LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sympo wrote:I don't understand. What is your definition of truth?
My 'definition of truth' is the same as Marx's.We create 'truth' by social theory and practice, which is democratic productive activity.The theory of truth that I employ is a 'democratic theory of truth' (often called consensus gentium (Latin for Agreement of the people)).Those who follow the 'materialist' ideology of Engels and Lenin employ a 'correspondence theory of truth'. I presume that you, too, employ this 'reflection' theory of the creation of knowledge.If you decide to look these issues up, note the connections between 'reflection' (regarding 'knowledge creation') and 'correspondence' (regarding 'truth'). They are the basis of the 'materialist' ideology.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Only quote on gravity i could find as follow-on to my earlier post. As you say…i am always left in the dark by these sort of debates…Reminds me of Rosa Lichtenstein's contributions to dlalectics…i'm sure what she is saying is contributing something, but i don't have an earthly clue what and don't really care…luckily i'm supported by Paul Mattick.https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1960/new-physics.htmYeah, I can recommend Mattick's book Anti-Bolshevik Communism, which contains the essay Marxism and the New Physics, and another on Karl Korsch. Both of these are thought-provoking, even if I have some criticisms.And Pannekoek, like Marx, Mattick and Korsch, stressed the creativity of workers in building their knowledge. This is very different from 'materialism' (of both Engels and Lenin), which emphasises 'passivity' in the face of 'matter'.And I've got a lot of time for Rosa Lichtenstein, who I've discussed with a few times! Although, yet again, I have differences with…Keep asking questions, alan, and something will 'click' at some point, about the difference between 'bourgeois materialism', passivity in workers and an elite group of 'knowers', compared with Marx's view that humans create their own objects, and that Communism is this creative act put under the democratic control of all.
alanjjohnstone wrote:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/preface.htmQuote:Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.nice try, alan.Unfortunately, it only exposes your distance from any understanding of the issues (which you yourself have admitted in the past), and leaves you lining up behind the 'materialists' in seeing any developments as 'idealism'.This always surprises me more, in your case.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:…idealistic…The usual reply by 'materialists', when questioned about modern developments in politics, philosophy and physics since the 19th century heyday of materialism, is to revert to the good-versus-evil approach.That is, materialists wear the white hats, and the evil idealists wear the black hats.They got this from Engels, too.What any worker, who knows about 20th century physics, and has read Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Plank, de Broglie, Born, Smolin, Rovelli, etc., makes of this ancient, outdated, 'materialism'……anyway, it's certain that the 'materialists' haven't read what those physicists say about physics.They'd all be called 'idealists'.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:There is a possibility in the future that the earth will no longer go around the sun. There's the possibility it will end up being swallowed up by the sun.Actually in around 5 billion years or so that's precisely what will happen and as I know very little about astrophysics I'm quite prepared to accept the calculations of those who do. No vote by the then inhabitants of planet earth, in the unlikely event the human species will have survived that long, will alter that "truth".
You see Gnome, that's where you're wrtong, that will only happen if the workers democratically vote for it!
More contempt for 'workers' and their abilities and potential development.Keep it coming, boys!You'll be changing your party title to the Superior People of Great Britain – tagline: The Party that knows the Truth already, so you dumb workers don't have to bother becoming active!
gnome wrote:No vote by the then inhabitants of planet earth, in the unlikely event the human species will have survived that long, will alter that "truth".A perfect statement by a 'materialist', that workers will not be allowed to vote to change 'Truth'.This belief appears to be at least un-official policy of the SPGB.Why not make it official, and stop pretending to workers that they will democratically control the production of their own 'truth' in the SPGB's version of 'socialism'?
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird wrote:I've given ALB the opportunity, several times, to agree that 'the earth going round the sun' is a socially-produced 'truth', and that in the past 'the sun went round the earth', and that in the future it is possible that 'the earth will no longer go round the sun'.There is a possibility in the future that the earth will no longer go around the sun. There's the possibility it will end up being swallowed up by the sun.
