[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

L Bird:"Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you?"The point was: the label doesn't matter, the content does. And if that content is just a reprise of ruling-class ideology, you can count me out.

But if the 'content' is just 'ruling class ideology', you can count us all out, can't you?Surely we're all trying to get at what 'content' is suitable for Communists, whatever the 'label', as you say?

RL wrote:

Here is what I wrote about this in that Interview…

Yes, I think I agree with your arguments against DiaMat – what I'm interested is the Communist content of your views/philosophy/Suez Canal digging. You've already won us over on DiaMat.

RL wrote:

So, I don't expect the majority to agree with me; in fact, just as soon as they did, I'd instantly know I had gone wrong somewhere.I'm not trying to change comrades' opinions, since I know I can't in the main do that.

I find this a strange claim for a Communist to make – surely 'a majority' is precisely what we aim to come to agreement with us Communists? The latter part reads like the protestations of an elitist: 'the majority are always wrong, and that is the guiding thread of my philosophy'.Why don't you think you can't change comrades' opinions? Isn't that, in itself, a ruling class idea?

RL wrote:

If per impossible I could change their ideas, that would be tantamount to admitting that the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, or have stopped ruling. Until workers get rid of that class, those who are into philosophy and 'dialectics' are just going to have to suffer from the consequences of their own misguided theories.

Well, the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, do they?There are always oppositional ideas, even if at times only held by a tiny minority. Surely part of 'getting rid of the ruling class' is also changing workers' ideas – a role for Communists, as part of the process of revolution? Of course, education alone can't do it, but it's part of it.As for 'dialecticians suffering the consequences of their misguided ideas', isn't that why many of us agree with you?

RL wrote:

Finally, I only engage on forums like this to sharpen my own ideas. I expect to be disbelieved by the vast majority, if not all, of you.

But perhaps a majority here actually agree with you – that will become clearer as the discussion advances. But to expect to be always in a minority (of one?) is to be too dismissive of the ability of other workers, like yourself, who try to understand this world of ours.

RL wrote:

And bless you, you lot haven't disappointed me!

This is uncalled for, given that at least some have openly said they agree with your views on dialectics, and does your argument no favours.In fact, if pushed, I'd say it smacks of Leninist philosophical elitism.I, for one, am not a Leninist. If you are, that's fine, but then we can start to unpack your views, if they don't seem to be related to those expressed by the majority here.

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

LBird:"If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers."Indeed, I could call it re-digging the Suez canal, but who would that fool, except Simon?

Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you? Surely you want to influence (and indeed help) comrades to come to some understanding of, errm… 're-digging the Suez canal', but if the terms are so flexible and unrelated to the matter in hand, why not use 'philosophy' just as much as 'historical materialism'?I mean, you could use all three terms interchangably at various times during a discussion, but wouldn't that just confuse all comrades, rather than just the (alledged) 'fools'?What would be the point?

[LBird]

Morgenstern wrote:

First … Sorry, LBird, misread your last post entirely, and drew the wrong conclusions. I think you're quite possibly potty, but I reserve myself the same right, and that's entirely within the spirit of enquiry. Shine on you crazy diamond, and all that.

Thanks for the apology, Morgenstern – my problem is that I'm a sensitive little soul.

[LBird]

Morgenstern wrote:

Are there actually two of you having a parallel conversation on this board? If so, you're both whacko.

Am I one of the 'two' that you're referring to?And 'whacko' seems a bit unfair, especially as no-one said anything untoward about your… err… 'ideas' expressed earlier.Perhaps I should leave my co-'sock puppet' to revisit them?

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

L Bird:"Rosa, doesn't all this discussion just depend upon how we define 'philosophy'? If it's taken as a 'love of wisdom', I can't see a problem. If it's taken as 'speculative ideas in the service of the contemporary ruling class', then I'm with you!"The problem with that is that speculative metaphysicians also 'love wisdom'But, I can see no 'wisdom' coming from philsophers, can you? Sure, they might have come up with a few trite maxims that contained good advice, but we can get that from the religious, too — as well as from a good novel, and, indeed, from poetry!And what is wrong with Historical Materialism providing us with 'wisdom'?

Yeah, I agree that 'wisdom' can come from novels or poetry, indeed, from any art form; and I also think that Historical Materialism can cover all these, too, so I'm with you there!And, on the whole, I think I line up with ALB's reply to you:

ALB wrote:

This said, I agree with you that most philosophy is useles (I don't even like the word "philosophy" in relation to socialist ideas: "theory" is the more appropriate term). I'm just pointing out that you are historically wrong about what you claim Marx meant by "philosophy". In fact, accepting that Marx meant Hegelian philosophy and its radical offshoots strengthens your case that Marx wasn't a Hegelian (except in his early days, mainly before he became a socialist).

If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers.

