[LBird]

twc wrote:

So please explain:If the social superstructure is pure bias, how that pure bias comes about.Why anyone should support the pure socialist bias.

No-one's arguing this, twc.If you don't understand the arguments being made, why not ask for clarification?You're merely building a straw man of your own imagination, and destroying it to your own satisfaction.For my part, I want a discussion.I've asked you to explain what you mean by 'material', so I'm asking questions. I think you mean 'physical' or 'tangible' by your use of 'material', but I might be wrong, so I'm asking you to clarify before I go on to discuss that assumption.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

This makes my central, but contrary, point in this thread. If everything is opinion, or bias, or ideology, then we are all as much opinionated, biased and ideological as the next.

If only things were this simple.This either/or view of the world is as much use as a good guy/bad guy or cowboys/indians dichotomous view.If the SPGB wears the white hats, then, ipso facto, everyone who criticises or argues with an existing SPGB position/principle/stance, clearly dons a black hat.It's becoming clear to me why twc doesn't do discussion, like about 'materialism', because any raising of questions and searching for answers is a sign of weakness to those who already know The Answer.It's not attractive.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Materialist Marx

twc wrote:

Because the charge has been laid by an avowed anti-materialist, it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a materialist position, along the lines that social condition determines social ideology.

The bold text is present in my original but was omitted in your copy, and was dodged by you in your “improved” rephrasing.  The bold text explains precisely why I made the claim.In case that alone wasn’t sufficiently convincing, I elaborated as follows….I finally pointed out that these were the hot-topic political considerations that turned the boy Marx into the materialist we should know today. …

Yes, but my point was to ask you what 'materialism' means to you, twc.

LBird wrote:

I would really like to discuss this meaning of 'materialism' with you, twc.

I think Marx was a Realist, and not a Materialist.That is, he wasn't a 19th century, mechanical, crude, materialist.He unified aspects of both materialism and idealism (its 'active side'), and produced a new unified view of 'theory and practice'. This is not simple 'materialism', and if the term 'materialism' continues to be used, then 'why?'.Marx wasn't a 'materialist', of the sort that means jettisoning the 'active side' of idealism.Can we discuss what you mean by 'materialist', twc?I think thought is as real as rock. So, if by 'material conditions', you mean 'ideas and circumstances', 'consciousness and nature', then we agree.If 'material' does not also signify and encompass 'ideas' to you, twc, can you say so, and we can progress this discussion?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Marx was a materialist, though not of the 'crude' kind…

So, you agree that consciousness and nature are in a unity, and so we can't say that the 'material' determines any more than the 'ideal' does? That is, humans are not the hostages of 'conditions', and can creatively change the 'material'.'Crude materialism' constantly stresses the 'economic base' as the determinant 'in the final analysis'. This is Engelsism.'Realism' (non-crude materialism?) stresses that both consciousness/ideology and nature/economics can be determinant, and that we must examine both, giving them the same weight in our considerations.I think that those comrades influenced unduly by Engels always return to 'the final analysis'. Which never comes.

DJP wrote:

This talk of idealism-materialism really doesn't make sense.

It does as a didactic tool to try to illustrate and contrast Marx's 'materialism' with the preceding 'materialism'.If the earlier materialism was the 'crude kind', why keep the term as a singular representation of Marx's new materialism? He clearly saw some value in 'idealism', as the 'active side'.It makes more sense, as I've argued, to find a new term (which clearly differentiates it from earlier 'crude' materialism, which Engels returned to, and is the source of our current difficulties). The term 'realism' fits this demand well, IMO.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

You're really garbling things up here. No wonder this discussion goes round in circles.