As usual, you're misunderstanding what the issue is.The issue is, how do you know that the sun goes round the earth now, not in some putative future.You'll be forced to say that 'it really does' and that your 'knowledge' of this is a reflection of that 'reality'. And you'll say that that 'reality' can't be changed.This is also Lenin's 'reflection theory of knowledge', just as it was Engels'.Marx, though, argued that we create our knowledge, by our social theory and practice.Thus, our knowledge is not a reflection of something 'out there', but a reality-for-us, which we create, and thus we can change.
Sympo wrote:Wait, what? When I have said that only an elite can establish truth? Could you quote me saying this? Do you not believe there is an objective truth?You've quoted yourself, Sympo, in those two lines above.'Objective truth' implies 'an elite who establish'.If that wasn't your belief, you'd agree that 'objective truth' can be voted on.That is, if what's 'objective truth' is obvious, we'd all be able to 'know' it, and so would all vote the same way as any 'specialist', so a democratic vote would be identical to 'expert opinion'.Have a think about this, because it'll be an unfamiliar argument to you.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.This is not what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps repeating this lie, both about me and the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.
I've given ALB the opportunity, several times, to agree that 'the earth going round the sun' is a socially-produced 'truth', and that in the past 'the sun went round the earth', and that in the future it is possible that 'the earth will no longer go round the sun'.He won't agree with this, because he believes, as do all 'materialists', that 'the earth really does go round the sun' and that this will never change, because it's an 'Absolute, Eternal Truth' and reflects 'True Reality'.This is what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps denying this truth, both about himself the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.'Materialism' is a dishonest ideology, which lies to workers.
ALB wrote:There is an individual here who argues that the proposition, eg, that "increasing C02 in the atmosphere does not contribute to global warming" should be put to the vote and, if carried, it would be "true" that it didn't.As far as I know there is no-one here arguing that people who are not specialists in a particular field should not be able to take part in debates about issues in that field.ALB correctly characterises the political position of Democratic Communism: that is, that any 'truth' is a socially-produced truth, and that therefore any 'truth' produced within a democratic society, like socialism, must be democratically produced.Again, as ALB says, no-one is arguing that specialists should not take part in debates: in fact, elected specialists will be central to any debates about the social production of a 'truth'.The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'. [edit – I've just seen that Sympo agrees with this belief]If ALB is correct, then there is no need to compel 'specialists' to explain in a language that non-specialists can understand, because their 'ideas', produced by them alone, are, by definition, 'True'.This denies democratic control of production from the majority, and makes a nonsense of the claim that 'socialism is the democratic control of social production'.The acceptance of any 'truth' can only be made by the majority: that is, the majority can reject the recommendations of any 'specialists', because we judge the majority to be a better judge of what 'truths' serve their purposes and interests, than the judgement of 'specialists'.Of course, if one does not have faith in the majority, combined with a faith in 'neutral science' done by an 'expert elite', then one won't share this political opinion.What's behind our differences is different beliefs about Marx and Engels. ALB believes that Engels faithfully reproduced Marx's ideas, whereas I believe that Engels destroyed Marx's ideas.
You're in a bit of a spot, as a party, because a worker is making a political criticism of your public stance about the future of socialism, and yet you're unable to respond with a political answer, but resort to personalising the debate, in order to take the focus off the political problem, and refocus it upon a 'problem individual'.And ALB, bit of political advice, mate, simply re-posting the same post, from a different debate, is not addressing the political criticism advanced on this thread.As I'm already aware, the root of this problem is not in youse as 'individuals' (even though that may leave a lot to be desired), but in your political ideology of 'materialism'.But… you won't discuss this.'Materialism' is not democratic.
