LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:Neither Gareth Stedman Jones nor Louis Proyect seem to understand Marx.GSJ can go ignored, because I don't think anyone here will be giving him any space whatsoever..
We may have to as he's got a new book on Marx out next month:http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674971615Anyway, trying to get a review copy.
If you get hold of a review copy, and recommend that it's worth reading, I'll buy a copy.From what I know of the development of GSJ, I wouldn't have thought it worth reading (in the sense that I've got better things to do with my reading time), but if you think that he helps us to understand Marx and workers' democracy, I'll give it a whirl.If it's the usual academic elitism, for those who have a 'special consciousness', I probably won't bother.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Apologies for perhaps not quite comprehending the meaning of this exchange between you and LBird, Lew.The 'meaning of this exchange', alan, is 'who is to control production – an elite or the proletariat?'.I'm arguing, like Marx, for 'the proletariat'. It's not quite clear to me yet just who Lew is proposing should control the production of 'truth'. Perhaps Lew will clarify just who is their 'active agent of truth production'.
Lew wrote:So, by "true" you mean "not yet true". Or until the victorious proletariat decide otherwise, possibly true. Or possibly false. Or possibly meaningless. Who knows? It's anybody's guess.No, by 'true', I mean 'created by the proletariat'. As Marx says, we create our object. So, it's not 'possibly' true or false, or 'meaningless' or 'anybody's guess'. It's a political, philosophical and epistemological belief, which one can either subscribe to, or subscribe to another.If one is arguing for the democratic control of production, ie., socialism/communism, then this practice must be predicated on a theory, which determines the practice. Marx's 'social theory and practice'. I always ask, if not the theory of 'democratic control of production', what other theory can underlie your understanding of socialism? It's open to you to disagree with 'democratic control of truth', but you should say what your alternative is, so that other comrades can compare the theories.
Lew wrote:Actually, your own actions betray this essentially postmodernist approach.There's nothing 'postmodernist' about the 'democratic control of production'. I suspect that you're an Engelsian Materialist, to whom any attack on 'materialism' is a blend of 'idealism' and 'postmodernism'.
Lew wrote:As a socialist there are things you believe about capitalism, about socialism which, to some extent at least, are true (and, conversely, things which are false). Rational political discourse depends on it. This includes your "revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth'" which, to make sense, you must believe is true and not merely "not yet true".Yes, but I'm a socialist, and so my beliefs must include the belief that 'truth' is a social product, and that the proletariat can control the production of truth – otherwise, what's the point of claiming to be a socialist, if one thinks that 'truth production' can be left to an 'elite'? It's not my idea of 'democratic control of production'.
Lew wrote:After all, what is the point of getting engaged in the struggle to change our world now if we can't decide what is true or false until after the revoltion.Who's arguing that we can't decide what is true of false until after the revolution? I've never said that.I've always argued that the class conscious revolutionary proletariat can only decide what 'truth' is by a democratic vote. That can not only take place prior to a revolution, but must be a building block of class organisation.Otherwise, the decision of what is 'true' will be in the hands of an elite. That, in my book, is the political method of Leninism, that an elite cadre with a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the wider class, is to decide what is 'true or false'.This is all part of building up a confident, conscious class movement.Of course, like the SPGB (apparently), you could argue that workers cannot democratically decide the 'truth' or 'falsity' of any social truth, but if you do, I can't see how you will be able to attract communist workers to your party. You're more likely to attract either elitists, who wish to be the ones making the decisions for the proletariat, or unconfident, non-class-conscious workers, who wish to be told by an elite what the 'truth' is. To me, neither are a sound basis for a revolutionary party of workers.
Lew wrote:LBird wrote:Yes, "the above statement is true".'Truth' is socially-produced, and the statement that I (and I think alan) make is a socially-produced one, with a political underpinning, that allows us to change 'truth', because it is humans that produce 'truth'.How, why and where did the above statement (concerning Marx's notion of truth) become socially-produced as true?– Lew
How? By the future democratic decision of the class conscious, revolutionary proletariat.Why? Because without 'democratic control of truth production', the CCRP would not have power over production.Where? In the future Workers' Councils.Of course, 'Marx's notion of truth' is not yet 'true', because there is at present another class in control of the 'notion of truth', but we have to argue, as socialists, for this revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth', so we can, err…, change our world, rather than just contemplate the 'Truth' that the bourgeoisie have built.They have a political interest in this debate – it's not just some arcane philosophical wrangle, but a key issue for the proletariat.
lindanesocialist wrote:LBird wrote:and you'll be consigned to the lowest level of hell, here with me.vin said: excuse me but you are not at the lowest level. I am. Looking forward to chatting when you reach the bottom but looks like you will be in hell with an evil materialist.
