LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bijou Drains wrote: “…you state that the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity.”
No, BD, Marx stated this. I just happen to agree with Marx.
ALB wrote: ” “[Pannekoek wrote:] …the primacy of the experienced material world…”
…In other words, stuff existed before ideas…”
No, ALB, it’s not simply ‘the material world’ (ie. ‘stuff’, or ‘matter’), but ‘the experienced…’.
According to Marx (as we’ve seen from our quotes earlier), any human ‘experience’ requires ‘consciousness’. And according to Marx, this ‘experience’ is not ‘passive’ (as materialists argued), but active (ie. productive, and not individual, but social).
When you separate ‘stuff’ from ‘ideas’, you’re ignoring Marx.
ALB wrote: “there is this quote from Pannekoek which clearly states that ideas are an equal part of the “real world” :
“The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world.””
Yes, I agree with you and Pannekoek, ALB.
But if, as you say, ‘ideas are equal’… surely the ‘physical’ can no more be the basis of ‘ideas’, than ‘ideas’ can be the basis of the ‘physical’?
So, we all reject ‘materialism’ (which claims ‘consciousness’ emerges from ‘matter’), and all reject ‘idealism’ (which claims ‘matter’ emerges from ‘consciousness’).
Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, etc. argued that we need to account for both ideal and material. They are both part of humanity.
The only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity. Or, social production.
Thus, social production is regarded as the creator of material and ideal. And if we create both, we can change both, which was Marx’s whole point.
And if ‘we’ are to change both, ‘we’ have to define just who ‘we’ are. Marx argued that the only ‘we’ is ‘humanity’, and not a ‘we’ which consists of ‘specialists’ or a scientific elite.
Only we, humanity, can determine our science, and only by democratic methods.
Lenin, and all ‘materialists’, as Marx argued they would, deny that humanity can democratically determine its social products, like its truth, its nature, its reality, etc. ‘Materialists’ argue that only an elite of physicists can determine physics, and they deny that our physics, which we humans create, can be democratic. ‘Materialists’ have to defend an elite.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Have you addressed the issue i put before you, LBird, that your own form of individualism is the antipathy of social action with you deliberate distancing from contributing to the purpose of transforming fellow-workers into combatants in the class war, preferring to engage in the mere contemplation of philosophical nuances.”
I’ve always done this, alan, and I’ve always told you this, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, other than avoiding the issue of the ‘materialism’ to which you unconsciously adhere.
I’ve been a senior shop steward in a union, and I’ve been a member of the SWP, and I’ve attended numerous anti-fascist events, and whenever I’m in a pub with other workers who express an interest, I’ve talked to them about socialism and Marx. So, no ‘antipathy’ to ‘social action’ on my part.
The philosophical problem here, alan, is that you, like all workers infected with ‘materialism’, think ‘social action’ means ‘action’ (or, ‘practice’, or ‘doing stuff’).
‘Social action’ actually means ‘theory and practice’. Note, ‘theory and practice’. Not ‘practice’ alone, or ‘practice and theory’.
As a member of the SWP, I too was infected with ‘materialism’, and didn’t pay much regard, as you still don’t, to ‘philosophical nuances’. I got my theory, passively, from the party. Thus, I, like all workers infected with ‘materialism’, I was easy meat for the ‘professional revolutionaries’ of the party, who did concern themselves with nuances. The real term for ‘nuance’ is ‘politics’. They held political power over the membership. But, I’ve since learnt, and aim to share the benefits of my experience with other workers, who might be vulnerable to the ‘materialists’.
The upshot is, alan, that any ‘social action’ requires ‘theory’ up front, so that the ‘philosophical nuances’ are well understood and debated, because ‘philosophy’ determines ‘actions’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Some of my comrades may find your fixation with Marx and material idealism…”
No, alan, it’s ‘idealism-materialism’, in the order Marx gave it, social theory and practice, social production, consciously changing our world, inescapably linked concepts, not separate ‘material’ and ‘ideal’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “…would disturb the harmony of Party life…”
Your naivety is touching alan! If I joined, my first task would be to drive ‘materialism’ as an ideology from the party. I’m sure many of the others are clearly aware of that, that my presence would do far more than ‘disturb the harmony’, and so would veto my joining. Which is their right, of course. The point is, I regard ‘materialism’ as a danger to workers and their efforts to build a democratic socialism. ‘Materialism’ has always sabotaged workers efforts, which is why the Leninist parties constantly spew out workers who join (as they did to me and all, in fact, every, other worker that I knew in them).
