[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I invite you to step back and seriously consider what it is you seem to be proposing.

I'd like to further explain, with examples and analogies, Marx's idealism-materialism, his theory and practice of the socio-historical creation of 'organic nature' (nature-for-us) from 'inorganic nature' (nature that is 'nothing for us')…… but I think that it's time for me to accept that neither you, nor YMS, nor Dave, nor DJP, nor ALB, nor twc, nor… nor……will expose your ideology behind your views of 'science' and its 'method'.All my explanations, including on DJP's recent thread about 'truth', are socio-historical in character and depend upon relational thinking, and so the method is about socio-historical relationships between 'consciousness and being'.This is very different from the 'science' that thinks that 'qualities' exist in 'inorganic nature', as apparently YMS does. If 'qualities' exist 'out there', 'outside of a consciousness', then an elite can claim to have a class-neutral method that gives 'Truth' about 'qualities out there, within inorganic nature'.This is not Marx's point of view; he argues that humans create their objects, and these 'objects' are not a simply 'mirror' of 'inorganic nature', as both Engels and Lenin claimed.If 'objects' exist 'out there', without our intervention, how do we change them? If an 'object out there' can be known outside of our theory and practice (ie. our planned creation of our objects), then that 'object' would be 'fixed' forever, we would have 'eternal knowledge' of a part of 'inorganic nature'.This is a belief that can exclude a vote upon 'our creation', and so lends itself to 'technocratic' elites and 'special individuals' who can regard democracy as 'a fetish'.But, I've said all these before, in great detail, over many threads… so there seems little point in discussing it with the same people.Perhaps if other comrades become involved, as I've asked for them to…

[LBird]

Hmmm…. between Dave's 'technocracy' and robbo's abhorrence for the 'fetish of democracy', there's not much room left for workers' control of all production, the democratic control of the means of production.Such are the fruits of 'materialism'.Unless the SPGB finds a philosophical approach that espouses 'democratic production of our world', then its supposed 'socialism' will remain much the same as the Leninists' conception of it: that is, a 'technocratic elite party' which deems any workers' calls for 'their own democracy' a 'fetish'.Nevertheless, I think that, upon re-reading, I've given a fairly clear account of Marx's 'idealism-materialism', and his views of 'inorganic nature' being consciously transformed into 'organic nature'.After this latest bout of further self-clarification, at least, perhaps I'll leave the thread to the 'gnawing criticism' of the 'materialist mice'!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The ruling class could talk idealism-materialism (in fact, they'd love the vapidity of the term) all day long, while robbing it of any meaning/effect.

I'm surprised at you calling Marx's concept of 'theory and practice' vapid. It's the centrepiece of his philosophy.The ruling class can't talk idealism-material, even for one minute, never mind all day long.Even here, when you ask the materialists, 'what is the ideology that informs your practice?', they shrivel away from the question, like Dracula from garlic.Once the bourgeoisie allow 'consciouness and being' to be re-united in a society that claims to be democratic, they're heading for the exit. They can allow it as much as Dracula can allow the blood-doners to stop giving.They'll either ditch 'democracy' or ditch 'theory and practice'.An authoritarian regime claiming to employ 'practice and theory' would suit them best……errrm… what's 'modern physics' like?… elitist induction… now, who'd argue for that, and claim to be a socialist?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The bourgeoisie also produced philsophical idealism, it depends on the time, place and the exigencies.  They've also produced post-modernism, there is no timeless essential bourgeois ideology.  Recuperation is always a possibility of any idea.

Something tells me that you're not getting the hang of this, YMS.We're not talking about 'idealism', but 'idealism-materialism'.Let's not revert to ahistoric, asocial physics or sociology.That's where we came in, and, if Marx's great insight is into anything, it's into the socio-historic production of our world.'Recuperation' is just another term for 'ditch the specifics, ideas rule'. I'm surprised at you using this concept, since it's idealism, through and through.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.

That doesn't follow, as I have demonstrated.Idealism-Materialism would suite them just as well.

I'm afraid that you're wrong on this one, YMS.We have to situation our 'philosophies' within the societies which produce them.'Materialism' is suited only to a class society, because a ruling class produced this view of nature.'Idealism-materialism' is suited only to a democratic society, like socialism, because it allows politics into property.So, the bourgeoisie produced materialism, and the proletariat have produced idealism-materialism.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.

We do? Brilliant!I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!

I've always argued for that.  But with you accepting that the 'material substrate' of 'inorganic nature' exists and is non-uniform, I believe I can rest my case.

