[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

AFAICS I've answered it.  Maybe you're asking the wrong question? 

I had to chuckle, YMS.Yeah, 'what is epistemology?' is the wrong question.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.

That's what I understood your position to be. It leads to the rather absurd conclusion that the working class is right to support capitalism because, well, they do support capitalism and that we socialists are wrong to oppose it.

That's right, after a vote a minority is always the one in the wrong. That doesn't stop them arguing their case.

ALB wrote:

There must be something wrong with a line of argument that leads to such a conclusion. I think it's probably got to do with the definition of the word "wrong" that you are using. It's like the answer to the old philosophy question "Can Someone Want to do Wrong?"  by saying "No, because what someone wants is always right (by definition)".  Or, answering "Can the Workers Do Wrong?" by "No, because what the workers want cannot be wrong (by definition)".

Well, we're taking about politics here, aren't we? I'm clearly happy to state that I consider 'right' and 'wrong' to be social positions, and any Communist/Socialist movement true to its word about "workers' interests" will attempt to build towards a revolution with that view to the fore. That is, workers are always right.Of course, they won't get a chance to impose their views about 'right' or 'wrong' until they've conquered power, but we must make this stance clear from the start. Otherwise, the movement will harbour some elitists who don't really believe in the notion of "workers' power", and really believe that it is only a slogan, and that they as an elite will make decisions. I personally think this should be made very clear to 'scientists', so that they don't think they are supporting a political movement that thinks that a minority will make any decisions, outside of the control of the working class. Any decisions made by delegates, having been given a mandate to make a  particular decision, will always be subject to revision by democratic bodies. 'Truth', along with 'right' and 'wrong' are socially-produced meanings, and must be subject to collective controls.

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.

I don't know about the last bit, but if you are reluctant to tell workers they are wrong to support capitalism how do you approach them as a minority? (In fact, what right have you got to try to get them to change their mind?) Do you approach them saying; "Fellow Workers, you are right to support capitalism, but I don't think you should. I'm not saying you're wrong (I wouldn't dare) but …" But what?

I'd approach workers, just like I approach the SPGB, and say, 'You're wrong to follow the ideology of materialism' (for example). I have the same 'right' as any other dissenting opinion in a democratic movement. No-one has to listen to a word I say (and mostly they don't).In a socialist society, if humanity votes for 'materialism', then 'materialism' will be the 'right' epistemology. And by that act they will have abolished their own power to control the production of knowledge, and will have handed it over to the 'special elite' to whom 'matter' apparently talks to.I'll just be constantly pissed.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,erm. I'm sorry, I'm lost now.  I explained:Idealism: [object] is in your mind.Materialism: [object] is outside your mind.Historical Materialism: [Object] is your mind.How's about that?  Like a line drawn first into the shape of, say, a man, and then a house, and then a cat.  One continuous line.  It's the same line manifesting as several different things.

YMS, see the same question that I posed to you in my last two posts in reply to you.Sigh.

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

But how do you convey the ideas without the wording? By using telepathy, or making animal noises? Morse Code or semaphore? What have you all been doing (some of you, evidently, not very well) on this forum? I can only assume, then, that in your dialogues with other workers about socialism, you use the same wording as the SPGB does. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong necessarily, but I want to know what you actually say to other workers that is different.Examples, please, outside of this forum? You can find lots of SPGB ones on this website – let's see yours.

Have a look at either LibCom (from which I'm banned; Anarchists? ) or the ICC forum (from which, to their great credit, given some sharp exchanges, I'm not). I posted under the same name as here.You'll find many of the same arguments, and the same responses.I had greater hopes of the SPGB (not individualist Anarchists or some form of Leninists), but I found the same 'materialist' responses. The so-called 'revolutionaries' are 'religious fanatics', as far as I can tell from the furiosity of responses to my 'heretical' questions, and the working class is well-advised to steer clear of them, as far as I can see. Most workers don't need my advice, though. They join, try their best, are disappointed, and leave. My experience of the SWP, and of many other friends of Militant, Workers' Power, RCP, WRP, etc., etc.Yeah, they all quote "workers' interests" as their abiding concern.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?

I'd rather say they can be wrong when they act against their class interest.

