Science, autonomy, communism

Why should we engage with science? Why should we be wary of people who claim that Marxism is a science? What can anthropology tell us about capitalism? What can chimpanzees tell us about humanity? Are hunter-gatherers communist? In what sense are we in the West ‘wealthy’? Some sense and insight from a man last seen threatening the cops with Armageddon and dancing round a Maypole with his underpants on his head.

Comments

[Richard]

I can't look at the video just yet (I'm at work), but will I actually find sense and insight, or are you being ironic (given said recent events)?

[Stuart]

Yes I think so, I recommend it. Good talk.

[Dave]

It is when one sees Chris in this type of situation that one realises just how talented he is. For me, one of the world's most original thinkers - and no I am not being ironic.

Dave

[Stuart]

Hi mate,
In the preface to Blood Relations, Chris himself responds to the claim that his theory is entirely original by saying that this is generous but not true. In fact, I think most of the hostility to his theory, especially from the left, stems from the fact that people think he is making mad shit up, when he is merely weaving together pretty standard stuff from other fields. You can't get a more standard book in evolutionary biology than The Selfish Gene, and you can see the germ of the 'sex strike' and 'meat for sex' idea in there, for example.

What he's done is undertake a detailed study of a wide range of fields, and put them together into a big picture, a grand narrative. Much like Jared Diamond, say.

Shame his mad, authoritarian politics, wild-eyed apocalyptic vision and egomania mar his valuable contribution.

[Richard]

I was able to watch this last night. Really great, thanks for the tip.

Man, I would really love for a Dennett or a Dawkins to engage with these ideas, just because I'm curious to see how they would explain it away. I just read Darwin's Dangerous Idea. An excellent book, of course, but goes off the rails in the last chapter, as is so common. Would have loved to see any hint that he was even aware Blood Relations existed (which it had for several years by then).

[Stuart]

Hi Richard,
I agree, I'd be interested to hear how they'd deal with it. I read Dennett's DDI a few years ago. I thought it was great. Can't remember what was in the last chapter though! (I'm guessing: a claim that absolutely everything in the universe can be explained using Darwinian principles?).

It's almost certain that all these figures have at least heard of these ideas. Robin Dunbar, one of the leading figures in evolutionary psychology/behavioural ecology, is sympathetic; I remember Laura Betzig mentions it in passing in her "Human Nature: A Critical Reader".

I'm aware of no decent, scientific critique of Chris's theory. I'd love to see one!

BTW, are you aware of Marek Kohn's As We Know It? There's a lengthy appraisal in there of Chris's ideas, expressing some criticisms, that's well worth reading.
Cheers

[Richard]

Hi Stuart, I am aware of Kohn's book (actually, Chris himself told me about it in private correspondence a while back). I haven't read it yet, but expect to soon-ish. Interestingly, I also recently read Kenan Malik's Man, Beast, and Zombie, and he's able to refer to Kohn, able to make certain important criticisms of certain theories of the Mind, and so, but still no reference to Blood Relations.
Thanks.

[Stuart]

Yes, loved Malik's MBZ. He definitely knows about the ideas because he's given a lecture at the Radical Anthropology Group! I suspect people keep quiet about it because they're not sure how mad it will make them sound if they admit to liking it!

[Dave]

Hi Stuart and all

Do you remember a few years ago when we went crazy for Malik's MBZ? A fantastic book! I recall raving onto Chris Knight about it and he said he thought it was a good book but there was "no sex in it". I suggested to Chris that Malik should give a talk at RAG and apparently this idea was taken up whilst I was on a hiatus.

What do people think about Chris's argument that Marxism is not a science? I agree that it is not a replacement for "real" science but does it not follow a scientific methodology (in the right hand of course)? Does it not attempt construct models and make testable predictions? How else was I (and others) able to tell our friends 10 years ago that when the next crisis comes it will be the biggest since the 30's (complete with failing banks)?

Also what is the "autonomous" science Chris talks about? Is his distinction between ideology and science correct? If so,which one is Marxism? According to him it must be ideology but this does not fit his definition of ideology either.

I need some help on this people.

Dave

[Stuart]

Hi Dave,
I do of course remember our enthusiastic reading of Malik’s Man, Beast and Zombie. Great book.

Good questions about Marxism. Not sure of the answers, but I’ll have a crack.

I believe that social science is possible, and that such a science, if it were not to be mere ideology, would almost certainly have to draw on Marx’s insights. I believe (and have long meant to write an essay demonstrating) that Marx’s Capital does indeed provide an abstract scientific (anthropological) model that makes testable predictions.

No Marxism I know of, even the kinds I am most sympathetic to and supportive of, is quite like that, however. Rather, ‘Marxism’ is a form of religion (in the negative, ideological sense, as well as in the more positive sense explained brilliantly by Chris in that talk). Despite protestations to the contrary, ‘Marxism’ takes the words of Marx as Gospel, makes dogmatic claims about the ultimate nature of reality, requires its members to believe in philosophical and ideological propositions that are in no way related to the success of socialist struggle and action, excommunicates heretics, and so on and so on. (Let’s be fair, it’s not just Marxists who do this, but Anarchists, Objectivists, even some scientists…)

I’d say Chomsky gets it about right. Social science needs to start out by admitting that it doesn’t actually know very much at all (not in the sense that physics and chemistry, say, knows stuff). Then we can proceed cautiously and tentatively from there, acknowledging that large gaps in our ignorance may never be filled by ‘science’ or theory, but only by experimentation and struggle.

As for autonomous science, I believe Chris is right: it should be free to pursue its own agenda. What we do with the conclusions, however, is a matter of common concern and should therefore be a matter of widespread debate and democratic decisions. Which of course it ain’t.

Cheers

[Stuart]

On second thoughts, the last thought in the fourth paragraph should read: "even most scientists".

[Stuart]

On third thoughts...

When I mention "experimentation", I believe I'm using the word Chomsky used. But it also brings to mind Ghandi's "experiments with truth". And then, the novels and criticism of Ursula K Le Guin. I've just read her novel "The Eye of the Heron", and would say that we can learn as much from novels (especially hers), fictions and fantasies as from science about such experiments. (I applaud Steven Pinker for making that opinion, or one very like it, respectable among hard-headed, scientific rationalists.)

[Old Rope]

Marxism isn't a science, it's a form of dancing. I think this is clear in most of Marx's writing.

There are extensive footnotes in The German Ideology about body-popping and The Jerk.

This great Marxist tradition must not be forgotten. So check this, the inaugural Communism Is The Movement Before Our Eyes Triannual Dance Event!

http://oldrope.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/communism-is-the-movement-before-our-eyes/

[Stuart]

Old Rope, you're so right! And here's the book that proves it!
http://tinyurl.com/r45zx8

[Old Rope]

Nice one Stuart! Finally some theoretical credence, were it needed.

I will now be spending tomorrow in work reading this from cover to cover.

[Stuart]

Really? Phew, well good job I tipped a good one then. Some great stuff in that book. Cheers

[Old Rope]

Yeah well, I never got a chance to read it. The shackles of wage labour were not loosened quite enough. So don't big yourself up just yet Stuart lad. If you are a lad.

I'll read it on Thursday. Deffo by Christmas at any rate.