Well, giving formal definitions and ignoring the context of trying to understand Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, is one way of concluding things.I take it that you're a 'materialist', like twc, and unlike me and Marx, who agree that 'idealism' developed the 'active side'.Marx was a realist. He united aspects of materialism and idealism.The return to 'materialism' is a retrograde step.I know that you'll pay lip service to the Theses, and then insist that the 'material' is the basis. It isn't. Thought is real, too.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Because the charge has been laid by an avowed anti-materialist, it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a materialist position…

twc, in line with our new comradely understanding, I'd like to discuss what you mean by 'materialist'.In my opinion, there is ample evidence that Marx wasn't a 'materialist' (in the 19th century meaning of that word), but an 'idealist-materialist'.I think that most Marxists pay lip service to Marx's statement that 'ideas can become a material force', but when pressed return to old-fashioned 'materialism'. I think that the cause of this is Engels' muddled philosophising, about 'materialism versus idealism'. In my opinion, Marx united materialism and idealism into a philosophy of 'theory and practice'.I also think that the modern term 'realism' would be better employed by Marxists, because this better captures the unity of materialism and idealism. It is a commonplace in realist though that 'ideas are real', and I think other comrades here have previously supported that stance.So, I don't consider criticism of 'materialism' to be 'avowed anti-materialist', but to, like Marx, also stress 'the active side' of 'idealism'. I would amend your statement above to:"it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a materialist and idealist position";or, better still:"it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a realist position".I would really like to discuss this meaning of 'materialism' with you, twc.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

That being the case, Steve, I’ll bow out of the forum.

You still don't get it, do you, twc?No-one wants you to 'bow out', because you have plenty of knowledge which could help us all to learn more about this subject.But… it's a 'forum' for discussion, rather than a 'notice board', where you simply post your thoughts at great length without any discrimination at all, and the rest of us just passively read 'pearls of wisdom'.Here's a tip: try posting on a single subject, within a few lines, and then reply to questions others ask of that post. Y'know, interaction.Just 'brain-dumping' decades of reading, stretching over hundreds of years of thought, into a long post, is not discussion.You have a valuable asset, but it must be critically interrogated

[LBird]

twc wrote:

My knowledge simply comes from a lifetime interest in reading everything I could on socialism…

The bit you've missed is 'critically', twc. For a socialist, it should be '…in critically reading…'.You simply regurgitate texts. You don't discuss them, which would require a critical turn of mind, and an open admission of one's critical viewpoint, the stance or perspective one takes when applying criticism to a text.I've tried to help.

[LBird]

So, you're an expert on economics, as well as science, eh, twc?Is there no end to your erudition? It's such a shame that no-one ever seems to know just what you're actually talking about. Long, opaque posts, with no answers to questions posed.I'll tell you what, since you seem to be 'The Expert' on everything, and you certainly wouldn't put 'economics' or 'science' to the test of democracy, why don't we just put you in charge of society, and let you get on with telling the rest of us what to do?That solution would fit nicely with your own politics, too, wouldn't it?If you're representative of the SPGB's thinking in any way, I'm going back to the church.

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

Methodology not ideology!

No, you're quite correct. One's method is based upon one's ideology.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Does a worker need all these argumentation in order to become a socialist ?

Since 'science' is the supposed method for understanding our world, both natural and social, and workers aim to understand this world that they find themselves in, then I think it is necessary for workers to be able to take part in these discussions/arguments so that they can actively and creatively participate in the shaping of their world.For our part as Communists, I think it is our duty to make these discussions comprehensible to workers who don't yet have enough understanding of 'science' and its power (and, indeed, also 'value' and other concepts, which I don't think have ever been explained well enough).I think that a Communist society would require mass participation in many activities that are, at present, the preserve of the few. I think that this includes not only politics (power) and economics (production and distribution), but also academia and especially science (as sources of authority).Personally, I can't imagine a worker 'becoming a socialist' without them also having become increasingly curious about the world, in all its manifestations.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Since I think that science produces 'knowledge', and I believe that 'knowledge is power', then I think that all 'knowledge production' within a Communist society should be under the democratic control of that society.

OK. But HOW does knowledge manifest itself as power?

I tell you and ALB that the earth does go round the sun!And you both, stunned, exclaim: "The Truth… He is the messiah!" After that, putty in my hands… heh, heh, heh….

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'll say it once again, comrades, if we don't collectively and democratically control the production of scientific knowledge, then that process of production will remain in the hands of a minority, who will thus have power over society.

But in a society of common ownership and democratic control WHO are 'the scientists' and HOW do they exert minority control?

