[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

You're going to have to put together some sort of reference text on your case, because personally I can't wade through pages and pages of discussion although I would like to understand. Something comprehensive would be good but even a short article would do.

I've given references to texts, short, medium and long, to easy, short articles and long-winded tomes, from the 19th century Commies like Marx, Engels and Dietzgen, early 20th century Marxists like Korsch, Lukacs and Pannekoek, to philosophers of science like Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos.I've done my best to help prevent comrades having to wade through enormous amounts of irrelevant tripe, by posting summaries, and explained using metaphor and analogy.I'm becoming more convinced that any comrades, wishing to understand, are going to have to either take account of what I argue and use that to build their own understanding, or they're going to have to do the same as me, and do the hard, long, difficult work.So, jondwhite, your choice: either build upon what I say, using questions to delve for deeper explanation, or ignore what I say, and go off and satisfy yourself about the issues taking the long and winding road.The simplest way I can put it, is that 'object' can't be separated from 'subject'. In plain English, that means that, if one wants to 'know' what a rock is, one has to look to the society producing that 'knowledge'.If someone wants to argue that they as an individual 'know' what 'a rock is', and that what they 'know' of 'a rock' would be exactly the same for them if they had been raised in a different society, that's fine by me.It just means that they separate 'object' (rock) from 'subject' (the social knower).The latter is the basis of positivist science, and is also the 'common sense' view of physics.You have to choose which philosophical assumption you wish to use as the basis of your explanation. The latter 'assumption' has been given to you already, by this society. A bit like 'money' , 'markets' and 'individuals'.If one starts from money, markets, individuals and separated object, one gets the society we have. I can't make comrades choose their starting point. Either they have become critical of all that the bourgeoisie have told them, or they have only partially done so.It's pointless me talking to the 'partials'; only the 'alls' will benefit, as I said at the start of the thread. I can't make people into Communists. They have to already have chosen that ideology, and ditched their former.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The test of democracy is: who initiates? who amends? who decides?  If the executive has exclusive capacity to initiate … that gives the most power to the parts of the constitution further from the electors and the population at large.Its a small thing, but it's part of a pattern of repeated filters and blocks that removes power from the population and into the hands of an elite.

But, you'll quite happily have this ideological method applied to the production of 'truth', YMS, as does robbo, and everyone else who posts on this site, as far as I can tell.No-one seems to see the contradiction. Everyone happily separates out 'matter' from 'consciousness', object from subject, nature from humanity, science from politics, rocks from ideas, fact from opinion, theory from practice, truth from democracy.Marx argued for unity. The idea of disunity of these factors is bourgeois ideology, a ruling class idea, not a 'personal opinion', that you all just happen to hold, co-incidentally, of your own volition. Even posters who've never read a single thing, and have only started posting very recently, and so haven't even read the numerous threads here, are all quite confident in 'their own' opinion of these issues.Wake up, comrades, or ban me completely, and then you can all go back to your 19th century slumbers.The myth, that 'sciences produces The Truth', and the scientists have a method which tells them this, and that 'Truth' cannot be elected by humanity, as a whole.

[LBird]

Some more food for thought, on the incorrectness of materialism’s claim to have objective knowledge (being without consciousness) when faced with a famous physicist’s claim (similar to Marx’s idealism-materialism) that knowledge is always social (being with consciousness). Knowledge is a social relationship of object and subject, not a reflection of object, without a subject. Thus, ‘truth’ is a social and historical creation of humans, not a timeless and asocial ‘Truth’.

Rhodes, p. 77, wrote:

“It is wrong,” he [Niels Bohr] told his colleagues repeatedly, “to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is” – which is the territory classical physics had claimed for itself. “Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/1471111237Materialism echoes classical physics; Einstein and Bohr echo Marx.Anyone want a discussion?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Why won't you address these points?

Because they are irrelevant.I've tried to talk to you about hunter gatherer society on a thread dedicated to that, but got nowhere.I've tried to talk to you about 'individualism' on a number of threads, but got nowhere.You won't discuss your ideology.You apparently think 'scientific knowledge' is 'true', rather than a social construct, created by 'theory and practice'.I've asked you to say what ideology you use to understand hunter gatherers, individualism, and science. But you won't answer.I've tried patience, comradely appeals, abuse, contempt, fawning, trickery, blackmail, violence, gang warfare…Only thing left is to ignore questions, if only to irritate you as much as I've been irritated.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

Quote:

That's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…

by the way fuck you.

