[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird wrote:

To the idealist, there is no limit to their creative originality in their drawing of a picture of knowledge. They can draw freehand on a blank canvas, and any individual artist can freely improvise, with no external framework to impose a pre-existing structure upon their individual musings and scribbles.

That's not idealism.  Many idealists, such as Hegel would suggest that the pad is numbered as well, except that the dots are ideas.  A dualist would say there are two pads that somehow match each other, and a materialist says the dots exist outside the human mind.

Let's hear your attempt to explain all this to workers, then, YMS.No? I didn't think so. After all, they're only 'meatbots' to you, aren't they, and not worthy of your time or efforts.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I wish I'd never mentioned "naive realism" as there was always the risk that it would set you off again. And it has.

Listen, I've done my best to tolerate your half-assed ideas about 'socialism', and get you to explain what the hell you mean, and try to help you understand why you're often talking complete nonsense.You mentioned 'naive realism', and I've explained, in very little words just for you, why naive realism can't form the basis of human understanding, as you plainly stated, within socialism.

ALB wrote:

I've no interest is discussing epistemology with you, at least not on this thread (having discussed it with you for over a year I know perfectly well what your position is)…

But your position is as clear as mud, so I don't know 'perfectly well' what yours is. One minute you agree with Marx (who says ideas are as important as material), the next you're claiming that you're a 'materialist'.So, perhaps I have been 'set off again'. But at least I'm trying to help, to explain what the hell it is we should be explaining to workers, whereas, as usual, you're hedging your bets, woffling from one stance to another, and blaming me for continually asking you for your position.

ALB wrote:

4. I do not think that the socialist-minded majority needed to establish socialism has to have a knowledge of epistemology at least not more than a passing knowledge. Some, perhaps many, no doubt will but, in any event, it would be an optional extra not a necessity.I am only interested in discussing point 4 here.

And I'm trying to discuss point 4 with you. What the hell have I just spent half an hour writing for you, explaining why workers do need to have a knowledge of epistemology.Christ, if they don't, they'll have to leave it to people like you!

ALB wrote:

1. I was making the point that, in their daily life, everybody is in practice a "naive realist", i.e assumes that the world is more or less as they see it and that the parts of the observed world they use are separate objects. You do. I do. We all do. Humans always have and no doubt still will in socialism.

Let's be clear. This is complete bollocks.If the world is 'more or less as we see it', then it will remain capitalist.The whole point is that workers have to become Critical Realists, not remain naive realists. They have to become conscious and critical.C R I T I C A L. And stay, critical, and reject the myth of 'naive realism'.How many people here really think that 'naive realism' is the proper scientific method?How many people here really think that 'naive realism' will remain the popular method, even within socialism, which to even reach we'll have had to have already seen a massive, popular interest in our world and how we all understand it? And afterwards, when the finest education is available to all on this planet, do you really imagine that people will retain (or revert to) the method of, 'my individual, biological, senses tell me what the world is'?If you're right ALB, socialism (and by this I mean Marx's self-emancipation of the working class) is impossible.If you don't like talking about it, stop pretending you know anything whatsoever about epistemology, and if the rest of the SPGB is bored by 'epistemology', why not pronounce to workers that the SPGB doesn't do difficult issues like 'knowledge', and wants workers to remain common-or-garden 'naive realists', as the bourgeoisie have taught them?Why have a bloody internet site at all, if you can't discuss issues with non-members?And I see that you've not bothered to respond to my genuine attempt to explain.

[LBird]

ALB, post #48, wrote:

