[ALB]

Also here:http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/03/how-william-morris-beauty-and-anarchy-uk#start-of-commentsI added a couple of comments that Morris was not actually an anarchist and refused to call himself one as he regarded individualist anarchism and its denunciation of democracy as "the tyranny of the majority" as absurd and didn't think much of the bomb-throwing anarchists who ruined the Socialist League

[ALB]

Hitchens is what Johnny Rotten would call a "bumhole" and, as Brand himself pointed out last night, people who attack him on this sort of ground identify themselves as supporters of the status quo and those who benefit from it. And the Sunday Mail, like the Daily Mail, is of course part of the gutter press.I think Brand is going to end up being like Chomsky., i.e refusing to endorse any particular anti-capitalist movement or party but giving general support to all of them. Of course he's not anywhere nearly as knowledgeable as Chomsky and wouldn't claim to be.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I have already said that I think that ALB's 'strategy' of saying to workers that they should just carry on employing 'naive realism' (whether they understand the term and its political implication or not) is not acceptable, if we wish to help develop the class consciousness of the working class.

You never stop, do you? I never said that. I just said that in practice people in their daily life act as if they were "naive realists", i.e treat the things they use as if they were separate entities. It's not a conscious thing (anymore than writing prose is) but it suffices for daily life. It's what we all do, including you. Even Dietzgern himself said it was ok for "household use".Of course "naive realism" is unacceptable as a method and theory of science. So, no need to make this false accusation again.

[ALB]

I went to a cinema in Kingston last night(with about 30 to 40 others) to see the screening of Owen Jones interviewing him for the Guardian. I think he's entirely sincere. He's a showman who has decided to devote his talents as a showman to helping grass-roots campaigns against what capitalism is doing to people and the environment and is urging them to get together to bring the whole profit system to an end instead of each waging their campaign separately ("revolution"). He leaves open the question as to how this is to happen except that it will involve people taking over and running the places where they work or live or what a post-capitalist society will be like except that it should involve a decentralisation of powet.  This would make him a bit of an anarchist (even though it wouldn't be incompatible with what we mean byl socialism; in fact he didn't repudiate being called a socialist when Jones asked him if he was one) but he came across as someone who genuinely wants to know more about what he's committed himself to.I ordered his book which should arrive today. It will of course be reviewed in the Socialist Standard, by the same comrade who reviewed the Paxman interview. In fact he was at the book launch on Wednesday and gave out some remaining copies of the reprint of that article we did as a leaflet.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

My position? You mean 'democratic controls on power'? I think it's called a 'minority position', but perhaps you're not au fait with the details of democracy?

I am very familiar with the details of democracy I daresay more than you since I've been a member for a number of years of an organisation that practises it not just a lone individual theorising about it.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Or is there a difference between saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?

The notion of democracy seems to hold great difficulty for you. The majority is 'right', but any minorities can dissent.

As I understand it, democracy is summed up as "the majority has its way, the minority has its say". You seem to be turning this into "the majority is right, the minority is wrong".

LBird wrote:

So if a scientist says 'A', and their society, after reading the scientists reasoning, decide that 'B' is the 'truth', then 'B' is the truth. The scientist can disagree, but the science books say 'B'.

I take it the scientist can still publish a book saying A?

LBird wrote:

So, the dissenting scientist can say that 'they are right, and society is wrong to hold its views', but the books say 'B'. Does that answer your question?

I'm confused about the grammar here. You appear to be making the dissenting scientist have to say "you are right, but I think you are wrong". Is this what you mean? And that what the socialist minority today has to say to the pro-capitalist working class majority is: "You are right to support capitalism, but we think you are wrong to support capitalism". I don't see why we have to utter such contradictory nonsense. I'm going to continue saying "You support capitalism. that's your right but you're wrong".

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?

I do so because I claim 'materialism' is anti-democratic,

So, it's not because a majority of workers have rejected what you call "materialism" (not that we do support "materialism" in your sense, but that's a different argument and a different thread)? Come to think of it, why do you claim that your view of epistemology is right when most workers reject it? You ought to say "Critical Realism is wrong, but I think it ought to be right".You've heard the one about whether you can believe someone who says "All people are liars". There's a new one now about the person who says "I hold the minority view that all minority views are wrong"As I said

ALB wrote:

Your position is full of contradictions.

.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'd approach workers, just like I approach the SPGB, and say, 'You're wrong to follow the ideology of materialism' (for example).

That make sense. That's what I'd do, but how can you, with your position, tell workers they are wrong to follow some set of ideas if a majority support them? Or is there a difference between  saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?And, on your logic, if a majority of Party members did support it (which they don't) wouldn't they be right as far as the Party is concerned?Your position is full of contradictions.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.

That's what I understood your position to be. It leads to the rather absurd conclusion that the working class is right to support capitalism because, well, they do support capitalism and that we socialists are wrong to oppose it. The real is rational, as an empiricist might put it.There must be something wrong with a line of argument that leads to such a conclusion. I think it's probably got to do with the definition of the word "wrong" that you are using. It's like the answer to the old philosophy question "Can Someone Want to do Wrong?"  by saying "No, because what someone wants is always right (by definition)".  Or, answering "Can the Workers Do Wrong?" by "No, because what the workers want cannot be wrong (by definition)".

LBird wrote:

We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.

I don't know about the last bit, but if you are reluctant to tell workers they are wrong to support capitalism how do you approach them as a minority? (In fact, what right have you got to try to get them to change their mind?) Do you approach them saying; "Fellow Workers, you are right to support capitalism, but I don't think you should. I'm not saying you're wrong (I wouldn't dare) but …" But what?