So, for you, this is a debate about ‘philosophical nuances’, which you admit that you don’t really understand.
I’ve tried to appeal to ‘democracy’ as grounds for discussion and reconciliation, even my joining, but the ‘materialists’ keep insisting that workers will not be allowed to democratically determine their own truth. The ‘materialists’ claim that there is a small elite, who should be allowed to get on with that scientific task, and people like you should keep their ignorant workers’ noses out of things, like physics, that don’t concern you.
For my part, alan, I think that you have to take an interest in these issues. I find your refusal to do so the real ‘individualism’ here. ‘Social action’ requires democracy, not individual ignorance nor elite specialists. And ‘science’ is a ‘social action’.
It’s not too far-fetched, alan, to argue that…
“The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The material world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are material; their solution, Socialism, consists of material proposals.””
…might as well say…
“The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The magical world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are magical; their solution, Socialism, consists of magical proposals.””
The word ‘material’ might as well be the word ‘magical’, as far as you’re concerned. You don’t know what it means, as you’ve admitted many times, because ‘material’ is a philosophical term, not ‘common sense’, and so you’re bewildered by it.
What happens is that you and other workers baffled by ‘material’ assume it means ‘can be touched’, that it’s ‘stuff’ (as opposed to ‘ideas’). This suits the ‘magicians’ (sorry, ‘materialists’), just fine, because you’re not a ‘specialist magician’, which they claim to be.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The material world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are material; their solution, Socialism, consists of material proposals.””
As even ALB agreed earlier, the word ‘material’ can and should be replaced by the word ‘social’. This is an ‘unambiguous and practical’ explanation, which makes it clear that human activity is involved, not ‘matter’. So,
““The social world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are social; their solution, Socialism, consists of social proposals.””
‘Social’ involves, as Marx (and Gorter) argued, both ideas and the world, both ‘ideal’ and ‘material’. ‘For Marx, ‘material’ doesn’t mean ‘matter’, it means human activity, conscious labour, social production.
Your failure to understand ‘philosophical concepts’, alan, is rooted in the ideology of ‘materialism’. It’s meant to hide things from you, to make things unclear, so that an elite can tell you, without you having to trouble yourself. It’s Lenin’s method, of the ‘special consciousness party’, which denies workers’ democracy.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “i find it difficult to incorporate philosophical concepts into practical politics”
It’s not surprising, alan, because someone else has been ‘incorporating’ them for you, and pretending that they haven’t, and that they don’t need to explain, and thus they encourage you to ‘just get on’ with ‘practice’.
Annndddd… dah, dah… there you go!
Of course, as Gorter said in your article, workers have to do their own ‘incorporating’, to allow their own self-development. And this is a social, not an individual, task. You only ‘find it difficult’ because someone has an interest in you finding it difficult.
So, your choice, alan. Ask some comrades to explain (I’m always here, if you want my help), and then ‘incorporate’ yourself the ‘concepts’ that you then think will advance the building of democratic socialism.
Bit of a clue – Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter… and thousands of Marxists since… argued that the ‘philosophical’ was not ‘materialism’.
Whatever you’ve been told about ‘materialism’, all your life, has been incomprehensible nonsense – that’s why you can’t comprehend it.
Quote from Gorter:
“However, before we proceed to a clear statement of what historical materialism is, in anticipation of encountering certain prejudices and foreseeable misunderstandings, we would like to first of all say what historical materialism is not. For besides the historical materialism that is the doctrine of social democracy, a particular doctrine established by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, there is also philosophical materialism, and various systems of that kind. And these systems, unlike historical materialism, do not address the question of how the mind is compelled by social existence, by the mode of production, technology, and labor, to proceed by way of determined paths, but rather the question of the relation between body and mind, matter and soul, God and the world, etc. These other systems, which are not historical but merely philosophical, attempt to find an answer to the question: what is the nature of the relationship between thinking in general and matter, or, how did thinking arise? Historical materialism, on the other hand, asks: why is it that, in any particular era, thought takes on one form or another? General philosophical materialism will say, for example: matter is eternal, and mind is born from it under certain conditions; it then disappears when its conditions no longer exist; while historical materialism will say: the fact that proletarians think in a different way than the possessing classes is a consequence of such-and-such causes.
General philosophical materialism asks about the nature of thought. Historical materialism asks about the causes of changes in thought. The former tries to explain the origin of thought, the latter its evolution. The former is philosophical, the latter historical. The former assumes a context in which there is no thought, no mind; the latter assumes the existence of mind. The big difference is apparent.” [my bold]
Can’t get a better critique of ‘materialism’ than that, alan.
