LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:No argument or debate – just the dismissing of critical views. Bit like 'religion', eh?
Well if you think that having pretty much the same conversation for about a year now amounts to no argument or debate, feel free..I'm pretty sure everyone's bored of it now.
Just like the religious get bored of atheists demanding proof of god, eh?We're 'having pretty much the same conversation' because the 'Religious Socialists' (AKA 'materialists' or 'scientific socialists') won't tell us godless communists where they get their ideas from.The materialists insist 'ideas' come from 'material', whereas we communists insist ideas come from humans. That's why ideas, productive property, morals and science must all be under the democratic control of humanity, and not under the political control of a subset (the notorious 'educators', as Marx puts it), of 'materialists', priests or scientists.Our class' control of human understanding must be democratic.That's the 'idea' that forms the basis of our opposition to religion. We can outvote any 'god' who is produced and placed before us, by 'believers'. Or, the slogan 'One god, one vote; 7 billion of us are voting, too'And that includes outvoting 'The Cadre Party', of the Leninists and 'materialists', who always aim for the control by a few, whether political, scientific or religious.
Vin Maratty wrote:DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
Lol, I have to say, DJP, that's it in a nutshell!
Yet another demonstration of ignorance from a unthinking devotee of Engels' 'materialism'.DJP and Vin might as well be sniggering dismissively, 'LBird says the world existed before 4004BC!'Neither has actually read any views about the 'idealism' of 'materialism', and so dismiss the very thought out-of-hand.Their high-priest forbids their considering this. No argument or debate – just the dismissing of critical views. Bit like 'religion', eh?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
Rather than mocking that which you do not understand, DJP, you should be asking 'why' you think that 'materialism' and 'idealism' form exclusive opposites, and then trying to find out 'who' provided you with this 'why'.I've already told you 'who' and 'why', but you keep 'ignoring evidence', because it doesn't fit your 'theory'.You'd be better exposing your ideology than merely castigating the 'religious' for theirs. Or, indeed, mocking me and Marx for our 'idealism-marerialism'.Unless the SPGB takes on this task, of uncovering the 'ideas' behind various stances, the discussion about 'religion' will remain unclear.Religion must be undermined at the level of 'ideas', not by pretending that 'materialists' have a special insight into the nature of reality. They don't, and to argue otherwise is 'idealism'. By that, I mean false, and a mystification (just like 'religion') of the human understanding of our reality.'Scientific Socialism' is a cult. A religious cult.
pfbcarlisle wrote:No need whatsoever to abandon 'evidence-based thinking'!But the latest philosophers of science say that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’.Thus, humans have ‘thinking-based evidence’, and not the contrary, which many members seem to erroneously believe. Carr's analogy of the 'fisherman fishing for fish' is relevent, here. ‘Evidence-based thinking’ is induction, and is a remnant of 19th century positivist science, as embraced by Engels.
jondwhite wrote:I don't think the exclusion of the religious (or deists) excludes enough idealists.Ahhh, the Engelsian bogeyman of ‘idealism’, yet again. Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’. This religious belief in ‘materialism’ comes from Engels, not Marx.Marx was an ‘idealist-materialist’. Ideas are at the heart of human understanding. If we disagree with one form of 'ideas', all well and good, spell out why our ideas disagree with those ideas, but don't pretend 'they' are idealists, whilst we are 'materialists', and that should form the basis for rejection of 'religious' views.
jondwhite wrote:A good PR approach is a materialist idea, based on material reality of the effect of good PR. Idealists would be indifferent or not be interested in a good PR approach.‘Materialism’ has been, and still is, disastrous for the proletariat. The religious belief that the ‘material’ tells us what ‘it is’ is a lie. If I ask jdw what ‘material reality is’, and ask for the scientific method they employ to discover it, they can’t answer. If jdw thinks that ‘material reality’ tells us what it is, they’re following Lenin. The ‘Party’ lies that it knows better than the class what ‘material conditions’ are. That question can only be decided by the proletariat, by humanity taking a vote. The ‘truth’ about ‘material reality’ is a product of a society, not a reflection of ‘material reality’ which can be ‘discovered’ by an elite. Knowing the ‘material’ requires ‘ideas’, that is, 'Theory and Practice’.Whilst the SPGB fails to clarify its views about ‘science’ (and thus ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’), any discussion about ‘religious beliefs’ will be confused.Not least, because ‘materialism’ is itself a ‘religious belief’, and that cult is named ‘Scientific Socialism’. One might as well follow 'The Moonies'. Or twc's mystifying rants.
Engels, in Socialism Utopian and Scientific, wrote:But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htmAs usual with Engels, he's confused, and thus confuses others who look to him for guidance. He's worth reading, but critically.If 'proof' is 'positive', how can it only be 'so far'?Is 'so far' 0.0001% 'far' towards the truth? Or is 'so far' 99.9999% 'far' towards truth?The use of the conditional 'so far' completely undermines the accepted meaning of 'proof positive'.In fact, 'practice' doesn't furnish 'proof positive' of any external 'object': successful 'practice' merely 'proves' that the 'theory' works for human purposes. Thus, 'truth' is social, cultural and has a history.This is a million miles from 'proof' of the true correspondence of 'our perceptions' and 'nature', as naive realists would have it.
