[LBird]

twc wrote:

So far in our discussion, I haven't adopted any position.  But to satisfy your request — the Copenhagen interpretation.

Your answer is contradictory, twc. If you are using the 'Copehagen interpretation', that's the 'position you've adopted'.In your opinion, is the Copenhagen interpretation an 'anti-realist' ideology, twc?According to what little I've read so far, the opposing interpretation (the 'hidden variable' or 'pilot wave' or De Broglie-Bohm interpretation) is the causal-realist one. This suggests that the Copenhagen interpretation is anti-realist.Are you a realist or an anti-realist, twc?For what it's worth, I think that a 'Critical Realist' view of science is the one most compatible with Marx and Communism.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…materialism, the basic principle that the world is explicable in terms of observable phenomena…

Surely this is pre-Marx 'materialism'?The notion of 'theory and practice' would suggest that Marx would, on the contrary, have stressed "idealism-materialism, the basic principle that the world is explicable in terms of theory and practice".This is a long way from 'observable phenomena'.Bhaskar, for example, stresses three domains of the Real, the Actual and the Empirical. Of these, only the Empirical is directly 'observable'. The Real and Actual require theory to understand them, if Bhaskar is to be believed.Ref: Roy Bhaskar (2008; orig. 1975) A Realist Theory of Science Verso, London

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Everybody learns, and communicates, quantum mechanics with the Copenhagen interpretation.The Copenhagen interpretation, despite everything, is more than just an ideology, having won its prominent position by holding its own against reasoned opposition. I, however, have not expressed my own view, which hardly matters in the complex scheme of things relating to quantum mechanical interpretation, for the evolutionary reasons I outlined above.

twc, could you tell me which ideology you're using to understand 'quantum physics', please?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

The greatness of Bohr is that he wholeheartedly grasped quantum incommensurability from the start, and valiantly defended the strange new quantum beast in its own quantum terms against the onslaught of reacting classicists, especially Einstein, who sought to comprehend that unfamiliar quantum world in familiar [but to Bohr incommensurable] classical terms.

twc, could you tell me which ideology you're using to understand 'quantum physics', please?

[LBird]

proletarian wrote:

It probably won't surprise you that in my opinion it's much more 'economic to political'. The political struggle naturally comes out of the economic.

No, your view doesn't 'surprise' me! We have differing opinions on whether the notion that 'political struggle naturally comes out of the economic' leads to class consciousness, or not.I don't think 'economic struggle' leads to class consciousness. I think, most of the time, 'economic struggle' remains focussed on 'economic issues': and fighting for 'jobs' or 'higher pay' leads to consciousness of the need for a 'effective wage system' which supplies jobs and higher pay. If this leads to any 'political' awareness, as ajj says, it's likely to lead to negative political effects, like the need for national autarchy in the economy, to protect 'jobs and pay' from 'outsiders'.I don't believe Communism will simply emerge from 'economic struggles'. I think that a class conscious proletariat has to engage on all levels, economic, political, ideological, cultural, in concert, to further their Communist aims, which are openly declared from the start. In this scenario, 'economic struggle' will be the fight to destroy the wage system, not an essentially bourgeois fight for jobs and higher wages.I know we disagree, proletarian, but I think it is of the utmost importance for the various Communist strands to keep discussing this issue: SPGB, ICC, other organisations and the presently non-aligned.Furthermore, as I've said already, I think that there are differing philosophical bases to this overt political disagreement. That is, it's not simply a tactical disagreement over which gets priority, economic (struggle) or political (propaganda), but is a strategic debate about the objective/subjective, matter/consciousness, transition periods, organisation, etc.I don't think that the answers to this issue lie in appeals to 'authority' or in digging through 'historical examples', but in clarification of our 'ideas'. Philosophy is always at the basis of human actions. Ideas drive activity, as Marx said, not the other way around. In my opinion, anyway, comrade!

[LBird]

link wrote:

Whilst I think we can all say, that limited economic struggles are not enough and that only political struggles of class conscious workers can lead to socialism.

That seems to be a point we all agree on, link. SPGB, ICC and all those non-aligned, here. But…

link wrote:

I want therefore to emphasise the link between economic and political struggles within capitalism.

