[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

In order to bolster your hypothesis you make the claim that Marx puts theory first…

I'm not sure where you're going with this, Brian.Don't you agree that 'Marx puts theory first'? I thought that that claim was uncontroversial.

You would think this claim is uncontroversial because you've become myopic to all the arguments put to you regarding materialism versus idealism.  Marx not only turned Hegel the right way up but in doing so also turned Descartes contention "I think, therefore I am" the right way around i.e." I am, therefore I think". This materialistic perspective is then reinforced by Marx with his statement on, "Its not mans ideas which determine his circumstances, but rather his circumstances which determine his ideas."Which when considered together unreservably places matter in its rightful place – ahead of the queue – in terms of ideas springing from the practical observation of matter in motion.  Whether its visible or invisible to the naked eye, or any of the other senses.Just because the term 'Theory and Practice' is in common usage and implies ideas have primacy over matter, in reality – and in practical terms – our work starts from what we observe in our environment, in respect of the current knowledge and understanding we have of the environment in practice.Like I mentioned previously you are searching for the unity of opposites.  And you have yet to convince me that your hypothesis of a unity between idealism and materialism is on sound ground. For instance, I have yet to see any unity between the impossible and the possible.  Any most probably never will.But not being a Leninist I do know that once what was thought impossible becomes possible revolution is on the agenda.  And that's good enough for me.  Of course I agree with you that this scenario on revolution entails socialist thought becoming the dominant form of mindset in respect of the scientific and academic communities. But being dismissive of all scientific and academic thought, just because according to you they are all ideologically unsound in terms of class bias, is a misjudgement and unproven.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

And your democracy in science derives from your theory and practice hypothesis, which not many agree with.

Yeah, just who was the thinker who pushed that 'theory and practice hypothesis, which not many [here] agree with'?

Like I state in the comment quoted its you pushing your own particular theory and practice hypothesis.  In order to bolster your hypothesis you make the claim that Marx puts theory first, then in order to bolster this claim you make a further claim that Marx was in truth an idealist-materialist.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

As I keep saying, for the worker confused by these issues, they simply have to ask 'Do you agree with democratic controls on all of your activities? The academic, elite scientist will answer 'No!', and the cadre, elite Leninist will answer 'No!'. This is actually the answer on this thread from a number of posters, who are members of the SPGB: 'No to workers' democracy in science'.

Not quite true is it? The debate is on what you consider to be 'democracy in science' not that there will be no democracy in science.  And your democracy in science derives from your theory and practice hypothesis, which not many agree with.

[Brian]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I put the party video on the Money Free Party's Youtube site and received this offer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E08_EmJlpO8

I thought you were up for doing something similar?

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

Article by Andrew Kliman on Piketty. Have yet to properly give it a read though…http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/were_top_corporate_executives_really_hogging_workers_wages_20140917

Its pretty damning on how Piketty calculates his data on the income of the "super managers", and concludes:The supposed “rise of the supermanager” therefore seems not to explain much of the growth in income inequality seen in the U.S. It is certainly not the primary cause of the rising share of income captured by “the 1%” and the “0.1%.” Nor is it a main driver of the divergence between median compensation on one hand and average compensation and productivity on the other. It follows that this latter trend must be due, overwhelmingly, to increasing inequality among the rest of the workforce—that is, within the gigantic pool of employees who are not supermanagers. Thus, if we want to understand why the typical worker’s pay has increased relatively modestly, we must set aside the myths that rising profits and skyrocketing executive salaries were the chief culprits and focus on the sources of increasing inequality among workers, as I will in a future piece.Looking forward to his next piece on increasing inequality among workers.

[Brian]

It lacks a question on the environment.

[Brian]

steve colborn wrote:

Can these sessions be recorded for those who cannot attend but who would like to peruse the outcomes?

