[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…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,matter was here before mind, including the need to keep a human brain runnign before it can do any thinking.  No matter what the logic of a position, deeprive a brain of oxygen or proteins for a sustained period, it'll styart producing poor ideas.  hat need ultimately comes down to the exterior world and any set of ideas we posses must be consistent with our ability to go on providing our brains with oxygen and proteins.

This, once again, proves that YMS is not reading what I write, and neither are the other 'materialists'.No-one is arguing that 'matter' wasn't here before 'mind'.But that is a historical question.As I've said before, many times, our problem is not an issue of 'which came first', upon which historical answer we all agree, but the problem of, once it emerges after matter, how consciousness knows what matter 'is'.I know that in a month's time, YMS or some other materialist will say this again, as they do regularly, and accuse those who accept Marx's 'theory and practice' of saying 'mind came first' or 'matter emerges from mind' or some other nonsense. It doesn't matter how many times I say rocks were around before consciousness, I'll be accused of saying the opposite, again, sooner or later.The rest of your post, YMS, is nothing to do with the epistemological question of 'knowledge'.Unless you and the other materialists address this question, you'll remain sidelined by any worker, like me, who can read, not only Marx, Engels, Dietzgen and Lenin, but also modern philosophers of science, who seem to take Marx's side in these debates.Your separation of 'mind' and 'matter' is pre-Theses, and returns to the ancient debate about 'being' and 'consciousness', of 'idealism' versus 'materialism'.Marx tried to put this to bed with his claim that both ideas and material are interlinked, through human practice, by the application of human ideas to their real, external world, with the active aim of changing it.If only the 'materialists' would read Marx. They'd soon see how he differs from Engels.But, they haven't read Engels, either, so they wouldn't know.The reason 'materialism' is a religion is that, not only won't its adherents have a word said against it, and argue that 'it says 'materialism' in their bible', but when they're asked, they admit that they haven't actually read their bible, but have been assured by others that it is the case.We're back to taking the stance of the Young Hegelians, and arguing against Christianity, by exegesis of the Christian texts.Except that 'Christianity' is 'Materialism', and we're nearly two hundred years later, having surpassed the Y.H. due to Marx's criticisms that they didn't go far enough.You couldn't make this up – and we pretend to be capable of offering advice to workers, and the problem is that they won't listen?My advice to workers, quite frankly, is not to listen to this nonsense about 'materialism'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lived experience is the whole of the human, mind and senses …

[my bold]So, why call this philosophy 'materialism', when it contains 'ideas', too?Unless we stop calling our philosophy 'materialism' (which makes workers think that it's just about the 'material', or 'matter' or the 'physical'), then we ignore Marx's whole point in the Theses.That is, 'ideas' and 'material' are both as equally important in the method of 'theory and practice'.It's clear that many here, members of the SPGB, also subscribe to 'materialism', in the sense of 'matter' being 'basic'. This is a travesty of Marx's position, and issues from Engels.It's only when Socialists/Communists openly say that we're 'idealist-materialists' (or whatever phrase also reflects this reality to our philosophy) that we'll make any progress.Mind is as basic as matter. They are a unity. Dietzgen is good on this particular issue, and he uses 'dialectical' as a synonym of 'ideal'. That is, 'talking through', using our consciousness, which is what 'dialego' means in Greek.This is all a long way from 'matter' determining 'experience' and 'ideas'.We have to plan to change things, first. Things changing don't produce plans. That is passivity, and denies the 'active side' of humans, contrary to Marx's view.