The problem is, which way does the main transmission flow? From economic to political, or from political to economic? As you say,

link wrote:

The question here is how what is the relationship of one to the other and I would like to hear how the SPGB explains this.

I can't answer for the SPGB, but my present opinion is that the main transmission is 'from political to economic'. That is, propaganda and ideological struggle to develop our class consciousness, so that workers are Communist, is the 'starting point'. Of course, we'd all agree that once the process is up and running, the influences flow both ways to some extent, and that economic struggle can lead to 'lessons learned', but, really, your question is about the origin and main influence.It's my opinion, that the underlying philosophical assumptions behind these positions are:'economic to political': Engels and 'materialism', or 'positivist science'; and'political to economic': Marx and 'idealism-material', or 'theory and practice', or 'praxis'.I'd be very interested to hear opposing arguments to my schema. I don't think 'struggle' necessarily leads to 'consciousness', to put it another way.

[LBird]

Please send my warm thanks to Comrade Paddy Shannon!Here's a random quote about (from?) Smolin's book:

Sabine Hossenfelder (re Smolin) wrote:

Philosophy used to be part of the natural sciences – for a long time. For long centuries during which our understanding of the world we live in has progressed tremendously. There is no doubt that times change, but not all changes are a priori good if left without further consideration. Here, change has resulted in a gap between the natural sciences where questioning the basis of our theories, and an embedding into the historical and sociological context used to be. Even though many new specifically designed interdisciplinary fields have been established, investigating the foundations of our current theories has basically been erased out of curricula and textbooks.

[my bold]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_PhysicsWe're still at this stage, of keeping human philosophy separate from 'natural sciences'. This is the deleterious effect of positivism, which also infects our views of 'Marxism', which pretends that the 'world' can be known in itself, separate from human thinking, and goes under the name of 'materialism'. This view believes that the 'scientific method' produces eternal Truth about reality, and that, once known, it is true forever and for every observer, independently of social context.As for 'erasing theoretical foundations from curricula and textbooks', it makes 'physics' sound like current 'economics'!The Market and Science, as twin truths for humanity.Anyway, thanks again, and I'll try to get a copy of the book, and see if I can understand anything about Quantum theories.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hence, I see the role of propaganda and the battle of ideas within our class as a fundamental one, rather  inclined to think that there is a necessary link between Engels' positivist view of science, and the notion that 'struggle/experience' leads to consciousness. The Left Communists, I think, espouse Engels, rather than Marx, on this issue.

I wouldn't have thought that Engels can be made to carry the can for their peculiar ideas on how socialist consciousness arises, as what Engels wrote in his introduction to a reprint in 1895 of Marx's Civil War in France directly contradicts their view:

Quote:

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required,

I think Engels is with us (both of us) on this one.

Yeah, he's with us 'on this one'.But many Marxists insist on following Engels' stance on the philosophy of science, not his political or historical views. When we've discussed this previously, I think you made the mistake of thinking that I was condemning Engels' entire body of work, whereas I'm only condemning his positivist views on science, which I think are at odds with his (and Marx's) views on society.But, I think the obsession with 'material' factors/conditions, the 'concrete', etc., and the underplaying of the subjective role of ideas in human affairs (both scientific and political), has its philosophical roots in Engels, not Marx. That is, in the crafted unity known as "Marx-Engels"! To question "Marx-Engels" is to be a heretic, and to be condemned to burn at the stake, for the religious crime of 'Idealism'.Or should that be "Apostatic Idealism"?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

There is no point in being dogmatic about it at this stage. What will happen will happen irrespective of what we today think should happen.

I'm not so sure about this, ALB. Surely,what we workers think should happen will be an inescapable factor in what will happen? And if we Communists insist that the class must also be Communists for a proletarian revolution to take place, that will play a part. If 'what happens' happens 'irrespective of what we today think should happen', what's the point of propaganda?No, I think being 'dogmatic' about the need for workers themselves to come to a Communist class consciousness, to build their own democratic delegate organisations, and to struggle against the wage system and money, is just about what we should be doing at every stage!

ALB wrote:

This being so, and since most unions have sufficiently democratic constitutions, if the members become socialist-minded they could transform the union.