All the interview scenarios on the media training I done are obviously recorded for the trainee's.  If the whole course were to be recorded you are looking at 6 hrs of vid.  But I suspect what you want are the training sessions/workshops at HO to be recorded in the hope they will save you attending HO. Although they will come in useful you are going to lose out on the essential interaction between the participants.  So I would advise you attend the training sessions/workshops.  Also come to think of it , depending on the party hiring a consultant, I doubt very much if would be willing to let the 6 hrs go without a fee.Nothing is settled as yet.  Its still early stages.

[Brian]

mcolome1 wrote:

 He sounds like the Marxist Humanist who have tried to unify idealism with materialism

Would appreciate a link to that Marcus.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

I've decided to re-post my outline of CR, in an attempt to get this discussion moving again.I'm not going to answer any queries unless they are directed at my post, rather than somebody else's hidden ideological views on science.

LBird, post #398 wrote:

I thought I’d begin today by trying to outline the basics of Critical Realism, for any comrades who are unfamiliar with CR. As usual, there is no substitute for actually reading deeper into these necessarily skimpy outlines, but I always think that it is a central role for Communists to try to explain, to other workers, complex ideas in far simpler terms than academics do. Much of what bourgeois academics write is intended, not to explain, but to hide, as part of their elitist ideology. I do think that Communists have a didactic role within the class, but this is a two-way relationship. If the class shout “Piss off, and come back when you’ve thought of a way to explain it better, in a way that we can understand!”, I would recommended this as the scientific method in action for the proletariat, when dealing with professors (or, indeed, with Communists). Science, in every discipline, must be explained and be accessible. This attitude must be at the forefront of any movement which claims to be the forerunner of the organised revolutionary proletariat, whose final aim is the democratisation of the means of production. Democracy, by its very nature, demands widespread understanding of all issues, whether these issues are classed as political, economic or scientific.The four key concepts in CR are: components, structures, levels, and emergent properties.A component is a building block of a structure.A structure is a set of components organised in a specific way, that is, a set of components in particular relationships to each other.A level is a certain set of structures which are themselves related to each other. The key points here are: a) that structures can themselves as act as components for higher level structures; and b) that components can be examined as structures formed from lower level components.Emergent properties are properties, attributes, powers, etc. that only emerge at a certain structural level. This means that the ‘emergent’ does not exist at the component level of that structure. One can’t break up the structure in search of the origin of the property, because it isn’t there. It exists as part of relationships. This applies at all levels, too. Higher and higher levels of structures have properties emerging at each level, which can’t be reduced to a lower level structure or component, and certainly can’t be reduced to some notional ‘lowest’ level component, because, according to our concepts, any so-called ‘lowest’ level component is always a structure, too.Some example would obviously help here, for those comrades entirely unfamiliar with CR, and for whom the above outline is a bit ‘dry’.Perhaps an example of a structure is a car. Notice, that I have chosen this as at a structural level for my explanation. This structure is made up of components, like engine, wheels, seats, etc. But these components are themselves structures, too, and I could have chosen to use any of them as a structure, rather than as a component, within my explanation. An emergent property of a car is speed. But this only exists at the car structural level, and examining the seats, wheels or engine for speed won’t reveal it. If these components are laid out, unstructured and unrelated, on a garage floor, they do not contain ‘speed’. Similarly, if cars are brought together in a specific structural relationship called traffic (that is, the structure ‘car’ is now acting as a ‘component’ for a higher structure), other properties emerge which don’t exist at the car level, like a ‘jam’. A hundred cars spread out over a city do not constitute a ‘traffic jam’ (with its lack of speed); it’s only a jam if the cars are brought together in the same street at the same time, in a certain relationship. A ‘jam’ does not exist at the car level, nor at the seat level.Four points: I think that CR can help explain scientific issues in both physical and social science; CR is the imposition of human theory upon the world (not 'induction' nor 'practice and theory') and thus follows the slogan 'theory and practice'; CR is essentially ‘relational’; CR is bound up with ideology, and it is anathaema to ‘individualist’ or ‘reductionist’ thought. In all these ways, I think CR is compatible with Marx’s views on science and nature.Science necessarily focuses upon a certain level: this is a human choice, not something that a structure forces upon the human. Perhaps the next stage is to show how this theory can be applied to help us to understand both rocks and value (ie. both physical and social phenomena), as I’ve already insisted that a ‘unified method’ must be able to do.

