I’m afraid I haven’t a very good answer to this question. I do think that there is a connection between science and socialism, though I am not entirely certain whether it is a necessary connection.
Of course I’m a scientist too. Like Marx, Engels and so many of their contemporaries and followers, I hold that workers have the ability and are the masters of their own destiny. But I don’t expect my scientific work to lead directly to socialism. Like capitalism, socialism won’t be implemented overnight.
[b]Socialism should not be limited by scientific knowledge, but by moral knowledge.
It is not enough to recognize the limits of our understanding. It is also necessary to understand the limits of our actions.
[/b]
Marxist ideology has long presented itself as science, but in fact it offers merely political advice and moral recommendations.
There are various ways to view the problem. One is to take the Marxist view that all of human history, all of economics and all of society are essentially the same. The only differences are superficial; economic structures are always changing, but there is no true evolution or improvement. This view is expressed by saying that capitalism has replaced feudalism and imperialism, and now we have the new class struggle between the exploited masses and the capitalist bosses, while socialism is just around the corner.
The main problem with this approach is that it takes very little account of the historical changes that have occurred. The Marxist view is that capitalist development is always better than feudalism and socialism will follow, but we don’t know if this is true. The Marxist view can be summed up in the saying, “History is a lie we tell ourselves.”
The second approach is to note that capitalism is not really a system as it is a social order with rules for society which we call capitalism. Some rules are explicit; we have a labor market, an exchange system, and a division of labor. And some of the rules are expressed in the basic principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based on the principle of competition which rewards success. It is a system based on the exchange of value, so we exchange labor for goods and services and then we exchange products for more services. In short, capitalism has its own internal logic and it cannot be changed by an outside force.
What can be done then? Some economists suggest the market is self-regulating. In fact, capitalism has the advantage of producing the best results and can adapt to new situations, so the market tends to correct problems and create a system of checks and balances, so we’re not in for a communist takeover.
However, this cannot explain the origins of capitalism because it is simply assumed that capitalism emerged naturally as the best social order. Instead, the historical view is that capitalism was invented by kings and conquerors for the express purpose of taking control over their people. It is not a spontaneous social order. It can be changed but you have to take on the role of a conqueror, not a philosopher.
One might think that we are stuck with this debate and that there is no way to reconcile the two different views of history. Not true! We can change the way we interpret history. There is an alternative view of history.
When socialists claim that they don’t care what scientists say, they’re really doing that because what the scientists have to say has become just another piece of a puzzle they must solve.
No individual may presume to hold the full picture.
What the average person can’t see is the whole truth.
When the average person, i.e. the working class, becomes an “advanced” socialist, they would be the ones to lead the struggle to develop a socialist society.
They’d be the ones to know what’s good for the rest of us.
They’d be the ones to understand and use the science that they’ve found.
Only they can, they would be the class who would build socialism, it would be the class that would rule.
The more that scientists align themselves with the interests of capital, the more socialism we need.
Capitalism has built an industrial society.
It created a new system.
Now the workers are going to rebuild it, from the bottom up.
Whenever we encounter a new problem, we’re going to need the knowledge of the scientists, the physical and medical scientists.
But also the social scientists and the historians.
All of these sciences must be, if they’re ever going to be truly available, they must be open to everyone, every single person who is interested in the truth.
The truth for us is socialism.
In the end, whatever we’re all working for, all of us, is socialism.
While some socialists think that the environmental movement is part of the socialist movement, this should be seen as a mistake.
The environmental movement, like socialism, can come about in multiple ways and in different eras and countries.
What all of these environmentalist movements have in common is that they do not want to continue the old-fashioned way of life.
The environmental movement is opposed to the status quo and all of the waste, damage and destruction that comes from the old ways.
- Socialism for All
The basic concept of the environmental movement is that it wants everyone to have access to clean air, clean water, and a clean environment.
But that requires more than merely protecting this natural world from exploitation.
That is not socialism.
It also requires the elimination of the social injustice that prevents people from living in environmentally clean conditions.
The environmental movement has many other demands for improvements, but these are not the fundamental points.
The problem is that the environmental movement has many forms.
- Liberal Environmentalism
There is liberal environmentalism which can be easily explained.
It is based on the idea that there is a separation between nature and society.
It says that human beings are separate from nature and can live their own way in this separation.
Liberal environmentalism says we are separate from nature and we can simply leave things the way they are.
This is the separation of man and nature.
But in this separation there are no demands that man change the fundamental structure of society.
This is still the way of life that is leading to the destruction of the planet.
This kind of environmentalism leads to a situation where the environment is destroyed, because man is not forced to change his ways.
The demand for environmentalism is that a different way of life must be developed.