I'm less confident about this, too, ALB. I think that 'most union' bureaucracies will expel members/officials/branches that adopt delegate structures and propagandise with their union for others to do the same. As with capitalism (or indeed Leninist parties), the 'democratic consitutions' aren't worth the paper that they're written on.Real power relationships within political organisations are rarely (ever?) captured in 'constitutions'. That's why we need an active class, not an active 'leadership', as for 'democratic centralists'. Workers will have to actively participate in the daily running of their society, and democratically change 'constitutions' as they see fit.

ALB wrote:

OK, they might prefer to break away and form a new organisation, but I don't think we can completely rule out the transformation from within of existing unions.

If you were to offer a bet, I think I'd put a fiver on that, against your view, ALB!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hence, I see the role of propaganda and the battle of ideas within our class as a fundamental one, rather than struggle alone.

Exactly, but that's the point the Left Communists don't get and accuse us of "revolutionary pedagogy" and of being "socialist teachers" from outside the working class. A caricature of our position which shows that they don't learn from the experience of struggling to hear what exactly we do say.

I'm inclined to think that there is a necessary link between Engels' positivist view of science, and the notion that 'struggle/experience' leads to consciousness. The Left Communists, I think, espouse Engels, rather than Marx, on this issue.Ideas come from humans, not rocks.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

But 'trade unions' are defensive organisations for workers within capitalism. They are not organisations for building offensive means against capitalism, to destroy it.Surely, with the development of Communist class consciousness, workers will themselves realise that the defensive trade unions have to be also destroyed, and replaced with offensive workers' organisations.

Yes, the trade unions are merely defensive organisations of the working class within capitalism, but I don't think it follows that they necessarily need to be destroyed to play a part in the socialist revolution. As we say in our pamphlet What's Wrong With Using Parliament? (emphasis added):

Quote:

This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders.

But doesn't "will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders" in effect mean that they are not 'trade unions'? Perhaps we need to define what actually we mean by a 'trades union', to determine whether it's meaningful to say they can be 'reformed'. I think 'breakaways' or 'completely new organisations' will be the Communist route, rather than 'reform'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If, on the other hand, management grows stronger and imposes it will easier… we will know trade unions with all their faults do have a constructive role as a counter-balance.

But 'trade unions' are defensive organisations for workers within capitalism. They are not organisations for building offensive means against capitalism, to destroy it.Surely, with the development of Communist class consciousness, workers will themselves realise that the defensive trade unions have to be also destroyed, and replaced with offensive workers' organisations.In fact, I'd see the presence of trade unions (and workers' acceptance of them as necessary to defend themselves), as itself an indicator of a lack of class consciousness.That is, the growth and extension of trade unions in a society is a measure of its non-revolutionary temper. I don't see 'class consciousness' developing merely from 'struggle'. If that 'struggle' doesn't have a conscious, Communist underpinning, then the result won't be wider class consciousness. Just, perhaps, better wages and conditions. This isn't to deny those as advantages to workers under capitalism, or a reason not to struggle for those things, but it is to say that it's nothing to do with class consciousness. Class consciousness is the desire to destroy wages, not to improve them.I know that this viewpoint separates me from those comrades who think that 'struggle', in itself, leads to consciousness. I don't think it does, and basing our efforts on the trades unions is, I think, a measure of our weakness as Communists, and of the lack of class consciousness within our class.Hence, I see the role of propaganda and the battle of ideas within our class as a fundamental one, rather than struggle alone.If I were to make these opposing points of view plain, I would say:"struggle leads to consciousness" is being mistaken for "class struggle leads to class consciousness"It needs to be:class consciousness leads to class struggle.Ideas come from humans, not the 'material world' or 'experience'.Ideas have to be tested in the material world or through experience, but the ideas come first, not experience of struggle.The experience of 'pay and job struggles' will lead to consciousness of the need for 'pay and jobs', that is, the wage system.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

However, there is a very real danger of transferring a mode of looking at the world pertaining the physical sciences to the social sciences. I'm talking about the problem of "reflexivity "as it is called. We are part of the very thing we are "observing". It is impossible to step outside society abd "scientifically" examine it from an external standpoint as one might a rock or a plant or aome chemical reaction. Indeed, at a more fundamental level of quantum physics with a phenomenom like the "observer effect", some might even question that last claim.

