[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

That the descriptions given to such phenomena are best efforts to describe something that is perhaps beyond description.

You're missing a subtlety here, SP.The phrase 'description given to phenomena' suggests that the 'phenomena' exist outside of 'description'.But the 'description' describes a 'phenomenon' that is created by the interaction of 'consciousness and being'.The alternative, that somehow a 'description' is a passive copy, a reflection, of an 'objective phenomenon' leaves out any room for the 'active side' of human 'consciousness'.Marx argues that we create our object.So, 'the descriptions given to such phenomena (ie our objects) are best efforts to describe something' we have created.The 'something that is perhaps beyond description' is Marx's 'inorganic nature', the externality from consciousness that provides a resource for our labour, our theory and practice.Marx argues that we 'metabolise' inorganic nature into organic nature, so 'phenomena' are our creation, and our descriptions of phenomena are thus objective descriptions of our objects.Thus, 'objective' for Marx means 'socially-objective' (and thus changeable by humans), and not 'objective' as a pretence that it reflects something out there.To claim that 'phenomena' exist outside of consciousness, and we know those 'objective phenomena' is to fall for bourgeois ideology, and to believe, as YMS does, in 'Eternal Truth' of 'gravitational waves', and to end any hope we have of 'changing' the world. If the world is now 'known', it is fixed. And this fixed world would be the one created by the bourgeoisie.

[LBird]

Some food for thought, for those opposed to ‘politics in physics’, on the context of the emergence of this longstanding bourgeois view of the relationship between science and politics. This is a view which Communists should replace with one that argues for the democratisation of all science and truth-production.

W. Schafer(ed) Finalization in Science (1983) pp. 252-3, wrote:

The traditional relationship between science and politics was based upon a historic compromise worked out in the mid-seventeenth century. The New Science of “experimental philosophy” relinquished all of the moral, political, educational and social aims established for it by Bacon, Comenius, Winstanley and many others in the early-seventeenth century. The absolutist state rewarded the renunciation of the ideals of science as a radical project for socio-political reform with the offer of wide-ranging privileges for “pure” natural science; the founding of the Royal Society in London(1662) and the Academie Royale des Sciences in Paris(1666) formed part of this process. Royal support for the New Science was paid for by separating science from politics.

[my bolds]http://www.bokus.com/bok/9789027715494/finalization-in-science/This was the historical point at which a social class pretended to remove 'consciousness' from any relationship with 'being'. It did so to renounce radical political thought in physics.Marx pointed out that this relationship between the two is inescapable for humanity, in its active production of scientific knowledge.Unless both the historical emergence and class basis of bourgeois physics is recognised, then we workers will remain in thrall to bourgeois ideology.The ruling class always seek to eternalise their rule, and they do so too in physics, just as in any other social activity.

[LBird]

ALB, post #14, wrote:

…the phenomenon always existed…

ALB, post # 17, wrote:

…It too "is only a mental abstraction, a set of formulas, better than the former, hence more true, because it represents more phenomena…

[my bolds]Please tell me that you recognise that these are two contradictory statements, ALB.Either a 'phenomenon' 'always existed' (ie, 'exists' outside of any consciousness)…or a 'phenomenon' is 'only a mental abstraction' (ie. requires a consciousness to 'exist').You really don't seem to understand what these epistemological debates are about, ALB.The former belief is Engels (objective 'existence' outside of any relation to consciousness) and follows the bourgeois ideological separation of 'being from consciousness'.The latter belief is Marx (and, at least partially, Pannekoek) and requires the relationship between 'being and consciousness' to produce the 'phenomenon'.Science is a socio-historical activity concerned with producing knowledge, and so 'truth' can be changed, as Marx argued; scientific knowledge is not a passive reflection of 'eternal phenomena'.You really should try to understand the differences between your two statements, because the secret of your own coming to consciousness lies in that self-understanding.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 In other words, the phenomenon always existed and it's just that it has now been described, more accurately/usefully in terms of being able to predict the way it will continue to manifest itself. But, unfortunately …

…Marx's theories intervened.But you wouldn't know anything about them, would you, ALB?Y'know, socio-historical production and change.No, you're all for 'always existed', merely being 'described', 'useful prediction'.You make me laugh. It's as if you've never read Marx.

