LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote: “…we never control nature“.
That’s not what Marx argued, alan.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Engels was right…“.
No, Engels was wrong. Marx and Engels had differing views about ‘nature’.
For Marx, ‘nature’ was a social product, which humans actively produce, and so can change it.
robbo, we’ve discussed this many times, and I know that you’re trying to have an honest discussion, rather than just abusing me.
Given what we’ve discussed previously, I think that the issue of ‘education’ within a socialist society could provide you with a way to understand my (and Marx’s) political arguments, regarding ‘science’.
If you applied your reasoning in your post to ‘education’, you’d end up defending the current bourgeois education system, with its lack of democracy, rule by ‘teachers’, an assumption of ‘mass ignorance and uninterest’ in most academic subjects, etc.
Plus, ‘practicality’ always seems to play a large part in your justifications, but I’m a believer in Marx’s need for revolution, which assumes much more than ‘practical’ solutions will be needed.
There is a need to ‘revolutionise’ our world, which will include (not the strawman, once again, of ‘no need for specialists’) the political control of all specialisms by generalists (to use previous SPGB terminology), which is democracy.
If you don’t agree with the political control of, to use your example, ‘neurosurgery’ by humanity, rather than by ‘neurosurgeons’, then we have a political disagreement about democracy versus elitism.
But, alan, you’re still refusing to say who is to change the world.
The SPGB, being ‘materialist’, argues that an elite will change the world.
You’re trying to have it both ways, and thus being inconsistent. You claim:
“For all its weaknesses you ascribe to the SPGB, its strength is in the social democracy it proclaims and practices…as it purposefully does not aspire to any political leadership over our fellow-workers. Whatever errors it may have in its ideas, they cannot be imposed against the will of the working class. That is real socialist democracy. We leave it to our fellow-workers to determine for themselves who holds the better world-view of society, who presents the best strategy for building a new social system.” [my bold]
So, how can you argue that, for example, physicists will control physics, if ‘fellow-workers’ and ‘the working class’ are the ones ‘to determine for themselves’?
This is the insight Marx had – ‘materialists’ will always claim that the ‘material’ has a power outside of ‘the will of working class’, ‘social democracy’, ‘real socialist democracy’ and ‘the new social system’, because the ‘material’ is outside of humanity. And then, the ‘materialists’ (as an elite, outside of democratic controls) themselves determine the ‘material’. They won’t allow a vote on the ‘material’.
If ‘physics’ (for example) isn’t under the democratic control of your fellow-workers, whose control is it under?
‘Materialism’ preserves a world outside of workers’ self-determination, and so defends a world of an elite.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “However, your own political position entirely disappears with yourself. There has been no contribution whatsoever to influencing working class understanding. There has been not one thing that indicates that you are trying to change the world by actively engaging in it .
Isn’t that the definition of a political dilettante?
Sorry to be so harsh.”
You’re not being ‘harsh’ on me alone, alan. You’re being harsh on Marx, and all the other thinkers since, who’ve argued for workers’ democracy, workers’ self-determination. It’s a common position outside of the ‘materialist’ camp. It has influenced working class activists for generations. I’m trying constantly ‘to change the world by actively engaging with it’ – for example, with this post. I’m hoping that you and other readers will embrace workers’ democracy in science, and reject the bourgeois ideology of ‘materialism’.
So, for all your criticism, alan, it’s me, rather than you and the SPGB, who’s arguing for ‘real socialist democracy’. It seems that I can’t change that by reasoned argument.
So, once again, alan, who is to control ‘nature’ within your version of ‘democratic socialism’? Is it democrats (the entirety of humanity by voting) or an elite? It’s a simple political question, alan, never yet answered by you or anyone else in the SPGB. Lenin was clear on his answer – but he was a ‘materialist’.
Some bad news, alan.
I’ve continued to skim through Casey’s book, looking for some passages which can allow me to make a judgement about his ‘materialism’ (ie. whether it is simple ‘materialism’ of the 18th century variety, or whether it’s Marx’s ‘idealism-materialism’, ie. ‘social productionism’). I’m busy with other work, so my estimation of Casey must be rushed.
On page 132, Casey argues for a bog-standard ‘correspondence theory of truth’, where the test of ‘truth’ is ‘objective reality’. This is bourgeois ideology, which allows an elite to judge ‘reality’, outside of workers’ democracy.
