[ALB]

Engels isn’t criticising Dietzgen in the quotes you give. If anything, Dietzgen would have criticised Engels’s approach which assumes that the so-called “laws of dialectics” actually exist in nature and can be discovered. Dietzgen’s argument was that what science is essentially doing is describing what we observe in nature (or, rather, in the world of experience) and that therefore the “laws of nature” are our decriptions of what we observe, with a view to predicting future experiences so as to better survive.The theory of relativity does not refute Dietzgen’s theory of the nature of science. As a more accurate, and so more useful, description than previous ones of the same phenomena it was an example of what Dietzgen meant science was and how it progressed (by better and more useful descriptions).The Dutch astronomer Anton Pannekoek (who wrote A History of Astronomy which became a standard textbook) who accepted Dietzgen’s theory of science had no problem accepting relativity Here is what he wrote in chapter 6 of his book (originally written in German in 1938) criticising Lenin’s materialism Lenin As Philosopher:

Quote:

Hence, according to Lenin, “materialism” accepts Newton’s doctrine, the basis of which is that there exists an absolute space and an absolute time. This means that the place in space is fixed absolutely without regard to other things, and can be ascertained without any doubt. When Mach says that this is the point of view of contemporary physicists he surely represents his colleagues as too old-fashioned; in his time already it was rather generally accepted that motion and rest were relative conceptions, that the place of a body is always the place relative to other bodies, and that the idea of absolute position has no sense.Still there was a certain doubt whether or not space-filling world ether did not offer a frame for absolute space; motion or rest relative to world-ether could be rightly called then absolute motion or rest. When, however, physicists tried to determine it by means of the propagation of light, they could find nothing but relativity. Such was the case with Michelson’s famous experiment in 1889, arranged in such a way that in its result nature should indicate the motion of our earth relative to the ether. But nothing was found; nature remained mute. It was as if she said: your query has no sense. To explain the negative result it was assumed that there always occurred additional phenomena that just cancelled the expected effect – until Einstein in 1905 in his theory of relativity combined all facts in such a way that the result was self-evident. Also within the world-occupying ether – absolute position was shown to be a word without meaning. So gradually the idea of ether itself was dropped, and all thought of absolute space disappeared from science.With time it seemed to be different; a moment in time was assumed to be absolute. But it was the very ideas of Mach that brought about a change here. In the place of talk of abstract conceptions, Einstein introduced the practice of experiment. What are we doing when we fix a moment in time? We look at a clock, and we compare the different clocks, there is no other way. In following this line of argument Einstein succeeded in refuting absolute time and demonstrating the relativity of time. Einstein’s theory was soon universally adopted by scientists, with the exception of some anti-semitic physicists in Germany who consequently were proclaimed luminaries of national-socialist “German” physics.The latter development could not yet be known to Lenin when he wrote his book. But it illustrates the character of such expositions as where he writes:“The materialist view of space and time has remained ‘harmless,’ i.e., compatible, as heretofore, with science, while the contrary view of Mach and Co. was a ‘harmful’ capitulation to the position of fideism.” (210)Thus he denotes as materialist the belief that the concepts of absolute space and absolute time, which science once wanted as its theory but had to drop afterwards, are the true reality of the world.

In other words, it was Lenin’s version of “dialectical materialism” not Dietzgen’s that was repudiated by the theory of relativity.You say we don’t need a “philosophical theory of the universe”, but surely we need a “philosophy of science” or, if you prefer, a theory of science? You must have one, even if only implicitly. What is it?

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

In fact, Dietzgen’s rather poor, a priori speculations are far easier to refute than are those of Engels and Plekhanov. But we can discuss this further the moment you post something — anything — of his that is worthy of merit. And by a priori speculation I mean assertions like this: “As a review in the October 1998 Standard put it ‘dialectics means that, in analyzing the world and society, you start from the basis that nothing has an independent, separate existence of its own but is an inter-related and interdependent part of some greater whole (ultimately the whole universe) which is in a process of constant change.'” Not only is there no proof of this, there couldn’t be. For example, how is it possible for everything to be ‘inter-related’ when there are vast regions of space and time that are, and always will be, inaccessible to us? On this, look up ‘light cone’ using Google — for example:

I don’t see how this refutes the philosophical assumption of the nature of “reality” made by Dietzgen that all that “exists” is the universe as a whole and that what humans do, to understand so as to better live in it, is to name parts of it as if they were separate things, to describe these parts and form theories on the basis of this.  In other words, that the world we observe and perceive is not made up of separate things but that supposedly separate things only exist as these in our minds. In reality these are only parts of a larger whole and so are inter-related in this sense.You seem to be assuming that what Deietzgen was saying is that the world is made up of separate things and that these things are inter-related as separate things. But that’s not what he was saying. Quite the opposite in fact. So light cones and so-called inaccessible regions of space and time do not invalidate his basic assumption. In fact, these are descriptions, based on our observations of part of the world of phenomena, which we use to try to explain what we observe (or, rather, in these cases, of what scientists use to explain what they observe). What Dietzgen was advancing was in fact a theory of the nature of science.

