[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.

So, none of these are political issues?To me, they all are.Which ideology separates out the 'political' from the 'personal'; the 'individual' from the 'social'?Why won't you tell us your ideology? Once we know that, we can then talk about our constrasting views of physics.But we can't have you pretending to everyone that your views are 'objective', untainted by your living in this society. You're hiding something, robbo, as do the academic physicists, which we'll find out, once you reveal your ideological viewpoint.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

At times, he has been accusatory,  too, alleging that the WSM  reflects  Leninism…although i get the impression that he would not classify us as really being Leninists if push came to shove. I'm sure he would depart if he genuinely believed that.

Spot on, alan.I think that the SPGB clearly has some members and sympathisers who hold to a bourgeois philosophy, mainly through ignorance, rather than thought-out Leninism.But, nevertheless, these 'materialists' clearly espouse a politics that will lead to Leninism. That's also clear from what they themselves have argued on this very thread.The materialists have no time for talk of democracy or workers' power, or the social control of the means of production, which obviously includes the social activities of maths and physics.If the SPGB announces that 'materialism' is its core philosophy and all of its members must espouse this or resign, then I'll 'depart'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The point I was making was that your claim that the existence of an objective external world automatically leads to bourgeois ideology and minority rule is patently false…

But, it's only 'patently false' from your ideological perspective, YMS. That's why I'm keen for you to expose it, to others, and perhaps even to yourself.The claim that there is 'an objective external world' (ie. outside of a consciousness) is opposed by Marx's claim that we humans create our own world, by our social theory and practice upon inorganic nature. That produces organic nature, or nature-for-us, our own creation.So, if by 'objective world' you mean 'organic nature', then you are wrong, according to Marx's ideas. The 'objective world' is the one we create, not one 'out there' 'outside of human consciousness'.The bourgeoisie allege that the 'objective world' is the one we find or discover 'as it is'. Well, to echo Mandy, 'they would say that, wouldn't they?'. The 'external world' we live in, is the very one they have created, by their class-based theory and practice, and so to accept this 'external reality' as the basis of our practice is obviously a conservative method. That's why they are keen on the inductive method, which starts from 'what is', rather than criticism of 'what is' and the determination to change 'what is'.The only 'objective world' for humans is our 'socially-objective world'.So , to accept their class-based claim that the 'objective world' is not created by them, but simply 'is', removes the possibility of democratic creation anew, and thus maintains 'minority rule'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

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?

Well, given that idealism states that the world is made of ideas, and materialism that it is made of matter, either you are advocating dualism, or some sort of third substance that is an amalgam of ideas and matter: what to call it I know not what.  The substantive point is, there is a world outside our minds that we cannot change nor know merely by thinking about it.  If our minds are intimately connected to that exterior world, then we are subject to causation as well, and open to investigation.

Which bit of 'theory and practice' do you keep missing, YMS. It seems that you keep reading Marx's phrase 'theory and practice' as 'theory' (alone).I think I know why you do this: you are using Engelsian materialism, which argues that there are only two philosophical trends, ie. idealism and materialism. So, you categorise any talk of 'theory' as 'idealism' and forget that Marx unified 'idealism and materialism', ie. 'idealism-materialism', 'theory and practice'.So, NO-ONE is saying that 'ideas' alone (idealism) is the route to go down.Marx argued that we need ideas to inform our practice, as we create our world: I've already given a quote from Capital to support this view.So, YMS, are you starting from Engels' 'materialism' or Marx's 'idealism-materialism'? We can all forget 'idealism', so stop mentioning it – that dichotomy is an Engelsian myth, propagated by the 19th century bourgeoisie, of which Engels took in, hook, line and sinker. But, he had an excuse, the massive achievements of bourgeois science in the 19th century.However, we're in the 21st century, and Engels' poor repetition of positivism is long gone, in physics. We workers, too, have to move on.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

My particular gripe with your position is that you seem to think all values boil down to class values.

So, where do these 'values' come from, robbo, if not classes?

robbo203 wrote:

I am specifically questioning the assertion that class forms the basis of the values that steers the development of ideas in science.

