<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Örsan Şenalp</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:orsan1234@gmail.com">orsan1234@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:22 AM<br>Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Science and the Working class Alexander Bogdanov 1918 translation by Fabian Tompsett, 1st October 2015<br>To: "<a href="mailto:networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org">networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org">networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org</a>><br><br><br>Brilliant work thid is Fabian, thanks a lot! Thought have to reproduce<br>
the whole text so it vould be spread in email form as well.<br>
Ps. Workin on a Turkish version for a while.<br>
Orsan<br>
<br>
<br>
Science and the Working class Alexander Bogdanov 1918<br>
<br>
Preface to the English translation<br>
<br>
This text is a summary of a presentation which Alexander Bogdanov<br>
(1873-1928) gave at a conference for the Proletkult organisations of<br>
Moscow, 23-28th February 1918. It was written during a period in which<br>
Bogdanov was very active in Proletkult. Another version of his speech<br>
was given at the First All-Russian Proletkult Conference held 15-20<br>
September 1918, and was reprinted after this conference with 'Methods<br>
of Labour and Methods of Cognition' which had previously appeared in<br>
Пролетарская культура (Proletarian Culture) No. 4, August 1918. During<br>
the summer of 1918, Bogdanov was involved in the founding of the<br>
Communist University, founded 25th June 1918 Biggart et al, 1998). It<br>
was a “higher education establishment conducting social and natural<br>
scientific research” which in pursuit of its tasks “researched the<br>
elaboration of questions of history, theory, and the practice of<br>
socialism” (Bogdanov 1977). These experiences then feed into the<br>
discussion at the September Conference where Bogdanov gave a speech on<br>
the Workers' University. This was further elaborated in 'Proletarian<br>
University' which appeared in No. 5 of Proletarian Culture which came<br>
out in November 1918. This latter text is in preparation.<br>
<br>
Fabian Tompsett, 1st October 2015 ORCID: 0000-0003-4793-1761 DOI:<br>
10.13140/RG.2.1.4801.0725<br>
<br>
This translation is released under a Creative Commons license. (CC BY-SA 3.0)<br>
<br>
Science and the Working class<br>
<br>
1. To say that the class character of science lies in defending the<br>
interests of a given class, is just an argument of a pamphleteer or a<br>
complete falsification. In reality, science may be bourgeois or<br>
proletarian by its very "nature", including its origin, designs,<br>
methods of study and presentation. In this fundamental sense, all the<br>
sciences, social or otherwise, including mathematics and logic, may<br>
and actually do have a class character.<br>
<br>
2. The nature of science is to be organized collective experience of<br>
humanity and the instrument of the organization of the life of<br>
society. The ruling science in its various branches, is bourgeois<br>
science: it has worked on all representatives of the bourgeois<br>
intelligentsia, it is the concentrated material of the experience<br>
accessible to the middle classes; they have understood their bourgeois<br>
point of view and have made this generally understandable, they have<br>
organised affairs according to their own processes and habits. It<br>
follows that this science was used, then as now, an instrument of the<br>
bourgeois structuring of society: firstly as an instrument of struggle<br>
and victory of the bourgeoisie over the classes that had had their<br>
day, and then as an instrument of their rule over the working class,<br>
and at all times this organizational instrument for the development of<br>
production has been realised under the leadership of the bourgeoisie.<br>
Such is the organising strength of this science which at the same time<br>
displays its historic narrowness.<br>
<br>
3. This narrowness is already being felt in the very material of<br>
science, that is to say in the content of experience it organises;<br>
this is especially so in the social sciences. Thus, in the study of<br>
relations of production, bourgeois science could not grasp or to<br>
distinguish the particular higher form, of collectivist fraternal<br>
cooperation, because this form is virtually unknown to the bourgeois<br>
classes. Even more significant is the narrowness of this fundamental<br>
perspective which is evident across the whole of bourgeois science and<br>
which is due to the same position of the bourgeois classes in the<br>
social system, including their way of life. This special feature is<br>
the split between science and its real basis: socialised labour.<br>
<br>
4. The separation between mental and physical labor mark the origin of<br>
this rupture. In itself, this does not exclude the consciousness of<br>
the indissoluble connection of practice and theory in the social<br>
process into a single whole. But none of the bourgeois classes can<br>
perceive this; it is outside their field of vision. These classes are<br>
educated in the individualised economy, private property, and the<br>
competition of the market; that is why the citizens have an<br>
individualistic consciousness and the social nature of science is<br>
incomprehensible to them. For them, science is not a collective<br>
experience of organized labor nor an organizational instrument of<br>
collective work; for them, knowledge is something in itself, even<br>
something opposed to practice, with a special “ideal”, "logical"<br>
nature, and if in their view it should lead to some practical outcome,<br>
