[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 In fact, 'explanation' (ie. human understanding of nature) is to be found in the interaction of 'ideas' and 'material conditions'. 

You are seperating 'things' from the 'idea of things'.

No, I'm stressing interaction, Vin.That is, the 'material' cannot be understood without human 'ideas'.Thus, 'ideas' are as central as 'material'.Thus, stressing the central importance of 'human ideas' is not 'idealism'.'Idealism' is the belief that 'ideas' come from outside of humans, ie, from 'god' or 'nature' or 'the material'.Thus, as Marx argued, 'materialism' is a form of 'idealism'.Marx argued for the unity of theory and practice, for ideas and material, for 'Historical Materialism' or 'the materialist conception of history'.This is a million miles from Engels' 19th century positivism, that 'nature' tells us 'what it is', that the 'material' is the source of 'ideas'.Humans create ideas. Ideas are needed to understand the material.'Explanation' involves active human understanding, not passive observation of 'the material', which exposes itself to us.It doesn't. Human ideas is not 'idealism'. 'Materialism' is a form of 'idealism'.The Theses on Feuerbach make this plain. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. He took from both.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Explanation for ideas are to be found in our material conditions and as you say we cannot seperate 'things' from 'ideas about things'…

But, in the first half of your sentence you're separating 'ideas' and 'material conditions', Vin. For you, the origin of 'ideas' is a preexisting 'material'. That is, you separate temporally 'ideas about things' from 'things'. In the latter half, you agree that this can't be done. Can't you see, comrade, that this is confused?In fact, 'explanation' (ie. human understanding of nature) is to be found in the interaction of 'ideas' and 'material conditions'.'Material conditions' do not speak to us, or provide our ideas. Humans create ideas. Some work, some don't. Practice helps us to determine this. But the origin of ideas is humans, not the 'material'.

Vin Maratty wrote:

…but we can study the material conditions of their 'interaction'.

This means that 'material interaction' tells us 'what it is'. No, the actually interaction is between human ideas and material reality, mediated through practice.The ideological belief that 'material conditions' do not require human ideas to understand them, that is, human creativity, and that passive observation of 'the real world' works to produce knowledge, is 19th century positivism.The source of this confusion for Communists is Engels, and not Marx.

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird I think you create differences and confilct where there are none.

Unfortunately, there are differences between us, Vin. And as a comrades, I think that it's worth pointing these out, and trying to discuss them and, hopefully, clear things up.

[LBird]

I’ve literally just read this:

Piketty, Capital, p. 20, wrote:

The history of the distribution of wealth has always been deeply political, and it cannot be reduced to purely economic mechanisms

[my bold]This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.At the fundamental level, in a class society ‘the distribution of wealth’ CAN ‘be reduced to purely economic mechanisms’. That’s what CLASS EXPLOITATION is all about, a systematic ‘economic mechanism’.Of course, social, cultural, political and ideological factors also play their roles, but to analytically hide or ignore this ‘economic mechanism’ is an ideological step. To pretend that social, cultural, political or ideological factors can be amended or reformed, in the absence of ‘economic mechanisms’ being destroyed, is a myth.And Piketty is clearly propagating this myth. Capitalism is a harmful ‘economic mechanism’ which must be destroyed, not a neutral system of production that can be tinkered with to reduce ‘income inequalities’.

[LBird]