Right, so workers can be 'wrong', with reference to their 'class interest', which is 'right'. I can follow what you're saying.So, who (or what) determines workers' 'class interest'?Surely, if we're democratic Socialists/Communists, only the working class can determine its 'class interest'?The only other answers I can think of is 'reality' determines or an 'elite' determines.If your answer is 'reality', how do you know what 'reality says'?This issue is at the heart of the thread title.To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.From my own experience of dealing with 'revolutionary' groups of a number of shades, they haven't explained anything properly to me as a worker, and on the subjects that I've chosen to dig deeper, to try to get to an answer not forthcoming from 'revolutionaries', I've found those groups to be in the wrong, regarding any 'interests' of the working class.Thus, workers can't be 'wrong'. If 'right' and 'wrong' have any social and political meaning.I'd rather that 'revolutionaries', who disagree with me, were open, and said that 'they know better' than workers. And both parties can keep going their separate ways, as they have been since the late 19th century.

[LBird]

ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Ah well, yet another thread derailed.

Ah well, yet another SPGB head in the sand.

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

I think that the differences in the wording he uses and the wording we use in addressing workers must be crucial to understanding why he thinks the SPGB (or some of its members at least) has mistaken ideas.

It's not 'differences in the wording', rodshaw, but differences in philosophy.I'm not an Engelsist, whereas apparently the SPGB is.I'm a Marxist, and I've explained over dozens of threads and hundreds of post over 15 months what the differences are between Engelsist 'materialism' and Marx's 'idealism-materialism'.Putting these arguments on paper, teaching them to classes, holding forth whilst pissed in the pub, or simply writing them on this site, won't change the fact that it's not 'wording' but 'ideas'.And if one is a 'materialist', one can pooh-pooh 'ideas' as 'idealism'.How the SPGB has managed to stagger along with its proclaimed political strategy of democratic workers' power being undermined and contradicted by its hidden philosophical, nay religious, basis of elite experts, for 110 years, I don't know.But then, they've all been at it since the Second International.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, capitalist and workers consciousnesses are of the same substance, and part of the same reality, which is transformed into various different elements by the operation of history and through its interaction with itself.  We are all parts of one system.

Here we go again.

LBird wrote:

And how does that explain epistemology to workers?If 'the page and your mind are the same thing', then 'capitalism and workers' consciousness are the same thing'.Where's the critical and creative aspects of the metaphor, the very things that Marx placed at the centre of his epistemology?Where is the dynamic interaction between 'page and mind', if they are already 'the same thing'? How does change come about?Don't forget, the purpose of the exercise is to explain to someone who doesn't know about epistemology, how a choice of any one of the three would affect the way that they understand reality.

Can't you actually read or something, YMS?You never seem to read what's been written.How does 'we are all parts of one system' explain the three epistemological viewpoints that I'm attempting to explain, to ajj, at least?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird, no, I'm the meatbot.  But, lets try.Idealism: the page can only exist inside your mind.Materialism: the page exists outside your mind.Historical Materialism: the page and your mind are the same thing.

And how does that explain epistemology to workers?If 'the page and your mind are the same thing', then 'capitalism and workers' consciousness are the same thing'.Where's the critical and creative aspects of the metaphor, the very things that Marx placed at the centre of his epistemology?Where is the dynamic interaction between 'page and mind', if they are already 'the same thing'? How does change come about?Don't forget, the purpose of the exercise is to explain to someone who doesn't know about epistemology, how a choice of any one of the three would affect the way that they understand reality.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ah, i see it a bit clearer now. My trouble is i take metaphors too literally.

Yeah, that's always the problem with 'simplifying explanations' – something detailed always gets lost, or part of the metaphor isn't relevant. That's why any explanation between workers must be subject to discussion and criticism, to ensure that the explanation is actually achieving its purpose, of helping workers to develop themselves.

ajj wrote:

When workers select what dots (various material conditions) to join up, they determine the image which can be socialism…or just as easily fascism…then – reality- material conditions – without ideas (ideology) can be our enemy as well as our friend. We cannot rely on capitalism being its own grave-digger.