This is a disappointment, because, as Marx argued, we socially produce any ‘objects’ that we know. Thus, the nature of ‘truth’ relates to our socio-historical production. ‘Truth’ is always a ‘Truth-For-Us’.
I might be wrong about Casey, alan, because I’ve only had a brief scan of this book. Perhaps elsewhere in this book, or in another publication, he might clarify his views in a way which I can agree with.
But my initial conclusion is: Casey is just another ‘materialist’, rather than a Marx-inspired ‘social productionist’. Only ‘social production’ fits with democracy, because only then can ‘truth’ be elected.
If you find anything by Casey that you think is worth me reading, please let me know. I might have misjudged him.
alan, more good stuff from Casey!
“…for there are only two alternatives, one is to retire from discussion and become a social hermit, the other is to be a fool who opens his lips only to be held up to ridicule by the rising army of proletarian logicians.” (p. 185).
So much for ‘academic experts’ in logic!
I’m all for the ‘proletarian logicians’ having power over ‘logic’.
But, as a ‘materialist’, alan, which of Casey’s options shall you choose? 😛
alanjjohnstone wrote: “It makes the forum worth being a member of…now, if you were also a member of the SPG…hmmmm….i think we been here before … 😆”
Yes, it certainly has been worth it for me, being a forum member. I’ve had many recommendations, like your Casey one, and I’ve enthusiastically followed them up, buying many of the books concerned. My knowledge of Marx and science (and dozens of other thinkers and subjects) has increased immeasurably. I hoped at the beginning that it would be a collective, comradely journey, and perhaps that I’d eventually join the democratic SPGB (especially after my experiences with the undemocratic SWP).
But… imagine my horror, when I realised that the membership (and sympathisers) of the SPGB who post here, were concerned to defend, not socialism, not democracy, not revolution, not the proletariat, not social production, not Marx… but the bourgeois socio-historic product called ‘Science’ and its supporting philosophical ideology, ‘Materialism’.
So, no ‘collective, comradely journey’, sadly, just constant personal abuse and strawmanning of my arguments (the very method, if you take up my earlier reading recommendation, of the notorious ‘Materialists’ Plekhanov and Lenin, when confronted with Marx’s democratic politics – I’m thinking of changing my name to LBogdanov!).
More unhappily, I’ve also discovered that the SPGB, just like other parties, allows its own members to carry out actions that it bans non-members for reacting to. So, now I suffer the personal abuse, but don’t reply in kind (hard to do, for a working class bloke, but there yer go – I’ve learnt that, too).
So, the SPGB? Bit of a disappointment, really. I’m never likely to join an organisation that can’t argue its own politics. For as long as it’s ‘materialist’, my democratic communist politics won’t fit. Defending ‘mud and rocks’, in opposition to humanity, is soooo pre-Einstein.
alan, having a very quick scan of Casey’s book, and came across this:
“From [Kant’s] time materialism and idealism became more decidedly separated but ultimately got reconciled by Dietzgen…” (p. 117).
This of course echoes my argument that Marx was an ‘idealist-materialist’, because Marx’s achievement was the German Idealists’ goal of ‘reconciling’ mind and matter.
The ‘reconciliation’ was ‘activity’, which required ‘consciousness’ as much as ‘being’. The ‘activity’ was ‘socio-historical’, which required humanity throughout its changing of its world.
Marx called this reconciliation ‘Social Labour’. Humanity externalises (Entausserung) its own nature, through its social production, and by its labour produces its ‘Nature’. This ‘Nature’, which humanity knows, is its own social product. And this ‘Nature’ changes, and the changer is humanity.
Thus, the ancient argument about the division between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’, ‘humanity’ and ‘nature’, was dead. We have unity. Or, so Marx, Dietzgen, Casey and Pannekoek thought…
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Again the SPGB was one of the few organisations – and emphasis on organisation – that held Fred Casey’s ‘Thinking’ to be worthy of study.
I note even Marxist Internet Archive does not include any of his writings and his contribution more or less forgotten and neglected. Perhaps your good self have not had the opportunity to have read him. However if you have, perhaps you could transcribe your copy and get it uploaded to the web for the world to share. That alone would be a valuable gift to Marxism.”
I’ve never even heard of Casey, alan. I’ll give him a read, and let you know of my opinion of his ‘democratic socialism’.