I’ve just got my copy of Piketty’s Capital last night, and I’m only still reading the introduction. But one thing stands out already: he’s talking about ‘income’, its disparities and the inequality that it produces.To me, this is immediately ideologically suspect. To give an example to try to explain about my unease:If ten serf farmers each produce 100 tons of wheat, and the baronial landlord takes 50% from each serf, the result is that each serf is left with 50 tons, and the landlord is left with 500 tons of wheat.Thus, speaking of ‘income’, the landlord has ten times the income of each serf.This ‘disparity’ can be addressed by some policy action (either forced on the baron or by his choice) which reduces the disparity to, say, 9:1, 8:1 or even only 3:1.In political terms, a rearrangement of political action can produce a much ‘fairer’ distribution, and a more ‘equal’ society.For Piketty, as for many supporters of markets, this is a completely acceptable outcome.But… my big problem is that the ideological notion of ‘income’ actually hides the economic mechanism which is at work. That is, in plain language, theft.The serfs are being exploited by the baron. There is a relationship of exploitation between them, which is a systematic relationship not amenable to removal by gradual political action. The ‘income’ inequality, even if reduced to 1:1 (that is, the baron has the same ‘income’ as a serf) and so ‘inequality’ actually disappears, still doesn’t address the fundamental factor of the relationship: the non-productive baron now has the same ‘income’ as a productive serf.The core, fundamental problem is not ‘income’ (and the possible attempt to reduce its inequalities), but the exploitative CLASS relationship.As I’ve already said, I’m only at the start of the book, but I have a funny feeling that when I get to the end, I’ll be wondering why so many revolutionaries (ie. Socialists/Communists) seem to praise Piketty so highly.It seems to me that, given what other comrades here have already said, and the reviews that they’ve recommended, that all Piketty will achieve is backing for reformist political action. To me, this is not enough. Even if it were possible for Bill Gates to end up on the same ‘income’ as his Microsoft workers, the point is, they do the work and he doesn’t!The point of our politics, surely, is to smash the systematic exploitative class relationships within our society, not merely tinker with ‘income’ differences.They say ‘income’, we say ‘theft’. And Piketty's book doesn't expose this relationship, with its focus on 'income' and 'inequality'.

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

Until then, my focus is on the emancipation of myself and my class. If thats OK?

You certainly need to emancipate yourself from 'rocks and pies'!This fixation, that you share with others on this site, is rooted in Engels' so-called "Materialism", and the notion that things and our ideas about things are in opposition. And so, the 'materialists' focus on 'things', like 'food' and 'biological imperatives'.But our ideas about 'food' and the 'biological' are as important as those things themselves. This claim is always painted, by the 'hard' materialists, as 'idealism', because, it appears, it involves 'ideas'.This is pure nonsense. We can't separate out 'things' and our 'ideas about things', because they are intimately linked.I won't bother saying anymore, because I've said it all before, and I'm sure this post will have the same little effect upon the 'materialists'.I'd strangle Engels if I could get my hands on him!

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

…pointless discussion.

It makes me wonder… what is the point of the SPGB having a discussion site, if any attempt to discuss anything more complex than pies and rocks, is seen as evidence of the Bullingdon Club-like tendencies?Some of us are actually interested in philosophy, politics, science, etc. Y'know, talking about how we can build for Socialism, and develop workers' understanding of the world they live in, both physical and social.If you and Vin are not happy with 'time-wasters', why bother to engage? Why not leave it to those members of the SPGB who are interested in expanding their knowledge? In fact, are there any?

[LBird]

In fact, I'm compelled to say more.Can you two really not see the developmental difference between 'raw mammoth', 'pie dinner' and 'Cordon Bleu' dining? The thousands of years of human culture and thinking, which is just a bit more than 'stuffing bellies' with 'calories'? In fact, food as art.Given your 'biological imperative' analysis, it wouldn't surprise me if you think that dining in Socialism would only require buckets, troughs and gruel, so that the 'biological imperative' is met, and 'wants and needs' are thus 'satisfied'.Personally, I have (had?) higher hopes of Socialism.

Vin Maratty wrote:

Why don't you just admit to making a silly statement? It doesn't hurt, I'v done it myself.

Yeah, I confess: I thought humans were more than biological drives. Silly me.Another triumph for the SPGB. All I need now is twc to back this all up with 'objective science', which will 'prove' that all humans require is gruel and a full stomach.

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

I totally agree with Vince's appraisal. Food is a "biological" imperative and has nothing whatsoever to do with "philosophy".

What can I say?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

You say my need for food is determined by ideology or philisohpy, I say it is biological and physical. Both of your responses failed to address the question.

So, you've never heard of 'Cordon Bleu', then, Vin? Just your 'biological and physical' drives. One is forced to wonder how your ancestors got beyond the stage of eating raw mammoth. Perhaps even the cooking and dining complexities of a 'pie dinner' is beyond you, and you eat raw spuds, pig, wheat and water, off the floor.

Vin Maratty wrote:

I will not engage with you if all you have is snideness and sarcasm.