Yeah, I've been arguing for 'idealism-materialism' for the last 2 years here.It's surprising that it has taken you so long to see the word 'materialism' in the term 'idealism-materialism', but nobody's perfect. I should have mentioned it, before now, I suppose.The key thing is, this view, that 'physics and maths' (along with the rest of the means of production) can come under our democratic control, is the perfect philosophical complement to the SPGB's politics, of arguing that socialism can only come about when a majority vote and act for it, and that the role of the party is to develop class consciousness amongst other workers.The 'materialists', however, oppose democracy and want elite control of physics. This is, of course, what the Leninists also argue, but it is the perfect philosophy for them, because that is their politics, and their physics reflects their politics.Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.

We do? Brilliant!I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…it's character of hurdle would still limit they way in which we could traverse it.

No, it's the character of the hurdle in relation to a human that would limit, an individual runner, for example.But, if we were much smaller, say, the size of a neutrino, would could pass through the hurdle, or if we constructed a projectile the size of a neutrino, we could pass something through a hurdle.So, the 'limits' are of a relational kind, between 'being and consciousness', not a 'quality' of 'inorganic nature'.Once more, YMS, you're assigning the 'active side' (eg., the ability to limit) to 'inorganic nature'.This would make humans passive. Funnily enough, you seem to be, by pure coincidence no doubt, arguing what the bourgeoisie argue, that we are passive in the face of 'material facts', like property.Their physics does this too, the separation of 'being and consciousness', which is why they are having so many theoretical problems at the moment.But, being bourgeois physicists, they can't unite property (material being) with democracy (ideas in consciousness), because it'll fuck up their society.What was it Marx said about the relations of production inhibiting the development of the forces of production? Bourgeois physics seems to be at such an impasse. Let's hope communist workers can take advantage, eh?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.blah blah blah  …

LBird cut the crap and answer directly the challenge I posed:Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalismYou are beginning to sound like a capitalist politician being interviewed on telly in your capacity to evade straightforward  questions

Throwing childish tantrums, because you neither understand Marx, nor want your beloved bourgeois ideology exposing, is no answer to ignorance, robbo.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

 I will assert that 'inorganic nature' has varying qualities.

[my bold]That's fine, as your assertion, YMS, but is nothing to do with Marx.Since I'm influenced by Marx, my view of physics will then be different to yours, because I don't 'assert' the same thing. It'd be nice if you would say just where you got this 'assertion' from, but I suppose my request will pass ignored, as before.

YMS wrote:

The relationship is between two entities (inorganic nature and human labour), both have varying qualities.  They must both bring something to the party, else one of them doesn't exist.

No, you are ignoring relational products and looking at individual properties.'Qualities' are produced, by the relationship between 'consciousness and being', and the 'active side' (as Marx puts it) is human social theory and practice, not 'inorganic nature' (or, as Marx puts it elsewhere the 'material substratum').Inorganic nature/material substratum is the 'stuff' we change for our purposes – we don't merely 'interpret' 'inorganic qualities', that would be passive, as Marx warns when criticising materialism, which argues just that.

YMS wrote:

Even if we could, it would require different processes and methods to making a silk purse out of silk.

Yes, of course it would, but it's nice to see that you accept the possibility, now, of 'making a silk purse out of a pig's ear', by 'different processes and methods'.We're getting somewhere.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

What I was trying to convey to you through my feeble attempt at satire is that there is nothing in string theory itself that warrants the suggestion that it is a "bourgeois"  concept, that somehow reflects the capitalist relations of production…

[my bold]OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.Your statement "there is nothing…that warrants" is a pre-existing assumption made prior to looking at 'string theory'.It's an acceptable assumption, though one I don't share because of ideological reasons (I'm Democratic Communist, heavily influenced by Marx).All I keep asking is: what ideology makes this assumption that you state? You seem to think either that you've thought this up all alone, as an individual genius, or that Marx's claims are wrong, and 'string theory' is not the product of a class.I don't mind if you go for the 'I'm a genius' claim, or the 'Marx was a ignorant knobhead' claim, or indeed some other explanation of your assumption, I'm just saying that, from my ideological perspective about 'physics', the position of the observer has to be exposed. In fact, that's what Einstein claimed, too, so Marx seemed to be onto something, nearly 60 earlier.Over you, robbo…[one tip: keep the comedy in the bag until we establish comradely working relations, otherwise it's likely to go unappreciated: there's nothing wrong with 'satire', whether 'feeble' or not]

[LBird]

Ah well, robbo…It was going so well, but now it appears you were deceiving us about your 'democratic communism', and have reverted to bourgeois science, and the myth that 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production.It's a shame, because I actually thought we were making progress.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Again, YMS, this is where we disagree.For Marx, 'the object' is created by humanity from human theory and practice: so 'the object' can't 'delimit'. That would make inorganic nature the active side, as the materialists argue.

