[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'd like to see that.  Although the fact that the theses ends with Chuck announcing the new materialism suggest, er, that he was a materialist…

Funnily enough, I wasn't aiming my query at you, YMS.As you've shown above, you already 'know' the answer.If you're happy with what you 'know', neither will you benefit from reading what I write, nor will I benefit from a critical discussion, and thus any efforts I put into writing a post would be lost on you and would waste my time.I'm beyond the religious certainties of the priests spluttering "But, but, but… it says in the text…"What's more, YMS, you're not even a Communist priest, but an individualist priest…So, no thanks, YMS.Anyone else want to discuss Engels' 'materialism', and how it differs from Marx's 'idealism-materialism'?Whichever comrades are completely happy with the 'materialism' of the multi-person "Marx-Engels", don't bother to engage, because it will be a waste of time. I want to critically discuss the problems which have been evident in "Marx-Engels" since at least the 1930s, rather than merely reiterate the words of the gods, as YMS is already clearly keen to do.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

My participation in this topic has been in regard to Engels…

It would be good to take this discussion forward, because what most comrades regard as 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'.In fact, the more one digs deeper, and reads the two critically, the more it becomes obvious, not only that Engels 'simplification' or 'translation' of Marx was mistaken, but that what most comrades 'believe' to be Marx's ideas, is none other than Engels' reversion to pre-Theses thought about 'materialism'.Put simply, Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the sense that most comrades appear to believe. Any reading of the Theses shows that Marx was grasping towards a 'mid-position' between 'materialism' and 'idealism', which ditched part of each, and took from part of each.If anyone is still interested (including you, mcolome1), I could put together a brief list of issues which separated the 'materialist' Engels from the 'idealist-materialist' Marx.I won't bother to do this unless there is a taste for critical thought here, though. I've got no time for the religious reverence displayed to either Engels or Marx by some Communists.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

…I have given my opinion, and it is my opinion…

If we're Communists, we always realise we are always expressing someone else's opinions.We're social individuals.You're starting to sound like YMS.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…expressing the essential point that only one eye at a time can peer down a microscope.

So, we're down to an 'eye', now?I think you've answered your ideological question from your own ideological perspective, YMS.Just why you say that you want to discuss what goes on behind an 'eye' (in all its social, historical, cultural richness), but constantly revert to talking about 'only one eye at a time', is a mystery to me.Well, it isn't really. Simply put, you're an individualist, not a Communist.That's me done for the day. You stick to your one-eyed peering, YMS.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, what I ask is: can all of us do the same experiment?  Or, must we, as social beings, rely on our fellows to pass us information: preferably in the form of reliable organised knowledge, knowledge which is gathered with an other mind in mind?

I really should let you work this out for yourself, YMS, and resolve the issue in your own mind, because the solution lies in what you have already accepted.But, here goes, FWIW (as Buffalo Springfield said).You have to decide whether an 'individual' does an 'experiment' (in fact, science is much more than this, but we'll have to leave that till much later), or whether a 'social individual' does an experiment.That is, is an experiment a biological act that an individual does, employing their own, isolated, senses and their own, individual 'mind'?Or is an experiment a social act that a social individual does, employing their social perception and their socially-created consciousness?My tip is to ask yourself what ideology you are using to understand 'experiment'. Are you using Communist ideology, which focuses upon the social, or an individualist ideology, which focuses on individual scientists?And further, is science a productive act or a personal act?Again, is 'knowledge' something static that a person can have, or something that society dynamically produces and constantly changes?The solution to your conundrum is in your chosen ideology, YMS. I can't make you a Communist, you either are one or you're not, for reasons external to this discussion.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY

[LBird]

If you've got this far, YMS, and you can see that you're not an 'individual', but a 'social individual', why don't you thus ask where your 'social' aspect comes from, what it consists of, how it affects your theory and practice, etc., etc.?Especially in relation to all of us and 'science' and its 'method'?

[LBird]

Unfortunately, YMS, your quote from Marx agrees with me, not you.Can't you see the word 'social' all through the text, and no mention of 'biological' or 'isolated individuals'?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Aren't we social individuals? That is to say that we exist in two simultaneous dimensions with the self-directed individual integrating his or her own life with the development of the whole community.

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist eventually getting involved in this 'science' discussion, alan!Your point about 'two dimensions' is at the heart of the Critical Realist, and thus Marx's, view of components, structures, levels and emergence.In sociology, 'individuals' as biological beings and 'individuals' as social beings, parallels the economic category of a 'tin of beans' as biological food and a 'tin of beans' as a social commodity.That is, if one can distinguish, in economics, between a use-value (a component) and an exchange-value (a structural relationship), although those 'two dimensions' are 'simultaneous' (as you term it), in a 'tin of beans', then one will have no trouble using this economic insight in other areas, like sociology or epistemology.A brick is only part of a wall in certain specific relationships with other bricks; if the brick simply lies on the floor, surrounded with other individual bricks in random piles, it is not part of a wall.From economics, sociology and bricklaying emerge value, ideology and protection from dogs.Your 'dimensions' are simply different levels, within CR. Hope this helps.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

This means socialism is an ongoing dialogue between flesh and blood human beings, not abstractions like 'society'.So, only the Tory party can deliver the abolition fo the wages system and real socialism. Hail David Cameron.