If you want to discuss my positions about Corbyn, why not discuss them on the thread upon which they were expressed, that is, the Chomsky thread? I can discuss them with you there, in that context.The only reason I can see for those issues being reproduced here, is to avoid any discussion about the openly-expressed view by SPGB members that they regard some areas of 'social production' to be 'off-limits' to the democratic control of the direct producers, within a future socialist society.Surely this is an abominable position for any democrat to take, with regard to socialism?The fact that this issue isn't being addressed, shows to me that either the SPGB, like the Leninists, have got something to hide from workers, or, more generously, that the SPGB has no conception whatsoever about issues of power, and hasn't really thought through the political implications of their support for Engels' 'materialism'.Put simply, if 'matter' is supposed to have power, then workers clearly don't.And as we know that 'matter' doesn't have power, then clearly an elite has to substitute itself for allegedly 'powerful matter', and that elite itself has the power (and pretends not to have it, and continues to pretend to the powerless that the powerless do have power, and that the elite simply reflects the wishes of workers).
Thanks for your erudite and constructive contribution to the debate, ALB.It doesn't surprise me anymore that 'individualist' analysis of social production is closely followed by ignoring any socio-historical issues, the reduction of the debate to 'yah-boo, your poo stinks' insults, and the smothering of the real issues, about 'who controls production?'.Cosidering that you're supposed to be one of the 'intellectuals' of the SPGB, ALB, you're a great disappointment. If your approach to political criticism of the SPGB is so poor, it doesn't give much hope for the future development of your party.
In pursuit of my Democratic Communist belief that the role of Communists is to explain complex ideas to fellow workers, so that my fellow workers can develop at a far faster rate than I did, because I sum up years of reading into simpler analogies, here is an explanation of the relationship of Marx’s ‘idealism-materialism’ to Engels’ ‘materialism’.Imagine an electrician who finds two grey wires hanging down from a ceiling. Each grey wire is an outer casing for two inner wires, a red one and a green one. The electrician wants to splice the two grey wires, but only requires the feeds of both of the green wires to be taken forward. So, the electrician gets a third piece of grey wire, again containing two inner wires, but which are both green. She connects the green wire, from the left-hand grey wire hanging down, to one of the green wires in her piece of grey wire, and she connects the other green wire, from the right-hand grey wire hanging down, to the second green wire in her wire. Lastly, she bends upwards the red wire of the left-hand feed and covers it with tape, and repeats this with the other red wire from the right-hand grey wire.So, the electrician now has a feed taking forward power from both of the input grey wires, and the input grey wires both have their unused red wires safely taped off, unwanted.Having finished her task, the electrician then moves on to other, more urgent, work.But… she has a mate, a bloke who knows nothing about electrics, but thinks that he does. We all know the sort. He offers to progress her work, and she trusts her mate, and assumes that his estimation of himself can be trusted, and so leaves him unsupervised, to continue her initial task.He, however, on finding the joined wire taking from two sources, decides that this is a bit messy, and thinks it can be simplified. So, he unfastens the join between the green wire linked to the left-hand green wire, untapes the right-hand red wire, and joins the two together. Much simpler and clearer! Now, the right hand grey wire simply continues into the connecting wire, entirely continuing the both inputs from that right-hand grey wire. Much better than having the complexity of wires being joined into a ‘Y’ shape, and he lastly pushes the left-hand grey wire back into the ceiling, well out of harm’s way, and out of sight of any other future meddlers!He assures his companion that he’s completed her original work, and simplified it into the bargain. She’s not too sure just how her work has been ‘simplified’, but she’s now far too busy with the massive new task facing her, and warmly thanks her trusted mate.Years later, some French ‘electricians’ tell her of the extensions they’ve made to her electrical work, but when she examines the powerless results, she’s astounded, and recognises immediate that this is not ‘electrics’ as she knows it, thus declaring that, if this is ‘electrics’, as far as she’s concerned “I’m no ‘electrician!’ ”.
robbo, I've answered your question, and you really do have to try and read what I wrote in my last post.Please stop your childish style of debate, and please try and engage with the political and philosophical (and historical) issues of the building by the bourgeoisie of their 'science', and how we can try to build a 'science' suitable for the democratic control of production, within a socialist society.
