Monday, January 26, 2015

Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-III.... BY SRI BHAGWAT PRASAD RATH

    Scientific outlook and attitude should guide the social, cultural, political, economic activities and knowledge systems of a socialist society. The law of fallibility accepted by science as its chief hallmark should guide the socialist society.  In the past, scholars made distinctions between social sciences and physical sciences.  No doubt laws discovered by different fields of knowledge are different to some extent. The laws of classical physical sciences   are different from the laws of bio-logical sciences.  But all the fields of knowledge should be governed by the scientific attitude which includes the law of fallibility.  The Buddha declared that his sayings should be subjected to the law of fallibility and the principle of rationality.  That his followers did not follow his advice is another matter. Religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism are based on belief alone. Religions which are expected to increase the reign of love and peace collide and bring ruin to humanity.  When rationality is guided by self interest or self-group interest, it creates havoc in society.  This sort of rationalism which boosted nationalism, imperialism, capitalism, racism and patriarchy has demonized large chunks of humanity and brought modem civilization, which is mostly the legacy of the West, to the brink of colossal disasters threatening the extinction of all the living species. Like the Greek Civilization, the Vedic civilization, too, believed in superstitions, racism, de-gradation of the women folk (patriarchy).  Sciences, which should help humanity, are at present endangering human life and happiness in the whole world. When a great scholar like Will Durant thinks that,  in spite of the world wars, humanity has advanced because less number of people died in the wars than were saved from fatal diseases because of the discoveries of science, it smells of European arrogance that places quantity at a higher  level  than values (Is Progress Real?). The elite of Germany were famous in many fields of knowledge including science and technology. Nobody can accuse them of not being rationalists. They were responsible for creating the most heinous and the worst murderous machine in the world. Einstein resigned from the membership of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. He wrote, ‘I gave as my reason for these steps (resignation) I did not wish to live in a country where the individual does not enjoy equality before the law, and freedom of speech and teaching ……..I also call upon all sensible people, who are still faithful to the ideals of civilization in peril, to do their utmost to prevent this mass-psychosis, which manifests itself in such terrible symptoms in Germany today, from spreading any further’.  Is this psychic distemper temporary and skin deep or has it   affected the European   psyche at deeper levels, lying dormant but flaring at times. Truman’s   decision to blow into dust two populous cities of Japan is also an example of this sick psyche.       
Carl Sagan writes in his book ‘The Demon-Haunted World’. ‘(Science) is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking……..Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves’.     

He again writes, ‘The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and disciplined.  This is central to its success.  Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions.  It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fit the facts.  It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything-new ideas and established wisdom.  This kind of thinking is also an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change’………….

‘One of the great commandments of science is ‘Mistrust arguments from authority’.   (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment). Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong, Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.  This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less- self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude. ‘

Einstein writes,  ‘For whereas formerly it was enough for a man to have freed himself to some extent from personal egotism to make him a valuable member of society, today he must also be required to overcome national and class egotism.  Only if he reaches those heights can he contribute toward improving the lot of humanity’.

Again he wrote, ‘Any social organism can become psychically distempered just as any individual can, especially in times of difficulty.  Nations usually survive these distempers.  I hope that healthy conditions will soon supervene in Germany ………..’

When Gandhi was asked to speak about European civilization, he said, ‘it is a good idea’.   
America exploded two atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and within seconds lacs of people became ash.  Today the US, the world leader in science and technology, is the most dangerous   war- mongering nation in the world.  The Middle East is a destabilized   region in to-day’s world. 

Noam Chomsky says, ‘If some Extraterrestrial species were compiling a history of Homo sapiens, they might well break their calendar into two eras: BNW (before nuclear weapons) and NEW (the nuclear weapons era).  NEW, of course, opened on August 6, 1945, the first day of the countdown to what may be the inglorious end of this strange species, which attained the intelligence to discover the effective means to destroy it self, but- so the evidence suggests-not the moral and intellectual capacity to control its worst instincts.’ (How Many Minutes to Midnight?).

In the essay ‘Approaching Socialism’ (Analytical Monthly Review: July to August-2005) Harry Magdoff and Fred Magdoff wrote ‘The variety of structure and organization of past civilizations is truly striking.  It was not so long ago- in the span of human existence-that the native peoples in North and South America had a very different consciousness than that imposed by the invasions and conquest of the European armies and settlers.  Thus Christopher  Columbus wrote after his first voyage to the West: “Nor have I been able to learn whether they held personal property, for it seemed to me that whatever one had, they all took shares of … They are so free with all they have that no one would believe it who has not seen it; of anything they possess, if it be asked of them , they never say no; on the contrary, they invite you to share it and show as much love as if their hearts went with it.”