That must be your 'scientific method', eh, CP?I'm just following your method – you call me 'a dick', I call you 'illiterate and ignorant'.But only one of us is correct.It never fails to amaze me, that people think they can hurl insults, then cry like babies when insults are returned.Are you so out of touch with life?Here we go, anyway… fuck you, too.Third warning:  7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

wow nice completely ignore all of my questions and call me ignorant.

wow nice completely ignore all of my answers and call me a dick.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

If none of this is relevant to your idea of science and how it should be carried out and implemented in society then you should be clearer about your own ideological position because i'm stumped 

You still haven't got it yet, have you, CP?You have to be clearer about your own, existing, 'ideological position' about 'your idea of science'.Then, you might have some hope of contrasting that with mine.Come back when you've read the links that I've already provided.If you think Mengele and Tuskegee are fine, we have no more to discuss.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

ok i'll read it but you don't have to be a dick

 He does. That's all there is to him.I think 'dick' is putting it mildly. 

I rest my case, CP.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

ok i'll read it but you don't have to be a dick

That's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i think part of my understanding is that during the revolution i begin to relate to my fellow workers, not as "class comrades"  but to use that cliche..people…individuals…friends …and neighbours …who have come together in solidarity….we recognise one another as human beings first and foremost…that is our commonality that we come to realise …we dump all the previous identities…class ….nationality…race…gender..all the other etceteras…

All sounds a bit '60s, hippy-ish, 'love and peace, maaaan', to me, alan.I'm inclined to think you're underestimating how much 'people…individuals…friends …and neighbours', as well as 'coming together in solidarity', will also have to develop their detestation and hatred of anything that smacks of socio-economic exploitation, and develop their conscious determination to smash their class enemies…So, peaceful change if the bourgeoisie submit and allow it, but…Let's hope they come to realise just how much of a mess their system is making of our world society and environment… I won't be holding my breath, though…I think Communism will come through class war, not 'love thy neighbour'. Some wars are short and sharp, relying on shock and awe… Let's hope the bourgeois fifth column is strong when the time comes, and betrays its origins…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I didn't say that LBird.   Stop misrepresenting my position!

Don't take things too seriously, robbo.Although I'm pretending that you've said things that you haven't, the purpose is to illustrate where what you are saying leads.So, it's not really 'misrepresentation', as much as 'clarification'.It's like when I 'misrepresent' the 'materialists' as them claiming that "The rocks speak to me!".It's a way of clarifying where their ideas lead, and why we should disregard their 'leadership'.Have a nice afternoon, comrade!

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

and my view of science is just a collection of knowledge and the pursuit of a greater knowledge in a multitude of subjects in the physical world.

That's so naively cute, CP!You clearly haven't read my link to Dr. Mengele's scientific activities.Have you heard of the Tuskegee Experiment, perchance?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experimentYou probably won't read that, either.Isn't the innocence of youth frightening, comrades?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

….then we relate to one another not as fellow workers and comrades but as neighbours and friends…just thought i throw that in without expanding on it.

I'll 'expand on it': you must have some unusual 'neighbours and friends', alan.All mine (and my relatives and enemies, too, funnily enough) all sell their labour for a living, since they don't own any of the means of production.In fact, some bloke called Charlie something-or-other pointed out that taking control of the means of production that they labour at is the key to workers taking control of their lives.No doubt you and your 'friends and neighbours' will just throw a little soiree during the revolution?You'll have to change your tag to abigailjjohnstone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail's_Party

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 the point is how did they FEEL about  it.

Yeah, individual feelings.Not an analysis based on socio-economic exploitation, ie. 'the point is' class.

Is that the best you can come up with, LBird? 

For those who can't understand what a 'relationship' is, yeah.You'll be telling us next that, as long as a slave or a worker FEELS 'free', they ARE FREE!Individual feelings, eh? 'They can't imprison our minds!'I suppose if bricks in a pile 'feel' like they are a wall, then they are!I recommend some structural analysis, long before the rabid wolf comes into sight.'Pilist' robbo versus 'Wallist' LBird? Hmmmm…. Who's advice will other workers follow?Any individualists will clearly follow Pilist robbo, and the wolf will be served dinner on a plate. Their arses might be in the wolf's stomach, but as long as the individualists 'feel' that their bum cheeks are still attached to their backsides, then they are.Yeah, right!

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 the point is how did they FEEL about  it.

Yeah, individual feelings.Not an analysis based on socio-economic exploitation, ie. 'the point is' class.

[Author]

Posts