[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Did I mention that you get on my t*ts

'Repetition', surely, mods?!

[LBird]

mod1 wrote:

We are only stating a fact that like all human concepts democracy will have its limitations in practice.

'Fact', eh?How did you create that, prior to its production by the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat?'Limitations', eh?So, you're putting limits on the social theory and practice of the 'r, cc p'? Nice that you, as a member of the elite, already know our limits.

mod1 wrote:

Each community will follow a formula which suits it best.

Hmmm… 'community', eh?No mention of 'workers', 'producers' or, indeed, 'World Socialism'…… just  'each community'. Could be argued by any conservative nationalist.

mod1 wrote:

Presently, the SPGB are only sketching out and suggesting the democratic framework as a possibility not a probability.

By Christ, we're getting some revelatory political statements today!!!'Democracy' is 'only a possibility'! Once again, it's nice that the elite you represent even deign to consider it as a 'possibility'. I tug my forelock to you, in gratitude!

mod1 wrote:

For the simple fact is we don't know how the concept will work out in practice.

[my bold]'We', eh?Well, the 'we' that this worker belongs to, does have some inkling of how what you're suggesting 'will work out in practice'.So, who's your 'we', mod1?

mod1 wrote:

Alas your closed mind wont accept or acknowledge this logic.

Ahhhh… at last… the eternal 'Logic', the Absolute, the unchanging God, which you know, but we workers don't. 'Logic', the close cousin of 'Matter', no doubt.And I've got a 'closed mind'?You could try studying logic, maths, physics, history, politics, sociology, mod1, but I suspect that you're the one with a closed mind.As an aside, which 'logic'? Classical, three-valued or n-valued?You know, I started these exchanges with the SPGB thinking that its members actually read about what they pontificate upon, but it's becoming ever clearer that you've no idea whatsoever, about Marx, democracy, revolution, class consciousness, epistemology, logic, maths, physics…

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I must admit I find the thought that they might be a product of you and I's social interaction a fairly uncomfortable concept

Yeah, Tim, revolutionary ideas are an 'uncomfortable concept', especially for the ideological conservatives who wish to preserve 'what exists', and deny humanity's ability to alter the status quo, or to build a world to the liking of the majority, or to allow democratic methods into 'pure, unadulterated, disinterested science' (TM, Bourgeois Social Productions, Est. 1660).Perhaps the SPGB is a lover of 'comfortable concepts', eh? Perhaps you are in your spiritual home?Ooohhh… wash my mouth out! Your material home.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

It will come as no surprise L Bird, that you have a tendency to get on my t*ts, but never the less, a genuine warm welcome back.

But, are your 't*ts' a material tendency, or simply an ideal in your individual brain, or a social product of our interaction?Thanks for your kind… nay, even comradely, words.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/03/historical-materialism-versus-historical-conceptualism/

I've had a brief skim of the article, alan, and this stood out:

Quote:

Therefore, materiality; i.e., material reality, is the product of consciousness;

This is an idealist ideological statement.Its opposite, which Religious Materialists like you would argue for, would be:

Quote:

Therefore, consciousness; i.e., conscious reality, is the product of material;

Of course, Marx subscribes to neither of these.Marx would argue that 'social reality' is a product of 'social theory and practice'. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who saw humanity as the creator of its world. Not 'god' (consciousness, ideal) nor 'matter' (rocks, material), but social labour, human activity, theory and practice.We create our 'rocks-for-us'. We are our own creator. That's why we can change our creation, rather than just simply contemplate 'matter' and worship the divine. We create time and space, and the laws of physics, as Pannekoek argued.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.

Well, I have read Kuhn, and Lakatos, Feyerabend… and dozens of others, so my 'interest' doesn't need to be 'provoked'.

ajj wrote:

One thing that i noticed was: 

Quote:

but revolution, contrary to Marx, can be both corporeal and incorporeal, mental and physical, material and immaterial, meant to establish a new set of governing concepts and ideas over another set, which ultimately organize productive forces and relations of production, both mental and physical, into new social formations and new ways of thinking.

I thought that ideas (incorporeal/mental/immaterial) did take on a life of their own and became a material condition. Surely, Marx didn't overlook when religious beliefs which were perhaps based on materialism at first, transcended their origins and became a cause in themselves. I think the article presents Marx as very determinist and perhaps because of the intellectual needs of his time he did over-emphasise the economic and material ( i am sure there is a quote from Engels conceding this)

We've been over this dozens of times, and I've specifically answered your own questions on this subject, so I don't think me engaging further on this thread will be much use.Short version: your own ideology, alan, of 'Religious Materialism', which you refuse to openly acknowledge, is shaping your views about these issues.Only once you acknowledge your own ideology, will you be able to understand your own ideological statements, above, like about the relationship between 'ideas' and 'material'.

[LBird]

The bottom line is that 'genes' are a political issue.Even if Dawkins really didn't realise it at the time, clearly he realised it later.I suspect that the SPGB realised it at the time, and published reviews critical of The Selfish Gene.Why this is problematic now, I don't know.Put simply, 'science is political'.