Spot on: 'material conditions' can give us the wrong 'truth', if they are viewed through a 'bourgeois' ideological lens, as you illustrate. That's why Marxists argue that 'theory' comes before 'practice' (not after it, as those who believe in the inductive method argue: that is, 'practice and theory').

ajj wrote:

But isn't this what at least i have argued and i think the Party does, too…class struggle on its own, unaccompanied by the objective, socialism, can and usually does lead workers down the wrong path, to wrong destinations.

That's right, which is why I've persisted to discuss it with the Party.But this 'wrong path' is just as true of 'science' as 'politics'. So, why do party members apparently have a political method that is at odds with their philosophy? 'Materialism' is just 19th century positivism rehashed, and leads to elitism. As you say, if it's possible to be 'lead down the wrong path', and we argue, like Marx, that the path taken must be a conscious path, who is to provide the 'right' path? Either, as the materialist epistemologists insist, the 'path' is already clearly numbered and we just need to 'consciously' read and follow the numbered path, or a conscious elite can number the path for us.But, if we insist that the human consciousness of the majority is involved (as I thought that the SPGB did, but I'm becoming less and less sure), then meekly following pre-numbered 'paths' or allowing 'elite consciousness' is not philosophically or politically acceptable. In fact, there is no 'pre-numbered path', and the numbers are just allocated by a minority. Isn't that what we need to make all workers aware of? That we have to come to consciousness of our need to 'number our own path'?

ajj wrote:

But again i just might be demonstrating that you can cast pearls of wisdom but some of us have mental blockages that either cannot absorb what you are saying …or adapt them to our already preconceived ideas – our existing ideology…

No, you haven't got a 'mental blockage', you just haven't had epistemology explained properly to you. The fault doesn't lie in you (or the wider class), but in those who claim to know 'epistemology' but haven't bothered to explain to you (or in Communists/Socialists who haven't bothered to  explain to fellow workers). I blame those who've known you for years, but never tried to explain. The working class has been poorly served by its so-called 'conscious' minority, for 130 years, in my opinion.

ajj wrote:

I'm feel i'm getting out of my depth again. Surely there is a time and place to learn…we acquire our knowledge in phases, not all at once, but each morsel helps in the here and now to improve our actual conditions as wage slaves and is another step further onwards on our path to socialism…bits and pieces of theory are like mile-stones to show how far how practice has taken us…Damn, i'm getting lost by my own metaphors now….

Yeah, unease with new ideas is always a good safety mechanism. I could be talking shite to you, and just be a plausible bluffer. The only way you can test the 'correctness' of what I'm arguing is to keep asking questions, and force me to explain further, with illustrations drawn from physics and society, and quotes from Einstein and Marx (for example initially, and then many others), until you feel more secure with my explanation.And then, ask other members of the SPGB to give their explanation to you about the varieties of epistemology (if they disagree with my explanation), and compare it with mine, and test their methods against science and society, and our attempts to understand and change the world.It's simply not good enough that you feel 'out of your depth', either for you, or for the wider class. Someone's to blame for your not understanding, and I blame Communists/Socialists for not explaining, not you (or other workers) for 'being out of their depth'. That is totally unacceptable for any movement that claims to be in the forefront of developing class consciousness, and hoping to ensure that that class consciousness spreads ever wider amongst the entire working class.We have to explain.Of course, alan, if you decide on 'materialism' and 'naive realism' as the best epistemology, then you can ignore my bleatings, and simply follow the numbers, along the pre-ordained path, being unconscious of where it's leading you. Not what I'd recommend, but then I'm a Democratic Communist and Marxist. Unlike most here, it seems.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Alan, you've fallen into his trap. The place to discuss his philosophy is on the "Science for Communist" thread not here.

ALB, you're ignoring the thread title again.I've explained this to you already, but you wish to hang on to your outdated 'naive realism' and even more destructively, insist that workers use your discredited method, too.Ignoring arguments doesn't make them go away.The place to discuss philosophy for workers is on every thread, unless one is a naive realist.Oops… perhaps the SPGB should just declare its 'naive realism', in the aims and principles, and Marxists like me will simply go away.[edit] Plus, I notice that you still haven't made any attempt to explain epistemology to workers, as I have at least tried.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The first part might well be true but why should workers have to understand the Marxian concept of value to change the world?