[ALB]

Here’s what Marx had to say on the subject (in chapter 46 of Volume 3 of Capital):

Quote:

From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.

Of course, unlike land reformers who just wanted to end private property in land, Marx took the view that this principle should apply to human-made instruments of production as  well as to land and natural resources, and together at the same time.This is why socialism (or communism) can be described as a global society in which the resources of the planet, natural and industrial, are the common heritage of all humanity.

[ALB]

Some of the chapters in this book reviewed on our blog should be helpful.

[ALB]

Hic Rhodas wrote:

if I consider the “revolutionary wave of 1917-1923” I see a lot of mad insurrectional adventures (for example Germany) that couldn’t work. Or cathastrophists visions about revolution now seem me ilogical. I stand now for a conscient and majoritary revolution.

Have you seen this article about this period that appeared in the Socialist Standard of the time (February 1919)? Also, this article about why the events of November 1917 in Russia were not, and could not have been, a socialist revolution.There are other similar articles on the Education section of this site here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/russian-revolution-and-bolshevik-dictatorship-and-labour-theory-valuehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/notes-mans-social-nature-and-capitalist-role-bolshevism

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Can you be a positivist and agree with the WSM?

Why not? Positivism is a form of materialism and most people are in practice “positivists” without realising it, ie they base their actions and ideas on what they have experienced or learned from other people’s experience. It wasn’t for nothing that Dietzgen called his main work The Positive Outcome of Philosophy. Personally, I think A J Ayer’s (who was a Logical Positivist) Language, Truth and Logic (1936) does a brilliant demolition job on metaphysics and religion. I remember a member who spoke at Hyde Park who refused to use the word “God” but said G-O-D instead on the grounds that the word “God” was meaningless as it referred to nothing. Pure Logical Positivism.The only “philosophical” criterion for being a member of the WSM is to be a materialist, who rejects all religion. So, any materialist, whether dialectical or positivist or behaviourist or empiricist or rationalist or secularist or humanist or whatever, is welcome. At least that’s the practice. It’s only those who are non-materialists (as judged by their attitide to religion) who are ineligible to join.

[ALB]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

the word ‘support’ seems to be a big problem.

I think that’s right, because of its ambiguity. It can mean anything from “good luck to you” to giving financial and political aid.In 1969 the EC drew up a Policy Statement on Reforms which was later endorsed by Conference. The last part of it read:

Quote:

the EC holds that while declaring our sympathy with the exploited in their resistance to the exploiters it is essential, in order to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, and in the light of the Party’s attitude of not advocating reforms that we should avoid using the word ‘support’ in relation to actions of reformist parties, groups and individuals.

In other words, although we do support  “the exploited in their resistance to the exploiters” we should not actually say so in case we are misunderstood as offering support in the strong sense !I’m not sure this really solved the dilemma in that the actions referred to in relation to which the word “support” should not be used are those of “reformist, parties, groups and individuals”. This leaves out actions by “groups and individuals”, eg ordinary non-political workers trying to survive under capitalism, who might not fall into the category of reformist.In any event, everyone has always been agreed on the key principle that “we do not advocate reforms”.

[ALB]

Personally I think Hegel is a load of mumbo-jumbo. I’ve started to try and read him 3 or 4 times but gave up each time because his language is virtually incomprehensible. The only book of his I read to the end is his Philosophy of History but that wasn’t actually written by him but by one of his students based on notes they took of his lectures. If I remember rightly it’s idealist even religious nonsense. We don’t have to like Hegel just because that was the intellectual background in Germany at the time Marx and Engels became communists and from which they emerged.As to dialectics, that depends on what you mean. If what is meant is that it is some force working in nature (as Engels sometimes gave the impression), then that’s wrong. If you mean that it is a way of trying to understand phenomenon we experience in nature, that’s another matter.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

Nevertheless the SPGB supports trade unionism in principle and I see no reason why it should not support direct action in principle too . Accordingt to Adam it has already declared its support for squatting.

That’s not quite what I said. Nor what the quote from the 1969 Socialist Standard did. It said:

Quote:

The Socialist Party supports the efforts of workers to improve their housing conditions under capitalism — even by squatting.

What this says is that we support the principle of workers struggling to improve their housing (as other) conditions under capitalism and that we consider squatting to be an example of this. Another example would be tenants association, which some members have been and are still active in in the same way that we are in trade unions.You yourself have often made the valid point that there are not just two possible working class activities — reformism and revolution — but three, the third being working class activity to survive under capitalism which is neither one nor the other and which we don’t denounce as reformism. Reformism is political, but these other activities are what might be called “sub-political” (a better term than “ditrect action”, which is often “reformism by blows”). You can’t oppose them without incurring Stuart’s criticism of not being an ordinary decent human being. Anyway, who are we to be judgemental in such matters and tell people not to squat, shoplift, grow their own vegetables, etc. or to do these things, for that matter?Another anecdote: two party members were once on the platform at Clapham North tube station after a meeting at Head Office when they saw somebody getting ready to commit suicide by jumping in front of the train. One comrade rushed to try and stop him. The other comrade said he shouldn’t have as this was reformist. I don’t know if this tale is true but the other comrade was in the old North West London branch.

