[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I think LB's basic problem is that he has fallen into the trap of holistic thinking…

You'd do well to read what I write, robbo, and try to recognise your own ideological perspective.To an individualist, like you (or YMS), any attempt whatsoever to move the focus away from 'individuals' will be regarded as 'holistic thinking'.There is a mid point between the two, perhaps best represented by Margaret Archer in her book Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Realist-Social-Theory-Morphogenetic-Approach/dp/0521484421Perhaps you could have a read of it?You probably won't, because, from what I can tell from 18 months discussions, no-one here actually reads anything to do with the subjects we discuss, but simply give knee-jerk reactions, based upon their own existing and unacknowledged ideologies.I'm the opposite: I've bought many books recommended by comrades, not least Pannekoek, Dietzgen and Untermann.The other ones that I've bought, based upon my own development, run into dozens. At least I'm learning.This thread would probably be better served by letting Hud criticise what I say, because I've had lots of discussions with you, and we all know already where it will lead.You'll 'pooh-pooh' democracy in social production. You won't have 'truth' elected. You want elite control of science. Oh yeah, and you want 'free association', not 'workers' power'.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

To save you any further hassle from the moderator LB, I've transferred my last reply to you in the Chomsky forum to this new thread.

Thanks for that Hud.This discussion here will also be relevant to the 'anthropology' discussion, too.Your post was a very long one, but I think it can be reduced, in essence, to this question, and your answer to it:

Hud955 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm beginning to think that you regard political philosophy as not being at the root of science.

You would be correct.     

Are you happy with my attempt to focus on this core issue, which I think will get to the heart of our disagreements on this site?I think once this issue is clarified, every other issue in your post will be seen in the light of our respective answers to this core philosophical issue.

[LBird]

I refer you to my post #67 about method, Hud, for which I received a warning.But I can't help commenting on the confusion of your last post.

Hud955 wrote:

The methodological individualism that lies at the root of his linguistics is a different beast.  This is an analytical tool, not a social or political statement.

[my bold]So, 'methodological individualism' is not political?

Hud955 wrote:

What is interesting about this is that methodological individualism is often at the root of theories proposed by those with pro-capitalist sympathies (often but not always).  And it is not difficult to see why that should be so.  It can certainly be linked with the political ideology of bourgeois individualism.  But while it has political implications…

[my bold]So, 'methodological individualism' is political?

Hud955 wrote:

…methodological individualim itself makes no value judgements and  has no political content.

That's an astonishing statement, Hud.No value judgements or political content? You don't think the theory is related to social classes and their historical development, and their ethics? Simply astonishing.

Hud955 wrote:

…you will need to explain how someone with a commitment to working class politics…

Chomsky has a commitment to Communism, to workers' power, to the end of private property, the market and money, and to the democratic control of world production (including production of scientific knowledge and truth)?I don't think so. Chomsky's 'methodological individualism' is the philosophical basis of his 'biological determinism' and his individualist, 'free-thinker', 'free association' Anarchism.His research, his selection parameters, which he employs to select his 'facts' (see my post 67 about your incorrect method), and his 'evidence' and 'proof' about individuals having biological mechanisms which determine their ahistoric and asocial language abilities, are all totally at odds with anything whatsoever to do with our Communist politics, philosophy or method.I'm beginning to think that you regard political philosophy as not being at the root of science.Y'know, that human and social activity, that the bourgeoisie pretend is an objective, neutral method to get at 'The Truth', and are supported in this myth by academics, who can see the threat, too, to their power, legitimacy and authority, when confronted with claims for democratic controls.Many physicists since Einstein have been aware that science is based upon 'theory and practice', as Marx argued, and not 'theory alone' or 'practice alone' or 'practice and theory'.Roll on my next warning.Thanks, Hud.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

His methodological individualism, his Cartesianism and his biological determinism are the intellectual foundations on which his linguistic theories rest.  These are intellectual positions usually associated with capitalist or propertarian ideologies, political viewpoints very different from Chomsky's own.