Most people will still be naive realists even in socialism…

Because I’ve argued both that ‘workers need to understand epistemology’ (which ALB and alanjjohnstone seem to disagree with me), and that ‘Communists are responsible for not explaining to workers, rather than ‘workers are ignoring the socialist case’ (which YMS and jondwhite seem to be saying), I’ve decided to try to explain the three cases for epistemology that we’ve discussed endlessly on this site (that is, 1. idealism; 2. materialism; and 3. idealism-materialism), in a way that most workers would be able to grasp.This isn’t a substitute for reading further and deeper into the relevant thinkers, of course, but is simply an initial attempt to show that we Communists can give workers simpler explanations which can help them orientate themselves to more complex problems. Since I believe that workers must reach a high cultural level prior to a revolution, and that it is the role of Communist workers to help in this process of workers’ self-development, and that I’ve counted the need to know at least some epistemology as amongst these heights, then I should try, as a Communist, to try to give some explanation about epistemology, and see if any other comrades here benefit from my efforts, and afterwards say whether they think that they’ve learned something from my explanations. Here goes.Imagine reality as either a blank sketch pad, or as a numbered dot-to-dot picture book. The former represents the ‘idealist’ approach to knowledge, whereas the latter represents the ‘materialist’ (or, ‘naïve realist’) approach to knowledge.To the idealist, there is no limit to their creative originality in their drawing of a picture of knowledge. They can draw freehand on a blank canvas, and any individual artist can freely improvise, with no external framework to impose a pre-existing structure upon their individual musings and scribbles.On the contrary, though, for the materialist the world imposes a numbered dot-to-dot reality upon the drawing inventiveness of the individual. The drawer is restricted to the reality of what’s ‘on the page’ of external reality, and they simply and carefully follow the numbers, join the dots, and the picture of reality emerges. Once done, it’s done. Any other drawer of knowledge, being under the same compulsion of the ‘numbered dots’ of reality, would draw the same picture.However, for Marx, neither of these epistemological viewpoints was correct. In the Theses on Feuerbach, he took from the idealists the ‘active side’, the creative impulse of the drawing human, but he recognised that external reality provided limits to human freedom to ‘create’ knowledge. Having ‘ideas’ and sketching whatever one wanted was incomplete, as an account of reality. The idealist sketches did not capture the reality of most humans’ real lives. Marx knew that ‘reality’ must play some part, a reality that the materialists correctly insisted always existed for humans. But, Marx could also see that the materialists’ picture of a reality as ‘numbered dot-to-dot book’ took away any creativity whatsoever from humans. For the materialists, the ‘book’ dictated to humans what it was picturing, and made the book the ‘active side’, rather than human criticism and creativity.Marx thus took something from both idealism and materialism, and rejected something from both idealism and materialism. He realised that ‘reality existed’, and provided limits to human creativity in producing knowledge, but he also wanted to overcome the ‘fixed world’ of unchanging reality implied by the mechanical materialists. Marx wanted an epistemology that allowed for the power of humans to change things.Marx in effect came up with the idea of reality being a dot-to-dot book, but that the dots were unnumbered. So, the ‘dots’ provided limits to what could be legitimately drawn (reality is not a blank slate for free-sketching), but the ‘numbering’ of the dots was a human creative choice (and so, the ‘book’ did not itself tell us how we must connect the dots of reality). If different numbers were actively allocated by different social groups, then Marx though that those groups would have differing pictures of ‘reality’. There wasn’t a singular ‘reality’ which was the same for all societies, because humans actively built their pictures from the dots of reality given to them, and they were creators of their own, human, social, historical, knowledge.So, we have three accounts of epistemology: ‘idealism’ (blank sketch book, any picture goes), ‘materialism’ (numbered dot-to-dot book, determines the picture) and Marx’s ‘idealism-materialism’ (unnumbered dot-to-dot book, interaction of artist and dots produces the picture).If this helps to orientate any comrades within the difficult discussion of epistemology, then I’ve helped, even if only a little. If it proves to be totally useless, then perhaps ALB and alanjjohnstone are correct, and workers will never be able to grasp why they shouldn’t employ naïve realism (materialism and its copy theory of knowledge, that the picture produced is simply a copy of the numbered dots), or that YMS and jondwhite are proved correct, and that even though they themselves might understand this analogy, that most workers aren’t even listening.To me, though, either of these conclusions are tantamount to saying Socialism/Communism, in the sense Marx meant, the self-emancipation of the workers, is impossible.Of course, there is always the possibility that it’s merely my account that is not very good, and some other comrade can come up with a better explanation, but I still insist that an explanation of epistemology for workers must be possible, and that workers would be interested in hearing that explanation.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Most people will still be naive realists even in socialism, just as you and me are in our daily, practical life. We wouldn't survive if we weren't. Imagine trying to live if you thought food was a mental construct and not a separate thing to eat.

