[ALB]

I don't think anyone is arguing that humanity can be removed from science or that the scientific method is simply one of contemplation. After all, science, or knowledge, is human knowledge, humans' attempts to understand the world around them with a view to better surviving in it.Science is essentially a description of parts of the outside world (which does imply an active human role) whose "truth" can be judged in terms of its accuracy for prediction and so usefulness for action and problem-solving. Science advances by making more detailed descriptions permitting more accurate predictions.You seem to be saying more than this: that science is subjective in that  the descriptions which scientists give of the external world depend on their "values" and/or class position. Which could suggest that you think that there is no such thing as an objective external world. I don't suppose this is your position but no wonder Ed sees you as an "idealist".I don't see the fact that most people are, from a philosophical point of view, "common sense realists" (i.e think that the world is as they experience it, exists when no-one is experiencing it, and existed before there were any humans) is a problem. This is enough for everyday living and no doubt will continue to be the popular perspective even in socialism. I don't see it as being a pillar of capitalist society.  It has to be the starting point for any more sophisticated theory of what science is.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

soft non-revolutionaries.

I think the jargon they use is "centrist". But what is an "orthodox trotkyist"?. I'd say a group that says Russia used to be a "degenerate Workers state" (as Trotsky decreed). In which case, the "Grantites" and their offshoot SPEW would be "orthodox trotskyists". What do they call the SEP (one of the fragments of the old WRP)?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

But ‘science’ doesn’t produce ‘The Truth’, and it can produce competing ‘truths’, so merely appealing to ‘the scientific method’ does not get us out of our problems with humans and their ideologies.

Agree that science does not produce "The Truth" but not that it produces "competing truths'. It is more useful to think in terms of science  producing  a tentative "truth" about some phenomenon, subject to revision in the light of further experience, empirical research and practice.  There is only one such tentative truth at any time, which is not a matter of choice or point of view.

LBird wrote:

Back to our original issue with Sotionov?

OK, but his theory of human nature is not just a competing truth but is untrue, i.e a faulty theory for prediction, action and problem-solving.

[ALB]

Here's what Nally wrote:

Quote:

If elected I will immediately convene a Lambeth Anti-Austerity Forum to draw up a needs budget that puts people before profit and protects the most vulnerable in our local community.If that means breaking the law then so be it.  Better to break the law than to break the poor.

Actually, in saying this, Nally does seem to have gone beyond what TUSC normally takes care not to say.explicitly. For instance, Here's how Tony Mulheron of SPEW puts the normal position:

Quote:

The mantra 'not going illegal' seems to be the catch-all excuse for implementing the most savage cuts in Liverpool's history. We [the Liverpool 47 group and the Socialist Party – Eds.] have argued for a needs budget not an illegal budget. This means using every legal device to defend jobs and services – using council reserves, taking privatised services back in-house.

I think that the reason why they don't normally talk of acting illegally is that they are trying to be  "credible" and know that calling for the setting of an "illegal budget" would not be seen as this: And lay they themselves open to this reply from the Brighton Green Party who understood them to be calling for this:

Quote:

In Q&A notes released at the same time as the budget the Greens take up this question:“Q: Why not defy the Government and refuse to set a budget – or set an uncut one?A: These are not the defiant 1980s. Nowadays, if we set an illegal budget, an unbalanced budget (where spending exceeds income) or no budget, it will just be set for us by the Council's Chief Finance Officer or a central Government civil servant.”

Ironically, Nally also might be being hauled over the coals by his party for his statement.

[ALB]

imposs1904 wrote:

Cheers.

Have you got your copy of Keeping My Head by Harry Wicks handy?. I think he describes somewhere an SPGB member known as "Workhouse Waller" who  used to play a prominent role in occupations of workhouses to try to get better conditions for the inmates. Hence his nickname. Or maybe he was an ex-member. I can't remember. And he would have been acting in an individual capacity.

[ALB]

That quote from Luxemburg, Alan, is the sort that makes me cringe. It starts off by implicitly and gratuitiously criticising the working class as "lazy, careless, egotistic, thoughtless and shiftless" and then raises the nightmare of a society where "everyone" is "full of enthusiasm and fervor for the general welfare, full of a spirit of self-sacrifice and sympathy for his fellow men, full of courage and tenacity and the willingness to dare even against the greatest odds." I for one don't want to live in a society inhabited by such an exalted (in both senses of the word) "race of human beings". Nor, I suspect, would most other people. Such talk will only put people off the idea of socialism both because they don't believe it and because they wouldn't want it. No doubt a high degree of enthusiasm will be needed to carry out the socialist revolution, but afterwards we can settle down to a less intense mode of life, essentially like today but without money or money worries, with people like today.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

The 'scientific fact' (according to late 20th philosophers of science) is that 'absolute truth' of any part of reality can never be fully known. Humans actively create knowledge by their interaction with the external world.

That's is more or less what I thought was the dominant "theory of science" today, but isn't it also yours? In which case doesn't it contradict your previous statement:

Quote:

that the bourgeoisie cling onto this 19th century view [which claims it can 'know' the external object (ie. reality) completely, absolutely, and thus produce 'The Truth'], and teach it in schools and through the media, is that this mythical 'scientific method' can serve as an unquestionable authority, much like the market claims that 'There is no alternative'.. The 'Market' and 'Science': the twin bastions of bourgeois authority. We need to question the underpinnings of both.