they attribute this precisely to this higher nature, and not because<br>
it has arisen from any practice which may have shaped it. This<br>
particular fetish that can be named the "fetishism of abstract<br>
knowledge."<br>
<br>
5. Even as specialization grew, the bourgeois world was developing all<br>
areas of its creation, science in particular. Science is split into an<br>
ever larger number of branches, increasingly divergent, always<br>
weakening the living relationship that existed between them. The<br>
individualistic separation of men sharpened this process because<br>
although the pooling of ideas is still a need for specialists working<br>
in the same industry, this necessity is relatively less compelling for<br>
specialists working in different branches. This path led Science to a<br>
disparate constitution, similar to that of capitalist society itself,<br>
and to extend this comparison, its development follows the same<br>
anarchy.<br>
<br>
This is the result: it has accumulated in all its branches an enormous<br>
wealth of material and also a wealth of methods for shaping this<br>
material. However, bourgeois science has been unable to achieve full,<br>
systematic and harmonious organisation. Each specialty has created<br>
their own language that has become incomprehensible not only the broad<br>
masses but even to scholars of another specialty. The same<br>
correlations, the same experimental links, the same processes of<br>
knowledge are studied in different branches, as if it were quite<br>
different things. The methods of one branch only share knowledge with<br>
other branches with much delay and difficulty. This is the origin of<br>
the narrow horizon, the corporatist narrowness that develops in men of<br>
science, weakening and slowing their creation.<br>
<br>
6. Also as much as science has given a unity for technical methods,<br>
the development of mechanised production has also sparked a trend in<br>
science to unify methods, to overcome the harmful aspects of<br>
specialization. Much has been done in this direction, but in the<br>
meantime, the radical rupture between the individual branches of<br>
science remains. So far, this trend to unification may only impact on<br>
the details, but it can not lead to harmonisation in a single<br>
organization of science as a whole.<br>
<br>
7. Bourgeois science is not very accessible to the working class; it<br>
is dense, its specialized corporatist language is obscure and<br>
complicated, and further, as it is of course become a product in<br>
capitalist society, it's expensive. If isolated proletarian<br>
representatives, at the cost of enormous expenditure of energy, become<br>
masters of one or the other of its branches, its class character is<br>
then felt: as they are cut from the collective working, they commit to<br>
a path of rupture with the life, the interests and thought structure<br>
of the working community from which they come. The corporatist<br>
narrowness doubles here the tendency towards an intellectual<br>
aristocracy. In a word, as a bourgeois ideology (1) , from its origin,<br>
science organizes the soul of the proletariat according to a bourgeois<br>
model.<br>
<br>
8. All this gives to the working class specific missions concerning<br>
contemporary science:<br>
▪ we must review it from a proletarian point of view, in content as<br>
much as form of presentation;<br>
▪ the creation of a new organization, as much for the elaboration as<br>
for the dissemination amongst the working masses. In most branches of<br>
science, accomplishing these tasks will mean a methodical<br>
consideration of the legacy of the old world. But in some, a large and<br>
deep autonomous creation will be required.<br>
<br>
9. The review of the content of science must first annul this break<br>
with collective working practices: the material of science must be<br>
understood and informed as the practical experience of humanity; the<br>
schemas, conclusions, formulas must be seen as tools for organizing<br>
all the social practice of humanity. At the moment, this work is done<br>
almost exclusively in the social sciences, but with insufficient<br>
structure and method; it must be extended to all areas of knowledge.<br>
This transformation produces a science vitally close to the working<br>
class:<br>
▪ Astronomy as the science bringing together the work activity in time and space<br>
▪ Physics as the science of the resistances encountered by the<br>
collective work of humanity<br>
▪ Physiology as the science of the labor force, logic as a theory the<br>
social agreement of ideas.<br>
That is to say, such organizational tools of work will penetrate into<br>
the consciousness of the proletariat more immediately, more easily and<br>
more deeply than those same sciences in their present form.<br>
<br>
10. It is further necessary to do everything possible to eliminate the<br>
disparate nature of science that has led to the increase of<br>
specialisation; the unity of scientific language most be the<br>
objective, matching and generalising the methods of the various<br>
branches of knowledge, not only in relation to each other, but as<br>
regards the methods of all other areas of practice, developing of a<br>
complete monism of them all. It will be embodied in the universal<br>
organizational science necessary for the proletariat, the future<br>
organizer of the whole life of mankind in all its aspects.<br>
<br>
11. With regard to the forms of the presentation of science, it is<br>
slightly easier, without prejudice to the essence of what is<br>
presented. Recently, the work of the democratisers of science (2) has<br>
shown how it is possible to advance in this direction, whether as<br>