Errrr…. the method of 'theory and practice', perhaps?

ALB wrote:

I would have thought that it would be enough to understand that capitalism could never be made to work in their interest…

Surely they have to have a theory of what 'capitalism' is? And why it produces 'value', which is destructive of human society? And what 'their interest' is?You seem to be employing the epistemological theory of 'naive realism', from which it is argued that 'material conditions' or 'reality' tells humans 'what it is'. That is, that 'interest' speaks to humans without them asking questions about 'what it is'; in other words, theorising 'material conditions' and 'their interests'.You are arguing that 'reality' is a numbered dot-to-dot book, and simply looking at the page and 'joining the dots' (an obvious task, with a predetermined outcome, determined by the numbers) will allow us to 'get the picture' and 'know' both reality and our interests.This is not Marx's method of 'theory and practice', in which an external reality has to be approached with conscious theory, and changes made according to the theory during its practical employment.Unless we are critical of the numbers that have been allocated by the bourgeoisie to the 'dots', and consciously re-number the dots of reality, thus changing the picture we have of 'reality', we can't change the world.

Quote:

You are coming across as a caricature of the SPGB

Don't you wish!If the SPGB (and all the other Engelsist groups, that pretend to be Marxist) made some attempt, like me, to explain to workers, they might actually have built some influence with the wider class.As I've said, my 'dots' analogy might not be the best, but at least it is an attempt to explain epistemology, which workers must have a grasp of to help them understand (and thus consciously change) their world.Not only have the SPGB et al not done this for workers, but their own memberships don't have a clue about epistemology, as alan freely admits about himself.How can any Engelsist group claim to have any better understanding of 'the world', physical or social, if, at least since the 1920s, many workers have pointed out precisely what I'm saying?Marxism is not 'materialism'. That's 'naive realism' and essentially conservative, in that it produces a 'fixed picture' of reality, that is not open to conscious criticism and thus change.By the way, a thought struck me last night. 'Naive realism' isn't a choice one can have to understand the world. It's a bourgeois myth, that an individual, ignoring theory, can use their senses to discover reality. Since humans really do use 'theory and practice', as Marx argued, anyone employing 'naive realism' is just ignorant of their 'theory', which has been given to them already, through 'ruling class ideas', like 'individualism'. In effect, they've had their 'dots numbered already' by the bourgeoisie, and so their 'picture' of reality has been pre-ordained. They might think they employ 'naive realism' (if they knew the term, as you do), but they are actually employing ruling class 'theory and practice'.How you can argue that workers can remain 'naive realists', and yet consciously change their world, baffles me.You're compelled to separate society into two, one smaller part superior to society, which provides the consciousness. If that's not Leninism and elitism, that Marx warns us against, then my understanding of politics and Marx's ideas is seriously astray.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Marx in effect came up with the idea of reality being a dot-to-dot book, but that the dots were unnumbered…

Where did he know where to place the dots unless he already had some a priori (idealist) or a posteriori (materialist) view of what he wanted to depict on his page?

You haven't read what I wrote, alan.'Reality' is 'a page with dots on'. That exists outside of the Marxian 'numbering process'.So, your question of 'where did he know where to place the dots' is meaningless.It's the 'numbers' that are assigned by active humans.The real question for you is: Does the metaphor of reality being either a) a blank sketch pad; or, b) a numbered dot-to-dot book; or, c) an un-numbered page containing dots, help you to start to understand the three epistemological positions of 'idealism', 'materialism' and Marx's composite of both?If it does, we can go on to discuss some of the subtleties which require further explanation, and you're right to ask questions about.

[LBird]

Won't anybody tell me if my explanation of the three varieties of epistemology is useful or not?If anybody thinks that I haven't explained the three well, do they have any other suggestions as to how to explain?Or, is it common consent that it is simply not worth doing anyway, because it's of no use for workers to understand epistemology, and that life will carry on much as it does now?Personally, I don't see how workers can understand 'value' without an understanding of epistemology, and if they can't understand 'value', how can they hope to change the world?It all seems to me rather like 'leave it to the experts'.

[Author]

Posts