Salon on the Science of Communism
September 1, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us
Editors' Note: The editorial "A Summer of Big Challenges and Intense Struggle" in Revolution, June 16, 2013, made the point:
"Theory is how we understand reality—including its underlying dynamics and the potential within it—and without it we will grope blindly in the dark... Theory is key to people raising their sights, and changing how they think and feel about things, as they are getting involved in fighting the power. All summer we must not only get the DVD of Bob Avakian's BA Speaks: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! speech out to thousands, and learning from their responses to it, we must be getting deeper into it ourselves. We've got to be getting deeper into BAsics, from the talks and writings of Bob Avakian, grasping its content and applying it as a guide to action, in the broadest sense and in the closest quarters with the enemy. And then we have to take what we learn about reality through carrying out this practice and sum that up, using our theory, further developing a scientific understanding of reality to push forward the movement for revolution."
With this as context, and the real emphasis within this communist theory on the method and approach, the following from a reader is an example of the types of discussions—formal and informal—that need to be happening a lot more.
When the local Bob Avakian Everywhere committee in this city first met, one of the things that came up was a question that some people had about "how can you call communism a science?"
To me personally, this seemed to come from a few directions: a) seeing communism as merely a political movement with a partisan stand coming from a moral plane only, b) wondering how communism can claim to "embrace" all other sciences even while not replacing them, seeing communism as a social science only, and c) the notion of a class-based or "bourgeois science" vs. "proletarian science" which has been a long-standing problem in the communist movement.
We decided to have a salon on these themes—a discussion over an afternoon or evening, where people can really wrangle and range on some key themes and topics—with some food and drinks! It took a little bit of struggle amongst ourselves to recognize the very real importance of something like this—against everything else that cries out to be done, and the spontaneity of daily life, with all its schedule constraints. Glad we did!
In preparation for the salon, we sent out a link to the Appendix of the Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, "Communism as a Science," as the suggested reading. We also sent out a link to BA's article "'Crises in Physics,' Crises in Philosophy and Politics" as a supplemental reading.
Eight of us gathered at a friend's house, and we had a rousing discussion.
With some basic appreciation for BA (we are all in the local BA Everywhere committee), we came from diverse perspectives and with varying levels of understanding of the scientific method, of communism—and its method and approach, especially concentrated in the new synthesis of communism, as brought forth by BA. With—and despite—varying levels of "formal" education, almost everyone had read some of the suggested readings, mostly the Appendix (Communism as a Science). Some had read the Crises in Physics article. And some found the readings "hard." In leading the discussion, we really followed what Bob Avakian models: "Break it down, don't water it down."
We started with two brief quotes describing the scientific method.
"A scientific approach does not seek supernatural 'explanations' nor does it accept any explanations which cannot be tested, and verified or disproved, in the real material world, but instead develops an initial theory based on evidence from the world, tests out the theory in actual practice and against the results achieved, and through this process arrives at a deepened understanding of what is true. That understanding must then be further applied to reality." (From the Appendix, second paragraph)
From What Humanity Needs, Revolution, and the New Synthesis of Communism, An Interview with Bob Avakian. BA says to the interviewer A. Brooks:
"If you're being scientific, you don't go by 'what everybody knows.' You proceed by probing, investigating—and yes, in the process changing—reality, and then systematizing what can be learned: what are the patterns; what is the essence of what you're learning; what ties things together; what differentiates some things from other things...." (Quoted in "Two Different Approaches, Two Different Epistemologies—Two Different Worlds," from What Humanity Needs, Revolution, and the New Synthesis of Communism, An Interview with Bob Avakian. Recommended as further reading.)
Then we went directly to a 12 minute or so audio clip of Bob Avakian addressing a question about what he meant by the terms he once used "bourgeois conception of science." This answer is number 7 of the Questions and Answers at the end of the 7 Talks, available as audio downloads at revcom.us when you go through the Bob Avakian portal.
In that clip, from what I can describe here very briefly, BA makes clear that what he was referring to was bourgeois METHODOLOGY, and that there is no such thing as "bourgeois science," just as there is no such thing as "bourgeois truth." "Truth is truth," he said. And, as can be seen by the above quotes on science, science can be done by the bourgeoisie. BUT, as BA goes on to explain in a lively and engaging way, various incorrect METHODS of approaching the world (or not) are more characteristic of the ruling class of capitalists, and in fact, these methods have often encroached into the international communist movement, to its detriment, including unfortunately up to the present day. Truths themselves don't have a class character, but modes of thinking do.
There is a LOT more in this section, and I highly recommend people to go back and listen to this excerpt.
We then said "let's discuss," and we were off to the races for about a couple of hours.
Some of the questions and controversies that came up (many in paraphrased quotes):
- There is truth and there is "closer to the truth." When can we say what is true, and what is the difference?
- Is it true that all matter is really "in motion"? Some theories that everything is not necessarily in motion haven't been disproved. What if, with the further and faster expansion of the universe, a neutrino will be too far from other entities to be observed—so we don't know if it's moving or not. Also, some say that in a neutron star, the neutrons at the center are not moving, they're packed too tightly together.
- We have to "believe" things change, otherwise the world will stay the same.
- On communism as "the goal": Communism is "too far away." There are "so many truths in between."
- On human nature: Human nature doesn't change. What about monogamy? It's human nature that people have "good brains," thus making communism inevitable.
- Why can't we just put all the various ideas together and come to some common ground, to the betterment of humanity?
- Scientific methodology is getting more accepted. You can't put science back in the priestly box. Thus, progress is inevitable.
- There's too many people questioning government, questioning everything. "Progress" should be possible.
As one can imagine, this was a vibrant exchange. This was our first session and we already have plans for a follow-up discussion in about a month.
If you like this article, subscribe, donate to and sustain Revolution newspaper.