The missionary du Tertre writes from the Caribbean in the 1650s, ‘they are all equal, without anyone recognizing any sort of superiority or any sort of servitude…. Neither is richer or poorer than his companion and all unanimously limit their desires to that which is useful and precisely necessary, and are contemptuous of all other things, superfluous things, as not being worthy to be possessed….” And Montaigne wrote of three Indians who were in France in the late sixteenth century.  They explained to him about the common Indian custom of dividing the people into halves, groups with special and separate duties for ritual or administrative reasons, such as the summer and winter people of the various North American tribes.  The Indians were struck by the two opposing groups in France.  “They had perceived there were men amongst us full gorged with all sorts of commodities and others, hunger-starved, and bare with need and poverties begged at their gates: and found it strange these moieties so needy could endure such an injustice, and they took not the others by the throat, or set fire on their house….”

‘We have briefly referred above to societies in which economics was subservient to social relations.  That changed dramatically in the evolution of capitalism as private property, money and trade for gain came to the forefront.  Social relations became but reflections of the dominating force of society’s capitalist economics instead of the reverse’.
(Approaching Socialism)

Indigenous communities teach us about the glory of human relations. The question that haunts humanity is what lies wrong with modern civilization. Have we the will and sufficient time to over come our psychic distempers?  Here we can discuss the topic human nature.    Human nature has not been constant in different countries and different ages.  Harry Magdoff & Fred Magdoff write, ‘…..the consciousness, behavior, habits, and values of humans can be so variable and are influenced by the history and culture that develops in a given society.  Not only has so - called human nature changed, the ideology surrounding the components of human nature has also changed dramatically. The glorification of making money, the sanctioning of all the actions necessary to do so, and the promotion of the needed human traits-“unnatural” and repugnant to Aristotle- is now the norm of capitalist societies. ’

What lies wrong with Indigenous communities is their lack of scientific outlook.  They have their shamans who believe in mysticism, miracles and in a number of deities who guide and guard their lives.  The Aztec society sacrificed human beings to propitiate their great God.   
The tribe of pueblo Indians in Mexico has won the admiration and wonder of the western thinkers. Einstein wrote:-    

‘Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe (pueblo Indians) has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in them a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.’
Religion and science: irreconcilable?

Pueblo Indian society is mercifully free from sexual jealousy. Unfortunately this society has become stagnant and lacks movement at the social and cultural level.   

Latin America has produced some of the best theoreticians of socialism in the world.  Regarding the urban areas of Latin America Kees Koonings and dirk Kruijt write in their book ‘Fractured Cities’.
  
‘The first issue and the starting point is the long-standing syndrome of urban poverty, inequality and social exclusion.  Although this has been part and parcel of Latin American patterns of urbanization over the past century or so, the new neo-liberal model that dominated the past two decades has intensified this pattern to a considerable degree.’

‘A second issue addressed throughout the book is the withdrawal (if not failure) of the (local) state, especially of its public security functions.  The widening of so-called governance voids and the un-rule of law is now acknowledged as an important element in the relationship between urban exclusion, insecurity and violence.  In many cases, the police and the judiciary are ineffective in dealing with crime and violence, or worse, are among the active protagonists.  This failure is partial or selective, however, roughly following a class colour divide; hence ‘state abandonment’ might be a more appropriate term.  As is clearly demonstrated by Elizabeth Leeds for Rio de Janeiro (in Chapter-2), Wil Pansters and Hector Castillo Berthier for Mexico City (in Chapter-3) and Roberto Briceno – Leon for Caracas (in Chapter-6), local official security forces are often ineffective owing to disorganization, lack of vision, political disputes or an overly militarized approach to law enforcement and public security.  In Rio de Janeiro and particularly in Medellin, the police have even been part of a veritable urban war.  As a result, in many Latin American cities, the police are highly distrusted and often seen as a threat by inhabitants of low-income neighborhoods.’ (Introduction: the Duality of Latin American Cityscapes). Can Latin America become a truly socialist country without a sea change in their urban areas?    Socialist thinkers of Latin America are proposing socialism based on protagonist democracy which is definitely an improvement in the socialist theory; but it does not solve all the problems that bedevil humanity.   

