e gosh dern it thirdplace got me with the snipe
This book was helpful and interesting but not nearly as much as i had hoped. It gives a broad overview, of varying length and detail, of seemingly every "marxist" (broadly defined) the author could (or wanted to) find that had at some point stated some opinion on the question of science. I'll start with the positives. It was relatively thorough; i learned a great deal about many marxists that i wouldn't have thought to look into before, and i have a lot to follow up on after reading this. I can imagine that this book would be especially valuable to "academic marxists" or those in academia (presumably STS in articular) who are interested in dialoguing with the Big Names in academic marxism, such as lukacs and gramsci (negri etc obv came to prominence after the book was written).
Another positive point is that i got the sense that the author has a keen sense of some of the important strengths that marxism/dialectical materialism brings to an understanding of science, especially science considered as a social project. it describes matter and human society and labor in a dynamic back-and-forth where each is altered by the other, in ways that are organized but not determined. the "dialectic" here describes human labor arranging the material world in ways guided by human social structures, and the results of this labor is that society itself is changed.
it provides an intellectual tradition that neatly avoids many of the pitfalls and false dilemmas of present in science studies, from logical positivism to mechanistic materialism to the various strands of idealism that together rend the STS community in cyclical Science Wars.
Sadly, promoting the utility of marxism as a tool for scholars working in science studies and the history of science is really where the authors vision ends. the author appears to be wholly uninterested in that fundamental tenet of marxism, that philosophy is only valuable to the extent that it helps to organize us to work towards a better, communist society. in fact, many of book's subjects were heavily and directly involved in socialist organizing in addition to their philosophical works. this is generally treated by the author as some kind of incursion on the much more crucial task of putting pen to paper and producing Good Philosophy, and figures who are crucial to the latter 20th century Theory circles like gramsci and lukacs have remarkably inordinate amount of space devoted to their contributions to marxist science philosophy, which frankly seemed to range from bizarrely awful to totally mediocre despite the author's obvious fascination with them. other authors who are rightfully given a decent amount of time and space (non-soviets, like bernal and haldane) are given due credit for being totally on the ball as far as science goes but given presented as having an ambiguous record whenever they are deemed too Stalinist for the author's taste. the author's presentation of soviet philosophy of science was alright up until the death of lenin where it took an entirely predictable nosedive and went on for over 50 pages about the Dangers of Stalinism and Lysenkoism, which not only contained very little that was not the mandatory anticommunist talking points about cults of personality and the dangers of Evil People In Charge. this was especially disappointing not only because it had nothing of note to say about the period beyond bizarre psychologizations about the evils of stalin, but also because it was a period that (as far as i can tell, this book certainly didn't enlighten me) did a lot to set the stage for the soviet tradition in applied mathematics and physics which diverged dramatically from the tradition in the west, taking as fundamental problems that were marginalized as "applied math" in the west, which went down a rabbit hole of ever-expanding abstract construction (which have value and merit, but are certainly more removed from practical problems). the echoes of this split are still felt very keenly in physics and mathematics: dynamics systems, classical mechanics, physics, PDEs and functional analysis all carry a heavy debt to soviet scientists and it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the social conditions that led to this profusion of work. indeed it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the stalin era in terms of social relations instead of personal manias but even that was apparently too much to ask.
overall it was a neat book but i diagnose the author with acute Trotskyism.
toyotathon posted:c_man thanks for the review. one thing that i see often, wondering if any of the noted marxists saw it too, is about how science truly follows labor. like, a new labor is invented, then scientists observe it, and then it is rationalized. common ideology has it the opposite way.
