LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
twc wrote:Materialism explains thought from being. There could be nothing more determinist than that: being determines thought. It goes to the core of existence. If there is something more determinist than materialism, please tell us what is.
What 'being' is being spoken of?
Marx wrote:It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm'Being' (reality, concrete, material) does not determine 'thought'.'Social being determines consciousness'.If it means anything, it means our human society 'determines' what individuals think.The 'material' is not the source of creative and critical thought. Once we remove society, culture and history, we're back to consulting the rocks about what they think we should do.And for that task, since workers can't tell what rocks say, we're back to needing an interpreter. A party above the class.
twc wrote:Argue against #119.Peremptory, eh? It's all falling into place, now!Materialism and its 'determinism' – a master for the proletariat that must be obeyed!No wonder there's no room for human creativity and proletarian democratic control of production, in your world, twc!Luckily, we've got the likes of you to translate for us what the 'rocks' are demanding of us, eh?
twc wrote:You seem to argue here in the official capacity of a troll.At least you seem to acknowledge that my activities fall under the label of 'argument'.I'm afraid, though, that I can't return the compliment.
twc wrote:Not contradictory. No-one argues on this open forum in any official SPGB capacity at all.That doesn't prevent them from arguing the SPGB case for socialism.This is "dialectical thought", presumably?
twc, do you write in any official capacity for the SPGB (that is, are you arguing the SPGB's position on these issues), or are the views expressed in your posts just your personal opinions?
twc wrote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of science, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unscientific a procedure.[my bold]twc, for me, you might as well have written:
Quote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of politics, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unpolitical a procedure.I trust neither politicians nor scientists, comrade.If I can't put my trust in my future comrades across the planet to make important decisions that affect all of us, I can't see the point of being a Communist.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science….'elites' in any sphere(Bold added) So, I provide an example of elites in society.And, by corollary, we can say that there are ability elites in science, some people are much better at doing sums in their head (whether by habituation and practice or any natural aptitude is irrelevent). So, we can have poetic elites, sporting elites and, yes, scientific elites.(p.s. and poetry has always had authority, the authority of the, er, author).
Wow! A killer quote!Well, you've got me beat, YMS.You're quite correct, on a politics site discussing power, I didn't specify political power.Next, you'll pick me up for not specifying 'Earth politics' (you could argue that I might be talking about Martian power struggles), or not specifying 'Human science' (you could argue that I might be talking about Aardvark science).Yes, my failures are now all too apparent, YMS. The SPGB are too sharp for me! Sorry for wasting your time.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,Lbird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I cited the example of sporting elites, they plainly exist, likewise I believe there are mathematical elites, and even linguistic elites. Try as I might, I can't write poetry what is as good as Shelley's. Or should we write poetry democratically?
This is becoming laughable, now!Since when has 'poetry' or 'rugby' had the authority of science?What's the matter with comrades on this thread? This is supposed to a political site! We're supposed to be discussing power.Perhaps ajj is right, and I should move tables with him! But the topic of footie only.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If i was sitting in the pub with you lot, i would move to another table !!Therein lies our problem!If you can't be induced to engage in such an important issue, it won't be raised and discussed amongst us, and the current default position will remain: 'keep politics out of physics'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I've played on the same pitch as elite sportspersons (well, an Ireland 7's international), so I quite firmly believe they exist…We're on the site of a Socialist party, talking about Communist politics, and about the power of various socio-economic and political elites, who have authority over the proletariat, and you bring up sport?I really don't know what else to say.Well, YMS, you look to an Ireland 7 international for your answers about the philosophy of science and the problem of scientific authority within society. Good luck.
twc wrote:Can you afford to remain democratic?Democracy is the only option for all Communists, not just me.I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I don't understand how any Communist can hold to 'democratic' methods in politics, but not in science. This contradiction, to me, is a key philosophical problem.But to answer it, we have to actually recognise it as a 'problem'. I suppose that the obvious answer for those holding this (to me, contradictory) idea is to deny that there is any problem, and that 'democracy in politics' can exist alongside 'elitism in science'.
You know what I find so strange, comrades? The fact that the philosophical position I’m advocating is the one far more in line with the general philosophical approach of the SPGB.That is, an approach that stresses the centrality of human thought, and its creative and critical thinking (which is prior to our practical dealings with the world of nature and society), provides a far more suitable ideological basis for the political thrust of the SPGB, that of propaganda, education, persuasion and of actually asking other workers what they think, by the process of democracy, in preparation for the assumption of power by the proletariat.The alternative, of ‘practice’ and the ‘real world’ being the basis of politics, is far more suited to provide an underpinning for the political approach of the Leninist, elitist, cadre-party, where a ‘select few’ are the ones who ‘read the runes’ of ‘what really is’, and merely pass on this ‘truth of reality’ to the passive majority of workers who can’t hope achieve this level of consciousness themselves, by their own efforts. The ‘professional revolutionaries’ merely reflect the role of ‘professional scientists’ (and, in an earlier epoch, the ‘professional priests’); that is, an elite above society, who are beyond talk of ‘democratic controls’. Why should the mass control cadre or clergy? The truth is ‘in the stars’.Even more simply, looking at ‘what is’, and drawing conclusions, is essentially a conservative method. How this method ever came to be the one espoused by ‘Socialists’ (at least, by those who see the need for revolution in thought and practice), is a question worth asking.I’m still inclined to place the cause of this with the immense prestige of 19th century positivist science, garnered from its tremendous real advances, and Engels being philosophically dazzled by the evident progress of physics (and other sciences) during his lifetime.I’ll make one prediction, though, comrades:‘Those who start from ‘practice’ and ‘material conditions’ will oppose 'democracy’.All talk of ‘workers control’ will be dropped, in favour of a ‘parliament’ of ‘experts’. I can already see this dichotomy amongst the SPGB posters, when the issue of proper workers’ power comes up. Those who favour proper democracy will stress the need to ensure power lies with newly created workers’ councils, whereas those who favour ‘practice’ and ‘reality as it is’ will favour the retention of a modified ‘parliament’ as the location of power.That is, some SPGB-ers see parliament as the end (to be retained), whereas others see parliament as a means (to be discarded).My views support the latter. I’m in favour of the SPGB’s strategy if it leads to the self-destruction of parliament and the state.But if the SPGB sees parliament as something to be taken over and retained, I’m opposed.Philosophy, eh?
LBird wrote:If it's not the mode of science as practiced by proletarians, then isn't adding 'proletarian' just a bit of branding, a bit like 'All new and improved'?Yeah, I'm just the Communist Salesman, trying to bamboozle! And a failure at that, too!We should inscribe across our banners: "For Practical Rationality!"Inspiring for the youth, what?
