion
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>pseudos"
>  
>
>>>>>Big or Noble Lie, or both, but the myth of noble and base metals
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>in the
>  
>
>>>>>soul is an answer to the problem of legitimising the rule of
>>>>>reason, and defending it against the power of wealth. Lenin had
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>the
>  
>
>>>>>same problem. It's quite a problem!
>>>>>
>>>>>James
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>
>>>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
>>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>>
>>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>>
>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
>>multipart/alternative
>>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>  text/html
>>---
>>
>>
>>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>  
>


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---