[LBird]

The whole tenor of your post, YMS, suggests that, like me, you are an idealist-materialist (or, historical materialist, or critical realist) and not a 'materialist'.There is something going on within your ideological view that prevents you from coming out and saying this openly. I suspect that it is the influence that Engels' thought has had on you. You might never have read Engels yourself, but his misreading of Marx's views is rife within the so-called workers' parties, amongst which I include the SPGB, where you have learned your ideological views.In plain, Engels posited only two philosophical viewpoints: 'materialism' and 'idealism'. Thus, if one follows this schema, if one says one is not a 'materialist', one has to accept that one must be an 'idealist'. This is what I think is behind your reluctance to deny 'materialism'.Of course, it's a nonsense schema, and reading either Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach (where he undermines his own dichotomous outline) or Marx's Theses on Feuerbach (where he clearly adopts a third position, taking and rejecting from both materialism and idealism) makes this very clear.My advice, YMS, is to come to realise that one can deny being a 'materialist' without thus placing oneself in the counterrevolutionary hell of 'idealism'.Everything you now say shouts "I'm an 'idealist-materialist', just like Marx!".And I agree with you and Marx.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism', if it is to mean anything, is the exclusion of 'ideas' in the fundamental make-up of the world. 

LOL. Perhaps if your name is Paul Churchland (or LBird) it does, but for everyone else it means nothing of the sort. We've been here before, many times, and it seems to me you're stuck in a dualistic way of thinking that's why you keep asking these same questions..

You're the adherent of 'physicalism', DJP.You think ideas supervene on the material.If that's not dualism, what is?I think the material can 'supervene' (to use your ideological term) upon ideas. Marx agrees with me, as I've shown with quotes.Human ideas create material conditions, as much as material conditions create human ideas.Dietzgen also follows this view, that ideas and things are both 'real', and have the same status. Thus, to argue for physicalism is to argue against this viewpoint.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

And, as I've said what you alone in the world call Idealism-Materialism is just what I'd call materialism.

But why would you?If 'ideas' and 'material' have the same status, why choose one as the name, and not the other?Or, if it is deemed acceptable to select one component, why not call it 'idealism'?By your logic, one could say that a zebra crossing is 'white'. Or 'black'.Why can't you just say that a zebra crossing is 'black and white' (or, 'white and black')?I think you should look further into this issue, YMS, and I think you'll find that to accept the term 'materialism' as one's viewpoint, is to choose an ideology.What's more, as I've said before, this philosophy negates the SPGB strategy of 'education and propaganda' and the development of workers' consciousness, which I agree with.But I'm amazed that SPGB members say they agree with this political strategy, and yet hold to a contrary philosophical underpinning, one that suggests that 'education and propaganda' are not necessary because 'material conditions' tell workers what they are (ie. it's all obvious to plain sight of any worker), and so passive observation will lead to the development of class consciousness amongst workers.On my part, I agree with the SPGB political strategy, but find it undermined by the Engelsian philosophy adopted by members. It does not give me any confidence that the SPGB actually, consciously, knows what it is doing.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As for the SPGB attitude towards knowledge prior to the revolution i think we do acknowledge that, as you say elsewhere, it is ideologically based…

So, how can the members here claim to be 'materialists'? 'Materialism', if it is to mean anything, is the exclusion of 'ideas' in the fundamental make-up of the world. That's why its adherents always oppose themselves to 'idealism'.But if your claim above is true, and 'knowledge' (of a rock, for example) is 'acknowledged' by the SPGB to be 'ideologically based', then the material and ideal have the same status.Thus, the term 'idealism-materialism' would be more apt to describe the scientific ideology of the SPGB (and one I would agree with, and would argue was also Marx's position, too).Furthermore, why do you stress 'prior'? What is it that you think changes the status of 'knowledge' prior to, and after, the revolution? If you claim that after the rev. that 'knowledge' becomes unideological, then you are claiming that, post-rev., humanity can then adopt a positivist view of science.This is a serious epistemological error, as has been made clear by science, and has dangerous political effects, because if one section of humanity claims to have 'unideological access' to the 'truth', we're going down the Leninist road, where a part of society separates itself off from the mass.

ajj wrote:

Again, there does not exist the possibility of any political privilege/power that today's elites are able to acquire through a political dominance to impose an ideology…So isn't this all a bit of hypothetical scare-mongering, in a way, about a situation that circumstances won't allow to arise.