[my bold]I'm just going to have to be happy with what you've publicly said here, Hud, and leave it at that, because I'm going to get banned (yet again) for asking questions about our proletarian method. My warnings from the moderator are stacking up.Hopefully, either you or another poster will deepen these insights into Chomsky's ideological foundations, upon which are built his parameters of selection for 'evidence'.Our selection parameters will be very different, because we have different 'foundations/positions/ideologies/viewpoints' , as you call them, from Chomsky's 'capitalist/propertarian' ones.Put simply, he's a bourgeois academic, and workers should be aware of this, when reading his necessarily biased work.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

You have to start with evidence … and then , applying a general theoretical understanding to it, see where that takes you.

This is not the scientific method, Hud.One does not start with 'evidence'.What counts as evidence is tied to one's theory.Even bourgeois philosophers of science have got that far – so why are we here ignoring the scientific method, as pointed out by Marx, of 'theory and practice'?You are employing a method of 'practice and theory'.Even you will admit that 'facts' are 'theory-laden', so how can you argue that one 'starts with the evidence'? The 'evidence' is tainted by theory from the start.Why not be open about our theories, which point to 'evidence'?Chomsky's theories point to 'evidence' that we wouldn't accept; the sooner we examine Chomsky's ideology, the sooner we'll understand why his 'evidence' is flawed, from our socialist perspective.There is no simple evidence. You are making a methodological error. It's not science.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

…your half sensible/half looney claims about "ideology"…

The usual response, stuart.You know there's something to it (as do the academics in their prefaces, as do all who pay lip-service to the fruits of 20th century philosophy of science), but you don't like where it takes us, in practice (so talk of 'fanaticism', 'diatribe' and 'looney').I'd ask you which ideology you use, but I'll bet you'll protest 'But, I'm an individual, with my own opinions, and I merely weight the objective evidence', without any recognition that those are precisely the ideas that the ruling class expounds.It must be pure co-incidence, that a Communist who argues for democracy in truth production is deemed a 'looney'.It certainly scares the academics, who populate bourgeois academia, whose elite expert role would come under question by the class conscious proletariat.I ask a proper question, stuart: if workers are to democratically control the means of production, doesn't that include scientific knowledge and the social production of 'truth'?If not, who is to control science and truth?Or do you believe the bourgeois mythology about 'disinterested academics' employing a 'neutral method', only concerned to reveal 'The Truth' by dispassionate examination of 'The Facts'?Unfortunately, the 'looney claims' are as true as the sensible ones, about ideology.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

But there you go – a site which claims to be giving a lead to workers

We don't claim that.

You certainly don't, YMS.The whole concept of 'workers', never mind 'democracy', or, god forbid, 'workers' power' are anathema to your individualism.But don't worry about the substance of my earlier post to Hud, and just concentrate on your own ideology.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

But ok so instead of relying on experience you just rely on theory.

You'll fit in very well on this site, CP. The rest here can't read my posts, either.Let's try again. Not just 'theory'.Theory and practice.Some bloke called Karl Marx, apparently.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

I'm sure it has occurred to you, LB, that your own political ideology is playing a massive role in your insistance on this claim…

That's perfectly correct, and I clearly and openly tell everyone what ideology I am employing.I'm a Democratic Communist, and a Marxist.But… no-one else will declare which ideology tells them what to say. They all appear to believe that they are all individuals, and their opinions are their personal thoughts. Crazy, isn't it, to anyone who's lived through the 20th century. But there you go – a site which claims to be giving a lead to workers in the 21st century actually espouses 19th century scientific thought. Y'know, 'academics' are outside of political ideology, and 'science' has an 'objective method' which is a 'neutral' route to The Truth.Einstein, never mind Marx, would weep. Over a hundred years later, and workers still look to 'elite experts' to 'tell them The Truth'. Who'd've thought it?And mention 'democracy' in the production of social knowledge, and the 'individualists' really start to protest!