[LBird]

ALB, I think my reply to YMS also covers your post about 'spontaneism'. I obviously agree with you, about its passivity regarding 'material conditions'.[edit] I've just chosen to focus on the dangers of 'Leninism', rather than 'spontaneism', because I think the former is the one being espoused by some here, with talk of elites, experts, academics, etc. in science.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Unless and until their lived experience accords with socialist understanding…

[my bold]I know I've said this before, YMS, but this is 'induction', that 'material facts' produce 'ideas'.I'm not using this as a term of abuse, but trying to point out the very different philosophy underpinning Marx's 'theory and practice', from your 'practice and theory'.'Lived experience' will come from ideas, not ideas from 'lived experience'.That's the whole point of changing the world. The world doesn't change and produce ideas (and thus 'matter' is the 'active side'), but humans criticise what exists, and create a new world in their ideas, and then proceed to consciously change the 'material condition' / 'lived experience' in line with their new ideas.If you disagree with my viewpoint, and many here do, we should discuss this philosophical difference, because it has political implications.Who is to introduce the 'lived experience'?Workers unconsciously? A conscious minority? Or a majority of conscious workers?'Materialists' have to argue either unconscious workers (because 'matter' is the 'active side') or a conscious minority (Leninism).Otherwise, they'd be forced to agree with me and Marx, that 'critical ideas' allow the mass of workers to change their world. And thus that the task of Socialists/Communists is to stimulate critical ideas within the class, and not passively await 'lived experience', which will never achieve our goals.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The workers do not vote FOR capitalism. To vote for capitalism suggests the workers have an alternative that is known and presented to them. The opposite is true. The socialism/communism we talk about on this forum is something that the majority of workers worldwide have never come across before.

Personally, I place the the blame for lack of 'presentation' upon generations of Communists/Socialists, who have signally failed to 'present' an understandable alternative to workers, including to many who have, not only asked, but have actually got involved. Many, even millions of, workers have come across what passes for socialism, but have found that it is actually nothing to do with their democractic control of their own lives, and so have rejected it.I'm of the opinion that, since I believe that active 'ideas' (not passive 'material circumstances') are the key, that Communists/Socialists need to explain the ideas of, for example, Marx. We should be searching for ways of simplifying difficult ideas, so that workers can more easily get a handle on what's being said. From my own experience, cadre seem to prefer it the other way, and keep ideas difficult to maintain their own power. Further, and wider than 'party politics', I think that this method is followed in education and science, too, to maintain the power of academics and scientists.This restriction of 'knowledge' to an elite cannot be acceptable to any Socialists/Communists who argue for democratic workers' control of production.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

We know your views on what you define rather narrowly as  "materialism" and have argued about this to a standstill. So no point in going over this again.

You started this new thread, with a quote from me, and accuse me of 'going over this again'?I'm forced to ask, if there's 'no point', what was your point in starting it?If you prefer your 'wider materialism', why not discuss it? If you're confident that there is something to this 'wider materialism', why not defend it?If, by being 'argued to a standstill', you mean you've been overwhelmed by evidence and yet still refuse to be convinced, that's a problem for you, not for me.What's more, my 'enforced absence' last week gave me some time to read a bit more Dietzgen (of whom I know you know a bit), and now I'm convinced that much of his ontology agrees with my views, if not his method.So, if your 'wider materialism' equates to Dietzgen's 'dialectical materialism', we could discuss that. But I warn you, I think that his term 'dialectical' could be replaced with 'ideal', and suffer no loss.That is, Dietzgen's 'dialectical materialism' is, at least in ontology, very similar to Marx's 'idealism-materialism', and both are different to Engels' 'materialist conception of history', which turns out to be good old-fashioned, mechanical, 18th century, pre-Theses, 'materialism'.The ball's in your court.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I prefer what Engels wrote. Its easier to read.

Yes, you're spot on, jondwhite! That's why people read Engels in preference to Marx, who never used one word where ten would do, and constantly added sub-clauses and caveats, so as to render his main point incomprehensible.Unfortunately, Marx was suggestive, stimulating, and requires us workers to discuss just what he meant. It's not obvious at all.Engels, on the contrary, is simpler. But, he's saying something very different to Marx.You want 'easy', whereas Marx talked about there being no royal road to understanding.Whilst workers do 'easy', they won't do 'revolution', which requires 'difficulty' in both theory and practice.The 'easiest' thing, of course, is to simply assume the god 'Marx-Engels' spoke with one voice. Easy, but wrong.

[Author]

Posts