I know you are, robbo. I don't doubt your sincerity, either.All I'm asking is 'what does steer the development of ideas in [unprefixed, which is an ideological omission] science?'

robbo203 wrote:

I do believe that there is a qualitiative distinction to be drawn in that respect between the hard sciences and the other subjects…

Yes, this is a normal part of bourgeois ideology: that 'science' divides into 'hard' and 'soft' sciences. It's reflected in the division between science and art, too.This viewpoint that you start from, is not just a personal belief of yours, that you just happened to think of 'as an individual', but a central plank of the move by the bourgeoisie in the 1660s to separate 'stuff' from 'ideas': it was helpful to break the existing link in revolutionary science between 'consciousness and being', which lead to some thinkers, following the ancient Greek ideas that the purpose of science was 'the good life' (for an elite), to extend this 'good life' purpose to be for the benefit of all society, and thus amenable to democracy.So, for over 250 years, until Einstein's work, it went socially assumed that 'physics' was about 'out there', and 'sociology' was about 'us'. You might think this distinction is helpful, and it was…… to a social group who wanted to have 'stuff' that was not amenable to 'democratic controls': ie. 'private property'.Now, robbo, we can continue to discuss these issues, and I will continue to help you with further answers, explanation and, if needed, references for you to follow up with further reading.But… you really must tell me where these 'values' supposedly come from, to which you allude.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

"No doubt if you and the rest of the undemocractic Leninists on here had their way, I'd be packed off to some Stalinist asylum"In this quote you are saying that I would "no doubt" have you incarcerated because of your political beliefs. Not only is there nothing in what I have said in my contributions to back up this extraordinary statement, the statement is in itself a personal and professional slur. I would go as far as to say that, as it is directed to me by name, it could be regarded as defamatory and defined as libelous. Can I suggest you withdraw the remark immediately and apologise.

So, you think you can 'defame' me and yet I can't be allowed to expose your ideological guff?And bourgeois law is the answer?It's a historical fact that the 'materialists' packed off those democratic workers who disgreed with them to the asylums or the gulag. It's not 'nasty individuals like Stalin' (as NO DOUBT your ideology tells you), who are behind this, but a belief that an elite knows better than the mass of workers.Do me a favour, 'Tim by name', (or, 'Tim, nasty and dim'), and do one.I never lose my sheer disbelief that posters think that they can personally attack me (rather than my politics) without reply in similar personal terms, and then start crying about the result.My advice, comrades: stick to criticising my politics, and we'll all get along just fine.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

You state that I have not engaged with the issues, although that is clearly not true, it does appears that generally speaking people are not in that much disagreement with you. This therefore leads me to examine motive.

Tim, you haven't got a clue.My 'motive' is entirely political, you haven't engaged with the issues, and the entirety of the thread is people disagreeing fundamentally with me, about politics.You seem to think you are some sort of 'psychologist', and no doubt if you and the rest of the non-democratic Leninists here had their way, I'd be packed off to some Stalinist asylum to find evidence of 'my motive'.Yeah, it would be declared counterrevolutionary to argue for workers' control in science, and that physics and maths should be democratically produced.

TK wrote:

Psychological Games are not, as you imply, a sign of poor mental health, they are, according to Berne, a sub conscious phenomena in which we all engage as part of our transactional strategies, in an attempt to gain what he described as strokes of recognition. As you are continuing to engage in a thread where no one really disagrees with you,  it leads me to the conclusion that you must be sub-consciously be seeking strokes of recognition. The source of these strokes may be as follows:A – Positive strokes from forum members – something along the lines of "wow that's really interesting, I'd never seen Marx in that way" (these don't appear to be on offer at the moment)B – Positive self strokes – Intrapsychic conversation along the lines of "wow, I really pointed out to those lot in the SPGB how well read and clever I am (whether these strokes are available, only you will know)C negative strokes – along the lines of "what the hell is he picking an argument about now, what a complete………" (these types of strokes appear to be very available on the forum.As Berne stated, negative strokes are better than no strokes at all!

