LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bijou Drains wrote: “So an infant smiling at its mother is not a behaviour?”
Is it social? Does it require only a single biological individual, or a relationship between humans?
Does the smile ever change? Is it fixed, so that the infant smiles whatever the socio-historic developments involving it?
Is it a social product of the mother’s learned socio-historic growth?
Is BD a secret Skinnerist? Or is BD unaware of their own ideology?
I, ironically, won’t hold my breath, heavy or shallow, for a Marxist-inspired answer!
As I’ve said, BD, the concept of ‘behaviour’ depends upon one’s definitions and assumptions.
For example ‘how one breathes’ is entirely different to ‘breathing’ as an involuntary reflex.
Again, ‘impulse’ is not ‘behaviour; ‘involuntary’ is not behaviour.
Furthermore, ‘masturbation’ is a social behaviour, not biological individual involuntary impulse.
Lastly, Marxists are not Skinnerists, because ‘the whole issue is how to free [hu]man[ity]’.
If you wish to define ‘behaviour’ as ‘any action or movement’, that’s fair enough, but you should specify it as that. It wouldn’t be a definition that I would share. I would define ‘behaviour’ as ‘conscious human action’, because unconscious activity is a product of a society that pretends that ‘individuals’ are the location of ‘behaviour’, rather than the socio-historical conditions being the location of ‘behaviour’.
‘Unconscious individuals’ are socially produced, and we can change that.
Of course, at the root of my definitions and assumptions are democracy, Marx’s social productionism, and our ability to change our world.
I suspect that those who want ‘any action or movement’ to be the defining characteristic of ‘behaviour’ are not interested in those three assumptions.
Which is fair enough, but then they should outline their ideological beliefs – Individualism? Fixity? Matter? A supposedly asocial and ahistorical ‘Science’?
On the contrary, I would stress – society, change, human production, and ‘science’ as a socio-historically changing product. Marx’s concerns, too, in fact.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…we also need to be careful about the pure behaviourist (Skinnerist) assumption that all behaviour is learnt. It clearly isn’t. For instance, following birth, we didn’t learn to breathe by trial and error.”
We have to conceptually separate ‘biological behaviour’ from ‘social behaviour’.
Since ‘biology’ (eg. breathing) is fixed, we have no choice, so it’s not a ‘behaviour’.
‘Behaviour’ is always social, so it is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it.
One’s definitions and assumptions will determine one’s views.
Value cannot be measured. It’s a social relationship, that can be estimated by society, through the mechanism of a democratic vote.
Price can be measured. It’s an individual opinion, related to an individual’s estimation of valuable-to-them.
Bourgeois science has mathematised nature and physics, in its drive to ‘measure’ so-called ‘objective reality’, which is a by-product of capitalist valuation and money.
Once money and measurement are taken out of any social equation, we are left with ‘value’ being determined, not by ‘price’, but by us. That’s why we can democratically overthrow ‘value’, and determine for ourselves what is ‘valuable-to-us’.
‘Price’ and ‘matter’ are the stuff of individuals, not of democratic producers, of socialists.David Adam, ‘Karl Marx & the State’ (alan’s link) wrote:
“To reiterate Marx’s point, there is a material contradiction in commissioning members of a divided and atomized civil society to somehow represent the general interest of that society. Even from a formal point of view, the deputies recognized as deriving their mandate solely from the popular masses, become, once elected, independent of their electors, and are free to make political decisions on their behalf. This is distinct from Marx’s vision of a society that “administers its own universal interests.” As Marx put it, “The efforts of civil society to transform itself into a political society, or to make the political society into the real one, manifest themselves in the attempt to achieve as general a participation as possible in the legislature . . . . The political state leads an existence divorced from civil society. For its part, civil society would cease to exist if everyone became a legislator.”9 There is an important point here: the separation of the state from civil society depends on limiting popular participation in government.”
The same political and philosophical point applies to science, too.