I find this quite a depressing statement. 'Naive realism' doesn't produce 'the truth'; in fact, it just confirms 'they way things are now'. Not much more than 'it looks like a bread roll, it tastes like a bread roll, it's a bread roll'. OK, full belly results.But naive realism also tells workers that 'wages are too low' and that 'the cause is immigrants'. And 'competition for bread rolls is entirely natural'.Naive realism is fundamentally uncritical of 'what exists'.In my opinion, if, as you say, 'most people will still be naive realists even in socialism', then this political order would be nothing I'd recognise as any form of democratic, liberatory, socialism, but merely 'good old fashioned, honest, I-care-for-my-worker' paternalist toryism.

ALB wrote:

I don't see that not knowing about epistemology prevents the workers from emancipating themselves. It doesn't follow. There's no connection between the two.

It's not too much of an overstatement on my part to say 'workers knowing about epistemology is the mark of their emancipation'. I'd say that there is an intimate connection between the two.Furthermore, even the Leninists at least pretend that, after the revolution, they'll be able to develop workers to understand epistemology, that workers have abilities denied to them by the present society. Even Stalin brought the Russian workers and peasants on educationally, ensuring most had access to the means of developing themselves…Bloody hell, this conversation's been revelatory. And not for the good.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

You're placing the bar for "socialist consciousness" far, far too high. All that it required to establish socialism is the understanding of a majority …

I can accept this as a reasonable criticism of my position, that I'm 'placing the bar too high', but then that leaves me wondering about Marx's view that 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class'.

ALB wrote:

As to epistemology, to be perfectly honest I think that naive realism for all its philosophical inadequacy will do. At least it works for daily living. And making that better is what's socialism is all about.

Perhaps this is more my problem. I think socialism is 'far, far' more than 'better daily living'. That could be achieved by a world-wide conservative paternalist ruling class initiative, that moved beyond the 'competition of capitals', and instituted a less dynamic, but still class-based society. Perhaps the 'Soviet Union' showed these socio-political possibilities in one nation-state, but with a little bit more distribution to workers, and no 'outside' Western consumer pressure, which would be the case if the bourgeois was wise enough to protect their world position, at the expense of their (then outdated) nation-states.Perhaps this picture of a world paternalism is a bit far-fetched, but no less, I'd suggest, than our own dreams for world socialism.No, I think that the bar has to be set high, and workers have  to voluntarily want to hit the high bar, and want more from their lives than 'better daily living'.Of course, given their present state, many workers now would settle for just that, and ignore our dreams of human emancipation.No, my slogan is still 'Smash Naive Realism!'Errr… not very catchy or attractive, is it?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' is, yet again, seen to be unable to be defended against the criticisms of workers who've seen through its nonsense.

I think you're exaggerating here a bit. "The criticism of workers" (plural)? As far as I know it's the criticism of just one worker unless you know of some others. Most workers couldn't care less about epistemology, materialism and other philosophical issues and as the majority can't be wrong. Can they? 

Yeah, up until now you're totally correct that 'most workers couldn't care less about epistemology' etc.That's my point: as class conscious workers, they'll have to start to care about epistemology. If they don't, someone else will, and workers will remain in thrall to the 'someone else'. That's why I disagree with alanjjohnstone on this issue. He seems to argue that epistemology is for the elite.I'm perfectly happy for someone to argue that "workers are too thick to spell 'epistemology', never mind understand it!", but of course I think that that argument is incompatible with democratic Communism.And I'll accuse those taking such an elitist stance of 'Leninism'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

AFAICS, and I'll end it here, is you want to call materialism idealism-materialism while referring to the same thing everyone else does when they call it materialism. I couldn't care less what the name is.