[LBird]

I'll leave this thread to the materialists, now, and let them remain cheerleaders for bourgeois physics, which even their physicists have known for a hundred years does not suffice.Since YMS is not a Democratic Communist and Marxist, his ideological opinions are those of the bourgeosie, and so carry no weight.But, to those of you reading, who do consider yourselves socialists and influenced by Marx, ask yourselves, in all of these discussions:- who stresses socio-historical production?- who stresses socio-historical change?- who stresses the proletariat?- who stresses 'theory and practice', rather than 'evidence' (ie. 'practice and theory')?- who stresses democracy, rather than elite physics?- who stresses change, rather than stability?- who stresses the revolution required in physics?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

When a gravitational wave passes by, the stretching and squashing of space causes these arms alternately to lengthen and shrink, one getting longer while the other gets shorter and then vice versa. As the arms change lengths, the laser beams take a different time to travel through them.

That really happened, it will always have happened, future generations may forget, but it did happen.  No human made the light take different times to pass down the tube, if the light had taken a constant time, then their theories would have been refuted.

That's your ideological opinion, YMS, but it's not Marx's or mine.Your opinion contains no socio-historical perspective, and so can't explain change.You believe in 'Eternal Truth', once 'discovered', 'known forever'.That belief cannot even explain changes in bourgeois science.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Oh no, what have I done !

I can predict what you won't do, ALB.Materialists never do. They worship 'matter', and sit passively at its feet.They can't accept Marx's view that we actively construct our object, like 'gravitational waves'.

[LBird]

1. A historically-specific human social group produced a social 'theory' ('physical reality' did not speak to humans, not even to elite bourgeois physicists), a theory which corresponded to the interests, purposes and ethics of the social group.2. A historically-specific human social group employed that theory in social practice to attempt to construct 'knowledge' ('physical reality' did not 'actively impinge on an individual's biological senses', not even an elite bourgeois physicist's senses), a 'knowledge' which corresponded to the interests, purposes and ethics of the social group.3. Since this 'social knowledge' is a 'social construction' (and not the one-off 'discovery' of a 'physical reality', which is then 'true forever'), it can be changed by a different socio-historical group, which has different interests, purposes and ethics, and so can produce a different theory, employ a different practice, and thus produce a different 'knowledge'.This is Marx's method of 'theory and practice', in which historically-specific social groups actively produce their social knowledge of an 'inorganic' nature: that is, they produce 'organic nature', 'nature-for-us'.'Inorganic nature' is not the 'active side', and humans do not passively reflect 'inorganic nature', we create our object, our 'organic nature'.'Gravitational waves' are a socio-historical construct, they are 'knowledge'. They now form part of current 'organic nature'.But given a different society, theory and practice, they may, in the future, also disappear into 'the ether'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Isn't it a case, as far as you are concerned, of the less 'materialism' the better the theory?

As far as I'm concerned, the more of 'Marx' and the less of 'Engels', the more of 'theory and practice' and the less of 'practice and theory'……so, as I keep saying, the balance between 'materialism' and 'idealism' must be struck.Marx struck this balance in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he tooks parts of both idealism and materialism, and ditched parts of both idealism and materialism.If one is going to include the term 'materialism' in a description of Marx's epistemology, then it must be balanced with the term 'idealism'.If the sole usage 'materialism' is ditched, so too can 'idealism'.We could call it 'theory and practice', because that it how we actively construct our knowledge of the world.This is nothing to do with 'matter' determining 'consciousness', as Engels mistakenly thought.By 'material conditions', Marx meant 'socio-historical conditions produced by humanity', not 'bricks and mortar' or simply 'physical things'.It looks like neither the current SPGB or its splitter Walsby came to understand this, and both simply equated 'Marx' with 'materialism'. When Walsby realised that 'materialism' was nonsense, it caused him to ditch 'Marx', too, because he never sought the differences between Charlie and Fred.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…I am attempting to throw open for general discussion a source document that must be confronted when assessing “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”.Commentators, pro and con, do not dispute this document’s relevance for that purpose…

