[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

what 'bunch of theories' do you use to understand the world?

All of them, but probably not all of them at the same time depending on what it is I'm focusing on…

World revolution? Isn't that what your 'focus' is upon?Don't you think that even physics will be part of that revolution?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

There must be a 'unifying' theory behind the 'bunch'.

Why presume that? There's no good reason to really think there is, look into all the recent work on cognitive biases…

So, you don't think Socialism/Communism is a 'unifying theory'?Do you assume that both bourgeois thinkers and socialist thinkers are of equal worth to workers?I must be clear, that I think S/C is a 'unifying theory', and I think the working class must produce thinkers that can undermine bourgeois theorists.I'm not sure why you don't 'presume that', too, if you think socialism is possible.Do you think that the bourgeoisie are going to provide the intellectual leadership for us? Isn't that the way the Leninists think?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.

Of course it does. But I'd call that a theory or a bunch of theories, not an ideology.

Right. 'Of course it does'. So, to use your terminology, what 'bunch of theories' do you use to understand the world?There must be a 'unifying' theory behind the 'bunch', otherwise the 'bunch' would be eclectic and self-contradictory, and give you differing answers when combined with your practice on the world.Why not just call this central 'theory' 'Socialism' (or 'Communism'), and explain how it helps you to understand the physical/material world?Unless it isn't, and doesn't.

[LBird]

Quick point, DJP. Be sure to clarify for yourself the philosophical ideology of John Michael Roberts, the author of the text that you've mentioned.I've just had a look at the site, and can't get access to the article. So much for 'free access' between Communists, eh?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I do not have an ideology. …How long do you want me to go on?…

So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.This is my whole point: I'm a Communist, and I use that ideology to try to understand the world. What's more, because I'm a Communist, and I know that society is divided, and thus knowledge produced by that society is divided, I also know that if someone claims either to be non-ideological or non-Communist, that they're bullshitting me, either deliberately (in the case of academics of the bourgeoisie) or through ignorance (other comrades who haven't yet become aware that 'ideas' are required to make sense of the world). And 'ideas' are always political. Even about 'nature'.To be frank, my belief that 'ignorance' is involved (rather than a thought-out bourgeois defence) has been confirmed by my experiences here.

DJP wrote:

FWIW There's an interesting looking article on Marxism and CR is Capital and Class number 68 which I'm about to go through..

I'd be extremely obliged to you, DJP, if you could supply me with a copy of this text. I haven't read it, and don't have access to Capital and Class.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

They think: 'Surely the material tells us 'what it is'?' and 'Matter precedes ideas' and so they don't have to actively think, critically and creatively about 'what the material is', and that this thinking can change, and so the 'material' changes for us. The 'materialists' believe that they have access to the 'material', which remains fixed, as does 'knowledge' of it.

I don't think anyone has been defending this position, apart from the strawmen created by your own imagination..

I see you missed out the line preceding, DJP!

LBird wrote:

You've only got to ask a 'materialist' what 'theory' they use, and they are baffled.

Why not tell us either your ideology, or the ideology of the stanford site you quote so often?If you're not 'defending the position that one doesn't need an ideology to understand the material', why not tell us the one you employ to understand the 'material'?'Materialists' always insist that they don't need to expose their ideology, because one doesn't need an ideology to understand the material.'Materialists' seem to think that the 'concrete' talks to them, as opposed to Marx's 'theory and practice'. Engels' mistaken view of Marx has encouraged his followers to think that 'ideas' are not required to make sense of the material. They castigate this as 'idealism'.The reason you won't answer me, DJP, is not because of my supposed 'strawmanning', but because you really believe that you don't require an ideology to understand the material.Otherwise, you'd tell me your ideology.