The separation of science from civil society depends on limiting popular participation in science.
The only democratic socialist answer is ‘to achieve as general a participation as possible in’ science.
If anyone is interested in a ‘scientific’ application of Marx’s social productionism, have a read of the chapter ‘Science as Social Action’, in Lewontin, R. C. (1993) Biology as Ideology, pp. 105-23, in which he argues that ‘organisms create their own environment’, and thus are able to change it.
Marx would’ve replied with the same answer, if asked about ‘science’, too, alan.
Democratic control of any social power was the political and philosophical basis of Marx’s social productionism.
ZJW quoted White: “There are several aspects to Bogdanov’s concept of collectivism, reflecting different strands in his thought. One of these is the elimination of the organiser/ \executor division, that is the distinction between people who organise and those who carry out orders. For Bogdanov this is the earliest and most fundamental social division which afflicted mankind, one which preceded the formation of social classes. It was responsible for authoritarian thinking and for the dualist view of the world that divided phenomena into the physical and the psychical. In socialist society this division is overcome, and the monist view of the world is restored.”
The ‘dualist view’ that both White and Bogdanov, in company with Marx himself, condemned, is ‘materialism’. This 18th century view regards ‘the physical’ as the source of ‘the psychical’ – ‘mind’ originates in ‘matter’.
Marx unified ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ in a theory of ‘social production’ – that is, both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are products of our conscious activity, and so we can change both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’. The monist view makes human conscious activity its ontology.
And as both Marx and Bogdanov were democrats, they believed that only society as a whole (no ‘elite’ politicians, scientists or technocrats) can determine our world, our nature, our universe.
Bogdanov and Lunacharsky both tried to build ‘Proletcult’, a democratic workers movement which embodied Marx’s concept of “workers’ self-determination”.
This movement, weak though it was, was destroyed by the Bolsheviks. The Leninists have ‘Scientific Socialism’, which makes ‘Scientists’ the creator of ‘Socialism’, and not the workers themselves. Socialism is democratic, and the only acceptable ‘science’ is one built by workers themselves, employing democratic means.
Leninists and Materialists will always deny this.
ZJW wrote: “Bijou Drains and/or Bird:
Some many years later now — I just looked up to see if Vygotsky had ever been mentioned on this forum (yes, 12 times), a question: what value do you find in him?”
I’m interested in establishing to what extent Vygotsky was following Marx’s views. I’ve tried to interest Bijou Drains in discussion about this (because I think BD probably knows more about Vygotsky than I do), but, perhaps because I think Marx’s views have to be established first, we haven’t been able to take this forward.
Perhaps if you start a new thread on ‘Marx and Vygotsky’, we might be able to establish how ‘valuable’ Vygotsky would be for us now.
Bijou Drains wrote: “A point that I am certain that my antagonist/partner in crime, L Bird would, possibly for once, support me!”
‘Possibly for once‘? I always support your use of humour in discussions, BD! Even taking the piss out of me!
In fact, I’d elect you to a higher status! [to keep mod happy, about course of this topic, and my democratic concerns regarding ‘differentiation’]
[edit] BD for the status of ‘Chief-head-the-ball’!
Bijou Drains wrote: “LB (much as I love you and your cookie ideas dearly) – Having spent many years of fruitless attempts to engage with you about your frankly bizarre ideas regarding the requirement of holding plebiscites about scientific theory, claims that you can provide no evidence of any living person supporting, ideas which you have provided no supporting evidence or citable quotations from any noted political source to back up your proposed system of universal plebiscites, claims that are based purely based on your self assertion that Marx thought this, or Marx said the other, I have given up any attempt to engage you in any rational or productive debate.”
I’m not sure why someone as bright and often as funny as you should continue to repeat the ‘straw man’ approach to political debate.
