LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
twc, you've had your chance, several times, to discuss these issues, but haven't done so. I've tried to engage with you, but without success. You won't discuss, and prefer the method of 'haranguing'.I'm not sure what you think that you're achieving, because it's not only me who hasn't a clue what you're talking about.One thing is sure: you're not doing anything to help spread understanding amongst workers about these difficult issues, of Marx, science or socio-economics.
stuart2112 wrote:When it comes to Marx's economic science, what is there in it that wasn't already known, or isn't now a part of economic discourse? Very little – and what little there is is of dubious value.You haven't replied to my answers to your questions, stuart, to say whether they were helpful or not.I disagree with your assertion that the 'vampire/victim' analogy is "now a part of economic discourse".Where do the FT or The Economist tell their readers that the owners of those papers are 'thieves, liars, etc.'?And you haven't said what your ideological starting point is. Do you regard yourself as a 'blood donor' to the vampires? If so, do you really think that this is at the heart of current 'economic discourse'?Or are you 'an individual', and make that your ideological building block for understanding 'economics'? That, in my opinion, is the real starting point for modern 'economics'. The FT and TE have that at the heart of their economic ideology.And if we have the 'individual', we have to have 'money'.I'm a Communist, and reject both of those ideological starting points.Of course, if one wants to deal with 'the real world', that's fair enough, but of necessity that is a conservative method. Criticism of the world as it exists now is the starting point for Communists. 'Dealing with the real world' is an ideological choice, not just simple empirical 'collecting of facts', as they are.
stuart2112 wrote:LB: let's try another tack.Sure! Sorry if my first reply was too technical!
stuart2112 wrote:Say there's a chap, he's reasonably well educated and intelligent, has his head screwed on, considers himself a left-leaning socialist in a vague way, and, because he has a job, feels very much like the life is being sucked out of him by vampires, and that he's being shafted by thieves. Despite his good general education, he is not well read in economics and has never read Marx, but wants to understand what has gone on in the crisis.Here you’ve identified this chap’s biggest problem. Despite his allegedly ‘good general education’, he’s not a class conscious Communist. He needs to meet and discuss ‘the world’ with Communists, who’ll initially try to explain the complexities of Marx et al in simpler language. He'll then have an excellent 'general education'!
stuart2112 wrote:What of vital importance could he get from grappling with "the law of value" and departments 1 and 2 and all that gubbins, that he couldn't have got from reading, say, The Economist (I've switched publications to one I'm more familiar with in case it gets hot in here!)?One can come to understand Communist ideas without having to ‘grapple’ “with "the law of value" and departments 1 and 2 and all that gubbins”. Personally, I think that an explanation of ‘value’ is very useful, but I’d only recommend that to someone who is already a Communist.The problem with ‘reading, say, The Economist’ is that I don’t think that that publication mentions ‘vampires and victims’, either.So, my recommendation to your ‘chap’ is to become a Communist! After that, well-armed with a decent theory, they can move onto trying to understand economics. If they don’t want to go through the process of reading, discussing and arguing about Communism, they should just continue to have ‘the life sucked out of them’. It’s the only other option.The only options are: being an unconscious victim, or being a conscious victim. The victim bit is not an individual choice, but a socially-given structural position. I very much doubt that The Economist mentions this scientific fact, either.
DJP and twc: I've tried before to discuss with you about 'science', but since we don't seem to be able to find any common ground, I won't enter into that again with you now.You'll have to stick with your beliefs, and I'll stick with mine.
stuart2112 wrote:I agree with most of what you say, and will try to explain where I think we differ by asking a question.Right! Shoot away!
stuart2112 wrote:What is there, in Marxist 'science', what does it tell me, that I couldn't have got from a common sensical, critical reading of the Financial Times, and perhaps a few other publications or blogs for some context and debate?Does the FT tell you that the queen is a thief?I know that I’m over-simplifying, but ‘over-egging the pudding’ usually helps to bring into sharp relief the opposing sides in a debate. As long as you read ‘queen’ as referring to all ‘authorities’ in our society (including scientists and politicians), you will get my gist.If I were to be a bit more subtle, I would ask where does the FT stress the division of humanity into the small group who take wealth by force (and its threat), and the massive group who produce that wealth, but have no control over it?