I couldn't be with a more suitable comrade, Vin!Or, ……should that be "I couldn't be with a more suitable comrade, ripe for conversion to democratic production of 'truth', Vin!
alanjjohnstone wrote:What thinking produces is not truth but "ideologies." Which I think is what LBird always lectures us about.[my bold]My political advice, alan, is to change your statement to 'What social theory and practice produces is…'.Otherwise, you'll be condemned by the Religious Materialists as a blasphemer (well, an idealist ) who is arguing that 'ideas produce reality', and you'll be consigned to the lowest level of hell, here with me. The materialists like their world, black- and white-hatted. Materialism Good, Idealism Evil. Anyway, that's what 'LBird always lectures us about', about the difference between Marx's social productionism and Engels' materialism.
Lew wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:truth changes with time.Is that always true? If it is, then the statement is self-contradictory. But if the above statement changes with time then there is no reason to accept its truth.
LBird wrote:I'm fully behind Marx's social approach, of locating the production of 'truth' in the society in which it is produced.I did ask before but didn't get a response; so I'll ask again: Is the above statement true?– Lew
Lew, I always answer these questions by 'ahistoric and asocial logicians', but they don't like the answer because the answer is from a political perspective which the 'ahistoric and asocial logicians' don't share.That's fine, of course, that different political perspectives have different views about 'truth', but the problem with the 'ahistoric and asocial logicians' is that they insist that only their political perspective on 'truth' is the 'true' one.Marxists don't do this, and locate the various perspectives on 'truth' in their socio-historical orgins.So, after that necessary explanatory preamble, I can answer your reasonable question, once again:Yes, "the above statement is true".'Truth' is socially-produced, and the statement that I (and I think alan) make is a socially-produced one, with a political underpinning, that allows us to change 'truth', because it is humans that produce 'truth'.Would all societies and classes have agreed with me and alan? No, because they have a different political and ideological belief in what constitutes 'truth'.So now, we could go on to discuss these varying socio-historical approaches to the ideology of 'truth', but we never do, because the 'ahistoric and asocial logicians' ideologically remove that possibility at the outset.The alleged 'contradictoriness' of alan's statement in your belief system is a product of that belief system.There is no 'contradiction' if one doesn't share your political ideology.'Truth' is a social construct (Marx's social theory and practice), not an eternal, fixed, unchanging, universal 'Truth' that your political perspective wishes to 'contemplate', but a social product that our political perspective wishes to 'change'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:A short useful article to hone up the argument to never say never and that truth changes with time.https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/04/moby-dick-and-gravity-understanding-the-truthYes, very interesting article, alan, and it contradicts Dave B's earlier post.It would be very interesting, too, to discuss these differing conceptions of 'truth' (a 'changing social construct' versus 'a reflection of what is out there'), but we never get that far.It seems to me that Marx, contrary to Dave B's Engelsist Materialism, would have argued for the socio-historical approach, in which different modes of production produce different 'truths'. Dave B's approach is essentially ahistorical and asocial, and locates 'truth' in a 'reality out there' which simply 'is', and can be 'discovered' by a 'neutral method', but only by 'elite experts' who 'do science'.I'm fully behind Marx's social approach, of locating the production of 'truth' in the society in which it is produced.If we employ Marx's socio-historical method, we can soon come to see the socio-historical roots of Dave B's ideology – it emerged with the bourgeoisie, who, through their 'science', attempt to 'universalise their rule', and claim that they alone (to the exclusion of the masses) have the key to 'truth'.The fruits of Engels' complete misunderstanding of Marx's ideas, eh? So-called 'socialists', like Dave B, who insist that workers cannot control production, and thus cannot vote on 'truth'.It's much the same, politically, as Leninism. An elite with a 'special consciousness', which not available to the masses (otherwise democracy would be part of the method), tell the producers just what it is that is being produced. Of course, they claim it is not 'produced' but just 'is'.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Well, the disappointment came a lot sooner that i wished. All the interesting articles were just introductions…had to pay for the "premium" articles…grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…. Reality in this world is that you rarely get anything for nothingWell I've just ordered it, alan, and the 'bourgeois reality' is that it costs £5.54, inc. p&p.Of course, in 'socialist reality' we'd all have free access.Thanks for the tip about its publication!
Is this just for the article or the content of the magazine?
