[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…our policy of "making socialists" …

I know what you're getting at here, ALB, and in some sense I obviously agree with it.But the actual phrase 'making socialists' could be interpreted as workers being passively shaped by their 'makers'.I think that it's important to stress the developmental nature of this 'making', as a self-development of workers with the help of other workers. Perhaps an emphasis on a two-stage nature of the process would help.That is, the worker must become critical of 'what exists' in their lives because they can see that so much more is possible (but this is a 'negative' thinking phase of doubting); but to develop into a 'socialist' then the worker must become influenced by other already-socialist workers. Without this second 'positive' phase of options being presented for their selection as answers to their doubts, then the doubts could just as easily develop in the direction of nationalism, for example.So, the potential to be a socialist must already exist, and all we socialists do is help to further develop a tendency that already exists in the 'doubtful' worker: that is, their critical thought based upon doubt of what exists, and their wish to also help other workers develop.Perhaps you should refer to "…our policy of "developing socialists"…".This shows better our view that continuing 'self-development' of us all as workers is our aim, not 'making' something of our own finished design.This also makes plain that we socialists can't make the first phase happen, the 'negative' phase of coming to doubt what exists. That's the initial critical step of each worker for themselves.Some comrades have already referred to 'collecting socialists', and I think that this is preferable to 'making', but I prefer the process-ness of 'developing', because 'collecting' suggests the final product is already complete, and a finality or fixity, and it clearly isn't. We can always develop ourselves.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,I trot it out because, in spite of your protestations, there's precious little real in your realism.  Railing against the tyranny of rocks is to be a Cnut railing against the tides.  Understanding that we are rocks, that rocks.

And you think 'real' means 'material'.I've tried explaining, but to no avail.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Charlie and Fred wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence.

Yeah, the 'materialists' always trot out this quote when confronting the evil 'idealists', of their own imagination.What it has to do with arguing with Marxist 'idealist-materialists', I'll never know.You continue to believe that Marx was arguing against 'gravity', and that anyone who as much as mentions 'humans' is an 'idealist'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But the world as it stands isn't standing still, it moves, and our understanding is both shaped by and shaping of that movement.

My mistake. Not 'the tyranny of the rocks', but the entirely mobile 'tyranny of the rolling stones'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think that I've done my best to show why 'materialism' can't provide a critical basis

All you've done is shown that you don't really get what "materialism" means.Perhaps this will help…

Galen Strawson – Real Materialism wrote:

…

Thanks DJP, but I already know what 'materialism' means.It means 'No revolution'. And 'the tyranny of the rocks'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I wonder if LBird thinks that 'cows' and 'animals' are opposing catergories?FWIW worth this is the same mistake he is making in his understanding of "material" and "mental" (or perhaps better put as experiencial)..

There seems no point in responding yet again to this sort of thing, because it seems that many here have given up discussing the philosophical problems of (not only) YMS's following of Engels' 'materialism'.If those who can't provide a foundation of critical thought, for workers coming to consciousness of this world, have to allege that those who are arguing for a 'critical' approach can't tell the difference between a 'cow' and 'animals', then it will have to be left to workers to decide on the merits of the opposing arguments.I think that I've done my best to show why 'materialism' can't provide a critical basis, and further why it does provide a basis for Leninism, but it's up to others to sort out their own thinking on the issue.At least the SPGB is providing a space to air these differences.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,I think this comes down to the nub between us. I'd say socialism arises from the world as it actually exists now, and the only way we can understand socialism is by understanding this world (and therein the possibilities that present themselves to us which, whilst they may have already and always been present were not conscious previously).  That is, revolution does not come from a rejection from the world as it is, but through a dogged grip on the world as it stands.  I think that's the key distinstion between utopianism and marxian socialism.

Yeah, I think you're correct, here, too, YMS. This is the nub of our disagreement.You follow Engels, who separated out 'two' views.I follow Marx, who reconciled 'two' views, producing a 'third'.Workers have been following the 'Idealism versus Materialism' logic for 130 years.But since the 1920s, many thinkers have pointed out that without 'criticism of what exists' in our lives, both physical and philosophical, both in physics and sociology, both in experience and knowledge, then we are stuck with 'what exists'.'A dogged grip on the world as it stands' will give us 'the world as it stands'.And, in fact, once we move away from arcane philosophical issues, and discuss politics, you always take the side of elite experts and deny democratic controls.Your 'dogged grip' is preventing you from seeing the necessity of revolution throughout our world. That means in science and maths, as much as in the 'things you can touch'.That is, a revolution in both the 'material' and the 'ideal'. As Marx argued, and as Engels didn't.You think 'truth' is external to humans, I think 'truth' is produced by humans. You think 'truth' is 'material', I think 'truth' is 'social'.If 'truth' is external and material, it can't be criticised and changed. If 'truth' is socially produced, we can criticise 'what exists' and change 'truth'.

[LBird]

You're partially right, and partially wrong, YMS.

YMS wrote:

What I am sayiong is that our propaganda won't make socialists, we're just holding up a sign to let workers who have come to socialist ideas themselves know we're here.