I should add that I'm assuming agreement with the ontological belief that 'material' and 'ideal' have the same status, so anyone who's an ideological 'materialist/physicalist' will be ignored from now on.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you are insisting on a dualist approach with idealism and materialism http://www.enfolded.net/enfolded/consciousness/consciousness-3-views.htmIn short the unity of opposites.  I ask myself is this possible in a non-dialetical sense?  If its a yes you maybe onto something novel.  If its a no we all know how little the dialectic helps in the search for a science for communists.

[Brian]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Brian, even with a short notice we can prepare for  and anticipate obvious questions like 'who are you?' and 'what do you stand for?' edit: How is it proposed that members unable to attend can have an input? 

After completing the course the "preparation" is much more in depth than you seem to be suggesting and essential for confidence.  We were given 3 different scenario: For the first we had 15 minutes to write up our preparation; for the second 10 minutes; for the third 3 minutes.  There is only so much you can anticipate and your preparation needs to cover the not so obvious for the media have their own agenda to cover.If you want to provide input either contact Rob directly or PM him.

[Brian]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Another point I would make – If the party has a one minute interview on Sky News, for example, shouldn't our speaker be instructed as a parliamentary delegate would be? Or do we just say "Do your best'?  

The likelyhood is that the candidate would only have a short notice on the title of the interview.  So instructions on how to respond is unrealistic.  Nonetheless, the new speakers test and the candidates test is so designed to cover this issue.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Hmmmm?? ..Yet another thread started named after LBird.He certainly has had the effect of getting people to consider their ideas and re-argue them and that can only be good for the movement.

Entirely agree.  He's certainly helped me with a self-assessment despite the possibility that he may consider such practices part and parcel of 'individualism'. 

[Brian]

Hi Rob,By coincidence I'm taking a media course tomorrow, courtesy of RCT Homes a housingassociation, cost £300.  Its titled 'Preparing for Media interviews'.  It covers: How themedia works; Key messages workshops; Interview Techniques; Interview role play; LiveInterview; Conclusion; Evaluation.  I'll keep you posted on how it goes, sometime over theweekend.I've also got some publicity handout courtesy of Tesco, which can be adapted for aworkshop. 

[Brian]

What about a self-destruct strategy?  Capture parliament to use it, to destroy it?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

What were the hurdles regarding the adoption of 'Critical Realism' you had to jump? Can you identify them and explain the reasons for their occurrance?

One hurdle is 'physicalism'. This is a bourgeois ideological construct, which is based on tangibility and individuals being able to touch. It's merely another name for 'empiricism'.This 'occurs' because of the necessity for the bourgeoisie to make everyone believe that 'they are individuals' and their 'individual experience' of the 'world they can see in front of their own eyes' is the basis of 'science'.Our job is to explain that much of the world is not only unobservable to our individual senses, but only 'observable' in any way at all to a 'society' employing its own 'theories'.Physicalism is bourgeois brainwashing at its best, and I advise any comrades who aspire to understand these issues to compare my post outlining Critical Realism with DJP's model of Physicalism, and try to identify the differences for themselves.Top Tip: if anyone thinks that they are an 'individual', stick to Physicalism, and ignore my post.

OK you've identified and explained the reasons for one hurdle – Physicalism – but what about the other hurdles?  Especially those, I would say, involving a self-assessment on the necessary skills of communicating an idea which demands an approach that is both novel and suggestive.  In the sense the theory is not adopting or adapting to a theory like CR [which is still taking infant steps regarding the nuances of emergence and causality] but stepping out as a brand new theory in its own right with a language which demonstrates this?Do I have to keep on prompting you to use critical thinking?

[Author]

Posts