[my bold]Yes, "it is also impossible to step outside of society" to examine a rock or the other real things you mention, robbo. Understanding rocks requires a social standpoint, just like social things.What we have to ensure is that proletarian science is based on this realisation. That is, that the 'physical sciences' are brought under the same method as the 'social sciences', which is the complete opposite of the bourgeoisie's 19th century attempt to bring the 'method of physics' into 'social studies', like history, for example.As you say, 'we are part of the very thing we are "observing" '. Nature is examining itself, rock and human, alike.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

The party position on how socialists should behave in parliament is that they would abide by the democratic decisions of the party. So it is left open, an understandable position given that there may be unforseen exceptional circumstances. The question has been a very long standing bone of contention within the party being the issue of the 1911 split and being an issue raised in the 1991 expulsion. Probably the two most damaging internal events in the party's history.

Well, I don't wish to be the source of any splits or expulsions……but… it does seem as if the issue being 'left open' is a bit of a fudge, given that it's such a central issue for a party that argues for parliamentary participation. The spelling out of the nature of that participation would seem to be fundamentally important; otherwise, why would anyone of either point of view join the party, if it might go on to embody a policy which they fundamentally disagree with?

Ed wrote:

My personal views would be the polar opposite of YMS's. I believe socialists elected to parliament should either not take their seats or vote no or abstain to every piece of legislation. That is what I would argue and vote for in the event of the party ever winning an election.

Yes, this view seems to me to be the one expressed by those members who are arguing with the ICC and on LibCom, for the case of 'parliament'. That is, the votes obtained can play a part in helping to determine levels of class consciousness, and that a majority vote would help legitimise those extra-parliamentary forces of workers' councils and parties, in the eyes of the state's personnel, and thus weaken the state's coercive structures.So, the 'parliamentary road', in this conception, is essentially a passive one, that provides a picture of political and ideological developments outside of parliament, and inflicts damage on the state's ability to function as a tool of the ruling class.This is the polar opposite, it seems to me, of Young Master Smeet's view of parliament as a much more active factor in workers' political organisation. I agree with the 'passive' road, which I think is also your view, Ed?I hope other party members and non-members (like me) participate in this discussion, because I'm still unclear about much of this issue, and can only learn from a proper debate.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

That is, that the SPGB thinks that 'parliament' within a capitalist economy can be controlled by the proletariat.

Of course the Parliament can be controlled by the proletariat, we only need to win the elections.  Whether that parliament could do anything other than govern, ultimately, in the interests of capital, is another thing (and let's recall that web are discussing a non-revolutionary situation in which the working class lacks the strength to overthrow capital).  That doesn't mean that we can't  open the books, put secret diplomacy to one side and dismantle the anti-democratic parts of the state and make life generally harder for the capitalist class to exert their influence except openly.I'm giving my own opinion, but one which I don't think is entirely without the scope of the party's agreed position.

Thanks for being frank about your personal views, YMS.But I think that those views go against the grain of what's being argued by the party against the ICC and LibCom.Given what you've said, I'm inclined to think that there is some substance in the criticisms being made of the SPGB.

YMS wrote:

As to worker's councils, I think the revolutionary political party and workers councils are the same thing, but using different words and looked at with eyes asquint.

Well, since I think that there will be a multiplicity of 'workers' parties' organised around different theories and assumptions about various policies, I don't see them as 'the same thing' as workers' councils.If pushed (and this is a very tentative opinion, which I could easily revise), I'd say that workers' councils would be the 'parliament' within which workers' parties tried to gain influence. But the weapons would be under the control of the councils, which clearly would have a political power separate from any particular party, unlike the present 'parliament', which in many ways is a figleaf.As I've argued to the ICC, the class must have the power to disband any party that the class sees fit to.However, these political relationships between party (s) and class are still to me very opaque, which is why I try to stimulate discussion about the issue (and it is related to issues of 'consciousness' and 'revolution by minority/majority').

[Author]

Posts