[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

OK, so there's a vote between competing ideologies. Let's say one side is saying the earth is round, the other that it's flat. How am I to cast my vote? On a whim? On the idea I find more personally congenial or politically convenient? On what basis?

On the basis of your enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions with your comrades. If all your comrades say to you that 'the earth is round', based upon their enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions, and you disagree (perhaps for reasons 'personally congenial or politically convenient'), then you'll probably be outvoted.If, after later social enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions, your comrades come round to your way of thinking, and now agree that 'the earth is flat', then you'll now win the vote.And we'll all know that science is a social activity, and 'truth' is produced by humans.The difference is, the social actor will be the producers (not an expert elite), and we'll be able to account for the twists and turns of 'truth', which often changes, due to it being a social and historical production.If you're not interested, though, for any reason, why would you vote?If you are interested, then you'll be provided with the education, time and materials required, just like everybody else, to indulge your interests.What we won't be having, though, is a bunch of bluffers, a small minority, insisting that they are 'disinterested' and simply telling us 'how it is'. The priests will be prevented from insisting they have an access to the god-matter that we don't have, and that they can continue to hide their discussions in latin-mathematics.We can all have access and participate in whatever discussions we want to. That will be the purpose of our society, won't it? To develop all people on the planet as far as is possible. Truly, for the first time, we'll have a society dedicated to producing social-individuals, not the truncated specimens we are all, now, as 'individuals' [sic].

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Surely Duncan's 'truth' is that workers are voting for the SNP. 'Workers democracy' in action? I don't think it's right but there you go.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, jd."Workers' democracy" implies a class conscious and politically organised proletariat, not 'isolated individuals' who don't most often even call themselves "workers" voting for bourgeois parties.What makes you think unconscious scots voting for the SNP is 'workers' democracy in action'?I'm surprised at your statement, given the emphasis, as I understand it, within the SPGB, of the need for consciousness amongst workers.They're eating shit, as far as I can see, and I think that it's best to be open with them about it, and say 'don't eat shit!'.

[LBird]

duncan lucas wrote:

Stuart I base realism on actual actions not words and the fact that the SNP is being voted in by a majority of sCots thats realism not wishful thinking . I know you would rather they voted for the Socialist Party but they dont thats a fact .

duncan, I'd tell your fellow workers that voting 'No' is voting for shit with sugar on it, and voting 'Yes' is voting for shit with honey on it.And after the vote, either winner will withdraw the sweetener, and force them to eat shit.The answer is not to eat shit, and become a socialist.If your fellow workers are determined to eat shit, you can't prevent them, and can only try to provide an alternative, that might one day become a palatable alternative to shit, for them.That's 'realism' and 'fact', for them.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I know what you're saying, and agree with it to a point, but the point is the rub. You've not answered my question. You say that instead of a disinterested pursuit of the truth we should instead vote between competing ideologies. But how is one to vote? On what basis?

I thought I had answered your question: one votes on the basis of 'competing ideologies'. That democratic method produces a 'truth'. If we have reason for a later vote, and change our vote, then 'truth' changes, too.And what's all this guff about 'a disinterested pursuit of the truth' being a methodological option?You're the one who rightly said earlier that theories and evidence are ideological!Now, in contrast, you're claiming there's a basis in 'disinterested theories' seeking 'truthful evidence'?The problem's not with me failing to answer your question, stuart, but with you not understanding your own questions, and what they imply, in ideological beliefs, prior to the question's formulation. You're being inconsistent, from post to post.If you 'believe' in the 19th century religious dogma that 'reality' speaks to you, why not tell us 'how' it does so?The philosophers of science, who have debated this question throughout the 20th century, would be keen to hear your answer!Perhaps you know why Einstein was wrong?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What should the time- table be?Those bodies cannot be created artifically by any party but must in a sense grow organically from the working class themselves…

Time-table? Christ knows, because I don't.As you say, and I agree, workers' councils (or at least their embryo in, initially, perhaps, discussion groups of workers seeking to pose questions, to critically think, discuss and learn) must grow organically.Has there been any sign of this development, anywhere? Not as far as I know.

ajj wrote:

…Should we merely acknowledge their important role more in our literature …perhaps insisting upon their essential part of the revolutionary process in comparison with the political action…

Yes, I don't think that it's stressed enough. If the party is planning to hand over to Workers' Councils, given a parliamentary majority based upon just such an argument, then this should be clarified.

ajj wrote:

Or shall we be pre-emptive like the IWW and the SLP and laydown the guidelines prematurely and politically ineffectually since it would be a token gesture and ineffective.

