[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Your position does seem to be to akin to a kind of 19th century positivism (cue for comrade Bird to enter the fray, guns blazing).

I'm afraid to report that my brace of tiny intellectual .177 pellet guns are having no effect whatsoever upon the walls of the massive fortress of belief that is 19th century 'science'.In effect, it's a modern religious belief.If Einstein's criticisms, followed by those of some of the best 'philosophy of science' thinkers during the 20th century, are not causing the proponents of 'objective science' to pause for thought, what chance do I have in persuading the comrades to ask questions? Even quotes provided by other SPGB members (like those taken from Carr's What is History? ) have made no impression. Most frustrating of all, one comrade provided a video which made exactly the point we are making (that, as Einstein said, 'theory determines what we observe', and that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us), but can't seem to see this point that the video is making.What's worse, is that it's a religious belief that's been rumbled by other religions with more coherent philosophical groundings. Whilst the thinking of many Muslims and Christians remains ahead of the backward-looking views of those transfixed by parts of Engels' confused works, we Communists will remain an outdated sect, and rightly so.Perhaps I've been fried by the fray.

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

As a non-member, I am surprised that no member here has so far referred to the fact that the very question raised by Vin was put at the 2010 annual conference of the SPGB and I understand a ballot of the members was taken on the proposition that "socialism is both scientific and ethical". I may be wrong, but I think that this proposition was carried (63 for and 53 against). But as I understand it, another ballot later overturned that vote with the result that the members now hold that "socialism is scientific" (but not ethical).

[my bold]pgb, the very idea that 'science' is outside of 'ethics' is 19th century positivism.There is no such thing as 'scientific socialism', outside of the control of the proletariat (as we build the Communist movement)  or the whole of society (after Communism is built).Haven't the supporters of 'non-ethical science' (sic) ever heard of Mengele? Or the Eugenic Movement? Or Oppenheimer's statement that 'Physicists have known sin'?Those who opt for 'science' ahead of 'democracy' are to be feared. The lesson of the 20th century.

[LBird]

northern light wrote:

…the economic interests of our class is the hub of socialism, after that, everything else simply falls into place

This is shockingly naive, nl.Who determines ''the economic"? Who determines "interests"?I'd argue that 'our class' should determine what 'economic' means and what its own 'interests' are.This requires democracy to determine these questions. Nothing will 'simply fall into place', never mind 'everything else'. The argument for democracy in the economy will require, amongst other things, that moral arguments are also presented to workers by Communists. Proletarian revolutionary class consciousness will have a moral dimension.Unless, that is, you're a supporter of twc's 19th century-style campaign to passively listen to the 'material conditions' (otherwise known as 'rocks')?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I'm not sure about morality only coming about as property owning society came into existence. Morality simply concerns itself with acceptable behaviour within any given society. So obviously a minority controlled society will invent morality that reinforces its position. I imagine our early ancestors would have had rules of conduct.

Yeah, I'm surprised at how the 'materialists' on the thread seem to equate 'morality' with 'religious morality'. Class societies produce a form of morality that benefits the ruling class.Morality is simply about issues of 'right' and 'wrong'. All societies have ideas about right and wrong, and pre-private property societies were no different, and neither will be Communist society.As the proletariat develops a Communist consciousness, it will contain specific 'moral' components, like Marx's concept of 'exploitation'. It will be 'shocking' to attempt to employ someone, which will be seen as anti-social as hitting an old lady who is struggling on a zimmer frame. Entrepreneurs will be regarded with the distaste at present reserved for paedophiles. Money will have the taint of 'shit'. Our revolutionary consciousness will have a very strong 'moral' component. That's how humans work.I suppose the answer why our 'materialist' comrades don't see the need to address our future 'morality', is that, clearly, rocks do not have any morality, and since they are supposed to be the active, conscious, creative and critical component in the development of workers' future consciousness, then we don't need to worry about 'morality', in Rock-Communism!

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Please explain, as clearly and precisely as you are able to, what’s 19th century materialist about anything in my post #51.

I've tried discussion and explanation with you on several threads, twc, but you don't read and respond, but just re-iterate your 'beliefs', which you've learnt "parrot-fashion" from Engels. So, it's pointless me saying it all, once more.What's of more direct concern to the subject of this thread, is that your views (philosophical and ideological) fit better with (parts of) Engels and the selector of his erroneous views, Lenin.I know from everything else you say that you hate Lenin; plus, the SPGB's own strategy fits better with the arguments that I'm making, based upon the bulk of what Marx wrote, and you always make a strong case for the SPGB.So, I'm baffled as to why can't see the political implications which flow from your philosophical views.We've known since Einstein that the world (social or material) doesn't simply tell us what it is. This was also the view of many Ancient Greeks and Marx, too.But, if someone claims to have access to a special method which can be wielded by 'those in the know' which gives them an access to the world (social or material) not available to others, then they can claim to know better than the unenlightened masses.Surely even you can see the parallel dangers of 'elite scientists' providing a bourgeois authority for society, and 'elite cadres' providing a Leninist authority for workers?Unless we emphasise 'democratic methods' across all areas of society (politics and science, included), we will remain in thrall to a minority. The SPGB, as far as I can tell, is in favour of 'democracy', rather than 'minority consciousness', which is why I feel closer to the SPGB than to Leninists/Trotskyists.But, the words of you (and some other members on this forum) make me pause for thought. What sort of party would emerge from your notions of 'material conditions'? How do you know  what 'material conditions' obtain at any time, without democratic decision-making? What about 'morality' in science? Personally, I think that the events of the 20th century have already given us many lessons which we must heed, in every sphere.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

