LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:Whilst I agree that science is not value free, it is conceivable – is it not? – that the values in question might not have much, if anything, to do with classes at all.
Yes, robbo, it is entirely conceivable that 'values' in society have little to do with classes.The ideology that holds that conception, though, is not Marxism.I freely admit my ideological presuppositions, robbo, but you appear to believe that 'scientific values' are little to do with the society that produces them.I can only say that you yourself have to answer that question. If you think 'values' are outside of the society in which they appear, then you name the ideology that claims this.I think 'values', whether scientific or otherwise, are produced by societies, and different societies produce different values.But then, I'm a historian, so I would say that. And I think that Marx's notion of 'modes of production' are central to understanding the social production of 'values', and their socio-historical specificity.I don't know how to give you a clearer answer about my own biases, and only you can reveal yours.I'm a Democratic Communist. Simple.
Thanks, Tim for your concern about my mental health, and I note your failure to actually engage with the issues.It's an old political trick.
YMS wrote:What about a materialism that allows for collective open investigation of the world…YMS, are you actually unable to read?Idealism-MATERIALISM, Idealism-MATERIALISM, Idealism-MATERIALISM…Why do you materialists keep asking the same questions?
robbo203 wrote:It is one thing to argue that science is not value free and I agree that it is not; it is another thing to argue that science is "class based".So, whose 'values' are involved in science, in a class-based society, if not those of classes?If you can see the applicability of the argument that 'science is not value free', robbo, you must have some idea whose 'values' are involved, and their social basis.
SocialistPunk wrote:What does it matter whether Marx was a materialist or an idealist-materialist?Surely the responses by the materialists, on this thread and others, and my continued saying that 'materialism is elitist' tells you 'why', SP?'Materialism' is not democratic. 'Materialism' alleges that its adherents 'know' the 'material world', outside of the considerations of the proletariat.If one thinks that democracy is an essential feature of socialism, then one can't be a materialist.This whole issue is at heart a political issue.The fact that no-one in the SPGB seems to realise this, is quite worrying.Science is about power.
twc wrote:Methinks we flushed out a crank!Yes, but you're unaware of just who the crank is!twc a Marxist? My arse!
twc wrote:Thank you. Everyone please note that LBird’s authorised opinion is:LBird, emphatically, wrote:LBird warns us that bourgeois scientists harbour ambitions to rule the world, even to construct Fourth Reich Mengele chambers of horror.Whew, am I pleased that that’s been settled to everyone’s satisfaction!I’d hate to be responsible for anyone getting the wrong impression of him.
A Marxist warns about the social power of bourgeois science – and that's a surprise?Oh, sorry, to an Engelsist, it is a shock.The materialists argue that 'science' is not class-based, but a politically-neutral elite activity which is there to benefit humanity.All I ask is, 'how's that going after 300 years?'No need for workers' intervention, according to twc. No need for socialism. No need for democratic production. Just trust to twc's benevolent, clever, trustworthy, special, elite.And this passes for a site that helps workers to understand and change their world? twc's party is a fraud.
twc wrote:LBird warns us that scientists harbour ambitions to rule the world, even to construct Fourth Reich Mengele chambers of horror. This is where his idealism—that the power of thought governs the social world—comes to the fore.twc is only partially correct in his allegation. My proper warning would be:LBird warns us that bourgeois scientists harbour ambitions to rule the world, even to construct Fourth Reich Mengele chambers of horror.twc misses out this vital adjective because of the ideology which he espouses: he agrees with the bourgeoisie, who allege that 'science is class neutral'.The bourgeoisie, when they constructed 'modern' science from the 1660s, removed 'consciousness' from their method, in the pretence that they were engaged in 'finding Truth' and 'discovering the real'. As we are now aware, bourgeois scientists were actually engaged in building a world safe for bourgeois profits, in which questions of 'property ownership' (ie. 'material things') would not be questioned, because 'matter' was outside of considerations of 'consciousness'. The world they built, through science, trade, war and conquest, was 'real'.Of course, the proletariat require a 'science', but they require a 'science' that has a purpose that is in line with proletarian purposes.The purpose of proletarian science would be to 'build a better world for all', the 'good life for humanity'.Whereas, the bourgeoisie pretend that the purpose of their science is to 'discover material Truth', a 'reality' that cannot be argued with, an 'eternal knowledge' that fits their purposes of eternalising their class rule.twc apparently doesn't understand this, although he claims to agree with Marx.Where is his socio-historical account of the development of 'science', based upon a 'mode of production' and 'class struggle'?There isn't one. For twc 'science' is above such mundane concerns as 'class', 'history' or exploitation. For twc, scientists are ahistoric, asocial 'good people', who aim for 'objective knowledge', and who the workers should just trust. No mention of democratic controls within the social activity of science, just ignorant, unthinking, uneducated, uncomprehending 'trust of the elite by the mass'.