stuart wrote:I can assure you that I have tried to answer this question myself, by reading extensively in Marx, and in the other things I mention, and I drew a blank.I think that you’re just plain wrong here, stuart. Marx openly stresses this division, between ‘vampires’ and ‘victims’.So, the basis of ‘economics’ is to explain this division: where did the vampires come from, how do they continue to drain blood from the victims, why don’t the victims realise that they are the source of vampire nutrition, and why don’t the victims realise that they don’t require the existence of vampires, to exist themselves?Are you a ‘donor’ to vampires, stuart? Is that your basic ‘economic category’? If not, why not?
stuart2112 wrote:I agree with almost everything you say, LB, except I don't think it's fair to keep blaming poor old Engels. What you would say would seem to imply that the best thing a Marxist 'science' could do would be to forget about Engels and go back to Marx, and just focus on what Marx said. But everyone says that, and we don't seem to get very far.I’m not simply ‘blaming poor old Engels'! Much of what he wrote about ‘science’ (and is taken as the basis of Marx’s views) can now clearly be seen as nonsense, and far too influenced by 19th century ‘science’. But he also wrote plenty which contradicts himself, and agrees with Marx’s more ‘social’ views about knowledge. Furthermore, Marx himself wrote passages which can be fitted in with ‘positivist’ science, but these are at odds with the bulk of his work. Part of the problem is that Marx’s earlier works were published (1930s) after Engels’ views of science had already formed the basis of ‘Marxism’ (1890s).I think Marx’s views of science fit far better with those of late 20th century philosophers of science like Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos. I especially like the latter, and have tried to get a discussion going about this, but we always get bogged down in the religious reverence for ‘Scientific Socialism’, which is based upon Engels, not Marx.
stuart2112 wrote:Go 'deeper', into the 'science' of it, whether the 'science' of Marxism or Keynesianism or whatever, and all you get is more and more confused.It’s simple, really. Pick an ideological science (and all science is ideological, including physics) and use it to build an understanding of economics/production.I’m inclined to think that you believe that there is a neutral ‘scientific method’ which produces the truth, and wish it could be transferred to economics. Your ‘confusion’ arises from that belief, rather than from the ideology. You seem to think that an objective, common sense, approach will help. It doesn’t exist, all science is social, and that is the lesson of the 20th century. We have to choose, and build our ‘truth’ about the ‘economy’. It won’t tell us what it is, if only we passively observe its workings. That is the myth of the 19th century ‘objective science’, and it doesn’t work for physics, never mind economics. We have to choose a ‘position’, in nature and in society, and be aware of it.
stuart2112 wrote:The best we can get would seem to be a Piketty style investigation – but then that is, as far as I'm aware, entirely empircal and common sensical, and anway only confirms with data what everyone knew anyway.Empiricism and common sense are useless for building understanding; and ‘data’ only exists within a theoretical framework. You picks your ideology, you gathers your data!IMO, Marx’s views of capitalism provide us with the best way of understanding the capitalist system. In a nutshell, that means I start from the notion that any owner of socially productive property is a thief, a liar, and doesn’t have a clue about what they are really doing, and know nothing about the history of capitalism. That includes the queen, all religious leaders, The War Criminal Tony Blair, and The British, amongst others.Empiricism and common sense will just gather ‘data’ which supports the unspoken and unacknowledged ‘theory/ideology’ that has been given to the thinker by society. That is, those methods will just produce results that support capitalism.I’m sure you know that Keynes was an elitist who wanted to preserve capitalism, not destroy it and replace it with a different system of production. I think it’s best to be open about our ideologies, and if someone isn’t a Communist who thinks that society should democratically control its production, they should be open about their ‘ideological science’.