So, the question becomes, why defend the name 'materialism' so vociferously?I'm entirely happy with this outcome, YMS.We can now be honest with workers who ask us for a clear statement of our philosophical position, and accurately reply that we're 'idealist-materialists' (or, perhaps less polemically, Critical Realists), which is the position taken by Marx, and completely explains the concept of 'theory and practice'.Any sensible worker can see the discrepancy between the two claims of 'theory and practice' and 'materialism'.'Theory' clearly requires 'ideas'.I think we should give clear indicators of our position, and stop un-necessarily confusing these difficult issues. Whilst we are unclear, we should blame ourselves for workers' lack of understanding.I myself was always confused by the SWP, and have spent years trying to untangle the nonsense that they told me, and the way (and why) they averted my difficult questions.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

The thread title is 'Can the workers ever be wrong?'To answer the question 'who determines 'wrong'?', we have to answer the epistemological question of who or what determines 'wrong'.Is it an elite minority?Is it 'reality'?Is it a social majority?Thus, since I argue that the latter is the correct epistemological and political answer, the answer to the title is 'No'.'Wrong' is a social idea, not a property of matter or the opinion of an elite.

That's better, i.e stopped the thread veering off track down a dead-end siding or, to be more charitable, on to another thread.I thought that was your answer.  So your slogan is "The Workers United Can Never Be Wrong!" whatever the view they are united on (eg war, discrimination) — and I thought you were among those who think that socialism is a moral as well as a class issue. The trouble is of course they never are united, not even in supporting wars or governments or even capitalism in general. Some support one view, others another, others yet another. So how do you decide what is the workers view that can never be wrong?

[my bold]Yes, 'morality' is subject to a vote, too.The answer to your conundrum, of course, is that 'workers have to become united as class conscious Communists/Socialists'.The confirmation that this has finally happened is, from the SPGB persepective, a majority vote in parliament. So, your claim that 'they are never united' is a claim that the SPGB can't achieve their stated political aims, if that is what you mean by 'they are never'. My claim is 'they must become united'.Leaving aside what then happens in parliament (which we can ignore for the purposes of this thread, because I'm not sure I agree with what some members have said about that, here), at that point, for the purposes of deciding what counts as 'right or wrong', we have a united class who have the power to determine both 'political right and wrong' and 'morality'.At that point, workers can't be 'wrong'. That is the only stance that can be taken by a democratic Communist/Socialist. This also applies to 'knowledge', too. And whilst we Communists/Socialists remain in a minority, we are 'wrong', too.If any comrades disagree, they have to state who else (or what else) will determine 'wrong' and how that minority (or 'matter') does this determining.It's better to be open about this with workers, if one doesn't think workers should decide 'truth', and 'right', and openly deny democracy.Some Anarchists, for example, do deny democracy, and see sovereignty as lying in each individual, that 'power' is divisible amongst 7 billion.I have my doubts, but then, I'm a Communist, not an individualist.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

My philosophy is trombonism.  The world is made of trombones, and the only stuff in the world is trombones. We are trombonebots.  There is no intereaction between trombones and catfish, there are only trombones, and thus no priority.  Catfishism-trombonism is absurd.

This sort of stuff (-ism or not) doesn't help your argument, YMS, and only strengthens mine, by default.'Materialism' is, yet again, seen to be unable to be defended against the criticisms of workers who've seen through its nonsense.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Matter=Ideas.  Ideas=Matter.Materialist monism says there is no ideal, only actual stuff.  I'll go with stuffbots.  Ideabots is ridiculous.

So, you now claim that your philosophy is 'stuffism', I presume, and not 'materialism'?If so, we're getting somewhere.It's the term 'materialism' that makes workers think that its adherents prioritise the 'material', at the expense of the 'ideal'. Indeed, whenever the 'materialists' are questioned about this issue, that is precisely what they do.I agree with you, if that's what you're now saying, that you think that there should be no priority given to 'matter' over 'ideas'. It's the interaction between them that is the point of Marx's philosophy of 'theory and practice', as the phrase suggests.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

The rest of your post, YMS, is nothing to do with the epistemological question of 'knowledge'.

That sounds good as that's not what we are discussing here as there's another long-running thread on this which (just checked) has 233 new messages unread by me on it since I stopped following it a few weeks ago.