[ALB]

Yet another news item, in today’s Daily Telegraph, confirming that banks are essentially just intermediaries between savers and borrowers. It’s a report of a talk by a top official of the Bank of England in which he speculates that developments in communications technology might lead to the elimination of banks as “middle men”. Arguing that banks could become “disintermediated”, he said:

Quote:

With open access to borrower information, held centrally and virtually, there is no reason why end-savers and end-investors cannot connect directly. The banking middle men may in time become the surplus links in the chain. Where music and publishing have led, finance could follow.

No nonsense here about banks surviving because they can create money out of thin air and so don’t need savers.

[ALB]

Another news item for the file (from today’s Times):

Quote:

Mr Osborne will begin next week the Government’s so-called credit-easing programme under which the Treasury will underwrite £20 billion of bank borrowing to fund cheaper lending to small businesses.

If banks can create money out of thin air why would they need to borrow money to fund loans to small businesses ? I can see why, in this case, they’d like their loans to be underwritten by the government but not why they would need to borrow the money to make the loans. Answer: banks can’t create money to lend out of thin air.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

I vaguely recall an old issue of the Socialist Standard  (from the bad old says of 70s?) severely attacking forms of direct action such as the squatters movement in the most trenchant terms. In retrospect, such attitudes have no place in a revolutionary socialist  party. None at all.  I hope and trust things are different today

Actually, Robin, your memory (or rather folk myths about the Party in the past) has got it the wrong way round. The article you are referring to appeared in the April 1969 Socialist Standard entitled “Squatters and the Housing Problem” actually said:

Quote:

The Socialist Party supports the efforts of workers to improve their housing conditions under capitalism — even by squatting. But socialists also point out that there is no solution`to the housing problem inside capitalism, and even if the agitation of those who support the squatters suceeds for the families they are now trying to help, future generations will still face the same misery and hardship of homelessness. Only in a society in which production is carried on solely to satisfy human wants, without anyone having to worry about where next week’s rent or next month’s mortgage repayment is coming from, will the housing problem find a solution.(my italics)

You are right to the extent that some EC and Party members complained about this, but the statement stood.So, it was not a case of the Party saying that socialists did not support squatting and those members who weren’t against it complaining, but of the Party saying it did and those members who were against it (or at least against saying that the Party did) complaining.On the anectodal level, I remember one party member and his partner who were squatting, but not for any revolutionary end, just to save up money to pay for a mortgage. Later on, there were actually a couple of Party squats (well, squats composed of Party members) in London. I wasn’t one of them but the current Party Treasurer was. The mid-60s to the mid-70s were in fact the good old days !

[ALB]

Never come across them myself but are they based in the UK or outside, eg in America or Australia? There must be some leftwing trainspotter on this forum who can place them.

[ALB]

I see they’ve followed Comrade Andy Cox’s example and launched a spoof official petition themselves which the government is obliged to publish on its website. At least I think it’s not to be taken seriously as I don’t think they believe than a “resource-based economy” could be established just in Britain any more than we think socialism could or that HM Government is going to try to do either. Don’t think much of their claim, though, that “the continuing decay and eventual demise of the market/monetary Socio-economic system under which the world operates is a mathematical certainty”. Mathematical certainty !?

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Relatedly, what do you make of this, specifically the claim that money did not exist in the Soviet Union? http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004736

Ah (or should that  be aagh) Hillel Ticktin! All his arguments start from the basic premise  (shared by Trotsky) that capitalism is essentially private enterprise capitalism and that state intervention is a negation of “capitalism”. This means that for him (as for Trotsky, if not for all trotskyists) “state capitalism” is a contradiction in terms. So, for him, the USSR couldn’t have been capitalist and the notes and coins that circulated there were not money in the sense analysed by Marx. In fact, he seems to be saying that money in Britain, etc isn’t really money either because it is now managed by the state.Apart from that, most of what he claims in the latter part of his article (presumably the transcript of a talk) are facts as wrong. For instance, Marx did not call money lent at interest “fictitious capital”. For him, this was a notional capital sum arrived at by notionally converting a future regular income stream into a sum that if invested would produce the income in question as interest; what accountants and actuaries called “capitalization”. Such sums of money can be bought and sold.  Of course such fictitious capital (and a variation of it called “securitization”) did play a part in the financial bubble that collapsed in 2007-8 — when the stream of future income on which they were based didn’t happen the capital sum calculated on the basis of it was reduced to zero. putting some financial institutions in serious trouble.Basically, I don’t think Ticktin needs to be taken seriously here (though he does seem to be the permanent flavour of the month with the Weekly Worker people).

[Author]

Posts