Good article by the SPGB 1973 Brendan Mee

[LBird]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/marx-alienation

Some extracts:

SPGB wrote:

…For Marx, what distinguishes man from other species is that man has the ability of self-creation…man has the ability to produce in excess of these needs and to do so consciously, thereby creating his own environment…It is in the working-over of inorganic nature and the practical creation of an objective world…Man's essence therefore lies in his conscious and creative activity in creating a world of objects…It can be seen, therefore, that Marx's ideas on the nature of man were in total contrast and opposition to the mechanical materialism whereby man is seen as an object of nature…There is a two-way relationship between man and his environment, and between his consciousness and his activity…It is man's ability to labour, to objectify his creative capacities in the world of things, which makes him human….

[my bold]

The 'objective world' is a world of our creation.

'Objects' do not 'exist' before we create them. They are 'objects-for-us'.

Humans employ social theory and practice to transform 'inorganic nature' (NB. not 'matter', as Engels erroneously understood this Marxian concept) into our 'organic nature'.

[ALB]

There's also this, also drafted by Barry McNeeney:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist

[Young Master Smeet]

McNeeney wrote:

two-way relationship between man and his environment

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

There's also this, also drafted by Barry McNeeney:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist

Thanks for that, ALB.This point stood out for me:

SPGB wrote:

The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.

[my bold]The only issue (which perhaps can be cleared up) is the division between 'organized, instrumental working class' and 'revolutionary scientists'. I think that the 'revoutionary scientists' would be a subset of a class of 'revolutionary workers', rather than a separate group (ie. a group that has a power which is not under the control of the wider class).That is, 'science' would become a product of the majority, rather than remain, as it is now, a product of the minority.In other words, like all sources of power in a socialist society, 'science' would be democratised.I should also add the McNeeney is suitably critical of Engels' outdated formulations.This bit is also suitably critical of some conceptions of science and its relation to 'truth' and supposed 'objective knowledge':

SPGB wrote:

There is a long-standing row in some left-wing circles, which takes science as described above, in such matters as genetic population control (eugenics), IQ testing and the like; considering that science should be purged of these excrescences or abuses, leaving a pure residue of truth. The aim of such a. programme is the construction of a science which would be in harmony with a future socialist society. This hardly seems possible. For if you take away the influence of capitalist society then, until socialism is created, that new science would need to be created in a vacuum. While we might agree that socialists, to some extent, can create personal relationships which escape the boundaries, scientific or otherwise, of this society; we cannot see the effectiveness of trying to convert the scientific community to the radical science position. For even were this to be done, they would still remain unsocialist. Worse still, the radical science position assumes that a science could exist in the form of a perfect objective knowledge; which was the common sense assumption of the first part of this bulletin from which we were unable to prove that the V/alsby Society argument against socialism was wrong.

[my bold]There's still plenty for class conscious workers to discuss about these issues, though.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

McNeeney wrote:

two-way relationship between man and his environment

Yes, I quoted this.Perhaps you didn't read my post.

[robbo203]

What ever happened to Barry? One of my most memorable memories of him was when he represented the SPGB in a debate in Guildford back in 1980s against an organisation called – I vaguely remember –  "Peace Through Nato" or some such name. He brought along with him an antique sword which he unsheathed and held up  during the course of his contribution much to the consternation of his opponent who, I swear, turned slightly pale at the sight of it.  Barry's point was a simple but effective one – war was gruesome, irrespective of the technology used, and he took care to point out the runnel down which the blood would flow when the sword pierced the victim's body.Yer just don't make 'em like that anymore!  

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

What ever happened to Barry? One of my most memorable memories of him was when he represented the SPGB in a debate in Guildford back in 1980s against an organisation called – I vaguely remember –  "Peace Through Nato" or some such name. He brought along with him an antique sword which he unsheathed and held up  during the course of his contribution much to the consternation of his opponent who, I swear, turned slightly pale at the sight of it.  Barry's point was a simple but effective one – war was gruesome, irrespective of the technology used, and he took care to point out the runnel down which the blood would flow when the sword pierced the victim's body.Yer just don't make 'em like that anymore!  

The sword or Barry?  Barry and Tigger left the party in the mid 80's and set up shop as antique dealers after Tigger was left a house full of anitiques.  I have no idea other than some disagreement why they left the party.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

There's also this, also drafted by Barry McNeeney:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist

Thanks for that, ALB.This point stood out for me:

SPGB wrote:

The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.

