Can the workers ever be wrong?

[ALB]

I wish I'd never mentioned "naive realism" as there was always the risk that it would set you off again. And it has. I've no interest is discussing epistemology with you, at least not on this thread (having discussed it with you for over a year I know perfectly well what your position is) but I will explain what I was saying and what I was not saying:1. I was making the point that, in their daily life, everybody is in practice a "naive realist", i.e assumes that the world is more or less as they see it and that the parts of the observed world they use are separate objects. You do. I do. We all do. Humans always have and no doubt still will in socialism.2. I was not saying that workers are incapable of understanding the inadequacies of "naive realism" outside the field of everyday living.3. I was not saying that "naive realism" is at all adequate when it comes to explaining what science is trying to do.4. I do not think that the socialist-minded majority needed to establish socialism has to have a knowledge of epistemology at least not more than a passing knowledge. Some, perhaps many, no doubt will but, in any event, it would be an optional extra not a necessity.I am only interested in discussing point 4 here.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I wish I'd never mentioned "naive realism" as there was always the risk that it would set you off again. And it has.

Listen, I've done my best to tolerate your half-assed ideas about 'socialism', and get you to explain what the hell you mean, and try to help you understand why you're often talking complete nonsense.You mentioned 'naive realism', and I've explained, in very little words just for you, why naive realism can't form the basis of human understanding, as you plainly stated, within socialism.

ALB wrote:

I've no interest is discussing epistemology with you, at least not on this thread (having discussed it with you for over a year I know perfectly well what your position is)…

But your position is as clear as mud, so I don't know 'perfectly well' what yours is. One minute you agree with Marx (who says ideas are as important as material), the next you're claiming that you're a 'materialist'.So, perhaps I have been 'set off again'. But at least I'm trying to help, to explain what the hell it is we should be explaining to workers, whereas, as usual, you're hedging your bets, woffling from one stance to another, and blaming me for continually asking you for your position.

ALB wrote:

4. I do not think that the socialist-minded majority needed to establish socialism has to have a knowledge of epistemology at least not more than a passing knowledge. Some, perhaps many, no doubt will but, in any event, it would be an optional extra not a necessity.I am only interested in discussing point 4 here.

And I'm trying to discuss point 4 with you. What the hell have I just spent half an hour writing for you, explaining why workers do need to have a knowledge of epistemology.Christ, if they don't, they'll have to leave it to people like you!

ALB wrote:

1. I was making the point that, in their daily life, everybody is in practice a "naive realist", i.e assumes that the world is more or less as they see it and that the parts of the observed world they use are separate objects. You do. I do. We all do. Humans always have and no doubt still will in socialism.

Let's be clear. This is complete bollocks.If the world is 'more or less as we see it', then it will remain capitalist.The whole point is that workers have to become Critical Realists, not remain naive realists. They have to become conscious and critical.C R I T I C A L. And stay, critical, and reject the myth of 'naive realism'.How many people here really think that 'naive realism' is the proper scientific method?How many people here really think that 'naive realism' will remain the popular method, even within socialism, which to even reach we'll have had to have already seen a massive, popular interest in our world and how we all understand it? And afterwards, when the finest education is available to all on this planet, do you really imagine that people will retain (or revert to) the method of, 'my individual, biological, senses tell me what the world is'?If you're right ALB, socialism (and by this I mean Marx's self-emancipation of the working class) is impossible.If you don't like talking about it, stop pretending you know anything whatsoever about epistemology, and if the rest of the SPGB is bored by 'epistemology', why not pronounce to workers that the SPGB doesn't do difficult issues like 'knowledge', and wants workers to remain common-or-garden 'naive realists', as the bourgeoisie have taught them?Why have a bloody internet site at all, if you can't discuss issues with non-members?And I see that you've not bothered to respond to my genuine attempt to explain.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird wrote:

To the idealist, there is no limit to their creative originality in their drawing of a picture of knowledge. They can draw freehand on a blank canvas, and any individual artist can freely improvise, with no external framework to impose a pre-existing structure upon their individual musings and scribbles.

That's not idealism.  Many idealists, such as Hegel would suggest that the pad is numbered as well, except that the dots are ideas.  A dualist would say there are two pads that somehow match each other, and a materialist says the dots exist outside the human mind.