The socialist case is one that seeks to persuade workers to become a class for itself. Necessarily it seeks to sharpen or re-focus the moral indignation that individual workers feel in the light of a socialist understanding of capitalism. Moral indigination is not some dispensable aspect of the struggle for socialism. It is part of what makes us human beings and not robots, Nothing can be achieved without it.

[my bold]Unless one is a 'materialist', of course!Then, human creative activity ('persuasion', as you put it) is not required, and proletarian, Communist consciousness will magically emerge from 'material conditions'.Once again, this debate sharpens the divide and illustrates the difference between Marx's humanist 'theory and practice', and Engels' materialist 'practice and theory'.Waiting for the 'rocks' to speak to us is fatalist, whereas Marx argues for the creative aspect of human practice, which is how our class will become a class for itself.19th century 'materialism' is tantamount to rocks becoming rocks for themselves.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Marx could have described himself as an idealist-materialist and could have used the Idealist-Matarialist Conception of History (IMCH) but he didn't.

Yes, Vin, but the key problem is WHY 'he didn't'.The twin context of the successes of 19th century positivist, natural, material, science, together with their wish to break down the 'Great Man' elite and idealist theory of history (with its ignoring of the production of society by the masses, and its focus on kings, generals, diplomats and god), allows us to sympathetically understand 'why' Marx and Engels used the term 'materialist conception of history' during most of Marx's life.And it also allows us to account for why they belatedly realised the damage the use of this term was doing to revolutionary politics. Marx supposedly said "All I know is that I'm not a Marxist!" when confronted by the 'results' of his 'ideas' when employed by French 'materialist' historians, and Engels wrote a series of letters after Marx's death, constantly trying to backtrack on the 'materialist' or 'economic' or 'base' ("in the final analysis", etc.), as he became more aware of the move away from mass class-based political organisation towards elite party-based hierarchies.I've argued that the Leninist conception of consciousness and party organisation relies on this form of 'materialism',  that pretends that the 'material' can be accessed by an elite with a special method (mirroring elite science), and so doesn't require mass participation, neither in science nor politics. And to justify this, the Leninists use the injudicious words of Engels, when he stupidly argued that all philosophy was either 'materialism' or 'idealism', and so if one isn't a 'materialist' one must be an 'idealist'! Marx would have wept at this, as any reading of the Theses on Feuerbach shows that Marx thought he had gone beyond such a simple dichotomy, with his method of 'theory and practice', which necessarily requires both the 'material' and the 'ideal', that is, a real nature and human consciousness which creatively works upon that nature.Since Einstein, it has become increasingly clear that we can't take human understanding (ie. 'ideas') out of the equation, and that our view of history is really an 'idealist-materialist conception of history'. Bourgeois philosphers have also come to this conclusion, 150 years after Marx.Whilst we keep using the term 'materialist', we keep the focus upon 19th century, outdated, philosophy, which is of no use to workers, and actively undermines the potential of workers to develop, whilst they are in thrall to a 'materialism' which purports to tell them the Truth. It's been disastrous throughout the 20th century, and has been the basis of Leninist/Maoist thought. Let's not add the 21st century to its anti-working class sway.Finally, Vin, even you in practice recognise the need for 'ideas', so why keep using 'material', which so obviously denigrates 'ideas'?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I think you have misunderstoodd my point.  –  because you are an idealistMaterial conditions – ideas – can in no way be described as 'rocks'Material conditions refers to our human existence.

Yeah, and 'human existence' includes our ideas about that 'existence'!Our consciousness and understanding of rocks can be described as 'idealist-materialist', simply because both 'ideas' and 'material' are required.Which leads me to return game, set and match point: "I think you have misunderstood my point – because you are a materialist"I, like Marx, am an 'idealist-materialist', because no-one, not even 'materialists' like you, can stick to 'materialism'.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Depends upon how you define 'material' . The MCH tells us that ideas are part of our material conditions.

I couldn't agree more with you, Vin.My problem is who'd have a reason for calling these, as you rightly stress, 'ideas' material.?Why not openly state that, like Marx (and even Engels in his clearer moments!), we are 'idealist-materialists'?The word 'material' has been stressed by the inheritors and misreaders of Engels (like Lenin) to convince us workers (as a class) that the 'real world' of 'material' conditions tells us, without conscious human intervention (ie. by the active use of our 'ideas'), 'what it is', and that the Party has access to a neutral method which tells them 'what the rocks say'. Thus, they, and only they, can tell workers what to think.I put class before party, comrade, as I'm sure you do, too (I don't think SPGB members are Leninists (well, most aren't, anyway!)), which is why I think that what I'm arguing fits better philosophically with the SPGB's political strategy of propaganda and education to develop the whole class prior to a revolution.This is in contrast to the Leninist strategy of a minority with a special consciousness making the revolution prior to the workers themselves en masse.The stress on 'material conditions' and their openness to understanding by those with the correct method is a minority strategy.