twc wrote:This is where his idealism—that the power of thought governs the social world—comes to the fore.Yes, human thought, as Marx argued, has the power to change the world, and it does 'govern the social world' (else, why would Marx be concerned with the power of 'ruling class ideas' to govern our thoughts?), and that does 'come to the fore' in both Marx's and my thinking. It's called 'theory and practice'.twc, being an Engelsist, follows an ideology that stresses 'matter' (a fixed category, once discovered, forever known) and the belief that there are only two basic forms of philosophy: idealism and materialism.twc, just like all of us, including Marx and Engels, are governed by the ideas of the society around us: in a class society, we can recognise clashes between these competing ideas.One of these clashes is between the notions that 'Marx was a materialist' (an Engelsian idea) and that 'Marx was an idealist-materialist' (an idea that fits with 'theory and practice').Materialism is essentially a bourgeois notion, suited to elites and minorities, and which can ignore change and democracy. That's why Lenin was a materialist.Marx's philosophy was an amalgam of the creativity of idealism and the reality of human production, as any reading of his Theses on Feuerbach will show.But the clinching argument is at heart a simple one: which is better suited to the purposes of the class conscious proletariat?A 'materialism' that stresses respect for the unelected elite, that argues that the 'material' determines our social thoughts, or an 'idealism-materialism' which provides a philosophical basis for democratic production.What is our class' purpose? 'Eternal Truth', 'Objective Knowledge'? Or 'A Better World', 'Democratic Communism'?twc's ideas (and he does have ideas, no matter how often he claims to be merely 'reflecting material reality') will lead to Leninism. The Leninists hide their 'consciousness', just as the bourgeoisie do. And for the same purpose: elite rule. And science is a part of this class battleground.
YMS wrote:…there is little practical difference between you and a diamond…Workers will be pleased with the conclusions drawn by your 'philosophy', that they can be bought and sold as commodities – practically, anyway.Of course, diamonds don't require their owners to provide toilets for them, whereas slave-workers will, but that is a mere detail of theoretical importance only.The fruits of 'materialism': the only issue is the shithouse to be provided to the slaves.
You stick to 'physical matter' YMS, and I'll stick to 'socio-historical production'.It's up to other workers to decide which view of 'Marx' they should find most useful.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I note LBird is still declining to deal with the problem of humans making history but not in conditions of their own choosing, maybe his Anarcho Feudalism can't deal with such an idea.You're only able to claim this, YMS, because you continue to ignore both my ideology and your own.I fully agree with Marx's statement that 'Men [sic] make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing'.It means:Human theory and practice in the present is constrained by human theory and practice in the past.When Marx uses the term 'material', he means 'social production'.So, YOU interpret your term 'conditions' to be 'material conditions', and YOU interpret 'material' to be 'matter' (following Engels), ie. nothing to do with ideas, theory, society, history, or production.Whereas, I interpret 'conditions' to be 'human social theory and practice' (following Marx), ie. everything to do with ideas, theory, society, history, especially production.The sooner you wake up to your ideological beliefs, the sooner you will start to understand Marx, and indeed my views.Put simply, Marx means that current social production is constrained by previous social production. Nothing about 'matter', or the rocks determining our human activities.
twc wrote:Edvard and May-Britt Moser are Norwegians.On YouTube, Edvard addresses fellow Israeli scientists.They communicate with each other humanly, respectfully and amicably.Please explain your profound knowledge of their political agenda.Are they Democratic Communists, who wish to get rid of private property, and ensure that the direct producers across the whole planet democratically control their production and distribution?Of course, this is of no interest to bourgeois science, because it claims to be 'objective', 'non-political', and not class-based.Bourgeois science deals in 'The Truth', and it has a neutral method, which it claims produces ahistorical and asocial 'Truth'.No need for workers to be interested… move along… nothing to see, here… place your trust in science… be assured… the elite academics know what they're doing…If anyone suggested this method for economics, perhaps comrades could imagine the problem. It's simply 'private property in the means of scientific production'.
twc wrote:Tell us where their results are wrong.Yes, LBird! Less of this obscure Marxist philosophising, and a bit more of the 'real world', of practical importance!This is the usual response from bourgeois science, to any worker who starts to question the usefulness to the proletariat of bourgeois science.You'll also notice this deliberate method means that twc doesn't have to engage in any mere philosophical discussion of Marx's mythical 'materialism'.twc is a 'practical man'. He's a 'materialist'.
twc wrote:…this dedicated scientific couple…Wow! As long as they are 'dedicated to science', we can all rest assured.You wouldn't think we are now in the 21st century, from twc's posts, would you?Apparently, Mengele and his academic professor who participated in his 'research', were also a 'dedicated scientific couple'.Just ask them, and they'll assure you that this is the case.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It may well be the anarchist in me, LBird…Because even with a proletarian democratic vote on the "truth" of science, i still rebel and dissent…Yeah, it may well be the source of our difficulties, alan.I'm not an anarchist.Thanks for your prompt and revealing answer, alan.We have fundamental political differences. I look to Marx for inspiration, not Bakunin.