The thread title is 'Can the workers ever be wrong?'To answer the question 'who determines 'wrong'?', we have to answer the epistemological question of who or what determines 'wrong'.Is it an elite minority?Is it 'reality'?Is it a social majority?Thus, since I argue that the latter is the correct epistemological and political answer, the answer to the title is 'No'.'Wrong' is a social idea, not a property of matter or the opinion of an elite.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

When you call your philosophy 'materialism', instead of the more accurate 'idealism-materialism'.But, I've told you this before. You don't read.

I suppose I would have previously replied that I am not separating them, because I am denying any independent thing called ideas, they are part and parcel with matter.  I reject "inkism-bauxiteism" precisely because it does separate the two things, and suggests a form of dualism.

So, you disagree with DJP's physicalism, and agree that, ideas being the same as matter (your 'not independent' and 'part and parcel') that 'matter' can supervene on 'ideas'?In fact, it's 'materialism' that is a form of dualism, because it can't say, as I can, that the material can supervene upon the ideal, just as the ideal can supervene upon the material.I suppose this is the philosophical roots of your view of humans as 'meatbots'. Why don't you call them 'ideabots', if you don't separate out the two? Surely 'ideabot' and 'meatbot' would be synonymous, if you really believe what you're claiming about your ideology?Now, there's a philosophy to attract workers. We're all simply meat. Back to the division of being and consciousness.And bollocks to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

The rest of your post, YMS, is nothing to do with the epistemological question of 'knowledge'.

That sounds good as that's not what we are discussing here as there's another long-running thread on this which (just checked) has 233 new messages unread by me on it since I stopped following it a few weeks ago.

You keep ignoring that which you apparently can't argue with, ALB.We are discussing 'epistemology'. You just wish we weren't, because you can't answer a simply question.Why do you call yourself a 'materialist'?When I point out that you don't subscribe to 'materialism', but 'idealism-materialism', as did Marx, you pretend not to understand the question, and revert to poo-pooing what I'm saying and asking.I've proved my case beyond doubt, with quotes from all the authorities and commentators, but you're sticking to your religion, aren't you?Even Dietzgen, whom you yourself quote, agrees with me. He doesn't call himself a 'materialist', does he? He prefixes the term 'materialism' with a synonym for 'idealism'. He has no time for 'physicalism', does he?No, you carry on leaving messages unread, stop following any critical thoughts, and sleep soundly once more with your religion of 'materialism'.Isn't there anyone in the SPGB, even currently offline, who could be persuaded to enter the debate? For all I know, perhaps the majority offline agree with me!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

LBird,pardon me, but whn did I separate matter and mind?

When you call your philosophy 'materialism', instead of the more accurate 'idealism-materialism'.But, I've told you this before. You don't read.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Eve so, we do in fact hold that capitalism "spontaneously" throws up socialist ideas in the sense that it does so even if we had never existed (though I don't like the word "spontaneous" in relation to human ideas since none are; all have to be conscious and spread by argument, even Lenin's "trade union consciousness" is not "spontaneous"). Our argument here is that what we, as an organised group propagating socialist ideas, are doing is not creating socialist consciousness but merely speeding up its spread and, as YMS says, avoiding workers having to re-invent the wheel.

I'm sure you'll take this comment as a tribute, but that passage reads like Marx!I could conclude from it that the SPGB is 'spontaneist' and also that the SPGB is not 'spontaneist'.It only takes the claim that this is precisely the case, and shows my ability to have 'dialectical consciousness', to go the whole Engelsian hog.I'll be clearer, perhaps.There is no 'spontaneous' consciousness which emerges from capitalism.If workers don't start to think critically for themselves, and then seek out whatever explanations are available, and then choose the one that Communists/ Socialists offer, then 'socialist consciousness' will never emerge, neither sooner nor later.That's why I am at least consistent. I think that the educational and propaganda role of worker-communists amongst their own class is inescapable.We workers are the ones creating a socialist consciousness.And whilst the materialists keep insisting that the 'material conditions' will do this for us, they can blame workers for not listening to their conditions, rather than blame us for not explaining clearly.Which takes us back to your masterful text…

[Author]

Posts