No worker I know of, including myself, has ever paid a blind bit of notice to any 'party guidelines'.Workers know better than parties. The class will decide, not 'parties'. This attitude always seems to come as a shock to so-called "Workers' parties" – I'm not sure why, the parties pretend to be there to strengthen the workers, and when workers turn up, and who start telling the party what to do, the party seems a bit peeved.It's almost as if they intend to use the workers as a cover for party power……and they don't really believe in Workers' Power. They seem to have an attitude of 'who'd let that shower of fools run anything?' Lip service to democracy, too.As for the very notion of workers determining the validity of physics research…. god forbid, pass the smelling salts, Uncle Joe!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Have we given the necessary prominence to the extra-parliamentary power of the workers will have to create in parallel with the political action of the Socialist Party?

I'd answer 'No' to your question, alan.To me, the only justification for the SPGB strategy of winning a parliamentary majority is to allow that majority to legitimately hand parliamentary power over to Workers' Councils. Thus, those within the armed forces, police and civil service, who look towards parliamentary democracy for their legitimacy have an option of sticking to their self-proclaimed democratic views, and seeing a peaceful transfer of (their) legitimate authority.This all presupposes the creation of class conscious proletarian bodies, which also have armed force at their disposal.If all the state employees choose to reject their own professed loyalty to parliamentary democracy, and go with a coup against the elected majority, then a class war will follow. The alternative, that a majority or large minority choose peaceful democratic change, will undermine those elements who want to choose a coup. Perhaps Chile provides some examples of an officer corps, of which some at least tried to maintain their oath of allegience, to show that if a full majority have parliamentary authority, even a large percentage of (probably younger and more influenced by the revolutionary process) officers will take the peaceful route.I've suggested on other threads that the SPGB be clearer about this strategy of theirs, and name it 'Parliamentary Suicide', so that all workers and socialists in other parties are aware of just what it is that you propose.You do plan to hand over legitimacy to workers' councils, don't you, and dissolve 'parliament'?If you don't, then the critics of the SPGB are correct, and you plan for parliamentary party politics, and not revolutionary workers' power, direct democracy, and the democratic control of the means of production. These latter imply Workers' Councils, not a 'parliament'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

…the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality…

This notion of measuring an 'alternative' (ie. a product of science) with 'reality' (the thing itself) is known as 'the correspondence theory of truth'.The problem with it is: if we know how to get an account of 'reality' which doesn't involve humans and science, which we'd have to do to measure 'it' against the scientifically-produced 'alternative', the question arises:Why use 'science' to produce a series of 'alternatives'?Why not just go straight to 'reality'?The problem is 'what is the reality?' that you want to use to 'measure up to' when deciding between 'alternatives'?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

You say hold a vote, LB, but how is a rational individual to vote? Surely only by making a good faith effort to decide between the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality?

Sounds good, stuart.Remind me again, how can humans 'measure up reality'?As a Democratic Communist, I think that if humans are to 'measure up reality', they have to do it democratically.The alternative posited by the bourgeoisie, that 'reality tells us what it is', and we simply have to 'observe reality', has turned out to be not true.That's where we are today – the bourgeoisie argue that 'elite experts' should decide 'truth', because they have a neutral method. But we proletarians know that is not true, because the 'elite experts' do not have such a method, and the 'objective truth' they have produced has turned out to be nothing of the sort.If one believes in socialism (the democratic control of the means of production, including knowledge production), then one must believe in democratic control of all science.Of course, if one does not believe in socialism, then one is free to tell us just who, and how, a minority can tell the rest of us a truth that we can't discern for ourselves.Once more, stuart, it's a political choice. Does 'truth value' talk to you, stuart, because it doesn't to me, and I know it doesn't to 'scientists'?I'd define your 'good faith effort' as 'a democratic vote'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Good review of Diamond here:http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/422223.article

Some illuminating quotes from the review linked by stuart:

Quote:

No book can cover everything, and Diamond apologises for leaving gender relations and sexual inequalities unexplored. Unfortunately, this leaves the reader to infer that territorialism, warfare and male dominance are inevitable features of the human condition.