DJP wrote:What is it that makes something seem true?This would be a very interesting discussion, DJP, as I've recently been doing some reading around this topic.But I think it would be better being addressed on a fresh thread.
Well, stuart, at least we've had a discussion here; it makes a refreshing change!I'll leave it at that, and let other comrades draw their own conclusions from our comradely exchange.Thanks!
stuartw2112 wrote:And yes, I am an individual – a scientifically well established fact. Assuming I don't have an identical twin, I am genetically unique.You're making a common mistake by those influenced by bourgeois ideology, here, stuart, of mixing up a 'biological' category with a 'social' category. You're an 'individual' in the former, but not in the latter. The bourgeoisie always encourage this confusion, and it's widespread, even amongst Communists.
stuart2112 wrote:I am a free agent. Anthropologically, I am also an individual, even if one that takes on a variety of roles: brother, partner, worker, friend, enemy, etc. "You are all individuals!""I'm not!"You're closer to the truth, here. You're not an 'isolated individual', of bourgeois ideology, but, as you say, a 'brother, partner, worker, friend…'. And a 'victim', of an exploitative relationship with the vampires, as we all are.Funnily enough, Python really capture the irony of someone, in our society, claiming 'not to be an individual' as being the real individual in the crowd!I'm with the lonely scruffy get, at the back!
stuart2112 wrote:I've already told you that I am a communist…Yeah, this is the source of my confusion! To me, one can either be an 'individual' or a 'Communist'!They are entirely different ideologies, and you seem to be mixing them up.
stuart2112 wrote:As for the FT and Economist, you haven't grasped my point. But actually, even your point is wrong. Read enough issues and you'll find the concept of vampires discussed often enough – the term they usually use is "rentier".I'm sure that they do use the term 'rentier'! But that is very different from putting a banner at the top of every front page, saying 'The owners are thieves', which they would have to do, to make plain their Communist views.I'm inclined to think that neither they nor you are 'grasping the point'!There is no 'objective' position of viewing the 'economy'. One must declare one's 'observation point'. To not do so, is unscientific. And if consciously hidden, deceitful.I'm inclined to think you are being deceived by the bourgeoisie. Some of them, anyway, if not the foolish and unwary at the FT and TE!
stuart2112 wrote:LB: It's not bourgeois, it's pre-bourgeois, dating from at least 600BC, but probably long before that. I learnt it from Buddhists, but you can learn it from many places, including secular ones.You're moving away from your original concerns with this post, stuart.If you regard yourself as an 'individual' (from any era), then we also differ on this, too.I'm not an 'individual', but a 'worker'.If you use your ideological concept of the 'individual' to inform your views about 'economics', they'll be very different from mine, which are informed by Marx's views about the exploitative relationship between bosses and workers.Bosses push the ideology of 'individualism' to help them hide the exploitation. We have to criticise this social and class brainwashing.
stuart2112 wrote:My point about the FT and Economist is not that they sing from the same hymn sheet as Marx. It is that someone who wants to learn about economics, including what Marx had to say about it, could get most everything they need to know from these publications.But I've already shown that this isn't true, stuart.The most important thing to learn about 'economics' is the theft by vampires from victims.This is not mentioned in the FT or TE. Without that starting point, one can't understand economics.I'm defining 'economics' as the theft of wealth by a minority from the majority. I think that this is in line with Marx.If you wish to define 'economics' as something else, that's fine, but don't pretend that that is the same as the 'vampire/victim' relationship of exploitation.The FT and TE are not a source for 'economics'. They are a source for bourgeois mythology.I think that reading them is the source of your confusion about the capitalist economy. Put simply, they lie.If you're not a Communist, stuart, that's OK. The answers you get from the FT and TE will be determined by whichever ideology you use.It's just that you said you were confused, and I've been trying to help you understand why you are confused.If you don't accept my explanation, that's OK. But I think that if you just continue to read The Economist with your default ideology, you'll remain confused about 'economics'.
stuartw2112 wrote:LB: Yes, OK, that's where we disagree. I think that, actually, with training, it is possible to turn off the ideology in your head, and that, when you do, the result is peace and happiness. Sometimes, you turn it back on again, that's fine. But the ability to turn it off and not be ruled by it – that's freedom.Yes, It's the 'freedom' to 'donate' unconsciously to the 'vampires'!As you've said, we've resolved the problem of identifying our differences, which is what discussion should be about.I regard 'turning off ideology in one's head' as a bourgeois myth, and that 'turning off one's chosen ideology' merely let's your socially-implanted one return to normal running. One reverts to 'willing-donation-mode'.As you say, you are now in a very personal state of 'freedom', the 'individual' allowed to 'run free' between their own ears.But, in reality, according to Marx's science, you're still a donator of value to the vampires, no matter what your 'free consciousness' is telling you.Perhaps that is your answer to the FT and TE question. They both insist that you can have 'freedom', now, in this society of donators.'Economics' does not highlight 'donating'. Marxism does.