Instead of engaging with (and, if necessary, criticising) what I write, you all seem to adopt the same method as (unfortunately, as I’ve said before) Lenin and his ‘materialism’. That is, make up an position that the opponent doesn’t hold, slander the opponent with personal insults, and put forward a frankly outdated argument that convinces no-one. That’s what Lenin did in his Materialism and Emperiocriticism, and is what you’re doing now. No-one now reads Lenin’s works for political enlightenment, only for lessons of how-not-to-do politics and philosophy.
Anyone who’s followed my posts has found hundreds of ‘supporting evidence and citable quotations’, covering Marx, Engels, politics, philosophy, physics, logic, psychology, etc. These cover Kant, Labriola, Sorel, Brzozowski, Dietzgen, Bogdanov, Lukacs, Untermann, Korsch, Pannekoek, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Vygotsky, Fleck, Zilsel, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Smolin, to name a few, and not including the many historians, because even I’m tiring of trying to reason with you with evidence.
Still, to end on a positive note, I agree that having a pint (or several), would probably turn out to be a good laugh. I always enjoy it when your more subtle sense of humour is given an outing, even when it’s directed at me.
As for the complexity of debating politics and philosophy, though, mate, you’re clearly in the right party!
Bijou Drains wrote: “Understanding sarcasm deoesn’t seem to be your strong suit does it, Birdy boy.”
And understanding that you’re being given the benefit of the doubt doesn’t seem to be yours, Drainy content!
BD wrote: “I suppose it’s because most people take your views and ideas seriously (Sarcasm alert- Sarcasm alart-Sarcasm alert!)”
I suppose it’s because I am trying to take your views and ideas seriously (Politics alert – Philosophy alert – Socialism alert!)
Is this really the low standard of political engagement that the SPGB sets itself? Piss-taking is no substitute for educated debate.
So, no political discussion about ‘Status Differentiation in a Socialist Society’, and especially the role of democracy in that differentiation?
robbo203 wrote: “To keep it simple, society is not going to vote on what I eat for breakfast or what clothes I put on when I get up in the morning, is it?”
You’re having the same problem as Bijou Drains, robbo.
The difference between ‘personal, individual consumption’ and ‘social production’.
Conflating the two is a common conservative tactic – “The Communists will force you to share your underpants!”. “The Communists will collectivise your window-boxes!”.
Bijou Drains wrote: “No doubt, in L Bird world we will have to have a full world wide plebiscite before we fall in love.”
Thanks, BD, you’ve confirmed my suspicions!
You can’t tell the difference between ‘social production’ and ‘individual emotion’!
Seriously, though, unless you address the political issue (is democratic production fundamental to a future socialist society?), then we’ll never get onto discussing Vygotsky, for example. I know that you’ve some interest in him, but we’ve never managed to discuss him and his Marxism.
robbo203 wrote: “The point about status or esteem is that it tends to reflect the values and concerns of the society in question.”
I entirely agree, robbo.
So, how does ‘society’ determine its ‘values and concerns’, if not democratically?
robbo203 wrote: “This absurd bourgeois obsession with quantifying everything, – counting heads – apart from being totally impractical, completely misses the point.”
If you regard ‘democracy’ as a ‘bourgeois obsession’, I think any study of capitalist society (and many earlier ones) would disprove your claim. Indeed, ‘democracy’ is a revolutionary obsession. As to your ‘point’, you’ll have to expand.
robbo203 wrote: “Society’s dominant values which will arise quite naturally out of the interactions of individuals…“.
But how, robbo? This political claim makes humanity passive and ‘nature’ the active subject. That is, that ‘individuals’ ‘naturally’ (ie. without political input) produce (non-political and non-ideological) ‘values’. That is, non-social values.
Once again, the focus from a contributor is upon ‘individuals’, not society (and its production, politics, ideologies and cultures).
And if ‘values’ emerge ‘naturally’, how can we change them? We are the conscious active subject, not ‘nature’. We are consciously active nature – any ‘nature’ not produced by us is, to quote Marx, a nothing for us.