[ALB]

Yes, we've been back every Monday since then with 3 other speakers (comrades Clayton, Martin and Parkin). The speaker that night will also be invited back.The ones with Comrades Clayton and Martin don't seem to have been recorded properly, but the one with Comrade Parkin is said to be available here:https://www.sendspace.com/file/zq1osd

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?

I'd rather say they can be wrong when they act against their class interest.

[ALB]

You've got a cheek. I've discussed your philosophical views for 15 months on other threads in great detail. It's just that I don't want to discuss it any more, and certainly not on this thread.If you want to discuss other subjects such as, as here, what level of understanding is required of workers to establish socialism or how best to get  to it (parliament, workers councils or both) which you started on once. But you seem to want to get back on your hobby-horse every time.

[ALB]

Ah well, yet another thread derailed.

[ALB]

I am afraid that I have to accuse you of wilful distortion. I have never defended "naive realism" as a theory of knowledge but have merely pointed out that in the practice of their daily life humans act as if they were "naive realists" (just as the character in one of Molière's plays writes prose without realising it). We do behave as if the things we use every day are separate, fixed things. You do as much as anybody else. Even Dietzgen says this is ok for "household use". Go to here and type "household use" into a search engine and see what comes up. Here endeth my excursion into the domain of epistemology.To return to the subject of this thread:

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

I would have thought that it would be enough to understand that capitalism could never be made to work in their interest…

Surely they have to have a theory of what 'capitalism' is? And why it produces 'value', which is destructive of human society? And what 'their interest' is?

Yes, of course workers who want to get rid of capitalism need to know what it is. But do they have to have mastered Marxian economics?Here are some of the questions applicants to join the SPGB are asked to answer:

Quote:

What are the basic economic features of capitalism?:Explain what you understand by the terms “capitalist class” and “working class”Do you consider that the working class is exploited? If so, then briefly explain how this takes place. What do you understand by the word “socialism”?Why do socialists say that there will be no trade or money in a socialist society? On what basis will wealth be distributed?

Surely this covers the point you want. Applicants could introduce the concept of "value" here if they wanted (some do) but nobody is turned down who doesn't or who doesn't know the difference between "value" and "exchange value". Why should they be? In fact, why don't you answer the questionnaire to see what happens. It's here on this site.

LBird wrote:

If the SPGB (and all the other Engelsist groups, that pretend to be Marxist) made some attempt, like me, to explain to workers, they might actually have built some influence with the wider class.

Oh yeah?

LBird wrote:

How can any Engelsist group claim to have any better understanding of 'the world', physical or social, if, at least since the 1920s, many workers have pointed out precisely what I'm saying?

Who are these "many workers"? And what are they doing to further the cause of socialism. Or are they just interpreting the world?

[ALB]

Alan, you've fallen into his trap. The place to discuss his philosophy is on the "Science for Communist" thread not here.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Personally, I don't see how workers can understand 'value' without an understanding of epistemology, and if they can't understand 'value', how can they hope to change the world?

The first part might well be true but why should workers have to understand the Marxian concept of value to change the world?I would have thought that it would be enough to understand that capitalism could never be made to work in their interest and that the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production, and the consequent disappearance of production for sale, money, buying and selling, wages, banks, etc, provides the only framework within which the problems they face can be solved.Why would it be necessary for workers to have passed GCSE Marxian Economics? You are coming across as a caricature of the SPGB

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

1. I was making the point that, in their daily life, everybody is in practice a "naive realist", i.e assumes that the world is more or less as they see it and that the parts of the observed world they use are separate objects. You do. I do. We all do. Humans always have and no doubt still will in socialism.

Let's be clear. This is complete bollocks.If the world is 'more or less as we see it', then it will remain capitalist.

You've completely missed the point. I'm talking about everyday life not about scientific theories. And I meant "see" in the literal sense, i.e what we see with our eyes. I don't know about you but I act as if the things around me are separate things. Everybody does.And by "world" I meant the natural world not social relations. When I look out the window I see all sorts of things. I imagine you do too. This outside world will appear the same in socialism.There is no incompatibility between acting in everyday living as if naive realism is true (by treating things as if they existed as separate entities) and knowing that it isn't (and that they aren't). Acting as if naive realism were the case does not mean that you need really think that the world is more or less as we see it (through our eyes, that is) and is actually made up of separately existing things.

LBird wrote:

The whole point is that workers have to become Critical Realists,

That really is setting the bar too high ! If a condition for the establishment of socialism is that workers have to accept that particular theory then it's you who are making socialism and the self-emancipation of the workers impossible.

LBird wrote:

They have to become conscious and critical.

Yes, of course.

LBird wrote:

C R I T I C A L. And stay, critical, and reject the myth of 'naive realism'.

Yes, as far as scientific methods and theories are concerned.

LBird wrote:

How many people here really think that 'naive realism' is the proper scientific method?

Nobody I would have thought. Certainly not me. But, as I just explained, I wasn't talking about scientific method.

LBird wrote:

How many people here really think that 'naive realism' will remain the popular method, even within socialism, which to even reach we'll have had to have already seen a massive, popular interest in our world and how we all understand it? And afterwards, when the finest education is available to all on this planet, do you really imagine that people will retain (or revert to) the method of, 'my individual, biological, senses tell me what the world is'?

I don't know but I imagine that in socialism people will talk and act as if things were separate with perhaps a higher percentage than now knowing that they are not.

LBird wrote:

If you're right ALB, socialism (and by this I mean Marx's self-emancipation of the working class) is impossible.

That doesn't follow at all. I imagine that Marx himself in his daily life acted as a naive realist. Everybody does.Anyway, you should be happy. You've provoked me into discussing epistemology.

[Author]

Posts