[ALB]

Like you it appears I have to repeat myself. This is not a case of you v SPGB but of you v certains other socialists, some SPGB members, some not.Quite prepared to carry on without the insults and acrimony if you'll comment on what I said about the possibility of a "class ideology free" astronomy even under capitalism and explainwhat  the differences are or would be between a bourgeois and a proletarian astronomy.Incidentally there is someone from Zeitgeist on the Zeitgeist thread who is actually arguing the position you have sometimes attributed to us of leaving scientists to decide everything:

SB_UK wrote:

Now what's wrong with doing it by elections ie the standard way ?Well – there's no alternative to global equality.There may be some decisions to be made – but they'll all be technical and can be sorted by techno-types pre-calibrated to select the best possible solution.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Adam, I think you made an unintentional error here,

ALB wrote:

This does mean a violent insurrection but,  ……

I think you meant to say "doesn't"

Thanks. Of course. Hope it wasn't a Freudian slip.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

But I do rule out 'ideology-free' physics, as I keep saying, because, according to bourgeois science, it's part of the human condition. All societies employ ideas to understand the world. Science employs ideas to understand the world. Humans employ ideas to understand the world. THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY-FREE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING

No need to shout. I know what your basic position is. You've missed the point I was trying to make. I was starting from your basic position that "there is no ideology-free human understanding" and asking whether, in some of the physical sciences, it was not possible for the ideology involved to be one that was shared by everyone irrespective of class.So I was talking not  about an "ideology free physics' but about a 'class ideology free physics'. In other words, assuming agreeiment with you that there is such a thing as bourgeois and proletarian economics, history, sociology, etc bur raising the possibility of at least some "class-free" science. You might not agree with this position (you probably won't) but at least it would shift the argument away from being over the basic premises to their application.Personally, I'm convinced (in fact I already held this view) that there is a bourgeois and a proletarian economics, but not that there is a bourgeois and proletarian astronomy. Try to convince me that there is but showing me where the two types of astronomy differ.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you)

Here we go, the Stalinist-like rewriting of history. Just like any other so-called "workers' party".I keep explaining things, in great detail, in as simple terms as possible, trying to help others with very complex issues, and keep getting personally attacked for it.So, having BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND INSULTINGLY, I proceed to THEN SHOW ACRIMONY.

You've gor me wrong again. It wasn't you I was saying was being acrimonious but some of your critics.  Read what I wrote again. And  you've just done it again — unfairly insulting us (and me) by calling us Stalinists. A change, I agree from your usual insult of Leninist but still not very helpful.

[ALB]

What I don't understand, LBird, is why you make the opposite of your "socially subjective facts" (actually "social class subjective") a "bourgeois individualistic" approach. Surely the opposite is, rather, a "whole society subjective" approach?In other words, that there are some things that all humans can accept as "subjective" facts, e.g. about the things used for everyday living and how and why they work, but also for certain sciences, e.g astronomy. I can see that there can be, and is, bourgeois economics, sociology,. history, psychology but don't see why there has to be, or is, bourgeois physics, chemistry, biology.  It is not as if you completely rule out a "class-free" physics, etc since you take the view that this will be the case in socialism/communism.Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you) in describing your critics here as "bourgeois individualists". The most you could accuse them/us of is denying that your contention that there are "social class subjective facts" across the board .If you want to argue with "bourgeois individualitsts" I suggest you go on to their sites, eg of the Von Mises Institute, and take them on directly rather than attributing their views to us here.

[ALB]

SB_UK wrote:

Capitalism is an expression of an inner motivation (which can be overcome) of the individual to acquire money, power, stuff etc

No it isn't. Capitalism is a society where nearly everything people need to live and enjoy life a bit has to be bought. Hence, the need to acquire money — for all but the rich who already have plenty of it.  Most do this by going out and selling their working energies for a wage or salary to some employer. A few chose to steal or swindle. But, given capitalism and its nature, it is normal that people should seek to acquire money., not to become rich but to survive and getter a better life if possible. Most people in fact want more to avoid falling into poverty than to become filthy rich. We can't, and socialists don't, criticise them for this. After all, we too are obliged to do it.

SB_UK wrote:

It's the individual's motivation towards money and power which we as a society of individuals need to get over – rather than a capitalist ruling class.