Let's hear your attempt to explain all this to workers, then, YMS.No? I didn't think so. After all, they're only 'meatbots' to you, aren't they, and not worthy of your time or efforts.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,Sorry, I was ansswering:

Quote:

I was hoping you would be able to provide some possible analysis to the reasons why milions of workers  have conciously chosen to reject the socialist case?

and in a hurry, but I think my answer is plain enough.

Ah…crossed wires there YMS, my apologies also.I'm a little confused as to what your position is here YMS.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 SP,Imagine if the broadcast media, all the university experts and a substantial number of people kept on insisting that the sun was green, and that it was impossible to see in the daylight.Therein lies my answer.

The above suggests people are persuaded to believe a load of bollocks by the establishment. Ok, fair enough, it's something I had been suggesting ealrier when I mentioned socialisation. We are "educated" from a young age to accept that this is how the world works and always has.But earlier you seemed to sugest something different.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 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,

What exactly are you saying? How can the establishment convince us that night is day etc if we are not immersed in the process of socialisation? And what of the socialist favourite about the ideology of the ruling class being the prevailing ideology?The recent Scottish independence referendum was a classic example of our class getting stuck into the debate about who rules over them, Scottish MPs or British MPs. I bet Scotland had never before seen such a debate. But there was no talk of a truly democratic Scotland governed by the people. I think ruling class ideology was firmly in control there.So what is it YMS, a working class fully informed and in control of their own political direction, consciously choosing capitalism over socialism, or a deliberately misinformed, misled working class seldom coming into any meaningful contact with our alternative? 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

1. I was making the point that, in their daily life, everybody is in practice a "naive realist", i.e assumes that the world is more or less as they see it and that the parts of the observed world they use are separate objects. You do. I do. We all do. Humans always have and no doubt still will in socialism.

Let's be clear. This is complete bollocks.If the world is 'more or less as we see it', then it will remain capitalist.

You've completely missed the point. I'm talking about everyday life not about scientific theories. And I meant "see" in the literal sense, i.e what we see with our eyes. I don't know about you but I act as if the things around me are separate things. Everybody does.And by "world" I meant the natural world not social relations. When I look out the window I see all sorts of things. I imagine you do too. This outside world will appear the same in socialism.There is no incompatibility between acting in everyday living as if naive realism is true (by treating things as if they existed as separate entities) and knowing that it isn't (and that they aren't). Acting as if naive realism were the case does not mean that you need really think that the world is more or less as we see it (through our eyes, that is) and is actually made up of separately existing things.

LBird wrote:

The whole point is that workers have to become Critical Realists,

That really is setting the bar too high ! If a condition for the establishment of socialism is that workers have to accept that particular theory then it's you who are making socialism and the self-emancipation of the workers impossible.

LBird wrote:

They have to become conscious and critical.

Yes, of course.

LBird wrote:

C R I T I C A L. And stay, critical, and reject the myth of 'naive realism'.

Yes, as far as scientific methods and theories are concerned.

LBird wrote:

How many people here really think that 'naive realism' is the proper scientific method?

Nobody I would have thought. Certainly not me. But, as I just explained, I wasn't talking about scientific method.

LBird wrote:

How many people here really think that 'naive realism' will remain the popular method, even within socialism, which to even reach we'll have had to have already seen a massive, popular interest in our world and how we all understand it? And afterwards, when the finest education is available to all on this planet, do you really imagine that people will retain (or revert to) the method of, 'my individual, biological, senses tell me what the world is'?

I don't know but I imagine that in socialism people will talk and act as if things were separate with perhaps a higher percentage than now knowing that they are not.

LBird wrote:

If you're right ALB, socialism (and by this I mean Marx's self-emancipation of the working class) is impossible.

That doesn't follow at all. I imagine that Marx himself in his daily life acted as a naive realist. Everybody does.Anyway, you should be happy. You've provoked me into discussing epistemology.

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

I’ve argued both that ‘workers need to understand epistemology’ (which ALB and alanjjohnstone seem to disagree with me)

I don't even know what the word means. I'll have to look it up. I do argue that workers require knowledge in matters more than simply the expediency of socialism and presently in argument with someone who insists homeopathy can stop ebola …and if it comes to a vote, i think they might win and so their truth become the truth, their knowledge the true knowledge…but i won't stop saying they are wrong and by not using evidence-based science (much of it empirical studies) what they are advocating is dangerous and harmful to society…it is shameless primativism.

