Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:23:41 +0000
Subject: Re: BHA: Democracy is capitalism


James/all

I agree. (laughs)

However just to clarify and to expand the discussion of 'democracy' - I 
used to know an old Maoist (now unfortunately dead) who once explained 
to me that 'democracy for us is different' referring not only to 
Badiou's perspective but also to the provocative understanding that the 
act of striking in the sense of official and unofficial strikes were/are 
acts of democracy. He was one of the first people I ever met who 
produced a truly radical notion of participatory democracy.

I have never however been a maoist - but am prepared to admit that any 
perspective that can invent and enable the perfect phrase 'running dog'  
and have the allegiance of the 'Maoist' cannot be considered to be 
essentially bad. (well perhaps this may be going a bit far...)

with regard to Popper - just to restate I'm primarily interested in his 
'philosphy of science' and the responsibility and accountability that is 
built into the process - sadly lacking from the work of Kuhn...

regards
steve



James Daly wrote:

>Hi Steve, Howard, DJ, Dick, Mervyn
>
>Sorry not to have got back sooner.
>
>Steve, I was responding to your extracts from Fuller as well as your
>own statements. I'm all for a philosophy of science critique of Kuhn,
>but equally for one of Popper.
>
>I can't see any harm in a Hippocratic-style oath for scientists, but I
>just haven't thought about it, which is why I didn't bring it up.
>
>The references to Popper as a social democrat seemed to be an argument
>against the possibility of his being a cold warrior.
>
>The statement that "Democracy is capitalism" was meant to be
>provocative, but for a very good reason: it is true in practice. When
>Bush says he is bringing democracy to Iraq, he means privatisation,
>neoliberalism. The essence of socialism is found in Marx's attack on
>the Young Hegelians who exalted the bourgeois political struggle for
>the rights of man as worthy of human dignity, and despised workers'
>socio-economic struggles as mere stomach filling. Marx pointed out
>that the dominant "right of man" was the bourgeois right to private
>ownership of the means of production, wherewith to exploit the
>working-class. In "On the Jewish Question" he attacked the bourgeois
>manipulation of their con-trick separation of "state" and "market",
>and argued that humanism would mean reuniting the political and the
>economic as our "forces propres".
>
>I have written at some length on this in an article "Marx, Love and
>Enlightenment", which has been brought up-to-date and can be seen at
>this URL.
>
>http://groups.msn.com/JamesDalyandFriends/documents.msnw
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:52 AM
>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 ---
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>     --- 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 ---