stuart2112 wrote:I think you're right about how science works (I think it's more or less what I was saying: there's no 'essence' to grab hold of, it's theory and maths and testing all the way down) though whether that's what Marx was doing, or what he achieved in creating, I'm not sure.I think that the 'essence' is a human creation: that is, an understanding based upon 'theory and practice', so that our 'understanding' of a rock is not a copy of a rock.Perhaps Protagoras' claim that 'man is the measure of all things' is relevent, here.Science doesn't produce 'The Truth' about nature, but produces human understanding of nature. And as humans can be wrong, so 'scientific truth' (ie. something proved in practice ) can be wrong. Thus, 'truth' is social and thus has a history.If the theory is bollocks, but just happens to work, it can be erroneously believed to be The Truth. We can't ever say that we know the 'absolute truth', and as Pannekoek said, humans are not engaged in 'discovery science', which, once produced, is true forever (because it's a copy of nature), but that science is a human, social, cultural and historical activity, that produces 'socially objective' knowledge. It's the best we can get.
stuart2112 wrote:If Marxism is a science, it sure is a strange one – not even it's strongest proponents and adherents can even agree what the terms mean or what would constitute confirmation or refutation!This is a real problem – the nature of Marxist science is argued over constantly. I think it's because what most Marxists call 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'.
stuartw2112 wrote:Sorry twc, but I still have no idea what you're talking about. Marx's quote on science is all very well as far as it goes, but it's old hat: science has shown there is no "essence" of things, that it's "appearance" all the way down and out the other side again. …I'll challenge you again: could you tell me, in a sentence or two, using your own words, and preferably words of plain English, what our argument is about?Since I doubt that you'll have any success in appealing to twc to write 'plain English', perhaps I'll try to spark off a discussion that the rest of us can understand, and thus participate in.I think that Marx's view of 'essence and appearance' has actually been substantiated by science, since his days.The model of science used to be to passively observe the 'appearance' of nature to humans, and then draw conclusions and form theories (the inductive method, or 'practice and theory').But since Einstein we've become clearer that a human theory is required prior to actively interrogating the appearance of nature, and that the conclusions that we draw are based upon our creative activity upon nature. That is, theory is required to get to the 'essence' of nature. This is Marx's method of 'theory and practice'.What do you think?
stuartw2112 wrote:Well, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about twc, but it sounds damn saucy you naughty thing! Could you perhaps tell me in a single sentence, in words of plain English, what our disagreement is?I'm actually beginning to wonder if twc isn't just a random-word-generator!I've tried numerous times to engage in a conversation, so I can try to unravel what twc means, but to no avail. twc just continues to spew out unfathomable lengthy diatribes at an uncomprehending audience.Must be some personal failing on my part; perhaps 'Lack of Moral Fibre'.Or, as twc would phrase it, 'Absence of Concrete Abstraction'.
twc, you've no idea about my critical views of Schaff or Bhaskar, or anyone else, or anything else, because you never discuss anything.If you really are gone, thank god!Perhaps a final comment: look up the meaning of 'discussion' in a dictionary. I think you'll be very surprised.
It was your chance to outline where you get your ideas from, whether from Marx or from some other source.Then we could have compared these choices, and seen if we can uncover some underlying assumptions about why we made those particular choices.I try to be open about my influences (indeed, I think being transparent about ideology is a key to scientific method, because it allows the 'scientist' to be interrogated about their assumptions, prior to examining their 'scientific results'), and I'm always suspicious about those who claim to be 'scientists' but hide their influences/philosophy/ideology. I suspect most of the problem is that these so-called 'scientists' don't even recognise that they have underlying/unspoken inputs into their 'science'.As I've said before, since Einstein it has been clear, to all who wish to consider the problem, that the 'position' of the 'observer' is a key element in producing 'knowledge'.This is as true for physics as for sociology.As to what you think science is, twc, I don't really have a clue. You seem to think that 'holding forth about The Truth' is a method likely to influence comrades. I disagree, and I think that discussion and persuasion (y'know, politics) is a better method.The real tragedy is that you seem to have read into some of these issues, which many other comrades haven't, and so feel out of their depth and unable to contribute, but you don't seem to read anything critically. You take things 'at face value', ironically enough, for someone who seems to have 'seen through' the lies of the capitalists about their 'economy' and 'market'.I find this perplexing, because I would have thought that once comrades have seen through the lies of the bourgeoisie about 'The Market', they would then find it relatively easy to begin to see through their lies about 'objective science' and 'objective knowledge'.What's worse, is that some of their own philosophers have taken this step already, which is why the debates about 'science' are so venomous within academia. 'Scientific Truth' is one of the mainstays of bourgeois rule, one of their 'ruling ideas', and some academics can see the dangers for that rule if too many people start to question the priestly caste of 'The Scientists'.But, given all this, you want to remain in the 19th century, twc.
