[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

…you have to accept that Marx did see himself as belonging to the idealist tradition…

I don't because he didn't

Marx wrote:

my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm

Whatever happened to 'Monism'? Now you're returning to only material at the expense of ideas.We've been here before, DJP. We know we can't solve our problem by simple appeal to scriptural authority. We can both find evidence from Marx to support our claims. I've said this many times previously.Unfortunately, no matter what he wrote in polemics, Marx was also an idealist. The Theses make that clear, as does the content of his other work, which never simply point to the 'material'. He more often points to 'production'.The real solution is for us, in the 21st century, to clarify what, for us, is the best term to employ.The term 'materialism' is tainted by association with Lenin, but, more importantly for us today, implies… well… 'materialism', which it isn't.If any worker comes to read these debates, knowing nothing of the arcane issues involved, which term better describes the philosophical basis of the SPGB, which has a political strategy of developing 'ideas' (ie. education, propaganda, class consciousness and workers' self-development)?'Materialism'or'Idealism-Materialism'?For the first time, perhaps since the First International, a workers' party will describe their philosophy as matching their politics.Whilst they hide behind 'materialism', they'll always have recourse to YMS's elitism.That is, they say one thing in politics (democracy), but another in philosophy (the material talks to an 'able' few, in YMS's terms). And as sure as eggs is eggs, the 'political' will follow the 'philosophical', in practice.Engels' materialism leads to political elites.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

So, we're agreed that human beings produce knowledge, and that is an active process that occurs under historically specific conditions.  We're agreed that in a democratic society people need to be informed and have free access to information, and that everyone will contribute according to their ability.  From here we may diverge, but I think this is a problem you need to resolve.  The more able members of the community, whom you label an elite willl necessarilly consume more data (to each according to their needs) and scientific resources (including study time), they will develop new propositions, which will enter into the social arena for debate and discussion, as a minority seeking to become the majority view.   I think you need to account for why that will not happen if you want to remove the elite, with or without votes.

No, an 'elite' is not a democratic minority, but a group who claim to be 'more able' than the rest, and thus this 'ability' is outside of a democratic vote.You're still hung up on 'elites', YMS.I thought that you'd got over that, but it seems that you are still just paying lip-service to democracy in all areas of life.Why don't you just say that you're an elitist?The SPGB doesn't seem to mind them.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'm fine with you calling it idealism-materialism, so long as you and the rest of us realise you're just using that to desribe Marxian Materialism.

Or the word "materialism" could be avoided and it could just be called "Marxian Monism", but you have to accept that Marx did see himself as belonging to the materialist tradition… 

Yeah, Marxian monism, but, in turn,……you have to accept that Marx did see himself as belonging to the idealist tradition…That's what the Theses on Feuerbach is all about.Why do you still feel the need to emphasise 'materialism', to the exclusion of 'idealism'?I don't exclude one, I'm quite happy to stress both.'Marxian Monism' is 'Marx's idealism-materialism'. Marx wanted to blend the best of idealism and the best of materialism into your term 'monism'.I don't have any problem just saying it: Monism, neither just materialism nor just idealism, but a unity. Theory and practice.Why can't we say that to workers? Why do we stress 'materialism', when it isn't?The problem originated with Engels, and was carried forward by the Second International, and Lenin.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'm fine with you calling it idealism-materialism, so long as you and the rest of us realise you're just using that to desribe Marxian Materialism.

Yes, I'm fine with that, YMS.My scientific ideology is Marxian Materialism.And since Marx emphasised the control of the means of production by the producers, and science is produced by human producers, all aspects of production should be democratically control by the producers.So, the human products of science (ie. scientific results) must be subject to a democratic vote.There is no elite, expert, 'neutral method' ouside of human social production.We must vote upon 'scientific truth'.The world does not tell us what it is.Knowledge is produced by societies, not elites.We must all have a say in determining 'truth'.What's your ideology of science, YMS?

[LBird]

YMS, DJP and Vin:I'm not ignoring your posts, but we've been on this merry-go-round for over a thousand posts, on this thread alone, and I don't propose to re-do it all, again.The answers to all your questions have been given already.But, none of you will answer mine.Why call your philosophy 'materialism' (however defined, Vin), and oppose it to 'idealism', if your 'materialism' contains 'ideas'?If it does contain 'ideas', why not call it 'idealism-materialism', which 'does what it says on the tin', and so make it easier for workers coming new to these issues, to get a handle on socialist philosophy?Why persist with 'materialism' (which is drenched in Engelsism), to the detriment of 'idealism', which Marx didn't do?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But we know that Marx's "materialism" is not the same kind of "materialism" as those he critised in The Theses of Feurbach.

No, it isn't.So, why call it the same name?Marx argued for the need for the 'active side' of idealism.

DJP wrote:

"Materialism" and "Idealism" represent two different strands of thinking in the history of philosophy, what we are talking has a history going back to the Greek atomists…

So, why did Engels, on the next page, mention a third group?Why did Marx think he had overcome this age-old dichotomy about 'being' and 'conscousness' with his amalgam of 'theory and practice', which requires both? That is the revolutionary significance of the Theses on Feuerbach.While the only choices available to us are 'idealism' or 'materialism', we're lost.We have to move on from the 19th century way of thinking of Engels, and adopt Marx's forward looking approach of 'theory and practice'.'Physical things' do not do 'theory and practice', only humans.'Dialectics' can only exist as an interplay between humans and their external environment. The notion of a 'Dialectics of Nature' is simply nonsense, because 'dialectic' means 'to talk through' or 'discuss', and 'material' without consciousness does not discuss.Reality does not tell us what it is. We inescapably require social theory and practice. In a nutshell, alongside material, also IDEAS.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

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'.

But a "historical materialist" is a type of "materialist". "Materialism" is just a broad label for many different philsophys that share some common aspects..

I don't want us to go over old ground, DJP, because I think we both already know each other's arguments.I can only echo what I said to YMS. If "'materialism' is just a broad label" for a viewpoint that includes 'ideas', why can't it as reasonably be called 'idealism', if it is acceptable to accentuate one aspect, to the exclusion of the other?Doesn't it simply make even better explanatory sense for any workers reading who are unsure, to call it 'idealism-materialism', which better decribes its content? Or, as you say, 'historical materialism' (or 'critical realism', in my opinion the best of all), which emphasises the human history behind the physical? That is, social knowledge requiring both 'physical' and 'mental'.Why would a party, that stresses the need for human consciousness, adopt a philosophy that stresses the 'material' or 'physical', terms which underplay (at best, and at worst, ignore) the inescapable human element?You've already read my response to YMS, about 'Engelsian Materialism' as an ideology. This isn't Marx's viewpoint.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So if my naivity is based upon Engels views it is coincidental since i never bothered to study his ideological bent.

As de Ste. Croix said, ignorance of one's ideology is not the same as not having an ideology.Your views are saturated with Engels' philosophy, because it couldn't be otherwise, for any Communist/Socialist in the last 130 years, because what is deemed to be 'Marxism' is mostly Engelsism. That environment is true for all of us, including me, because I joined the SWP.It's time for all of us 'to study his ideological bent', since it affects us so much.

[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.

[Author]

Posts