LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Lbird, you may be interest in this article – the medicalisation of racism.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37681-the-dangers-of-medicalizing-racismQuote:racism is viewed as a matter of faulty wiring that can simply be corrected with medical intervention…Medicalizing racism has the added consequence of silencing cries for social justice. The message is clear: racism is to be fought at the psychiatrist's office, not in the streets. However, we do not need racism recovery, we need revolution. The prescription we need is for radical social change.
Yeah, alan, the article is to my political tastes, as it discusses issues which should be relevant to any Communist scientist: the individualising and biologising of social products; structures; disastrous theory shifts; the problem with focus on the physical; ideologies at the heart of medicine; power; and revolution.
Brian wrote:Has for your reference to the "induction methodology" it appears you are forgetting that deduction requires induction to compare and contrast between what is and what isn't.The key word, Brian, is production, not 'induction' or 'deduction'.You've now completely moved away from the posts that you made earlier.I'm not sure why you made those posts, only to not use any of the concepts and terms within them, now.The 'constant assertion that 'social theory and practice' is the end all and be all of everything' is what you agreed with, earlier.I keep emphasising social theory and practice, because that is Marx's method. And he's concerned with 'social production' and 'change', not the 'contemplation' of either 'induction' or 'deduction'.You've stopped mentioning the social production of knowledge by the class conscious proletariat, and have returned to bourgeois concerns like induction and deduction, apparently unaware of what you are doing.As for 'historical context', I'm the one who constantly tries to discuss the social origins of your ideology, whereas you ignore it.
mcolome1 wrote:The Socialist Party is not an organization composed of robots,Unfortunately, it is, whilst its members continue with ruling class ideas about 'science', and it'll continue to 'robotically' repeat those ideas.Marx's method is a critical method, and so 'critical theory' of 'what exists' must precede any social practice.'Robots', of course, can just do 'practice', because they are programmed with someone else's 'theory'.Given your hatred of Leninism, mcolome1, I don't know why you can't see these 'robotic methods' are those of the 'materialists', who regard workers as 'robots' who 'do practice', while the elite experts determine the 'programming', without any democratic input and control from the workers themselves.That's why the 'materialists' will let workers control 'widget production' in factories, but not 'ideas production' (ie. scientific knowledge and the election of truth) in academia.
Brian wrote:Right let's now fast forward to socialism to try and visualise how a complete system analysis will work in theory and practice or practice and theory for when you use system analysis it's constantly evolving and eventually it becomes immaterial which comes first – the chicken or the egg![my bold]This is where I have problems, Brian.In your earlier post, that I agreed with, you seemed to agree with Marx's method of social theory and practice.This is a method, which insists that 'theory' precedes 'practice', because 'practice' is always driven by theories, even if those theories are undeclared/unconscious by those employing them in their social practice (as they often are by those following bourgeois ideologies). It's the examination of those theories, and the interests and purposes that those theories embody, that allows us to collectively determine whether those theories are acceptable to us.But now, you've jettisoned any talk of Marx, and the social origin of theories, and moved to 'system analysis', rather than 'social theory and practice', and claim that 'practice and theory' (ie. 'induction', the unthinking,uncritical acceptance of 'what exists' and simply 'doing') is also an acceptable scientific method.This 'pragmatic' type of thinking, the doing of supposedly untheoretical 'practice' is suited to 'individuals', and is indeed a core notion of US 'pragmatism'. They 'just get on with it!', without any need for accounting for one's social practice to one's comrades.Where does democratic accountability sit within 'practice and theory'? If the 'act' is already done, prior to the discussion (and the 'theory'), how is this production to be controlled by the associated producers?Once again, I'm sorry to realise that many socialists seem to pay lip service to Marx's ideas, of social production, but simply discard them within their account of how production will work in a socialist society, and return to bourgeois conceptions of, for example, 'practice and theory'.I'm sorry to see this further development (or, should I say 'regression'), because I genuinely thought that we were getting somewhere, in today's discussion.As for "robbo's dig at the impracticalities of your claim for theory and practice", it's robbo who has no understanding of the consequences of his 'dig'. He's 'digging' at Marx, and democratic socialism. Since I know that robbo is an individualist at heart, I can live with his political opinion, but I'm surprised, given your earlier posts, that you can't see that the problem lies with robbo, not with Marx's theory of social production.Hmmm… back to the drawing board, eh?