I find this very naive, and is clearly based upon Engels views about the 'material' and the 'ideal'. You're arguing that, if the 'material' circumstances don't 'exist', then 'elite ideologies' can't form.But, if we follow the logic of your first statement, and accept that the material and ideal have the same status (in opposition to Engels' views), then clearly 'elite ideologies' can form, and then go on to produce 'material' circumstances favourable to the 'elite ideology'.So, 'hypothetical scare-mongering', on my part? Or, 'naive realism and naive political views' on yours?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

What I have said is that I, like my comrades, will make up my own mind based on evidence and testimony…[and] I'd accept the verdict of the vote…

This is tantamount to saying that you agree with a democratic theory of knowledge in science.Why you don't just say so, beats me.So, no 'scientists' telling the rest of us what the 'material' is, then?Thus, you can't be a 'materialist', can you?If you accept a democratic theory of knowledge, in which social IDEAS play a fundamental part (as you also go on to say in your brief outline about debates), why call your self a 'materialist'?Surely, like me and Marx, you're also an 'idealist-materialist'?Why ever did you deny it?I think that you've been taking 'ideas' about materialism at face value, accepting what others have said, without asking where those 'ideas' about materialism came from. I can tell you that, too. They came from Engels, and I've already given you the pamphlet title and page number, before.I recommend that you look this up, because it's the source of great confusion for Marxists/Communists/Socialists.Hmmmm… perhaps we are getting somewhere…

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

No one is arguing that we have access to special knowledge, far from it (in my case, the exact opposite…

You must have a memory like a sieve, or are a hypocritical liar, YMS.You've said several times that, if your own senses tell you something, you'll accept that rather than a vote of your comrades.It was 'tides coming in', I believe, last time.You know so little about epistemology, that you don't even know when you're displaying your method. You don't even know it's a method. To you, it's just 'common sense'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have to plead guilty to this although i wouldn't have phrased it that way. As a party we do claim to possess a collective knowledge acquired from accumulated experience of past events and what we consider their proven worth in interpretation so we do endeavour to educate (propagandaise) workers and tell them where they may be correct and where they may well be wrong in their view of society. The old slogan of "Educate…Organise…Agitate" still stands as a guide for todays socialist parties although "self-education and self-organisation" may be an improvement but the creation of a formal organisation i view as having its place in our self-liberation, myself as an individual and myself as a constituent of something larger, my class.

[my bold]I think you're being too harsh on yourself, in this case, alan. The rest of what you say I agree with, and indeed is the basis of my looking to the SPGB in the first place. Prior to a revolution, the class can either agree or disagree with your party position. If they agree, the ideas are spread; if they don't, changes happen in other circumstances.The real philosophical question is about the 'material' (as in 'conditions', 'production', etc.). In this case, the members here are arguing that, even after a revolution, they won't accept that the class as a whole should determine the meaning of the 'material'. That is, your party members are arguing that they, either as individuals or as a party, have access to a means of generating social knowledge that is either not available to the mass of workers, or that the mass of workers can't be trusted with. Thus, it is an elitist stance, very different to your point above that, clearly, within a capitalist society, Socialists/Communists have a head start on workers who are not class conscious.This issue is about a post-revolutionary situation. And since I think that the 'social training' for  workers' political development must take place prior to a revolution, and that that development must reflect how things will work post-rev., I therefore argue that science for Communists must reflect now how we'll organise our society then. That is, if we want science to be a democratic social activity, we must argue for that now. But your members here reject entirely the notion that workers should determine what the 'material' consists of, not just now (which isn't on the agenda anyway), but after the revolution. To do this, they must have a method that tells them the truth of the 'material', but they won't share it with us here.The reason they won't answer this question, is that any answer they give will be based upon completely discredited ideas about 'individual biological senses', 'induction', 'common sense', etc., which will be laughed at by anyone with any real awareness of the state of the philosophy of science and epistemology, today. In effect, they're holding on to a 19th century method of science which is nonsense. They do so, because they have both been brainwashed by this society to revere 'scientists', and bamboozled by Engels' misreading of Marx, which was based upon Engels' own brainwashing by 19th  century science.

