Can the workers ever be wrong?
- This topic has 184 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:When you call your philosophy 'materialism', instead of the more accurate 'idealism-materialism'.But, I've told you this before. You don't read.
I suppose I would have previously replied that I am not separating them, because I am denying any independent thing called ideas, they are part and parcel with matter. I reject "inkism-bauxiteism" precisely because it does separate the two things, and suggests a form of dualism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:When you call your philosophy 'materialism', instead of the more accurate 'idealism-materialism'.But, I've told you this before. You don't read.I suppose I would have previously replied that I am not separating them, because I am denying any independent thing called ideas, they are part and parcel with matter. I reject "inkism-bauxiteism" precisely because it does separate the two things, and suggests a form of dualism.
So, you disagree with DJP's physicalism, and agree that, ideas being the same as matter (your 'not independent' and 'part and parcel') that 'matter' can supervene on 'ideas'?In fact, it's 'materialism' that is a form of dualism, because it can't say, as I can, that the material can supervene upon the ideal, just as the ideal can supervene upon the material.I suppose this is the philosophical roots of your view of humans as 'meatbots'. Why don't you call them 'ideabots', if you don't separate out the two? Surely 'ideabot' and 'meatbot' would be synonymous, if you really believe what you're claiming about your ideology?Now, there's a philosophy to attract workers. We're all simply meat. Back to the division of being and consciousness.And bollocks to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:The rest of your post, YMS, is nothing to do with the epistemological question of 'knowledge'.That sounds good as that's not what we are discussing here as there's another long-running thread on this which (just checked) has 233 new messages unread by me on it since I stopped following it a few weeks ago.
The thread title is 'Can the workers ever be wrong?'To answer the question 'who determines 'wrong'?', we have to answer the epistemological question of who or what determines 'wrong'.Is it an elite minority?Is it 'reality'?Is it a social majority?Thus, since I argue that the latter is the correct epistemological and political answer, the answer to the title is 'No'.'Wrong' is a social idea, not a property of matter or the opinion of an elite.
Matter=Ideas. Ideas=Matter.Materialist monism says there is no ideal, only actual stuff. I'll go with stuffbots. Ideabots is ridiculous.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Matter=Ideas. Ideas=Matter.Materialist monism says there is no ideal, only actual stuff. I'll go with stuffbots. Ideabots is ridiculous.So, you now claim that your philosophy is 'stuffism', I presume, and not 'materialism'?If so, we're getting somewhere.It's the term 'materialism' that makes workers think that its adherents prioritise the 'material', at the expense of the 'ideal'. Indeed, whenever the 'materialists' are questioned about this issue, that is precisely what they do.I agree with you, if that's what you're now saying, that you think that there should be no priority given to 'matter' over 'ideas'. It's the interaction between them that is the point of Marx's philosophy of 'theory and practice', as the phrase suggests.
My philosophy is trombonism. The world is made of trombones, and the only stuff in the world is trombones. We are trombonebots. There is no intereaction between trombones and catfish, there are only trombones, and thus no priority. Catfishism-trombonism is absurd.
LBird wrote:The thread title is 'Can the workers ever be wrong?'To answer the question 'who determines 'wrong'?', we have to answer the epistemological question of who or what determines 'wrong'.Is it an elite minority?Is it 'reality'?Is it a social majority?Thus, since I argue that the latter is the correct epistemological and political answer, the answer to the title is 'No'.'Wrong' is a social idea, not a property of matter or the opinion of an elite.That's better, i.e stopped the thread veering off track down a dead-end siding or, to be more charitable, on to another thread.I thought that was your answer. So your slogan is "The Workers United Can Never Be Wrong!" whatever the view they are united on (eg war, discrimination) — and I thought you were among those who think that socialism is a moral as well as a class issue. The trouble is of course they never are united, not even in supporting wars or governments or even capitalism in general. Some support one view, others another, others yet another. So how do you decide what is the workers view that can never be wrong?
