[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I simply can't see any point in voting on their results.

So, if the baker insists that "it's tasty bread, and good for you", that's it, is it?The eaters of the bread are not allowed a collective opinion about the baker's recommendations?It doesn't sound very democratic to me, YMS!

YMS wrote:

No one will worry about a secret cabal of bakers (though they will have to be transparent about their methods, for our safety).

Here, of course, you're having it both ways.Either there are not democratic controls of any sort, or, there are democratic controls, based upon what we collectively decide are 'necessary controls'.That is, we decide what is necessary, not the baker.We might agree that the pies of S. Todd are especially tasty, and require no oversight whatsoever. We can still make mistakes.But to argue, as you do, that S.Todd must be allowed to dictate his ingredients to us, and his results are not a matter of collective concern, seems to me very elitist.Nice pies, though. Let individual taste, unencumbered by the collective opinions and oversight of ingredients, prevail![is this Communism or Cannibalism?]

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Ok I shouldn't have used the word "Faith". Still I have no hope or confidence in the "Working Class"…their brains are dormant. They are fuckin idiots.

Even if we accept your characterisation of workers as 'fuckin idiots' (and a glance around ourselves almost every day shows why you hold that opinion), we have to ask 'why are they like that?'.Is it 'human nature' (ie. that as babies, these people had no other potential or option than what they are 'now'), or are they 'made' into what we 'see'?Surely we follow Marx, and try to use theories to uncover a reality that is often unobservable?If we do this, and use a theory of class, we start to see a small group of humans deliberately shaping the majority into forms which suit the minority.That is, this society makes 'fuckin idiots' of the majority, and we have both an explanation 'why' and a 'how to change it'.Societies are produced, not fixed.Your pessimism is understandable, Oz, even justifiable, but it's not the only way of looking at the present situation.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course all knowledge, not just science but what we need to know for everyday living, involves selection (or, as you put it, there can be no "complete" appropriation of "reality"), but does selection have to involve mystification and distortion?.

[my bold]I'm glad that you've stated clearly, the text that I've bolded. This gives us some basis on which to proceed. But, be aware, I'll refer to that statement in the future! I completely agree with it, but I'm not sure the other posters will.On the issue of "selection='mystification and distortion' ". I'll allow you to choose two terms to replace 'm&d', which you think will be less pejorative. Because clearly, as you say above, 'selection' implies 'no complete appropriation of reality'. If it's not 'complete', I'd say 'distorted' is an acceptable term, but you might prefer 'partial', or whatever.For me, I'd rather call 'a spade a spade', and openly proclaim to all workers that my method (and Marx's) DOES NOT LEAD TO THE TRUTH. I'd say the scientific method, as well as providing 'knowledge' also necessarily 'distorts and mystifies', and we should all be aware of this fact of human existence.For us, within Communism, this would provide a basis for a critical approach to all authoritative knowledge, and so ensure our society is a critically-thinking society, which already knows it doesn't know 'The Truth'. This in itself completely undermines the notion of the Leninist Party as having a 'special consciousness' which workers as a class don't share. We must insist upon democratic decision-making in all areas of social life, economic production, political power and scientific knowledge.

ALB wrote:

Is it not possible for the selection to be based on "rational" grounds…?

Who determines the 'rational', ALB? Does it come from outside humans, or is it in our gift to decide, as a society, 'what is rational' (in the sense of "what does 'rational' mean?").

ALB wrote:

While you look forward to pgb's answer to your charge of him making Marx an "objectivist", I'm still looking forward to your explanation of your claim that Marx was a "realist" (I'm not sure I have understood the difference between an "objectivist" and a "realist") and in what sense.

Let's hope pgb can give some details.An 'objectivist' thinks 'knowledge' is the same as the 'object'.A 'realist' thinks 'knowledge' comes from an 'object'.This is simple, but I think it captures the essence. Of course, it is more complex, but this will suffice for your immediate question.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

And what about science in socialism/communism ,would it also be mystified and distorted?

It wouldn't be if we could get rid of the problem of selection, ALB.But since you already know of the selection problem (you've read Carr), I'm not sure why you appear to be unclear about its consequences.Theories provide selection parameters, which determine what is to be chosen and what is to be avoided. There is no 'complete' appropriation of 'reality': our 'knowledge' is necessarily 'mystified and distorted' in some way. That's part of the human condition, which science has been aware of since Einstein. Hence, all the debates within the philosophy of science. We're trying to deal with the fall-out from science itself.For those who've read Lakatos, these parameters are contained within what he decribes as the 'hard core' of a 'research programme'.

