[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

When I appropriate a house, I am not making selections, I take it tout court.

Well, that's the need for estate agents removed, because according to your method, the house selects its occupants!You can't argue otherwise, because then you'd need to agree that you didn't select which property you live in, but that the bricks and mortar actively drew you, the passive occupier, into the house.Mind you, that's exactly what the 'materialists' argue – that 'matter' is 'the active side'.Marx disagreed with your method, YMS. I suspect that many do, unless the entire SPGB is claiming that it is living in accommodation, that chose them!

[LBird]

All you are saying now, YMS, is that one's ideology determines how one understands Marx.I've been saying this for years, and have argued that the only way forward is to examine the content of our differing ideologies.'Appropriation' is an act of selection, and selection requires a prior theory which provides the parameters of selection for that act.Your ideological reading regards 'appropriation' as an act of the thing appropriated, in which the appropriator remains passive.It's nothing to do with Marx, YMS, but with pretty standard bourgeois individualism, which pretends that 'matter is active and talks to passive humans'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Engels wrote:

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

[my added bold]

Yes, this is correct, and this describes Marx's method of 'theory and practice'.To 'appropriate', 'analyse' and 'trace out', is to apply a 'theory' to 'the material' ('material', here, meaning 'our selected object of study', not 'matter').If one 'appropriates, analyses and traces out' with contrasting 'theories', one will get differing 'inquiry', 'presentation' and 'description'.If you read this quote to mean 'matter talks to you as an individual', YMS, you won't understand Marx's method of 'social theory and practice'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

We always need to go back to the real society as it is before us, and how it changes, rather than relying on the abstract model.

[my bold]This is the political problem with your method, YMS.You have a concept of 'the real society as it is', but you pretend that 'the real society as it is' is telling you personally 'what it really is', without you first having a concept of it.Marx's method is 'theory and practice', and if you choose to use his method, we first have to find out where the 'concept' of your 'real society as it is' came from.Because of that initial Marxist step, if we are not happy with our practice which, together with the concept, produces any society that we know 'as it is', we can then return to the 'theory', change it, and then with our social practice, change 'the real society' into 'society as we really want it'.Now, if you want to choose an individualist method (which is bourgeois, and is also used within 'economics', and claims that 'individuals' know 'value' by their personal estimation), and say that it is obvious to you what 'the real society as it is' actually 'is', then we can show that your 'theory and practice' is not the Marxist theory and practice.In fact, you're claiming that your individualist method is 'practice' upon a 'reality' which then yields a 'theory'; this is the reverse of Marx's social method

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

The bottom line, robbo, is how one chooses to understand what Marx's whole body of work was about.

Why don't you quote Marx to backup your assertions on 'what Marx's whole body of work was a about' as we 'religious materialists' do?  You will not answer,  so I will:  It is because your argument has nothing to do with Marx. Perhaps you sport a similar beard(which would explain a lot) but you do not hold the same ideas.

You're either telling lies now, Vin, or your memory is failing you. I'll accept that it's the latter.For the first few years posting here, I gave detailed references, not just to Marx, but to Engels, and many others, like Dietzgen, Labriola, Untermann, Brzozowski, Bogdanov, Lenin, Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci, Pannekoek… I could go on, there are many others, from more recently, like Mattick and Dunayevskaya, but I think that list makes my point sufficiently.But, it soon became obvious that the work I was doing 'to back up my assertions' about Marx, were being completely ignored. Posters like you, who don't seem to have read either Marx or Engels, never mind the rest, simply keep saying 'that's not Marx/Engels/etc.', even when I produce their quotes. This claim, here, that I have 'backed up', can be confirmed by anyone reading this, who has a mind to go back to the earlier threads.As I've argued, the real problem is not whether Marx said 'this or that', but how workers should understand what Marx actually said. It's not so obvious, even with his words in front of us. I've argued that we should all be open about the various ideologies that we're all using, to help workers to sort out 'what Marx meant'.I've been open about my Democratic Communism, and my view that Marx was an idealist-materialist, unlike Engels who was an old-fashioned materialist, but none of you will be open about your own beliefs. Of course, I've exposed your beliefs, and they are those of Engels. I've actually given page numbers for your particular beliefs, Vin, but it makes no impression.So, yes, I've deemed youse to be 'Religious Materialists', who are concerned to defend 'matter' and 'ahistoric bourgeois science', but not "workers' democracy" and the 'democratic control of human science'. And I've pointed out that this was exactly what Marx predicted of those who follow 'materialism': they must turn to an 'elite' who can ignore workers and democracy, a bourgeois elite which claims that it alone 'knows matter' and must control 'science'. And I've shown that this political belief in 'materialism' was exactly the one held by Lenin, whose 'elite' was the Cadre Party, which supposedly has this 'special consciousness'.None of your beliefs are of any use to class conscious workers, who wish to build a democratic socialist society.