[LBird]

I have to say, that the SPGB seems to have been engaged, since I've been posting here, in putting up a very poor rearguard defence of 19th century 'materialism'.And I say the 'SPGB' advisedly, because even if 'materialism' isn't the 'official' philosophy of the SPGB, I've had experience of no members (or even sympathisers) showing any knowledge whatsoever of the developments of the 20th century, and joining in my attempt to build an explanation of 'value' (for example, or of 'historical materialism') for the 21st century.It's as if time stopped in 1904, and what was then the 'Mainstream Marxism' (ie. Engelsism) has been lovingly protected from all-comers, whether those seeking to destroy Marxism and science, or to save it.I count myself as amongst the latter, because I've been alive well after 1904, and can read what's been written since then.The old 'materialism' just doesn't stand up to modern criticism, so it's a great relief when Marxists discover that Marx wasn't a 'materialist'. One only has to read his works to discover the element of 'creative human thought', which precedes ' human action'. That's why we talk about 'theory and practice'.You've only got to ask a 'materialist' what 'theory' they use, and they are baffled. They think: 'Surely the material tells us 'what it is'?' and 'Matter precedes ideas' and so they don't have to actively think, critically and creatively about 'what the material is', and that this thinking can change, and so the 'material' changes for us. The 'materialists' believe that they have access to the 'material', which remains fixed, as does 'knowledge' of it.After all, it's 'matter', isn't it? Concrete, not like those nasty 'abstractions' that the evil 'idealists' inflict upon us!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why not compare what Archer says about 'criteria of existence' with what stanford says about both these criteria and others that they can think of?

Because all I have read about Critical Realism over the last 18 months or so does not make me think that doing so would be the most productive way to use my time or money right now. If you think that CR is such a good thing, and want to persuade us of it, then this would be something for you to do…

But I've already done this!The fact that you've ignored all my attempts to show that Marx was (what we would call today) a Critical Realist, doesn't mean it hasn't been attempted.Since I started this thread to show that Marx wasn't a 'materialist', but something to do with 'human production', which can be called 'idealism-materialism' or 'critical realism', I've tried to help show why this works.And the concept of a 'causal criterion of existence', which stresses powers and thus production, fits well with Marx's concept of 'value'.If 'all you have read about CR over 18 months' hasn't convinced you, fair enough, but then given that I've shown how CR can help us understand rocks, cars, society, value, etc., etc., then I think that the ball's in your court to detail an alternative to CR that can do these things, too.My purpose, as I always say, is to help workers come to an understanding of Marx's works, which I don't think that Communists have done in the past.I've shown that, if someone can understand 'cars', they can understand 'value', too. Unless Marx's poorly explained ideas are re-thought and explained properly to a new generation of workers, then we won't see any advance to socialism this century, either.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

When I say "realism" and you say "realism" it seems we are referring to different concepts.

Well, you seem to have learned something.Why not compare what Archer says about 'criteria of existence' with what stanford says about both these criteria and others that they can think of?Then you'll know both uses of the concept of 'realism'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Sorry last time I checked that is not what "realism" means..

Another way of explaining your method.It's like someone asking the SPGB what 'socialism' is, and then being given a reply which contains references to 'democracy'.But then, that someone retorting that 'socialism is not democratic!', and posting a link to the East German DDR regime, to 'prove' what socialism really is, ie. Stalinism.Whilst you insist that you have access to a way of thinking that means you don't have to read what others are actually saying about themselves, then you'll never understand.Why not read Archer's book, which I referred to, rather than just dismissing 'realism'? (or, pretending that you know what 'realism' is, because some non-realists told you 'what it is').

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm merely trying to help you see the differences between 'materialism' (perceptual existence, something to be sensed) and 'realism' (causal existence, a power to make things happen). 