ALB wrote:

Why would a "science free of mystification and distortion" have to be one committed to arguing "Knowledge as Eternal Truth"? Another one of your typical exaggerations and non sequiturs. It just doesn't follow. Couldn't it be committed just to "Knowledge as Relative Truth"?

But if some 'knowledge' is 'relative', it's 'mystified and distorted' in some way, as compared with another 'relative' version of 'knowledge'.So, once more, your unwelcome accusations of me using "typical exaggerations and non sequiturs" is, in fact, just a display of your inability to think critically about what you're discussing. I don't know why you can't argue without resorting to personal abuse; but it shows the weakness of your position, and failure to engage with the issues at hand.

ALB wrote:

Or even dispense with idea of Truth altogether?.

So, now it's you who's suggesting something like Post Modernist 'individual relativism'? This is a view I've constantly argued against, because I follow Marx in his belief that 'knowledge is social' and is thus is 'true' for that society.To dispense with 'truth' is to dispense with 'science'.

ALB wrote:

Anyway, over to you, pgb.

Yes, I would still be very interested to read some text which backs up pgb's assertions about Marx, which show that he was an 'objectivist', which would take 'society' out of the process of knowledge creation.

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

Marx could never have used the term “scientific ideology” or the “ideology of science” since he saw science as an activity or social practice free of mystification and distortion.

I'd like to see your evidence for this assertion, pgb, since it goes against everything I've read by Marx on the issue.Marx even claimed 'senses' are social (and thus historical), so it's hard to see how different societies' senses could experience the world in different ways and yet could be 'free of mystification and distortion'.One society's 'true account' would be another's 'mystification and distortion', and vice versa.Unless one society had unmediated access to 'nature'. The bourgeoisie claimed that they had this during the 19th century, but we now know that was untrue.On the contrary, Marx claimed that humans would 'humanise nature', and since humans are ideological, it seems hard to picture Marx arguing for 'Knowledge as Eternal Truth', which would be the result of a 'science free of mystification and distortion'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

FWIW my ideology is wiffypiddledoodahism.

At last. At least we know now that you're not using Marxism as your ideology, then, or you would have said so.

DJP wrote:

No, it's just a model / concept put forward by some people to help explain and understand observed phenomena and to try to deal with theoretical problems.

So, you admit it does not come from nature, but humans. We are getting far this evening.Perhaps, with you now being so helpful, you'll tell us the ideology of these mysterious 'some people', who've been hiding in the background, totally unmentioned by you, for the last twelve months.

DJP wrote:

Sorry nothing about the "Absolute Truth" in there. You'll need to speak to God for that.

But if god isn't responsible for the 'ideal supervening upon the physical' who is?You can't answer 'nature', because that's your god (you're a physicalist/materialist, remember?), but you've just denied the messiah.And, indeed, you've just told us it's not 'nature', but 'some people' who are responsible for the 'ideal supervening upon the physical'. Who are these 'thinkers', who clearly use 'ideas'?Are you an 'idealist', DJP? Ohhhhh…. curiouser and curiouser…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't think any comrades here are — except for comrade Strawman of your creation.

I think DJP regards his model of 'one-way supervenience' of the ideal upon the material as transhistorical and universal.I think DJP regards this model as an 'objective truth' based upon 'reality'.I'm not making a 'strawman'. When I ask him where he gets that ideology from, he won't answer. He regards it, not as an ideological model, but simple 'reality'.Why you feel the need to accuse me of 'strawmanning', I'm not sure. Probably your failure to identify your own ideology, and your continued hope that science will prove to be non-ideological, if you drag this out long enough.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…yes, the truth is ideological too…

I'll take that as a small crumb of comfort for twelve months' hard work…

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…the notion that we will always be biased…

Isn't that precisely what 'selection' is?A theory provides parameters of 'selection' and 'avoidance', as Carr's 'fish/fishing/fishers' analogy maintains.To seek is to hide. Finding one 'fact' involves ignoring another 'fact'.To observe is to distort.The days of 'naive realism', and Lenin's 'reflection theory', that knowledge is a 'copy' of reality, are long gone.Or, they should be.How any comrades think that this sort of 'objective truth' stuff can serve as a basis for Communist thinking, baffles me.'Critical thinking' should be our motto. We must abuse the 'facts' we are presented with!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

… ideology is by almost its definition unconscious …

Who's 'definition'?