ajj wrote:

In the work-place i was often acccused of arrogance…of having an answer for everything…which usually is the case with socialists…I'm sure that accusation has been thrown at you, too…welcome to the elitist club, LBird

That's right… 'clever shite' and 'know-it-all' being amongst the printable.The thing is, though, they kept listening, especially when my 'arrogance' meant that I ran rings round the bosses in any public discussion. Remind me, if we ever meet, to tell you the story about the vice-president who gave us an hour's talk about 'quality', while we sat there po-faced and bored, and made the mistake at the end of asking whether there were any questions, while smiling at us… it ended with him stamping out of the room, leaving with a face like thunder, confused, having been shown up as an ignorant fool who didn't know anything about 'quality', its proponents, methods, aims, or even its Japanese post-WW2 origins, as a development of pre-war Taylorism. Of course, everyone else was now smiling…No, "workers' arrogance" when faced with bosses is something to be encouraged and developed, and I always did my best to provide a good role model for my workmates.

[LBird]

Thanks for the links, jondwhite.

LibCom article wrote:

Now the SPGB -loudly and consistently proclaims from the housetops its scientific basis, its scientific method and attitude. Thus, in the Party pamphlet "Socialism and Religion", we are told:"The word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who on all such questions takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation. (p.46).Anyone who had the slightest justification for that claim would not hesitate for one moment, in the face of such signal lack of success of theory, to overhaul their whole theoretical position – to examine in the light of scientific criticism and rigorous logic their most dearly held and confident assumptions.

[my bold]It's not only me who can see a need for the SPGB 'to overhaul their whole theoretical position – to examine in the light of scientific criticism and rigorous logic their most dearly held and confident assumptions'.In a phrase, that 'assumption' is Engelsist Materialism.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…continuing the ideology of minority control…

But don't forget that the SPGB continues the ideology of minority control, in regard to science.If you ask any SPGB member if they are in favour of a workers' majority deciding what the 'material' consists of, they will answer 'No!', and will further allege that they have a way to decide what the 'material' is, but they won't share it with workers.Otherwise, they'd quite happily share this method for discovering what the 'material' consists of with all workers, and allow it to be put to a vote.That is, the 'material' would be under democratic control.But the SPGB does not have faith that the mass of workers would come to the same decision as the membership of the SPGB about what comprises the 'material'. It must regard workers as less able than members.Thus, like the Leninists, the SPGB is an elitist organisation.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

"thus the political need for democratic methods being used throughout that society, including science."

That was the reason…a jury of your and YMS peers deciding democratically who is correct – the test of the vote. 

But if our peers decide 'democratic methods' are the answer, my position is thus deemed 'correct' already, prior to any personal debates.Unless comrades separate out 'society' from 'science' (that is, they accept democracy within society but not science), at which point they disagree with Marx.In that sense, my position can't be denied.The only alternatives to Marx's desire for a united and democratic method is either non-democracy or disunity.The choices are:1. democracy within society and science (unity)2. democracy only within society (disunity)3. no democracy at all (unity)4. democracy only within science (disunity)I argue for choice 1, as does Marx.YMS et al argue for choice 2, as does Engels.

ajj wrote:

Plus now you mention it, the prospect of on platform fisticuffs is also appealing, too, now.

No, I'm happy to leave YMS et al to their Engelsian party. It has no future.Any worker I'm speaking to in the future will be told that the SPGB does not want democratic methods to be adopted by the proletariat in its control of the means of production (which includes, obviously, science), and instead that the SPGB argues for discreditted 19th century elite science, and that in that sense the SPGB is identical to the Leninists and their party model, of an elite telling workers what they must believe.From that conclusion about science, questions will flow about 'parliament', which is yet another political arena in which the SPGB wishes to impose its views above workers' councils.Only those who argue for democratic workers' control over all aspects of human production, that is, Communists, have a consistent case.One only has to read YMS's self-appointed individualist epistemological views about 'knowledge' to know what he desires. It's not democracy, it's elitism.For YMS, the elite scientists and political experts will tell us the 'Truth'. That's why they can't accept humans making the decisions about what 'reality' is. They believe that they have a neutral method that tells them what 'reality' is, but they won't tell us what this method is, because they can't. This belief was shot to ribbons by Einstein, and even the bourgeoisie and the religious know this.But not the Engelsian 'materialist' parties, like the Stalinists, Leninists, Trotskyists… and the SPGB. They are all cut from the same philosophical cloth.Materialism? Dead.Marx was an Idealist-Materialist.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

But then, you don't seem to believ in debate, do you?