I think you should look at your, err… less than thoughtful… responses to difficult philosophical questions.'Science and culture'? You seem to think that is all exhausted by emphasising 'rocks and pies'. And when I reduce complexities to simple illustrations, you cry 'foul!'.If this is really the level of debate in the SPGB, perhaps I should give up.I think I'll go for a roll in the mud…

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

… the usual smoke screen for your ignorance.Is my need for food determined by phylosophy? If you don't have an answer just say so.

A rather surly response to my feeble joke, Vin.I suppose 'humour' won't be carried forward into your 'Socialism' either?No laughs or philosophical mutterings, just pies.Is your party Solely Pie Gorging Bodies, Vin?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

My hunger is a physical,  biological need and is not determined by philosophy.

And that's 'Socialism', is it, Vin?The satisfaction of our animal needs?I had rather thought that 'culture' (educational advancement, arts, development of individual abilities, expansion of minds, etc.) was an essential part of our aims.I'd rather our slogan was 'Pies and Philosophy!'; it's so much more inspirational than mere 'Pies!'.Are you a member of the "Pie Faction" within the SPGB?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

SocialistCenter wrote:

Dear LBird. Thank you for your comments. You might want to read my article "Philosophers do not govern the world, “Wants and their Satisfaction” do: A Case For Socialism"RegardsSocialist Center

I agree. Wants and satisfaction are denied in capitalsm and are the the driving force behind socialism. Our wants and satisfaction can only be met with the common ownership of the earth and its resources

I think that you both might find that 'wants and satisfaction' are determined by 'philosophy'.In fact, in constrast to Paramjeet's article title, 'Philosophers do govern the world'! At least, in their ideological guise.Unless we fight and win the 'battle of ideas' (ie. 'philosophy' in its widest sense), then we won't defeat capitalism.The philosophy of 'common ownership of the earth and its resources' is one I share with you, Vin, because we are Communists.I think Paramjeet does not share this 'idea', and so Paramjeet will disagree with our aims.'Philosophy', eh?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

His growing authority comes from the power of his argument. Electing him instead would just be ridiculous.

You misunderstand my ideological point, stuart.It's not the 'election' of him (he can write what he wants under Communism), but that the 'authority' of his argument would come, not from its essential 'power', but from its democratic reception by an active, class conscious, critical, proletariat.That is, his 'argument' would be 'elected' into a position of 'authority', by free discussion and voting.We must ensure that, under Communism, all so-called 'authority' is our chosen 'authority', and not that of a self-proclaimed elite of 'experts', as is the case under bourgeois society.This all requires, of course, a conscious proletariat, which is, at present, lacking. Thus, we are as yet in thrall to 'experts', who are often talking nonsense (from our Communist perspective).

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

But there are two kinds of authority – that which is usurped, and that which is earned.

This assumption of yours has ideological roots, stuart.For me, as an open Communist, there are also 'two kinds of authority' 'that which is unelected, and that which is elected'.All 'authority' must be subject to democratic controls. Science and economics included.At least I'm open about my ideological biases, unlike most 'scientists' and 'economists'.From my democratic communist perspective, the 'scientific method' must include the disclosure, up front, of the scientists' ideology towards both nature and society.In this particular case, Piketty should have opened his book with his ideological assumptions, and then no-one would be surprised by his ideological conclusions.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Where have you been? A few weeks ago i posted this link particularly for yourself, LBird.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/economics-not-scienceI guess you agree that confirmation bias that Stuart threw at me is the only logical outcome…that we seek facts that fit into your own already existing particular view. But perhaps i am mistaken on that too. 

Sorry Alan, I missed it, because it was posted on the second day of our holiday in Greece. Sun, beer, football and other real humans for once taking priority over the internet and my ghostly comrades.Of course, the key point is that, not only is 'economics not science', but that 'science is not science', in the sense of the mythical 'science' of 'producing objective truth about nature'.In fact, 'science' is just like 'economics'!The sooner we all expose our own ideological 'confirmation bias', including Stuart's and Piketty's, the better for all of our understandings.I'm a Communist, and that 'fact' colours my approach to both science and society. It can't be otherwise, because we're all humans attempting to understand 'economics' and 'physics'.Neither physical nor economic 'facts' present themselves to us, unbidden. We have to select, and our selection parameters are determined by our ideology; as Einstein said, 'the theory determines what we can observe'.

[Author]

Posts