[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?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I was chatting with a colleague who is a student of Hegel, I mentioned these discussions, and he mentioned that basically every bugger and his brother in the 19th century claimed to have resovled the philosophical disctinction between idealism and materialism…

Does your colleague think Marx did so?Or isn't your colleague a Communist?If not, why do you place any weight on his opinions?Do you think studying philosophy and Hegel can be separated from one's political ideology?If so, where is this 'objective' position for study, which does not even exist in physics?I think that your colleague is probably a bit of a bluffer.Most workers will learn more on boards like this, than at university, and from 'academics'.We should have the confidence to know that Communists will start to replace academics as sources of social authority, as we move closer to the 'big day'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Galen Strawson wrote:

More strictly, ‘concrete’ means ‘not abstract’ in the standard philosophical sense of ‘abstract’, given which some philosophers hold that abstract objects—e.g. numbers, or concepts—exist and are real objects in every sense in which concrete objects are.

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'.Strawson does not follow Marx, Dietzgen or Pannekoek here, because they don't separate ideas (eg numbers, abstractions) from the 'real'.If you wish to follow Strawson, DJP, then fine, but be aware that Strawson is not a Marxist or Communist, and that he separates out the ideal from the material in the same sense as 19th century positivists, and Engels in his non-Marxist works.Please be aware that one's choice of ideology in science has political implications.This is not merely a meaningless philosophical debate, but will affect one's politics.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I don't know where you get the idea that myself and YMS are liberals from. We are both libertarian free marketeers following the teachings on Ayn Rand, after all this is the majority position in the SPGB these days so it must be true.

This shows that you don't know what a liberal is. You think that 'liberal' means 'economic liberal'.If I ask you if you're an individual, you (and YMS) reply 'Yes'.If I'm asked if I'm an individual, I reply 'No, I'm a worker'.Because I'm a Communist, and employ Critical Realism, I locate components within structures.Because you're a liberal, and employ individualism, you locate 'existing' within biological components and ignore social strutures.Thus, when I ask which ideology of science either you or Strawson employ, you are baffled by the question, because, for you, Strawson, you and YMS are all individuals entitled to their opinons, both social and scientific.You don't realise that you are all ideologists for the bourgeoisie.That's why you don't like me, because as a Communist I undermine your individualism.Thus, you hide this reality in dismissive replies, and pretend you're being accused of being a 'free marketeer'.Why you are not a 'free marketeer' in economics, since you are a 'free marketeer' in philosophy and science, only you can say. I think that you're confused and ignorant, but you won't try to critically think these issues through, although I've tried to help you to do so, numerous times.So, back to calling names, DJP! The world's a mystery to you, eh?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So LBird how do you square the above with the fact that you are the ONLY person that has been putting forward certain viewpoints?

You want to try reading the other thread, where both I and alanjjohnstone (to say nothing of Marx, Pannekoek, Dietzgen and even Engels in his more Marxist moments) put forward similar viewpoints. But then, we share the same ideology, unlike the liberals YMS and DJP.Or should I just answer in your childish terms given above, and just say 'Nah, nah… nah, nah, naaah…'.Do us all a favour, and try critical thinking, and make a contribution to the discussion, rather than throwing your dummy from the pram, because you don't like (or even understand) my Communist views.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But i probably posted a simplistic baby-version of what is being discussed here. i better bow out

No, what you're saying is very much in line with what I (and many other Marxists) have argued. Don't 'bow out', because you have a better grasp of both the philosophy and the political implications of that philosophy, than most others who have contributed on these threads.One thing worth considering, though.When Marxists use the terms 'material', 'forces', 'production', 'science', 'economics' (and any other terms that I've missed from your quotes from Pannekoek), these terms also include human 'ideas'.So, to argue that 'forces' (for example) determine ideology is to say no more than 'ideas and material' in a 'production of life' (being) capacity determine 'ideas and material' in a 'production of ideas' (consciousness) capacity.That is, a 'base' of 'ideas and reality' determine a 'superstructure' of 'ideas and reality'. 'Being and consciousness' must be taken together, as an indissoluable whole. That is the lesson from Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.It is NOT a division of the 'material' and the 'ideal' or 'being' and 'consciousness'.