Yes, Tories always denigrate talk of 'society' as an 'abstraction', and alternatively stress the individualist ideology of 'flesh and blood human beings'.The Tories emphasise the biological, at the expense of the social.

YMS wrote:

Sorry. That slipped out.

No, it didn't 'slip out'. It's entirely consistent with your ideological views, YMS.I don't think that you are conscious of your 'Thatcherite' view of the world. That's not meant as an insult, but a plea for you to re-examine your views, and try to locate their origin outside of yourself as an individual, in the society within which you've grown up, saturated by its ideas.As we all have, of course. That's the point of discussing these issues, to help each other develop a consistent Communist/Socialist outlook of our world.We're not individuals, we're workers; and that structural category is a social category, not an 'abstraction'

[LBird]

A little more on Einstein’s epistemological development, for those interested. Although he seemed to move beyond the 19th century empiricism of his youth (he left Mach’s empiricism behind him after the publication of his general theory of relativity in 1915), and was able to point towards Marx’s anti-inductive position, with his later view about the impossibility of moving from ‘observation to theory’ (see my post #928 for Einstein’s quote in van Dongen), he seems to have failed to make the jump to the social construction of theories, and for him this construction remained an individual one.Einstein wrote of “intuitive selection”, “the intuitive grasp” and “the intuitive view of the researcher” (see van Dongen, pp. 42, 43 and 45).If we employ Schaff’s trichotomous model of object, subject and knowledge (which I detailed on the thread dedicated to Schaff), this shows that, although Einstein got beyond the 19th century ‘objectivist/positivist’ view that ‘knowledge’ reflects the ‘object’ (where the ‘subject’ is absent), he still didn’t get to Marx’s position that the interaction (through practice) of ‘object’ and ‘subject’ produces ‘knowledge’.Einstein stalled at the subjectivist position that the ‘subject’ creates ‘knowledge’, through individual ‘intuition’, which later led him to stress ‘subject’ alone (without any need for ‘object’), which led him to move away from conducting experiments, and to rely almost entirely on his ‘individual intuition’. Einstein defined the ‘subject’ as ‘an individual’, whereas Marx’s theories mean that we have to define the ‘subject’ as ‘a society’. Marx constantly stressed the social production of knowledge.To summarise, Einstein rejected ‘objectivist’ (19th century positivist/empiricist/inductivist) theories of scientific method, but only got as far as did many others, in the social reaction of the early 20th century which moved to ‘subjectivist’ theories (Carr in What is History? describes this social process that “…after the First World War, the facts seemed to smile on us less propitiously than in the years before 1914…”, p. 21). Einstein did not develop to the position Marx had outlined in the 1840s.As Communists, we must adopt the method that holds that ‘knowledge’ is something actively produced by a ‘social subject’, a society in its historical and social interaction with the ‘object’ of a really existing world of ideas and materiality. That is, ‘theory and practice’, both of which are always social, not individual, upon our physical and social world.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Is it permitted in this forum to call another person an ignorant ?  if It is permitted , I can call him a mother fucker

Well, since I often admit to being ignorant myself about all sorts of things, and try to learn, I've got no problem pointing out when others, like you, are clearly ignorant about particular issues.You might be a lawyer, doctor, or whatever, but that in itself gives you no insight into these epistemological and political issues, as you have shown.Why can't you engage with the arguments, rather than attacking me personally, and then throwing your dummy out of the pram when I point out your problem?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

You should create your own personal discussion forum. I think this forum is taking a wrong route

That's a rather uncomradely thing to say, mcolome, especially given that I've been entirely accommodating to your less than clear previous posts on these questions.If you are too ignorant to follow the discussion, why not ask, and I'll try to help you understand.Or do you secretly prefer the Leninist method, but don't like me pointing out that what you believe about science is Leninist in its political implications?Are you opposed to my ideology of Democratic Communism? If so, why not outline your ideology?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Same thing.

I'm afraid it isn't the same thing, YMS.Right, I've had enough of you and your non-Communist and non-democratic ideology.I'm interested in discussing the issue of democracy within scientific method, because of the social demands of epistemology, with comrades who share my ideology of Democratic Communism.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The only way for me to be free…

[my bold]Wrong ideology for this site, YMS.The correct formulation is "The only way for us to be free… "'Freedom' is a social state, not an individual state.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Certainly not all members.  Some members will be unable, as you indicate, to take part.  Some will be babies, some will be senile or have some other mental illness or disability.  So that's "all" knocked into a cocked hat.From each according to their abilities (and who knows better than myself what I can and cannot do?) to each according to their needs (and again, who knows better?) in a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

So, you're not a democratic Communist, then?I particularly like the twist about babies and the senile not being able to participate, and that undoubted fact being used to undermine arguments for democratic controls. You should be in the Tory party. They use that type of political argument.And you've clearly said that you alone, and not you and your comrades in a collective, democratic decision, will decide on your abilities and needs.Why not just say that you're not a democratic Communist, YMS?And we can move on.

[Author]

Posts