[LBird]

The philosophical problem we face is the mediation between subject and object.Idealist philosophers like Cieszkowski, prior to Marx, had identified the link: 'activity'.Marx agreed with this link between subject and object being 'activity', but his term for this was 'social labour'.Marx argued that the 'subject' was 'humanity' (rather than 'god' as for the idealists), but agreed that, as for the idealists, the subject actively created its own object. The idealists argued that the divine created its world; Marx argued that humanity created their world.Marx regarded the 'subject' as a socio-historical category, and argued that the proletariat and bourgeoisie were different 'subjects', with different needs, purposes and interests. So, their 'activity' or 'social labour' would be different, and thus produce different 'objects'.This political and philosophical argument forms the basis of a Marxist approach to 'science'.'Science' is a social activity, an act by 'social labour', which creates, through its social theory and practice, its 'objective truth'.To be 'objective' is to be 'socially objective' – the link between subject and object must always be maintained, and we must always show who, and for what reasons, any 'object' is created.Clearly, the bourgeoisie have tried to hide this link: from the beginning of their creation of their science, they have pretended that they have a method that is not subjective, that there is no link between a creative subject and its object, and that the 'object' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery', by a passive enquirer, who has no subjective link to the 'object'.These political (class power, socio-historic subjects) and philosophical (creation of knowledge, and ability to change 'truth') considerations will form the basis of any discussion by Marxists, Communists and workers, about the nature of our 'science'.Without this discussion, the proletariat will remain in thrall to bourgeois science, the supposed 'disinterested' subject which simply 'discovers' a world which it hasn't built.Since, as Marx argued, our world is built by humans, the world to be passively discovered is a world already designed and constructed by the bourgeoisie, for their own purposes and interests, and it is a world alien to ours.The acceptance of bourgeois science, and its methods, is the acceptance of our exploitation, of our domination as a class.The bourgeoisie, of course, deny this argument as 'ideology', and as destructive of 'objective science'. 'True Science' must remain within the power of a 'scientific elite', and any attempt to take political control of this 'social labour' is 'totalitarian'. They must retain control of all 'social labour'.The class conscious proletariat, to carry out a successful social revolution, must dispute this ruling class ideology, and democratically build their own world anew.

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

The workers who make the revolution will ensure that the application and testing of science will be appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.

Yes, Matt, a 'science' appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the immense majority.And "appropriate", "commensurate" and "needs" can only be determined by "the immense majority" of "workers who make the revolution".This requires a democratic epistemology, a proletarian science.'Objective science' and 'disinterested scientists' are bourgeois myths, ideologically intended to keep "the immense majority" docile and trusting in their supposed 'betters'.'Objective Knowledge' is 'appropriate and commensurate with the needs of the' 'Free Market' and an elite of 'Individuals'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Sounds as if he might be covering the same ground as this other recent biographer of Marx:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1309-september-2013/book-review-karl-marx-nineteenth-century-life

reviewer wrote:

His summaries of Marx’s philosophical and political views are accurate enough…

I had to smile at this, ALB.Is Sperber an Engelsist Materialist, too? No offence meant, but I rather think that 'accuracy' is always defined from a viewpoint.

[LBird]

Lew wrote:

LBird wrote:

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'.

This is, I think, meaningless.

That's what non-democrats always say when asked, 'if not democracy, what method?'To elitists, talk of democracy is always 'meaningless'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of  interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this.

Honest and frank?You might as well say to any workers just starting to take an interest in socialism, science, and its possibilities, 'Fuck off, thickoes, and leave it all to your betters!'That would be 'honest and frank' about robbo's political views.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Most of us will know nothing of, and have little interest in…

It's nice to see that robbo has a very low opinion of what class conscious workers who've carried out a revolution will care about.I don't know why robbo just doesn't sneer, and say that "most workers will be busy eating free burgers and getting pissed and high, to do any 'complex' or 'educated' activities".To me, socialism will mean that most of us will know far more than we do now, and be far better educated, and be far more interested in everything to do with being human, including scientific research.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

This is recipe for intellectual totalitarianism and cringing conformism and the attempt to enforce it would inevitably lead to a kind of Leninist vanguardism in my opinion

So, I argue for democratic control, and robbo argues that this is 'intellectual totalitarianism'.This is standard cold war scare tactics, that any sniff of democracy in any area where an elite currently has all the power, is tantamount to 'dictatorship'.I have a higher opinion about the intellectual abilities of workers, and their collective decision making about scientific research and the interests and purposes that it serves.robbo seems to regard workers as unwanted and dangerous fools, who, if let loose with 'physics', would return to witchcraft.It's elitism dressed up as concern for 'standards'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird needs to learn the difference between these two things

And what anyone reading needs to know is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and robbo isn't.That means that I argue that only the proletariat can decide what is 'true' and what isn't.robbo seems to argue that only an elite can decide what is 'true' and what isn't. He's given some of the reasons why he thinks that this is so.I follow Marx in arguing that social theory and practice creates our object.robbo doesn't follow Marx on this.It would be easier for all if robbo would be open about what he thinks 'socialism' is.I define it as 'the democratic control of production' – robbo seems to see it as the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'individual freedom'.We'd all get a lot further if posters would tell us all their particular ideology of science, and where it comes from.I always point out the socio-historic nature of the bourgeois belief in 'elite science', but it seems that other posters don't want to reveal the source of their ideas.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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!

[LBird]

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. 

[LBird]

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'.

[Author]

Posts