Young Master Smeet wrote:My philosophy is trombonism. The world is made of trombones, and the only stuff in the world is trombones. We are trombonebots. There is no intereaction between trombones and catfish, there are only trombones, and thus no priority. Catfishism-trombonism is absurd.This sort of stuff (-ism or not) doesn't help your argument, YMS, and only strengthens mine, by default.'Materialism' is, yet again, seen to be unable to be defended against the criticisms of workers who've seen through its nonsense.
AFAICS, and I'll end it here, is you want to call materialism idealism-materialism while referring to the same thing everyone else does when they call it materialism. I couldn't care less what the name is. The upshot is that ideas are subject to necessity, and are part of the unfurling of a singular universe without dualism.If the workers try and maintain that Unca' Charlie was some sort of dualist, they're wrong (whetehr or not they vote on it).
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:The thread title is 'Can the workers ever be wrong?'To answer the question 'who determines 'wrong'?', we have to answer the epistemological question of who or what determines 'wrong'.Is it an elite minority?Is it 'reality'?Is it a social majority?Thus, since I argue that the latter is the correct epistemological and political answer, the answer to the title is 'No'.'Wrong' is a social idea, not a property of matter or the opinion of an elite.That's better, i.e stopped the thread veering off track down a dead-end siding or, to be more charitable, on to another thread.I thought that was your answer. So your slogan is "The Workers United Can Never Be Wrong!" whatever the view they are united on (eg war, discrimination) — and I thought you were among those who think that socialism is a moral as well as a class issue. The trouble is of course they never are united, not even in supporting wars or governments or even capitalism in general. Some support one view, others another, others yet another. So how do you decide what is the workers view that can never be wrong?
[my bold]Yes, 'morality' is subject to a vote, too.The answer to your conundrum, of course, is that 'workers have to become united as class conscious Communists/Socialists'.The confirmation that this has finally happened is, from the SPGB persepective, a majority vote in parliament. So, your claim that 'they are never united' is a claim that the SPGB can't achieve their stated political aims, if that is what you mean by 'they are never'. My claim is 'they must become united'.Leaving aside what then happens in parliament (which we can ignore for the purposes of this thread, because I'm not sure I agree with what some members have said about that, here), at that point, for the purposes of deciding what counts as 'right or wrong', we have a united class who have the power to determine both 'political right and wrong' and 'morality'.At that point, workers can't be 'wrong'. That is the only stance that can be taken by a democratic Communist/Socialist. This also applies to 'knowledge', too. And whilst we Communists/Socialists remain in a minority, we are 'wrong', too.If any comrades disagree, they have to state who else (or what else) will determine 'wrong' and how that minority (or 'matter') does this determining.It's better to be open about this with workers, if one doesn't think workers should decide 'truth', and 'right', and openly deny democracy.Some Anarchists, for example, do deny democracy, and see sovereignty as lying in each individual, that 'power' is divisible amongst 7 billion.I have my doubts, but then, I'm a Communist, not an individualist.
LBird wrote:'Materialism' is, yet again, seen to be unable to be defended against the criticisms of workers who've seen through its nonsense.I think you're exaggerating here a bit. "The criticism of workers" (plural)? As far as I know it's the criticism of just one worker unless you know of some others. Most workers couldn't care less about epistemology, materialism and other philosophical issues and as the majority can't be wrong. Can they?