His book is available for download as a PDF, here:
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird, isn’t it true that the SPGB had its proponents of Dietzgen and his British advocate, Fred Casey and his Dutch advocate Pannekoek who dismantled Lenin’s bourgeois philosophical roots in his ‘Lenin As Philosopher.’”
Yes, alan, Pannekoek did dismantle Lenin’s ‘materialism’. Pannekoek argued that the supposed ‘laws of physics’ were a socio-historical product (see Pannekoek’s Lenin as Philosopher, chapter 2 ‘Middle-Class Materialism’). Thus, it seems Pannekoek would logically support the democratic control of such human-produced ‘laws’. Lenin, in contrast, most certainly wouldn’t support such mass control of physics.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “So credit where credit is due that the SPGB promoted thinkers who did NOT argue that Marx shared Lenin’s view about ‘materialism’. That there was NOT any philosophical relationship between Marx and Lenin.”
But the ‘materialists’ within the SPGB deny that the ‘laws of physics’ are a socio-historical product. They argue that the ‘laws of physics’ correspond to ‘material reality’. So, you’re incorrect about ‘credit being due’, alan. The SPGB (and many other ‘materialist’ parties, like the SWP, Militant, WRP, etc., etc.) seem to ‘promote’ the works of thinkers like Pannekoek and Marx, without actually reading and understanding them.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I keep reading the name Plekhanov who i have not studied, but it may well be Lenin learned from his works. You may be able to enlighten me.”
Yes, Lenin took all of his ‘materialism’ from Plekhanov (not from Marx). Plekhanov got his ‘materialism’ from a complete misunderstanding of Engels’ ‘materialism’, and further removed any need for ‘mass socialist consciousness’ within the working class, when dealing with ‘science’ (in contrast to Engels’ contradictory insistence on mass democracy, which undermined his version of ‘materialism’).
I can highly recommend a book which deals with the relationship between Marx and Plekhanov. When Marx was confronted with supporting Plekhanov’s ‘materialist’ views, in opposition to the supposed ‘idealist’ Narodniks, Marx wrote a letter supporting the Narodniks.
See James D. White (2019) Marx and Russia: The Fate of a Doctrine Bloomsbury. Also, perhaps see an older book Teodor Shanin (1983) Late Marx and the Russian Road MRP, which contains an extremely detailed account of Marx’s letter and its fate.
MovimientoSocialista wrote: “The Socialist Party and the WSM have known, have said, and have propagated for more than 100 years that without a socialist consciousness the working class will not be able to establish a post-capitalist society…”
Given that the SPGB membership seem to embrace a ‘materialist’ perspective, they contradict your statement, if this ‘post-capitalist society’ is to include a ‘science’. All ‘materialists’, obviously including Lenin (but excluding Marx) argue against the necessity of ‘a socialist consciousness’ within ‘the working class’ as regards ‘science’.
MovimientoSocialista wrote: “…we knew that there was no relationship between Marx and Lenin.”
Again, this is untrue, because Lenin was a ‘materialist’, and the SPGB argue (erroneously) that Marx shared Lenin’s view about ‘materialism’. Thus, if this is true, the SPGB argues that there is a ‘relationship between Marx and Lenin’.
The simple answer to this contradiction is to argue for ‘the democratic control of science‘ – which separates Marx from Lenin, as the former argued for working class political control of all social production, whereas the latter didn’t.
‘Materialists’ cannot countenance ‘democracy’ within ‘science’ – they argue for ‘political control by an elite’. Ask any of them – Leninist or supposedly ‘Marxist’.
Dave Perrin wrote: “The perceived need to achieve mass socialist consciousness among the working class… came into question.”
This is still a valid analysis, regarding the relationship between ‘mass socialist consciousness among the working class’ and ‘science’.
Lenin’s materialism held (as do all 21st century materialists hold) that ‘democracy’ is not necessary within ‘science’. This political need is still currently questioned.
Without democracy in every social activity of production (including science), Marx’s ideas are meaningless.
Plus, Marx himself specifically warned that ‘materialists’ would deny the need for ‘mass’ involvement, and would institute a rule by an elite.
Marx was correct, of course, and Lenin’s political and ideological career was testimony to Marx’s foresight.
L.B. Neill wrote “We can’t vote what reality is- but observe it, and then decide what to do with the findings.”