[LBird]

For my ideology, robbo, 'democracy' is an inherent part of 'socialism'.For your ideology, 'democracy' is not an inherent part of 'socialism'.Thus, based upon your basic absence of 'democracy', you need a political justification as to 'why' have democracy.The 'how' is merely a detail which follows from our opposed ideologies.My political justification is that 'socialism is necessarily democratic'. So, I don't agree with those who argue that 'socialism isn't necessarily democratic'.These are political beliefs which I hold.You don't hold my political beliefs, because your version of 'socialism' is 'individualistic', rather than 'democratic'.Since I hold that 'socialism is democratic', I also hold that all social production within a socialist society must be democratic.Since you hold that 'socialism is individualistic', you hold that some or all social production can be individualistic.Finally, I've said all this before, but you can't accept it, because then your individualism will be undermined. You must have a recourse to an 'individual reality', a 'biological necessity', a 'real world' outside of 'social production', which comes down to your ideology of 'materialism'.You can touch 'matter', and you won't have 'matter' voted out of 'existence', which it could be if we lived in a democratic socialist society, where 'matter' could be changed to something more suitable for our interests and purposes.Just like 'genes' could be.I argue that only society can decide these issues, whereas you, like all materialists, argue that 'individuals' decide their 'personal reality'.

[LBird]

So, you don't agree on the democratic production of 'genes' then, robbo. Fair enough.Who, in your version of 'socialism', will produce 'genes'?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…Dawkins admits that his definition is not, or no longer, the definition of "gene" used by genetists…

The political question is 'who gets to define?'.Why was Dawkins' personal 'definition' accepted as 'science', then?Why is the genetists' elite 'definition' accepted as 'science', now?Why do these 'definitions' change, if they are based upon 'matter' which is 'out there'?Clearly, 'genes' are a social product, and in a democratic society, any 'definitions' would have to be decided collectively by all, for the purposes of all, in the interests of all.Science can't be left to an elite, who will produce 'definitions' which reflect their own elite interests and purposes. The bourgeois scientists are lying when they claim to be 'disinterested' (or 'dispurposeless').The purpose of 'matter' is to bolster 'property'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…a complex social division of labour in which each and every one of us specialises in something that particularly interests us …

A good definition of socialism, robbo.'Each and every one of us will specialise in something that particularly interests us' – that 'something' being, of course, democratic social production.Of course, my ideological assumptions are democratic and communist, so I assume 'each and every one of us' is a collective, which aims to revolutionise social production, so that all of the collective benefit equitably, and 'equitable' is democratically decided.For you, though, being an individualist, 'each and every one of us' is assumed to mean as individuals.That's why you won't have the democratic control of social production, because you're really interested in your own individual production, and your own personal benefits, rather than what you are going to have to do to produce for others.That's the crunch in this issue – does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'democratic' (and so 'individuals' can be voted into doing something that they wouldn't if left to their own personal choice), or does 'democratic socialism' actually mean 'bourgeois individual democracy' (which looks to 'individual sovereignty' in political decisions).That's what's at root in the debates about 'materialism' – individualists are elitists, and so must have something that is beyond democratic accountability, and for that they argue for 'matter'. They want something that they can 'touch', as an individual, and any argument that undermines their individual sovereignty over 'reality' is a political danger to them.So, the materialists, like robbo, won't have any talk about 'democratic production', within which all social products are subject to democratic controls.That is, we can decide whether 'genes' are produced by us, or whether we wish to have a different scientific explanation for our social activities, beyond the 'biological' and 'individual'.That is, we can change 'genes', rather than contemplate them. 'Genes' are a social product, produced by a specific society, at a specific time, for specific interests and purposes. 'Genes' are not simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested scientists', and once 'discovered', are 'True' forever, as 'Facts' we must simply accept.End of a rather different political story, robbo…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

Yes, I know your 'position', robbo, and my 'obsseesion' is to find out why you, like all materialists, refuse to say who would produce these 'scientific values' which you already agree are within 'science'.In a democratic society, like socialism, surely all 'values' are 'social values', and thus should be amenable to democratic production?Or, if, like all materialists, you disagree with the democratic production of 'values', why not state openly which elite will produce these 'scientific values'?Not a 'derail' – in fact, in the context of Dawkins uncomfortable wriggling (over time, and about politics) about 'genes', surely a key question?Are 'scientific values' socio-political products, or are they 'material', simply sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'?And if they are 'material', why can't everybody know them? Why is 'matter' restricted to a 'knowing elite'?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism

Why should he have to do that, though, robbo?Surely 'his science' speaks for itself?If 'Scientific Truth' vindicates Thatcherism, who are we, mere workers, to argue with 'What Science Says'?Surely Dawkins should have simply insisted that 'The Evidence Speaks For Itself'?Why did Dawkins allow political considerations into his beautiful science?Or, were they always there from the start? If so, why would he hide it? Who would benefit from ordinary workers finding out that 'science is ideological'?

[LBird]

Is a 'gene' a piece of 'matter', or a social product, that we can change?What can we assume from your post, ALB?You seem to assume that a 'gene' is a socio-historical product, that changes over time, and is rooted in a social context.What does 'gene' have to do with 'matter'?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".

Shock!!!A bourgeois academic, who employs the 'politically-neutral scientific method', and claims to be a scientist who produces 'Objective Truth', and has elite access to 'The Real World'…… actually is full of ideology.Must come as a big surprise to the Religious Materialists here, eh, ALB?Or are they all 'unwittingly perhaps' still listening to 'matter'?

[Author]

Posts