mcolome1, I'm criticising 'materialism', and only criticising the SPGB inasmuch as the members and supporters here espouse 'materialism'.Where those SPGB members seem to follow the SPGB study guide (and some other things that I've read), I don't criticise the SPGB.It seems to me, that there is a contradiction between much of what the SPGB 'officially' says, and what many (most?) of the members actually believe.In pointing that out, it's up to the SPGB to address that contradiction.Of course, it's always open to the SPGB to declare that it as yet takes no side on the issue of Marx's 'idealism-materialism' versus Engels' 'materialism', because the organisation is yet to form a democratic opinion.But, in taking that route, the party can no longer claim to be 'materialist' in its approach to 'science' and epistemology. Which would suit me just fine – it would show an openness to new opinions by fellow workers.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:Once again, Brian, I'm not sure why you think we disagree.Engels and 'ultimate' I have a problem with (elsewhere he talks of 'finality'), but I don't want to sidetrack yet again into the detail of Engels' mistakes (and his contradictory assertions), since most of what you've written seems to me to be incompatible with 'materialism', which is why I think I agree with what you've said.Like I've mentioned, I knew this would be no easy task. You need to unpick what Engels means by ultimate and only. He like Marx were on a learning curve when they originally took on the MCoH and the LVToV and combined them into a methodology for an analysis of "production and reproduction of real life", albeit when investigating a political economy. With time they came to realise this methodology was incomplete and it suggested they had the answer to everything.In effect what they both admitted in later life (it took Engles a bit longer to catch up with Marx) was the actual methodology or system analysis would only become a complete whole once the majority were in a position to decide for themselves what is and what isn't without the hinderance of ideology. Or like when Marx hinted at 'the demons of the past weighing like an incabus on the present'. Obviously, this all harks back to the philosophers becoming proactive rather than reactive.Personally, being a generalist and not a specialist, I could not care two hoots what is and what isn't in the present. For my end goal is that essential change where I can decide what is and what isn't. And to that end I not only seek fundamental change by democratic methods but also am ultimately determined that the future decision making process will not be constructed by a party elite, or any other elite for that matter, but by the majority.For more on this see#27.
I can only reiterate that I can't see why you think we disagree, on the substantive issue of 'social production'.Perhaps we'd argue about Engels, if we had to, but I'm content to register my general agreement with your position, which I take to be that there is no 'neutral method' of science, which is only available to an elite, and so the social production of 'scientific knowledge' is amenable to workers' democracy. That is, the class conscious workers (pre-rev.; post-rev, the associated producers) can elect their 'truth' and determine their 'reality'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:In our political world, is false consciousness the same? I believe it is an Engels' word, not used by Marx.You're correct, alan, 'false consciousness' is an Engelsian invention.BTW, with your 'medical' focus, have you read Ludwik Fleck's Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact ?It's about the social creation of 'syphilis', written in the 30s, and influential on Thomas Kuhn's views of 'science'.Fleck served time in a concentration camp, as an aside.edit: Auschwitz and Buchenwaldedit 2:https://www.amazon.co.uk/Genesis-Development-Scientific-Ludwik-Fleck/dp/0226253252For a glance at, and reviews of, Fleck's brilliant text.
Once again, Brian, I'm not sure why you think we disagree.Engels and 'ultimate' I have a problem with (elsewhere he talks of 'finality'), but I don't want to sidetrack yet again into the detail of Engels' mistakes (and his contradictory assertions), since most of what you've written seems to me to be incompatible with 'materialism', which is why I think I agree with what you've said.
gnome wrote:Snarks are imaginary animals and as such have no basis in reality, unless, I suppose, a majority agree that they have. Returning to the real world, …So, you have an access to 'the real world' that 'a majority' don't? Otherwise, if the majority declare 'snarks' to be 'real-for-us', then they would be. The 'basis' of a 'reality-for us' is our own social production, our theory and practice.'Materialists' like you deny this aspect of social production to 'reality', and claim that only you can determine 'imaginary' and 'real', and you won't have a 'majority' telling you otherwise.