Quote:

Excellent when he sticks to science, Diamond is less convincing when he turns to politics. Here is an example: “Large populations can’t function without leaders who make the decisions, executives who carry out the decisions, and bureaucrats who administer the decisions and laws. Alas for all of you readers who are anarchists and dream of living without any state government, those are the reasons why your dream is unrealistic… ” As I read these lines, I had the funny feeling they were directly aimed at me! It would be interesting to research the extent to which anthropologists’ political beliefs correlate with those of the people they study.

The last line also reflects the tenor of what I said to stuart, earlier.If one is to show interest in hunter-gatherers, one has to first show interest in both academics' and one's own 'political beliefs'.The philosophical and ideological approach one espouses to 'science' will be included. Science is political.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB, in reply to post No. 50. Thanks, I follow your argument, and I see the (at least apparent) contradiction in mine.

This is all about us all learning, stuart. Realising what you have, can only strengthen your understanding of your own position, allow you to critically assess it, and come back with a better argument.

stuartw2112 wrote:

How, then, in your view, are we to discriminate between different ideologies or rival scientific theories? Are you saying that there's no way to apart from personal preference?

This is a massive, indeed revolutionary, issue!I've tried to discuss it on other threads, but we haven't got very far!My simple answer is 'a vote'. This is nothing to to with 'personal preference'.In context, if human understanding is socially-produced, then the only arbiter of 'truth' is social theory and practice. Humans can get it wrong, and so 'truth' being a human product, can turn out to be 'not true'. We can follow the twists and turns of 'truth' if we use a historical account of science, where we constantly find "today's truth" is "tomorrow's error".If, in a Communist society, where there is no other social authority than the direct producers, organised democratically, then the answer to 'what is true at any given moment' is a matter of a democratic vote.Of course, those enamoured of 19th century positivist science, and hatred of 'mob rule', want to retain 'truth' for 'objective reality'.Problem is, we now know that humans don't have unmediated access to 'reality', and our understanding of 'reality' is always a social and historical understanding. An added complication is that Engels fell hook, line and sinker for the massive advances made by 'science' in the 19th century, and so we now have a misleading heritage of 'Materialism' to overcome, a materialism that says 'matter' tells us 'what it is'. A bit like you earlier wanting to know the simple truth of hunter-gatherer society, of 'what it was' without the intervention of all the ideologies and anthropologists' conflicting opinions.So, the Communist scientific method would involve democratic 'discrimination' between rival ideologies and theories.Of course, the 'objective scientists' (egged on by the bourgeoisie, who can see a challenge to their authority to determine 'truth' coming on), are outraged by the mere suggestion of 'democracy in knowledge production'!By Christ, it's revolutionary twaddle! They want 'truth' left to the elite experts, university-trained cadre, reporting to their research professors, like that nice Dr. Mengele…And they'd have us 'respect' the academic anthropologists, rather than laugh at their bourgeois pretensions and ideologies, as they try to convince that 'society now' is natural.I'd start by asking the anthropologist if they believe in 'private property' or 'the democratic control of the means of production', and take their 'scientific answers' in that light.And then look at your own views on current and future society, and your beliefs about its possibilities and restraints, and I think that you'll find your contemporary beliefs to be reflected in the 'research' that you prefer to agree with.We're all looking at 'hunter-gatherer' society through today's lenses, and this is inescapable. Einstein's physics, and all that….