Yes, and I wholeheartedly agree with your 'attempt to throw open for general discussion', twc.But, to do this, requires a comparison of their respective ideas, not an outlining of their personal relationship as mates, or an attempt to analyse their individual psychology, or their professional roles at work.The crux of the matter is what the pair of them meant by 'material'.It's no use saying Marx used the term 'material' and Engels used the term 'material', so they were both talking about the same thing, the 'material'.It's beyond any doubt, and always has been, that both used the term 'material'.The issue, through the line Labriola-Lukacs-Pannekoek-Hook-Gramsci-Dunayevskaya-Mattick-Avineri-Carver-Wood (and many others) is about just what 'materialism', when it is used in both Marx and Engels, actually means.Put simply, by 'materialism' Marx meant 'social production' (as opposed to 'idealism' meaning 'divine production'), whereas by 'materialism' Engels meant 'matter' (as opposed to 'idealism' meaning 'ideas').The political consequences of the adoption of Engels' misunderstanding of Marx was becoming clear even to Engels, by the end of his life, as his later letters show. But, even then, he couldn't get to the real root of the problem, and he, even at the end, continued to talk about the 'finality' of 'matter'.This 'materialism' is nothing to do with 'social production' (which means workers can change their world), but leads to the political pretence that 'matter' has the power to determine what humans do.Since that is not true, and, as Marx argued, humans create and thus can change their world, the power to change is vested in an elite, a minority with some sort of 'special consciousness', who themselves (and not workers employing democratic methods) change the world for their elite purposes.As a long line of thinkers have protested, if one agrees with 'materialism' (of the Engels' variety), then one is placing power to change into the hands of a minority, and this philosophy is ideal for Leninists, who openly say that the party is the 'active side', and not the class, who must wait till after the revolution to supposedly take power, which has been organised for them by the party.You must discuss the differences between Marx and Engels, twc.You're simply setting out to prove the existence of the unified being 'Marx-Engels'.If your theory starts with the concept 'Marx-Engels', you'll 'discover' 'Marx-Engels'.But if one employs a comparative method, the purpose of which is to build a basis for workers' power, and the democratic control of the means of production, then the differences between Marx's and Engels' conflicting 'materialisms' become very clear.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

I've had a very brief look at the rtf, jdw, and his main problem seems to be a failure to distinguish between Marx and Engels.That is, as far as I can tell after a quick browse, he, like the SPGB, still regards the being Marx-Engels as a unity.If you know differently, could you point me to the relevant passages?

I have found the excerpt in question and actually it comes from an article I used as a preface in the printed book.

Quote:

The conviction that not merely dialectical materialism but materialism in general was inherently self-contradictory (in the sense, for example, that it postulates a completely objective reality independent of or essentially unrelated to the knowledge of it, which however is and can only be a mere abstract concept and thus completely subjective) brought Harold Walsby to a general systematic critique of Marxist political assumptions, especially in far as they turn on the view that men’s consciousness is basically formed by or dependent on their material conditions of existence. Insisting that consciousness, or thought, also had its own independent nature and laws of operation, and thus was in a vital sense self-determined, Walsby eventually arrived at the concept of a hierarchy of forms or modes of thinking such that each level or “layer” of thought is more highly organised, more systematic, more detached and rational, especially in its view of society and social problems, than its predecessor – and also less extensive quantitatively (i.e. held by fewer people). Thus he held that the programme of such a body as the S.P.G.B., resting as it did on the assumption that a majority of people could become imbued with a critical, rational view of the social order, was vitiated by the inherently self-limiting nature of the development of thought.

http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=420

Thanks for your efforts, jdw.From this analysis of 'materialism', which I think Marx would also share (never mind Lukacs, Korsch, Pannekoek, E. M. Wood, etc.), it seems he was spot on!His real problem, though, was that he started from the assumption of the unified being 'Marx-Engels', and thus logically assumed that if he disagreed with 'materialism', this was an ideology shared by both Engels and Marx, and so 'Marxism' was the culprit.If he'd have realise that Marx's 'materialism' (ie. social production) is nothing to do with Engels' 'materialism' (ie. 'hard stuff' like 'matter' determining 'consciousness'), then he'd have realised that the 'Marxism' he disagreed with was actually 'Engelsism'.Of course, whatever political conclusions he then drew from his repudiation of 'Marxism' has nothing to do with us Democratic Communists, who look to the active, class conscious proletariat as the creator of 'socialism', as outlined (quite obscurely, though), by Marx.