In India the vulnerable sections of the population, women, children and the aged people are being harassed.  This harassment increases from year to year.  Society becomes more and more nuclearized as days pass. In the American Society divorces are ruining families.  Children are becoming more and more anti –social from year to year.  Pornography and war-mongering have become the hall marks of American Society.

Scientists have rightly discarded the theory of gene – determinism but the theory of neural determinism (brain) can not be thrown away dismissively.  When certain areas of the brain are damaged due to accidents or otherwise, the personality changes completely.  Scientists have made the discovery that within the last twenty thousand years humans have lost 20% of their brains.  Prof. Robin Dunbar and his colleagues discovered that social evolution always precedes the increase of intelligence in the human brain.     

Amydale which is responsible for the violence in human nature is controlled by the prefrontal cortex only in the human specie. Mirror neurons which are responsible for empathy are not so many in other species.   This shows the direction in which evolution was moving. Nature wanted to produce a species which would make its task of the survival of all the species easier. Has human nature changed for the worse?  Has humanity abandoned the evolutionary path fixed for it by nature? The questions need answers from scholars.  

Scientists who simulated nature with in computers to study evolution that took place with in millions of years came to the conclusion that in evolution nature follows a particular method and evolution has also a particular aim.   
W. Daniel Hillis is a computer scientist; cofounder and chief scientist of Thinking Machines; corporation editor of several scientific journals. 

He wrote ‘The engineering process doesn’t work very well when it gets complicated.  We’re beginning to depend on computers that use a process very different from engineering- process (evolutionary process of nature) that allows us to produce things of much more complexity than we could with normal engineering’.   “Close to the Singularity”

‘I said to the Computer “Computer, would you please make a hundred million random sequences of instructions.  Now, execute all those random sequences of instructions, all those programs, and pick out the ones that come closest to what I wanted.”  In other words, I defined what I wanted to accomplish, not how to accomplish it.’

Einstein wrote ‘For the scientists, there is only “being”, but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil-in short, no goal’.
‘From this it might seem as if logical thinking were irrelevant for ethics, scientific statements of facts and relations, indeed, cannot produce ethical directives.’
Einstein’s question wasWhat is the origin of such ethical axioms? Are they arbitrary? Are they based on mere authority? Do they stem from experience of men and are they conditioned indirectly by such experiences?’
The Law of Science and The Laws of Ethics (Sane voices for a Disoriented Generation).  
From what the leading computer scientists have discovered by simulating evolution in side the computer, ethics does not seen to be an arbitrary system of knowledge. It seems Nature has chosen for us a system of ethics which we are violating at our peril. Scientist like Lynn Margulis, James Love lock, Fritjof Capra, Andrew Glikson (Earth and Paleo-climate scientist)   all have tried to discover the ethical part of Nature’s command to humanity.
The questions and the problems raised by Einstein also troubled J. Doyne Farmer who is a physicist, as well as a leading computer scientist, an internal professor at the Santa Fe Instite, USA.
J. Doyne Farmer wrote, ‘In the last half of this century, the view has emerged that life and consciousness are natural and inexorable outgrowths of the emergent and self-organizing properties of the physical world. This fundamental change in our view of consciousness and life gives us a new way of looking at ourselves and our beliefs, and of understanding how we fit into the universe.’
(The Second Law of Organization)
‘It seemed really important to know why we were here, and to understand the meaning of life.  It was upsetting to me that these question, which seemed to lie at the foundation of everything, didn’t have any good answers.  The easy solutions just didn’t fit.  My brief preadolescent foray into religion left me with nothing but the realization that people have a desperate need to understand these questions. ……….’  
Regarding the artificial world created in the computer, he said ‘It’s a symbiotic system, in which everything co-operates to make the metabolism work –the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  If normal replication is like monogamous sex, autocatalytic reproduction is like an orgy. We were interested in the logical possibility for this to happen – in an artificial world, simulated inside a computer, following chemical laws that were similar to those of the real world but vastly simplified to make the simulation possible.’ 
 The Second Law of Organization
‘The Paradox that immediately bothers everyone who learns about the second law is this: If systems tend to become more disordered, why, then, do we see so much order around us? Obviously there must be some thing else going on. In particular, it seems to conflict with our “creation myth”:  In the beginning, there was a big bang.  Suddenly a huge amount of energy was created, and the universe expanded to form particulars.  At first, things were totally chaotic, but somehow over the course of time complex structures began to form.  More complicated molecules, clouds of gas, stars, galaxies, planets, geological formations, oceans, autocatalytic metabolisms, life, intelligence, societies….’
‘And it’s important to stress that no one is saying the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, just that there is a contrapuntal process organizing things at a higher level…….’
‘Social evolution is different from biological evolution: it’s faster, it’s Lamarckian, and it makes even heavier use of altruism and cooperation than biological evolution does.  None of this was well understand at the time (Darwin’s and Einstein’s time)’
‘Many of us believe that self –organization is a general property - certainly of the universe……..’ 
Scientists became aware that the laws of the physical worlds are different from the laws of the living world.

