Can the workers ever be wrong?
- This topic has 184 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am afraid that I have to accuse you of wilful distortion. I have never defended "naive realism" as a theory of knowledge but have merely pointed out that in the practice of their daily life humans act as if they were "naive realists" (just as the character in one of Molière's plays writes prose without realising it). We do behave as if the things we use every day are separate, fixed things. You do as much as anybody else. Even Dietzgen says this is ok for "household use". Go to here and type "household use" into a search engine and see what comes up. Here endeth my excursion into the domain of epistemology.To return to the subject of this thread:
LBird wrote: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?
Yes, of course workers who want to get rid of capitalism need to know what it is. But do they have to have mastered Marxian economics?Here are some of the questions applicants to join the SPGB are asked to answer:
Quote:What are the basic economic features of capitalism?:Explain what you understand by the terms “capitalist class” and “working class”Do you consider that the working class is exploited? If so, then briefly explain how this takes place. What do you understand by the word “socialism”?Why do socialists say that there will be no trade or money in a socialist society? On what basis will wealth be distributed?Surely this covers the point you want. Applicants could introduce the concept of "value" here if they wanted (some do) but nobody is turned down who doesn't or who doesn't know the difference between "value" and "exchange value". Why should they be? In fact, why don't you answer the questionnaire to see what happens. It's here on this site.
LBird wrote: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.Oh yeah?
LBird wrote: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?Who are these "many workers"? And what are they doing to further the cause of socialism. Or are they just interpreting the world?
Lbird, no, I'm the meatbot. But, lets try.Idealism: the page can only exist inside your mind.Materialism: the page exists outside your mind.Historical Materialism: the page and your mind are the same thing.
SP, well, ask yourself, if the establishment kept swearing blind that the sun was green and sunlight harmful, would you believe them? or, would you find that your lived experience, and your need to go out into the sunlight would contradict them? I'm suggesting that indoctrination and ideological maipulation wouldn't work if working class people didn't find that reality as explained to them (and how they identify themselves) worked. As EP Thompson noted in the making of the English Working Class, the working class is not the passive object of the capitalists. Durham Miners fought hard to create the wages system and a free market in labour, for example.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Ah, i see it a bit clearer now. My trouble is i take metaphors too literally.Yeah, that's always the problem with 'simplifying explanations' – something detailed always gets lost, or part of the metaphor isn't relevant. That's why any explanation between workers must be subject to discussion and criticism, to ensure that the explanation is actually achieving its purpose, of helping workers to develop themselves.
ajj wrote: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.Spot on: 'material conditions' can give us the wrong 'truth', if they are viewed through a 'bourgeois' ideological lens, as you illustrate. That's why Marxists argue that 'theory' comes before 'practice' (not after it, as those who believe in the inductive method argue: that is, 'practice and theory').
ajj wrote: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.That's right, which is why I've persisted to discuss it with the Party.But this 'wrong path' is just as true of 'science' as 'politics'. So, why do party members apparently have a political method that is at odds with their philosophy? 'Materialism' is just 19th century positivism rehashed, and leads to elitism. As you say, if it's possible to be 'lead down the wrong path', and we argue, like Marx, that the path taken must be a conscious path, who is to provide the 'right' path? Either, as the materialist epistemologists insist, the 'path' is already clearly numbered and we just need to 'consciously' read and follow the numbered path, or a conscious elite can number the path for us.But, if we insist that the human consciousness of the majority is involved (as I thought that the SPGB did, but I'm becoming less and less sure), then meekly following pre-numbered 'paths' or allowing 'elite consciousness' is not philosophically or politically acceptable. In fact, there is no 'pre-numbered path', and the numbers are just allocated by a minority. Isn't that what we need to make all workers aware of? That we have to come to consciousness of our need to 'number our own path'?
ajj wrote: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…No, you haven't got a 'mental blockage', you just haven't had epistemology explained properly to you. The fault doesn't lie in you (or the wider class), but in those who claim to know 'epistemology' but haven't bothered to explain to you (or in Communists/Socialists who haven't bothered to explain to fellow workers). I blame those who've known you for years, but never tried to explain. The working class has been poorly served by its so-called 'conscious' minority, for 130 years, in my opinion.