twc wrote:Please proceed. Explain (1) what you mean by science, and (2) what you take to be the incontestable metaphysical assumptions of physics that (3) include morality.Hold your horses, twc! Keen as ever to jump to the end of a discussion process, eh? In fact, your ‘method’ is usually a peremptory demand that we skip the ‘discussion’ entirely, and move instantly onto passively reading your closing, lengthy diatribe!No, this time, it’s either a discussion or nothing. That means we can ask each other questions and for clarification. A discussion is not merely the presenting of already finished statements, which are then read at one another.Let’s keep this to your ‘demand’ number 1, suitably amended to read ‘what we mean by science’. I think that your ‘demands’ 2 and 3 will be answered by our discussion of what we mean by ‘science’. If not, we can then discuss them.I’d like to open with three statements by Marx, which I think set suitable grounds for a discussion between socialist comrades about ‘science’.
Marx, in Capital Vol. III, wrote:… all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm
Marx, in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, wrote:… the senses of the social man differ from those of the non-social man. Only through the objectively unfolded richness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility (a musical ear, an eye for beauty of form – in short, senses capable of human gratification, senses affirming themselves as essential powers of man) either cultivated or brought into being. For not only the five senses but also the so-called mental senses, the practical senses (will, love, etc.), in a word, human sense, the human nature of the senses, comes to be by virtue of its object, by virtue of humanised nature. The forming of the five senses is a labour of the entire history of the world down to the present. The sense caught up in crude practical need has only a restricted sense.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
Marx, in Capital Vol. I, wrote:Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htmI’ll try to base my arguments about science upon those of Marx, expressed in these quotes. We can add others, if required. I think that the ideas produced by philosophers of science during the 20th century fit well with Marx’s views, which were expressed a century earlier than the views of those thinkers.(I should make it clear, as a warning to other comrades, that an entirely different basis for ‘science’ can be created out of other Marxian quotes, passages which are much more in line with Engels’ ‘materialist’ views, but that problem inheres in the contradictory nature of Marx’s works. We have to decide for ourselves which ‘Marx’ we agree with.)If you don’t agree with these texts being the basis of our discussion about science, twc, can you outline with quotes what you think should form the basis of our discussion?If you take this option, perhaps a comparison between two sets of quotes can help to illustrate our differences. If you don’t have any problem with my choices, we can proceed to illustrate and broaden Marx’s views, and see if we draw different conclusions about the meaning of his words.
I'm always a sucker for a discussion. I know that I've tried before with you, twc (oh so many times!), but I'll take your present offer to discuss at face value.
twc wrote:Marx is owed some time for a reasoned examination and defence against your charge that he based his science on untestable and unrejectable ‘metaphysical assumptions'.[my bold]The key point here for discussion, is 'science'. To examine 'Marx's science' it is logically necessary to examine what we mean by 'science'. After that, we can compare/contrast 'his' version of it with other versions of it.So, shall we discuss whether (any version of) science is 'based on untestable and unrejectable 'metaphysical assumptions', or isn't?We would need to give an example of a science which does not contain these 'metaphysical assumptions', and, from long experience of this type of discussion, I think we should get to the 'heart of the beast' and discuss 'physics'. If we discuss any other scientific discipline, and discover 'metaphysical assumptions', the unwary and unread will always fall back on the excuse that "Oh, that's not real science, only physics is real, hard, science!", so we'll have to address that eventually.IMO, it's only when physics is addressed, and shown to have 'metaphysical assumptions', that we can move on, and deal with 'science' as it really is, rather than 'science' as scientists claim it is. It's been shown that scientists are the last ones to know what they are actually doing.[edit] For other comrades: the relevence of this discussion to the thread, is that it will be argued that 'morality' sits within 'metaphysical assumptions'.