It echoes Marx’s quote, which I gave earlier, if you want to compare the two.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird, what do you think of Herman Gorter’s ‘Historical Materialism’”
Thanks for the link, alan. I’ll have a browse when I have some time.
On the whole, from what I’ve read before, Gorter and Pannekoek were in favour of social revolution, by which they seem to have meant that the associated producers would democratically control all social production, and opposed Lenin’s ‘materialism’, which places power in the hands of an elite (just as Marx argued ‘materialism’ would do).
robbo203 wrote: “Now you are seriously misrepresenting me, L Bird. I have never said an elite would “control” any part of science whatsoever.”
robbo203 (a few posts earlier) wrote: “Just noticed this comment of yours LBird. This is misleading. It is true that I strongly believe that democracy has no place in the formulation of scientific theory as such.”
Well, robbo, if anyone is ‘misrepresenting’ or ‘misleading’ anyone, it’s not me, but you doing it to yourself.
If you you can explain how ‘scientific theory’ is not ‘any part of science whatsoever’, I’d be very obliged to you.
My political and philosophical position, just like Marx’s, is very simple in comparison to your ideological gymnastics.
All social production in a democratic communist society (a new mode of production) must be under the democratic control of the associated producers.
robbo203 wrote: “That said, I also clearly stated that there is a role for democracy in science – not in the process formulation of scientific theories but rather in deciding on the priorities of scientific research
These two things are quite different, LBird and I hope you can appreciate the difference” [my bold]
You are expressing an ideological opinion here, robbo, which I don’t share.
Your separation of ‘theories’ and priorities’ is an ideological one.
Marx sought a unity in science of ‘theory and practice’, which I agree with, and ‘theories’ influence ‘priorities’ and ‘priorities’ influence ‘theories’.
If there is to be a democratic method in science, it has to embrace all aspects of science.
You may disagree with this, but then you have to specify who (and why) an elite should control whatever part of science you wish to preserve from democracy.
Also, your notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is an ideological one, which is at odds with ‘power’ within science. The notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is used by a hidden elite, to pretend that ‘no-one’ controls social production. It’s a ruling class ideology.
If we, humanity, don’t ‘control’, an elite will ‘control’.
robbo203 wrote:
“[LBird wrote:] If you argue ‘the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically‘, that’s fine, it’s a political and philosophical position which I don’t share.Lets look at this
firstly I don’t really know what you are getting at when you say this.”
robbo, you’re arguing that “the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“. I’m not arguing this, it’s you.
I’m at a loss when you then state you ‘don’t really know’ what this means.
The debate is because I don’t agree that “the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“.
Now, we can go on to discuss and debate the issues regarding this difference, but you can’t keep saying that you don’t understand what our differences are. Aren’t you interested (not ‘why don’t you agree with’) in understanding this opposition to your view.
I’m interested in your view, even though I oppose it. I characterise your view as an ‘anti-democratic’ view of science. I’m not misleading anyone, I’m not lying about your view, I’m not building a strawman to knock down. I’m interested in getting to the heart of why we disagree, or, less personally, why self-proclaimed ‘democratic socialists’, like the SPGB, should support ‘anti-democratic’ science.
robbo203 wrote: “So are you now backtracking on your earlier position when you seemed to agree there would indeed be specialists in a socialist society in the sense of individuals who have undergone intensive training over a long period of time to equip them with the particular skills required to accomplish certain very complex tasks?”
I wish that those that disagree with my political and philosophical positions wouldn’t keep mischaracterising them. It only leads to us going round in circles, in which I have to keep saying what I’ve already said, to correct an allegation which I’ve already corrected.
I’m not ‘backtracking’, robbo. I’ve never argued that there won’t be ‘specialists in a socialist society’.
Once again, I’m not sure what you have to gain by not reading and understanding what I write, and then arguing against that. We both waste our time by this refusal to read what I write, not make up false allegations of false positions ascribed to me.
Once again, the political and philosophical argument is ‘WHO should politically control those ‘specialists’?’.
If you argue ‘the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically‘, that’s fine, it’s a political and philosophical position which I don’t share.
This is the nub of the argument robbo. WHO should have power? An elite, or society?
You seem to want to assume that ‘specialists themselves controlling their specialisms’ is a ‘common sense’ argument, that can’t be sensibly argued against.