This statement must be untrue, L.B., otherwise Marx is wrong. And I go with Marx’s democratic ‘social productionism’ on this issue, because I think Marx is correct.
Firstly, ‘observe it’. To ‘observe’ is passive, not active. Marx argued for ‘conscious activity’, and condemned mere ‘passive contemplation’. So, Marx argues for ‘production’, not ‘observation’.
Secondly, to observe ‘it’ suggests ‘it’ is unchanging. But Marx argues that whatever ‘it’ is, it is a socio-historic product, which changes over place and time. That is, any ‘it’ is different between different modes of production – otherwise, ‘it’ would be exactly identical for ever, in any circumstances, as an Absolute It.
Thirdly, ‘We’. Who is this ‘we’? If this ‘we’ is the social producers, then their conscious activity within democratic socialism would have to be democratic. So, this ‘we’ can vote upon their ‘product’. The same applies to ‘decide what to do’ – this must be democratic, as otherwise an elite would ‘decide’.
Fourthly, ‘findings’. This is a rerun of ‘it’. ‘Findings’ are social products, which are actively produced, by conscious humans.
From your other comments, L.B., you seem to be already aware of some of the difficulties involved in what you’re saying, regarding ‘material’ and ‘fixed’. Keep investigating Marx’s views, because I think that he offers a way forward beyond ‘bourgeois science’ (production by an active conscious, undemocratic elite) towards a ‘revolutionary science’ (production by an active conscious democratic humanity). The ‘passivity’ of ‘observation’, BTW, is a lie. ‘Science’ means ‘active production’. The ‘dominant ruling classes’ (to use your own terms) just hide this fact. ‘Passive observation’ is an ideology.
L.B. Neill wrote: “I am not going anywhere near we make our own reality here, not at all.”
That’s fair enough, L.B.
But Marx argues that we do ‘make our own reality’.
His point is that we create any ‘nature’ that we know.
That’s why we can change it, which is the whole political point of Marx’s philosophy of ‘socio-historic production’.
Indeed, as you actually say, “Yet the material seems fixed by dominant ruling classes- I know it is not fixed, but to many it feels fixed.”
Your key insight here is ‘feels fixed’ – this is the point of view of the isolated, biological, individual, who ‘knows reality’ because they can ‘kick a brick’, and so the ‘brick is real’.
You’re correct of course, about your point regarding ‘fixity’ and ‘ruling classes’ – they pretend that the ‘reality’ that they’ve had produced by us workers, is ‘fixed’, and can’t be changed. Thus, ‘capitalism’ is the only reality, and not subject to change by its creators (which Marx argues).
Our viewpoint has to be that of the ‘social producers’, not ‘biological individuals’. Thus, it is a historical approach to ‘our own reality’ and its ‘making’, and our intention to revolutionise ‘our reality’.
In simple terms, L. B. Neill, Marx is arguing that ‘socio-historic change’ is at the heart of our reality.
That is, ‘social production’ produces ‘change’.
Marx reconciled ‘idealism’ with ‘materialism’, by which he meant ‘conscious activity’ with ‘humanity’.
Prior to Marx, the German Idealists saw ‘conscious activity’ as ‘divine’, whereas the Materialists saw ‘humanity’ as ‘clockwork mechanism’.
Thus, idealism argued for ‘divine activity’ and materialism argued for ‘human passivity’.
Marx reconciled ‘conscious activity’ with ‘humanity’, and ditched the ‘divine’ and ‘passivity’.
‘Social production’ is the key to understanding Marx, which all of his key concepts involve.
LeonTrotsky wrote “In this sense LBird, Lenin argued that the working class required a transition period between capitalism and socialism in which a dictatorship of the working class would rule.” [my bold]
LT, I think that you’ll find that “Lenin argued that…a dictatorship of the party would rule“.
That’s what separates Marx and Lenin – Marx equated ‘working class’ with ‘working class’, whereas Lenin equated ‘working class’ with ‘party’.
Hence, for those who follow Lenin’s politics (and ‘scientific’ method), there’s no need for ‘democracy’.
An elite in politics (and in science) will tell workers what is correct think. As in society, so too in nature.
This is nothing to do with Marx, whether as an ‘academic and theorist’ or as a ‘revolutionary practioner’, to employ your theoretical separation of Marx’s unity of ‘theory and practice’.
