[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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…no political axe to grind…

Non-political, simple, objective 'science', eh?Marx would weep at the continuing strength of this ruling class idea, a bourgeois myth, of human social activities being practised 'without politics'.And this is supposedly a political site, supposedly providing a socialist lead for workers, to help those workers curious about their social existence to learn about their world.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Your admission, that you 'have little clue' about these issues, doesn't forbode well for the ability of the proletariat to run the means of production.

To each to their own.

I can't say that I'm not disappointed at your framing of this issue, alan.I'm a Democratic Communist, who wishes to see a society that collectively determines all of its productive activities, by the means of democratic politics.But, to me, a response of 'to each to their own' has a very individualistic ring to it.Using your phrase when talking to, say, office or factory workers about the collective use of their production and who should decide that usage, would lead them to think that you were suggesting a Thatcherite solution to their collective problems, of 'each to their own'. If one worker produces more than another, that worker should have more than another. No notion of all production being 'social', and the social product being put into a 'collective pot', and then distributed according to need, which itself is determined collectively by democratic means.This perspective of yours, of 'to each to their own' throws a lot of light on your hesitation about the notion of what Marx meant by 'material'.That is, unless there is an individualistic category of 'matter', which an individual can identify by their own touch, then the whole notion of 'to each of their own' falls down.If what we experience is social (rather than the individualistic stuff of 'matter'), then we can only identify our product by social means: as Marx says, there is no 'matter' in 'value'. Value can't be seen or touched, and can only be 'experienced' by social theory and practice.Which takes us back to Kline's discussion, about Marx's meaning of his term 'material'.I've suggested that for Marx 'material' means 'human production' (Kline's 'economic'), which Marx contrasts with 'ideal' meaning 'divine production'.That is, Marx in not referring to a category of 'matter' which 'each' produces and controls 'to their own' purposes.Finally, since you are one of the comrades in the SPGB that I thought was committed to democratic production (unlike some who have admitted that they are not committed to workers' democracy, but to 'individualism'), it's brought me up short, and made me actually question the very nature of the SPGB. I had thought that the problems with the SPGB were simply a few individuals ignorant of Marx, but perhaps the issue runs deeper, and my 'Democratic Communist' politics really are out of phase with the majority, including you.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I've come back to my senses and realised that we spent ages going around in circles with this years ago. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you again.FWIW in the talk in the original post I think it is John Searle who is right, but he can't really be classified under your two categories – I don't think anyone really can…

But you've not 'come back to your senses', DJP, but fallen back upon your faith.Back to 'hide the category', and pretend that you have a method to reveal unvarnished 'Truth'.I predicted this outcome in my initial post.Religious Materialism is so predictable, and so 19th century.Nothing for workers to look towards, for socio-historical answers to their questions. Just The Bourgeois Eternal Truth.A ruling class category.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

But YMS's post is in support of 'materialism'.

"materialism" is a kind of "naturalism".

LBird wrote:

So, we all stop calling Marx a 'materialist', and all start calling him a 'naturalist'…

He was both.

[my bold]So, why not call him 'both'?

DJP wrote:

But it is your "idealism-materialism" that is nonsensical.FIN.

Putting your hands over your ears, shouting 'La, La, La, La…', and stamping your feet, is not solution, DJP. We're all grown-ups, not to mention Communists.You're nearly, there, comrade! One last effort, now, to use your own words, all chant together now with DJP, in unison…He was both, he was both, he was both…But… 'both' what?[over to DJP]

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

OK. So, truth is a relationship between what?

From which perspective?From the perspective of the 'reflection theory of truth', it isn't a relationship. End of.From the perspective of the 'relational theory of truth', it's a relation between 'theory' and 'practice'.The latter, of course, refers to social groups, like classes, and their creation over time of their 'object'. Thus, their 'truth' is a socio-historical creation, which changes between societies and through history.If you don't hold with the latter 'relational theory of truth', DJP, that's fine by me, but why not tell everyone else that you hold to the 'reflection theory of truth', which by its nature is not socio-historical, but argues for a one-off discovery of 'Truth', which, once discovered by any elite human, is 'True'.For those reading and wishing to get ahead of the game and prepare questions, ask yourself which 'theory of truth' would benefit a ruling class that wishes to 'eternalise' its rule. I know it's a toughie, but that's the trouble with trying to think critically: difficult problems. 'Truth' (forevermore), or 'truths' (produced by human societies, like various 'modes of production'…)?Hmmm… bit of bias there, I think… if only education could be 'objective', eh?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

But what is truth?

I already explained this, DJP.There are two theories that I've already outlined, but just for you I'll repeat myself:1. 'Truth' is a reflection; or2. 'truth' is a relation.

This looks more like a description of direct and indirect realism than an explanation of what "truth" is. It doesn't answer the questions: What kind of things can be true and what is the criteria for them being so?If I say "the cat is on the mat" what conditions need to be met for the sentence to be true?

What's happening here is precisely what I predicted in my first post.If one believes 'truth is a reflection', then one can sidestep the issue of 'theories of truth', which are clearly ideas held by people.You are doing precisely this: off-the-cuff dismissal of the fundamental issue of conceptual definition, and straight into 'the real world' of 'things'.Thus, I can conclude that you are employing a 'reflection theory of truth', and that, either you are lying about knowing this, or that you are ignorant of holding this belief.Since I've openly said that I follow Marx's relational approach to our world, I believe that 'truth is a relationship', so I'm neither hiding anything from other comrades, nor ignorant of my own conceptual starting point.Why won't you be so open, DJP?Do you, like the Leninists, have something to hide from your fellow workers? Why not discuss our respective 'theories of truth'?PS. Your response is like someone asking about 'the worth of money' and being told about Marx's concept of 'value', and simply responding that you don't want to talk about 'value' or any concepts, but simply want to look at a £10 note and simply conclude that its 'worth £10'.You want to simply 'live in the real world'. After all, simply everybody knows what a £10 note is worth! £10 or two fivers! It's there in the writing on the bloody note! And bollocks to the theorising of Commie bastards like Marx.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

OK fine, I have no problems using the term "naturalism". I think everything of use has been summed up in YMS's post a couple above this one.

But YMS's post is in support of 'materialism'.If you are to agree with Marx's use of the term 'naturalism', it's to agree to stop using 'materialism', and to agree to Marx's unifying of idealism and materialism.So, 'naturalism', for Marx equals 'idealism-materialism'.So, we all stop calling Marx a 'materialist', and all start calling him a 'naturalist'…… which is tantamount to calling him an 'idealist-materialist'.Which is the exact opposite of YMS's post. Your illogical post baffles me, DJP.

[Author]

Posts