[LBird]

One of the key concepts to be addressed is the concept of 'violence' in anthropology.Does it mean 'personal physical violence'? That is, say, a biological human hitting another human?Or does it mean 'social structured violence'? That is, say, war between groups of humans?If an anthropologist tends to see society as a collection of individuals (free or not) and look to personal emotions (jealousy, envy, hate, love, etc.), and mostly ignores questions of structural power and the ideologies that flow from power, then this anthropologist will tend to see manifestations of 'violence' in hunter-gatherer society, simply because one can find human emotions and their effects in h-g society.On the other hand, if an anthropologist tends to see society as a specific historical structure, which has qualities outside of the biological and emotional qualities of the humans who make up that society, and regards 'violence' as a social, structural 'fact', then this anthropologist will tend not to find 'violence' in h-g society, because the structures that produce 'violence' don't exist.Of course, these different ideological positions taken by various anthropologists will tend to reflect their ideological position regarding the society that they themselves live in now.If they regard themselves as a 'free individual', they'll tend to stress 'individuality' in explanations about h-g societies.If they regard themselves as a 'socially structured being', they'll tend to stress 'structures' in explanantions about h-g societies.So, my advice to comrades is, when reading anthropological accounts, is to try to uncover the underlying (and most often unacknowledged) ideology of the anthropologist writing the account.If one defines 'violence as hitting', one will find 'violence' in h-g societies.If one defines 'violence as war', one will not find 'violence' in h-g-societies.As stuart said earlier, ones 'definitions' and 'evidence' flows from one's ideology, and as long as one is aware of (and preferably exposes to others) one's ideology, one can come to understand conflicting accounts by anthropologists, often about the same h-g communities.As an aside, any socialist that has had to explain the difference between 'private property' (defined by the bourgeoisie as 'anything one owns', from underpants to multi-national banks, which implies we all support the right to 'private property – who doesn't want to 'own' their own private underpants?) and 'private property' (defined by socialists as 'socially-productive property', not including one's own personal possessions, for own use, which implies we don't support the right to 'private property' because productive property belongs to us all), has had to deal with this debate between common-sense definitions and politically-aware definitions. The 'evidence' lies in the 'definition', and we 'discover' what we want to, to support our theories.We socialists must employ politically-aware definitions within anthropology. As such, we'd start from a definition of 'violence equals war', and reject any anthropologists who 'discover evidence' of two individuals fighting and killing in a h-g society, and thus draw the conclusion that 'h-g society is violent' (and thus, 'violence is natural' in all societies, because we can always find 'violent' individuals).What do we mean by 'violence', comrades?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

There is nothing contradictory about the above statement. I'm talking about what  people capable of doing; I'm not necessarily trying to explain what causes them to do what they do.

This is meaningless, robbo.Humans are capable of flying. Would you claim humans 'naturally' fly?When people talk of 'naturally capable', they mean 'natural', with all the baggage that implies. Otherwise, why not just say 'capable', with no mention of 'nature'?

robbo203 wrote:

Yes , we know all this LBird.  Why do you feel the need to endlessly repeat this same old argument as if know one else apart from your good self is privy to the insight that there is no such thing as a value free anthropology  or science?  Can  we kinda move on with the argument a bit, eh? ..  Its getting quite boring hearing the same old thing being constantly regurgitated

So, why not openly state your 'values'? And we can move the argument on a bit. You're the blockage.For example, tell us why you feel the need to say 'naturally capable' when it turns out you mean 'socially capable'? Simply, it's because if you move away from 'natural' claims, I'll demand the basis of your 'social' claims.So, you hide your 'social' ideology behind the 'value-loaded' claim of 'naturally'?You're right, there is no such thing as value-free anthropology. But yet you hide, and squirm, and avoid, and blame me…

[LBird]

stuart, you argue for:

stuartw2112 wrote:

What I'm saying is that a non-ideological approach would be to think of a way forward…

but then admit:

stuartw2112 wrote:

Defining who hunter-gathers are, for example, may be tricky and ideologically loaded. Equally so the evidence…

If 'definitions' and 'evidence' are 'ideologically loaded', how can there be a 'non-ideological approach'?

stuartw2112 wrote:

… part of the overall scientific method – and the result, surely, is to edge beyond ideology and into objective reality…

That this myth, of 'scientific method' being about 'edging into objective reality', is a myth, is shown by what you seem to realise earlier.

stuartw2112 wrote:

Never mind the "savage", noble or otherwise, what is the truth of the matter?