[LBird]

The bottom line, robbo, is how one chooses to understand what Marx's whole body of work was about.For you, because you are an individualist, you argue that Marx was talking about 'individuals'.For me, because I'm a Democratic Communist interested in 'social production' and its history, I argue that Marx was talking about, not 'individuals', but 'social individuals', their socio-historic production, and their attempts to build for Democratic Communism.This is a choice for workers to make. They can either choose your political interpretation of Marx, or my political interpretation of Marx.You have an ideology; I have an ideology. Workers, now, have an ideology. It's up to them to decide which ideology is best suited to their needs, interests and purposes.One clear difference between us, though, that all workers should take note of: I'm open about my ideological beliefs, whereas you try to hide yours. If workers choose to 'remain non-ideological', then they'll probably stick with what they have now.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

An epic story of courage, genius and terrible folly, this is the first history of how the Soviet Union's scientists became both the glory and the laughing stock of the intellectual world.Simon Ings weaves together what happened when a handful of impoverished and underemployed graduates, professors and entrepreneurs, collectors and charlatans, bound themselves to a failing government to create a world superpower. And he shows how Stalin's obsessions derailed a great experiment in 'rational government'. 

jdw, does this book address the issue of democracy in science, and how the Stalinists denied it (as they did in the polity), or is it the usual bourgeois propaganda about 'Socialism = Stalinism'?If it does the former, I'll get a copy.

I don't know. I'm afraid it is still on my books to read list. The last topic I started about it here got no replies. There are other books I found by googling science and democracy including one from MIT.

Thanks, jdw. I found this:https://www.amazon.com/Science-Democracy-Expertise-Institutions-Representation/dp/0262513048I've had a brief look at the introduction online, but it seems to be the usual regurgitation of 'materialism', sadly.I'm yet to find a decent book on science that addresses communism, democracy, Marx, and his social productionism, in a coherent way. It's a bit sad that, 130 years after Marx's death, this hasn't been done. It's my opinion that 'science' is one of the key arenas that workers have to seek to understand, along with individualism and markets. I see those three areas as the tripod of ideology that supports capitalism.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

An epic story of courage, genius and terrible folly, this is the first history of how the Soviet Union's scientists became both the glory and the laughing stock of the intellectual world.Simon Ings weaves together what happened when a handful of impoverished and underemployed graduates, professors and entrepreneurs, collectors and charlatans, bound themselves to a failing government to create a world superpower. And he shows how Stalin's obsessions derailed a great experiment in 'rational government'. 

jdw, does this book address the issue of democracy in science, and how the Stalinists denied it (as they did in the polity), or is it the usual bourgeois propaganda about 'Socialism = Stalinism'?If it does the former, I'll get a copy.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yeah, even I laughed at that, Tim!I can't help feeling, though, that if you put as much time and effort into understanding Marx, as you did with your post, you'd start to get to grips with his social productionism.Anyway, brightened up my day! Cheers!

Thanks for your very gracious reply

Yeah, luckily, being an idealist-idealist-idealist-Stalino-Trotskyite-capitalist-roadster hasn't dented my sense of humour!

[LBird]

Yeah, even I laughed at that, Tim!I can't help feeling, though, that if you put as much time and effort into understanding Marx, as you did with your post, you'd start to get to grips with his social productionism.Anyway, brightened up my day! Cheers!

[LBird]

I'll try once more with you, robbo, but since I've said these things before, I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.

robbo203 wrote:

Not once has he ever explained the need for a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory.  How is it going to make any differnce if you support a theory and it gets voted down  by a majority?  Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory?