AJJ wrote:

Bu i probably raise the wrath of Lbird who may well consider Pannekoeks understanding of Dietzgen expresses the same weakness Engels does of Marx…

This would be a very interesting discussion, because I think I do have criticisms of Dietzgen and Pannekoek, as much as of Marx and Engels, but perhaps a different thread is required, and I would have to read further.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

IMNSHO everything I say here is my opinion only, and so does not need to be prefaced by an IMNSHO.

Gof forbid, that on a politics site, it might dawn on you that 'opinions' are not 'individual', but are expressions of political ideologies.But then, your ideology tells you that 'everyone is entitled to their opinion', as if all 7 billion individuals have their own 'ideology'.For a Communist, as I am (so no-one gets the wrong idea about my ideology, and won't take me for a 'free-thinking individual'), 'opinions' are rooted in ideologies.So, from a Communist perspective, 'everything you say here' is not 'your opinion only', but is a reflection of your socialisation, education and political influences.From what you say, I'd say that you've had bourgeois socialisation, bourgeois education and bourgeois political influences.Of course, this is all over the heads of 'individuals' with 'their opinions'.You'd think Marx had never written anything. But then he hasn't, for most 'individuals', who carry on 'consuming', from the 'market' that they thought up, all by themselves, as individuals.Don't make me larf! 'Individual opinions'! My arse.

[LBird]

firstly YMS wrote:

No such position occurs because of kicking a ball and running quickly.

This is a judgement call, one made by you as an individual, which is your chosen ideological method, as we've seen displayed throughout all the threads in which you participate.

then YMS wrote:

Yes, it is a judgement call, and one worthy of debate.

Now, you've changed your ideological position, to one of 'making by society'.You're an ideological chameleon, YMS, with no philosophical ballast whatsoever, and you merely repeat the last thing you read.You do this constantly, which is why you can neither discuss nor understand any ideological positions, neither your own nor anyone else's.From my Communist perspective, you're an 'individualist'.But then I expose my ideology, whereas you just laugh at my openness, and take the piss out of my declaration that 'I'm a Communist'.You do this because you don't think political ideology plays any part in your understanding, or in the understanding of scientists.You think that you are a 'free-thinking individual', and as such are a repository of bourgeois ideology, that constantly diverts discussion on these boards.I regard you as a threat to working class self-development.Oh, sorry, you don't recognise 'class', do you? And its effects upon social thinking? No, you judge for yourself, like a good bourgeois, and 'democracy' be damned.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,how do you square the above with the Critique of the Gotha Programme?

YMS,how do you keep avoiding the issue, by constantly moving the goalposts? If I spend days addressing the CotGP, you'll just ask, 'LBird, how do you square that with his Letter to Bloggs?'.After spending days addressing the LtB, you'll just ask, 'LBird, how do you square that with Engels' Dialectics of Nature?' (or Pannekoek, Dietzgen, Untermann, Korsch, Lukacs, Mach, Lenin, etc. etc.)After chasing round the houses for months, nay years, you'll return to the discussion above, as a contrast to whatever text you had last thought of.And off we go again.Why don't you, just for once, try discussing Marx's philosophy and epistemology?Why won't you tell us your ideological view of science?[edit: I consider your method to be the equivalent of trolling, after my continuous experience of that method over the last 15 months. And it is a method, not just the innocent questions of one keen to learn, but the deliberately obstructive technique of the religious threatened by critical thinking – the constant return to 'textual' proofs, the view that 'But, Marx says 'material' in the Bible', rather than engaging in critical discussion about sources using the advances since the texts were written]

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Some people lose their livelihoods through such convictions: teachers, doctors,e tc. but that is a preventetive measure because of the risks associated with their positions of trust. No such position occurs because of kicking a ball and running quickly.

[my bold]This is the equivalent of saying 'no such position occurs because of moving chalk and writing quickly on a board'.The notion of 'trust', and the 'positions' deemed to be included, is a social decision.If 'playing professional football' is deemed to be as much a 'position of trust' (due to its ability to influence both young and old) as is being a teacher or doctor (due to their ability to influence both young and old), then those holding a 'position of trust' would be put under 'preventative measures' by society.'Position of trust' is not an 'objective' position which tells us 'what it is', if we passively contemplate it. We actively create our world.

[Author]

Posts