[LBird]

Although twc uses the title “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”, it’s an Engels’ text that twc chooses to illustrate this so-called ‘Marx’, and not a text from Marx himself.Since the debate is entirely about whether Engels and Marx were using the same meaning for the term ‘materialist’, it is illegitimate to foreclose the discussion by using ‘Engels’ to determine ‘Marx’. This procedure will clearly result in the unified being of ‘Marx-Engels’, the ‘single’ origin of Leninism. twc’s method is not a comparative one, in which both Marx and Engels’ texts are compared and contrasted, but a religious method, guaranteed to produce the unified being ‘Marx-Engels’. In fact, the title for this thread should read “Engels and the Materialist Conception of History”.My advice for any comrade genuinely interested in this debate regarding Marx, Engels and the so-called ‘Materialist Conception of History’, is to read both thinkers, together with a commentary to help orientate oneself, and try to decide for oneself.I can recommend the following two texts: Karl MarxPreface and Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyForeign Languages Press, Peking, 1976http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/PI.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/Preface-introduction-contribution-critique-political/dp/B000RY60NA Terrell CarverMarx & Engels: The Intellectual RelationshipIndianaUniversityPress, Bloomington, 1983http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Engels-The-Intellectual-Relationship/dp/0253336813Especially pages 96-117, chapter 4, The Invention of Dialectics The Marx booklet also contains an appendix on pages 46-59, which is the review of Marx’s text by Frederick Engels, so there is no need to buy a third separate text.If any comrade reads these texts, and indeed others, too, and wishes to have a discussion about the difficulties of understanding Marx’s meaning of ‘materialist’ and of reconciling his usage with Engels’ much more simplistic view, then please start a new thread, and I’ll be happy to engage.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'll tell you what, Vin.Get the SPGB to admit that it won't have the democratic control by workers of maths, physics and truth, and we can end the myth of the SPGB's 'socialism' (which is precisely that workers' control), and I'll bid you all a good-day. 

That sounds like a threat to disrupt every thread. You are a very good troll And I have told you a thousand times you ignoramous. Socialism abolishes the working class.  You are a confused left winger, not a revolutionary

Why not just say the magic words, Vin?Until then, then SPGB can't be allowed to disrupt every thread with their anti-democratic, anti-worker, Religious Materialism, and to troll the movement for socialism.The SPGB will not discuss these issues, but simply dishes out abuse.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBirddo you think the whole forum should be devoted to  your accusation of 'Englism' or whatever you call it? Or are  you going to allow us to discuss other stuff without your arrogant and  ignorant interuptions and baseless slanders and accustaions?How about devoting a whole thread to your baseless slander?  

I'll tell you what, Vin.Get the SPGB to admit that it won't have the democratic control by workers of maths, physics and truth, and we can end the myth of the SPGB's 'socialism' (which is precisely that workers' control), and I'll bid you all a good-day.Whilst you pretend to be socialists, to try to attract unsuspecting workers, I'm here (until banned, anyway).If you don't understand all this debate, Vin, just ignore it, or perhaps try to learn.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Actually, YMS, if I remember correctly he is on record in one of the previous multiple threads on this as saying that if society democratically votes in favour of one particular scientific theory that will become the orthodox view that will be expressed in all textbooks, etc. as such. Any rival view will have difficulty in being expressed. A vote will also be able to ban the expression of certain views.

Since you hide your Engelsist ideology, ALB, it is not clear for other workers to understand what I'm saying, if they refract what I actually say through your ignorant understanding.I'm actually 'on record' as saying a vote will produce a temporary 'truth', which we'll know is temporary, because Marxists recognise that all 'truths' are socio-historical productions by societies, and so, being democrats, we'll have other 'truths' on standby, which will be available to replace the current 'truth', if we decide that it needs replacing.So, workers will produce by democratic means a 'vote-winner', 'truth A' and obviously minority 'truth B' (and perhaps C and D, etc.).Whilst it suits the purposes of the democratic workers' councils, then 'truth A' will remain, with options to replace that, if they so wish. Our textbooks will be full of choices of truth, not Truth.This method will, of course, be taught by our democratic education system, and so the myth of bourgeois science that humans have access to 'matter', through an elite-expert neutral method, which gives eternal, asocial, ahistoric 'Truth', will be no more.All humans will finally have the power to change their world, as Marx hoped for in socialism, rather than being produced by an elite, under capitalism.But… with you being an Engelsian Materialist, and having a faith in the god 'matter', you seriously believe in the 19th century positivist myth of 'Objective Truth', out there, simply waiting for humans to passively 'discover', so you never mention the need to produce truth, but simply lie that Marxists will 'ban the expression of certain views'.Such is the fruit of the 'thinkers' (I use the word very loosely) of the SPGB. Lies, abuse and secrecy of their plan to prevent workers from democratically producing 'scientific knowledge'.You're an ignorant bluffer, ALB.

[Author]

Posts