Quote:

Let's hear your attempt to explain all this to workers

I've said this in the past about this whole debate and all the related ones. I keep looking for suggestions of a practical nature…ie political ideas to implement …alas…it remains within the realms of the philosopher interpreting the world, rather than changing the world.Reminds me of Rosa Leitchenstein and her dialectics bugbear…interesting in small doses…but not important enough to make a career out of.

[jondwhite]

LBird wrote:

ALB, post #48, wrote:

Most people will still be naive realists even in socialism…

Because I’ve argued both that ‘workers need to understand epistemology’ (which ALB and alanjjohnstone seem to disagree with me), and that ‘Communists are responsible for not explaining to workers, rather than ‘workers are ignoring the socialist case’ (which YMS and jondwhite seem to be saying)

I think this is a misunderstanding, but I am not arguing ‘workers are ignoring the socialist case’ or workers do not accept the socialist party case because they have not heard it. Many workers hear the party case and do not accept it. I am saying I do NOT accept ignorance of the party case as the reason workers do not accept socialism.

[LBird]

Won't anybody tell me if my explanation of the three varieties of epistemology is useful or not?If anybody thinks that I haven't explained the three well, do they have any other suggestions as to how to explain?Or, is it common consent that it is simply not worth doing anyway, because it's of no use for workers to understand epistemology, and that life will carry on much as it does now?Personally, I don't see how workers can understand 'value' without an understanding of epistemology, and if they can't understand 'value', how can they hope to change the world?It all seems to me rather like 'leave it to the experts'.

[alanjjohnstone]

Well it is very different and much more brief than wiki…said i would have to look up the meaninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EpistemologyBut can i ask a very stupid question…because it is all kind of dotty to me….(don't tell me you weren't expecting that pun… )

Quote:

Marx in effect came up with the idea of reality being a dot-to-dot book, but that the dots were unnumbered…

Where did he know where to place the dots unless he already had some a priori (idealist) or a posteriori (materialist) view of what he wanted to depict on his page?They may be unnumbered but they are not random, are they? That's what printed newspaper pictures and computer pixel pictures are…just dots…, not numbered but positioned.Didn't Marx use the dots so we saw the image his way…?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Personally, I don't see how workers can understand 'value' without an understanding of epistemology, and if they can't understand 'value', how can they hope to change the world?

The first part might well be true but why should workers have to understand the Marxian concept of value to change the world?I would have thought that it would be enough to understand that capitalism could never be made to work in their interest and that the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production, and the consequent disappearance of production for sale, money, buying and selling, wages, banks, etc, provides the only framework within which the problems they face can be solved.Why would it be necessary for workers to have passed GCSE Marxian Economics? You are coming across as a caricature of the SPGB

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Marx in effect came up with the idea of reality being a dot-to-dot book, but that the dots were unnumbered…

Where did he know where to place the dots unless he already had some a priori (idealist) or a posteriori (materialist) view of what he wanted to depict on his page?

You haven't read what I wrote, alan.'Reality' is 'a page with dots on'. That exists outside of the Marxian 'numbering process'.So, your question of 'where did he know where to place the dots' is meaningless.It's the 'numbers' that are assigned by active humans.The real question for you is: Does the metaphor of reality being either a) a blank sketch pad; or, b) a numbered dot-to-dot book; or, c) an un-numbered page containing dots, help you to start to understand the three epistemological positions of 'idealism', 'materialism' and Marx's composite of both?If it does, we can go on to discuss some of the subtleties which require further explanation, and you're right to ask questions about.

[ALB]

Alan, you've fallen into his trap. The place to discuss his philosophy is on the "Science for Communist" thread not here.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The first part might well be true but why should workers have to understand the Marxian concept of value to change the world?

Errrr…. the method of 'theory and practice', perhaps?

ALB wrote:

I would have thought that it would be enough to understand that capitalism could never be made to work in their interest…

Surely they have to have a theory of what 'capitalism' is? And why it produces 'value', which is destructive of human society? And what 'their interest' is?You seem to be employing the epistemological theory of 'naive realism', from which it is argued that 'material conditions' or 'reality' tells humans 'what it is'. That is, that 'interest' speaks to humans without them asking questions about 'what it is'; in other words, theorising 'material conditions' and 'their interests'.You are arguing that 'reality' is a numbered dot-to-dot book, and simply looking at the page and 'joining the dots' (an obvious task, with a predetermined outcome, determined by the numbers) will allow us to 'get the picture' and 'know' both reality and our interests.This is not Marx's method of 'theory and practice', in which an external reality has to be approached with conscious theory, and changes made according to the theory during its practical employment.Unless we are critical of the numbers that have been allocated by the bourgeoisie to the 'dots', and consciously re-number the dots of reality, thus changing the picture we have of 'reality', we can't change the world.