Sorry last time I checked that is not what "realism" means..http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/

Well, I've tried to help you, DJP.Unless you start to question what ideology your links are espousing, you'll remain confused.If you want to know what 'realism' means, why not ask comrades their opinion, and then think about it, rather than posting an uncriticised link?Essentially, what you're doing is responding to Marxists trying to explain what 'value' means, by posting links to sites written by neo-classical economists.Well, it's no point you reading any further when I discuss 'realism', because you're using the wrong ideology to understand me. If you're not prepared to try to understand realism in terms that a realist uses, then I can't help you any further.I suspect you think that there is an 'objective point' in the universe, and that plato.stanford.edu has access to it.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I can't imagine a socialist wishing to inflict harm to a child.

You can't?! I've had kids, SP!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The objects of study are different because some are repeatable and amenabl to experiment…

Well, this is certainly a basic staple of bourgeois ideology about science, YMS! In fact, much of physics is not even 'experimentable', never mind 'repeatable'. And experiments are human constructs, not contemplation of the object, which Marx condemned. So, to 'experiment' is to interfere.

YMS wrote:

…whereas some events are not repeatable and capable only of explanation.

So, for you, some science, at least, is not capable of explanation? That's a strange position to take. Perhaps I've misunderstood you.

YMS wrote:

The unifying force is history and historical explanation and the understaqnding of the human role in both processs.

[my italics]But 'understanding of the human role' applies to 'rocks', just as much as 'the state', surely?'Understanding' in physics has a history, which is recognised by the bourgeois thinkers, as much as by us. Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos come to mind. 'Selecting' which rock to study, for example, is a human choice. Rocks do not force themselves upon us! And rocks are parts of structures, so selecting a 'rock' to study requires parameters of selection which discard some aspects of the rock.

YMS wrote:

No amount of power effects the peterbations of venus but it can (has and does) effect the decision and process to look at them.

But science isn't about 'the peterbations of venus', but is about 'our understanding of the peterbations of venus', a human and social understanding which is entirely within the range of 'power'.This distinction is at the heart of the debate with positivists: they claim to know the 'object' (the p of v), whereas scientists since Einstein have known that they are dealing with 'knowledge' of the object (social knowledge of the p of v).'Knowledge' and 'Object' are different things, unless one subscribes to a reflection theory of knowledge (naive realism), like Engels, Lenin and the positivists. Marx though that both subject and object, by their interaction, produce knowledge. That is, 'theory and practice' produce knowledge.My comradely advice, YMS, is to look further into some of the ideological beliefs that you hold about 'science'. I mean this advice well.

YMS wrote:

Science, to me, is any organised system of knowledge.

Hmmmm… religion is an 'organised system of knowledge', too. Surely you're interested in 'who' does the 'organising'? I prefer the democratic proletariat to do my 'organising of knowledge', rather than priests.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…I understand the term ideology … to mean …a process of power relations and their effect on ideas and prceptions of the world.

And you don't think that 'power relations' affect our understanding of 'nature'?I do, which is why I think physics is human and thus ideological, because physics is theorised and done within a society.

YMS wrote:

I'd say that the objects of study are different for sociology and physics…

But if 'objects' are 'real' (whether 'material' or 'ideal'), how can they be 'different'?To me, this ideological belief in the 'objective difference' between 'humans' and 'rocks' is the basis of the separation of the sciences into the 'real' sciences (ie. physics) and the 'pretend' sciences (ie. sociology, politics, etc.).Whenever a Communist talks of the science of society, the bourgeois academics reply "But that's not real science!".They believe that 'real science' is outside of politics and opinions, and is based on 'reality' (meaning 'physical'), because they have a neutral method which gives them access to 'reality'.And where does your belief, that 'objects of study' are different, leave Marx's project for methodological unity of science? Do you think that this is impossible? Remember, I consider either belief an ideological belief, with implications for politics, especially the democratic control of the economy (and forces of production, like science).

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…mutilating kids for the sake of tradition…

Ahhh, but they often argue that they're 'mutilating kids for the sake of science'…'Science' tells some that the circumcised penis, in the long run, is healthier for men and women, apparently.I'm no expert, but as you say…

SP wrote:

Nothing is ever easy

Not even 'science'. Ahem.

[Author]

Posts