Ahhh… the eternal plea for 'the truth of the matter'…If you think that 'The Truth' can be got to, without human intervention, then you're arguing for the 19th century method of positivist science, stuart.That's fair enough, if you want to do so, but then it is itself an entirely ideological approach to the production of human knowledge, whether anthropology or physics.My simple point stands: if you want 'the truth of the matter', that wish is an ideological wish, and you should be open about this to yourself, as well as to us, in any discussion about hunter-gatherers.If you start from the assumption that 'humans are naturally violent', you'll simply find that 'hunter-gatherers are violent'. As you yourself say, the definitions and evidence will be very clear about 'what facts are found'.It's as if you can see the strength of my argument, stuart, but won't take it to its obvious conclusion: Science is ideological.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I see what you're saying, and agree with a fair amount of it, but when you say, "Show me your ideology, I'll show you mine", it's not entirely clear how one is to respond. I don't know the answer. My ideology is that I try, strive, aim to do without one. Will that do?

Well, perhaps an illustration of an issue regarding 'hunter-gatherers', and perhaps robbo and YMS can give some more detail, too.Someone has already mentioned the issue of 'band' versus 'tribe', as the basis of h-g society.Problem is, if 'band' is defined as 'non-violent small group', and 'tribe' is defined as 'bit violent large group', and one lot of anthropologists 'discover' 'bands' and equate them with h-g, whilst another lot 'discover' 'tribes' and equate them with h-g, then the anthropologists who seek violence to justify capitalism as natural, and the anthropologists who seek non-violence to justify socialism, will find the 'objective evidence' to support their respective 'scientific' positions.This is only a simple example of the intertwining of frameworks of definition, evidence and sought-after results being 'discovered'.It's simpler to understand what one is reading, if one knows 'up-front' what the anthropologist is seeking to justify. That's usually a function of the anthropologist's ideology, which they've picked up from the society in which they live.Perhaps we could move forward simply be producing a list of problematic terms, definitions, like 'violence', etc.?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Thanks LB. If we don't share ideologies, is genuine communication possible? I'd say probably not – perhaps another cause of all the violence and craziness in the world!

stuart, I think that 'genuine communication' (and comradelyness) is entirely possible!To me, the foundation of this communication, on any topic, is to simply be open about respective ideologies. We don't have to share an ideology, but the exposing of both of the communicating ideologies (and their necessary axioms and assumptions) helps to illustrate our differences – philosophical, ideological, metaphysical, political.One can argue that a zebra crossing is white in colour (because one doesn't recognise 'black' as a colour), or vice versa.It is the exposing of what we mean by 'colour' or define by 'crossing' which allows us to recognise why we disagree.The disagreement doesn't of necessity have to be hostile – we can 'agree to disagree' and have learnt to recognise both our own axioms/assumptions and those of an opposing framework.This explanation of mine seems very reasonable, I think, until one comes across the belief that 'reality tells us what it is' (the belief that 'facts' are simply 'out there' waiting to be 'discovered').This is, in effect, a religious ideology, the belief in 'Truth', a truth which stands completely apart from human attempts to 'understand what exists'.As I've said, I can quite happily talk about my ideological views about myself, about anthropology, about anthropologists, and about 'hunter-gatherers'. If you can do this, too, we can compare and contrast our ideological views about all these issues, and get some help from other, better-read comrades.But, for those who just want to read quickly about 'The Truth' of 'hunter-gatherers' (the 'objective science', untainted by ideology), then we immediately hit problems.'They' claim to be un-ideological, and simply seek The Truth, and so reject the ideological belief (which I hold) that exposure of ideology is a necessary starting point.The bourgeoisie have been claiming for 300 hundred years that they have a method for producing The Truth (whether about anthropology or rocks), and it gives their ideological prize-fighters (the 'objective scientists') a great political legitimacy, authority and thus power.They try to employ this power in the sphere of anthropology, too, because so much is at stake in claiming the past as the basis for capitalism (and as we try to do so for communism).If any comrades are thinking "I'll just read some proper, objective, scientific anthopology, and thus quickly understand 'hunter-gatherers", they've got a nasty shock coming.This is science. 21st century science, stuart.

[Author]

Posts