In this sense, you're right: workers have to start criticising the lives they lead. We can't make them critical.

YMS wrote:

The revolution will not happen because workers have or have not been exposed to our case.

If by our 'case', you mean 'Communism', then you're wrong. All sorts of 'revolutions' can happen because workers reject capitalism, but they won't necessarily be the sort we Communists want to see.

YMS wrote:

Propaganda, whilst it does exist and is useful to the ruling class, cannot overrule the lived experience and capacity of workers to think.

No, 'lived experience' will not necessarily produce 'Communist' ideas. Those ideas already exist, within the working class (we are evidence of that), and 'propaganda' is not only 'useful to the ruling class', but is essential for us to spread the 'idea' of Communism ever wider within our class.The dynamic that must come to be is: workers become critical, and worker-communists provide ideas.If neither workers become critical, nor 'communist ideas' are widespread, then there will not be a communist revolution. We Communists can't make other workers critical, and workers can't make 'lived experience' tell them how to take their criticism forward.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Im not quite sure what you have in mind here. In practical terms, how would a can of baked beans, say, find its way off the shelf of a distribution centre and into the stomach of the empirical individual in a socialist society without that involving an actual decision by that individual to select such an item off the shelf, as opposed to some other item?

But that’s not ‘shopping’, is it? ‘Selecting off a shelf’, I mean? ‘As opposed to some other item’. Why not both?What I said was:

LBird wrote:

The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism…

‘Shopping’ is the antithesis of ‘selecting off a shelf’. You try walking into Asda or Tesco and ‘selecting off a shelf’ as much as you deem necessary for your needs, and then walking off back to your car.The small matters of the amount of money in one’s wallet, payment at the till and security guards will intervene to ensure that you don’t ‘select off a shelf’ whatever you need. ‘Shopping’ is not ‘selecting’. ‘Shopping’ is being forced not to select what one wants. One must ‘weigh up’ the contradiction between one’s wants and one’s lack of resources.As other comrades have said, the organisation of this ‘selecting from a shelf’ requires, not ‘empirical individual’ decisions, but ‘democratic collective’ decisions, about production, distribution and consumption.

robbo203 wrote:

If so, that seems to me to be venturing perilously close to the crackpot idea of "society wide central planning"…

I’m not sure why you consider ‘society wide central planning’ to be a ‘crackpot idea’. Clearly, some decisions at least will require ‘society wide central planning’ because of the nature of our world society. As long as any ‘central planning’ is under the democratic control of all of us on this planet, then it sounds to me to be entirely sensible.You might now say, ‘Ahh, I see, no money, democratic controls, the same freedoms for all to select from shelves… why didn’t you say so?’, and we’d be in agreement.But, given that fact that we’re on a Communist site, why the emphasis on ‘empirical individuals’ and the insinuation that ‘society planning’ is tantamount to a ‘crackpot idea’?To me, ‘empirical individuals’ smacks of ‘greedy graspers’ who will satisfy their own desires, outside of any social considerations. And calling ‘social planning’ a ‘crackpot idea’ sounds like propaganda from the Adam Smith Institute! We will be social individuals, who will recognise the need for prior theoretical consideration ahead of our ‘selecting from a shelf’.That’s not ‘shopping’.From the content of the rest of your post, I’m know you don’t mean this, robbo, but I often get the strange feeling from some comrades that they regard ‘socialism’ as the realisation of the bourgeois wet dream of everyone becoming like ‘a billionaire going shopping’, and no-one being able to say ‘No’ to them about any item that takes their fancy. I definitely got this impression from some contributors on LibCom.It's a subject worth discussing, I think, especially with regard to Parecon and the others in that tradition, of some sort of 'market socialism' which stresses 'individual consumer choices' which take place at the end of a unconscious process, as opposed to 'collective production decisions' which take place at the start of a conscious process.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

"Externalities" are costs / benefits that are not included in the price of a good or service.It is precisily the type of information above that is not included in the pricing mechanism.Productive decisions in socialism would not be made by isolated "consumers" choosing products as the appear at the end of the production process. Everyone would both a producer and consumer and directly involved in the productive process in one way or another, remember "producers" and also "consumers".

Although I've had my differences with DJP on some subjects, I have to say that on this issue I agree 100% with DJP.The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism, as would 'a single hunter-gatherer heading off alone to hunt a dangerous prey' would be to a tribal group of hunters. Just as 'hunting' was a social activity, with far more cultural significance than just 'filling one man's belly', which required co-ordination and co-operation, and respect for the hunted animal, so 'bourgeois consumption' will appear unfeasably individualist, selfish and archaic to our a future society.Our choices will be as 'producers-consumers', and will involve such factors as 'happiness' (for an example amongst many). Why would anyone choose a 'commodity' produced without happiness? Of course, there is no way for a 'consumer' (the individual shopper) to see 'happiness' in an isolated tin of beans, in any commodity. But this knowledge would exist for the 'producer-consumer', the 'whole-person', the 'social-individual' of socialism.We producers won't be 'externalities' any longer for the disregard of the rich bourgeois 'consumer'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

LBird,Having already provided quick descriptions of materialism, idealism and marxism I also provided a definition of epistemology. I'll also note I pointed out that your blank page description of idealism was just plain wrong, so of no use to workers whatever.