THis follows from your premise above but since the premise is mistaken so is your answer. Capitalism is a system of society based on a minority owning and controlling the means of wealth production and where production is geared to making a profit. This minority ownership is backed up by the power of the state through laws, police, courts, prisons and in the end the armed forces. This is why, if we are to transfer ownership and  control from the minority ruling class to the community as a whole and make them the common heritage of all (the aim of Zeitgeist as well as us), it is necessary to take political control from them. This does mean a violent insurrection but, since what we want can only come about with majority agreement, support and participation, the political action can be democratic and essentially peaceful.To ignore the fact that the minority owning class control political power would be foolish and risk the changeover being a lot more messy than it need be.Anyway, what's so wrong with majority, democratic, peaceful political action via the ballot box and elected parliaments?

[ALB]

SB_UK wrote:

So – no need for politics.

depends on what you mean by "politics". Capitalism continues to exist for two main reasons: because people accept or acquiecse in it (the problem you are addressing) and because those who benefit from it currently control political power.Once enough people who want to end capitalism have emerged they will be faced with deciding what to do next. You suggested at one point, I think, that they go off and try to lead the simple life. But only a few can do this and it won't really isolate them from the effects of capitalism. Much more constructive is to confront capitalism and organise to take political power out of the hands of the capitalist class so that it can be used to coordinate the transition from capitalism to socialism. It is naive to imagine that this confrontation can be avoided.Agreed, no need for the sort of politics that exists today (of professional poliricians making empty promises to get voted into office to further their careers and/or line their own pockets). But still the need for democratic political action to dislodge the capitalist class from power and pave the way for the Earth's resources to become the common heritage of all. I can't see how this can be avoided at some stage.

[ALB]

Oh, that's clear enough but i thought that the distinction you were trying to draw was between "socially subjective" and "individually subjective".  I see, though, that you think it's a distinction between two "socially subjective" points of view which are equally "right".I'm not prepared to be so indulgent towards "the bourgeoise (or anyone under their influence" who claim that socialism is impossible. I can see where they are coming from but, as far as I'm concerned, they are just plain wrong. However you describe this, socialism is possible whether or not they agree or whether or not they like it. It is not just a matter of opinion or of class position. I don't know why you are reluctant to admit this and find a way of saying so not even one which avoids the word "objective"..

[ALB]

OK, it's a "socially subjective fact"  that socialism is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved.  But this goes for everybody even for those who deny this.  There must be some way of distinguishing between those who accept this and those who deny it. What words would you use to do this? Both can't be "subjectively right". Or can they?.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

And so unfolds an SPGB tutorial on the difference between "fact" and t"ruth", with a discourse on "objective" thrown in for good measure.

This is not an argument about the SPGB position (which doesn't exist at least not in the detail some are assuming) but among socialists some of whom are not SPGB membersThere is only one tutor here and it's not the SPGB

[ALB]

That just makes me a naive socialist not a naive realist !Anyway, you said you agreed that socialism was the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved. I was just making the point that this was the case irrespective of whether or not people agreed with it, i.e that it was not a matter of opinion but was actually so. I agree with it. You agree with it.  Millions don't. Can we not say that we are right and they are wrong without being labelled (or labelling ourselves) as elitist?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Go and speak to some scientists, you'll find none of them believe in naive realism or think they are uncovering the absolute unmediated "Truth".

Well, YMS and ALB do. They've both said so, finally..

I don't recall saying that. When and where was it?

[ALB]

For the record, I too think that it can be said that it is "true" that socialism is the only framework within which the problems currently confronting humanity in general and the wage and salary working class in particular can be solved. This is not a mere matter of opinion ("ideology") but is the case irrespective of whether people agree with it or not or what they might think. It is an objective fact. But this doesn't mean that I therefore think that what scientists are doing is uncovering "the truth". That's a different matter.Pity we were not able to continue the other discussion about how socialist workers should go about establishing socialism/communism, at least not on this thread.

[ALB]

Vin, I don't think he is attacking the party (the most he could say there is that we haven't committed ourselves to one particular theory of science but have left this open). But he is attacking some party members and insulting them by calling them individualists and suggesting that they are not socialists (which, ironically, he couldn't do if he was a member without being called to order) just because they don't agree with the particular theory of science he has adopted. If adopting this is a condition for being a socialist then he is even  sectarian than the party is alleged to be ! In fact I think we'd be talking about a one-person socialist party and movement !He claims that he is putting forward Marx's view but Marx went no further than to say that the human mind played a creative role in understanding nature and so did not simply passively reflect the outside material world. This is fairly well accepted now, and even in his day Marx was not unique, and does not commit those who hold it to the position that LBird is taking up. That's just one rather idiosyncratic variety of it.

[ALB]

It's also got stuff in other languages than English (which I don't think the /spgb site does, does it?):http://www.worldsocialism.org/othlang.php

[ALB]

I think this is a reference to our companion party in the US which at one point tried to draw a distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" which may have let in one or two people we over here who we would have rejected as religious.

[Author]

Posts