[my bold]The only issue (which perhaps can be cleared up) is the division between 'organized, instrumental working class' and 'revolutionary scientists'. I think that the 'revoutionary scientists' would be a subset of a class of 'revolutionary workers', rather than a separate group (ie. a group that has a power which is not under the control of the wider class).That is, 'science' would become a product of the majority, rather than remain, as it is now, a product of the minority.In other words, like all sources of power in a socialist society, 'science' would be democratised.I should also add the McNeeney is suitably critical of Engels' outdated formulations.This bit is also suitably critical of some conceptions of science and its relation to 'truth' and supposed 'objective knowledge':

SPGB wrote:

There is a long-standing row in some left-wing circles, which takes science as described above, in such matters as genetic population control (eugenics), IQ testing and the like; considering that science should be purged of these excrescences or abuses, leaving a pure residue of truth. The aim of such a. programme is the construction of a science which would be in harmony with a future socialist society. This hardly seems possible. For if you take away the influence of capitalist society then, until socialism is created, that new science would need to be created in a vacuum. While we might agree that socialists, to some extent, can create personal relationships which escape the boundaries, scientific or otherwise, of this society; we cannot see the effectiveness of trying to convert the scientific community to the radical science position. For even were this to be done, they would still remain unsocialist. Worse still, the radical science position assumes that a science could exist in the form of a perfect objective knowledge; which was the common sense assumption of the first part of this bulletin from which we were unable to prove that the V/alsby Society argument against socialism was wrong.

[my bold]There's still plenty for class conscious workers to discuss about these issues, though.

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

What ever happened to Barry?

Apparently he's a railway enthuisiast:https://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/7991733619Not that that's a barrier to being a member. There are other trainspotters in the Party.

[Anonymous]

###

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

your views aren't the same as everyone's in the SPGB, but we don't all agree with each other on everything. 

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

your views aren't the same as everyone's in the SPGB, but we don't all agree with each other on everything. 

I think the real problem is that (as far as I can tell) no-one in the SPGB of 2017 agrees with me.My point is that, from those articles, it seems possible that in the SPGB of 1973 some-one would've agreed with me.I suppose that I'm arguing that the present SPGB is very different from the past SPGB, and that it's been a change for the worse, as far as the debate about Marx's and Engels' differing views of epistemology goes.From what I can tell from posters on this site, the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter' ('matter' is an 'object' which is 'out there', waiting to be 'disinterestedly discovered' by the elite who have a 'special consciousness' and a 'neutral method'), whereas in 1973 at least one member was agreeing with Marx, that we humans 'create our object' (that 'matter' was socially produced in the 19th century, but now we socially produce 'energy' – it's our object to change).It's not too difficult to see that the former requires 'contemplation', whereas the latter allows for 'change'.Really, it's a debate about the social meaning of social concepts, like 'inorganic nature'.For Marx, 'inorganic nature' is a philosophical category, something external to an active consciousness, that is transformed by the activity of that consciousness, into an 'object-for' that active consciousness.This is all a bit baffling for those who couldn't give a flying fuck about philosophy, and so Engels' 'translation' of 'inorganic nature' into 'matter' (a bog-standard bourgeois science concept of the 19th century, hence its ease of adoption) was very welcome.Now, every individual could understand Marx's mysterious and frankly baffling 'philosophical' woffle – 'matter' could be touched by an individual's hand, so that cleared up that problem.Except, that Marx wasn't talking about 'matter', so Engels in effect ditched Marx's insights, about social production which we can control and thus change, and returned to bourgeois science, and its individualist and elite concerns. I've said before, in effect, 'matter' is the 'scientific' reflection of 'property'. Both can be 'owned' by individuals, and neither are subject to democratic controls. 'Matter', like 'property' just 'is', a 'thing in itself', an Eternal Truth of human existence, to which we must genuflect, as a 'Fact' to be contemplated.And don't get me started on 'material'…

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter'

Why do we continue to entertain this obsessive who continues to tell lies about us despite us repeadtedly refuting them. For instance:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/why-we-are-different?page=1#comment-36702

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

From what I can tell from posters on this site, the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter' ('matter' is an 'object' which is 'out there', waiting to be 'disinterestedly discovered' by the elite who have a 'special consciousness' and a 'neutral method'), whereas in 1973 at least one member was agreeing with Marx, that we humans 'create our object' (that 'matter' was socially produced in the 19th century, but now we socially produce 'energy' – it's our object to change).

I think this is a key prblem, an Object is not a synonym of Thing or Matter: IMNSHO when Marx says we make our objects, he isn't refering to the creation of the physical thing, but the relationship of subject to object, hence why he can talk of IIRC the Sun being the object fo the plant (or vice versa, CBA to check).  

[Author]

Posts