ajj wrote: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….Yeah, unease with new ideas is always a good safety mechanism. I could be talking shite to you, and just be a plausible bluffer. The only way you can test the 'correctness' of what I'm arguing is to keep asking questions, and force me to explain further, with illustrations drawn from physics and society, and quotes from Einstein and Marx (for example initially, and then many others), until you feel more secure with my explanation.And then, ask other members of the SPGB to give their explanation to you about the varieties of epistemology (if they disagree with my explanation), and compare it with mine, and test their methods against science and society, and our attempts to understand and change the world.It's simply not good enough that you feel 'out of your depth', either for you, or for the wider class. Someone's to blame for your not understanding, and I blame Communists/Socialists for not explaining, not you (or other workers) for 'being out of their depth'. That is totally unacceptable for any movement that claims to be in the forefront of developing class consciousness, and hoping to ensure that that class consciousness spreads ever wider amongst the entire working class.We have to explain.Of course, alan, if you decide on 'materialism' and 'naive realism' as the best epistemology, then you can ignore my bleatings, and simply follow the numbers, along the pre-ordained path, being unconscious of where it's leading you. Not what I'd recommend, but then I'm a Democratic Communist and Marxist. Unlike most here, it seems.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird, no, I'm the meatbot. But, lets try.Idealism: the page can only exist inside your mind.Materialism: the page exists outside your mind.Historical Materialism: the page and your mind are the same thing.And how does that explain epistemology to workers?If 'the page and your mind are the same thing', then 'capitalism and workers' consciousness are the same thing'.Where's the critical and creative aspects of the metaphor, the very things that Marx placed at the centre of his epistemology?Where is the dynamic interaction between 'page and mind', if they are already 'the same thing'? How does change come about?Don't forget, the purpose of the exercise is to explain to someone who doesn't know about epistemology, how a choice of any one of the three would affect the way that they understand reality.
Yes, capitalist and workers consciousnesses are of the same substance, and part of the same reality, which is transformed into various different elements by the operation of history and through its interaction with itself. We are all parts of one system.
What might be useful, in these discussions, would be if LBird could give us some actual written examples of how he has tried to convince the working class of the need for socialism, then we could compare these with what the SPGB says and see how they differ. What articles has he published, what letters has he written, what classes has he held and what did he say in them? In other words, how specifically does he engage with workers, apart from on this forum?If LBird were to publish a monthly journal like the Socialist Standard, what would he put in it and how would it differ from what we say? I think that the differences in the wording he uses and the wording we use in addressing workers must be crucial to understanding why he thinks the SPGB (or some of its members at least) has mistaken ideas.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, capitalist and workers consciousnesses are of the same substance, and part of the same reality, which is transformed into various different elements by the operation of history and through its interaction with itself. We are all parts of one system.Here we go again.
LBird wrote:And how does that explain epistemology to workers?If 'the page and your mind are the same thing', then 'capitalism and workers' consciousness are the same thing'.Where's the critical and creative aspects of the metaphor, the very things that Marx placed at the centre of his epistemology?Where is the dynamic interaction between 'page and mind', if they are already 'the same thing'? How does change come about?Don't forget, the purpose of the exercise is to explain to someone who doesn't know about epistemology, how a choice of any one of the three would affect the way that they understand reality.Can't you actually read or something, YMS?You never seem to read what's been written.How does 'we are all parts of one system' explain the three epistemological viewpoints that I'm attempting to explain, to ajj, at least?
rodshaw wrote:I think that the differences in the wording he uses and the wording we use in addressing workers must be crucial to understanding why he thinks the SPGB (or some of its members at least) has mistaken ideas.It's not 'differences in the wording', rodshaw, but differences in philosophy.I'm not an Engelsist, whereas apparently the SPGB is.I'm a Marxist, and I've explained over dozens of threads and hundreds of post over 15 months what the differences are between Engelsist 'materialism' and Marx's 'idealism-materialism'.Putting these arguments on paper, teaching them to classes, holding forth whilst pissed in the pub, or simply writing them on this site, won't change the fact that it's not 'wording' but 'ideas'.And if one is a 'materialist', one can pooh-pooh 'ideas' as 'idealism'.How the SPGB has managed to stagger along with its proclaimed political strategy of democratic workers' power being undermined and contradicted by its hidden philosophical, nay religious, basis of elite experts, for 110 years, I don't know.But then, they've all been at it since the Second International.
ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?
You've got a cheek. I've discussed your philosophical views for 15 months on other threads in great detail. It's just that I don't want to discuss it any more, and certainly not on this thread.If you want to discuss other subjects such as, as here, what level of understanding is required of workers to establish socialism or how best to get to it (parliament, workers councils or both) which you started on once. But you seem to want to get back on your hobby-horse every time.
LBird wrote:ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?I'd rather say they can be wrong when they act against their class interest.
LBird wrote:rodshaw wrote:I think that the differences in the wording he uses and the wording we use in addressing workers must be crucial to understanding why he thinks the SPGB (or some of its members at least) has mistaken ideas.It's not 'differences in the wording', rodshaw, but differences in philosophy.Putting these arguments on paper, teaching them to classes, holding forth whilst pissed in the pub, or simply writing them on this site, won't change the fact that it's not 'wording' but 'ideas'.
But how do you convey the ideas without the wording? By using telepathy, or making animal noises? Morse Code or semaphore? What have you all been doing (some of you, evidently, not very well) on this forum? I can only assume, then, that in your dialogues with other workers about socialism, you use the same wording as the SPGB does. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong necessarily, but I want to know what you actually say to other workers that is different.Examples, please, outside of this forum? You can find lots of SPGB ones on this website – let's see yours.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.