The form of your question, DJP, seems to equate 'property' with 'knowledge' (or 'economics' with 'science'), and so, to me, reads like an assumption is being made about 'economic determinism'. By that, I mean an assumption that 'social ideas' reflect 'economic reality'. I'm not an 'economic determinist', nor do I believe that there is a simple, one-way, causation or influence between 'economic base' and 'superstructural ideology'. That is, I don't believe that 'economics' determines 'power'.There is a good discussion to be had about our assumptions on these issues, but I don't want to divert this thread away from what I consider the main issue. I think that could be summed up by asking the question 'Is knowledge power?'.Since I think that science produces 'knowledge', and I believe that 'knowledge is power', then I think that all 'knowledge production' within a Communist society should be under the democratic control of that society.If one believes that 'scientific knowledge' is a copy of 'nature', then 'nature' itself determines our 'knowledge' of it, and so 'nature' has the power to determine our views.But if one believes that 'scientific knowledge' is not a simple copy of 'nature', and thus that 'scientific knowledge' has a socio-economic, cultural and historical dimension, then one would want that the production of that knowledge is as much under our democratic control, as other socio-economic, cultural and historical knowledge.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Fourthly, democracy simply can't dictate to nature what to do.

This shows that you don't understand the problem, twc. No-one has argued that 'democracy will dictate what nature does'.I've tried a number of times to turn this and other threads into a discussion with you, but you won't discuss, and so you're not learning.'Nature' and 'knowledge of nature' are not the same thing, unless one is a naive realist and holds to a reflection theory of knowledge.Not only am I not a naive realist (and don't hold to a reflection theory of knowledge), but I don't think Marx was, either.If one starts from the assumption that 'knowledge of nature' is not the same thing as 'nature', then we have to ask who (and how do they) produces (and thus controls) 'knowledge of nature'.The tragedy of all these exchanges between us, twc, is that you're clearly interested in science (and I think that you have something to teach, as well as learn, and so I've tried several times to get you to discuss science), but you are unwilling to engage in essentially philosophical questions.I'll say it once again, comrades, if we don't collectively and democratically control the production of scientific knowledge, then that process of production will remain in the hands of a minority, who will thus have power over society.Marx warns us about this, in the Theses on Feuerbach.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

However, LBird knows how to solve the problem of quantum interpretation, because it falls within the category of something he has expert knowledge of — a problem at the inconclusive forefront of science — which he vehemently cast a strong opinion on in a recent post.LBird solves all problems, especially those at the inconclusive forefront of science by voting on them. Voting? Yes, by voting on the inconclusive forefront. A standup could make a hilarious routine out of this.However, he is not joking. He is fanatically serious. He and his big-C Communists will decide what scientists are allowed to think by a poll That'll keep such distrusted elites in their proper place. I’m afraid that universal mediocrity is our sorry lot under big-C Communism.LBird romantically condemns anyone who refuses to go along with his hair-brained franchise, to vote on the nature of nature, as being anti-democratic and anti-proletarian. I am not joking. Sadly, this is the serious babble of a more-democratic-than-thou, pro-proletarian, poseur.Voting is entirely inadequate to the task at hand. Voting is impotent in the face of nature’s determinism, which determinism is something proletarian scientist LBird refuses to allow of nature herself, but only to us.For idealist LBird [actually he’s an idealist-leaning syncretist], nature is non-deterministic, and determinism being our social construct has a perfect right to be voted in or out, particularly at the inconclusive forefront of science.This is slurping the dregs of the residual stultifying Kantianism of Popper, partly evident in his influential students. LBird is a dualistic casualty of learning his science, ignorant of the context, primarily through such folks.

Coming from someone of your elitist political perspective, twc, this is a tremendous accolade, which I willingly accept.I'm a Communist of the type that is denigrated and insulted for arguing in favour of complete proletarian democracy, both as the basis for our organising in this capitalist society, and as forming the basis of our future Communist society.I'm happy to be condemned as a democrat, because for the entirety of the 20th century, Communists were associated with undemocratic politics.I'm a Communist for the coming 21st century, unlike you, twc, and your outdated and discarded elitist politics of the 20th.If science isn't under our class's control, then it'll be under the control of those with power. Of course, those wanting to control science will argue that it is a neutral activity, of no political consequence. Just like those in favour of 'elite economics' argue that the 'market is neutral'.We have to learn, comrades, that a revolution will see 'the world turned upside down' in every sphere of human activity, including science.

[Author]

Posts