Thanks for your informed opinion, YMS.If you could just supply Brian, and any other reader who's interested, with the post number in which you provided these explanations of the three epistemological viewpoints, then they can compare our respective explanations, and give their opinion about which is the most helpful, to allow any worker who is very unfamiliar with these three viewpoints to orientate themselves, and begin to ask questions of the both of us.PS. as I said above, mine is post #59 on page 6.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

Not quite.  I would re-phrase so it reads 'Epistemology is the study of how we come to understand stuff.'

I would appreciate your opinion, Brian, of my attempted explanation of the three versions of epistemology that gave in my post #59 on page 6.Does the explanation capture the essence of these three, to allow workers, who know nothing about epistemology, to orientate themselves towards these issues?Or can you think of how the explanation could be improved (or replaced entirely with better explanation), to help workers start to understand the options they are faced with in epistemology?I have already said that I think that ALB's 'strategy' of saying to workers that they should just carry on employing 'naive realism' (whether they understand the term and its political implication or not) is not acceptable, if we wish to help develop the class consciousness of the working class.In my opinion, 'naive realism', because it "takes things as seen by individuals themselves", is a conservative epistemology. To me, it's tantamount to saying either 'accept the reality of capitalism' (and so no revolutionary consciousness develops) or saying 'let the SPGB deal with philosophical issues, because workers shouldn't have to worry their tiny minds about 'difficult' philosophical issues' (and thus reintroducing Leninism).So, I think workers do need to understand something of epistemology, and my explanation is an attempt to allow workers to start to wrestle with these issues for themselves. The method chosen has political implications, and the sooner workers are aware of this, the better.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That make sense. That's what I'd do, but how can you, with your position, tell workers they are wrong to follow some set of ideas if a majority support them?

My position? You mean 'democratic controls on power'? I think it's called a 'minority position', but perhaps you're not au fait with the details of democracy?

ALB wrote:

Or is there a difference between saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?

The notion of democracy seems to hold great difficulty for you. The majority is 'right', but any minorities can dissent.So if a scientist says 'A', and their society, after reading the scientists reasoning, decide that 'B' is the 'truth', then 'B' is the truth. The scientist can disagree, but the science books say 'B'.The role of any scientist in a democratic society would be to persuade. If they can't, they can throw a strop, insist that the 'material conditions' speak only to them and not the masses, and that the 'real truth is A', but their failure to explain themselves will be decisive. There will be no 'expert minorities' claiming 'special insight to reality' because of their 'neutral method' which is denied to the rest of society, who will determine the contents of our books. Humanity will democratically control its production of knowledge.So, the dissenting scientist can say that 'they are right, and society is wrong to hold its views', but the books say 'B'. Does that answer your question?

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?

I do so because I claim 'materialism' is anti-democratic, because it says that there cannot be a vote on 'what reality is', because the materialists have a special method which tells them 'what reality is' which the majority cannot employ. Apparently, they claim that 'reality speak to them alone' (this was the claim of 19th century science) and this claim puts 'knowledge of reality' in the hands of 'scientists', and not society.So I'd advise workers not to follow that view, because those who hold that view will not allow workers' democracy to decide 'what reality is'. Thus, it is self-defeating for anyone who wishes to see 'workers' power'.

ALB wrote:

And, on your logic, if a majority of Party members did support it (which they don't) wouldn't they be right as far as the Party is concerned?

Yes, I agree that 'they would be right as far as the Party is concerned'.And the Party would be wrong to then claim it is in favour of 'workers' control'. I would point this out to any workers who asked me.

ALB wrote:

Your position is full of contradictions.

Well, I think I've explained myself quite clearly.If only we could say the same for the SPGB, and its apparently 'materialist' majority, who can't tell us how they know something that the class can't using its democratic methods, but then in contradiction claim to be in favour of 'socialism', which is nothing but democratic control of production.No, the 'positional contradictions' are within the materialists' arguments, and inasmuch as the SPGB embraces these 'materialist' arguments, it is also 'full of contradictions'.The simple answer is for the SPGB to declare itself in favour of the future democratic control of the production of knowledge, and by that act ditch 'materialism', which rejects 'ideas' that democracy requires. The 'truth' would be subject to a vote, and not in the hands of the 'materialists'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

And that's YMS's final explanation of the three viewpoints of epistomology that we've been discussing.Well, alanjjohnstone, now you can compare my explanation with YMS's explanation, and decide for yourself which helps to orientate yourself better to the three epistemological positions of 'idealism', 'materialism' and 'idealism-materialism'.Thanks for your immense help, YMS. How alan has remained in the SPGB all these years without grasping the basics of epistemology will remain a mystery, when there are like comrades like you to help explain.

[LBird]

I'm surprised that you've got involved in this train crash, Vin.I suppose you also want to enlighten us as to your 'epistemology', too?Where would the SPGB be, without its great theorists?

[Author]

Posts