I was going to say something very unpleasant, but in fact I'm past caring.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The reason i ask is that i think a face-to-face encounter with YMS would be both educational and entertaining and an extremely worthwhile venture.

I think it would be a waste of time. Why?It'd be just the same as a Communist trying to explain value to an audience of neo-classical economists. In that discussion, any talk by us of 'socio-economic relationships' would be interpreted by them as 'money transactions between individuals'.For whatever reason, the neo-classicalist has to come to some critical understanding of the uselessness of their own views, prior to them then asking questions about Marx and Capital.It's the same for this issue of 'science'; if I explain the problems with Engels' materialism, contrast it with Marx's emphasis on material production (in which human ideas are as important as 'material'), and outline Critical Realism, but I'm met by people who already 'know' that I'm wrong, that the superhuman named 'Marx-Engels' cannot be faulted, and that the 'material' determines the 'ideal' (or, the 'physical' is the basis of 'ideas'), and that anyone who questions 'materialism' is ipso facto an 'idealist', then there is no point.I've always thought that Communists, who've already been through the process of coming to question something we're all told, that capitalism is natural, and then coming to reject this 'truth' which everyone 'knows', would find it easier to imagine the same process happening again to them elsewhere.If I was to put it simply, I would say that YMS, you and anyone else who's reading, will have to begin to question 'science' for themselves, before discussing it with me.Whilst one is happy with the market and science (and they are twin pillars of the ruling class), then one is happy with them, either singly or together.What's so frustrating for me, as a Communist, is that probably 90% of what I say would be totally uncontroversial to most bourgeois thinkers. The bit they'd disagree with is my ideological belief in the ability of workers to run society, and thus the political need for democratic methods being used throughout that society, including science. But they'd quite happily agree with the epistemological stuff that I've been arguing.However, so called Socialists/Communists here disagree with almost 100% of what I say. They argue for 19th century positivism, empiricism, physicalism, induction, individualism, and they do this under the influence of Engels, not Marx.So, you think it would it be "educational and entertaining and an extremely worthwhile venture". I think it would be a carcrash, as if I were to stand up in front of a roomful of rabid Thatcherite yuppies and proceeded to denigrate their wonderful market.Either I'd get a kicking by Maggie's Believers, or I'd strangle some dickhead economist who tried to tell me that the 'material market conditions' can't be questioned, and they determine that we must take a pay cuts and live in poverty, while they get a pay rise and buy more Porsches.One can't question the 'material market conditions', can one?

[LBird]

At least Vin admits that he's not in favour of workers' democracy.steven colborn, for all the bluster, still won't tell us why he's a 'materialist', which means that workers can't vote on what constitutes the 'material'.Look, comrades, this issue isn't going to go away, whether I stop posting (or, am stopped from posting) or not.There's a philosophical problem at the heart of Engelsism. That of 'materialism'.And its political effect is to deny workers' democracy.Surely someone reading can glimpse this fundamental problem?I'll tell you what – if no-one mentions me in their responses, and no-one wants to take this problem forward in discussion with me, I'll leave this thread alone to develop as the others decide.I hope that satisfies Vin.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

All threads inevitably return to on subject  

Yeah, I know, that pesky issue of workers' democracy.I should just give it a rest, and let the elite like you, as Walford calls you, tell me what 'reality' is, eh?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

What specific organisational features would a party in favour of proletarian democracy that was not a sect look like? How would it treat non-members?

Well done!Avoid the difficult philosophical issue of Engels 'materialism', and get onto day-to-day, practical issues.That's the conservative method: ignore theory, and move straight to dealing with 'practical issues'.Unfortunately for your conservative method, the philosophical implications of following the religious creed of 'materialism' determine whether one favours democracy or not.If you're a 'materialist', then my answers will appear to be impossible.However, if you are a follower of Marx and his 'material production' (ie., human, social production which requires ideas), then democracy is unavoidable.

[Author]

Posts