Fritjof Capra was a physicist. He wrote in his book: - ‘The Web of Life’ ‘………..Physics has now lost its role as the science providing the most fundamental description of reality.  However, this is still not generally recognized today.  Scientists as well as non-scientists frequently retain the popular belief that ‘if you really want to know the ultimate explanation; you have to ask a physicist’, which is clearly a Cartesian fallacy.  Today, the paradigm shift in science, at its deepest level, implies a shift from physics to the life sciences’.
Deep Ecology- A New Paradigm.

Nobel Laureate, Erwin Schrodinger, a physicist, wrote a science classic ‘What is Life?  The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and Matter.’ He wrote that the laws of Life Sciences are different from the laws of classical physics. The material world is governed by the second law of Thermo-Dynamics ‘the law of entropy’.  Accordingly   every order changes into disorder, all the heat contained in matter dissipates, all energy disappears leading to a dead world of matter.  In the birth of life and its progress, anti- entropy   triumphs, disorder leads to order, heat and energy go on increasing. He wrote ‘It is by avoiding the rapid decay into the inert state of ‘equilibrium’ that an organism appears so enigmatic…………..’ How does the living organism avoid decay?  The obvious answer is, by eating, drinking, breathing and (in the case of plants) assimilating. ………..’ (It feeds on ‘Negative Entropy’).

Christopher G. Langtion is a computer scientist; visiting professor at the Santa Fe ‘Institute, director of the institute’s artificial-life program; editor of the journal Artificial Life. He wrote:-
We don’t specify the selective criteria externally.  Rather, we let all the “Organisms” interact with one another, in the context of a dynamic environment, and the selective criteria simply emerge naturally.  To any one of these organisms, “nature,” in the computer, is the collective dynamics of the rest of the computerized organisms there.  When we allow this kind of interaction among the organisms- when we allow them to pose their own problems to one another – we see the emergence of a Nature with a capital “N” inside the computer, whose “nature” we can’t predict as it evolves through time.
‘If you look at the architecture of most of the complex systems in nature- immune systems, economies, countries, corporations, living cells- there’s no central controller in complete control of these systems.  There may be things that play a slightly centralized role, such as the nucleus in a cell, or a central government, but a great deal of the dynamics goes on autonomously.  In fact, many of the emergent properties that such systems get caught up in would probably not be possible if every thing had to be controlled by a centralized set of rules.  Nature has learned how to bring about organization without employing a central organizer, and the resulting organizations seem much more robust, adaptive, flexible, and innovative than those we build ourselves that rely on a central controller.’
A Dynamical Pattem

