LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: “It is in this sense that theoretical physics is a “socially constructed body of knowledge” which is not the same as saying that the entirety of human society contributed to this body of knowledge. ” [my bold]
But it’s not your ‘this sense’ that counts, robbo.
It’s Marx’s ‘this sense’ that we’re discussing.
For your ‘this sense’, there would have to be an elite separated from ‘the entirety of human society’. Thus, your concept would, as Marx warned, divide society into two, one of which (the elite) is superior to the other (humanity).
So, for Marx, ‘the entirety of human society’ does contribute to any body of knowledge.
All you are doing, just as any ideological individualist would do, is dividing the entirety of humanity into discrete individuals, of which you are one, and claiming that because one doesn’t supposedly contribute, that this means that the entirety doesn’t.
‘Society’ is a political concept, as indeed is ‘individual’.
But Marx’s views are based upon “social production”, not on “an aggregate of individuals production”.
That’s why democracy can’t be removed from any social production.
It seems to me, robbo, that your fundamental disagreement is with Marx’s social perspective, rather than with me.
robbo203 wrote: “If you think Max did say something along those lines then can you provide some evidence please?”
For example, “revolutionary science“.
If you think that is equivalent to ‘science’ (what I’d call the ‘socio-historical product, bourgeois science‘), then that’s fair enough. I don’t share your political and philosophical opinion. I believe in the ideology of ‘revolutionary science’, which, because of Marx’s politics, I assume means ‘democratic science’.
If you disagree with this political interpretation of Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’, you should explain how your notion of ‘revolutionary science’ differs from mine.
robbo203 wrote: “If will not suffice to argue that all knowledge is a social construct because I fully accept that this is the case. What I wanted to know from you is whether you believe this cognitive process itself is something that has to be subject to “democratic control”.” [my bold]
I find your statements contradictory, robbo.
If ‘all knowledge is a social construct’, what is this ‘itself’ that is outside of ‘all knowledge’?
You must believe that ‘this cognitive process itself’ is outside of ‘social activity’, and that ‘itself’ means ‘inside an individual’ or ‘inside the brain’.
As you must know, that belief is an ideological belief (which has political ramifications), which I don’t share.
To democratic communists, following Marx, any ‘cognitive process’ is by definition a ‘social process’, not a simple ‘biological’ one.
robbo203 wrote “…practical…”.
I’ve already mentioned this political difference between us, robbo. I’d replace it with ‘…theoretical and practical…’, which is closer to Marx’s views, than merely ‘practical’. The use of ‘practical’ suggests that there is no ‘theory’ behind it – which is an ideological opinion itself.
To L.B. Neill – I’m afraid this is a political and philosophical debate about ‘democracy’ within social production, and it’s been going on for years, so often my posts are very truncated, because of what’s been discussed previously. Hence, your valid opinion about ‘vague remarks’. I haven’t got the energy to go back to the start in about 2015, and repeat all the explanation again to you.
Suffice to say, the ‘material’ is a political and philosophical debate going back thousands of years to Ancient Greece, and is nothing to do with ‘rocks’.
‘Material’ is a human social product, and humans change it. The key argument is ‘who’ should have the power to ‘change’ it – an elite, or humanity as a whole employing democracy.
I, and Marx, argued for ‘democracy’.
The ruling class argue for an elite, and their ideas are widespread and widely accepted.
robbo203 wrote: “LBird
I dont think democracy has got anything to do with it. ”
I know, robbo.
That’s where you differ from Marx and me – we both think ‘democracy’ does have something to do with it.
Which is fair enough, it’s your personal political opinion. But why the SPGB seems to agree with you, is less clear, especially since ‘democracy’ has always been allegedly one of its fundamental concerns.
Thanks for that, YMS.
I’m glad that you’ve acknowledged that, within a democratic socialist society, humanity will democratically control its own production.
I’m not quite sure why it took so long, though. Better late than never, eh?
YMS, quoting Engels: “We shall be satisfied when we have placed the means of production in the hands of the community…”
Does ‘physics’ count as ‘means of production’, YMS, or was Engels only talking about ‘factories’, and intending to keep the universities in the hands of an elite?
alan, the ‘monism’ of Marx is ‘conscious activity’, or ‘social production’, or ‘Labour’.
It’s nothing to do with choosing between ‘mind’ or ‘matter’, to give one priority.
As I’ve said before, this ‘battle between mind and matter’ is an erroneous product of Engels’ views.
Marx ended the dualism of Descartes, not by choosing one, but by reconciling them, following the German Idealism of his forebears, in activity.
Marx’s great advance was to determine that this ‘activity’ was an attribute of humanity (not god, not individuals, not an elite).
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…