Let's take this slowly.  You agree with Marx that there is 'inorganic nature' (lets stick with his terminology).  This exists/occurs/originates beyond/outside/before human consciousness and labour.  Do you agree with that proposition?Now, assuming this 'inorganic nature' has varied qualities, i.e. different parts of inorganic nature have different capabilities, that means that with part A you can do things your cannot do with part B, when you apply human labour.That is not active, it can do nothing (lets us suppose for now) without human labour, but you cannot turn a pigs ear into a silk purse, no matter (pardon me) how much labour you apply.  That is how inorganic nature sets limits on the infinite capacity of abstract labour. Yes?

You're fishing in deep philosophical waters, now, YMS!I think you're confusing 'inorganic' with 'organic', and I'll try to explain what I mean.Marx, me, you (and most socialists, I think) agree that 'inorganic nature' exists external to 'consciousness'.But, your second statement makes the mistake of saying 'assuming this 'inorganic nature'. Now, if Marx is correct, 'assumptions' sit in 'consciousness', not in 'inorganic nature', and so any 'assumption' applied to 'inorganic nature' produces 'organic nature'. That is, the 'qualities' of 'inorganic nature' are a product of the relationship between 'consciousness and inorganic nature'. So, 'qualities' are 'relational', not 'fixed out there in inorganic nature'. That's why science produces a variable 'truth' which has socio-historical bases, and so we can have a historical and social class based method of science, whilst classes continue to exist, and show when 'truths' appeared in time (and where some 'scientific truths' have since disappeared, again).We can discuss this with some examples, if comrades wish to explore this further.On your jokey aside that 'we can't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse', the truth seems to be, that with the better understanding that we create through our social theory and practice through time, that we soon will be able to!We know how to turn base metal into gold, after all, so, with theory and practice, the "pig's ear to silk purse transformation" seems to be coming into our reach! Isn't the ultimate "pig's ear into silk purse" process, the active transformation by us of capitalism into socialism?

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

There is no way that more than a handful of people, with specialised training, a certain aptitude, and the time, could do the maths and go through all the experiments needed to arrive at conclusions like the ones above. The rest of us can either accept it or look on sceptically when we’re told about it. Or not give a shit, as may be. That is, if we know about it at all. There are people in all four camps. I can’t imagine it being different in a socialist society.

[my bold]What you've said here, rodshaw, is an ideological viewpoint, and moreover one that I don't share.Indeed, given those assumptions, I don't think that a democratic socialist society is even possible.What version of 'socialism' do you base your views upon? To me, and I'm not accusing you, the above quote would fit just as well with a Leninist society. That is, a few active, whilst the majority are passive.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Once you tell me your ideology, robbo, we can proceed.We can then examine physics from class perspectives: my Marxist, proletarian, communist, democratic one, and your…? 

 My ideology? Im a democratic communist – which explains why I dont take too kindly to your viewsNow can we finally "examine physics from class perspectives" as you keep on promising to do but never do. So to kick off the conversation – can you please explain what is the connection between string theory and the class structure of capitalism,  Ive been dying to know what it is ever since you raised the tantalising prospect that such a connection exists…

Well, I'm glad we got there, robbo!So, we're talking about 'proletarian physics', that is, your 'democratic communist' perspective upon the social production of the 'ideal-material' by different classes.As we are now in 'class aware' mode for understanding production, we can compare 'the current production of widgets in a bourgeois factory' with 'the current production of knowledge in a bourgeois academy'.As in any bourgeois production, the theories, ideas, concepts, assumptions, methods, structures, ethics, morals, purposes, etc. will be those of the ruling class. That is, the 'production' is not just asocial, ahistorical 'production', but a 'production' in which all the things that I've just listed have an historical origin, and a social class basis.As a constrast to our 'class aware' mode, the bourgeoisie pretend that their 'production' is simply an eternal yearning by humans for 'Truth', which, since most workers are stupid, ignorant, uneducated, lazy, uncaring (and indeed busy working in employment for their betters), must be carried out by the minority who are clever, knowledgeable, erudite, active, enthusiastic (and indeed have the time since they live off others' labour). So, for the bourgeoisie, 'production' is by an elite, who carry out 'production' for bourgeois purposes using bourgeois assumptions. And as it is for the factory, so it is for the academy.Shall we now examine the origins, concepts, purposes, etc., etc., of bourgeois production, robbo, to provide a socio-historical basis for our building of a picture of current physics?Since you no longer subscribe to the ideology that bourgeois physicists are simply engaged in an unbiased search for 'The Truth' of 'inorganic nature', and you know that their ideology, like every human's, comes from their society, we could situate 'modern physics' in its rightful context.Are you up for a discussion about the emergence, social basis and historical development of bourgeois physics? I find it a fascinating subject.It's funny, y'know, those infected with bourgeois ideology always pretend to be 'practical men', just interested in the 'practice' of any activity, and always keen to get down to 'the nitty gritty' of the subject, of what an isolated genius individual can do. But that is not our proletarian method, is it? We are keenly aware of the socio-historical nature of the production of any 'concept', including 'string theory'.

[Author]

Posts