[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I am just so confused

Your're not the only one CP.

What's so confusing, SP, about YMS claim to know 'interventionless nature'?Either you agree with YMS that there is an 'interventionless nature', which you, too, 'know', or you agree with Marx that 'knowledge' is socially produced, ie. the 'nature we know' is a product of our 'intervention'.What's so difficult for any socialist to understand? 'Social labour' means 'intervention'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 So, thanks to Lbird for point out a section of Marx which utterly disproves what he has been saying here for so long.

It will do, from the perspective of the 'materialists'.That's my point for CP.They need to decide, first, whether they align with 'idealism', 'materialism' or 'idealism-materialism'.You're a 'materialist', YMS. CP needs to decide whether to follow your ideology, or not.'Materialism' claims to 'know objective Truth', and so hides its own perspective.

YMS wrote:

Nature can only really mean 'that which happens without the interventiopn of Man'.

I don't, but then I agree with Marx about 'social production', and not the 'Objective Truth' of the 'materialists'.The 'intervention of humanity' can't be removed from the 'nature' that we produce.Because the 'materialists' can conceive of a 'nature without the intervention of man', they can conceive of removing 'democracy' from 'social production'.Lenin shared the same distaste for workers' democracy, and their creation of their world, their organic nature.You're simply an elitist, YMS, who claims to know this 'nature without human intervention', and you must therefore have a method which allows your elite to know, but which is not available to workers, otherwise you'd agree to a vote, on what this 'interventionless nature' is.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I am just so confused

The first thing that you have to do, CP, is decide for yourself whether the two-fold or three-fold model makes most sense to you.That is, whether there are only two alternatives (just 'idealism' and 'materialism', as Engels argued), or whether there are three alternatives (the third being 'idealism-materialism', that Marx produced by a unifying of 'idealism' and 'materialism').Your choice on this issue will determine your further understanding about the wider issues of epistemology and democracy.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

L Bird is just like the Marxist-Humanists: Materialist-idealists philosopher, or an idealist.  Dunayeskaya wrote that Marx was one of the most materialist of the idealist philosophers, and one of most idealist of the materialist philosophers, based on that premise she said that Lenin was reading Hegel from a materialist-idealist point of view, an ambivalent philosopher: Materialist-idealist, Idealist-Materialist. I think that we have better issues to pay attention at the present time, this is just a wasting of time

[ my bold]On the contrary, mcolome1, this is a political issue of supreme importance.Lenin was a 'materialist', because 'materialism' provides an ideological basis for Leninist politics.It seems clear by what has been said by SPGB members and supporters on this thread, that 'materialism' denies power to the working class, and places power in the hands of an elite.Marx argued for workers' power in all politics, and he wasn't a 'materialist'.'Inorganic nature' is not 'matter'.'Materialists' will not address these epistemological questions, or assign any democratic control to scientific production, because they assert that 'matter' just 'is', 'out there', waiting to be contemplated, and 'matter' determines, not the producers.'Materialists' always fall back upon an 'individualist, biological' epistemology (of the 19th century bourgeoisie and liberalism) where an 'individual' can tell what 'matter' 'is' by touching. Tim earlier gave no social or historical account of 'matter', but just referred to his individual activity. Now Linda is doing similarly. Their questions are always based upon 'individual' scenarios. Marx claimed that 'senses' are socially-created, and so any account of 'matter' must be a socio-historical one (like I've given) which allows us to change it.While you look to 'materialism', mcolome1, you'll remain trapped in a form of Leninist politics.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 For example, in response to Tim's question  " Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?", LBird confidently asserted that it does not. Now clearly this is nonsense. Presumably LBird accepts that before human beings evolved on this planet or indeed before life and living things appeared, there was matter. So in a formal sense obviously matter exists independently  of our perception of it.

'Matter' is obviously speaking directly to robbo, here.robbo clearly states that 'matter exists independently'.So, he clearly arguing, unlike Marx, that 'matter is not a social product'.So, where does robbo's ideology fit within the three-fold outline that I gave to CP earlier?Happily enough, robbo himself proceeds to tell us.

robbo203 wrote:

Positivism is the contention that rocks [ie. 'matter'] can speak to us directly,  that we can have a purely objective knowledge about them.  Despite LBird's claim to the contrary I don't see any evidence here of a positivistic view of science being promoted on this forum.  What I do see is claims to the effect that matter does indeed have an an existence independent of our perception of it.  But that is not positivism and LBird has muddied the water considerably by suggesting that it is

[my bold and insert]This claim for 'independent matter' is positivism (which is another name, CP, for 'entirely objective', number 1 in our list).robbo is confused about this, because he unconsciously holds to the ideology of 'materialism' (or, positivism, or, objectivism), and so can't bring himself to agree with Marx's ideas about 'social production' (number 3 in our list).Marx does not talk about 'matter' (that was Engels' insertion); Marx talks about 'material production'.'Material' does not mean 'matter'; for Marx 'material' meant social (as opposed to 'ideal', meaning divine). Marx talks of human labour upon 'inorganic nature' which produces 'organic nature' (ie, for some social groups, 'matter'). 'Inorganic nature' is not 'matter'. That was Engels' mistake, to call Marx's category of 'inorganic nature' as 'matter'.CP, you have to choose which ideology you wish to employ – 1, 2 or 3.robbo is choosing 1; Marx and I choose 3.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

There seems to be a major division in ideology.  correct me if I'm wrong. One side believes that truth(or science) is entirely objective and the other side believes that it is entirely subjective? 