stuart2112 wrote:LB: I can't see that we're disagreeing about all that much, and I can't seem to get you to see the point I'm making.Perhaps we don't disagree that much, stuart! I'm just happy to be having a conversation, for a change, on this site!But you're right, I don't seem to be able to 'see the point that you're making'.
stuart2112 wrote:In trying to make it, I'm making myself seem more hostile to socialism, communism, marxism, whatever, than I really am. Marx is and has long been a guiding light for me. Just not the only one. You ask me what my ideological starting point it. I see your point: if I was a scientist or a philosopher writing a paper or book, I would have to bring my ideological starting point, or my theory, to the light of consciousness, and be explicit about it, if I am to have any hope of being genuinely 'scientific'.This all seems to make sense to me, stuart, and is much the same as my views, I think, so far. But, you continue…
stuart2112 wrote:But I'm not either of those things, I'm just a bloke chatting on a discussion forum. And as a bloke going round my everyday life, my "ideological starting point" is to notice when my mind is caught in ideology, and then just let it go and return to life.So, your ‘method’ (and that’s what it is) is to pretend that you’ve ‘let go of ideology and returned to [implied ‘real’] life’.This, to me, is a mistaken method. If you are not conscious of which ideology you’re employing, society helpfully provides you with one! ‘Using an ideology’ is not a choice (by ‘individuals’), but part of the human condition. So, this bourgeois society has spent all your life providing you with a ‘back-up’ ideology for you to use, when you’re ‘unconscious’. This is inescapable in any society: human society socialises (‘brainwashes’?) its members into a default unconsciousness.This, I think stuart, is perhaps where we differ.I’m a Communist, and I’m conscious that I have to be ‘conscious’ 24/7 of the ‘program’ that I’m running in my head. I know that if I switch off my chosen ‘program’, that my default, factory-setting, program will kick-in, once again. My chosen program is ‘Communism’.So, that’s where we ‘disagree’, comrade!You revert to the ‘factory-setting’ of “blokey, everyday life, chatting amiably, not being too conscious of ‘ideologies’ ”. A human unconscious, an 'individual'.I remain a class conscious Communist in ‘everyday life’. Ideological to the core! A human conscious, a social product.
twc wrote:So now we are back to you guys dissing science and Marx, by innuendo, but carefully refusing to be specific. That is moral cowardice.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly what scientific results you doubt and why.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly where you disagree with Marx, and how serious your disagreement is for socialism.If you don’t you are only helping anti-socialism by spreading rumours about, and so subtly undermining, science, Marx and socialism.I've tried pointing out, with quotes, analogies and discussion, twc, why your version of 'science and Marx' is nonsense.But you won't discuss 'science and Marx', but just proffer the 'tablets of stone' of your religion, and demand that we critical thinkers bend the knee to your 'Truth'. stuart has already pointed out where this 'science' leads, in political terms. So have many other thinkers, since the early 20th century. And 'science', since Einstein, has become more like 'Marxism', than 'Marxism' has become a 'Science' (of the 19th century positivist sort). Science can't get away from humans. It doesn't produce a 'copy' of nature. It produces 'social understanding'. I don't know why I'm bothering, again, with you.What a wa……waste of our time, you are.
stuart2112 wrote:The danger is in attaching too strongly to Marx's words, even worse to his attitudes and behaviour in debate, and treating them as some kind of 'key to all mythologies'. The result is monstrous, as twc proves every time he gets to the keyboard. As I said before, imagine that kind of aggressiveness with a gun in its hands.You probably won't know, stuart, because my views have been expressed on other threads to this, that I'm very critical of Marx, in many ways. Not least, I think that he's a terrible writer, and needs to be constantly interpreted by workers, using their own critical faculties. So, I'm not a 'worshipper' of Marx, but I do think that many of his ideas are very stimulating, and very helpful in helping us to come to an understanding of our present economic condition.As for twc…Let's just say that he's not being very helpful, is he?I root the problem, though, not in him as an individual, but in semi-religious reverence for the 'Scientific Socialism' constructed from Engels' confused writings.As you say, if one has 'Science' (of the positivist kind) on one's side, then the use of 'guns' seems entirely justifiable. Who can argue with 'The Truth', which adherents of 'Science' seem to think that they produce, with their neutral, non-social, non-cultural, non-historic, non-moral, method.Some of us have our doubts about 'Science', and see it as a social product that produces social knowledge, and so must be under the control of humanity, using democratic methods. Just like the economy.At least I'm consistent.