regards the usual presentations of the useless scholastic hodgepodge<br>
or by repeating the same thing under different names in neighbouring<br>
branches. Simplification has already reached a sufficient degree for a<br>
single review of science from the viewpoint of collective of work<br>
which will release science from the abstract fetishism which is a<br>
source of the pseudo-problems and unnecessary devices which were often<br>
the subject of 'evidence' in the old mathematics, mechanics or logic,<br>
etc.<br>
<br>
12. The review of the content and of the transformation of the<br>
external form of science will constitute its basis, that is to say its<br>
"socialism", its mode of adaptation to the tasks of the struggle and<br>
socialist construction. The dissemination of knowledge and scientific<br>
work must be organised in parallel. The two things are inextricably<br>
linked: they must be embodied in life in terms of the Workers'<br>
University and Workers' Encyclopedia.<br>
<br>
13. The Workers' University shall consist of a system of cultural and<br>
educational institutions with levels which converge to a single centre<br>
for training and organization of scientific forces. At each level of<br>
the system, the general education courses must be complemented by<br>
practical, technical and scientific courses, of use to society. The<br>
unifying of principle of programmes at each level and their<br>
complementary teachings should not hinder the freedom to try to<br>
perfect the particular programs or particular teaching methods. The<br>
basic characteristic of the relationships between teachers and<br>
students should be fraternal co-operation, in which the competence of<br>
the former does not become sovereign authority nor the reliance of the<br>
latter engendering passivity and the absence of criticism. Education<br>
must primarily contain the assimilation of methods.<br>
<br>
14. The development of the courses, and in conjunction with this, the<br>
work of publication of scientific workers in the Labour University,<br>
should be geared towards the creation of a Workers' Encyclopedia which<br>
should not be a mere summary of scientific findings, but above all a<br>
complete, harmoniously system which presents the methods of practice<br>
and knowledge in their vital links.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
(1) “Our usual ideas about the social relations between people imply<br>
mutual understanding as their first precondition. (…) What is the<br>
essence of this mutual understanding? It is contained in a common<br>
language and the sum of concepts which are expressed by this language,<br>
in what is called common “culture” or, more exactly, ideology”<br>
Bogdanov's Tektology Book I (Bogdanov 1996)<br>
(2) As an example of such democratisers see John Dewey (1859-1952),<br>
Ernst Mach (1883-1916) and Yakov Perelmann (1882-1942). Perelman was<br>
influenced by Mach and probably Bogdanov as well (Siemsen 2010).<br>
<br>
<br>
Translators Notes<br>
This English translation was made using 'Science et la class<br>
ouvrière', the French translation by Blanche Grinbaum of 'Nauki I<br>
rabochii klass', which appeared in La science, l'art et la class<br>
ouvriere (1977). Additional contextual information was gleaned from<br>
Bogdanov and His Work (Biggart et al. 1998), which provides a<br>
comprehensive list of Bogdanov's published works and archival<br>
holdings. The French book cites the piece as coming from Пролетарская<br>
культура (Proletarian Culture) No. 2, however Biggart et al suggest it<br>
was published several places elsewhere (ibid pp. 315-6).<br>
Gender specific terms have been rendered in a gender free way (e.g.<br>
“humanity” for “man”) for ease of reading rather than to mask the<br>
gendered language used. Footnotes have also been added for ease of<br>
comprehension for a modern readership. Minor formatting changes have<br>
been made from the French version.<br>
This translation is part of ongoing research into Bogdanov and his<br>
relevance in the twenty-first century.<br>
<br>
Title Image:<br>
Vier Männer vor Fabriken (1926) by Franz Seiwert (1894-1933) Seiwert<br>
participated in the discussion about Proletkult in the pages of Die<br>
Aktion in the early 1920s. This painting is currently in the Hamburg<br>
Kunsthalle. (Bohnen 1978)<br>
<br>
Bibliography<br>
<br>
Biggart J., Gloveli G., Yassour A., (1998) Bogdanov and His Work: A<br>
Guide to the Published and Unpublished Works of Alexander A. Bogdanov<br>
(Malinovsky) 1873-1928 Aldershot: Ashgate<br>
<br>
Bogdanov A. (1977) La science, l'art et la classe ouvrière, trans.<br>
Blanche Grinbaum, eds. Dominique Lecourt and Henri Deluy, Paris:<br>
Maspero<br>
<br>
Bogdanov A. (1996) Bogdanov's Tektology Book I translated by tr.<br>
Andrei Kartashov, Vladimir Kelle, Peter Bystrov, ed Dudley P., Hull:<br>
Centre for Systems Studies<br>
<br>
Bohnen U. (1978) Franz W. Seiwert 1894–1933. Leben und Werk. Köln :<br>
Kölnischer Kunstverein<br>
<br>
Siemsen, H. (2010) 'Mach’s Science Education, the PISA Study and Czech<br>
Science Education' in: Ernst Mach – Fyzika – Filosofie –<br>
Vzděláváni. Vol. 1 Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, 2010, pp. 255–265,<br>
DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-4808-2011-255.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>
</div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: <a href="http://commonstransition.org" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </div><div><br></div>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br><br><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br><br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div></div></div></div>
</div>