[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.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

So, what's your opinion on the various attempts to unify materialism and idealism in the 19th century? Do you think Marx achieved this, or not?

Yes, I think he did.  See, life is much easier when you ask me my opinions rather than assuming them, incorrectly, based on misreadings of my posts.

Great! We're getting somewhere!So, given the unity of ideal and material, what ideology do you employ to understand nature?I'm open about mine, because I agree with you that Marx succeeded in this task, with his idea of 'theory and practice', and his hope for the methodological unity of physics and sociology (for example) is something we can attempt to produce.So, if you accept 'sociology' is ideological, then 'physics' is ideological, too.What political ideology should the proletariat employ within proletarian science?Yeah, it's so much easier when we discuss, and answer each others questions, isn't it?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, now you have it on 'good' authority (I'm tempted to say 'elite') that no-one united the material and ideal, where does that leave you?

Herein, Ladies and gentlemen, we Lbird's scientific method: theorising well in advance of the evidence, and reading things into texts that are not said. 

You wouldn't know a 'scientific method' if it bit you on the arse, YMS.I've tried to get you to tell us yours, but no joy.Your 'method' seems to consist of 'your opinion'. Typical, for an individualist.So, what's your opinion on the various attempts to unify materialism and idealism in the 19th century? Do you think Marx achieved this, or not?If not, where does that leave the proletariat and its attempt to use 'theory and practice' to build a Communist society?Hasn't your 'colleague' told you yet? Whatever happened to your ability to form your own opinion based on over a year's discussion on this site?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

LBird, Is the ideology here that of a democratic socialist one, ie we as a collective community and not law makers etc get to decide?

Well, as someone who argues that the results of science should be subject to a democratic vote, and truth established in the same way, then I can't see how 'a collective community' decision won't form the basis of 'law and order' (or whatever we call it, 'custom and practice', perhaps?).Although, I can see that different communities with different traditions might have different 'customs', but there would have to be a "supreme world workers' council" (either delegate or the whole planet gets to vote, as we decide) to settle some particular issues, that most communities would find offensive, even if one or two wanted them.'Cutting bits off kids' genitals' might be one such issue. Sounds OK to make illegal where FGM is concerned, but this would also infringe on Jewish circumcision customs, too, if passed.No easy answers, I'm afraid. Communism won't see the end of politics and debate.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Obviously, we are opposed to rape, and we would argue that rapists in socialism would need to be dealt with (incidentally, and to be ultra controversial, there is a case for prison, but the logic is only to protect the guilty from vengence of angry friends and relatives).  That said, Evans has been punished, and should be able to return to his trade (running fast and kicking a ball).  The counter argument is that footballers are 'role models'.

Surely in a socialist society there would also be a need to contain someone who has harmed another person or persons to prevent them from repeating the same act?

Ahhh, you're forgetting, SP, about YMS's commitment to 'individual freedom'. His friends in the anarchist camp are wary of society being protected from certain 'individuals'.Y'know, power, authority, democracy… and all those other distasteful ("ultra controversial") concepts within Communism, which will hem in the 'free individual', and which anarchists frown upon.It's important, when having these discussions, to locate 'opinions' within ideologies.They are most certainly not 'individual opinions'!

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

In the hope that you're genuinely interested in this discussion, DJP, I'll say that it's obvious that Strawson separates 'concrete' and 'abstract'. He argues that numbers are not 'real objects'.

DJP, in the hope that you are actually interested, perhaps a distinction that Margaret Archer draws in her book Realist Social Theory might help (p 23, and elsewhere).She refers to two competing criteria of existence, which determines what is 'real', for a viewpoint.She refers firstly to a 'perceptual criterion of existence', as defining 'real'.Secondly, she refers to a 'causal criterion of existence' as defining 'real'.The first is clearly related to individual observation and empiricism.The second is far more suited to Marx's viewpoint, and suggests that as 'ideas' cause events to happen, that 'ideas' are as 'real' as something one can touch.You don't have to agree with this, 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). The latter makes more sense of Marx's works, and the power of the proletariat to consciously build Communism.PS, also 'power' and 'causal' fits far better with Marx's concept of 'value', which does not contain 'matter'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think that your colleague is probably a bit of a bluffer.

And herein, ladies and gentlemen, we have LBird's scientific method: theorising in advance (or without or even irrespective) of the facts.  They are prepared to make that statement without knowing the person, their background, details or even the precise nature of the discussion.

Humour isn't your strongpoint, is it, YMS?Or philosophy. Or science. Or socialism. Or democracy.No, you stick to your touching faith in your colleagues, who are not even participating in these discussions, and so, unlike the guff you spout, can't be subject to criticism.So, now you have it on 'good' authority (I'm tempted to say 'elite') that no-one united the material and ideal, where does that leave you?

[Author]

Posts