Stuart Kauffman is a biologist; professor of biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor at the Santa Fe Institute.  This highly –talented   Professor almost summarized the findings of the computer scientists who simulated the process of evolution in the computers    
He wrote, ‘Although Darwin presented natural selection as an external force, what we’re thinking of is organisms living in an environment that consists mostly of other organisms.  That means that for the past four billion years, evolution has brought forth organisms that successfully coevolved with one another.  Undoubtedly natural selection is part of the motor, but it’s also true that there is spontaneous order’. 
 Stuart Kauffman devised the phrase ‘ORDER FOR FREE’ to explain evolution.
To quote Kauffman, ‘But if there’s order for free then some of the order you see in organisms is not due to selection.  It is due to something somehow inherent n the building blocks.  If that’s right, it’s a profound shift, in a variety of ways.’ Using his ideas, he hoped to devise processes for making new genes. He said, ‘within five years, I hope we’ll be able to make vaccines to treat almost any disease you want, and do it rapidly.  We’re going to be able to make hundreds of new drugs.'   
All the computer scientists interested in evolution agree on one point.   Nature should be left free to move in the direction it chooses.   Socialism is a natural product and will prevail if we do not interfere in the work of nature. Matricentricism is nature’s choice. Matricentric values constitute the core of evolutionary socialism. We can not have true socialism if male-values dominate society.  The addition of a few needed patricentric values to the core matricentric values leads to creativity (Ashis Nandy: Self-Images Identity & Nationality). This is ideal for a development – oriented socialism. 
AS Kauffman says freedom is the base on which evolution stands.  Freedom is another word for non-violence. In a group no member can enjoy freedom if there is violence.  Violence leads to domination and domination leads to control. In the process of evolution order comes only if there is no controller.  Evolution is self- organizing and spontaneously leads to order.        
In the News paper Odisha Post (24.01.2012) there was an article titled “Male Sex Drive, the root of all evils”.  In that essay it is written, “The Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology claim that it is actually the male warrior instinct which has helped men evolve to be aggressive to outsiders (philosophical trans-actions of Royal Society ‘B’) ‘……. In contrast, women are naturally equipped with a ‘tend and befriend’ attitude, meaning they work to resolve conflicts peacefully in order to protect the children.’
We have interfered with the processes of nature.  The evils haunting human society are only because of our interference. Nature was using female brain as a motor of human evolution.  That led to a matricentric society where aggression and hierarchy were absent. Aggression and hierarchy are present in the male brain only, not the female brain. (The Male Brain by Louann Bridzendine, MD). Males and females enjoy equal status in matricentric societies.
In Frontier August 24-30/2014, Saral Sarkar writes in the essay ‘PC’s Critique of ‘Socialism’.
“Paresh Chattopadday (PC) is right in almost all points (Frontier, August 3-9, 2014).  The question that must now be asked is: Does it make any sense at all to still try to create socialist society that Marx and Engels had envisioned?..........  Also, PC’s awe-inspiring scholarship is of little use unless he presents his conclusion as to the question “What is to be done today”.
‘Drawing our attention to the book LIMITS TO GROWTH (1972), he calls for a paradigm shift in our thinking and activity.’
‘As for revolution, I would like to quote Walter Benjamin.  He wrote: “Marx says revolutions are the locomotive of world history. But perhaps it is entirely different.  Revolutions are perhaps the attempt of humanity travelling in a train to pull the emergency brake.”
If it was not true when Benjamin wrote this, it is true today.  In the same sense, another German author, Carl Amery, wrote in the general sense: ‘Political activists have till now tried to change the world in various ways.  The point however is to preserve it.’ 
What is to be done? Our task is to preserve the biosphere and change the world’.
(FRONTIER August 24-30, 2014).
 If it was not true when Benjamin wrote this, it is true today.  In the same sense, another German author, Carl Amery, wrote in the general sense: ‘Political activists have till now tried to change the world in various ways.  The point however is to preserve it.’ 
What is to be done? Our task is to preserve the biosphere and change the world’.
(PC’s Critique of ‘Socialism’:  FRONTIER for the month of August 24-30, 2014).
 Nature needs the existence of all organisms to act spontaneously.  Some may fade away without any interference by other organisms because they fail to find the proper ecological niche for their nourishment and existence.
Andrew Glikson is Earth and Paleo-climate scientist of Australian National University. He wrote:- 
‘A good death is often envisaged as a slipping away, in advanced age, surrounded by family.  In such circumstances, society goes on undiminished.  We can think of a good extinction in similar terms.  A species slowly flickers out, surrounded by newer, better adapted species.  This is not the kind of extinction that is occurring at present. .. These extinctions destabilize ecosystems in the way that such deaths destabilize society.’
Evolution of the Atmosphere, Fire and the Anthropceine Climate Event Horizon: Andrew Glikson.
 “If the bee disappeared of the face of the earth, man would be left four years to live”.  Nobel winner Maurice Maeterlinck ‘the Life of the Bee’ The Hindu young world 01.07.2014.
 (To be continued in Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-IV)

Bhagwat Prasad Rath,
3rd Line, Roith Colony,
At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2
PIN- 765002, Odisha.
Phone No. 06856-235092
Cell No.-08895860598


No comments:

Post a Comment