Dear Comrades,
I have a few questions related to your scientific socialism definition. I provide my perspective, so that you might understand what universe I am living in.
I was wondering if you could further refine a couple of things that are written on your website? What do you mean by:
- … how to use the best of humanity’s capacities to transform the world …
- … use all scientific means at their disposal …
From my perspective, the two points above derive from subjectivity. I have based my opinion on the readings that I have done in psychology and philosophy.
In my mind, #1 is based in subjectivity, because metaphors and ideas are important things that help people transform themselves. People need something to relate to; some story that inspires.
#2 is a justification given under the “air of science” by capitalists. In other words, they twist science to bullshit others. Having spent 21 years at Caterpillar, Inc., I have seen this play out over and over again. It was common behavior for the boss to define the results he or she wanted to see before running a Six Sigma project; scientific project management is supposed to prevent stuff like that from happening!
What types of scientific methods would scientific socialists use? It seems to me that scientific socialists ought to be well versed in statistical and mathematical methods, because this knowledge would provide for a very sensitive bullshit detector.
In my vision of partly addressing #1, I will quote Gustavo Gutiérrez from his A Theology of Liberation. In it, he writes:
In addition, the experience of these years has shown me that generous solidarity with the poor is not exempted from the temptation of imposing on them categories foreign to them and from the risk of dealing with them in an impersonal way. Sensitivity to these and other dangers is part of a human and Christian praxis whose truly liberating effects extend to those also who are trying to carry on such a praxis for the benefit of the poor and exploited. If there is no friendship with them and no sharing of the life of the poor, then there is no authentic commitment to liberation, because love exists only among equals. Any talk of liberation necessarily refers to a comprehensive process, one that embraces everyone.
Additionally, I quote Dom Helder Camara, a famous Latin American liberation theologian, wrote:
“All over the world, among all races, languages, religions, ideologies, there are men and women born to serve their neighbour, ready for any sacrifice if it helps to build at last a more just and more human world.
They belong in their own environment but they feel themselves to be members of the human family. They think of other people everywhere as their brothers and sisters, people from every latitude and longitude, every climate, people of all sizes and colours, rich or poor, whatever their education or their culture.”
Finally, I have considered writing a longer article that addresses #1 above; however, I believe that it will reduce to entirely subjective terms. It will simply be my own personal philosophy that is eclectic in nature, and I know that these things go against many Marxist ideas and such, especially Christianity. I reference two Christian writers; however, I do not ascribe to organized Christianity as such. I would be burned at the stake. Nonetheless, those theologians express common messages that appeal to others who would like to see unity of a common faith in humanity to create a more equitable and just world.
Thank you for your efforts to bring about a better world.
Sincerely,
Andrew
P.S. Your new website looks great!