YMS wrote:AFAICS, and I'll end it here, is you want to call materialism idealism-materialism while referring to the same thing everyone else does when they call it materialism. I couldn't care less what the name is.So, the question becomes, why defend the name 'materialism' so vociferously?I'm entirely happy with this outcome, YMS.We can now be honest with workers who ask us for a clear statement of our philosophical position, and accurately reply that we're 'idealist-materialists' (or, perhaps less polemically, Critical Realists), which is the position taken by Marx, and completely explains the concept of 'theory and practice'.Any sensible worker can see the discrepancy between the two claims of 'theory and practice' and 'materialism'.'Theory' clearly requires 'ideas'.I think we should give clear indicators of our position, and stop un-necessarily confusing these difficult issues. Whilst we are unclear, we should blame ourselves for workers' lack of understanding.I myself was always confused by the SWP, and have spent years trying to untangle the nonsense that they told me, and the way (and why) they averted my difficult questions.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:'Materialism' is, yet again, seen to be unable to be defended against the criticisms of workers who've seen through its nonsense.I think you're exaggerating here a bit. "The criticism of workers" (plural)? As far as I know it's the criticism of just one worker unless you know of some others. Most workers couldn't care less about epistemology, materialism and other philosophical issues and as the majority can't be wrong. Can they?
Yeah, up until now you're totally correct that 'most workers couldn't care less about epistemology' etc.That's my point: as class conscious workers, they'll have to start to care about epistemology. If they don't, someone else will, and workers will remain in thrall to the 'someone else'. That's why I disagree with alanjjohnstone on this issue. He seems to argue that epistemology is for the elite.I'm perfectly happy for someone to argue that "workers are too thick to spell 'epistemology', never mind understand it!", but of course I think that that argument is incompatible with democratic Communism.And I'll accuse those taking such an elitist stance of 'Leninism'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,we have the evidence that millions have received our leaflets, seen our adverts, etc. They may not have read deeply, but that would only be indicative of their rejections from the get go. Their ideas are well developed, and we have to respect that decision, rather than assuming 'Ah, but if they only heard what we have to tell them!' Indeed, they often have quite complex and well developed political ideas. yes, they are misinformed, and subject to a bombardment of propaganda, but they are not brainwashed or conmpletely subsumed by ideology, as the Leniniss would have us believe. Our working assumption has to be that they are rational agents, who can run their own lives, and see working within the system as it is as their best option.Now I get it. The many thousands of leaflets that have been shoved through the letter boxes over the years. I took part in that stuff when in the North East branch and I expect I know where most of those ended up, along with the other political leaflets.I suspected I would see something along the lines of the highlighted sentence above. It's why in my previous post I clearly stated that I did not underestimate the workers. I am not of the opinion that people will be won over by a leaflet now and then. I am most certainly not in the camp that thinks that once the socialist case is heard, it should automaticaly lead to acceptance and joining the Party, and if that fails to occur it can only mean the case has not been understood. That then leads to an elitist attitude.Brainwash or socialisation amounts to the same thing. As Alan so aptly states there are so many things that bombard workers lives, so many blind alleys and lies. Scanning yet another political leaflet that lands on your doorstep every time an election comes around is not enough to turn on most struggling workers. It may spark an interest in those who are seeking an alternative. As to the second highlighted sentence, do you believe that the lottery of a workers life in capitalism is the best option people choose? The lives of most workers are limited in choices, the main choice we have is get a job or go without.I say a major factor is the workers are underexposed to the socialist case, the case we push can't compete against the mainstream for attention. You seem to say, millions have been exposed and choose capitalism. What's your solution?
No, I am not saying that left to themselves the workers can only attain a naive realist consciousness and that critical realism or "materialism" or whatever other philosophy has to be brought to them from outside the class by an elite.I'm sure most workers could understand epistemology. What I'm saying is that they don't have to any more than they have to understand algebra. You're placing the bar for "socialist consciousness" far, far too high. All that it required to establish socialism is the understanding of a majority that(a) capitalism can't be reformed to work in their interests;(b) only socialism, as the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production, can provide the framework within which problems can be solved;(c) that this is something they are going to have to do for themselves by their own actions (nobody is going to do this or could do it for them);(d) that democracy is the way to decide what to do.As to epistemology, to be perfectly honest I think that naive realism for all its philosophical inadequacy will do. At least it works for daily living. And making that better is what's socialism is all about.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.