[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'.

[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.

[Author]

Posts