Not quite, CP.There are three positions:1. 'Entirely objective' – this is 'materialism'; this argues that there is THE 'scientific method', a single way, usuable by individual geniuses or small elites, which gives an 'entirely objective' account of 'reality', as it simply 'is', 'out there'.2. 'Entirely subjective' – this is 'idealism'; this argues that each individual has their own 'scientific method', that 'anything goes', that every individual gives an 'entirely subjective' account of 'their own reality', as they simply see it, in their own heads.3. 'Subject produces object' – this is Marx's 'idealism-materialism'; this argues that each society with different types of production, produces its 'social reality'. For a democratic society like socialism, any social production must be democratically organised, and so no individuals or small groups (geniuses or not) can produce 'reality' on their own. 'Reality' is socially produced, and socialism's scientific method must reflect our building of our 'social reality'.Hope this helps.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.

Well, I wasn't going to interfere with Brian's separate attempt to get the SPGB to do some critical thinking, but clowns like you must be challenged.If there's any "bizarre theories of some eccentric individual" at stake here, they are the 'social production' theories of Marx.But, you wouldn't know that would you, because you're an Engelsian Materialist, without a clue about Marx's works.Do me a favour, and keep your childish insults to yourself.Since I'm here, though, bit of advice to Brian.Whose 'scientific method' are you about to discuss? Or are you starting from the socio-historically specific assumption that the method of the bourgeoisie is universal?If you are assuming the non-historic, non-social, 'scientific method', you should all be open with one another that you're all starting from that ideological assumption.

[LBird]

Marx, Capital Vol. 1, p. 169, wrote:

…categories…are forms of thought which are socially valid, and therefore objective, for…this…mode of social production.

'Objectivity' is determined by its 'social validity'.This is a historical 'validity', because produced by a certain society.Who, amongst workers struggling to build for socialism, determines what thoughts count as 'objective' and 'valid'?Is it the workers themselves, democratically, or an elite?Who makes the category 'matter' a 'socially valid' one? And when?The 19th century bourgeoisie made 'matter' a 'socially valid', and thus 'objective', category.They've since moved on, but Engelsian Materialists haven't.The ruling class has learnt from Einstein, but 'materialists' haven't.Ironically, Einstein confirmed Marx, but the ruling class is still over a century ahead of the proletariat, who still look to 'materialism'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Sorry, LBird but i have to persist.  

alan, I can't win. If I talk about 'proletariat' and 'socialism' is the same sentence, I get jumped on by those who object to talking about a 'class' in socialist society.So, to try to come up with a term which represents 'workers', I use 'producers', to try to cover both now and then.Then you, because you're not really interested in the debate about 'who has the power to determine production, including scientific knowledge', you've move on, to a …You tell me, alan. What do you think I mean by 'producers of widgets'?The individuals producing widgets?Or is 'producers' a term for 'collective producers' and 'widgets' a term for 'social products'?In other words, those in society who determine products.I think only democratic methods can be employed by those in society who determine what is to be socially produced.If you're going to 'persist', alan, you're going to have read some books on epistemology yourself, and do it the hard way, because my comradely attempts to shorten the process and make it easier, have clearly completely failed.My interests in this subject go back to the late 80s, so if you start now with your readings, you might get to where I'm trying to get you quickly now, in about 25 years.Perhaps this is just evidence for robbo's thesis that we're all too thick to learn 'new' stuff quickly, and you're just going to have to leave this subject in the hands of experts like me, who've been grappling with it for more than a quarter of a century.God help us all. And you're not interested. Why 'persist', mate?

[LBird]

twc, if the SPGB's still listening to you, the party deserves what it gets!