YMS wrote:

…knowing ideology as ideology destroys its status as ideology…

That's a handy ideological claim.If one know one's ideology, one is 'ideology-free'?I don't think so!Sounds like conservatism, which is always desperate to deal with 'the real world'.No, ideology is inescapable for humans. We will forever have a 'biased' picture of the world, social and natural.Any other claim to 'Truth' is a lie, made by those who would provide the rest of us with their 'Objective Truth'.The 'truth' for every society is a 'socially-produced truth', and as we intend to build a democratic society, we have to have 'truth' under our democratic control.This ideological, Communist, belief, is entirely compatible with the SPGB's declared aim of democratic production, distribution and consumption.Any other claim for 'minority truth' is, or should be, anathaema.Elitism in science will lead to elitism in politics. The 'cadre/scientists' will tell us their Leninist Truth, and appeals for democracy will be treated as 'absurd!'. "Would you really let the workers which you see around you each day, vote on science?"My answer is 'Yes'. If our class takes control of society and its production, it takes control of science. End of.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Many of the thinkers I refer to for some points, I disagree with on others, because I'm a democratic Communist, and they aren't.

Same here.So no more nonsense of the kind:Some instrumentalists favour "market socialism"Therefore anyone who says something favourable about something they say favours "market socialism".I even agree with some of things you say, but that doesn't mean I agree with the rest.

You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, again, ALB.Don't take things so personal! I was merely trying to give you a hook into these issues, by comparing 'Marxist instrumentalism' (which doesn't exist, as far as I know, but you posited it for discussion) with 'Market socialism', which I'm sure you regard as a bastardisation of Marx's ideas. And so it is with 'Marxist instrumentalism'.So, it's not 'nonsense', but an explanation to help you orientate yourself.Let's keep this civilised, eh? Or you know what sort of response you'll get to accusations of me talking 'nonsense'…So, last time, 'instrumentalism' would be a good fit as a scientific ideology for 'market socialism'. I  say this to illustrate the dangers. After all, I learnt from you and alanjjohnstone about 'free access' Communism.Surely you're not beyond learning from a comrade, too, are you?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I tend to post links on the basis that they are interesting, and perheps worthy fo further discussion, always with the proviso that I believe all Yorkshiremen are liars and everything that follows from that statement.

But you have to be aware of your own position/stance/ideology/weltanshuaang, because it is only from a point of view that one can make a judgement. Otherwise, you still have a 'position' (there is no objective position in the universe), but you are simply unaware of it, and so remain ignorant of its 'causal power' over you!It's better to be aware of one's own ideology, and best of all to expose one's ideology to others; this latter I consider fundamental to the 'scientific method'.I suppose that I'd better stress by "one's own" I mean one's choice of social ideology, rather than "we're all individuals, entitled to our own self-generated ideology", which I know will be the next accusation aimed at me, that I'm arguing for PoMo relativism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I think we need to go back to basics and learn what "non sequitur" means. Here's an example:Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistTherefore LBird agrees with everything Bashkar says.or (different wrong conclusion)Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistBashkar talks gibberishTherefore LBird talks gibberish.

Yes, spot on!It makes sense to discuss with me, not Bhaskar!Many of the thinkers I refer to for some points, I disagree with on others, because I'm a democratic Communist, and they aren't.But DJP and YMS seem to think that the links they give are telling The Truth, and so don't say what they agree with and what they don't, about their recommended reading.It's a bit like someone quoting the OED, and then being astounded when a Communist argues with a definition, as if the former regard the OED is an unimpeachable, objective, authority on words.I criticise my sources, from a Communist perpective.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 I don't know if it's significant but it seems to be hard-line Leninists who say that Marxism and Pragmatism are not compatible and wishy-washy social democrats who say they are.

'Wishy-washy social democrats'? Is that a good description for the SPGB?

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, what was Novack's (the Trotskyist) main argument?

That Dewey's instrumentalism is a social product of 19th century American society.That part of his book seemed pretty well-argued and accurate, to me. Obviously, I have my differences with him, about his own ideology.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, we don't agree and are not going to. But the thing is we don't need to. We are both socialist/communists and it doesn't really matter which particular non-theistic theory of science we adopt. So this exchange is just an interesting side-show allowing those of us interested in philopsophy to clarify our respective ideas.

I've just thought of an explanation as to why this exchange is not just an interesting side-show.The attempt to graft 'Marx onto instrumentalism' is a scientific ideology suited to 'market socialism'. Both pretend to be about 'the social', but really retain 'individualism'. That's why money is required in the latter, because there is still private (ie. non-democratic) property.If you ask comrades to read Dewey as a basis for science, it's similar to asking comrades to read Samuelson as a basis for economics.Instrumentalism is the basis of marginal utility. Individual sovereignty in assessing 'usefulness/worth', whether in science or economics.Hope this analogy helps!

[Author]

Posts