Hud955 wrote:

In general, I would agree with you.

Yes, everyone who has read any methodology at all says this. It's in the preface of every academics' book. And every student genuflects to the 'theory-ladenness of facts'. Some here have actually read Carr's What is History?But… when it comes to their 'practice', proclaimed 'theory' goes out of the window, and we return to 19th century science, within which the 'facts' speak for themselves, and if we just stick to the empirical detail, the correct theory will emerge.If I ask what ideology they use to critically understand a rock, they all appear completely baffled. 'Rock?'. 'Theory?' And worst of all, 'Criticism?'.No, they always say 'I know what a rock is when I see one, and I'm not having a democratic commune telling me otherwise!'. Who shall gainsay individual experience and sensual feeling?

Hud955 wrote:

In the individual instance, though, the influence of a political idieology on a train of thought…

Ahhh… the 'get-out clause'. Lip service to 'theory', then return to 'facts' and 'individuals'. Which 19th century ideology stressed facts, individualism, and 'amateur experts'? Liberalism, perchance?

Hud955 wrote:

I've put this challenge to you before. Show us exactly how Chomsky's political ideology plays a massive role in his views about linguistics and you will have made a substantial contribution to the discussion.

Let's see. Chomsky stresses 'individuals', their 'biology' (not their socially-produced thought) and the role of 'elite experts' like himself, in the production of social knowledge. Chomsky would shit himself at the very idea that a vote by workers should determine whether his ideas have any 'truth' or not. Some here would, too. So much for socialism being workers' power.But you apparently can't see this, Hud. You can't see how Chomsky's political ideology plays, not only a massive role in his views on linguistics, but also a massive role in his so-called 'Anarchism'. We have quite a few here who also subscribe to 'free individuals', rather than 'democratic control of production'.

Hud955 wrote:

As a matter of fact I do think Chomsky's politics have a bearing on his linguistics and vice versa but perhaps not in the direct way that I think you are insisting on here.

Well, you'll have to explain to me how you conceive of 'politics having a bearing' in a 'non-political' way.Perhaps you have a 'theory' of 'indirect ideology'? I've never heard of this, but I'm all ears, for yet another attempt to remove social theories from individuals' thinking.Why not just assume Chomsky isn't very bright? Academics, in my experience as a worker, have an inflated sense of their own abilities, and dislike us talking to them they way they talk to us. Y'know, condescendingly.

Hud955 wrote:

As I have already said, although my conclusions are not exactly the same as Chris Knight's they are heavily influenced by the contents of his forthcoming book, and I don't want to take advantage of  the massive amount of work he has put into it or his resulting insights by commenting on that now.  But watch this space.

I have no problem at all with you being circumspect about Chris Knight's work. We all have a crust to earn.But my questions aren't really about the intricacies of a single, modern academic's attempt to justify their existence to their bosses, but about why 19th century scientific method, which is entirely outdated, has such a hold over socialists, now.How can't you see that 'theory' precedes 'practice'? Regarding Chomsky, and Knight, and you, and me, and all humans.And if you can, tell me your 'theory'. This does not require 'empirical facts', 'anthropological details', or 'subtleties of linguistics'.Chomsky is an individualist, and assumes that the answer to social questions lies in 'biological tissue'. He has an ideology, and that provides the basis for his research. As Lakatos called it, 'negative and positive heuristics': 'what' to look for, and 'what' to ignore. We all do it, we all wear ideological blinkers, and that's the human condition.That's the lesson of the 20th century, and why it seems not to have any affect on socialists and so-called 'Marxists', baffles me. Our answers lie in criticising Chomsky's ideological beliefs, not in trying to disprove his wacky ideas. They can't be disproved, because we don't share the same ideology. There are not a set of undisputed facts 'out there' waiting to be 'discovered', which will allow us to show him to be wrong.And anyone who argues that 'we need to keep an open mind', as if that's what scientists do, needs to read some philosophy and methodology. The 20th century kind. Marx and Einstein have been dead for years, and yet we're still under the influence of the ruling class ideas that their work undermined.'Academics'?Mengele.