Please try to focus on what I’m writing, and if you disagree, OK, let’s talk about those political, philosophical and ideological disagreements.
I’ll have to deal with the rest of your post later, so I’m not ignoring it.
robbo203 wrote: “…we are talking solely about the development of scientific theories themselves…”
No, I’m talking about ‘social production’ (just as Marx did), which includes ‘theories and practices’, which are inescapably linked. You write about ‘theories themselves’ as if they exist outside of their own social production. No, ‘theories’ emerge from societies, not from ‘themselves’, nor ‘clever individuals’.
So, if you argue that ‘theories’ will not be subject to democratic controls, you must specify to whose control they will be subject. This is a political (and thus philosophical) question. If you want to argue ‘specialists’ (who apparently will have abilities not available to the majority), then fine, but that’s a political position that I don’t share, and that I think will prevent the self-emancipation of the proletariat and the development of democratic socialism. It’s also Marx’s position – it will lead to the separation of society into two, with the smaller part controlling the larger part.
robbo203 wrote: “…at the end of the day its still going to be the specialists who are going to be, perforce, the ones who will be involved in expanding the frontiers of science, rather than us, if only because they have the necessary expertise and training to do so in their specialized field of science and we don’t. There is no getting around this point however much you try to, LBird“. [my bold]
Well, I’ve never ‘tried to get around this point’, robbo!
My whole point is that it’s a political and philosophical stance that I don’t share, and that I argue Marx didn’t, either.
Your political and philosophical ideology separates society into two (‘specialists’ and ‘us’), and takes present social production (‘they have’ and ‘we don’t’) as eternal.
I regard Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’ as the self-emancipation of the proletariat and its democratic organisation of all social production. The whole point is that ‘we’ will have the ‘necessary expertise and training’, because the creation of this is a necessary part of building socialism. In fact, I think that the emergence of (for want of a better phrase) ‘proletarian universities’ which challenge those of the bourgeoisie, and eventually begin to replace them in both ideas and activities. I would think that proletarians would get a better education, which would give them a scientific advantage over those still stranded in bourgeois academia.
robbo203 wrote: “For the general population, and even the scientists themselves, large chunks of science will inevitably remain obscure if only because the whole body of scientific knowledge has grown so huge and complex that no one individual is capable of absorbing anything more than a tiny fraction of it.” [my bold]
Ironically, robbo, I see this as an argument for the democratisation of science.
There are, even at present, no ‘specialists’ who can out-think the rest of society. This will be even more the case in the future.
‘The whole body of scientific knowledge’ is a social product, which changes with time and place (ie. it’s a socio-historical ‘body’), and since it’s the product of society, only society can determine its shape and content.
And for a democratic socialist society, that determination can only be democratic.
robbo203 wrote: “It is not my view that there wont be “social power” in a socialist society”
So, once again, who (ie. what active social subject) will control that ‘social power’?
You seem to agree with me that if it involves social power, it should be under democratic control.
As far as I can tell, the political and philosophical difference between us seems to be how we define ‘science’ and its power.
For me, if ‘science’ is a ‘social power’, it must be under our democratic control.
You seem to see ‘science’ as a ‘practice’ which is ‘obscure’ and ‘has no practical impact’ on society.
Any knowledge of the history and social importance of ‘science’ makes me wonder how you can assume those three beliefs: ‘practice’ (no, it’s a ‘theory and practice’), ‘obscure’ (no, this is a conscious product of bourgeois science, to hide it from the majority), and ‘no practical impact’ (no, the impact on society of science is enormously important).
I think you are massively underestimating (an understatement!) the social importance of science in any social production, and especially within democratic socialism.
I would regard Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’ as a fundamental part of democratic socialism, the theory and practice of which would be taught through a democratic education system, to enable all to understand and participate in this ‘science’.
Bijou Drains, robbo203.
It’s a political and philosophical question.
If neither of you (nor the SPGB) will give an answer that corresponds to democratic norms, then it is politically valid to assume that you have in mind an elite which will decide.
Of course, in response to any argument that ‘no-one’ will determine, it’s politically valid to assume that you are not aware that someone will.
It’s a simple question ‘Where will power lie?’
You seem to believe that there will be no social power, no politics, within democratic socialism – that ‘individuals’ will determine whatever interests them as individuals, within their individual ‘practice’.
There is no social or historical context to your beliefs, no awareness of the dangers of ‘power’, and the necessity to ensure that humanity collectively must control any ‘power’.