Because we know from the actually history of science (not the myth of 'science' put about by bourgeois scientists, anti-democrats all) that science by its social theory and practice can produce ideas and policies which are dangerous to the majority. For example, eugenics. This was a socio-historical product of science, and had the status of a 'scientific fact', and produced 'official policies' which led to the sterilisation of those deemed by the elite to be 'inferior'.Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control.So, yes, those 'eugenicist' scientists in a society of that sort would be forced to abandon the theory. They would be prevented from advocating the sterilisation of humans. Of course, society might decide that there are some cases where forced sterilisation might occur in the future, and in that case the 'theory' would be reserved, but no 'practice' of it would be allowed.

robbo wrote:

But thats dumb,  It undermines the very basis of science as a self critical enterprise and substitutes for science some kind of quasi religious authority. 

This is a repetition of the bourgeois myth about their 'science', that it is a 'self-critical enterprise'. It is often not 'self-critical' whatsoever, and almost everyday in the newspapers we can read accounts of 'scientists' ignoring evidence, manufacturing evidence, and suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'. And even where there is 'criticism', criticism is always from the perspective of a 'theory', and so their so-called 'criticism' never criticises their social power as 'scientists'. Bourgeois scientists never accept the need for democratic controls on their socio-political activities. All science involves power.robbo gives his game away, here, because I always argue for democratic authory, and robbo, because he is an individualist and thinks 'elite scientists' should simply be trusted, wants any democratic political interference to be deemed 'quasi religious'. Of course, robbo is hiding the fact that there is a quasi religious authority in science today – the 'elite scientists' themselves. They are the modern priests, conducting a religious order, separated and hidden from most of us workers. 

robbo wrote:

Marx argued that we should "doubt everything", LBird, by complete contrast, would have us "accept everything" providing it is formally sanctioned by the proletarian majority. 

I've  always argued that Marx was correct on this point. We should 'doubt everything' including supposed 'objective science'. robbo pretends to agree with Marx, but when robbo is asked should the nature of the sun be put to a vote, he denies this power to the majority, and insists that an elite of 'materialists', which includes robbo, already know what the sun is, and that the majority can't know this, because otherwise robbo would have no problem with a vote.Marx claims that we create our object. I agree with Marx, but the materialists, like robbo, don't. The materialists claim that we don't create matter, whereas Marxists claim that 'matter' has a history, and we can study when it originated, and why, and how it has changed, by looking at the various modes of production within which the social product of 'matter' has been socially produced.robbo is an anti-democrat, and an individualist, so robbo can see no good reason for democracy in science. robbo trusts an elite, especially the ultimate elite for individualists, their biological senses. robbo doesn't agree that our knowledge of everything, including the sun, is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it. Marxists argue that those changes must be controlled by society, by democratic methods. robbo wishes to determine what the sun is, by looking at it, by feeling heat upon the skin. This is the bourgeois method, of individual biological sensation. It is not a suitable method for democratic socialism, and its aim to democratically control all social production.

[LBird]

I'm really getting into my stride, now – it's the SPGB method of denigration, and I endorse it! Abuse and lie about your political opponents, yeah!The SPGB has announced that it's changing its name, to better reflect its political and ideological purpose, to the Defence of Matter Church, and, according to the latest DoMC epistle, twc has been appointed Chief Priest.

[LBird]

This is such a comical thread, with the usual Three Stooges taking part, that I thought that I'd join in the fun, too!LBird is actually an idealist-idealist-idealist, because he insists that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as a single unity, created the SPGB!

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

L Bird is talking about a socialist regime, the same person who said that there  would be proletarian in a socialist society.

I hope you're reading this alan.This is the same allegation that I refute weekly, as I did when you claimed it, too, but the dishonesty of the SPGB in political discussion never stops.

Marcos wrote:

He has not abandoned Trotskyism yet. The same one who talk against Leninism and recomend to read George Luckacs and Gramsci, two fervent Leninists and supporters of the vanguard party

Yeah, and I'd recommend that anyone interested in the history of Fascism should read Mein Kampf.Marcos apparently believes that if someone reads a book, that they endorse that book – every last word in that book.Perhaps that's why no-one in the SPGB reads any books, other than the ones that confirm their Religious Materialism.Does the SPGB maintain an Index of banned books, like those by Lukacs and Gramsci?

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marcos wrote:

What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like you 

You really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.

So, let's re write history in other form, your idealist-idealist thoughts.

[my bold]Why should reading prove so difficult for materialists?Perhaps the Soviet Union re-wrote history because they were illiterate? But I can't believe that Marcos and Tim can't read. It's an enigma.

[Author]

Posts