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

What I would say, is that one asks people to look around at the contradictions Capitalism throws up by its very existence.Homeless people alongside empty unoccupid properties.Hungry, starving people, alongside destroyed food. Fields left fallow to keep prices high.Sick people, denied drugs because of "cost", when the ingredients of the same, cost pennies.These are just a few examples. As one lives ones life, these contradictions leap out at you.

I disagree that 'these contradictions leap out at you', steve.That's to assume the same method that CP was arguing for: 'experience alone'.That is, that 'experience' of all the things you mention by 'looking around' will make the 'contradictions' clear.All these (to us, terrible) phenomena can be explained away if one uses the 'theory of the market'. Since we live in a society that tells everyone from birth that 'the market works – how else would we eat?', these phenomena can be explained away as just 'unavoidable consequences', just like 'death is an unavoidable consequence of life'.Unless 'people' 'look around' with a different theory (ie. socialist theory), then the conditions you describe will remain 'horrible but necessary' to those just using their eyes.The material conditions do not speak to us, matter does not tell us what it is.The correct method, as I've said to CP, is Marx's 'theory and practice'. 'Practice/experience alone' will not do this. 'Experience' means 'capitalist understanding'.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I don't understand the point your trying to make from 'experience alone'.

Simply, that 'experience alone' doesn't exist for humans.If you think it does, I'd ask 'who told you so?', because you didn't emerge from the womb able to do 'experience alone', you had to be taught by, initially, your parents and close relatives, and later, by teachers, priests, politicians and scientists.They were all already brought up in a society, consisting of the same influential roles that you and me were brought up. So, they learned and taught, as do you and I. Humans are social animals.One of the ruling class ideas within our society is that 'we are all individuals', and that 'individual experience' is the source of knowledge (what you called 'experience alone').In fact, all humans have always learned from the society in which they have grown up, and so the notion of 'experience alone' is not only invalid, but also a ruling class idea to help prevent all of us asking 'where do we get our ideas from?'.If the source of an individual's ideas are 'experience alone', then they don't have to even ask that question, never mind try to answer it.My advice to you is to ask further why you think 'experience alone' is even possible.The socialist answer is 'it isn't', and we live in a society where knowledge is produced by society, and so has social characteristics.If you conclude that 'experience alone' is valid and possible, then I think you'll have difficulty coming to understand the socialist viewpoint.Hope that helps, CP.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

…experience alone seems to be the best modal now.

No, Marx argued for the view that humans do 'theory and practice'.'Experience alone' just means that the 'theory' part of the inescapable couplet is provided by a hidden, unacknowledged, ruling class theory.All humans use theory and practice.So, 'experience alone' in our world is actually 'ruling class ideas and ruling class practice'.I think that this is reflected in your questions, which contain assumptions (ie. a 'theory') which socialists don't share.

[LBird]

I'd like to support mcolome1's view that Chomsky's political ideology plays a massive role in his views about linguistics. It could not be otherwise.The view expressed earlier on the thread that Chomsky is an 'apolitical academic', a 'scientist simply seeking the Truth', and that his notion of a 'universal grammar inherent in biological individuals' is not political, is simply laughable. Science is political.I gave up commenting when that view seemed to be expressed as the agreed way to understand science, Chomsky, and 'LAD's.I leave it at that – good luck with the 19th century ideology, comrades!Perhaps you'll have more success than me, mcolome1. I hope so.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Structurally induced warfare on the other hand seems to be related primarily to delayed return systems and so includes states, tribes and delayed return hunter gatherers.  In other words delayed return hunter gatherers do sometimes make war, though less on the whole than tribes and states.

Why wouldn't the concepts 'peace-band' and 'war-band' apply to these 'empirical facts'?

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

I'm not a biological determinist, I'm a cultural materialist.

Thank god, at last!Someone who agrees with Marx's 'idealism-materialism'.

[Author]

Posts