gnome wrote:…interventions by the moderators such as the one above are becoming more and more ludicrous.No, they are not. These interventions help to keep a comradely tone to the discussions, a tone that the 'materialists' always, without fail, change to one of personal abuse.Now, I can give as good as I get, but whilst the mods are doing their job, there is no need for me to return the abuse.It might help if you tell us your scientific method, to which the majority of workers have no access (otherwise, you'd accept a vote upon what 'reality is'), which tells you as an individual what is 'real' and what is 'imaginary'.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:The roots of party control, and the death of class control, lie in 'materialism', of the Engelsian variety.I completely disagree. In actual fact the death of party control and the roots of class control lies not in 'materialism' or any other 'ism' for what it matters, but in a majority putting into practice their understanding of democracy and what the decision making process will consist of. When a majority allows a political party to establish the democratic framework of the decision making process it follows, that all outcomes, by default are going to be a reflection of what that political party deems to be truth and reality.For the guidelines and rules for debate and discussion have been predetermined by a minority. Therefore, all methodology, including the scientific method, will have been pre-determined by an elite.On the other hand, when the democratic framework and decision making process is introduced and established by a politically concsious majority it's they and they alone who deem what is truth and reality and not any political party. In this regard, the WSM have consistently stated that once socialism is attained its the majority who will decide the framework of democracy and the decision making process and not the party. This being the case the claim that a party elite consisting of 'materialists' will continue to dominate the decision making process after the revolution has succeeded fails at the first hurdle. For the purpose of a revolutionary party will have disappeared on the eve of the revolution and not after the revolution has taken place.This essential part of the revolutionary process, the democratic framework and the decision making process, will of course be worked out in the pre-revolutionary period and not post-revolutionary period. In essence it means the understanding of what democracy and the decision making process actually means in 'reality' will be determined by the majority and not a political party.And in reality will be the first step in the demise of a political party and political party discourse. And subsequently, the true beginnings of real political discourse, and not party political discourse.
From what I can tell, Brian, I agree with what you've said here, about 'conscious majority', 'democracy', 'revolution', 'reality determined by a majority'.I'm not sure where any 'disagreement' is.
Young Master Smeet wrote:You have no argument: yuo are an empty bucket, you bring nothing to the debate but the weakest and fablest arguments by assertion. You, sir, are a waste of electrons.The usual 'materialist' abuse, even to the point of reducing humans to 'electrons'! You couldn't make it up!Why not leave the thread to those who wish to genuinely engage?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Now, run along, and take your snarks with you.Bingo! I knew that your poor grasp of Marx would fail you, Young Master Stalin!The 'materialists' always resort to abuse, because their ideology is an outdated 19th century one, which has nothing to say to 21st century workers, who wish to unite, just like Marx, our scientific method, so that physics and maths are just like history and sociology.'Materialism' is elitist, and denies, just as you have, democratic production and workers' power over their own products, including scientific knowledge and 'truth'.
jondwhite wrote:I'm not saying there are only two types but I'd be surprised if anyone thought there was no ideological distinction between TZM and SPGB for example or Owen and Marx for another example.You're right not to say that there are only two types, jdw, because Marx posited a third, 'idealism-materialism', a unity of parts of both.There clearly are ideological distinctions between TZM/SPGB/Owen/Marx, just as there are ideological distinctions between elite bourgeois science and democratic proletarian science.But, the ideology of 'objective science', produced by the bourgeoisie, still has a ruling class grip on society.Anyway, if you've got beyond Engels' 'utopian' and 'scientific' dichotomy, you're getting somewhere.
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,Perhaps I'm a bit dim, but I've never understood what you mean by "reality" and "production of our reality"?Could you attempt to give me a simple explanation, starting with what you mean by "reality"?I mean much the same as Marx, SP.We create our object.Thus, 'objective reality' (and 'objective truth') is a social product, which varies with the mode of production.The bourgeoisie deny this, and their creation of their reality is treated as an 'eternal truth', something that we can't change (it just 'is', sitting 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered' by 'disinterested' scientists).The notion that 'objective' is not a social creation, is a ruling class idea – one which still, unsurprisingly, has great purchase in society, even amongst socialists.They wish to 'eternalise their rule', and 'objective reality' is the main plank of their ideology of science.If you disagree with Marx on this, SP, that's fine by me, but then my scientific and epistemological arguments won't make much sense, since you won't be starting from the same axioms/assumptions/premises, of which the key one is that 'we humans produce our reality'.The alternative is that a 'god' produced it, in the past, and we merely 'contemplate' HIS 'reality'.Humans are their own creator and creations, and thus we can 'change' our creation and our selves.PS. Marx thought that he had dealt with all this in the 1840s, and put both 'idealism' and 'materialism' to bed, and turned the focus to humans (especially workers) and their social production.But Engels fucked up that hope. So, we're still dealing with 'Religious Materialism', and its faith in 'matter', and its elitist view of 'knowledge production'.That is, a 'reality' not amenable to democracy.
jondwhite wrote:I object to lumping utopian socialists in with the SPGB.Your premise, that there are only two opposing 'factions', 'utopian' and 'scientific', is what is at issue, jdw.Once you question that Engelsian premise, your statement doesn't make sense.Marxists are 'utopian-scientific' socialists, to use the terms above.As mcolome1 correctly suggests, 'ideas' of what reality can become must precede the building of that reality.Marx's social 'theory and practice', by which the producers plan their production, to their own interests and purposes.