Vin Maratty wrote:

…there is nothing outside of these material conditions

But you've just agreed that 'ideas' are 'material', so you must logically agree that it's our understanding of these conditions that is the point of the debate.Human understanding, of the same 'material', changes with the society they live in. That is, the 'material conditions' to a party can be different to those same 'material conditions' to a class.The 'material conditions' don't tell us what they are. That's why Marx stressed the need for science. And our science must be mass science, because we must control production as a class.We must decide collectively what the world is telling us. That requires, as for every act by humans in a Communist society, a democratic method.Those who tell us that they know the 'Truth' of 'material conditions' are lying to us.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

PS One final final point. I've just been discussing this with a historian, and she says that you're reading history backwards from a determined (and imagined) end point.

Well, since all history is 'read backwards from a determined end point', she's not telling us much!The only thing perhaps she is surreptitiously telling us is that her particular 'determined end point' is not 'imagined', but is the (supposed) 'real world' of today.Since both 'the future' and 'the present' as a starting point for historians when reading 'the past' contain interpretive elements, I think we can take it as read that her 'imagined' positions about 'past', 'present' and 'future' are simply unexamined (or, she has examined them, but is not telling you about having done this, all the better to denigrate our 'reading of history', so that you retain confidence in her political views and advice about 'history').That's why our history has the potential to be better history: because we're open about our biases, and don't pretend to be producing 'history' that is 'objective'. That doesn't mean our history has to be 'better', though: much 'Marxist' history is laughable. But we have a better starting point: openness about this society today, how it came about, and our hopes for the future.Beware the 'historians' of all stripes, stuart!

[LBird]

Just to say that I agree with SocialistPunk, robbo203 and stuartw2112, that 'morality' is an essential part of the case for socialism.Right and wrong are attributes of human thinking about 'material conditions', and in that sense are as much about the 'ideal' as about the 'material'.The 'material' does not 'throw up' or 'bring forward' a correct moral position to passive humans.Our morality has to also take account of 'unobservables', like 'value'.

Marx wrote:

The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Most “historians”, as prodigiously skilled analysts as many of them are, fail to see beneath the concrete contingencies of historical situations. Few are consistent scientists like Marx, and cannot comprehend the scientific, and therefore testable, necessity to explain the concrete by abstract theory — the materialist conception of history — which is a non-trivial task.The sort of history you seem to allude to is largely descriptive, and ultimately like any pursuit that “restricts itself to the facts” finds that the facts themselves are tendentious, and so the “factual” historian is forced against his will to choose his own alternative theory of history to make sense of his “facts” or merely rest his “factual” case upon his own persuasiveness as an author. Yes, Marx is no help to such an “historian”.

There is much to what you say, twc, about 'factual historians' and their method.But 'abstract theory' allows us to comprehend 'unobservables', like structures, which is just what Marx did.To call these 'unobservables' material seems to be stretching the term's meaning too far, though.And as for 'testable', the problem is that it's the 'abstract theory' which often determines what counts as 'evidence' or 'facts', and so whether a 'test' is 'proved' or not, remains a function of the 'theory', not of the 'unadorned facts' (sic).A better name for this approach is Realism, rather than Materialism. If Marx had had this term available to him, he would have written about 'the realist conception of history'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', as am I. Theory and practice.

No, he wasn't. I think there's only ever been one person who's claimed to be an 'idealist-materialist'. Still I guess that's one up on square circles.

You stick to looking for 'morality' from 'rocks', DJP!

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

But both morality and logic have been around for thousands of years. Slavery was 'logical' and 'morally right' in it's day. Why has it become illogical and immoral today?

Because 'logic' and 'morality' are social and thus historical?That is, they are not 'eternal' but change.I agree with those comrades who stress these (so-called) ideological factors.Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the way that Vin (and some others on other threads) has suggested.Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', as am I. Theory and practice.If 'Marxists' think Communism is going to be brought by the 'material' rocks, then, also like Marx, "I'm not a Marxist!".

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

As for your [twc’s] assertion that "no serious developer writes GO TO's"… it makes me wonder if you live in our world.

If that ain’t endorsing the use of GOTOs by serious programmers, I don’t know what is.

Do you know anything about the computer industry? Or the real world?Dijkstra might have shown that GOTOs are illogical, but Marx showed Capitalism is illogical. Business has ignored both.'Serious developers' use now, and have always continued to use since Dijkstra wrote, GOTOs.Why else would I have written what I did? I know, because I spent years sorting out unstructured programs that employed GOTOs. I specifically attacked the use of GOTOs, in foul language. How much clearer could I have been?I don't know why I'm bothering anymore. Now, you apparently even know more than I do about my own experience of the computer industry.

[Author]

Posts