To tell the truth, I don't think that the "bourgeoisie" has ever held this view or that it is what "positivism" and "empiricism" teach (more the opposite actually).In any event, I think we should avoid general criticisms of "science" like this as this helps intuitionists, primitivists, postmodernists and other irrationalists. Surely, we are in favour of a scientific method (even if not the outdated and rejected one you mention).

[ALB]

No, some are dismissed as "ultra-leftists".

[ALB]

I don't think that the interview was so bad. It  doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable to take into account the religion of a person who writes on religion, especially a rival one. In any event, although Reza Aslan might have a load of PhDs he was talking nonsense as what he claims is based on taking the so-called "gospels" as evidence (when they were concocted by later christians). The view that Jesus was a Zealot who was executed by the Romans for leading an insurrection has been put forward before. In fact he seems to be making the same argument, based on the same "evidence" as Joel Carmichael did 50 years ago.  Compare the summary of his book with that by Carmichael. There seems to be a continuing market for this sort of thing. But there is no evidence that Jesus existed, let alone that he was crucified.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

outdated, scientifically disproven 'scientific method' of positivism or empiricism, which claims it can 'know' the external object (ie. reality) completely, absolutely, and thus produce 'The Truth'.

Are you sure that "positivism" teaches that science can discover "Absolute Truth" or that this claim is the dominant one in contemporary theory of science?Ironically, it is Lenin's theory of "truth" (that knowledge is a mirror reflection of reality) that comes closer to this and was why Anton Pannekoek saw it as confirmation that the Bolsheviks' role in Russia was introducing capitalism not socialism.

[ALB]

Don't disagree with that (except the maths is a bit beyond me). It's the word "ideology" with reference to socialist/communist theory that I've doubts about using. Our view is "science", the ruling class view is "ideology" ! Or at least our view is "truer" (more accurate and so more practically useful) than theirs.

[ALB]

The difference is that they are "true" in two difference senses of the word. "1 + 1 = 2" is true by definition (because that's how we define "2"). It is not based on any evidence and can't be refuted by any evidence. That "the Earth goes round the Sun" doesn't have to be the case. It is not true by definition. That the Sun goes round the Earth is conceivable. In fact for centuries the accepted description of the movement of the planets was based on this theory and was even able to predict their movement more or less accurately. Since, in the end, this kind of truth is a description that enables humans to better survive in nature by being able to predict what will happen, this theory was temporarily even "true" in this sense. Later, a better description was made, based on the Earth moving round the Sun, and this became the new "truth" as it fitted in better with what was observed and allowed what would happen to be more accurately predicted.I suppose it's a distinction between "absolute truth" (true by definition) and "relative truth" (true on the basis of being an evidence-based description that helps humans survive practically in nature and which can be refuted if some other description is put forward which can predict more accurately what will happen and so is more useful).

[ALB]

Isn't there a difference between something that is true by definition (e.g.that 1 + 1 = 2) and something that is "true" as a fact (e.g. that the Earth goes wrong the Sun), i.e the difference between something that is necessarily true and something that happens to be true?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I think Communism is an ideology. All humans have to choose which ideology they want to employ, to build their understand of the world around. I think we should be open about ours, the better to expose others. And if they don't consciously choose, then one is provided for them by the existing ruling class. Unconsciousness of one's ideology is not the same as not having one. We all do have one.

I think you mean that communist theory, not communism, is an ideology since communism(or socialism, the same thing) is a system of society.Literally interpreted, your position here is more SPGB than the SPGB in that it gives the impression that you think establishing communism is just a question of who wins the battle of ideas (or, in your terms, the battle of ideologies). This is something we have been accused of but is a caricature of our position, This ignores of course that socialist theory is a product and reflection of the class struggle between the majority working class and the minority capitalist class that is built-in to capitalist society and which is going on all the time. It is not just the idea/ideology of a different society.Socialism is, as a matter of objective fact not mere opinion, the only framework within which the problems facing the working class in particular (and humanity in general) can be lastingly solved. Socialist theory is a recognition of this objective fact. The theory that capitalism is the only possible form of society at this stage in human history and that socialism is impossible is false. It is true that most workers now think this but this is a reflection of bourgeois ideology. It is a false consciousness (a false "understand of the world around").Terminology is not all that important as long as we understand what is being talked about. So it's not all that important that you want to express the distinction between what I'd prefer to call socialist (or communist) theory and ruling class ideology (as false consciousness) as being between communist ideology (true) and ruling class ideology (false). I trust of course that you are not some post-modernist who thinks that both (indeed, all) ideologies are equally valid, just a matter of choice. Or, as the wit said, that cannibalism is just a matter of taste.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I too have a few reservations with Ollman such as his apparent acceptance of socialism and communism being different stages but i think you are raising just a problem of terminology here."New human beings who know how to co-operate and want to do so will make socialism possible" .Obviously it is not the evolution of a new species he means but i took it to read people who have acquired class consciousness, which is a change in thought and ideas and outlook and something people will need  for us to achieve socialism. The old case of of the class moving  on from from a "class in itself" to "class for itself".

Maybe that's all he meant, but it's misleading to talk of workers becoming "new human beings" when they become a "class for itself".  Workers already know how to co-operate and do in fact cooperate. What's lacking at the moment is not the capacity to cooperate but the will to do so to get socialism..Or did you become a "new man" when you became a socialist.

[Author]

Posts