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

DJP:"LOL. You're doing philosophy again. I thought that stuff was useless and 100% nonsense."You can 'LOL' all you like, but until you can show, as opposed to assert that I am doing philosophy, that is all you comments will ever be — a joke.And I say that with all due respect.

---

Rosa, doesn't all this discussion just depend upon how we define 'philosophy'?If it's taken as a 'love of wisdom', I can't see a problem.If it's taken as 'speculative ideas in the service of the contemporary ruling class', then I'm with you!

[LBird]

As a follow-up to some quotes I provided from Marx on the ‘Pannekoek’ thread, here's another quote from him, which I think backs up the assertion that ‘science’ is not a ‘neutral method’ but a social activity, and thus science currently plays a part in our lives similar to religion or law. That is, it is an authority above us, and uncontrolled by us. Humans are at the centre of all these social activities, and science must be brought within our democratic control. We must resist the notion that scientists are an acceptable elite, a priesthood who have an esoteric knowledge (like a ‘dialectical method’ which can’t be explained, or understood except by those who have an insight denied to the rest of us), and we must ensure that ‘science’ will be treated similar to how we will treat ‘private property’: it must be communised.

Marx, EPM of 1844 (Collected Works 3, p. 297), wrote:

Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law. The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, [law, morality, science, art,] etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence.

[my bold and repeat]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Surely he just meant that scientists get on with their research without worrying about the theory of what they are doing just as birds get on with their lives without worrying about what ornithologists say about them? Which is probably the case irrespective or not it should be.

So, scientists accept that they should be caged, and trained, and fed on our whim? Just like a pet bird, and not 'worry'?Or, do scientists see themselves as 'free birds', soaring high above the mass, not needing to reflect upon either their 'flight' or the 'pedestrians' below?Perhaps they're happy just shitting upon us? Mengele, genetics and eugenics?No, scientists, like any authority, need to be under our democratic control."Roadrunner, roadrunner…" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmHgnPPkkQ%5BAcknowledgements to Jonathon Richman and The Modern Lovers]Another version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRYncR1Nog

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I agree that Marx rejected speculative, metaphysical philosophy such as still survives especially on the continent. Although I don't think he says so explicitly, I think he took the view that it had been replaced by science. Certainly the 19th century German Social Democratic movement did. But in this case, a theory of science is needed of which "epistemology" (as the "theory of knowledge" will be a part, science being a form of knowledge).  Or are you agreeing with Richard Feynman's well-known quip that

Quote:

Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

Yeah, Feynman might as well have said:

Our intellectual betters wrote:

Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as education is to workers.

I wonder why Feynman doesn't want workers examining the activities of scientists?

[LBird]

Morgenstern wrote:

Dear JonWhite, read the first half or so of the Lichenstein. suffers from the same problem as Johnson centuries earlier who on hearing Berkeley's theories, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock.

This is incorrect.Whatever one thinks of Rosa Lichtenstein, they aren't simply saying 'I refute' or merely 'kicking a rock'.They've spent 30 years studying and arguing with Dialectical Materialism, and from my few followings of some debates, have kicked the arse of every DiaMat-ist that they've crossed.This doesn't mean that RL is right about everything (not least their Leninism/Trotskyism), but they are worth reading and serious consideration.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I believe LBird was violence was directed at myself and was accepted in the humourous spirit it was posted in. i don't believe LBird has any anger management issues, but if you read his posts on other threads ypou may find his pschological problem is OCD

Yeah, you're spot on, aj, I'm afflicted with Obsessive Communist Disorder!The good news is that it confers an evolutionary advantage, so one day we'll all 'have it', and it 'affects' all skin colours!

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

…this is directed at me, … I have no problem with the remonstration and I accept the 'telling off'.

Tut, tut, Hrothy! Caught out by the mod, naughty boy!Try and keep your cool, though – we don't want any displays of 'Aryan Superiority' [sic] on here. We all know just where that leads!

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

Maybe you shold speak to Alan Johnstone about it – he knows a lot about mental disorders.

Nah, 'e just sez I'm a fuckin' nutter!'Takes one to know one', I just shout back, when I grab 'im by the froat!

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

That, and your other contributions, suggest to me you're not very bright.  That's not meant as an insult, just an honest observation.

Yeah, I've noticed this too, aj! You aren't 'very bright', are you? You're just like me, in fact. Thank god for some 'honest observation', at last!Perhaps… just a suggestion… we could elect… no, no, no, not 'elect'.. no, we should declare by popular acclamation (nothing so brutish as democratic methods; mass emotion, irrational outbursts of fervour, are best) that Hrothgar is our new Fuhrer!Hail Hrothgar!Your untermensch await you, Duce! Subject us to your superior honesty, master! [crying tears of joy at the coming of our saviour]

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

You won't because you know you're in deep water here and no match for me intellectually.

Well, at least you've got a sense of humour, Hrothy!I actually burst out laughing at reading this!Cheered up my day, no end!

[Author]

Posts