Quote:

You are coming across as a caricature of the SPGB

Don't you wish!If the SPGB (and all the other Engelsist groups, that pretend to be Marxist) made some attempt, like me, to explain to workers, they might actually have built some influence with the wider class.As I've said, my 'dots' analogy might not be the best, but at least it is an attempt to explain epistemology, which workers must have a grasp of to help them understand (and thus consciously change) their world.Not only have the SPGB et al not done this for workers, but their own memberships don't have a clue about epistemology, as alan freely admits about himself.How can any Engelsist group claim to have any better understanding of 'the world', physical or social, if, at least since the 1920s, many workers have pointed out precisely what I'm saying?Marxism is not 'materialism'. That's 'naive realism' and essentially conservative, in that it produces a 'fixed picture' of reality, that is not open to conscious criticism and thus change.By the way, a thought struck me last night. 'Naive realism' isn't a choice one can have to understand the world. It's a bourgeois myth, that an individual, ignoring theory, can use their senses to discover reality. Since humans really do use 'theory and practice', as Marx argued, anyone employing 'naive realism' is just ignorant of their 'theory', which has been given to them already, through 'ruling class ideas', like 'individualism'. In effect, they've had their 'dots numbered already' by the bourgeoisie, and so their 'picture' of reality has been pre-ordained. They might think they employ 'naive realism' (if they knew the term, as you do), but they are actually employing ruling class 'theory and practice'.How you can argue that workers can remain 'naive realists', and yet consciously change their world, baffles me.You're compelled to separate society into two, one smaller part superior to society, which provides the consciousness. If that's not Leninism and elitism, that Marx warns us against, then my understanding of politics and Marx's ideas is seriously astray.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Alan, you've fallen into his trap. The place to discuss his philosophy is on the "Science for Communist" thread not here.

ALB, you're ignoring the thread title again.I've explained this to you already, but you wish to hang on to your outdated 'naive realism' and even more destructively, insist that workers use your discredited method, too.Ignoring arguments doesn't make them go away.The place to discuss philosophy for workers is on every thread, unless one is a naive realist.Oops… perhaps the SPGB should just declare its 'naive realism', in the aims and principles, and Marxists like me will simply go away.[edit] Plus, I notice that you still haven't made any attempt to explain epistemology to workers, as I have at least tried.

[alanjjohnstone]

Ah, i see it a bit clearer now. My trouble is i take metaphors too literally.When workers select what dots (various material conditions)  to join up, they determine the image which can be socialism…or just as easily fascism…then – reality-  material conditions – without ideas (ideology) can be our enemy as well as our friend. We cannot rely on capitalism being its own grave-digger.But isn't this what at least i have argued and i think the Party does, too…class struggle on its own, unaccompanied by the objective, socialism,  can and usually does lead workers down the wrong path, to wrong destinations. Our role is that since we claim to possess a map (and some call us elitist because of that) we, as party, place the sign-posts for what path our fellow workers should take. And again if what i am saying is close to what this really means again we have argued that fellow socialists who are not in the SPGB but who offer what they consider short-cuts…the SLP/IWW with their industrial unions…anarchist/left communists with their various explanations of putting action before ideas and expecting the action to produce the ideas (i maybe guilty of misrepresentation here)Which returns us back to the practicalities of politics and the need for education (or the fancy word consciousness) to reach correct conclusions …to seek out the appropriate dots to join up. Which again takes us back to the validity of knowledge…out of the myriad of dots presented…how many are needed to create the image (ALB's point that there is not too many required) and where they are situated has to be selected…and that is ideologically driven which has alwaays been your point from the Piketty thread.  But again i just might be demonstrating that you can cast pearls of wisdom but some of us have mental blockages that either cannot absorb what you are saying …or adapt them to our already preconceived ideas – our existing ideology…I'm feel i'm getting out of my depth again. Surely there is a time and place to learn…we acquire our knowledge in phases, not all at once, but each morsel helps in the here and now to improve our actual conditions as wage slaves and is another step further onwards on our path to socialism…bits and pieces of theory are like mile-stones to show how far how practice has taken us…Damn, i'm getting lost by my own metaphors now…. 

[Author]

Posts