[LBird]

LOL!Yer couldn't make it up!When I say 'worker', the SPGB says 'no workers in socialism'.When I say 'producer', the SPGB says 'no elite in socialism'.alan, I'm approaching these issues from a 'class' perspective, so I'm talking about how we build now, amongst interested, curious workers, to help build for a socialist future.When I say 'working class', I'm clearly referring to, well, the proletariat of Marx, and because I've been criticised for using that term, when talking about socialism, I've tried to use the term 'producers'…But, you and all the rest are never going to discuss a class approach to epistemology, and the need for democracy within all areas of power, both during the building towards socialism, and after the revolution, within socialism.And you have said, many times, that you're not really interested in these issues, I'll grant you that.But, what sort of position is that for someone who is involved in a political party to take – to claim that they're not really interested in a vital political issue, about the social production of knowledge?I openly acknowledge that you've engaged in a genuine attempt to understand, even given your declared 'lack of interest', but we're going nowhere fast now, aren't we?I thought that I could generate a political debate about Marx, epistemology and democracy, but I think that the complete embeddedness of Engels' ideology of 'materialism' (which starts from the view that this is a non-issue, 'reality just is', 'anyone can touch matter') within so-called 'Marxist' parties (not just the SPGB) is too strong for critical debate to overcome.I laughingly called it 'Religious Materialism', in the hope that, in a party like the SPGB, with its dislike of religion, this term might wake it up.The laugh's on me, eh?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I really don't see any real big difference of viewpoint here and we all these years been arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead.

Well, alan, if you can't tell the difference between power in the hands of the producers, and power in the hands of an elite, there's nothing further I can say that will convince you.I still find it strange that a political party seems to have so much difficulty comprehending political debates.The issues of epistemology are political debates about 'power'.Unless, that is, one is a 'materialist', and thinks that it's all down to individuals and their biological senses, and their easy ability to touch 'matter'.Then, clearly, this debate is just so much 'angels dancing on a pinhead', and the SPGB can just ignore me, and carry on as it is, living in the 19th century.As I've said, alan, I've tried hard to raise awareness of these political issues, but it seems, to you, to be a complete 'non-issue', and I think that you've been the one who has most genuinely tried to engage with what I'm arguing, so perhaps you should just stick with Tim's, twc's and robbo's views, and leave 'my' arguments to the realms of 'idealism', and write me off as a 'bogeyman'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Let's simplify it for you then, Do I exist outside of your perception of me? Again a simple yes or no will do,

Tim, I keep giving you the simplest answers that I can.But you're not using the same Marxist ideology as I am, about the social production of 'existence'.You want to discuss your drunken encounters with your missus, and you as an individual and me as an individual. I keep pointing this out as an effect of your 'materialism', which looks to 'biological senses' as the determiner of 'what exists'.Any answer I give is in the context of my freely exposed-to-all ideology, which is Marx's too. For example, Marx argues that 'senses are social', and so to talk about 'existence' outside of the mode of production that produces that 'existence', is meaningless.I'm trying to give you straight answers, but you just seem to ignore Marx's works – which, of course, you're free to do, but it would be better if you openly state to all, where your concern with you, yourself and your perception, comes from.I'd argue that you're simply repeating the ruling class ideas of this society, and locate your views socio-historically, whereas I suppose you'll locate the origin of your views in you.I won't keep on saying the same thing to you, Tim, so unless you start to engage in a discussion about epistemology, and its social location, then I'm going to have to stop replying to you.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Thanks for your simple answer (No). Following on from your simple answer to my simple question. I can assume that as I am made of matter, I do not exist outside of your perception of the matter that makes me up. If this is the case, and I only exist in terms of your perception of me, there are three further questions:1. What do I get up to when you are not perceiving me? As according to you my matter has no existence outside of your perception of me.2. Why are you conversing with me when I only exist in your consciousness and have no existence outside of that domain.3. When I come home pissed, yet again, can I send my beloved around to your house so you can explain that it is not me that is pissed, but rather your perception of me that is pissed, and therefore you are to blame? ( I would advise caution, she can be a bit volatile when she's vexed)

[my bold]You'll have to read my post again, Tim.I was giving an answer to a political and philosophical question about 'power' within epistemology.You seem to want to persevere with your 'bourgeois individualist' concerns, like 'I' and 'me', and your biological notions of 'perception'.Since I specifically said that 'existence' is socially-produced, I don't know how you can read that as 'your existence is in my head', but I suppose with your bourgeois ideology, those sorts of beliefs are basic.But those ideological beliefs of yours are not mine (nor Marx's).And who told you that you are made of 'matter'?And why not 'energy'? Your ideology is 19th century, Tim. As are your 'assumptions'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

So lets have it from the horses mouth: are you now denying that your vision of a future communist society invoives workers voting on the truth or otherwise of scientific theories?  A straightforward  YES or NO will be much appreciated  and if NO please enlighten with a simple explanation in your OWN words as to precisely what you have in mind without your customary waffle.   . 

Yes. (ie. workers will vote on 'truth')If you don't agree, robbo, you have to say who does determine 'truth'.I suspect that you'll argue that 'truth' is 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered', but then that puts power in the hands of 'out there' and we can't change it.Can you please give me a similarly simple answer, to my reasonable political question?Who determines 'truth'?

[Author]

Posts