bts (02/27/83)
I spent several hours last weekend looking through some of the more obscure science journals in our (UNC-Chapel Hill) main library's periodicals. In a corner of the stacks, I found a whole shelf of what seemed to be magazines on Marxist physical science. In case you've never seen such things, they were full of articles on how Marxism helps to explain physics or chemistry or other sciences. (My first impression was Creationism without the King James Version.) I was a little nervous about standing there looking at such things, but I did notice that there was no mention of computer science. I know it's debatable whether or not we are a science (or ought to be or even could be), and I know that very few programmers were around during Marx's life- time. Still, I was a little surprised to be left out. Does anyone out there in net-land know if there is such a thing as "Marxist Computer Science"? If there is, what's it all about? If not, why is that? Everyone wants to get into computers, surely Marxists are no exception. Can it be that computer scientists are too logical for Marxism, or too greedy? If Marxist computer science does exist, should the non-Marxists among us worry? I'd be interested in seeing facts, opinions or flames-- pretty much in that order. Bruce Smith, UNC-CH duke!unc!bts
turner (03/01/83)
#R:unc:-471900:ucbesvax:7100007:000:2225 ucbesvax!turner Feb 28 21:59:00 1983 I don't know about \Marxist/ C.S., per se -- although Marx and more particularly Engels wrote quite a bit about the Natural Sciences, and the dialectic of science. Marx got quite interested in mathematics in his later years, apparently teaching himself calculus in his fifties. (This, in itself, is a pretty fair indication to me that he was, at LEAST, very intelligent, if not the genius that some claim.) How this all applies to the "Sciences of the Artificial", as Herbert Simon called them, is not clear. The Russian penchant is still more for analog control systems, and cybernetics generally. While this might reflect a different (more mathematical?) culture, it has more to do, I think, with their underdevelopment in digital electronics and memory technology. This technological lag has, as it turns out, some IDEOLOGICAL (if not strictly Marxist) roots. This is pretty obvious from the history of computing, where we can see that Eastern Bloc countries (Poland, in particular) were at most a couple of years behind the west in their development of electronic computers (ca. 1949). What followed has yet to go down in history with the Lysenko debacle, but it certainly should: the Party line on computers was that they were likely to engender an elite technical class, which would (of course!) imagine itself to be better than the "proletariat", AND have more material control over the workings of society and the economy than the party cadres and bureacrats. An untenable situation, clearly (from the point of view of cadres and bureaucrats, anyway.) This view held throughout the 50's. (And, of course, they held up a number of achievements to support their view of the dispensability of computers: the H-bomb, Sputnik, manned space-flight. Great proletarian technological feats.) Now, of course, they are playing catch-up; and Scharansky, among many others, is good evidence for their original thesis. So they lose on both counts, being both wrong AND right. *sigh*...such is dialectical materialism, fellow apparatchiks. Pass the vodka. Catch Ya Later, Fellow Elitists, Michael Turner