not a work of marxism but Morris Kline's "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" really sells the point that even mathematics, often held to be "pure" logic, is better regarded as an empirical discipline, with its most enduring developments being those that followed (or underwent reciprocal refinement through) practice
further, it's a field that has sometimes grown along irrational dimensions through academic politics, false proofs, and operations that are accepted to "just work" even if not rigorously founded or theorized. it more or less tracks with the development of other scientific fields, in that sense
Edited by Constantignoble ()
make adult education and adult literacy a real thing
look up the blekingegade group
Bablu posted:nah man im just worried about my health. i carry a heavy head usually because i'm always on the brink of failure
if it's any consolation i did think you were just high. feel better soon mate
lenochodek posted:ne1 read the new china book from mobo gao? https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745399812/constructing-china/
update: i read this one and its really good, with a really critical look into the "democracy thesis advocates" and contradictory neo-enlightenment concepts in post mao chinese and western discourse, a bunch of sources used to deconstruct various myths from both western warmongers and pro capitalist chinese intellectuals and political elites (fyi his opinion on whether xi is just more of the same is that "the jury's still out" while cautiously appreciating anti corruption measures and a new willingness to face the first 30 years of the prc in a way that deng and successors were not willing to)
Parenti posted:That article is so full of shit. Yeah, I go to bat for Mélenchon
the other day i saw a british labour writer who seems to be big on the idea that democracy means control over the economy which includes the labour market therefore you need to have controls on immigration. and he quoted some melenchon stuff at me, maybe wrongly. made it sound like his position was close to bernie's, which is be nice to existing immigrants and increase quotas but keep the border regime in place. not sure you'll ever get better than that from the bourgeois-nationalist left.
getfiscal posted:Parenti posted:That article is so full of shit. Yeah, I go to bat for Mélenchon
the other day i saw a british labour writer who seems to be big on the idea that democracy means control over the economy which includes the labour market therefore you need to have controls on immigration. and he quoted some melenchon stuff at me, maybe wrongly. made it sound like his position was close to bernie's, which is be nice to existing immigrants and increase quotas but keep the border regime in place. not sure you'll ever get better than that from the bourgeois-nationalist left.
mélenchon does, unfortunately, believe in borders. but he's talked about scaling back the border regime in some places of his program, stuff like this:
refuser la militarisation de la politique de contrôle des flux migratoires
-94 L'Avenir en Commun
and
Renforcer les moyens civils de sauvetage en mer Méditerranée pour éviter les milliers de noyés
-ibid
also
En finir avec le placement en centre de rétention d’enfants, même accompagnés de leurs parents
-ibid
who was the british writer, by the way; i only go on twitter on tuesdays now
Edited by Parenti ()
Parenti posted:i only go on twitter on tuesdays now
ah, another observer of Toilet Tuesday. greetings.
statement 1: at time (t) 1 i thought it was very good, and now at t2 (t1 + 2 years) i now think it is weak in a number of areas, even considering its time of publishing
statement 2: at t1 i thought i was smart, but actually was stupid. (empirically verifiable via my posts)
statement 3: between t1 and t2 I have become more knowledgeable about marxism, philosophy, ancient history, physics, reality, matter, materialism, history of religion and theology, what passes for communist practice (please consult my communist newspaper sales record)
unverifiable hypothesis: therefor i am somewhat smarter now
statement 4: i am still a marxist and a materialist, though far less mechanical (personal opinion of self)
tentative conclusion: i only thought the book free from issues because i was stupid
tears posted:i have been re-reading elementary principles of philosophy by politzer, and i have to say i now think it has some serious issues which i either ignored or worse, agreed with without considering scientifically in the past.
statement 1: at time (t) 1 i thought it was very good, and now at t2 (t1 + 2 years) i now think it is weak in a number of areas, even considering its time of publishing
statement 2: at t1 i thought i was smart, but actually was stupid. (empirically verifiable via my posts)
statement 3: between t1 and t2 I have become more knowledgeable about marxism, philosophy, ancient history, physics, reality, matter, materialism, history of religion and theology, what passes for communist practice (please consult my communist newspaper sales record)
unverifiable hypothesis: therefor i am somewhat smarter now
statement 4: i am still a marxist and a materialist, though far less mechanical (personal opinion of self)
tentative conclusion: i only thought the book free from issues because i was stupid
if you want to write something serious about this i will put it up on the Extras page of EPoP