[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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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'.

[Author]

Posts