I suspect that you've been 'stroking' yourself.Now, you can analyse my psychological usage of polite euphemism. I suppose if I called you a wanker, you'd put it down to my penis fixation and wish to 'know' my mother, rather than self analyse your own political ideas, and where they came from.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

So explain to me what is class basis or string theory in theoretical physics. Is it bourgeois or proletarian and how so?  Please answer this question LBird(Oh, and incidentally I didnt say 'values' in society have little to do with classes..  I was talking specifically about the theoretical content of scientific theories.  Please dont twist my words)

I'm not 'twisting your words', robbo. On the contrary, I trying to get you to 'untwist' your own words.You now appear to be arguing (and I can be corrected, because only you can answer this, as I said before) that there is 'theoretical content' (why not just say 'ideas'?) in 'theories' (of the 'scientific' type) which are 'value-less' (not that they aren't 'valuable', but that they are 'outside of consideration of social values' – I had to clear up that usage of 'value-less', because some clown will be claiming next that 'LBird says science is of no use whatsoever').So, if you already believe that 'theory in physics is valueless', then you already know that 'there is no class basis to string theory'.Alternatively, if (like me) you already believe that 'theory in physics, just like every other human activity, contains social values', then you would simply be looking for the 'class basis of string theory'.The concepts and arguments that would be accepted as 'useful' to this debate are already presupposed in the beliefs of the debator.Someone who wishes to prove the absence of class ideology in physics will do so, because they are not looking for signs of class ideology in physics, and any signs produced by someone who thinks that physics in a class society is socially-produced according to its social values, will be dismissed.It's like trying to prove that '(Marx's) value exists' to an adherent of neo-classical economics. The economist trained in neo-classical ideas, theories, concepts, values and methods simply won't accept the starting point of the Labour Theory of Value, ie. social production. They start from 'the individual' or 'the firm' within 'a market', not from 'classes', 'class consciousness' within 'class struggle'.Since I'm a Marxist, I look for the class basis of social activities, and since I regard physics as a social activity, I look for the class basis of physics, just as I would look for the class basis of economics, or history, sociology, philosophy, etc.The root of the issue is your  'position of observation', to put it in Einsteinian terms.If you don't believe that you have a 'position of observation', but that you are a 'neutral observer' of 'out there', of 'the external world', of the world of 'matter', then my request is meaningless.And if you regard yourself as an 'unbiased observer' of 'matter', then you will assume that there are other individuals who can do this, like theoretical physicists, like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Schrodinger, or mathematicians like Godel. You will believe that they are 'value-less observers of matter'.Unfortunately, when you read their works, and I have, they constantly tell you of their social values and philosophical influences, and their belief that social consciousness plays a part.In fact, physicists who write about these philosophical issues have long given up with the 19th century beliefs and methods of 'materialism'. More recent physicists, like Rovelli, who I have quoted so many times that I won't do so again, or Brian Cox in The Guardian this year, who I also quoted and linked to, and said that 'physicists are plumbers', or Lee Smolin (that a comrade in the SPGB recommended to me), who writes a book titled 'The Trouble with Physics', show us that 'values' are at the heart of their social activities.So, to summarise, we have 'materialists', who look to outdated 19th century ideas about 'objectivity in science', and we have the physics profession, who for 100 years now have tried to understand the 'position of the observer'.Of course, there are many physicists (Hawking?) who poo-poo the notion of the social context of physics, but these are the 'practical men' who just 'get on with science', and ignore 'mere philosophising'.People of this bourgeois bent, who just want to get on with the 'practice', don't like 'ideas' – and there are a number of posters here who don't like talking about 'theory' but wish to believe that 'theory' emerges from 'practice', that there is a 'neutral observation point' for understanding 'matter', and that talk about 'ideas' is 'idealism'.I write this post more in hope than in expectation. Which is quite damning of the SPGB in a way.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Methinks we flushed out a crank!

Yes, but you're unaware of just who the crank is!twc a Marxist? My arse!

[LBird]

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.

[Author]

Posts