Paper copy of Sept. 3rd issue. Seems to me to be worth a fiver. Let's hope so, even if just to confirm the weaknesses of bourgeois physics, eh?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Well, the disappointment came a lot sooner that i wished. All the interesting articles were just introductions…had to pay for the "premium" articles…grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…. Reality in this world is that you rarely get anything for nothingWell I've just ordered it, alan, and the 'bourgeois reality' is that it costs £5.54, inc. p&p.Of course, in 'socialist reality' we'd all have free access.Thanks for the tip about its publication!
alanjjohnstone wrote:I look forward for some leisurely few hours to read through the new edition of New Scientist on what is reality. I am sure there will be a few points relevant to the socialist understanding of the universe that others might wish to discuss.[my bold]Put simply, alan, according to Marx we create our own reality, by social theory and practice.Many physicists throughout the 20th century have also argued very similar views.It's only 'materialists' who cling to outdated 19th century notions of the 'discovery of objective reality outside of any conscious activity'.Marx called this conscious creative human activity 'social labour'.With this notion of 'social labour' which creates our reality, we can change our reality.If you're still hoping for someone to tell you 'what is reality', outside of human consciousness and creativity, so that you can merely contemplate 'the real world', you're doomed to disappointment, alan.
Brian wrote:Not to worry I'm sure LBird will reveal those bits which suit his narrative for democratic control of the means of production.It's not my 'narrative', Brian, but a necessary 'narrative' for the class conscious proletariat, if they are to politically control production.And what remains unsaid, by you and the others who have difficulty with "democratic workers' power in science", is what 'narrative' youse are employing.No doubt, influenced by bourgeois ideology, you'll all argue that 'science' is an 'objective' method of 'discovery' of 'what exists' out there, rather than Marx's view that 'we create our object'.The mythical 'objective method' of producing 'True Knowledge' is a method only suitable to an elite (even youse argue that 'truth' produced by this 'method' cannot be voted upon), and any consideration of this 'method' leads one to see that it suits perfectly a ruling class elite, and denigrates the masses as incapable of forming views upon, and thus voting upon, whether 'knowledge' is 'true' or not. This 'special consciousness' that 'elite scientists' have, and which is not available to the majority, is also the 'scientific basis' of Leninism. I'm sure even youse can see the parallels between 'elite knowledge' and 'elite power' in both science and politics.As I always say, if youse disagree with the idea of the 'democratic control of the means of production', you have to reveal what your ideology of 'production control' is. And further, your notions are completely ahistorical and asocial, whereas those who look to Marx can situate your ideological scientific views in the ruling class ideas of the bourgeoisie, as they emerged c. 1660, with the coming to power of the bourgeoisie, and their determination to end any talk by the revolutionaries that the purpose of 'science' was to 'make a better world for all', and that 'better' could only be determined by the masses.The bourgeoisie wish to pretend, for their own interests, to have a 'politically-neutral method' of 'discovering' an existing 'objective truth' of a 'world out there', a world which allegedly they haven't produced, and which just 'is', and so can't be changed.Whilst workers, and even socialists like youse, look to bourgeois ruling class ideas, we will remain hamstrung in the political and ideological battle for the control of social production.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:…my reluctance to engage in fruitless dialogue with you is clear…One has to be a fruit-eater, Tim, to engage in dialogue.You're simply defining your terms to avoid discussing how a socialist society can and should democratically control the production of scientific knowledge.The odd thing is that you ignore Marx's view that the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class, and it's easy to show that the notion of 'undemocratic science' (that individual experts, geniuses, have an 'access' to 'reality' that the masses are denied) has a socio-historical origin (and that this is clearly also the basis of Leninism in politics).That is, your 'terms of reference' are not yours, but those of the socio-economic elite that dominate our society.One would think that this would be obvious to any socialist, that 'common sense' ideas about 'science' and the 'special consciousness' of geniuses, would have been socially produced, and produced for the purpose of making the very idea of 'democratic control of knowledge production' seem laughable.But… you and the SPGB generally seem to have been taken in, hook, line and sinker, by this ruling class ideology about 'science' and 'truth'.As you say, though, this is a 'fruitless' tree of knowledge, for those who already 'know' that democracy in knowledge is a dead end. After all, who'd let workers determine their cosmos?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.
Questions about democratic science? I should engage seriously with the idea that we should campaign to have a vote of workers re whether zombies exist?The reason I don't engage you in argument, and I guess other forum users feel the same way, is that you do not appear to be able to engage in logical argument, you commit the following logical falacies, to name but a few, with rapidity:The Strawman FalacyThe False Cause FalacyThe Black or White Falacy (if you do not agree with L Bird that science should be democratically controlled you must be an autocratic elitist)Proof by Asserttion ( If L Bird says it often enough it must be the case)Afferming the Consequent (e.g. Lenin was a materialist, therefore if you are a Materialist you must be a Leninist)False DichotomyI would also add to that regular use of sophism.Your usual response to any poster who attempts to point this out to you is to question the educational status, intellectual ability and motives of your opponent. (as you have done here) I find it strange that a person who claims to be so vehemently anti-elitist, should so regularly resort to asserting their intellectual superiority.
And yet you don't engage.Empty vessels, Tim…
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.
